|
First of all, each issue amends the constitution with as much as 4-5 pages of minute detail about how very good principles should be implemented. When there are the inevitable “boo-boos” or unintended consequences in the implementation, they are extremely difficult to fix since it requires another statewide vote. Implementation details are best left to statutes, rather than amendments (which act as superlaws - not easily fixed or clarified by any means other than another statewide election).
But – a detailed superlaw is exactly what the authors intended – and they drafted exactly what they expect to be permanently in place. Unfortunately, on a quick read I found a number of potential unintended consequences which I certainly don’t want permanently embedded in my constitution.
Here is just one:
The competitive redistricting process is based on a two-party system, with potential districts evaluated for competitiveness based on the top two parties statewide.
Imagine, if you will, that Rev. Parsley (who brought us the marriage discrimination amendment last year, so don't underestimate him) creates his own "Christocrat" party (he currently refers to himself that way). The Republican Party splits between traditional conservatives and neocons.
On a statewide basis, Republicans get 35%, Christocrats get 33% and Democrats get 32%, meaning redistricting will be evaluated based solely on competitiveness between Republicans and Christocrats. Further imagine that in the last election before redistricting, in the district in which you live Republicans get 40 % of the vote, Christocrats get 10%, and Democrats get 50%. An ideologically competitive district, generally speaking, between liberals and conservatives.
For purposes of determining competitiveness, the Democratic votes are tossed out, so the district is treated as if it were 80% Republican, 20% Christocrats – and must be redrawn to include more Christocrats in order to be competitive, based on the mandated party balance (or if boundaries cannot be redrawn a balancing heavily Christocratic district must be created elsewhere in the state). I don’t know about you, but that is not the result I would want in that district which is already fairly well balanced from an ideological standpoint.
P.S. to those who have suggested that the issues couldn’t possibly have failed of their own weight, this is actually a simplified description of the redistricting process. The process for appointing the bipartisan committee is even more convoluted, and is also prone to unintended consequences.
Personally, I’m not absolutely convinced competitive redistricting is the best way to go in a state with pockets that are heavily Democratic and other pockets that are heavily Republican, but I would be willing to try it (in principle). Even if you are absolutely committed to competitiveness as a principle for redistricting, this amendment had the potential to blow up in unintended ways and not even create competitive districts.
I voted against this amendment, as did more than half of the liberal friends I spoke with after the election. Prior to reading the language (less than 24 hours ahead of the election), many of these same individuals were at least leaning toward voting Yes.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
