Editing Gerrymandering (section)

=== Redistricting by neutral or cross-party agency ===
The most commonly advocated electoral reform proposal targeted at gerrymandering is to change the redistricting process. Under these proposals, an independent and presumably objective commission is created specifically for redistricting, rather than having the legislature do it.

This is the system used in the UK, where independent [[boundary commissions (United Kingdom)|boundary commissions]] determine the boundaries for [[United Kingdom constituencies|constituencies]] in the [[British House of Commons|House of Commons]] and the [[Devolution in the United Kingdom|devolved legislatures]], subject to ratification by the body in question (almost always granted without debate). A similar situation exists in Australia, where the independent [[Australian Electoral Commission]] and its state-based counterparts determine electoral boundaries for federal, state, and local jurisdictions.

To help ensure neutrality, members of a redistricting agency may be appointed from relatively apolitical sources, such as retired judges or longstanding members of the civil service, possibly with requirements for adequate representation among competing political parties. Additionally, members of the board can be denied information that might aid in gerrymandering, such as the demographic makeup or voting patterns of the population.

As a further constraint, [[Consensus decision-making|consensus]] requirements can be imposed to ensure that the resulting district map reflects a wider perception of fairness, such as a requirement for a supermajority approval of the commission for any district proposal, but consensus requirements can lead to deadlock, as occurred in [[Missouri]] following the 2000 census. There, the equally numbered partisan appointees were unable to reach consensus in a reasonable time, so the courts had to determine district lines.

In the U.S. state of [[Iowa]], the nonpartisan Legislative Services Bureau (LSB, akin to the [[U.S. Congressional Research Service]]) determines electoral district boundaries. Aside from satisfying federally mandated contiguity and population equality criteria, the LSB mandates unity of counties and cities. Consideration of political factors such as location of incumbents, previous boundary locations, and political party proportions is specifically forbidden. Since Iowa's counties are chiefly regularly shaped [[polygons]], the LSB process has led to districts that follow county lines.<ref name="7_buck_trust.html" />

In 2005, the U.S. state of [[Ohio]] had a ballot measure to create an independent commission whose first priority was competitive districts, a sort of "reverse gerrymander". A complex mathematical formula was to be used to determine the competitiveness of a district. The measure failed voter approval chiefly due to voter concerns that communities of interest would be broken up.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smartvoter.org/2005/11/08/oh/state/issue/4/|title=Issue 4: Independent Redistricting Process – Ohio State Government|publisher=Smartvoter.org|access-date=5 August 2009}}</ref>

In 2017, Representative [[John Delaney (Maryland politician)|John Delaney]] submitted the [[Open Our Democracy Act of 2017]] to the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] as a means to implement nonpartisan redistricting. It ultimately did not pass.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Delaney |first=John K. |date=2017-07-10 |title=Text - H.R.2981 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): To require all candidates for election for the office of Senator or Member of the House of Representatives to run in an open primary regardless of political party preference or lack thereof, to limit the ensuing general election for such office to the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in such open primary, and for other purposes. |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2981/text |access-date=2025-02-28 |website=www.congress.gov}}</ref>