Image, ccp2392 canvascorp.com
There are other possible solutions to gerrymandering,
although not without an amendment,
if we had no other reapportionment or redistricting problem.
Statutes alone couldn't control deliberate imbalance if they tried, because underlying them is the real problem: our redistricting process was designed by legislators to be easy to abuse.
Several states have recently removed redistricting from its state legislature to an independent commission to remove the influence of partisanship and private campaign finance (see Accountability and the Public Elections Clause). This amendment works with either system.
But since the design of the process is the problem, not even that will likely help much or for long. And statutes, even when established by ballot initiative, are affected by related statutes and can be changed.
An amendment requiring compactness and contiguity in a geographic system could reduce one method of gerrymandering, but could also be self-defeating. For example, a problem arises in 'company towns' if population exceeds 30,000 because the most compact and contiguous districts could create a 'company Representative'. Compactness and contiguity may not be appropriate for mandated factors as they would distract from more important considerations. Statutes for compactness and contiguity are easy to adapt or repeal if necessary, but should be used under an improved districting process.
Although removing private campaign financing removes legislators’ dependence on the well-off, we still need to address districting to control representation unbalanced by income. These are two heads of the same problem. Proposed statutes or amendments that address only gerrymandering or campaign finance will just shift unbalancing efforts to the other head.
To work, a solution has to coordinate them. This one does.