Gerrymandering

I’ve heard wind that Nancy Pelosi agreed to drop her opposition to the CA Voters First redistricting reform provided that congressional districting was taken off the table.  She fought hard against Prop. 77, so I can see why the Voters First folks blinked–better to get incremental reform, rather than none at all, right? 

Well, in the last few days she’s gone public with her opposition, making the standard arguments one would expect: protection for minorities is insufficient, the citizen’s commission would be too powerful, and that this effort is little more than a Republican power grab.  I can’t wait to get into a room with folks like Pelosi, Schwarzenegger, etc. to start teasing out the larger implications of these public statements. 

Our last round of meetings with funders went tremendously well.  We’re really working within a different crowd now - high net worth individuals interested in the arts AND redistricting.  More to come…

From Ryan Lizza’s upcoming New Yorker profile on Obama:

One day in the spring of 2001, about a year after the loss to Rush, Obama walked into the Stratton Office Building, in Springfield, a shabby nineteen-fifties government workspace for state officials next to the regal state capitol. He went upstairs to a room that Democrats in Springfield called “the inner sanctum.” Only about ten Democratic staffers had access; entry required an elaborate ritual—fingerprint scanners and codes punched into a keypad. The room was large, and unremarkable except for an enormous printer and an array of computers with big double monitors. On the screens that spring day were detailed maps of Chicago, and Obama and a Democratic consultant named John Corrigan sat in front of a terminal to draw Obama a new district.  [emphasis mine] 

Though in February of 2006, Obama had this to say about gerrymandering at a Brookings Insititure speech on election reform:

“In too many districts today, people’s votes probably won’t make a difference,” Obama said. “As a consequence of the gerrymandering of redistricting, people aren’t being illogical when they stay home because the outcome is a foregone conclusion.”

I need to look into this a little further.  I don’t mean to suggest that Obama having a district drawn for him (which happens all of the time) necessarily represents a gerrymander, but there’s always something a little unsavory about tailor-made districts. 

Redistricting, redistricting, redistricting….as we zero in on financing (two crucial meetings this week), I’ve been totally immersing myself in any reading I can get my hands on that’s at all applicable.  Who knows where that crucial nugget that must be in the film will come from, right?  I finished the Brennan Center’s handy Citizen’s Guide to Redistricting over the weekend (I’ll have some thoughts to share on it here soon), and I just noticed this radio show, Redistricting: The Art and Science of Gerrymandering, linked by the folks over at Kill Gerrymandering in Pennsylvania.  A panel featuring Rob Ritchie, Bruce Cain and Nina Perales sounds pretty terrific.  I’ll be tuning in soon…

What?  2010?  We’re not even out of 2008 yet! 

Yet, as we’ve discussed here, the national parties are always looking ahead:

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.”

This piece is a couple of days old, but I’m still a hair foggy from the weekend. 

The Sacramento Bee takes on California Proposition 11’s critics who are organzing under the banner Citizens for Accountability, which appears to be a Democratic-aligned group.

Meanhwile, Ted Costa, a Republican, of People’s Advocate slams Prop. 11.  Costa sparked both the recall of Gray Davis and the last big redistricting reform push, Prop. 77.   Harsh words:

“This initiative is a power grab by the left wing interest groups who drafted it like Common Cause, and AARP, and those who’ve endorsed it (ACLU) to seize control of the redistricting process from the incumbents like Perata.  The interest groups want a more liberal legislature that will be more likely to give then  a 2/3 vote to raise taxes..

Fairness and accountability have little to do with this initiative.”

This is going to get ugly.  And fast. 

In other news, I turn thirty on Saturday!  This will probably be my last post until the middle of next week.  With luck I’ll be able to announce that “big news” that I keep threatening to drop here (hint: it’s about financing).

Happy 4th of July all. 

-The Brennan Center for Justice has just released its A Citizen’s Guide to Redistricting which is available for download in full on their website.  Written by Justin Levitt with Bethany Foster, the Guide appears to be a pretty comprehensive overview of the issue.  I’m looking forward to diving in - at 113 pages, it shouldn’t take too long to wade through.  I’ll post more when I’ve spent some time with it. 

-A nice little back and forth over redistricting and the impact of the upcoming election over at the Vivian J. Page blog, which covers Virginia politics with emphasis on redistricting.  The 2008 presidential campaign offers great possibility, but also the potential for great setbacks to the increased recent focus in some states on educating voters about the dangers of gerrymandering.  Worst case, progressives, so intent on electing Obama, lose sight of the larger goal of re-organizing a dysfunctional government in favor the “quick fix” of a new presidency.  Best case, a nice balance is struck, and perhaps even President Obama wades into the “thicket” of redistricting. 

The debate over long vs. short-term gains and means-to-ends is always one of the most fascinating to track in politics.  What’s most important?  In reality, probably “everything, all at once.” 

The Grand Forks Herald of Grand Forks, North Dakota is worried about the upcoming redistricting:

While most North Dakotans may feel that 2008 is a little early to be thinking about the reapportionment that will occur following the 2010 federal census, legislators elected this year in the even-numbered legislative districts for 4-year terms will be involved in redividing the legislative districts in 2011.

…

Because legislatures will not delegate apportionment to independent commissions, most states have found that having the Republicans in control one chamber and Democrats the other forces compromises that result in greater fairness. This would be the scenario for the 2011 reapportionment if North Dakota Democrats gained control of the Senate by winning three more seats in the November election. However, this seems unlikely since most of the Republican senators up in 2008 are in safe Republican districts.

We’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: gerrymandering really is everywhere.