REDISTRICTING

The bill that Babette Josephs derailed takes power away from the Supreme Court--elected directly by the voters--and turns that power over the Legislative Reference Bureau, whose chief is elected by the legislature and whose staff is in direct touch with individual legislators on a day to day basis.The bill further takes the public hearing process away from the power-holder. Right now, the Supreme Court appointee to the Legislative Reference Bureau listens to the public testimony both before and after a plan is produced, but, under the proposed bill, hearings are held by a temporary commission on redistricting, which is only an advisory and public relations arm of the legislative reference bureau.I could see why, if the status quo was the Legislative Reference Bureau had power to propose redistricting plans, people might want to argue for a body not associated with the legislature, such as the Supreme Court, having a role in proposing redistricting plans.It is hard for me to see why people feel a body--the Legislative Reference Bureau-- dependent on the legislature for its daily working conditions, hiring, job retention, promotion, sick leave, personal leave, office space, vacation time, etc. is a more independent voice than a body--the Supreme Court-- that has its own terms of office, its own budget, its own administrators, and its own public support system.

May 29, 2008

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/politics/58008-do-nothing-josephs-stands-way-reform-again.html#post783780

*

Taking out the Supreme Court--which bans judges from any political participation except in their election years--and replacing the Supreme Court with the Governor of Pennsylvania, an intensely political person, makes very little sense.The purpose of getting the Supreme Court involved in the first place was to have expertise on the legal questions that mandated decennial redistricting according to presecribed criteria. The Secretary of the Commonwealth's office, the Chief Election Officer in House Bill 2420's terminology, has little legal expertise.Nor does the Legislative Reference Bureau, an agency that drafts bills, publishes regulations, and writes legislative citations, have any experience in statistical analysis, map drawing, or litigation on constitutional issues--areas of expertise that are vital in the redistricting process.Further, the Legislative Reference Bureau has not asked for authority in redistricting, and has not endorsed or embraced House Bill 2420 either. The Legislative Reference Bureau has warm relationships with many members of the General Assembly, especially knowing the more senior and higher ranking members quite well. It is unrealistic to expect that these relationships will be completely ignored when it gets feedback from legislators on the redistricting proposals.House Bill 2420 also slows down the redistricting process, making it necessary to postpone the primary elections to the Summer or the Fall of 2012. This decision of the bills drafters--moving the filing deadline for districting plans to Feburary 15, and the Court hearing date to March 15, with a decision likely sometime in April or May--has yet to be publicly explained.

May 12, 2008

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/politics/56947-tell-your-state-reps-support-anti-gerrymandering-bill-2.html

*

This bill is simultaneously overly detailed about insignificant things and not focused enough on important things.For instance, there are nine terms with definitions, but no definition of, or prohibition of, gerrymandering.There is a ban on districts being drawn "for the purpose of favoring a political party, incumbent legislator, or member of Congress of other person or group," but there is no ban on drawing districts to HARM the interests of any person or group, and no ban on favoring (no definition of that) "a political party, incumbent legislator or member of Congress or any other person or group" as long as the district is not drawn "for the purpose of" doing so.What this proposed constitutional amendment does is effectively ban honest discussion about how proposed changes affect individual members and force coded discussions about abstractions. The effect of this will be to make public input much harder to achieve.People concerned about redistricting should contact their legislators and say what kind of districts they want. There is accountability between legislators and their constituents. There is no accountability between the voters and the Legislative Reference Bureau or betwen the voters and the editorial page editors.

May 12, 2008

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/politics/56947-tell-your-state-reps-support-anti-gerrymandering-bill.html

*

To get redistricting plans that will be found to be constitutional by both the state courts and the federal courts, it is urgent that the Supreme Court be allowed to appoint a legal expert--a law school dean, a Bar Association leader, or an experienced appellate judge--to act as the mediator/tie breaker between legislative caucuses and to hear and evaluate public concerns with proposed plans.Redistricting is, above all, about a long series of legal issues. No matter what process is developed for plan drafting, the state and federal courts will ultimately have a final say. Getting a lawyer with a high enough reputation in the field of constitutional law to have the confidence of the Supreme Court in a key decision-making position makes a lot more sense than having lawyers who are experts in bill drafting do preliminary work and a politically appointed "chief election officer" act in a decision-making capacity.

May 12, 2008

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/politics/56947-tell-your-state-reps-support-anti-gerrymandering-bill.html