Nearly four years after the Census gathered data used to redraw congressional districts, and more than a year after elections based on those districts, some states are still stuck in a political mire over them.

On Feb. 12, three judges threw out a new layout for state congressional districts in Georgia. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, legislators have been ordered to redraw new maps by March 1 or face interim districts drawn by the court. The decision referred to maps drawn in 2001 by the Democrats that “packed” Republican voters into as few districts as possible. Overall, there was a 10 percent deviation between district populations, which the judges said was too much.

The situation is reversed in Pennsylvania, where Republicans drew the map for congressional elections and had to subtract two seats. Four Democrats were placed into two districts and districts “were given highly irregular shapes to give Republicans an additional advantage,” reported the New York Times Monday. The Supreme Court has already heard arguments from this state.

Finally and most famously, there is Texas. Last year, Democrats in the Texas legislature engaged in periods of self-exile to Oklahoma and New Mexico to prevent a vote on new congressional districts Republicans were trying to force through. According to an Aug. 2 article in the Washington Post, a replacement for the map used in the 2002 election could cost the Democrats up to five seats in the U.S. House, tipping the state to a Republican majority.

In creating these new district maps, state legislatures are making every effort to keep their party’s incumbents in power while effectively carving up their states into one-party districts. Such actions undermine the democratic process and block many voters’ voices from being fully heard.

Today’s congressional gerrymandering is not done by population; that’s prohibited by Baker v. Carr in 1961, the case that gave us the “one person, one vote” ideal. It’s not done by race either; Shaw v. Reno in 1993 invalidated an attempt to create a majority-black district in North Carolina that for much of its length was no wider than the area surrounding Interstate 85. Instead, the gerrymandering is done by voting patterns with no consideration to geography. To illustrate on the ISU campus, Pearson Hall and the Durham Center might be put together while Marston Hall, sitting right between them, is tacked onto the Hub.

With the Pennsylvania case, the Supreme Court must determine whether gerrymandering by party falls under the scope of the judiciary or is a political question, meaning the court has no say. While this case must be decided, the states should look for a way to solve these situations without resulting to the courts, and for that, they need look no further than Iowa.

Iowa has a nonpartisan, independent redistricting committee. It does not care where the incumbents live. It does not care about voting patterns. Its sole goal is to create 100 state house, 50 state senate, and five congressional districts as equal in population as possible. Remember that 10 percent difference in Georgia? The first Iowa plan in April 2001 differed by 483 people among the districts, a .08 percent variance.

The Legislature rejected the first plan, mainly because it put congressmen Jim Nussle and Jim Leach in the same district, and law allows for a second plan with less variance than the first. Such a setup gives the Legislature some say in redistricting, but keeps most of the job out of political hands, allowing some control but not dictating the process.

Iowa’s method may not be exactly perfect, and it certainly doesn’t help some areas’ strengths. In the second plan, the western Des Moines suburbs are split between two congressional districts because of the rule dictating that they follow county lines. Grundy County, one of the more rural and Republican counties in the eastern half of the state, found itself as an appendage to a district that has the bulk of its population in Polk County. But at election time, four of Iowa’s five seats were much more competitive than those of many other states; by ignoring political lines, democracy and campaigning could flourish.

In states with larger cities and more seats in either state or congressional delegations, county and township line rules may not be workable. However, the idea of a nonpartisan group is workable everywhere. The Journal-Constitution suggested Georgia adopt a nonpartisan plan like Iowa’s in a Feb. 13 editorial.

Creating districts as similar in population as possible and ignoring party tendencies, which in turn leads to more competitive races, should be the goal. Fairly separating states into districts is too important to democracy to be left to those fighting to tweak those district lines for their own gain.