Friday, July 14, 2006; A20

The Post's July 5 editorial "Tolerating Texas Rules" correctly pointed out that several efforts to reform the redistricting process have failed across the nation. The Supreme Court has given a green light to mid-decade congressional redistricting. However, despite reports that states are now free to redistrict, the reality may be quite different.

State laws often make revisiting a redistricting plan impossible.

Colorado's attempt to redraw a court plan was rejected by the state's courts. Redistricting is a time-consuming process, often diverting attention from more pressing issues. The July 5 news story "Democrats Not Eager to Emulate Texas's Redistricting" correctly pointed out that a new redistricting is unlikely even in states where one party dominates. Instead of generating more criticism of a process given a bad name by partisan excesses, states can take steps now to develop fair rules for competitive line-drawing after the 2010 Census.

If the court won't step in now, there are several years for the states to innovate. The map is in their court.

JEFFREY M. WICE

Bethesda

The writer was redistricting counsel to the Democratic National Committee following the 1980, 1990 and 2000 censuses.

·

Regarding the July 2 op-ed "The Court's Electoral Thicket": George F. Will took issue with the Supreme Court's interest in reviewing the fairness of politically gerrymandered districts. He argued that such temperature taking is supposed to be handled via elections.

George Orwell himself couldn't have envisioned such twisted logic: People should not be able to address electoral unfairness via the judicial system but, rather, must do so by way of the very elections that have been rigged against them in the first place. The political question doctrine, which precludes the courts from intervening in purely political disputes, should not apply when it is the political process itself that has failed.

NATHANIEL FALDA

New York