1. https://www.scribd.com/uploads

2. You can’t have non-partisan Commissions with Republican and Democrats.

3. It’s possible. The California redistricting commission inevitably has members of the two major parties, and it really does seem nonpartisan. The Florida bill says members of the redistricting commission can’t hold elective office.

4. The CA gerrymander commission was taken over by Donkeys claiming to be independent / third party.

   Gerrymander stuff = WAR stuff — since 1776 and *modern* since 1964 SCOTUS cases.

   1/2 or less votes x 1/2 pack/crack gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL.

   Much worse in the robot party hack primaries nominating nonstop extremist hacks.
   —
   P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.

5. Pure proportional representation (PR) resolves the issue of gerrymandering because elections are at-large and not in districts, so no district drawing is needed.

   Each state is one district and thanks to the ten year census, accurate population balancing groupings of counties can be easily done.

   For example, the USA Parliament uses twelve population balanced super-states, each consisting of twelve population-balanced mini-states for a total of 144.

   Have four Congresspersons elected in each USA Parliament mini-state, or 48 in each super-state, and you have a 576-member assembly.

   The USA Parliament has been doing this for twenty consecutive years and it works fine:

   http://www.usparliament.org

6. HB 21 would have the commission prepare maps and submit them to the legislature. Florida had (has) existing provisions regarding legislative redistricting, under which maps drawn are submitted automatically to the SCOFLA for review. It was mainly to force the legislature to redistrict. In the past, the SCOFLA would review the plan and note the districts had equal population and were contiguous and the map would go into effect.

   The new amendments put substantive requirements for redistricting in the constitution, but did not change the procedure. Since the legislative maps were automatically reviewed by the SCOFLA, the SCOFLA was able to interpret the new provisions and send the map to the legislature which made changes that the SCOFLA approved.

   In the case of congressional districts, there are no procedural requirements, so the challenge based on substantive requirements had to go to district court. The district court was able to use the interpretation of the legislative requirements by the SCOFLA, and apply them to the congressional map. The legislature then made changes which the trial court approved. This was appealed to the SCOFLA which overturned the trial courts findings of fact, and ordered that the legislature draw a map based on a plan drawn up by Democrats.

   The basis of the SCOFLA’s “logic” was that the map had been drawn with the “intent” of aiding Republicans, because persons had submitted plans to the legislature which had as their intent to improve the chances of electing Republicans. Of course, the Democrat’s plan was drawn with the intent of aiding Democrats, but since is is being imposed by the SCOFLA, it is not the legislature’s intent but SCOFLA’s intent to assist Democrats, and is thus constitutional.

   It is of course merely coincidental that the SCOFLA decision was on partisan lines based on the party of the governor who had appointed them (in Florida, justices are appointed, and then run in retention elections.

   Anyhow, the purpose of the commission is to eliminate an inference that the legislature is self-dealing. It also would let the maps be drawn in the “1” year. Under the constitution, legislative maps may only be drawn in the “2” year, so there couldn’t really be meaningful hearings. The commission would also be headquartered in Orlando, rather than in remote Tallahassee.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.