Evaluating the Two Systems Both the Iowa and New Jersey systems contain mechanisms which blunt but do not eliminate partisan influence in redistricting. Both systems, to different degrees, strengthen the hand of neutral redistricting criteria. Perhaps the greatest common benefit of the two systems is that they prevent the majority party from unfairly increasing its existing advantage by manipulating district lines. Both systems rely to a large degree on the parties to restrain themselves and maintain the legitimacy of the process. Political pressure is the primary, and maybe the only, force which prevents the parties from subverting the public's good faith.
Institutional integrity is another necessary component of success under the two systems.
In New Jersey, the ability of the NJAC's ten partisan members and especially its public member to move towards agreement is of distinguished importance. There is, however, no clear indication of how the public interest comes into play in the New Jersey system. By contrast, the Iowa system takes the initiative out of the parties' hands. Iowa should be congratulated on this system, but the question is whether it is easily translatable to larger states which would probably be reluctant to damage their powerful incumbents in Congress. The larger states' reservations could be overcome by nationalizing the scope of change and thus equalizing the threat to incumbents.