GOP Looks to Redistrict Itself Back Into Power

[mod mom]

GOP Looks To Redistrict Itself Back Into Power

July 7, 2008 08:51 AM

For months, a sense of dread has been percolating within Republican circles over potentially massive congressional losses in 2008. Facing the possibility of a more pronounced minority status in the House and more than a couple seats lost in the Senate, the GOP has begun setting its sights on a contingency plan: redistricting.

Republican officials now believe that the party's best hope for retaking seats in Congress may come during gubernatorial elections in 2010. Should the GOP win back the majority of these seats (Democrats currently occupy 28 state capitols), they would be extremely well positioned to influence the redistricting of the political map that will come after the 2010 census.

"The 2010 elections are almost as important or equally important as the elections this year. After redistricting in 2011, the governors are going to have a huge influence in determining the political makeup of this country," said Chris Schrimpf, a spokesman for the Republican Governors Association. "We could feasibly see 25 to 30 congressional seats swing as the result of redistricting. And the state legislatures and governor could determine that swing. Can the National Republican Congressional Committee make a statement like that with a straight face? It would be harder for them."

The suggestion that the elections of 2010 could be as important as those in 2008 may seem like hyperbole or distraction from a Republican Party bracing for big losses. But Democratic officials are also smarting to the premise. One insider, who described the idea as a "pretty sad reflection of the Republican Party's state of affairs," nevertheless conceded that it was on everyone's radar.

-snip

Of course, in almost every state, the legislative chambers will have a say into how the congressional districts are re-drawn. And in this regard the governor's power is limited. Oftentimes, in fact, redistricting plans get sent to state courts to adjudicate disagreements.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/07/gop-looks-to-redistrict-i_n_110632.html

SOUNDS LIKE MORE GERRYMANDERING MIGHT BE IN OUR FUTURE IF THE GOP GETS THEIR WAY!

[ColbertWatcher]

1. Whenever the GOP is losing, they change the rules. n/t

[gratuitous]

2. Whistling past the graveyard

But that's fine with me. Looks like the Republicans are reduced to the pool player's equivalent of "spray and pray," because running on the issues sure as hell isn't going to work for them.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

3. Gerrymandering needs to be outlawed. Period.

Whether it's our side doing it or theirs. Currently, the vast majority of Congressional and state legislative districts in the country are non-competitive, meaning they are "safe" for the incumbent party.

[mod mom]

4. As someone gerrymandered into a Republican district-I fully agree!

There were voter initiative in Ohio in 2005 that addressed this issue but alas Blackwell was SOS and there was a remarkable flip from 60-40 to 40 -60 that helped defeat the issue.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

6. And as someone who is (finally) in a more competitive district

I think it's much healthier for democracy. My Dem Congressman, Harry Mitchell, unseated JD Hayworth after 8 terms. In my state lege district, we have a competitive race going and will probably pick up at least one of the 3 available seats. This fortunate happenstance is the result of new registrations and I worry that we'll be redistricted into a less equitable situation in 2010.

[Cosmocat]

7. I was watching our PA C-Span type channel ...

a couple months ago ...

PA has some of the most embarrasingly gerrymandered districts in the country, and it is a live issue here ... The House just flipped by one seat to Ds, the Senate is safely R, and Rendell is Governor ... So, some real grass roots push for legislation now that would effect how districts are drawn after the census ...

Anyway, they had two D Reps on ... One a machine type from Philly and other a reform type from a suburban district ... The Philly guy was just flat embarassing ... Flat out said that districts SHOULD be drawn based on POLITICAL reasoning by the top four house/senate members, with no ability by the rest of the caucauses to interject in the process, the way it is now ... The reformer was pushing for an evenly spit committee to develop the proposals ...

Happy to say, I called, told the reformer to keep fighting the good fight, and told the Philly knucklhead his position was "horrible" and "the kind of thinking that keeps things from getting done in Harrisburg" ... He didn't like it ONE bit, but I had my say ...

[Cleita]

9. I second that.

I got gerrymandered from a Democratic district to a Republican one the last time. I think districts should be divided up geographically, period.

[izquierdista]

10. Outlaw it with some simple rules

It could be as simple as saying that the redistricting plan with the smallest total perimeter be adopted. In this age of computers, that would not be a difficult exercise to program. It would also defeat the Repubs favorite trick, running a district along a highway, picking up all the poor and working class districts along the way, so that they can group all the Democrats in one place.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

13. I've seen what you're talking about.

There was an effort here in AZ to put a fair districting initiative on the ballot which would create compact, and more competitive districts in the state legislature. Unfortunately they couldn't raise enough funds to mount a campaign.

[sui generis]

5. we could solve America's energy crisis by using Republicans for biofuel.

in fact, the direct reduction of hot air would probably reverse global warming too.

[anigbrowl]

8. In fairness, both parties do it.

Me, I think there should be larger multi-seat districts with proportional representation. But I'm a Euro so obviously I would think that.

[mod mom]

11. Here is some background on the Ohio Initiative that was defeated in '05:

The California and Ohio Redistricting Plans Compared

Travis McDade
Assistant Professor of Library Administration, University of Illinois




Voters in two bellwether states - Ohio and California - will vote this November on significant amendments to the way their state is divided up for the sake of elections. In each state the amendment in question claims to put some fundamental fairness back into elections by taking the redistricting power out of the hands of partisan politicians. And in each state the party in power - Republicans in Ohio, Democrats in California - is the most vocal opponent. But there the similarities end. The Ohio and California plans differ greatly in their construction and in the impact their passage might have on voters.

One year after California saw none of the 153 seats up for election switch party hands the voters of that state have to decide whether to try something new. The purpose of Proposition 77 (called "The Voter Empowerment Act") is similar to that of Issue 4 in Ohio : keep politicians from drawing the political map in their favor. But the process by which such change would take place is quite different.

Proposition 77 calls for the California legislature to appoint a panel of "Special Masters" to adopt a plan of redistricting based on population demographics of the most recent census - usually this would take place every ten years but the first such process would take place immediately after passage. The Special Masters would be chosen from a pool of 24 retired California (state or federal) judges none of whom can have held elected partisan office or pursue any such office for a period of five years. Both major parties would have equal representation in the pool of judges. That pool of judges would be further winnowed to 12 and then to 8 in this way: the minority and majority leader in each house of the legislature would select three names apiece for inclusion in the final pool; each of those four legislators would then get to excise one judge apiece from the pool. Of these remaining 8, lots would be chosen for the final 3 Special Masters, one of whom would have to be a selection of a different major party than the other two.

This is the part of Proposition 77 that takes up the most ink. In the California plan it is the selection of these Special Masters whose role it will be to do the redistricting that is of most concern. It is also this aspect of the plan that gets the most criticism. Opponents routinely claim that their state will be redistricted by unelected old white men (the demographic into which retired judges most often fall).

The Ohio plan - Issue 4 - also takes seriously the role of neutral panel in the redistricting process but not nearly to this extent. That is largely because in the Ohio plan the emphasis is placed on the process by which the new, most competitive map will be drawn, not on the neutral arbiters who will judge the map. (For an explanation of the Issue 4 formula, see here.) So the criticism most often voiced by opponents of Issue 4 is that the complicated formula will not make Ohio districts look any less ridiculous than they do now.

In Ohio the neutral body is an extension of the plan designed to judge the integrity of the process. In California it is the development of the neutral body that is the process. That is, the Ohio plan puts the most effort into the formula out of which a competitive Ohio map will come; once a map is created that is deemed the most competitive according to the formula, it is presumed to be the prevailing plan. California puts the most emphasis on the neutrality of the body that will develop such a map; once these Special Masters are appointed, they go about the process of creating the redistricted map.

-snip
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/election2005/051031.php

[Cleita]

12. That's true and I would like it to stop.

My utopian ideal is that we do it as a true democracy. Every citizen should be required to serve two years as their civic duty. The choosing would be by lottery like doing jury duty. I know there would be a lot of nut cases that would serve but also many smart and good people who otherwise wouldn't have the chance to serve. I believe they would outnumber the nutcases.