The Colorado legislature has placed two ballot measures for nonpartisan redistricting commissions on the November ballot. One is for U.S. House districts, and one is for legislative districts. They require membership of four Democrats, four Republicans, and four individuals who are not members of any party. Thus the only members of the public who could not possibly serve on the commissions are members of parties other than the Democratic and Republican Parties. See this Reason.com blog post. Thanks to Walter Ziobro for the link.
One more —
Separate is NOT Equal machination.
— blatant violation of Brown v Bd of Ed 1954.
—
PR and AppV
Oklahoma has a similar problem. Legislative districts are supposed to be created by the legislature, but if they fail to do it within 90 days after the first session following the census starts, a bi-partisan commission is created consisting of 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats, and the Lt Governor as a nonvoting member. No independents or small parties are resented in this process.
When I asked several sitting legislators about this during the election cycle when this change was submitted to voters, I was told that if there ever came a time when one of those two parties became defunct or a new party was big enough, we could just vote on it again.
Allowing Republicans, Democrats, and independents to serve but not Libertarians, Greens, Constitution, or any other minor party members is discriminatory and probably unconstitutional. Ther eis no possible justification for it.
WAKE UP FOLKS —
THE TOP DONKEYS/ELEPHANTS REGARD ALL MINOR PARTIES AS ***DIRECT*** THREATS TO THE EVIL POWER OF THE D/E OLIGARCH HACKS.
MERE *INDEPENDENTS* ARE CLUELESS STUPID – TO BE EASILY MANIPULATED.
—
PR AND APPV
Potential commissioners would be screened by a panel of three retired judges/justices who would be selected on the basis of their retirement date (most recent) and party affiliation, with no more than one affiliated with a single party. This appears to be written in a neutral fashion, so that if a Libertarian judge were selected, a second Libertarian judge could not be added. But it also appears that there would be no conflict if there were two non-affiliated judges and one Democrat judge.
The panel would have rather mild selection abilities in the first stage. Candidates must not be compensated campaign staff of a federal candidate, have run for federal office, be an elected official, be a party official above the precinct level, be a paid lobbyist, etc. There does not appear to be any restrictions based on family relationships (there are time periods, etc. see actual initiative for details).
Of those legally qualified, pools of _up_ to 300 D, 300 R, and 450 non-affiliated would be chosen by lot. I doubt that there would be that many applicants since a formal application would be required, including letters of recommendation, civic involvement, etc.
The panel of judges would then select 50 persons from each pool based on the whom they feel are best qualified. The panel decisions must be unanimous. In California there was a similar process, and the members of the panel each selected up to X persons. Those who were unanimous picks were selected. Each panelist then advocated additional persons until the quota of 50 was reached.
Two commissioners would then be selected by lot from each pool of 50.
The four legislative majority leaders would each select 10 candidates. It is not explicit, but presumably they would have the same party affiliation as the legislative leader. The panel of judges would select one commissioner from each pool of 10. The panel of judges would also select the final two non-affiliated commissioners.
The actual drawing of the maps will be done by the legislative staff. The role of the commission is more in terms of approving maps proposed by the staff, or at most providing direction.
An interesting approach is that the commissions for congressional maps and legislative maps are independent of each other, though they will operate concurrently and in parallel. No person may be a member of both commissions – though I don’t see a bar on applying to both. If a person was appointed to both commissions, presumably they could decline an appointment.
@E Zachary Knight.
Why do say that independents or minor parties are not resented?
Perhaps they are not resented, but just disregarded?
See the TOTAL rigging of the CA gerrymander Commission —
akin to the American gangster felons Mafia Commission formed in the early 1930s —
to also reduce any REAL gangsters competition in different areas.
—
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 districts (whoever / whatever is drawing the district lines)
= 1/4 or less CONTROL = OLIGARCHY
— claiming to be *democratic* >>> EVIL BIG L-I-E — to brainwash math MORONS.
—–
Before the 1964 gerrymander cases the minority rule was 5-15 percent in many States and in the USA H. Reps. — minimal *representation* for urban/suburban areas.
Now the REAL minority rule is via primaries – esp. in no incumbent districts.
—
NO primaries.
PR and AppV
Jim Riley,
Independent voters and new party voters are not represented in the process at all in Oklahoma. There are currently no sitting members of the legislature that are registered Independent or Libertarian (the only other recognized party in Oklahoma). So they are not represented when the Legislature draws the districts. If the legislature fails to draw districts in time, the Heads of the House and Senate and the Governor each pick two people, one Democrat and one Republican, to draw the districts. At no point in this process are the over 325,000 Independents and Libertarians represented in this process.
@E Zachary Knight,
In your original post you said that they were “not resented” rather than “not represented”.
Perhaps a speed typo ???
Yes, a typo.