In the early ‘90s, Idaho voters decided to do away with such practices using the best method then available: establishing a commission evenly divided along partisan lines, assuring that any approved plan would require at least one member of the commission to cross party lines to endorse a map they thought was fair.

Harris’ bill would introduce an amendment altering the commission to give the dominant party one extra seat. True that would end deadlock. It would also assure one-party control over the process.

Harris is right to point out that the two redistricting efforts that have taken place since then have been riddled with contention, often leading to plans that the courts reject, requiring the process to start over. There’s a better, more fair way to solve that problem.

If the state wishes to stay out of court, it should bring in new computer programs to draw up the districts. A variety of software packages are available, and they do what humans are generally unable to — solve the redistricting puzzle with true objectivity.

The state is so complicated, both in terms of population and geography, that it’s very difficult for humans to ever design intricate district maps that are truly fair. And without an objective measure of how fair a district is, there are no solid facts to resolve disagreements.