On Friday, the state cleared the final hurdle in its redistricting process when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the plan. 

I wish I could say that state was Wyoming, but it was Idaho.

Opinion

On the same day, the Equality State’s redistricting plan passed a milestone of its own when a joint legislative committee approved it.

Watching the final hour of the panel’s six-month effort, I was struck by how obviously exhausted, frustrated and downright angry it left some legislators and observers.

Those feelings will likely be repeated as the full 90-member Wyoming Legislature tackles the complex problems of redrawing its own district boundaries. Meanwhile, any legal challenges to the constitutionality of lawmakers’ work may not be resolved by the courts for years.

Why has this same drama unfolded so differently in the Capitol halls of Cheyenne and Boise?

There’s one fundamental difference: A bipartisan commission, instead of the Legislature, handles Idaho’s redistricting.

In its current form, Wyoming’s new plan only has one district with two sitting lawmakers, setting the stage for an incumbent v. incumbent primary race. While some might point to that as a strength of the Wyoming process, it actually demonstrates why the system is flawed.

Jack Mueller of Cheyenne, a keen observer of the redistricting process, spelled out why lawmakers have no business protecting people’s seats. It’s the people’s Legislature, not their own.

“One of the first things I heard when this committee started last August was, ‘We’re not going to pay any attention to where current legislators live,’” Mueller testified. “And for the last half-hour, you have sat here trying to figure out where legislators live.”

Once per decade, U.S. census data is used to redraw legislative district boundaries to reflect population shifts throughout the state. No matter how legislative staff crunched the numbers, one problem area remained in Laramie County.

Despite that problem, the Joint Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee approved House Bill 100 – Redistricting of the Legislature by a vote of 11-3. If the bill passes in its current form, House District 42, now represented by Rep. Jim Blackburn, will also be the residence of Rep. Clarence Styvar, who represents HD 12.

While some committee members fretted about one of the legislators losing his seat, Sen. Tara Nethercott (R-Cheyenne) noted that as the state’s largest county with over 100,000 residents, Laramie County is nearly impossible to carve up without major changes for current lawmakers.

Two GOP incumbent senators, Stephan Pappas (SD 7) and Affie Ellis (SD 8) live only a few blocks from each other in the capital city. The redistricting plan that emerged after public meetings kept the lawmakers in their own districts, but it came at the expense of others.

Two House districts are “nested” inside each Senate district. 

If panel members weren’t focusing on the potential Blackburn-Styvar race, Nethercott said, they would be talking about the political future for Ellis and Pappas.

In fact, in one iteration of the redistricting map, three Republican senators — Ellis, Pappas and Sen. Lynn Hutchings in SD 5 — would have all been in the same district.

Since the next redistricting process doesn’t start until 2031, there’s plenty of time for Wyoming to act, but the state should start now.

Kerry Drake

The current Legislature has 60 House and 30 Senate members. The latest redistricting plan would add three seats to make the split 62-31. When the committee initially adopted the change last month, the plan would have put 16 incumbents in competitive primaries. Now, only Blackburn and Styvar remain in that dreaded pool.

One reason redistricting is so contentious in Wyoming, where legislators write the plan, is that lawmakers’ unavoidable personal interests further complicate a process that must already consider many different factors. 

First, to be constitutional, a House district’s population cannot deviate more than plus or minus 5% from the size of the mathematically ideal district. 

Many of the rural counties that have lost population favor keeping the current size of the Legislature, so their level of representation is not diminished. Urban areas that have gained residents, including Laramie and Natrona counties, want to add lawmakers.

“Communities of interest” are the building blocks of the redistricting process. They refer to concentrated populations which share common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for the purpose of effective and fair representation. 

For example, Cheyenne’s south side residents objected to an initial plan that saw their area divided into four House districts, diluting the voting power of the predominantly Latino population. They successfully lobbied for two House districts nested inside their own Senate district.

Laramie County grew by nearly 10% since 2010, theoretically earning it another House seat. HB 100 gives the county that additional seat, but to make all the numbers work, it also places a Senate district in parts of Laramie, Platte and Goshen counties. That’s not the outcome any of the counties wanted.

Such problems, though, were inevitable. The committee created its map by dividing the state into nine regions. After the regional plans were developed, these puzzle pieces had to be put together statewide. 

Sometimes, they just didn’t fit. Forcing them to do so required compromises that may be politically unpopular but necessary — and that’s even before lawmakers addressed how the new map might affect their own re-election chances.

“I think as a whole the committee stayed blind as to where anybody lived, at least until the clerks and the districts got together, and I think they did it with good faith,” said Corporations Co-chairman Sen. Ogden Driskill (R-Devils Tower).

When sitting legislators end up in the same district, he added, “We’re all uncomfortable … your natural instinct is to try to be as fair as you can, and being fair is you try not to indiscriminately affect some.”

That discomfort is understandable, but it’s also unnecessary. Legislators should not be directly involved in the process, and Idaho proves they don’t have to be.

Idaho’s redistricting demands are even more complex than Wyoming’s. The state has two congressional districts to draw, and it has the second-fastest-growing population in the nation.

Yet Idaho’s commission started its work a month later than Wyoming did, and had it done in time to allow four legal challenges to already be resolved by the state Supreme Court.

And the six-member body drew its legislative boundaries without considering where any incumbent lawmakers lived.

Wyoming can do the same thing. Fortunately, three legislators have already provided that path by sponsoring Senate Joint Resolution 1 – Redistricting commission.

The bipartisan plan would create an independent redistricting commission with five members, without regard to political affiliation. The governor would appoint two members, and the Senate president, House speaker and Supreme Court chief justice would each appoint one. 

The joint resolution is sponsored by Sens. Mike Gierau (D-Jackson) and Larry Hicks (R-Baggs) and House Speaker Eric Barlow (R-Gillette).

This is precisely the type of forward-thinking legislation Wyoming should embrace. It would require an amendment to the state’s Constitution, which would take approval by the Senate and House before it goes to the voters in a general election.

Since the next redistricting process doesn’t start until 2031, there’s plenty of time for Wyoming to act, but the state should start now. It probably won’t be easy to convince lawmakers to give up their power to make all the decisions, but it might be infinitely more appealing to do it right after what promises to be a grueling process for everyone this budget session.

Kerry Drake

Veteran Wyoming journalist Kerry Drake has covered Wyoming for more than four decades, previously as a reporter and editor for the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle and Casper Star-Tribune. He lives in Cheyenne and...

Join the Conversation

3 Comments

Want to join the discussion? Fantastic, here are the ground rules: * Provide your full name — no pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish and expects commenters to do the same. * No personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats. Keep it clean, civil and on topic. *WyoFile does not fact check every comment but, when noticed, submissions containing clear misinformation, demonstrably false statements of fact or links to sites trafficking in such will not be posted. *Individual commenters are limited to three comments per story, including replies.

Your email address will not be published.

  1. Neighboring Idaho may be a good example. For a bad example, look no further than Utah. Utah voters passed a citizen initiative two years ago creating a non-partisan redistricting commission. The legislature decided that the law was “flawed” and changed it so that it was unrecognizable. The “independent” commission was chosen by the legislative leaders (57 R, 12 D in the House; 24 R, 5 D in the Senate). The rejiggered legislation allowed the legislature to completely ignore the “recommendations” of the commission––which they did. Districts were redrawn to increase Republican domination at the state and federal levels. Salt Lake County (which is minority Mormon and minority Republican, was carved into three congressional districts, each combined with truly rural counties (communities of interest??) to guarantee that a right-leaning Democrat such as Ben McAdams will never be elected in the next decade. Utah is about 60-40 Republican (and 60-40 Mormon) but a Democrat has not been elected to statewide office since the mid-1990s, and she was a true anomaly.

  2. If you want to see real gerrymandering you have to look no further than the legislative district in southwest Wyoming that includes territory in Uinta, Lincoln and Sublette County. Southwest Wyoming has long provided mineral revenue for the rest of the state. Billions of dollars worth of natural resources have been taken from southwest Wyoming. The highly populated eastern counties spend those revenues while the source counties that provide the revenues receive little. Uinta, Lincoln, Sublette, and Sweetwater counties have not received their fair share of the revenues. Republican-led legislators have figured not only how to keep Democrats and minorities out of the legislature, but they have also raped those in their own party in southwestern Wyoming.

  3. None of this surprises me–our far-right legislature wants to ensure that their cronies remain in place to vote against the interests of most Wyomingites. In fact, when we are supposedly desperate for money, we’ll add 3 more members with their attendant costs to the legislature, to ensure a greater stranglehold on far-right governance!