On February 29, the New York major parties, and all the groups who sued New York over U.S. House redistricting, submitted proposed maps to the special master appointed by the U.S. District Court in Favors v Cuomo. See this story. Everyone involved in the case seems to agree that the new districts should protect all the incumbent members of the U.S. House who are running for re-election.
I and many good-government groups feel to make this process fair, the public is better served in an incumbent-blind process. When you start to factor in incumbency, it begins to dominate the process.
Who needs ANY elections if ALL the gerrymander MONSTERS are in rigged 100 percent predictable gerrymander districts ???
I.E. elections ONLY mean something if there is an open seat — i.e. in a party hack primary or runoff primary ???
The U.S.A. is almost gerrymander brain dead.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
It’s still possible to argue for an independent commission to draw up lines from now on, Mike, and demand a constitutional amendment that solves the problem of legislators drawing their own lines. The lines drawn by this court, or special master, don’t have to last more than this election cycle.
With the three-judge panel and master working on the lines for 2012, the scared legislature are discusing the following:
“The deal being discussed would create a panel made up of eight members appointed by the legislative conferences: two appointees apiece from the majority and minority in each chamber. The eight would then independently select two additional members. Those eligible would have to be out of government service for three years before their appointment, and appointments would have to be made two years before map-drawing could actually begin.
A 10-member panel with equal representation from both parties, of course, creates a decent chance for impasse. In addition, there will be a complex set of votes required for the panel and the Legislature that changes depending on whether or not one party controls both chambers. (This sort of minority-protection mechanism is similar to the rules governing the new Joint Commission on Public Ethics, where a vote of just a few members is sufficient to block an enforcement action.)
After the panel had completed and approved its work, maps would be voted on by the Legislature. If lawmakers rejected them, the maps would go back to the panel for another pass.
But after a second rejection of the panel’s work, lawmakers would be able to directly amend the independent body’s maps, although numerous technical restrictions would apply to that surgery. That means the legislative majorities would have control at this final stage.
“It puts some distance between the sitting legislators and the people drawing the lines.”
The plan being discussed also makes improvements to many of the technical details of redistricting, such as eliminating “block-on-border” and “town-on-border” requirements, which prevent map-makers from breaking apart census blocks or towns unless they’re larger than a full Assembly district. This often results in cities and villages being split among legislators who have different sets of towns.”
Does anyone think this will work?
# 4 NOT me.
The gerrymander EVIL developing since 1776 is coming out of its holes under rocks.
Save Democracy –
Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each seat winner.