Redistricting and transparency

Posted 8/21/12

When Sullivan County’s legislature redrew the border lines of the county’s legislative districts last week, it was over the objections of the supervisors of the towns of Highland and Lumberland, …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Redistricting and transparency

Posted

When Sullivan County’s legislature redrew the border lines of the county’s legislative districts last week, it was over the objections of the supervisors of the towns of Highland and Lumberland, and one presumes many of their constituents. Other members of the public also spoke against the process. But the legislature went ahead with its approval anyway, arguing that, if they waited any longer to make a decision, and a petition drive for a permissive referendum reversing their decision were successful, the referendum would have to be voted on in a costly separate election rather than along with the other races in November (see story on page 3).

During the session, Highland Supervisor Boyar. pointing to the proposed District 2 border lines, said, “The district is so misshapen on its face that it begs the question of who played with this map? The Town of Highland is outraged that it is cut in half.”

Lumberland Supervisor Nadia Rajsz said, “The [town] supervisors especially should have been informed and invited to the sessions with the consultant.” She reported that when she tried to talk to the consultant, he told her he was not free to discuss the details.

Transparency in redistricting is essential for a successful process; lack of transparency invites suspicion and cynicism on the part of voters, and that is exactly what the legislators created when they did not open the process for public comment a long time ago. Because the presentation of the legislature’s plan was delayed until the 11th hour, the citizens’ only recourse is to gather enough signatures (around 2,500 according to one of the county’s Board of Elections commissioners) before September 2, demanding a November referendum.

Redistricting processes have also been controversial at the state and federal levels. Currently Common Cause, NYPIRG (the New York Public Interest Research Group), EffectiveNY and a handful of the state’s newspaper editorial boards are opposing a plan devised by New York State (NYS) lawmakers and supported by Gov. Cuomo to amend the state’s constitution regarding how redistricting is accomplished for state senate and assembly districts and U.S. congressional districts. The language of the referendum has not been finalized, but the provisions have been approved by state senators and assembly members in Albany.

Seeking to create an independent redistricting commission to redraw district lines—something that happens every 10 years based the U.S. census information about shifting populations and the need to secure one-man, one-vote—NYS’s legislative proposal nevertheless leaves appointment of the redistricting commissioners in the hands of the legislature. Critics argue that this power to appoint creates a process that is vulnerable to politics as usual, with the added potential of favoring incumbents depending on how district lines are drawn.

Around the country, gerrymandering often makes news when political parties create “safe” districts for themselves or even fashion a smaller number of “safe” districts for their opponents in order to guarantee a larger number of “not-quite-safe” seats to vie for themselves. (For a look at the crazy shapes of some of the most gerrymandered congressional districts, see www.washing tonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts, or Google “outrageous gerrymandering” and take your pick of the articles that appear.)

Common Cause, an organization that promotes “open, honest and accountable government that works for the public interest,” has put out a series of best practices regarding how redistricting should be conducted. Their best practices include (1) having a truly non-partisan, independent redistricting commission in which no one political party can advance a plan without support from other political parties, and in which the two major parties cannot draw lines to marginalize other parties, (2) fair criteria that include lines based on visible geographic features (where possible) and lines drawn with consideration to similarities in social, cultural, ethic and economic interests as well as relationships between municipalities, (3) districts that are regular in shape by being both compact and contiguous, and that create competition rather than creating “safe” districts for one party or another, (4) a process that includes ample public participation and transparency, including public hearings to allow for comments and questions, open commission meetings with sufficient notice for citizens to attend, the publication of the commission’s work (maps, plans, hearing transcripts, meeting minutes, etc.) free of charge on a public website and by other means. Based on these and other considerations, Common Cause recommends that New York State voters reject the redistricting amendment to the state constitution in November.

On this last point, Common Cause is emphatic: “Meetings of decision makers, among themselves or with legal and mapping consultants, must be open and accessible to the public in all but the most limited of circumstances.” One wishes that this and other best practices listed above had been considered by the Sullivan County legislature before it engaged in a partially closed-door process to redraw legislative district lines and then waited until the 11th hour to reveal their work to the public.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here