I am not even going to attempt to comment, since I sat through a few discussions of gerrymandering and redistricting law in school and was utterly, immediately lost (not the fault of the smart and great Seth Kreimer and Nate Persily).
This letter was sent today to Representative Babette Josephs from JSPAN, the Jewish Social Policy Action Network. (I guess technically in my name, since myself and Adam Bonin just joined up--following Alex U-A--I think at least in part to try to dip the average age below sixty.)
Dear Chairwoman Josephs:
Several Bills to reform our redistricting process are locked in the House State Government Committee which you chair. When you canceled the scheduled vote on redistricting bills, you wrote The Philadelphia Inquirer that the proposed changes would not be reform - and you claimed that you are "willing to examine alternative proposals" - but meantime, you have fated us to another round of gerrymandered districts that will last for at least ten years, from the 2010 census until the 2020 census.
The proposals before you to put a professional staff at the Legislative Reference Bureau in charge of an open, public process beats the present method hands down. Today four partisan politicians, the majority and minority leaders from the House and Senate, and a chairman they appoint, do the redistricting. The courts give only a cursory look to assure that the districts match up in population, while citizens have no power whatever in the process. History teaches us that the system is rigged to ensure that incumbents of both parties get re-elected in districts drawn to produce that result.
In addition to the bill in your Committee that was signed by 92 legislators, there are several other redistricting bills pending which you are not bringing to a vote. And there are model redistricting systems in several other States that have been proven in practice.
Why are you sending us back to square one? Why do we have to start over in your Committee, rebuilding a consensus for reform that has already expressed itself quite clearly to more than 90 of your fellow legislators? Has this process all been just a sham to give the appearance that reform was possible?
Very truly yours,
/s/
JEFFREY L. PASEK, on behalf of JSPANcc: Philadelphia Inquirer
Members of the State Legislature
Good luck
There have been parallel debates in other progressive circles on the carrot vs. the stick, vis a vis Babette and squashing redistricting reform. To put it bluntly, there is a some case that Bonus-gate will take down Deweese, either through conviction or the ballot box. That might be part of Babette's internal justification now that she finally has control of the committee to favor the bad old ways of redistricting. That they need to fight the way they know to keep control of the PA House, despite the predictions of Dems to do very well nation wide in congressional races this year.
I think besides only bashing her for protecting the incumbent insurance plan, it might be at least as effective to make a stab at a convincing argument that such an assumption is wrong strategically. Does anyone feel they can work the numbers to show net ballance under redistricting reform? I realize its a tall order.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Redistricting "Reform" Hurts Democratic Party
Redistricting "reform" hurts the Democratic Party and Democratic interests. First, it raises the costs of campaigning, which inherently works for Republican candidates the vast amount of the time, despite the successes of Ed Rendell and Barack Obama.
Second, House Bill 2420, sets forth the principle that counties should be split as little as possible according to a precise formula. That means that Philadelphia, which has many Senate seats and house seats now extending into the suburbs, will lose representation of people who are pro-choice, pro-labor, pro-enivironment, and pro-funding of education, and numerous services to reduce the ravages of poverty.
Even in the State Senate, whose Republican dominance has been urged as the reason why progressives should support House Bill 2420, Democrats will lose at least one seat each in both Allegheny County and Philadelphia as a result of its passage. New elections under House Bill 2420 bill not take place until 2012, when Ed Rendell will be out of office and protesting voting against former President George W. Bush will have been at the very least greatly attenuated.
House Bill 2420 also means that the strengthened city-suburban cooperation and greatly reduced political hostilities between cities and their suburbs that have resulted from greater city-suburban interactions will be reversed.
Third, House Bill 2420, being sold as a force to make elections more competitive, actually BANS consideration of election results in drawing up districts, thus making it impossible to tell whether the districts are more competitive or not. This ban on consideration of past voting returns also virtually guarantees litigation of all districts with minority populations.
Fourth, House Bill 2420 ends the the likelihood of quick finality under which districts are currently drawn, and substitutes a convoluted process which greatly downplays legitimate concerns of local communities that transcend political boundaries and leads not only to litigation but to protracted, expensive litigation. Taxpayers should not be in favor of that, although large law firms might be.
Iowa is a virtually all white state (that's why it was big news that Obama carried it) that does not have minority groups with legal standing (it's a matter of having the numbers to elect someone) to challenge a redistricting plans. Arizona is a state like Pennsylvania with large and ever-growing numbers of minority citizens; it followed the Iowa plan in for 2002, and the plan is still being litigated in 2008. So far, Arizona's total costs have exceeded $6 million.
Iowa's political culture is also very different from Pennsylvania's. It was a U.S. territory subdivided into 50% more counties than Pennsylvania has with currently less than 25% of the population Pennsylvania has. As anyone who looks at an Iowa map will see, the counties are almost all squares or near squares. That is very different from the shape of Pennsylvania's counties.
People in Iowa are proud of their square counties and square districts. They are not proud, however, of their building on flood plains and their low level expenditures for public works, both of which have aggregated the current flood. Nor are they proud that black commentator.com, studying the rates of incarceration of Iowa's small black community, found Iowa to be the second worst state in the nation for blacks. Nor are they proud that Iowa's business taxes are among the nation's highest. Having legislators from square districts does not solve fundamental problems or any problems at all.
The current system was one of the key reforms of the 1967-1968 Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention. Under it, the PA House of Representatives has shifted party control after each redistricting. It is a system that represents minority political interests as well as minority racial interests. It is a system which minimizes parochialism and the control of local party machines over the political process.
Those who want their elected officials be different should actively engage in the political process. The most visible advocates of this change in Pennsylvania--the League of Women Voters and Common Cause--do not actively engage in the political process, and their knowledge of how redistricting changes actually work in operation is very limited.
Those who want to advocate for having the Legislative Reference Bureau draw the legislative districts should begin by naming their favorite Legislative Reference Bureau staff person and explaining the qualifications he or she has to draw the districts. Those who favor House Bill 2420 and believe the Legislative Reference Bureau should contract out the legislative district drawing process should name their favorite contractor, explain what qualification he, she, or they have to draw the districts, and why House Bill 2420 contains no restrictions on political activities, involvement, or alliances by such contractors.
When John Conyers was asked by Michael Moore about why members of Congress were so ignorant about the grant of authority given to President Bush for the Iraq War, he smiled and said "Who said we read the bills?" House Bill 2420 is being sold on labels to people who have little knowledge of its details by other people sold on it by labels with little knowledge of its details.
Does that last part about reading bills
go for the Governor too?
redistricting
I subscribe to the heretical notion that legislative districts at all levels should be drawn without regard to political party. In trying to get things done at the community level it is difficult enough to get township commissioners, one state rep, one state senator, and one congressional rep on the same page at the same time, which is what it takes to do anything of any size. Projects are often done at various levels; sometimes with state funds, sometimes federal, sometimes just with the goodwill and community support and favors that an elected official can bring in. If you throw in an extra (or two or three extra) elected officials to try to corral and bring to the table, it increases the workload geometrically. If one of those officials views your area as a small minority of his or her district your ability to leverage community support into legislative support is greatly reduced. Non-profit foundations and smaller non-profits are often defined by political boundaries, for example township foundations that can apply for private money. Trying to get a letter of support for a grant from one official can be tricky. If you have 2 or 3 state reps for one township you really need to get a letter from all of them. By splitting areas up in this way you inherently discourage community involvement.
Has Abington Township Been Hurt Because of George Kenney?
Outgoing state rep. George Kenney represents a small piece of Abington Township, while Josh Shapiro represents the rest of it. I have never once heard Representative Shapiro, any resident of Abington Township, George Kenney's likely successor Brendan Boyle, or Representative Shapiro's predecessor Ellen Bard, or former County Commissioner Ruth Damsker, or current County Commissioner Joe Hoeffel, or any other person, complain that a single local project or anything else affecting Abington Township had been adversely affected by Representative Kenney's presence in Abington Township. Nor have I ever seen or heard any such statement in any print, digital, or broadcast media.
Somewhere, there may be some foundation that insists on having the support of local elected officials before it funds a local project, but I cannot name such a foundation.
Somewhere, there may be some elected official who refuses to endorse popular local projects, but I cannot name such an elected official.
I would welcome more facts, either on this board or privately, but I seriously doubt the conditions described by aajane are common or widespread. I remember well, however, a Cheltenham commissioner who predicted doom and gloom for Cheltenham if it was assigned to Allyson Schwartz in the 1991 redistricting, saying no one could fairly represent both the city and the suburbs; his outspoken opposition to her likely helped cause his defeat for re-election in 1993; by the time she ran for Congress in 2004, he was an enthusiastic backer based on all she had done for Cheltenham.
Question
Doesn't Josh Shapiro by the way have a slightly different take on redistricting than you do, Mark?
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Yes
Yes, but wheras I have actively participated in the process as a citizen in 1971, as a legislator and litigant in 1981, as a legislator satisfied with the lines drawn in 1991, and as the lead Democratic negotiator for Philadelphia in 2001, he has never before participated in the legislative redistricting process. The vast majority of the co-sponsors in the House are legislators who are simarly free of redistricting experience.
I see
Sounds familiar.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
redistricting
Mr. Cohen,
People who live in townships that are very chopped up, like Upper Dublin, which is represented by four state representatives, might disagree with you. Funding agencies very seldom tell applicants why they weren't funded. But those I know who have had success in getting funds tell me that support of elected officials is needed for any project that will involve government funds or public land in any way. That covers a lot of ground.
You are unaware of any project that has popular local support that isn't supported by elected officials? Really? Taking this to the federal level what about the Iraq War or access to health care? On the state level, how about property tax reform? If gambling had been put on the ballot do you think it would have passed? Within the city, what about neighborhood groups opposed to billboards? I could go on.
Words Were In Response To Examples of Township Foundations
Aajane, my words were in response to your example of local foundations that theoretically would not approve grants unless those grants were approved by local elected officials. My words are never meant to be taken as all purpose philosophical statements that are true at all times in all contexts. They were dealing with the role of legislative redistricting in small-scale local governmental decision-making whose impact is limited to a small number of legislative districts.
I have never heard of a foundation such as you posited dependent on input of elected officials for its decision-making, and I would welcome details of anyone that you know of, if such a foundation exists and is not a merely a theoretical example. It is much more common for foundations to seek grants from government. Small-scale local grants are almost always very popular, and my experience is that having more representatives in a given community aids, not hinders, the gaining of such grants from governmental agencies.
The Iraq War has nothing to do with redistricting. I wish it could be said that Democrats cut off all war funding when they took over Congress, but they made the political judgment that doing so was not expedient. They feared that they would be attacked viciously by the Republicans, and that the attacks would stick. In 1975, the Congressional Democrats stopped the American War in Vietnam by making clear they would not fund further defense of South Vietnam from renewed attack, and I would have preferred that 2007-2008 Congressional Democrats would have done the same, as would have millions of other Americans. The Democrats gained Congressional seats and the Presidency after stopping war funding in 1976, and my guess is that the gains this year that the Democrats will make would have been even greater had there been visible Democratic success in ending the War in Iraq.
Property tax reform also has nothing to do with redistricting. It has moved forward due to subsidies from lottery ticket sales and gaming revenues from the seven of the fourteen authorized casinos that have already opened. But property tax reform is never going to mean the abolition of property taxes: raising income taxes and/or sales taxes to pay property taxes has very limited public support. Only gambling revenues offers a way to cut property taxes for many people without raising any other taxes, and the money raised from gambling revenues can never meet the expectations of those with property tax bills of $5000 to $20,000 a year for expensive homes.
Gambling also has nothing with redistricting. Public opinion polls across the state showed--and continue to show--overwhelming support for legalized gambling. On the issue of location which has roiled some neighborhoods of Philadelphia, the legislators from the affected areas were actively pushing their districts for the location of the casinos, seeing an opportunity to claim credit for bringing jobs to their communities. There was a real failure to organize against the casino locations before the vote from those who are now opposed to it. The long process--almost 20 years--of advocacy for casinos apparently helped convince many that casino development would never take place so political advocacy for it was irrelevant and not worth opposing.
Billboards in communities also has nothing to do with redistricting. It has to do with the billboard lobby, and the limited organized opposition to it. My father and his staff spent more time on billboard issues than any other City Council office, and I regret the legislature overruled his views on this issue. But he, as a leading anti-smoking advocate in City Council, would be greatly thrilled by the legislature's passage of a ban on indoor smoking statewide. I am convinced that statewide experience with non-smoking venues will lead to stronger anti-smoking legislation, and many much healthier Pennsylvanians, in the years to come.
Legislative redistricting is not the key to very much. It affects the amount of time legislators spend campaigning, and the amount of time legislators spend legislating. It affects the location of legislative district offices. It affects who the legislator interacts with and what influences he or she is exposed to. But it is hardly the key to major governmental policy decisions. Each voter is ultimately represented by somebody, and organized voters are inherently listened to much more than disorganized voters, regardless of how the districts are shaped and the precise identity of the legislators exposed to this or that local influence.
The Iowa legislature pushed through riverboat casinos shortly after the first election under the current Iowa redistricting system. The Iowa legislature has foolishly permitted widespread building on flood plains, and has one of the worst records in the country in terms of maintaining bridges. Iowa, says blackcommentator.com, is the second worst state in the country for black people. Business groups assail Iowa for high business taxes.
I am happy that Iowa went decisively and influentially for Barack Obama, but Iowa is not a Utopia. Government at all levels has to solve real problems and overcome vested interests, and redistricting is relevant as an explanatory variable largely in respect to the degree to which it stops legislators from legislating and reduces their role to that of mere full-time vote getters.
Gerrymandering Will Not Be Used in This Response
1. The current redistricting process largely is done in a way that purposefully protects incumbents in office.
2. The current redistricting process is extremely partisan.
3. Property tax reform can mean the end of real estate taxes, at least for school funding, see HB 1275, which was killed largely by partisan behavior and posturing, and by lobbyists for special interests. Act 1 was not real property tax reform. Act 1 for most of PA will result in the fiscal year staring next month in a generally minor reduction in real estate taxes at the negative cost of casino gambling. Elected officials have a responsibility to explain tradeoffs to people, such as the costs and benefits of raising other taxes to lower real estate taxes. This is even more true for complicated issues and those where the initial reaction will be to tell a pollster "no" when the response will be a result of too little information or the way a question was worded or framed. Using polling as a means to make poor decisions is not leadership, it is justification for making poor decisions.
4. Who really wants billboards other than the billboard lobby? Most people do not really care or think about billboards, and those that do think about them and do not like them tend to have better things to work on. Why not as a tribute to your father, introduce legislation to repeal Act 193, which took away standing from civic groups and some neighbors in Philadelphia and was passed by the House at 2:30 a.m. on a Sunday? If our Representatives care to listen to lobbyists, why not listen to the Philadelphia Bar Association, which is calling for the repeal of Act 193?
I Have Twice Introduced Legislation To Repeal Denial Of Standing
I have twice introduced legislatation to repeal denial of standing for community groups under certain important circumstances in billboard cases. If anyone wishes to set up a meeting to organize in support of this legislation, I would be glad to attend. If some of the time spent disputing or nitpicking my words here was spent on pushing this legislation, it would have a better chance of passing. Taking on special interests requires organization against them.
The current redistricting process generally keeps incumbents from being forced to have a choice of changing their residence due to the residency requirement for state legislators or running against other legislators. This can be called "purposely protecting incumbents" but it can also be called protecting the rights of voters to choose whom they wish. Already, if every incumbent House state member is re-elected in November, there will be 109 out of 203 members of the Pennsylvania House who were not in office at the time of the last redistricting. Having a strong work ethic is a much greater explanatory variable for having a long tenure in office than is redistricting.
There are two current redistricting processes. For Congressional districts, it is possible for a party to control the process if it controls both houses of the legislature and the governorship. But the paradox of creating a plan that tilts heavily one way is that it spreads party control very thinly, where it can be upset if public opinion changes.
Rick Santorum and the Republican National Committee pushed through a plan that Dick Gephardt and I strongly opposed because it severely weakened both Congressmen Joe Hoeffel and Bob Borski. But many Democratic Congressmen who were not adversely affected by the plan backed it and privately argued that it would help the Democrats in the the long run. They were proven right in 2006.
The second redistricting process, for state legislative districts, inherently involves negotiations between both political parties and a balancing of party interests. To call a plan worked out by parties "partisan" is a poor choice of words. Partisanship is recognition of only one set of party interests, not the interests of both parties.
A system such as Elp desires would open up the door to back-room partisanship in which either annonymous Legislative Reference Bureau staffers or consultants would produce a plan that benefits the dominant party and the dominant party could then push it through. Getting rid of partisan advocates is like having trials without lawyers: the rights of the weaker side will get trampled on in either case.
Districting is inherently about partisan interests. Arguing that partisan interests should be ignored is like arguing that economic interests should be ignored: there is almost always a conservative bias there. When someone says that we should all ignore economic interests and just work together, he or she generally follows that statement with attacks on labor unions and benefit programs supporting low income people, and/or shifting the burden of taxes away from the wealthy and towards the middle class and the working class.
redistricting
When I referred to local non-profits and fundraising I meant local organizations trying to raise funds for local projects. And yes, I have been told by someone at a private grantmaking organization that they preferred requests that had support of local officials; the trifecta being state rep, state senator, and congressional rep. This group was funded by private sources; no government was involved. But give a choice (and people giving away money always have more requests than funds) they would give to those with the support of elected officials. Townships are more frequently creating 501 c 3's which will allow them to seek out private money from organizations that often will not give to governmental bodies. It is another way to fund projects that don't quite get to the top of the priority list with tax dollars or cannot be fully funded with tax dollars or to supply the match needed for governmental grants.
And I disagree with you, sir, on the issues I raised being related to districting, but we can chock that up to a difference of opinion.
For the life of me I cannot see any justification for legislative districts that resemble the 161st
151ststate house (though I think highly of State Rep. Bryan Lentz who holds that seat) or some of the other legislative districts that look like bowties or an odd jumble of various geometric blocks.While the Legislative Research Bureau may be an unknown I think the support of moving to that system can be taken as not so much a vote of confidence in them but a lack of confidence in the system that brought us the last redistricting and a seeming inability for those who created those districts to understand that a fair number of people don't like the odd shaped districts we have now.
See
See what I mean.
Many of us would say rather than referencing Iowa, lets take a cue from Missouri i.e. lets make PA a "show me" state - show me on the map that gerrymandering helps all Democrats, as opposed to incumbents some of whom happen to be Democrats, some of whom happen to Republicans. I've seen for example the case made persuasively that Perzel benefits tremendously from a rather creatively configured district. Its a case I actually think has to be made with maps and voter tallys before first before the "good-government" "competition" argument will hold much sway with those already elected, particularly when the Democratic majority in the House is so razor thin.
Of course some might argue that during the years we have had the current redistricting process in place, the Republicans have been in control of both houses for the vast majority so that might suggest that historically non-competition benefits R's.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Democrats, Republicans Dominate Alternative Houses
The current system, the result of reforms adopted in the constitutional convention of 1967-68, and then ratified by the voters in a statewide referendum, has been in effect now for 36 years.
During that period of time, the Democrats, despite a severe disadvantage in fundraising, have been the majority party in the House for 20 of the 36 years. In the much smaller senate, with much larger districts, fundraising is much more important and the Republicans have been in the majority for 25 out of the 36 years.
By driving up the costs of campaigning, it is hard to see how the Republicans are not inherently strengthened unless some exceptionally wealthy candidate or exceptionally popular fundraiser like Ed Rendell or Barack Obama comes along.
Senate districts represented by Vincent Hughes, Leanna Washington, Mike Stack, and Tony Williams all include a substantial number of suburban residents. Saying that only district can be a city-suburban district will almost certainly require one of Philadelphia's Senate districts to be abolished, given that Philadelphia's population has gone down while the state's population has gone up.
A similar situation exists in Allegheny County. There is a far greater chance that passage of House bill 2420 will push Senate Democrats below the one-third level needed to maintain influence over gubernatorial confirmations than it will push Senate Democrats into the majority in high cost elections resembling auctions in districts with few of the core Democratic groups having much presence there.
Question
Aren't compact legislative districts significantly cheaper to advertise and canvass in rather than ones the spread across different communities?
The "extra expense" you keep citing only refers to incumbents regardless of party. Two non-incumbents would both save money by having a more compact district, be able to make more effective use of vollunteer canvassers, etc.
On the other hand another parallel idea that would really reduce campaign costs is to eliminate terms entirely. Get elected once and serve for life. Thats really cheap.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Redistricting Reform Helps Democracy
As a preface, my goal with fixing the redistricting process is to improve democracy, not to help or hurt the Democratic party. If you are an elected official and your fundamental or primary goal is working on the betterment of a party over the benefit of Pennsylvania and its citizens, why do you not just become a party official and let people who want to improve things as a primary goal regardless of it it benefits or hurts a party or regardless of it it means working with a member of the other party become the elected officials?
First, right now there are numerous races for the PA House and Senate where the incumbent faces no competition (there are no candidates running) in the primaries and/or the general election. Wouldn't a system where there is more opposition and choice and discussion about issues benefit the citizenry and democracy? In some cases Republican candidates may raise more money, in some cases Democratic candidates may raise more money. In some cases Republican candidates may spend their money more wisely, in some cases Democratic candidates may spend their more money wisely.
Second, the implication made is that suburban legislators will not care about progressive issues. In some cases this will be true, in other cases, it will not be true. On the other hand, counties outside of Philadelphia have issues (e.g. suburban sprawl, lack of open space), which are not as well represented as they could be when they are represented by someone who has the vast majority of their district in Philadelphia and a small portion of say Montgomery County. The same is true in cases where a Representative has a small sliver of Philadelphia and the vast majority of their district in say Montgomery County.
The purpose and a goal of districting should not be to favor one jurisdiction over another in terms of trying to give more seats to a city at the expense of less representation elsewhere in PA.
In many cases, City Suburban cooperation has not been lead by the House or the Senate, it has been lead by members of City Council and suburban commissioners in places like Lower Merion and Cheltenham. Rep. Evans who has been a leader of city-suburban cooperation has a district, which is entirely in Philadelphia. There are plenty of Representatives and Senators with districts in Philadelphia and a suburban county that have done little if anything on behalf of city-suburban cooperation. If a representative cannot work across local jurisdictional borders because their district does not include any of the neighboring municipality or county, but they can when their district is in two municipalities, they should consider finding another line of work or find a way to work beyond their myopic ways.
The goal of redistricting now, by largely using issues such as party registration and recent election results, is to not make the races competitive except in cases where a Legislator is trying to be punished by the leadership. There may or may not be litigation under certain aspects of HB 2420 if it is passed. Some of the litigation may be successful and some may not be. The last time I checked we have a court system to handle litigation in matters such as this.
See above. Also, I believe that PA has attorneys that represents the Commonwealth in legal matters. Also, I have a goal of having district not drawn to benefit parties, incumbents and certain jurisdictions, but to have boundaries drawn in a non-political manner that seeks to have non-gerrymandered districts that seek to not have local jurisdictions or counties carved up in perverse ways to benefit the powers that be and their interests.
Iowa is not perfect but neither is Pennsylvania. As you pointed out a number of Iowa shortcomings, I could point out a number of Pennsylvania shortcomings, but I will not. Iowa and Pennsylvania are different so the system they use for redistricting my not be a perfect fit for Pennsylvania. The language used in HB 2420 allows for some flexibility and does not require that PA districts be square shapes. HB 2420 is not the Iowa law word for word, element for element and concept for concept. In fact the word square never appears in HB 2420. To imply that all PA district would need to square by stating "Having legislators from square districts does not solve fundamental problems or any problems at all" (in referencing the Iowa model) is wrong. I disagree with your statements that "It [the current redistricting system] is a system that represents minority political interests as well as minority racial interests. It is a system which minimizes parochialism and the control of local party machines over the political process." How are minority political interests protected when the vast majority of the districts offer no real (if any) competition or chance for a minority political party candidate to compete based on skewed party registrations resulting from gerrymandering? How is parochialism minimized? Is it by having districts where a Representative or Senator is located in Philadelphia and Montgomery County and the Representative or Senator virtually ignores or greatly under represents the portion of their district that is outside of their home turf? How is the local party machines minimized in the current redistricting process and in the resulting elections?
The last time I checked, the League of Women Voters and Common Cause know a lot about the political process and are engaged, maybe not in the ways that you think count. Just because someone cannot name a technocrat or identify a consultant does not mean that Legislative Reference Bureau staff people or consultants do not have the skills needed. What training in demographics and cartography do the leaders of the House and Senate have that gives them the skills needed to do the redistricting? I actually do know consultants that work in demographics and cartography that I believe would do a fine job. I am not going to name them as I do not want to drag them into the process. Your comment to name an appropriate contractor for the redistricting work is like me asking to have you name a consultant with the expertise to analyze and fix Victorian furniture using period appropriate techniques. Consultants with appropriate skill exist. We are not dealing with inventing a perpetual motion machine here, just redistricting.
I read HB 2420. Is it perfect? No. Do others have more expertise and familiarity of the redistricting process? Yes. Is the bill a significant improvement over the current situation? Yes. Is the current redistricting practice good for democracy? No.
This Is About Making Decisions, Not Playing Trivial Pursuit
I appreciate that elp has read 2420. That distinguishes him from the vast majority of its advocates.
But his blind faith in Legislative Reference Bureau officials he cannot name and in potential redistricting consultants that he chooses not to name is striking. A redistricting plan developed by annonymous unaccountable people of unknown commitments to political and economic interests is hardly a reform in any genuine sense of the word.
The world of political reform did not begin in 2007 when Michael Nutter was elected Mayor. Nor did it begin in 2005 when Seth Williams ran for District Attorney, or in any other recent year. Contrary to the beliefs of many here, there have been numerous reform efforts in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania throughout the 20th Century. I and many of my legislative colleagues have often been participants in them.
The current system is a major reform from the system of deadlocks and one-party partisanship that had dominated the redistrictings in 1954, 1964, and 1966. From 1904 to 1954, there was a 50 year lapse in which no redistricting at all took place for state legislative districts.
Take that you whippersnappers
You know I'm just teasing, Mark. We all know you are OG.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Ummm...
Let's not pretend that our redistricting system was something that sprang from some righteous reform movement. PA was forced to make a change as a result of Baker v. Carr (one man/one vote), and it did so at a flawed constitutional convention heavily weighted toward the Establishment.
Forty years down the road, other "reforms" made during the constitutional revision movement of the 1960's (a product of the Pennsylvania Bar Association) are also proving to be extremely flawed.
That said, the so-called "deadline" for redistricting change is not really a deadline at all. Although the constitution calls for reapportionment after each decennial federal census, nothing prevents additional reapportionments between censuses.
Failing that, the amendment process could be rendered moot by handling redistricting at another convention. A convention such as the one suggested by SB1290 (and at http://www.pacleansweep.com/ccc07.html) could make that happen in time for the 2012 elections, and correct the other problems created in the 1960s.
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
As pure rhetoric
Rep. Cohen's riffing on "square districts" and "square states" is pretty amusing. Legislative districts that twist and turn and stretch across municipal and county boundaries are apparently quite hip and bohemian, Daddy-O.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
If you're worried about the Dems or GOP getting screwed
Redistricting certainly isn't only about State House + Senate seats.
Case in point: after the 2000 Census (or was it 1990- some help here?), the GOP-dominated PA legislature redistricted around Philadelphia specifically to force Bob Borski out of office and, more generally, to reduce Philadelphia's Democratic representation in the US House.
-Z
Congressional Redistricting Backfired For Republicans
I opposed the Congressional redistricting plan that passed the legislature in 2001 or early 2002 precisely because of the effect it had on Bob Borski and Joe Hoeffel, both of whom were placed in the same district, a combination of social liberals, economic liberals, and social conservatives that neither Borski nor Hoeffel felt comfortable with. Borski retired to become a high paid lobbyist in 2002, and Hoeffel retired to run for U.S. Senator (he has since returned to his old position of Montgomery County Commissioner) after a painfully narrow 2002 victory in 2004.
But Allyson Schwartz felt far more comfortable with the district than either Borski or Hoeffel, because she was used to debating a wider range of issues and dealing with a wider range of perspectives than either Borski or Hoeffel. She won the district by 2 to 1 in 2006, after running considerably ahead of Hoeffel's 2002 showing in 2004.
Rick Santorum and the Republicans thought they had a plan to drive Democratic influence in Congress down statewide, but they miscalculated in the long run. By creating many districts with a thin Republican lead based on past voter performance, they laid the basis for Republican decline when Republican voter support for the Bush Administration tanked.
Today, the Democrats have 12 of the 19 seats in the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation, the highest percentage of the seats since the Johnson landslide in 1964. If redistricting was under the Legislative Redistricting Commission, the Democrats would have been better off in 2002 and 2004, but not as well off in 2006 and 2008. Redistricting is hardly an exact science; the public interest is protected by the inherent lack of certainty in political predictions.
It is odd that people who thought that Barack Obama was not a serious candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination are convinced that somehow it is possible for a group of legislative leaders to accurately predict the outcome of nearly three thousand primary and general elections over a ten year period.
On a more substantive note
Isn't the whole idea that redistricting done by the LRB would be contracted out to non-elected political science professors and cartography professors - i.e. as removed from the fray of Harrisburg hierarchy as possible. The whole point sort of comes down to whether you think redistricting should be done by already elected officials for already elected officials, or whether it should be done by non-electeds. Challenging people who fall in the later camp to name a member of the LRB is meaningless. Thats the whole point. Thats what they want - anonymous and owing no favors.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Unclear What The Point of Redistricting By LRB Is
People generally learn who their representatives are by who sends them official mail. It does not take a map to learn who one's representative is. If you get official mail from Representative X, you can be pretty sure that he or she is your representative.
It is totally unclear what the point of redistricting by the Legislative Reference
Bureau is. In the Iowa legislature, where power essentially resides in the legislative staff with transitory part-time short-term legislators who are often figureheads, the Legislative Services Bureau, a multi-service agency much better staffed than the Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau, does all the redistricting work in house. Many advocates claim that they want Pennsylvania redistricting to be as much like Iowa redistricting as possible.
Nothing in one of the most extraordinarily detailed constitutional amendments ever proposed in Pennsylvania--House Bill 2420 may be longer than the federal constitution--gives the Legislative Reference Bureau any ability to contract out its decision-making. None of the legislative advocates, or, to the best of my knowledge, any interest groups except the League of Women Voters, has publicly called for contracting out the redistricting process.
The League of Women voters, however, repeatedly calls for contracting out the redistricting process, but calls for no restrictions on who may be hired, in the constitutional amendment. This is odd because House Bill 2420 sets up an elaborate advisory committee, with many restrictions on its members. It is odd, to say the least, that the advisors have to be vetted for family relationships and political affiliations, but the actual line drawers could be local party chairman or their close allies.
This whole thing is poorly thought out and based on the totally false assumption that the situation now is absolutely terrible and any change, no matter how random or how influenced by special interests, has to be better than the status quo. It is especially hard to see how a plan is going to produce more competitive districts when it bans any consideration of voting patterns in line drawing; competitive districts do not occur by accident.
The fact is that the current system, at the cost of some squiggly lines, fairly represents partisan and racial interests and produces enough competitive districts for party control in the House to change repeatedly since it went into effect in 1971. It also produces plans that are clearly constitutional, so clearly constitutional that not a single challenge was filed in federal court to the state legislative plans in 2001 or 2002. It also limits parochialism and makes legislators more broadly aware of important public issues than they would be if they had districts all within the same geographical unit.
The entire Philadelphia Democratic house delegation has benefitted from the participation in our delegations of Cheltenham Representative Larry Curry, who represents a single Philadelphia election division, and Philadelphia representatives Kathy Manderino, who also represents part of Lower Merion, Ron Waters, who also represents Yeadon, and Ron Donatucci, who also represents Darby Borough and other nearby parts of Delware County.
Representing parts of Philadelphia and other counties broadens perspectives and gives them different perspectives on how things can be done than the Philadelphia delegation would otherwise be exposed to. It leads to greater knowledge of issues and greater potential for alliances, just as Philadelphia gains when members, including myself, serve on the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.
The Point of the LRB Doing the Redistricting Is . . .
Why can't more staff be added to the Legislative Reference Bureau to do the redistricting? While I do not have a problem with using consultants for part of the redistricting work as long as there is some vetting, but if as you and as HB 2420 state the Legislative Reference Bureau should do the work (with no reference to the LRB using consultants), than let them do it with the correct staff. If they need to hire more staff, have them hire more staff with the appropriate background, skills and training.
The process under HB 2420 will still have significant involvement by the House and Senate Leadership as noted by the Legislative Reapportionment Commission, which will include among its five members the majority and minority leaders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives or their deputies. It is not as if the entire process will be done by the Legislative Reference Bureau as some opponents to HB 2420 make it appear. In fact, the Legislative Reapportionment Commission will get the initial plan from the Legislative Reference Bureau and the Commission will review the plan and hold public hearings and can make comments on the plan.
A basic difference is that I do not want partisan interests to be part of the process in redistricting, especially in terms of setting up a Democratic district here and a Republican District there. I want districts that are compact and follow jurisdictional boundaries, not partisan boundaries. As redistricting is done now, even if the parties guess wrong and a Democratic district becomes a Republican district four years later, they still try to create partisan districts that often times make no sense in terms of how they are configured in that under the current system districts are generally not designed from the viewpoint of trying to have districts that best represent people based in large part on trying to be regular and compact in shape and within one jurisdiction.
Also, if the boundaries of legislative districts coincide with the boundaries of political jurisdictions as much as possible as a general rule per HB 2420, the interests of racial groups and other groups will likely be represented.
No one is saying that the current redistricting process is not constitutional, but that it is clearly partisan in nature; does not serve the interests of the voters by having gerrymandered districts; and is a process largely done behind closed doors and in smoke filled rooms. Just because something is constitutional does not mean that it is right or cannot or should not be improved.
While there are benefits to having Representatives and Senators represent two jurisdictions, there are downsides as I mentioned earlier, including the fact that the non-home part of the district will often times be under represented and under served. I would contend that much of the city-suburban cooperation is due to the fact that many of the inner ring Representatives and Senators are now Democrats and that it is a result of the Democratic legislators working together as members of the same party, not because some of them represent districts that are part city and part suburban. I would also contend that using the case of Rep. Curry, it is crazy that a district represents one Philadelphia election division, and that some representatives that are entirely within Philadelphia (e.g. Dwight Evans) do a fine job in reaching across the city border to the suburbs.
In terms of the current district structure in terms of shape and areas included and left out, just how much sense and how fair are PA Rep. Perzel's seat (172) map or Rep. Gerlach's seat (6) map? How much do they (the seats based on their configuration) engage people in the political process or make them feel represented, when many people need to refer to a map, down to the street or block level to determine who it is that is representing them?
Partisan Districts Occur Naturally, But Primaries Count Heavily
Partisan districts occur naturally because the ways of seeing the world and judging political stimuli vary among ethnic groups and social classes. I would like to see anyone here draw a Philadelphia district with a black majority where the Republicans have a chance to win. I would like to see anyone draw a district in Central Pennsylvania where the population is heavily of German descent where the Democrats have a chance to win. Just putting neighborhoods together in a compact fashion hardly guarantees competitive elections.
All the talk about competitive elections ignores primaries. The district now represented by Tom Blackwell is the most heavily Democratic in the state, with roughly 97% or 98% voting Democratic in the vast majority of elections. (No, this is not hyperbole.) Yet incumbent Democrats James Barber (1986), Mike Horsey (2004), and Tom Blackwell (2008) were defeated in Democratic primaries. Three defeated incumbents in a 22 year period should make it one of PA Clean Sweep Leader Russ Diamond's favorite legislative districts.
House Bill 2420 is a solution looking for a rationale. Compactness has nothing to do with competitive districts in general elections or primaries. The emergence of strong candidates or issues disruptive of an incumbent's base of support is hardly predictable on the basis of voter performance data. The bipartisan commission process is totally different from the partisan legislative process for Congressional districts.
Consideration of where incumbents live is banned, but there is no ban on consideration of where wardleaders or other party officials or favored persons live.
How well people feel represented depends on the quality of services provided by the legislators, not on the number of precincts in their communities in a legislative district. The vast majority of the boroughs in Pennsylvania have five election districts or less, and I have not heard any allegation that people in boroughs feel underrepresented. There is not a single local government association, representing boroughs, townships, counties, or cities that has endorsed House Bill 2420.
Representative Curry is an extremely dedicated man who goes out of his way to bond with constituents. A resident of Jenkintown borough, which is less than 10% of his legislative district, he represents two much larger townships, Cheltenham and Springfield, as well as his election division in Philadelphia. I have never heard anyone say they feel unrepresented by him, because out of his way year after year to make himself and his staff responsive to the concerns of each constituent who contacts him, regardless of where that constituent lives.
The legislature votes on very few bills that are broken down by individual community. We do not have separate criminal statutes for Philadelphia and Montgomery County. We have separate medical malpractice laws for Philadelphia and Delaware County. We do not have separate appropriations for scholarships for Philadelphians attending college and Bucks County residents attending college.
The budget is ultimately voted on as a whole. Amendments that are presented are generally for individual programs, not for individual localities. Welfare recipients, food stamp recipients, PACE beneficiaries, etc. get the same amount of money regardless of where they live. Programs apportioning money on the basis of where one lives are few and far between, and often worked out by formulas that attempt to rationalize the distribution of funds.
Even appropriations for specific institutions tend to be for institutions--Penn, Temple, Penn State, Drexel, the University of the Arts, etc.--that serve statewide constituencies. The prime sponsor of House Bill 2420, Rep. Steve Samuelson of Bethlehem, has long been the leading opponent of private universities headquartered in Philadelphia but serving statewide needs, from getting state funds.
Representation is not a pie, neatly divided up among competing groups. It is a process, an attitude, a series of decisions and services that over time defines who a legislator is and how he or she relates to his or her constituency. Larry Curry usually gets the most votes of any state house Democrat in the entire state because he works so hard to serve a well educated and well informed district.
One attack on laws is that are too long, and take too many pages to write. That often occurs because of attention to detail to try to forestall expensive litigation. Every aggrieved person in a redistricting is a potential litigant. I was a litigant myself in 1981-1982. The zigs and the zags that critics cite are often attempts to satisfy potentially aggrieved people so that they not file expensive law suits that cost the taxpayers money, or, in the case of John Perzel, that they not tie up the process in other ways.
Pennsylvania saved about $200,000 in appropriated legal fees because no lawsuits were filed in federal court. The work was done competently and unquestionably constitutionally because the work was done by experienced people with longtime status as legislative staff members who took community interests that transcended geography--race, religion, occupational status most pre-eminently, into account. That contrasts favorably with with Arizona, where racial interests were fundamentally ignored, and where the total legal bill for the redistricting and the litigation still process has passed $6 million continues to head upwards. It also contrasts favorably with the Philadelphia City Council, which took almost a year to redistrict just ten city council districts as a result of disputes over Latino voting rights.
House Bill 2420 is a cut and paste job of the Iowa legislation and other influences that is many cases just plain silly. The advisory commission holds public hearings,and has members carefully screened, but the Legislative Reference Bureau, which actually makes key decisions unlike the advisory commission, holds no public hearings and has no screening of its staff or contractors for possible conflicts of interest.
Elp's concession that perhaps competent staff should be hired by the Legislative Reference Bureau begs the question of why the existing competent staff already on the governmental payroll should not be used.
The eagerness to believe that decisions which, in retrospect, are criticized can be prevented by some Rube Goldberg like series of changes is worthy of study and reflection. Perhaps if the League of Women Voters, or Common Cause, or the Inquirer, had taken the trouble to criticize them at the time,at the public hearings held after the plan was first presented, they would have been changed. Instead, the predominant sentiment in 2001-2002 was relief that the districts had been redistricted on time, with minimal litigation, and under budget.
No matter what decisions governmental officials make, people have a right to citicize them. But it was better for Jimmy Carter to be criticized for seven American hostages being taken than for George Bush to be criticized for over 4000 Americans being killed and many thousands more suffering lifetime damage from irreparable wounds.
And it is better to be criticized for some zig zag lines than for spending over $6 million dollars, or for failing to meet deadlines, or for failing to end the process in a timely manner, or for violating the constitution, or for ignoring the civil rights of minorities. The critisms of the current system are of far lesser urgency than the serious risks posed by House Bill 2420.
Let's Consider Rep. Cohen's Own District...
Four of Seven Wards In My District in 1971, Six of Seven in 1981
Four of the seven wards in my legislative district--17, 42, 49, 6l-- were placed there in the 1971 redistricting, before I was elected. I tried mightily to keep my district limited to those four wards in the 1981 redistricting, but I was faced with the loss of population in surrounding districts, the need of nearby legislators to gain population, and the willingness of Rep. Roland Greenfield, near my district but not bordering my district, to retire.
My district was then expanded--despite my filing a lawsuit which lost by a 4-3 vote in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court--to include parts of wards 23, 35, and 53. I absorbed parts of Rep. Greenfield's district, Rep. (now Judge) Chris Wogan's district, and Rep. (later Congressman) Bob Borski's district. In 1991, a division of Ward 62 was also added from Rep. John Perzel's district.
In 2001, due to the federally legally required goals of discriminating neither for nor against minorities, but considering how redistricting plans affect their representation, the district now represented by Tony Payton surrendered territory to adjacent legislators but picked up territory from me and Rep. Marie Lederer, who was pulled into Center City as increasing Center City population shrunk the districts there. Payton's district thus remained a district that could elect a black or Latino.
I therefore surrendered my territory in wards 23 and 62 and picked up new territory in Ward 56 from retiring legislator Wogan and Rep. (now Controller) Alan Butkovitz. Butkovitz's district had to shrink because this very heavily senior citizen district was seeing its residents vacate their homes for young families; the effect of this was to require the district to be gegraphically smaller than it had been previously.
In communities where there are no voting rights issues, and the population gain is similar to the small regular population gains of the state, little or no changes in district lines get made over time. In communities, such as Philadelphia, where the widescale presence of minorities covered by the Voting Rights Act forces attention to voting rights issues, and consistent citywide population declines--declines that existed in all but three of the 27 Philadelphia House districts created in 1991-- force districts to get larger with every redistricting, districts like mine are inevitable.
Funny you should mention the 190th
Horsey's defeat was very much engineered by Tomas Blackwell's stepmother Councilwman Jannie Blackwell, who as district councilperson for a good chunk of the district was able to bring a heavy hand of support to her stepson. In terms of this year Tommie didn't actually lose a conventional primary race (although as a supporter of Vanessa Brown's I wish we could say that). He failed dramatically on getting enough valid signatures to be on the ballot and his feeble attempts to organize a write-in were pretty much doomed in a year when PA's role in the presidential primary had such an impact on voter turnout.
Beyond that, as someone who spent a little time around that race, I really have to question how much folks in the 190th feel that districting lines are working in their interest. The bulk of the district is in West Phildelphia but an odd shaped sliver jumps over the Schuykill into Brewerytown, rides up along the eastern edge of Fairmount Park through the part of Strawberry Mansion closest to the park, through Allegheny West/Tioga and finally reaching up into a sliver of East Falls. This district.
Basically although its a district thats incredibly homogenous in terms of being predominantly poorer, blacker and more Democratic than any other district in the state of PA, lots of folks on the east side of the river feel that their representation starting with Horsey (when the last redistricting happened) has historically suffered because the odd shape of the district. African Americans in Tioga may have a lot of shared interests with African Americans at 58th and Larchwood but in a district where the level of poverty means "constituent service, constituent service, constituent service" the idea of hauling yourself over to West Philly to get to your state rep's office is considered a real pain in the ass. Generally the version I got from various folks on the east side of the river is that Horsey never really adapted to the redistricting in terms of reaching across to their neighborhoods, that Blackwell did somewhat better (but still not enough better by far), and that they have high hopes for even better from Vanessa Brown. Some specifically mention that they think it would make more sense for them to be able to tap into state reps serving neighboring districts in terms of neighborhood issues. Horsey for his part supposedly feels that the change in the district was done specifically to undermine a political base in western University City and to make him more vulnerable to Blackwell.
Anyhoo, rather than an ideal example of enlightened redistricting, I have to say I heard from a whole bunch of folks in the 190th that they were concerned the shape of the district had specifically negatively impacted the quality of their representation.
But thanks for reminding me of something I promised I would do.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Follow-up
Following your logic re: the nature of legislation generally, then we might as well simply line up all the voters in PA and have them count off like we used to do in high school gym class - except instead of two teams, we'd be picking 203. Or 50. or 19.
There is a distinct reason that communities should intentionally not be broken up. Monroe County being served by 6 different Senators, none of whose Monroe County contingent makes up the majority of their total constituency, leaves the Monroe County community out in the cold.
Pennsylvanians deserve to pick their representatives. Representatives should not be picking their voters.
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
Horsey, Above, Claims He Didn't Pick His Voters
Mr. Luigi, above, claims Representative Michael Horsey did not like the redistricting plan, which he felt hurt him.
Russ Diamond, above, says the problem with the redistricting plan is that politicians pick their voters.
These statements are inconsistent. They are examples of the way redistricting can be blamed for whatever happens. Voters, not redistricters, ultimately decide who shall represent them.
West Philadelphia and North Philadelphia are not foreign countries. Rep. Frank Oliver has long represented parts of North Philadelphia and West Philadelphia without any sign of resentment from either part. When Blackwell defeated Horsey, he battled Horsey to a draw in Horsey's West Philadelphia "stronghold." Horsey had made the mistake of labeling himself a "conservative Democrat" in what may the most liberal Democratic district in the state by policy preference if not by ideological orientation.
Logical Thoughts on Redistricting
Some logical thoughts:
1. Perhaps Michael Horsey would have received a different vote total if his district was not so gerrymandered. He may have received more votes, fewer votes or the same number of votes with a properly drawn and non gerrymandered district or even in a gerrymandered district with different boundaries and different voters.
2. As someone sets the boundaries of districts, someone does effectively pick the voters by determining who will be a voter in which district. If the boundaries are picked in an unbiased way and reflect a regularly shaped district and not a gerrymandered district there will be less potential for shaping a district to help or hurt a candidate or to help or hurt a party.
3. The Blackwell/Horsey district is an exception to the rule that the vast majority of the districts have no significant if any challengers in the primary or general elections, a situation that is largely caused by gerrymandering and politicizing the shape and configuration of districts to discourage competition.
Fair enough - the 190th
The point of my post regarding the 190th is that while an example of a district where certainly perhaps uniquely in the entire state of Pennsylvania there are a lot of shared economic interests and African American cultural traditions, as Rep. Cohen noted earlier, just the simple geographic divide alone between the two sections was frequently cited by neighborhood residents, activists, even sometimes posters on this forum (offline) as an issue of concern about the district. It was noted in my impression as an issue regardless of the speakers' positive or negative impressions of Horsey, Blackwell or Vanessa Brown. I tried to remove any obvious political tilt for or against Horsey, Blackwell, or Brown (while noting my personal support of Brown) and just point out how the sheer physical spread of the district I heard mentioned repeatedly in the short amount of time I spent around the Vanessa Brown campaign. I certainly was not attempting to carry any specific political water for Horsey. Many people have mixed and differeing takes on Horsey's tenure - I was just repeating what I had heard indirectly was his take on his loss related to redistricting - those comments may well be sour grapes - I honestly don't know.
So yes I agree, West Philadelphia and North Philadelphia are not separate countries but my point was that there is a case to be made even in this instance that more compact districts that follow natural geographic boundaries were considered by many in some way beneficial, or at least more convenient.
Its interesting to note that one of the Vanessa Brown's campaign events posted about on this very forum was designed in part to literally "bridge" that geographic divide.
Anyhoo, back to the more general debate - i.e. "officials picking their voters" versus "voters picking their elected officials". Oh and of course any opinions I express here about redistricting or any other topic are my own and my own alone, FWIW.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Stop Using Exceptions to the Rules and Other Excuses and Tricks
Obviously some districts that are partisan in occur naturally, other districts are gerrymandered to create or strengthen partisan districts. My issue is why is there a need to intentionally create a partisan district through gerrymandering? The only reasons can be to reward or punish an elected officials, candidates, political parties or classes of people.
By pulling out an exception like the Tom Blackwell district to prove a point all you are doing is using an exception to prove a point; an exception to a rule, practice or outcome is just that. Obviously there have been and are unusual circumstances where incumbents lose, they are known as exceptions.
I do not see how or why a local government would get involved in actively supporting or endorsing HB 2420 as it does not impact the operation of the local government or the delivery of services in a way that would cause them to take a position on a hot button issue.
I know Larry Curry and do not want to get into a long conversation about him; he is not the issue in this discussion. All I will say about Rep. Curry is that he serves in a district that is heavily Democratic, that plus the fact that he does get out and about, can be viewed as being responsive, comes across as being amiable, and the fact that he often times has nominal or no opposition in elections, such as in this year's primary and general election are causes for him getting a lot of votes. That being said, redistricting is the issue, not Larry Curry or Tom Blackwell.
There can be a lot of reasons as to why no federal lawsuits were not filed, ranging from luck to disinterest to the skill of staff members when they gerrymandred many of the districts. As a scientific study cannot be done, we will never know the reasons and factors. That being said, just because there may have been no civil rights issues with the way districts were apportioned in the last go around, it does not mean that there were not other problems or that gerrymandering is the right thing to do.
I would assume and hope that the Legislative Reference Bureau already screens its employees and has conflict of interest rules. If not, they should. Perhaps that is something Rep. Cohen can work on. The LRB staff will work under the rules and guidelines in HB 2420. There will be public hearings later and a chance to revise of change their findings. I do not see why they also need to have hearings before they develop their preliminary districts.
On 5/29/08 Rep. Cohen stated "The Legislative Reference Bureau are a bunch of people competent in drafting bills in accordance with legal requirements, issuing official citations, and publishing state regulations. They have no experience in statistical analysis, social science research, map drawing, litigation in any field, or constitutional law." If there are not qualified staffers at the LRB to do redistricting, hire them. If there are already qualified staffers there use them. If there are qualified staffers elsewhere in PA government and you want to get them reassigned to the LRB, reassign them there. You cannot have it both ways by saying we have qualified staffers and saying we do not have qualified staffers.
Gerrymandering instead of doing redistricting correctly because it costs a nominal amount of money in the grand scheme of things is wrong. If it costs $6 million every ten years to do reapportionment than spend it from the rainy day fund, by cutting services elsewhere or by raising more revenue. I really do not care how it how it is done, just stop putting up excuses as hurdles. How would passing HB 2420 and following it violate the constitution? There is a schedule in HB 2420 that has provisions for requiring and forcing decisions being made in cases where timetables are not met. How would HB 2420 ignore the civil rights of minorities? As Rep. Cohen noted, most neighborhoods and communities share demographic characteristics. HB 2420 by not gerrymandering would make civil rights charges for lack of representation unlikely.
A Duty To Gather Information Under Federal Civil Rights Law
One cannot avoid federal civil rights law by refusing to collect information.
All states with enough concentrated minorities to elect legislators of their choice have a duty not to discriminate for or against such minorities, and a duty to be aware of whether or not districts that are created can, based on past experience, back minority-backed candidates.
Being able to answer that question requires consulting prior election returns. Being barred from consulting prior election returns in the context of minority voting rights is a violation of federal rights law in and of itself. That fact obviously encourages litigation. Anyone aggrieved by a lack of minorities in his or her legislative district can sue, and it seems obvious that there will be far fewer aggrieved people at the end of the process if the key legal question of minority ability to elect their candidate of choice can be considered throughout the redistricting process than there would be if it cannot be considered at all outside the federal courts.
In addition, the federal cases on gerrymandering rely heavily on past election data. The federal courts have never invalidated a plan solely for gerrymandering, but they did force amendments to Pennsylvania's Congressional plan in 2002 for failing to have districts of exactly identical population when it was possible to do so. The case was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of gerrymandering, and Justices Souter and Breyer extensive interrograted the lawyers for the plaintiffs about prior election statistics.
Just as in civil rights law, election returns are the key element of analysis in gerrymandering cases. Odd shaped districts may (or may not be) be the symptom of gerrymandering for partisan advantage, but the key way to to test whether it is or is not gerrymandering is through prior voting returns. In the situtation named after Massachusetts Governor (later Thomas Jefferson's Vice President) Elbridge Gerry, the fundamental grievance was not the shape of the districts, but the fact that a Federalist majority state had been gerrymandered to give the Democratic Republicans of Thomas Jefferson and Elbridge Gerry a majority of the legislative seats.
Federal civil rights law limits our degree to get full Democratic representation because we have to maintain many majority black and Latino districts the ability of black and Latino voters to elect their candidates of choice. If Barack Obama's popularity leads to a long-term increase in white people voting for the candidates of choice of black and Latino voters, then Democratic legislative strength around the country could be somewhat increased. Many of the voters in virtually 100% black districts are not needed to elect the black community's candidates of choice, and could be better deployed in other districts to the extent allowed by geographical limitations and other legal limitations.
So Collect and Analyze the Data
Collect the data and consult it for voting data. Have the boundaries not be gerrymandered. The goal of a democracy in terms of defining district boundaries and of reapportionment is not to elect Democratic candidates but to have districts that make sense and do not give a benefit to a party or a candidate as a primary goal in how they are shaped. If your goal is to elect Democratic candidates, do that through proper means, not through the redistricting process. As you know, there are districts in PA that are gerrymandered and shaped to benefit the Democratic or Republic party or to benefit or hurt certain candidates.
Easley v. Cromartie did not state that district boundaries needed to be gerrymandered, but that they could be gerrymandered. This does not make gerrymandering the morally correct thing to do nor does it state that you have to gerrymander. No one is saying to have districts that are different in population size. As you stated in your history lesson, the goal of gerrymandering by Gerry was to give a party a majority of seats. Congratulations in that that is what the Democrats have accomplished in the PA House and the GOP has accomplished in the PA Senate by gerrymandering. Gerry would be proud.
I honestly cannot believe that your tunnel vision view of electing Democratic candidates trumps everything including good democracy and the overall rights of the citizens to have fair districts not decided based on partisan politics. Your logic of effectively disenfranchising and using Black voters to a political party's advantage by shifting some of them to other districts as "Many of the voters in virtually 100% black districts are not needed to elect the black community's candidates of choice, and could be better deployed in other districts" is a sad position in terms of democracy and fairness.
Banning Use of Data A Key Part of House Bill 2420
Banning use of election data is a key part of House Bill 2420. As far as I know, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, and those who follow them would strongly denounce any allowance of election data. This appears to be a vital issue for them as it is for those on the other side, such as myself, who give a high priority to civil rights.
If elp is a person active in Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, or is one of those who help fund these organizations, he or she should talk to them about their position on this issue. It is impossible to engage in negotiations with an annonymous poster who gives no information about his or her identity either publicly or privately, but obviously feels he or she has a large stake in this issue. I would welcome a chance to talk to Elp if he or she would identify himself or herself to me.
Elp and I obviously disagree about what gerrymandering is. I think gerrymandering is the abuse of political line drawing to discriminate against a political party or legally protected group. Elp seems to believe gerrymandering is basically the creation of odd-shaped districts, and that issues of minority rights are, at best, second tier concerns. Neither Elp nor Common Cause nor the League of Women Voters has presented any detailed analysis showing either political party or any group of voters suffers systematic underrepresentation over time as a result of Pennsylvania's redistricting systems.
I believe that the way to limit abuses is empower contending political parties, and other groups with legal rights, as well as ordinary citizens. As citizen in 1971, I helped oppose the first draft of a redistricting plan for the 202nd District, and helped convince my predessessor Eugene Gelfand to seek changes in it. There are other similar citizen success stories in every redistricting.
The June 23, 2008 legal deadline for advertising the first legislative passage of a constitution amendment on redistricting to take place for the 2011 redistricting clearly will not be met. But the concerns raised about the shapes of districts will certainly be considered when the 2011 and 2012 line-drawings occur, along with the new realities created by the 2010 Census and the 2008 and 2010 election returns.
I am Not a Member of Common Cause or the LWV
In response to Rep. Cohen's request for more information about myself, I am not a member of Common Cause or the League of Women Voters. I am someone who is active in my community in a number of ways. I have a large stake in this issue as a citizen with a strong belief in good government and in an open government that works towards the common good and not the betterment of a political party or of individuals. A number of reasons, including a desire to remain anonymous as is offered as an option on this site, preclude me for offering more information about myself. I appreciate the Representative's offer to talk with me about this issue in another venue, but do not want to do so for reasons related to maintaining my anonymity.
Elbridge Gerry Correction And Footnote
Elbridge Gerry was James Madison's Vice-President, not Thomas Jefferson's. Gerry was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation. He was a delegate to the constitutional convention that adopted the U.S. Constitution, but declined to sign that document in protest of the lack of a bill of rights. He then served as a representative in Congress before being elected Governor of Massachusetts.
The Federalists soon went out of existence all over the country, allowing President James Monroe to run unopposed in the "Era of Good Feeling." But the Federalists did elect a Governor of Massachusetts and defeated Gerry for re-election with the gerrymander an issue before his election as Vice-President later in the year. Rick Santorum was similarly hurt by Democratic anger at the 2002 redistricting plan, although ironically the plan turned out to be in the long range interests of the Democrats because of changes--which some Democratic Congress members predicted--in voter behavior favoring Democrats.
The Democrats of 1812 obviously did not consider Gerry a scandal-ridden figure when Madison, the primary author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, tapped him for the post and proceeded to win the Presidential election with him as a runningmate. Perhaps the Boston newspaper that coined the term was considered the Democrat-bashing Fox News of its day.
His grandson served as a Democratic Congressman in Maine, and his great grandson was a Democratic U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, that last Gerry political career not ending until 1947, about 135 years years after the 1811-1812 redistricting that gave gerrymandering its name.
Elbridge Gerry, Cryptologist
Elbridge Gerry was also one of George Washington's officers in the Continental Army. He was picked by Washington as one of the three cryptologists to tackle the American traitor, Dr. Church's cipher note to the British. So Elbridge can also be seen as one of the founders of the National Security Agency back in the Yankee Doodle days.
Some Context...
Responding to Mark Cohen
Following Mark Cohen’s torturous logic and fallacious arguments is practically a full time job. I’m not going to able to untwist every argument and point out every fallacy today.
But I want to make a start
Why might redistricting reform hurt democrats?
Cohen’s first point is that redistricting reform will create competitive districts which cost more money and the Republican s have more money than Democrats.
In response:
1. Competitive districts will help Democrats in Pennsylvania because we will never retake the Senate so long as the districts are drawn to benefit Republican Senators.
2. Yes competition requires money. But Democrats nationally have shown that they can equal the money raised by Republicans if they have inspiring candidates. Competitive districts would encourage more and better candidates to run in districts all over the state.
3. Even if we can’t raise as much money, we often have the advantage of numbers provided we try to motivate people to come to the polls. And competitive races, with good candidates, are likely to bring more people to the polls. As Cohen himself has pointed out in other contexts, incumbents generally do better in low turnout elections.
4. As Sean points out below, compact districts are cheaper to campaign in.
5. The answer to the problems of reform is usually more reform. If Ds have a disadvantage in money, the answer is campaign finance limits and public financing. Mark Cohen and Babette Josephs don’t favor those ideas either, for the same reason they don’t favor redistricting reform. Their fundamental concern is not with electing progressives or electing Democrats but, rather, with protecting their own seats and those of their fellow incumbents.
Cohen’s second is that drawing compact districts would cost Ds seats in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties.
But this is wrong because districts that minimize the splitting of counties does not mean that there can’t be more than one Senate district per county or that districts can never cross a county line. That might have been the result before the Supreme Court required districts with roughly the same population. Now that this constitutional requirement is in place, urban counties are not going to lose representation.
It is possible that under 2420 we might lose one seat that includes Philadelphia and a portion of the suburbs as the Philadelphia portions of those seats are combined into one. Is that really so awful? If we protect the local political entities in Montco and Delco we are likely to have more D leaning and competitive suburban districts. And some of them will be centered in the inner suburbs that have problems similar to those of Philadelphia.
Cohen’s third point, that 2420 bans the use of partisan considerations in drawing districting also confuses the issue. Supporters of 2420 contend that, after numerical equality, the primary basis for drawing districts should be to keep county and local political entities intact. We believe, again that this is likely to have the consequence of increasing competition as compared to the current system which draws district lines to protect incumbents. This is a good thing for reasons Ive explained. We could design a system that maximized competition. But increasing competition is not the sole goal of 2420 but the third priority after numerical equality and protecting local political entities.
Why not try to maximize competition? A system that maximizes political competition would be one that always sought to increase the chances of defeating incumbents. That isn’t an ideal system either because, as Cohen would be the first to tell you, we gain a lot from having experience legislators.
The point, then, is to balance a number of competing ideals in designing a redistricting system not to pursue one goal to the exclusion of others. I don’t know if 2420 is the best way to do that. I’m not sure that the process in the bill is best. But the goals of the bill are admirable and much better than the current system whose sole goal is to protect incumbents. Cohen is being disingenuous in arguing that the ban on considering partisanship will make it harder to create competitive districts. That ban exists because without it, our self-seeking state legislators will corrupt any redistricting system to protect themselves.
If Babette Josephs says she wants reform but doesn’t want the LRB to take charge of redistricting, then she should propose a better alternative that attains the same goals.
Both Josephs And I Support Public Financing
Both Josephs and I support public financing.
House Bill 2420 makes not a single mention of the creation of competitive districts as a goal despite likely being the wordiest constitutional amendment ever introduced in Pennsylvania.
House Bill 2420 sets forth a formula that will inevitably cost both Philadelphia and Allegheny County State Senate seats and not cost a single Republican county a State Senate seat.
The argument that the Democrats will gain State Senate seats as a result of House Bill 2420 is based far more on wishful thinking than anything else.
Its interesting to note
That on the Phillyblog thread discussing this thread (how's that for "meta") every single poster besides Rep. Cohen is a registered Republican. They all take their shots in at Rep. Cohen, but they all oppose the bill (with the exception of Russ). Make of it what you will.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Republicans Are A Small (And Declining) Minority In Philadelphia
Republicans are a small and declining minority in Philadelphia. I think we have reached the point where there are more Latinos in Philadelphia than there are Republicans; there have long been far more Democrats, and far more blacks in Philadelphia, and far more labor union members in Philadelphia, than there are Republicans.
The current process gives some protection to the rights of political minorities such as Philadelphia Republicans as well as to racial minorities such as blacks and Latinos. The infamously shaped Perzel district is an example of affirmative action for Republicans. I accept it as part of a process which values other minorities as well.
Sounds like an anti-trust
Sounds like an anti-trust situation to me... :D
You thought you knew. Now you do.
Tip of the Spear
Rep. Cohen, can you explain
Rep. Cohen, can you explain why you believe Republicans - or any political group for that matter - are entitled to affirmative action?
For sake of clarity, I'll define "political group" to be an association that is NOT based upon an immutable characteristic.
Republicans Preserved Minority Seats, Were Generally Cooperative
The Republican Party agreed to preserve each of the fifteen racial minority seats in the Philadelphia area, and accepted communities of interest involving Philadelphia Democrats that crossed country lines. The Perzel district was agreed to in the context of Republicans accepting the legitimacy of Democratic concerns in discussions with me, Democratic redistricting expert Scott Casper, and Democratic members.
While the Perzel district looks terrible on a map, it is only a short drive from one end of the district to another. The Perzel district lines were agreed to in the context of the Republicans agreeing to move the seat of Republican Chris Wogan to Monroe County, obviating the need to move a Democratic district. The Democratic lead in Philadelphia rose from 22 to 5 to 22 to 4. With the expected victory of Democratic candidate Brendan Boyle for the seat being vacated by George Kenney, the Democrats should rise to at least a 23 to 3 lead in the Philadelphia delegation.
With the Perzel seat drawn the way it was, the Republicans had four Philadelphia seats out of 26, or 15.4% of the citywide total. This was less than the Republican percentage of the city registration at the time, although more than the % of the city registration now. Republican leader Michael Meehan was not happy with the deal Perzel agreed to. With Boyle's likely victory, the Republican percentage of the Philadelphia delegation will fall to 11.5%, even less than the current record low % of registration for the Republicans.
And it cannot be certain that the Republicans will hold on to the last three seats. House Speaker Dennis O'Brien, for the first time in his career, sought the Democratic nomination this year and got it. He has hired staff on a bipartisan basis. He is not the partisan he once was. He has regularly voted with the Democrats this year, having won election as Speaker with 99 Democratic votes.
As for Perzel, he faced the prospect of a hotly contested primary for the Democratic nomination for his seat this year. It is a traditional sign of difficulty for incumbents when the opposition party has a primary fight for what is usually a dubious honor of opposing an incumbent. Perzel's allies shocked many when they tried to intervene in the primary for the more liberal candidate who, at least theoretically, was easier to beat. The Perzel-backed veteran Perzel basher lost, however, giving Perzel the race he did not want against a conservative Democrat with strong law and order credentials.
It has long been an accepted feature of government in Philadelphia that the political minority is entitled to participate in government. The City Charter guarantees two at large seats to the minority party, which they would never once have won without that guarantee. The City Charter guarantees the minority party one of the three seats on the Philadelphia City Commissioners. Informally, the Republicans are given City Council staff, consideration of their bills,mayoral appointees, and some Republican candidates for judge are supported by the Democratic Party.
Any form of negotiation produces mixed results. But the House redistricting plan for Philadelphia aroused little controversy at the time it was enacted in 2001. In 2004, Perzel's opponent Tim Kearney made an issue out of the district lines, and got 25% of the vote. Kearney found other issues in opposition to Perzel in 2006, and got 30% of the vote while spending less money and less time campaigning.
The Republicans have no legal rights to a single house seat in Pennsylvania. Nor do the Democrats. Both parties though have a right to fairness through the first and fourteenth amendments to the federal constitution, and the plan for Philadelphia enacted in 2001 is fair.
Gerrymandering is just a form of control for the legislature
There is no reason a citizen wants a gerrymandered district. Even the excuse that it provides districts for minorities is suspicious. Districts draw with public input and with neighborhoods considered would provide fair representation. What we have in Pennsylvania is embarrassing and disgusting. It fractures neighborhoods (Rep Cohen's district sometimes has alternating streets in and out of his district!) and helps politicians by confusing the public. It is a form of control by leadership on the newer members of congress. Visit http://killgerrymander.wordpress.com/ to help change Pennsylvania, if it's not to late.