<x-flowed>Greetings,

I thought some readers might be interested in my point-by-point rebuttal to Juliet Eilperin's commentary on redistricting and reform in the Sunday Washington Post Outlook. Perhaps the most important point is my answer to her suggestion that efforts to maximize black and Latino representation are behind creation of the most partisan districts. In fact, the 40 most Democratic districts are in heavily urban areas, mostly outside the South, where lovely compact districts produce incredibly partisan tilts. See:
http://www.fairvote.org/blog/?p=11

At the useful prodding of Doug Johnson, I also will share a correctded paragraph to my Friday post about next steps for redistricting reformers that I shared with the list on Friday. It's our methodology that suggests that there are nine current districts that are in the 45% to 55% competitiveness range, not his. Here's the relevant revised paragraph at:: http://www.fairvote.org/blog/?p=10

<<Fourth, too much of the advocacy was based on the false claim that the measures would have a significant impact on competition. (For instance, the Rose Institute issued a study in California claiming it would increase the number of competitive districts from zero to ten. But using our methodology to measure similarly competitive districts, the current districts have nine competitive districts (competitive without current incumbents). That suggests an increase ofÉ one competitive seat. ) A more salient argument is to focus on how corrupting it is to allow politicians to draw their own districts Ð helping their friends and hurting their enemies.>>

Don't worry, by the way. I won't share every blog I do, as indeed much of what we do and post isn't sent to the list. But we do regularly add relevant content to our site at www.fairvote.org

- Rob Richie