Michigan Supreme Court Keeps Redistricting Initiative on the Ballot

Posted on by July 31, 2018

On July 31, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the initiative to set up a nonpartisan redistricting commission should be on the ballot. All sides agreed that it had enough valid signatures, but the opponents charged that the initiative was a revision of the constitution, not just an amendment. Here is a link to the decision and the dissents. The decision is Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution v Secretary of State, 157925. Thanks to Rick Hasen for the link.

Comments

Michigan Supreme Court Keeps Redistricting Initiative on the Ballot — 12 Comments

  1. https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/31/michigan-supreme-court-gerrymandering-ruling/872133002/

    The scheme is a variation of the communist CA Gerrymander Commission — RIGGED TO HAVE COMMUNIST DONKEY CONTROL.

    THE COMMUNIST DONKEYS WILL TRY TO HAVE *BACON STRIP* DISTRICTS IN COMMUNIST DETROIT — ABOUT 6-8 MILES NORTH-SOUTH —

    NEW DISTRICTS PERHAPS 0.5 MILE WIDE WEST-EAST AND 10 MILES LONG NORTH-SOUTH — TO GET 55-60 PERCENT COMMUNIST DONKEY MAJORITY DISTRICTS.

    The many math MORONS can not detect —

    1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less Control = OLIGARCHY.
    —
    PR AND APPV

  9. I spoke at BAN headquarters in 1993/94 when I ran for CA Gov and my statement on proportional representation (PR) went to every voters pamphlet in California.

    Now we have ranked choice voting (RCV) in SF, incorrectly implemented in single-winner districts which guarantees a one-party system and voting reform “experts” who like that fine.

    But this is unacceptable to the United Coalition because America is a melting pot and a one-party system denies diverse representation and ideas from the entrenched status quo in SF.

    The United Coalition hasn’t done a good job so we must try harder.

    Sign up with the All Party System and coordinate with the United Coalition, bring your team and your good ideas.

    http://www.allpartysystem.com

  10. Thus — the various infections going on.

    A few —

    CA type rigged gerrymander commissions
    CA type top 2 primaries – in rigged gerrymander districts
    CA/Maine rigged RCV
    rigged NPV

    Gee – common point ??? Duh.
    —-

    PR and AppV

  12. @WZ,

    Voters may apply for the commission; and the SOS will send out 10,000 applications to random voters (more can be sent out if not enough apply). They are either not too optimistic about the random solicitations, or not sure how many persons will respond. Partisan office holders (federal, state, or local), candidates for same, officers or members of political committees of national, state, or local parties; employees or paid consultants of political officials, etc. over the past _six years_, are disqualified along with their (step)parents, (step)children, and spouses.

    Voters will categorized by party affiliation – but remember that in Michigan party affiliation is anonymous. At a primary, you select the party by checking a box on the ballot. Voters might not consider themselves to be Democrats or Republicans, they are just voting. It would be almost impossible to prove perjury on the application.

    60 Democrats, 60 Republicans, and 80 others will be randomly drawn from the applicants. The random draw is supposed to mirror the geographical and demographic makeup of the state.

    About 14% of the adult population in Michigan is black, so you might ensure that 28 of the 200 (14%) are black. But blacks are disproportionately Democrats. The pool of applicants might not match the politics or demographics of the state. If there are 100 Democratic applicants, then 60 are to be randomly drawn. Do you make sure that 25% are black, or 14%? Conceivably, the drawing could also be stratified by age and sex.

    The selection process appears to take elements of the British Columbia and California methods, and avoiding the pitfalls of Arizona. But in British Columbia, a large body was selected (IIRC, it was two persons from each riding). In California, there was a selection process, which screened for capabilities and “fairness”. The California procedure required filing of a statement of economic interests. Many applicants dropped out rather than file.

    After the 60/60/80 pools are selected, the four legislative leaders may each strike up to 5 persons (for up to 20 total). Possibly the leaders might try to strike potential sleeper agents.

    Out of the 60/60/80 pools, 4/4/5 commissioners will be randomly selected. This will likely undo much of the stratification done at the previous level. If 15 of the 60 Democrats were black, it is more than 50% likely that there will not be exactly one black in the final four. There will be a 31% chance that there would be no black Democrats, and 21% that there would be 2. If you want a representative sample of Michigan Democrats, you would select more than four.

    A plan (for Congress, the Senate, and the House) must be approved by a majority of the commission, and at least two commissioners of each group. If that agreement can not be reached, then each commissioner may submit a plan, and commissioners rank the plans, and points are awarded. Points are awarded. If N plans are submitted, than the highest ranked plan is given N points, the next N-1, and so on. The points are totaled, and the highest-scoring plan is chosen, if it is ranked in the top half by at least two commissioners not a member of the commissioners party group (e.g. if a plan was submitted by a Republican, then it must rank in the top half by two Democrats or non-affiliated members). If no plan qualifies it chosen by lot.

    The likely result will be a commission pretty much chosen by lot, with the likelihood of some commissioners deciding the task is beyond their capabilities and resigning and being replaced. Technical and legal aspects are beyond the capabilities of ordinary voters, so they will be forced to rely on “experts”. It is likely that the commission will be led by the experts.

    As Demo Rep suggested, the rules are likely to result in long strips of districts to make the results “fair”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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