Redistricting rancor redux?

Inter Lake editorial

The Montana Supreme Court will make a vital decision on Friday, but it doesn't concern a point of law.

Instead, the court will hold a public meeting in Helena to appoint a chairperson for the new Montana Districting and Apportionment Commission, which will decide the shape of the state's legislative districts following the 2010 Census.

This is a matter of huge political importance, and it may seem odd that the non-partisan Supreme Court has the deciding role in it, but that's what the state Constitution mandates.

The majority and minority leaders of both the state House and Senate each appoint one member to the commission, resulting in an even split between Democrats and Republicans. Then, those four members are supposed to select a fifth member themselves who will become the chairperson of the panel.

The idea is presumably that it forces the partisan members to select a moderate as chairman who commands the respect of both Republicans and Democrats. At least, that's how it works in theory.

Regrettably, however, the Constitution provides an escape clause that if the four members can't agree on a chairman within 20 days, the chairman shall be appointed by a majority of the Supreme Court. And what that has resulted in, at least occasionally, is political mischief that discredits both the court and the commission.

During the 2000 Census redistricting battle, the court appointed Janine Pease Pretty on Top, a partisan Democrat, as the chair. From that point on, the commission was split 3-2 on virtually every vote between the three Democrats and two Republicans. It resulted in a blatant power play that ignored public hearings and common sense as districts were openly shaped for political purpose by the majority.

For three years, the Inter Lake argued that the Constitution was flawed and ought to be revised so we wouldn't have to go through a similar charade in 2012, but nothing was done about it, so here we are again.

Two Democrats, two Republicans and a chairman to be named later by a court that is now headed by Chief Justice Mike McGrath, a longtime Democratic politician. Let's just hope that history does not repeat itself.

Unfortunately, the two Democratic members of the commission insisted on naming Holly Kaleczyc as chairman. The Great Falls Tribune identifies Kaleczyc as a "longtime party functionary," and an Internet search reveals that she donated money to both the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign last year.

Can't we do better to avoid the partisan rancor of the last redistricting panel? Republicans have offered the names of several political scientists who seem non-partisan, but if they prove flawed, the court can appoint someone else who has a reputation for fairness and a track record that doesn't tilt either left or right.

Let's do it right at the beginning this time, and skip the years of political infighting.