The Spectrum on Redistricting Reform
Want to soak in the entire range of thought on the issue of redistricting reform? Well here ya go. All within a matter of days, you get it from the combined blogosphere and MSM. And of course, I'd be remiss to not throw in Kevin Drum's own misguided take on the matter from a month ago.
Starting with Adam Nagourney's own recap of statewide efforts, the California is obviously the biggest media draw. While California's efforts may shake up the state house races some, I contend Florida's would be the biggest for the US House level. MyDD's contribution to all of this is to bemoan the California effort for not including voting history as part of the consideration. Instead, the proposal does allow for consideration of party registration in drawing up competitive districts. This bothers Laddy ... but quite frankly, I think its off base. Yes, some nefarious partisans can register for a party they despise. If that ever gets to a point of any real concern, though, we can revisit the matter. But in the history of party registration, there's been little cause for concern on such matters. The California effort is nothing like a DeLay power grab and more progressives should be applauding and supporting the concept. Unfortunately, too many California Dems seem too eager to resist.
Our own local spin-meister has this amazingly unconservative utterance to add to the meme of conservatism standing more for power than ideology:
I don't want to be represented by a coin or a name tag, thank you. We elect leaders to handle political decisions in our representative democracy, and one such political decision is redistricting.Yes, Tom DeLay used it to partisan advantage, just like Democrats used it to partisan advantage in years past.
So why not hold Tom DeLay and those in his party accountable? Let the Richard Morrisons of the world rally around the great DeLay gerrymander! Throw the scoundrels out (if they're really scoundrels)! That seems simple enough. That seems in accordance with old political theories of responsible party government.
But please don't go mucking with a constitutional design that honestly isn't that broken (and actually is reflective of an older strain of political thought). And please don't take my power to hold elected officials accountable away, and give it to a coin or a name tag.
Well, earth to Kevin ... thanks to Tom DeLay, you don't have any power to hold elected officials accountable. When a mere 13 seats change hands in 2004 and all of 3 incumbents are turned out in 2002, few do. Deluding oneself to think that because they can count on a statewide power play to come out to their liking as being the same thing as the power of an individual voter is neither conservative nor liberal ... its just flat out wrong.
This cuts to the issue of why this should matter to anyone, of course. When political lines are drawn such that no member of the California lege or the Texas Senate has to worry about their political fate, there's less accountability on the part of elected officials - not more. Kevin boldly speaks of constitutional design. Rather odd since constitutional design did not account for an increasingly monopolistic strain that would lead to two party competition yet designed the House of Representatives to be a more volatile gauge of public reaction than it presently is.
Let's turn to Federalist Paper #52, shall we?
As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people.
The problem here is that with increasingly sophisticated mapmaking skills available, "the people" are being short-circuited in favor of primary voters. And therein lies the problem with the refuseniks on this issue ... it's that they just don't want elections period. At least, not meaningful ones. Tightened party control is the objective. Nothing "constitutionally designed" about that, so far as I know.
The clarion call to Dems, however, should be noted in Nagourney's article:
In Arizona, a nonpartisan commission approved by voters in 2000 has completed its first redistricting, which is viewed by advocates as the most impartial since Iowa created a system 20 years ago to propose maps without taking into account partisan considerations like voter history and incumbents' addresses. The Arizona overhaul was strongly endorsed by Senator John McCain, and his aides said he was considering throwing his support behind Mr. Schwarzenegger's effort and embracing it as a cause in a presidential campaign, should he run in 2008.
Say what you will of McCain's odds to win the nomination in 2008. They're not as insignificant as some would have you believe. But in any event, I suspect that if he does carry the mantle, even Kevin will be singing a different hymn by then.
ADD-ON: Nifty WSJ read on the matter that places me in league with them and Kevin in league with Willie Brown. Go figure.
ADD-ON 2.0: Bull Moose piles on with a worthy question:
The Moose hears that the next DNC Chair claims he is a reformer. Will he aggressively promote this important reform?
Good question ....
ADD-ON 3.0: The DLC menagerie is now complete as New Donkey weighs in with a more substantive take that bears echoing ... oh screw it. Just read the whole thing.
Comments
Greg,
I'm happy you're commenting on my post. I think you're underestimating the importance of California Republicans using voter registrations, while also forbiding consideration of actual Democratic and Republican performance. No one uses registration as a means of redistricting competitive (or uncompetitive) districts period. It's because it's not an indicator. Republicans have put it into a bill that won't pass the legislature for a couple of purposes which I'll get into later. Using registration of a 7% deficit for a republican district automatically automacally hands republicans competitve advantage in a lot of districts anywhere in California. Why? Because they know that republican registrants turn out in higher numbers in general election, than do Democratic registrants. They are using a method that seems fair at a quick glance to stack their chips. Now that doesn't mean every district will act that way, but anyone presenting maps before the panel will be using those competitve numbers to present their plan.
The fact that they disallow judges from using competitive performance numbers means that's why they wrote the bill in the way they did. One can take a state race anywhere and crudely determine performance. Secratary of State is usual a good one because candidates for SOS rarely have high name ID or run real campaigns. So why couldn't the judges look at that? Because it's a Republican bill that wants to udnercut Democratic performace, while attempting to look fair.
I've read your blog for a while now, I know that there's a tendency to not wholly embrace one argument. Since I think (with some exceptions) we come from the same mindset in Democratic politics, you're being a little too dismissive of my overall argument. I think I'm right in this case. My post or my world view has nothing against non-partisan redistricting, I just don't want Democrats to think the California bill is reform.
Posted by: Laddy | February 7, 2005 08:26 PM
Greg,
I'm happy you're commenting on my post. I think you're underestimating the importance of California Republicans using voter registrations, while also forbiding consideration of actual Democratic and Republican performance. No one uses registration as a means of redistricting competitive (or uncompetitive) districts period. It's because it's not an indicator. Republicans have put it into a bill that won't pass the legislature for a couple of purposes which I'll get into later. Using registration of a 7% deficit for a republican district automatically automacally hands republicans competitve advantage in a lot of districts anywhere in California. Why? Because they know that republican registrants turn out in higher numbers in general election, than do Democratic registrants. They are using a method that seems fair at a quick glance to stack their chips. Now that doesn't mean every district will act that way, but anyone presenting maps before the panel will be using those competitve numbers to present their plan.
The fact that they disallow judges from using competitive performance numbers means that's why they wrote the bill in the way they did. One can take a state race anywhere and crudely determine performance. Secratary of State is usual a good one because candidates for SOS rarely have high name ID or run real campaigns. So why couldn't the judges look at that? Because it's a Republican bill that wants to udnercut Democratic performace, while attempting to look fair.
I've read your blog for a while now, I know that there's a tendency to not wholly embrace one argument. Since I think (with some exceptions) we come from the same mindset in Democratic politics, you're being a little too dismissive of my overall argument. I think I'm right in this case. My post or my world view has nothing against non-partisan redistricting, I just don't want Democrats to think the California bill is reform.
Posted by: Laddy | February 7, 2005 08:27 PM
Laddy,
So why not let the states be laboratories of innovation and see how another approach goes. At the end of the day, if the only valid criticism of the CA plan is that some districts have Dem registereds who don't vote, then who's fault is that? As one who resides in a state lege district drawn with much that same intent, I can tell you that a candidate strong on organizational skills can turn that into an advantage.
As a Democrat, I'd suggest that California Dems would be far better taking up the battle you suggest (with the modification that they support the overeall goal rather than dismiss it, as they have) than the "Just Say No" approach they seem hell-bent on. But even a non/bipartisan focus on registration without voting tendency would be an improvement. So one side turns out more than the other? That's not exactly a deal breaker to me.
If I may, however ... voter registration files are often the source of outdated names and addresses. I think if Arnie does go through with that focus, there needs to be a statewide effort to scrub the voting rolls of deaceased and transient voters. The larger meaning of all this, however, is negligible. Districts will still be drawn primarily according to population size. The change in party hands from district to district, I'd suspect, would still be small. As Kilgore notes, California hasn't engaged in a one-sided partisan power grab so much as they've sought to protect incumbents - period (yes, this locks in a Dem majority through the decade, but I've yet to hear anyone suggest it wouldn't exist otherwise). In any event, the Arnie version hardly qualifies as a Tom DeLay-style power grab.
Arnie's version may not be perfect, but it is good. I'd hate to see a strong majority party in California realize this after they start paying the electoral price for their obstinance, however. Democrats would be better off fighting WITH Arnie and suggesting tweaks as you suggest rather than taking some godawfully bad advice and slamming the door shut. Mis-labelling it as DeLay-ism also does no constructive purpose.
Posted by: Greg Wythe | February 8, 2005 04:15 AM