States See Growing Campaign to Change Redistricting Laws: NYT

[mountebank]

WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 - The politically charged methods that states use to draw Congressional districts are under attack by citizens groups, state legislators and the governor of California, all of whom are concerned that increasingly sophisticated map-drawing has created a class of entrenched incumbents, stifled electoral competition and caused governmental gridlock.

snip

Last month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, a state that has historically been at the forefront of political reform movements, proposed putting retired judges in charge of redistricting, taking it out of the hands of the Legislature. Common Cause, one of the nonpartisan groups championing changes in the system, said campaigns to overhaul redistricting were under way in at least eight states, including California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

snip

In California, Mr. Schwarzenegger's proposal has faced some of its fiercest opposition from Republicans, some of whom suggested that it was hardly clear that, in the long run, it would produce a gain of Republican seats in the Congressional delegation.

snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/politics/07reform.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5094&en=2e816ad33dcb0e98&hp&ex=1107838800&partner=homepage

This is one the top 5 voting reform issues, in my opinion. Let's say Schwarzenegger proposes a redistricting panel that meets the requirement of non-partisan independence. Let's also say that means Democrats might lose a few seats in the House. How many of us will support the proposal, hoping it will set a trend for the rest of the country? I will. And I live in California.

[Frances]

1. Just curious

Did you vote for Arnold? Does that affect your view?

[mountebank]

3. Voted for Bustamante and generally don't like Arnold. n/t

[Helga Scow Stern]

2. I did not vote for Arnold and I am very suspicious of him.

However, I also don't like the fact that only one race in CA for the House of Representatives is contested. The others are a guaranteed win. With what has been happening in the Shelley deal, how no Dems are supporting him, I wonder if some housecleaning might be in order.

The whole question is, who is going to be on that panel of retired judges deciding the issue?

[mountebank]

5. Right. Who are these retired judges? And why judges anyway?

So far we have no details - so I have no opinion yet on the specific proposal Arnold will put out there. But I'm harping on this issue because I think it "smokes out" the unwavering partisans among us. God knows I'm partisan on some issues. But redistricting is an issue that transcends Democrats v. Republicans. It's about people v. power, and I am highly suspicious of those who fall out on the side of power when it comes to voting reform.

And speaking a moment about partisanship. It's apparently viewed as a compliment on DU. But if one wants to speak to "average Americans" - the real type, not the type invented by the media and right-wing propaganda machine - one has to transcend partisanship because "average Americans" don't like it, don't trust it, and rightfully so. Otherwise we'll just be talking to ourselves, which I think is what a lot of people come here for. That's fine - but DU is more than that. It's also a proving ground to hone our ideas and then take them out into the world.

This isn't directed toward you, Ojai Person - it's just a lunch time observation.

[The Zanti Regent]

35. The TRUE reform that they don't want is proportional representation!

Apportion Representatives by proportional representation!

In states with 5 or more representatives, allocate them by PR!

In states with less than 5, use Instant Runoff Voting, allowing transferable votes.

That would put the Bugman out of business and also break the two party duopoly, it would be nice to have some Socialists, Libertarians and Greens in the House...

[Bridget Burke]

4. Redistricting worked so well in Texas.

Thanks to DeLay & his pet Governor. Of course, a BLUE state like California would never do anything foolish.

[mountebank]

6. The idea is to take redistricting out of the Legislature's hands,

which is exactly the opposite of what happened in Texas. Independent redistricting will prevent future Tom DeLay's from gerrymandering districts for partisan gain.

[jasop]

7. Nice GOP Talking points but..

the truth is that the GOP wants Califonia REAL bad. They need it. And after redistricting worked so well for them in Texas they are going after it in all the big blue states.. keep an eye out.

[mountebank]

10. Objectivity = GOP talking points?

If/when it becomes clear that Arnold's plan is partisan, tainted, and not independent, I will rush to condemn it. You and I know nothing about it so far, except that it aims to remove redistricting from the Legislature's hands. As a social libertarian, I am behind that idea.

I love being accused of spreading GOP talking points when I feel like I am saying the most sensible, objective things possible. It really lets me know how varied and diverse people's opinions can be. Fascinating. :eyes:

[paulk]

11. they are not GOP talking points

The gerrymandering of the House has produced incumbent reelection rates of over 95% - that's not remotely how the founding fathers invisioned the House working. Something needs to be done - the drawing up of districts needs to be taken out of the partisan hands
of state legislaters - especially now in the age of computer models that can predict how a district will vote within a few hundred voters.

Ideally reform would happen on a federal level - but, CA would be a start.

[cascadiance]

16. Then why can't we go after Texas too?

If every other state is doing this that has either a split control or Democratic control over it. If this is truely going to work, we should be not just doing it in places to allow Rethugs to pick up more districts.

[mountebank]

21. Absolutely - do it across the board.

California often acts as a bellwether for reform, so I think putting redistricting into non-partisan hands in CA (which may or may not be part of Arnold's plan, see other debate in this thread) is a big step in this direction for the nation - bigger than, say, Iowa, which already does it, but hasn't gotten a lot of recognition. If I had my way, Texas would be first.

[neverforget]

8. I'm all for taking redistricting out of the hands of politicians. Who

does it then and how it's done, is the problem. Drawing districts to favor Democrats or Republicans is unfair and creates an incumbency base. House districts need to be competitive. As they stand now, an incumbent is almost guaranteed re-elction. It needs to change along with Electoral College which needs to be eliminated.

[w4rma]

24. To give that power to folks *appointed* by politicians? What's changed?

What did you gain except a layer of unaccountability?

[neverforget]

34. And our system works now? The politicians run it and they protect

themselves. I don't know what the solution is but it has to change.

[bemildred]

9. The legislature is accountable to the electorate.

Who are these "independent commissions" accountable to?
This is a very thorny issue, and simple-minded solutions are
not likely to make it better.

[paulk]

12. it can work -

After the 2000 census a new district was gained here in Colorado - after the legislature deadlocked, a judge was appointed to draw up the new district - (CO7). It produced the closest race in the country in 2002, decided by less than 150 votes.

State legislatures, while in theory accountable to the electorate, have done a miserable job - exactly because of the gerrymandering.

The trick would be an impartial "independent commission".

[mountebank]

13. In Iowa, the non-partisan commisson is accountable, too. Though somewhat

more obliquely. Four are chosen by the Legislature, the other by the commission. The Legislature can reject the map, which apparently almost never happens in Iowa. The result has been competitive races and evenly divided Legislatures (probably an accurate reflection of Iowa politics). There are some problems (e.g. seasoned, popular politicians getting thrown into the same district where one has to lose), but it seems better than the alternative where one's vote doesn't matter.

Simple minded solutions? Ah, yes - that old saw. The issue is too complicated: best leave it to the powerful ones who know what they are talking about.

Would you call Iowa's solution simple-minded? Would you call it a success?

[bemildred]

14. No, that sounds fine.

My concern is not to create a new un-accountable power center to
replace the old, broken but at least accountable one. The Iowa
system sounds OK.

[Righteous9]

15. Idea makes me uncomfortable.

Why is Shwarzenegger proposing such a change in California? It clearly isn't to bolster democratic seats in the house or senate, nor in the future governership.

Which judges will preside over this? Federal judges? Judges, who by the time the full 8 years of the bush presidency have come to pass, will be mostly GOP facilitators? If we lose seats in California our country will be in an irreversable downward spiral. This is a bastion of democratic ideals...not one to be upset as a shining example to other states, who will not follow our lead if it doesn't suit their GOP interests.


I don't trust this "fiercest" opposition from Republicans. It feels hollow to me. It's as if the object is to make it seem like Shwarzenegger is breaking with party lines, when nothing about this change will actually favor the already dominating democrats in the state.

I do not trust the judges that will be in control of this. At least we can hope to vote out the republicans(albeit at unfair odds) in places like Texas, and then, use our politicians to redistrict in our favor. If we put that power in the hands of GOP justices, we will have the same schewed fight for every election to come.

Granted, I think nationwide reform should be considered. But there has to be a way to guarantee bipartisanship of this job, and I don't see how to do that yet.

oh yeah, retired judges. Hmm I guess it will be a bit before they are mostly Republican. Still, who picks which judges will preside over redistricting?

[trogdor]

17. 2010, baby.

The GOP is scared shitless of the 2010 census/redistricting. While they get to run the Federal Government into the ground for the remainder of the decade, there is a trend toward Democratic control of state legislatures, and that will spell bad news for Republicans in the next decade.

[THUNDER HANDS]

18. how about this

term limits of 8 years.

That would go a long way in determining change in the house.

[bemildred]

19. Does seem like one way to reduce the problem of automatic re-election.

Don't give them time to get entrenched.

[AlGore-08.com]

20. Term limits are throwing the baby out with the bathwater

You end up losing really excellent reps like Tom Hayden and Sheila Kuhl with newbies who may or may not know how to craft legislation or get around the procedural roadblocks more experienced law makers and civil servants throw at them.

And what happens to a pol when their term is up? Here in LA, you can't swing a dead cat without a term limited former State Assembly person or State Senator running for local or county office. And since they already have name recognition, and seasoned campaign staffs, they keep new folks out of the lower seats.

I think that meaningful campaign finance reform and an end to gerrymandering would solve the same problems that term limits solve - - plus, we'd get to keep the pols who are good at their jobs.

[THUNDER HANDS]

23. term limits should be applied to all politicians at every level

Only the Senate should serve longer than the President does, and that just barely.

Congress, two-year terms - max of 8 years

Senate, five-year terms - max of 10 years

This is a horrible system we have in place right now. Only the absense of name recognition will alleviate the problem.

People will get around any campaign finance laws and gerrymandering will never go away. Only concrete term limits are the answer, IMO.

[w4rma]

22. And give that power to 3 appointed people whose agenda could be anything?

No.

[mountebank]

26. It seems to work in Iowa.

No one is saying trust the Legislature to have some people appointed and then everyone go home and sleep well and forget about it. You pass a law saying these non-partisan panel members will be appointed and that they should specifically be non-partisan, then you hold your Legislators accountable for doing it. You stay vigilant for abuse, like with anything else.

Do you really it's worse than the current system? With less accountability?

Read about Iowa. It seems to work.

[SoCalDem]

25. With all the fancy computers around these days it should be easy

Just slap a computerized grid on the maps and let the chips fall where they may.. I HATE HATE HATE the gerrymandering maps that are around now..regardless of the party..

As the population grows, we actually need MORE congress people ..

The districts are just too big for adequate "representation"..

[bemildred]

27. I was thinking it wouldn't be that hard to automate it.

Open source of course.

The hard part would be data entry, getting the census data in and
accurate. The rest would be a fairly simple knapsack kind of
algorithm I would think. Maybe you could pop off a couple variants
based on different criteria.

[SoCalDem]

32. Census data be damned.. Just set the grid and go with it

Most politicians do not "trust" the census data anyway..

They have always used the most recent census anyway.. That's why this in-between redistricting is a CROCK..

They should just set a date.. Say January 1 2007, and "re-grid" the entire country..and LEAVE IT ALONE..

Boundaries are pretty easy to set anyway.. Most roads and streets form a natural grid.. Satellite photos tell the tale as well..

If district A has a population of 10K and grid B has a population of 50K, then grid B gets 5 times as many congresspeople...

Small states have been overrepresented forever.. Wyoming gets 2 senators and 1 congressperson with a total population of 501,242 or one rep per 77,308 people.......and California with 35,484,453 or one rep per 601,431 people

[Democat]

28. Republicans are only trying to redistrict without legislature when...

...it helps them.

The NY Times, right wing ass kissing paper that it is, is trying to spin this as citizens getting their voice back, but it's really the Republican minority in California trying to stop Democrats from having any rights, while fighting to give Republicans in Texas all of the rights.

This is a scam and the media, especially the California media, is pushing it hard!

[LiberalFighter]

29. The first step to de-politicize redistricting...

is to require that State House districts fit completely in State Senate districts.

Wisconsin has 99 Assembly districts and 33 State Senate districts.

SA Districts 1, 2, 3 becomes State Senate 1
SA Districts 4, 5, 6 becomes State Senate 2
SA Districts 7, 8, 9 becomes State Senate 3
SA Districts 10, 11, 12 becomes State Senate 4

[LiberalFighter]

30. I wouldn't trust Judges to do the right thing

I would trust qualified members of Common Cause, Women League of Voters or other similar organization.

Chamber of Commerce - NO
Natl Assn of Manufacturers - NO

[Kimber Scott]

31. "hardly clear that in the long run, it would produce a gain of Republican

seats"

That's what it's all about. Re-districting boils down to gaining Republican seats. And he admitted it.

[leesa]

33. Yeah. And it's all Republican gerrymandering, ain't it.