|
|
|
There are invisible lines streaking across Kansas, dividing its citizens into bite-sized clusters more easily managed by lawmakers. These divisions are more meaningful than any physical fence or metaphorical line in the sand. They keep us corralled without ever showing us the border of our pasture, leading us into the future without any whip or crop.
These lines denote the state’s legislative districts, and they are among the most significant boundaries in our lives.
The districts in which we reside dictate who lobbies for our interests in Topeka and Washington. They identify whether our elected representatives are serving a delegation universal in its priorities or torn by different needs. Should two diverse communities be placed in a single district, that district’s legislative leader may have difficulty meeting the needs of both communities.
State legislatures are required to readdress district boundaries and adjust them to reflect the changing populations of its cities every 10 years. Unfortunately, lawmakers are not always honest in their redistricting proposals, attempting to fudge the lines to better their chances for reelection.
Both the Kansas House and Senate have been hard at work for months, crafting proposals that reproportion district lines in ways that keep like communities together while balancing their populations with one another.
By and large the proposals under consideration in Topeka do well to serve the needs of McPherson. A vote Thursday adjusted McPherson House districts to pass all of north McPherson County to Rep. Clark Shultz while leaving Rep. Don Schroeder holdings in the south. Those changes are only one relatively safe vote away from being enacted by the Senate.
The future of Kansas’ congressional districts remains far less certain, threatening to shift McPherson’s federal representation in a dramatic and dangerous direction.
While a dominant bill to keep the county in Rep. Tim Huelskamp’s 1st Congressional District was passed by the state Senate earlier this month, efforts to retain the overwhelmingly conservative composition of other districts, like Rep. Lynn Jenkins’ 2nd, threaten to derail McPherson’s hopes for appropriate representation. Jenkins worries that the standing plan, which would best serve the county’s interests, would remove conservative strongholds like Manhattan out of Jenkins’ district, replacing them with left-leaning cities like Lawrence.
While unfortunate for Rep. Jenkins, such a move is the best way to balance congressional districts while keeping like interests represented together.
In plans that better protect Jenkins’ reelection chances, McPherson County would be pushed south into the 4th District, placing our agricultural interests at the mercy of the overwhelming industrial voice of Wichita.
Despite the fact that such a proposal takes McPherson out of District 1 and prevents Manhattan, home of ag-powerhouse Kansas State University, from migrating into Kansas’ farming west, such plans have the support of some in the House.
Our representatives need to fight for our place in District 1, and they need to know that we want to stay where we are.
There are invisible lines streaking across Kansas, dividing its citizens into bite-sized clusters more easily managed by lawmakers. These divisions are more meaningful than any physical fence or metaphorical line in the sand. They keep us corralled without ever showing us the border of our pasture, leading us into the future without any whip or crop.
These lines denote the state’s legislative districts, and they are among the most significant boundaries in our lives.
The districts in which we reside dictate who lobbies for our interests in Topeka and Washington. They identify whether our elected representatives are serving a delegation universal in its priorities or torn by different needs. Should two diverse communities be placed in a single district, that district’s legislative leader may have difficulty meeting the needs of both communities.
State legislatures are required to readdress district boundaries and adjust them to reflect the changing populations of its cities every 10 years. Unfortunately, lawmakers are not always honest in their redistricting proposals, attempting to fudge the lines to better their chances for reelection.
Both the Kansas House and Senate have been hard at work for months, crafting proposals that reproportion district lines in ways that keep like communities together while balancing their populations with one another.
By and large the proposals under consideration in Topeka do well to serve the needs of McPherson. A vote Thursday adjusted McPherson House districts to pass all of north McPherson County to Rep. Clark Shultz while leaving Rep. Don Schroeder holdings in the south. Those changes are only one relatively safe vote away from being enacted by the Senate.
The future of Kansas’ congressional districts remains far less certain, threatening to shift McPherson’s federal representation in a dramatic and dangerous direction.
While a dominant bill to keep the county in Rep. Tim Huelskamp’s 1st Congressional District was passed by the state Senate earlier this month, efforts to retain the overwhelmingly conservative composition of other districts, like Rep. Lynn Jenkins’ 2nd, threaten to derail McPherson’s hopes for appropriate representation. Jenkins worries that the standing plan, which would best serve the county’s interests, would remove conservative strongholds like Manhattan out of Jenkins’ district, replacing them with left-leaning cities like Lawrence.
While unfortunate for Rep. Jenkins, such a move is the best way to balance congressional districts while keeping like interests represented together.
In plans that better protect Jenkins’ reelection chances, McPherson County would be pushed south into the 4th District, placing our agricultural interests at the mercy of the overwhelming industrial voice of Wichita.
Despite the fact that such a proposal takes McPherson out of District 1 and prevents Manhattan, home of ag-powerhouse Kansas State University, from migrating into Kansas’ farming west, such plans have the support of some in the House.
Our representatives need to fight for our place in District 1, and they need to know that we want to stay where we are.
