Welcome to this week’s edition of REDMAP Rundown, a synopsis of redistricting news brought to you by the RSLC’s REDistricting MAjority Project (REDMAP). This weekly update gives you the latest on what those in the beltway, and across the country, are saying about the impending reapportionment and redistricting process.

In this week’s REDMAP Rundown: Florida, civics and headaches; Texas involves more than politics; Ohio takes the constitutional route; Tuscaloosa wants some representation and New York’s commission idea presents problems

The Florida Times-Union speculates that “a civics lesson in Scott Fortune’s congressional run” is ahead.  “The Beaches lawyer is planning to release a self-made documentary next week questioning the political border-drawing process that’s kept his opponent, U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, in a veritable fortress of voter demographics for the past 18 years.”

“Three ballot questions. Two lawsuits (and counting). One serious headache for voters,” so says the Tampa Tribune.  “Redistricting, the subject of three constitutional amendments headed for the November election ballot, is never a pretty process.  The next round of redistricting won’t start until late 2011. But with competing groups vying to change the rules of the game, it is already messier than usual.”

Ben Philpott of KUT News and the Texas Tribune reports, “Redistricting is a highly partisan exercise, but there’s likely to be more at work than mere politics in 2011. Shifts in the state’s population and demographics will play a large part in shaping where new congressional and legislative boundaries are set.”  Listen to audio of Ben HERE.

“The Ohio Senate this week is considering a measure recently passed in the House that would change the way the state’s legislative districts are drawn every 10 years,” according to the Marietta Times.  “The Senate passed its own version of a redistricting plan last year. If a compromise version can pass both chambers by Aug. 4, a constitutional amendment will appear on the November ballot. Voters must approve any change in the redistricting process since it’s a change to the state’s constitution.”

In Alabama, The Tuscaloosa News opines, “We can only hope the new Alabama Legislature that is also being elected this year will see fit to redraw districts so that someone from Tuscaloosa County, the fifth largest in the state, will have a fighting chance at election in the future.”

The Albany Times Union’s Peter G. Pollak writes, “After years of bashing the state Legislature for drawing districts that favor incumbents, the good government groups calling for reform received a boost when all of the major 2010 gubernatorial candidates endorsed the concept of an independent redistricting commission … Two problems stand in the way of achieving this kind of redistricting.  First, the state constitution requires the job to be done by the Legislature and there’s not enough time for a constitutional amendment to change things for this go-around. Thus, the Legislature will have the final say no matter how insulated a commission is created. Second, the reformers’ bills embody conflicting goals: Having districts that are both contiguous and compact makes it difficult not to break up existing political boundaries.  Another way to put it is there is a conflict between process goals and outcomes.”