Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Redistricting: Say You Want Nonpartisanship?

—

by

Dick Hall-Sizemore
in , ,

by Dick Hall-Sizemore

(Author’s note: The following is the first of several articles on the redistricting process that is underway in the Commonwealth. There is a lot going on that merits discussion, but it is my sense that relatively short articles, as opposed to long ones with lots of detail, are more appropriate for the blog.  The reporting and comments are based on numerous reports, with links at the end of the articles, as well as on hours of listening to, and watching, the recorded meetings of the full commission and one of its subcommittees.)

The Virginia Redistricting Commission has been preparing since January to draw the Commonwealth’s new Congressional districts, as well as the districts for the state Senate and House of Delegates. I wish that I could say “I told you so,” but it is worse than I feared.

A quick background summary would probably be helpful in refreshing everyone’s minds For many years, Republicans in the General Assembly had resisted calls to hand redistricting over to a nonpartisan commission. Then, in the 2017 elections, they lost 15 seats in the House of Delegates, shrinking their previous 32-seat margin to two seats (and one of those they got literally through the luck of the draw). Sensing the likelihood of additional losses in 2019 and thereby putting Democrats in control of redistricting in 2021 and being able to do to them what they had done to Democrats in 2001 and 2011, Republicans proposed a constitutional amendment in the 2019 Session that turned redistricting over to a commission. The amendment passed the 2019 General Assembly with a lot of Democratic support (the vote in the House on the final bill was 83-15).

A proposed constitutional amendment must be approved by two sessions of the General Assembly with an intervening election and then approved by the voters in a statewide referendum. In the 2019 elections, the Democrats seized control of both houses of the General Assembly. When the proposed constitutional amendment came up in the 2020 Session for its second vote, many House Democrats opposed it, eliciting accusations of hypocrisy from some quarters. Nevertheless, enough Democrats joined Republicans to approve it. The amendment was approved by a large margin in the November 2020 referendum.

Following is a summary of the amendment’s provisions regarding the makeup of the Redistricting Commission and the general process for approval of redistricting plans:

A. Commission

Legislative Members

  • 4 Senators (two from each party)
  • 4 Delegates (two from each party)

Citizen members

  • 2 from a list provided by the Speaker of the House
  • 2 from a list provided by the House minority leader
  • 2 from a list provided by the President pro tempore of the Senate (Democrat)
  • 2 from a list provided by the Senate minority leader

B. Approved plans.

No plan can be submitted to the General Assembly unless it meets the following requirements:

  • Congressional districts: approved by at least six of the eight legislative members and six of the eight citizen members.
  • Senate districts: approved by at least six of the eight legislative members, including three of the four members from the Senate, and six of the eight citizen members.
  • House districts: approved by at least six of the eight legislative members, including three of the four members from the House, and at least six of the eight citizen members.

C. Role of the General Assembly

Plans are to be submitted to the General Assembly for an up or down vote; no amendments allowed. Governor does not have a veto.

D. Role of the Virginia Supreme Court

If the commission cannot agree on a plan or the General  Assembly fails to adopt a plan submitted to the legislature, the Supreme Court establishes the districts.

The proponents of the constitutional amendment sold it as a way to take the politics out of the process and draw the electoral maps in a nonpartisan fashion. During discussions among commission members, several of the citizen members also spoke in terms of nonpartisanship. Sen. Steve Newman, R-Bedford, bluntly disabused anyone of that notion in his remarks at a May 25 subcommittee meeting:

“If you look at the process that the General Assembly and the constitution set up, it’s a little different than what we have been talking about. It’s very much a bipartisan process. It’s not a nonpartisan process. I almost wish that it was that. It’s not. It’s a bipartisan process. … Everyone here was appointed by one of the caucuses and that’s the way it works out. For instance, if George [Sen. Barker] and Mamie [Sen. Lock] don’t vote for the Senate plan, if it doesn’t get at least one of their votes, it can’t move forward. … One of maybe both Senators of one party or the other party not voting for the House plan or Senate plan, that dead stops it.”

I do not know who in the Republican General Assembly caucus came up with this constitutional amendment, but I have to hand it to him or her: it was brilliant. It was a cleverly-designed trap for Democrats, who would be hard pressed to oppose a non-legislative redistricting commission after so many years promoting that idea. As a result, instead of being shut out of the redistricting process and being subject to retribution from Democrats, the Republicans not only have leverage, they have veto power over the plans. However, both parties have to be careful; they would have no control if the Supreme Court had to step in, and a court-established plan might be worse than any plan they came up with.

Next installment:  How many chairs and attorneys does one need?

 Appendix

In case you are wondering, here are the members of the Virginia Redistricting Commission:

Legislators

House

  • Les Adams (R-Pittsylvania)
  • Delores McQuinn (D-Richmond)
  • Margaret Ransone (Westmoreland)
  • Marcus Simon (D-Falls Church)

Senate

  • George L. Barker (D-Fairfax)
  • Mamie Locke (D-Hampton)
  • Ryan McDougle (R-Hanover)
  • Steve Newman (R-Bedford)

Citizen MembersNominated by Democrats

  • James Abrenio, Fairfax
  • Greta Harris, Richmond
  • Brandon Hutchins, Virginia Beach
  • Sean Kumar, Alexandria

Nominated by Republicans

  • Mackenzie Babichenko, Mechanicsville
  • Jose Feliciano, Fredericksburg
  • Marvin Gilliam, Bristol
  • Richard Harrell, South Boston

Media links:

https://www.virginiaredistricting.org/

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

57 responses to “Redistricting: Say You Want Nonpartisanship?”

  1. brc1982 Avatar
    brc1982

    Dick – you set up a bit of a straw-man argument here:

    “The proponents of the constitutional amendment sold it as a way to take the politics out of the process and draw the electoral maps in a nonpartisan fashion.”

    As the guy who ran the campaign, this is not what we said – ever. We said this was a bipartisan process that ends partisan gerrymandering and makes redistricting transparent. That’s still every bit true. Those who claim that we said “non-partisan” are wrong – we very intentionally scrubbed that language from anything we put forward.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Uh yep, it was sold far more sideways than that.

    2. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      You are, of course, correct. Those who believe that Virginians are best governed by an opaque and often corrupt state government will put words in the mouths of anybody trying to make changes for the better.

      Of course it’s bi-partisan rather than non-partisan. Half the committee are elected officials!

      The only way to even contemplate non-partisan redistricting would be through mathematical models and software. Even that would require a lot of reviewing and testing the code. But it could be done …

      https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gerrymandering-elections-next-gen-computer-generated-maps

      Making redistricting transparent is enough of a reason to like the new approach.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Yep. Agree with DJ. It IS possible to do this with computer models.

        Good link DJ. Thanks

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          But, they are not going to do it with computer models. In their discussions, the politicians have made it clear they want to be the ones actually drawing the lines.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Yes. And I am opposed to that and in favor of computer models.

          2. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            First, I appreciate your article and look forward to the future installments. This is a very important issue that gets too little attention.

            If the politicians draw the lines it will tun out to be business as usual. No better, no worse.

            At the least, I expect more visibility with the citizens on the board. That alone seems to be a step in the right direction.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            re: the citizens – what I’ve heard is that they are hand-picked by the partisans…

          4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            The Speaker, House minority leader, the Senate president pro tempore, and the Senate minority leader each submitted a list of 16 names to a committee of retired judges who selected two names from each list.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Right, and I consider them to be partisans who act as partisans in other GA issues.

            Why not, for instance, have the citizens picked NOT by elected officials?

            Perhaps random drawings of registered Dems and GOP without any influence of the elected whatsoever?

            I just think the whole “citizen” thing is deceptive and from what I’ve read, the “citizens” are more party operatives than real citizens.

            If it looks bad, it probably is.

            And I’m NOT your typical anti-govt guy thinking in conspiratorial terms – I just know human nature and politics, and this citizen thing reeks.

            I want to see the elected completely out of this process, and I think this even if it resulted in the GOP being wholly in charge. So be it if it truly is the will of the voters.

          6. brc1982 Avatar
            brc1982

            The system would work if the citizens were just party hacks but they’ve actually shown a growing bit of independence from their legislative counterparts. The latest vote to scrap the current maps is a big example of that.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I’m still not convinced. I’m not sure at all what process is used to “pick” the citizens and I suspect I wouldn’t like it if I knew.

            I just think the citizen idea is tainted when an elected official is picking them.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        In 1977, maybe 78, a court in the midwest implemented a prospective jury database that would randomly select prospective jurors, and then check the list for past service, and a few other parameters, e.g., zip code to avoid area loading, etc., things that had been done by a clerk.

        The howls from the ignorant shut it down. It was years before it was implemented again.

        Mathematical redistricting will meet the same fate.

      3. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        In 1977, maybe 78, a court in the midwest implemented a prospective jury database that would randomly select prospective jurors, and then check the list for past service, and a few other parameters, e.g., zip code to avoid area loading, etc., things that had been done by a clerk.

        The howls from the ignorant shut it down. It was years before it was implemented again.

        Mathematical redistricting will meet the same fate.

      4. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        I like the idea of using computer models. And I agree the process would need to be closely monitored – perhaps even an independent data audit each time the model is used. There are a lot of ways a clever and motivated modeler can discreetly manipulate data input to shift results towards a desired outcome.

        And to be clear, I do realize that lacking another constitutional amendment, the use of computer models for redistricting in Virginia is a pipedream.

    3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      You are correct that the supporters of the amendment did not use the actual word–nonpartisan. But, they came close and they used wording that certainly implied nonpartisan map drawing. For example, here are some excerpts from a op-ed written by Wyatt Durrette and Bobby Vassar:

      “Politicians no longer would be calling the shots.” “take control of the map-drawing process from the partisan-controlled legislature.”

      https://richmond.com/opinion/columnists/bobby-vassar-and-wyatt-durrette-column-on-redistricting-virginia-can-do-better/article_0da23a05-0ea7-5ebc-b710-03427269d620.html

      From listening to the discussions of the commission, it is clear that “politicians are calling the shots”. It is clear that partisan interests will be fiercely protected.

      I do not doubt that the new process will result in less gerrymandering. District lines will not be intentionally drawn to include three incumbents from the same party in the same new district as happened in 2001. We will not get a district like the one I live in–House no. 72, probably the most gerrymandered district resulting from the 2011 redistricting. But, folks tried to tell us that partisan considerations were a thing of the past and that is not the case. Some of the citizens on the commission used the actual word, nonpartisan, in their arguments, but they were steamrolled by the politicians. Sen. Newman set them straight. And he was not wrong.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Right.. Sounds entirely deceptive.

      2. brc1982 Avatar
        brc1982

        @disqus_FMFCn3ile7:disqus you can make your points without stretching like this. We never said “non-partisan.” We said “bi-partisan” in just the paragraph before you quoted something from the op-ed that doesn’t even support your point. You can just admit you were wrong in putting words in our mouths that we NEVER said.

        You think that the maps will be drawn by the court. Do you presume the court will gerrymander? Otherwise you should be able to expect less gerrymandering from this process at the very least.

        Since we’re quoting Wyatt Durrette and Bobby Vassar here, let me put one out there that summarizes better the messaging of the Vote Yes campaign:

        “Let’s be clear: This amendment is the only chance Virginia voters have to take control of the map-drawing process from the partisan-controlled legislature for at least the next decade. Anything other than the amendment keeps the control completely in the hands of politicians, and history has shown what this has wrought.”

    4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      You are correct that the supporters of the amendment did not use the actual word–nonpartisan. But, they came close and they used wording that certainly implied nonpartisan map drawing. For example, here are some excerpts from a op-ed written by Wyatt Durrette and Bobby Vassar:

      “Politicians no longer would be calling the shots.” “take control of the map-drawing process from the partisan-controlled legislature.”

      https://richmond.com/opinion/columnists/bobby-vassar-and-wyatt-durrette-column-on-redistricting-virginia-can-do-better/article_0da23a05-0ea7-5ebc-b710-03427269d620.html

      From listening to the discussions of the commission, it is clear that “politicians are calling the shots”. It is clear that partisan interests will be fiercely protected.

      I do not doubt that the new process will result in less gerrymandering. District lines will not be intentionally drawn to include three incumbents from the same party in the same new district as happened in 2001. We will not get a district like the one I live in–House no. 72, probably the most gerrymandered district resulting from the 2011 redistricting. But, folks tried to tell us that partisan considerations were a thing of the past and that is not the case. Some of the citizens on the commission used the actual word, nonpartisan, in their arguments, but they were steamrolled by the politicians. Sen. Newman set them straight. And he was not wrong.

  2. Super Brain Avatar
    Super Brain

    The new districts are going to cost Dominion a fortune.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      It’ll only look that way.

  3. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    This is good Dick but so is that comment from brc1982.

    I’m no more optimistic though that it won’t end up in court so
    “bi-partisan” seems a hollow thing.

    I don’t see it much of an achievement that the process could so easily be designed to fail but have to admit – baby steps from overt partisan process to “bi-partisan”… ug…

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Ballot text: Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to establish a redistricting commission, consisting of eight members of the General Assembly and eight citizens of the Commonwealth, that is responsible for drawing the congressional and state legislative districts that will be subsequently voted on, but not changed by, the General Assembly and enacted without the Governor’s involvement?

      Translation: Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to establish a redistricting commission, consisting of eight political hacks from the General Assembly and eight political hack wannabes of their choice, that is responsible for crayon coloring maps of the State to approximate the congressional and state legislative districts that may, or may not, be subsequently voted on, but not changed by, the General Assembly and enacted without the Governor’s involvement, and then the whole mess, like everything done in the General Assembly, shall be foisted on the courts?

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Indeed. Want to pervert the meaning of “citizen”? This is how.

        Oh wait… I get it now – that was on purpose! 😉

  4. Super Brain Avatar
    Super Brain

    This is a well written and logical article.

  5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    So this will be a cluster, of course… and will end up at the Va Supreme Court (as Republicans intended)… I hope it is the fiasco it looks to be so that Dems have the justification to toss it out before the next redistributing process ten years from now. What’s another constitutional amendment…??

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      well, end up in Court, then as much legal obstruction as can be exerted until the GOP wins the GA again?

    2. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      The last redistricting plan, passed through the old process, ended up in court and was invalidated by federal judges.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        How did Maryland do?

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          Who cares?

          😉

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I do and so does DJ and especially so if they have a better process than Virginia.

            DJ implies Virginia is among the worst. Are there better models in other states?
            Probably not Texas. 😉

            You don’t care?

          2. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            Not about Maryland. I’m sorry if that offends you.

        2. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          If you consider federal and state districts … Maryland is, at least arguably, a bigger mess than Virginia. North Carolina is the biggest mess of all. I’d put Virginia as the #5 mess in a combined federal and state district analysis. But #1 in state legislative districts.

  6. Publius Avatar
    Publius

    I pretty much vote against all the stupid VA Constitutional amendments, including this one, but as for best citizen member name, the winner has to be Jose Feliciano – come on baby, light my fire!

  7. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Which state has the worst gerrymandering of state legislative districts?

    Well, a study by the USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy says … Virginia.

    The methodology used is a bit complex but I see no reason to believe the report is slanted left or right.

    “The worst US state legislative partisan gerrymanders are the following: 1. Virginia; 2. Wisconsin; 3. Pennsylvania ….”

    The worst. Numero last. A total and complete embarrassment.

    How much worse than worst can the new process yield?

    Now, here come the Richmond political lifers from both sides of the political divide complaining that the blessed General Assembly will not be able to perpetuate the Byrd Machine in secret anymore. They don’t even have to wait to see the new districts.

    Even if it does end up in the state supreme court, even if it does end up in federal court … how much worse than worst can it be?

    http://schwarzeneggerinstitute.com/theworstpartisangerrymanders

    Thank goodness for this small step toward diluting the General Assembly’s power and thank goodness again for slightly turning on the lights to illuminate the cockroaches in our statehouse.

    1. brc1982 Avatar
      brc1982

      Good points DJR. There is not a single instance of a court in this entire country gerrymandering. They always – set your watch to it – draw normal, boring, down-the-middle-of-the-road maps that neither side is completely happy with but are objectively reasonable. So if the Court does end up with the pen to draw the maps, I have full faith that they’ll do it just like the other courts have.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        ;;m

      2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I have the same faith in the courts. That is why I am backing away from an earlier comment I made. Both parties will be anxious to keep the process from the courts, so deals will be made.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Don’t know how to deal with this change of heart.

          On one hand, you’re changing your first guess on a multiple choice test — we all know the maxim on that.

          On the other hand, it is the more cynical choice — and we all know the track record of politics.

          We part ways. I say ineptitude trumps cynicism every time. Wait. That was pretty cynical, so a paradox.

        2. brc1982 Avatar
          brc1982

          @disqus_FMFCn3ile7:disqus to make a deal, they’ll need the support of the citizen commissioners. The Dems and some Rs have shown some real independence in the last few meetings (it was never going to happen in the first meeting), so I have faith that they won’t let garbage maps pass. They know that courts don’t gerrymander and they’ve expressed their willingness to kick it to the courts openly in these meetings.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            there is a certain feeling of a “wing and a prayer” .. no?

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Are they REALLY citizen commissioners, drawn randomly from voter rolls, or are they volunteers screened by the GA somehow? How many of them are not lawyers, or have not worked on a political campaign in the last 8 years?

          3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            They are citizens. They were not drawn randomly. See my reply to Larry above regarding how the process whereby they were chosen. They have a variety of backgrounds. See this link for their occupations. https://www.virginiamercury.com/2021/01/06/retired-judges-pick-eight-citizen-members-for-virginia-redistricting-commission/

            I have no idea regarding how often or when or if they have worked on campaigns.

  8. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    It is not going any worse than I expected. Frankly, having argued in a comment on the post you link to that we should do this for the entertainment value, I’m not really watching it. My prediction remains the final decisions are made in some federal court.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      My prediction is that they will be made by the state Supreme Court.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        I’m not but 99.44% sure, but I think that’s exactly what the amendment said would happen. It was one of the most eloquently worded “here’s how we aren’t going to solve the problem” excuses that I’ve read.

  9. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Coulda skipped the show and gone straight to the courts.

    I ain’ts got the political savvy of half youse here, and just reading the proposed — passed — amendment, an igit could have predicted the waste of time this was to be.

    “See, “that will be subsequently voted on” is predictive. In fact, the GA is not compelled, i.e., “shall be subsequently voted on”, to pick one because if they don’t vote, it goes to the Court, and it is conditioned by the fact that the commission even succeeds in creating a plan.”

  10. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    Unfortunately, the Commission has not gotten off to a good start and that may result in the Supreme Court making the final redistricting decision. A process like this has to involve a time commitment to building trust and agreement on a process to minimize bickering. There is no evidence that has taken place.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Yes. And THERE is evidence that it was never really intended to be a process to deliver truly non-partisan maps. Now we’re told, “Oh No – it’s “bi-partisan” which means uber partisan from both sides the “bi” part.

      It’s a deception, soldl by both parties to voters as a different and better process than before.

      I don’t think most citizens realized the flaws and neither party was about to tell them.

  11. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Both parties participated in what amounts to a deception to imply a less partisan process using “citizens” and in fact, it’s simply still uber partisan and the claim/excuse is that is still “better” because it is “bi-partisan”.

    It’s clear, neither party is going to give up and the best we’re likely ever going to do is agree to disagree and turn it over to a court.

    The hope that we could actually draw fair districts primarily by demographics and geography is never going to happen until/unless the entire process is taken away from the legislators who will never give up defending their intersts.

    And this is why I support a citizen referenda which by no means will be non-partisan either but direct partisan influence in the process would be muted. Redistricting maps to be solely done by computer models (and validated by models that identify potential anomalies. present 3 or 4 maps to the citizens to choose – and the one with the most votes wins.

    This is more than just about redistricting. Our entire political process has been corrupted and now tribal today. Dark money and unlimited money permeates many aspects of our electoral process. Elections are conducted with deceptive ads and attack ads.

    We actually end up in some elections with both candidates disliked even by some in their own party.

  12. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Here’s a likely scenario – the committee deadlocks and the matter goes to the Virginia Supreme Court. The supreme court established districts that are less gerrymandered than would have been the case had the General Assembly drawn the districts as usual.

    Virginians win.

    Unfortunately for the Democrats, they lose because they have control and would have rewritten the districts to their suiting had the old process stayed in place.

    In some ways, the threat of going to the supreme court forces the politicians for life on the committee to compromise. That alone would be a step forward.

    When you’re worst for state legislative gerrymandering it doesn’t take much to improve.

  13. Ronnie Chappell Avatar
    Ronnie Chappell

    First, thank you this post and those to follow. I look forward to coming installments. Seems sad that the system proposed will not deliver the outcome people hoped and voted for. By that, I mean a system in which legislators were no longer able to define their districts and choose their voters. If I were on the Commission I’d be pushing a system in which geographically compact district boundaries are drawn by computers using only top line population data. Information on race, socio economic status, voter registration, party affiliation and past election results would not be included in the data fed to the computer. Boundaries, to the extent possible, would seek to include cities, towns and counties in the fewest number of districts. The commission would approve the process and select the company to crunch the numbers. And we’d all have to live with district boundaries untouched by the politicians.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Totally agree. We want the elected removed from the process – period.

    2. brc1982 Avatar
      brc1982

      We are in 1000% better position to get more reform in this decade with Amendment 1 passing than we’d be if it failed (or never got to the ballot).

      This new process kills the two things that partisans like the most about gerrymandering: being able to screw the other party and doing it behind closed doors. Those are things of the past now. So we are arguing for more reform on much better footing.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        This reminds me of this joke:

        A man dies and goes to Hell. The Devil meets him at the gates and says “There are three rooms here. You can choose which one you want to spend eternity in”. The Devil takes him to the first room where there are people hanging from the walls by their wrists and obviously in agony. The Devil takes him to the second room where the people are being whipped with metal chains. The Devil then opens the third door, and the man looks inside and sees many people sitting around, up to their shoulders in shit, drinking cups of tea. The man decides instantly which room he is going to spend eternity in and chooses the last room. He goes into the third room, picks up his cup of tea and the Devil walks back in saying “Ok, guys, tea break’s over, back on your heads!”

        So this latest change is not exactly nirvana or even close and basically what it seems to do is allow the two parties to horse trade.

        “I’ll give you that district if you give me this one” or worse ” I’ll help you out on this district if you help me out with this bill in the GA”

        I’m not liking those kinds of trades at all.

        We need the elected completely out of the map drawing process – they can’t help themselves.

        1. brc1982 Avatar
          brc1982

          The horse trading only works if the citizens sign off on it. So far, I highly doubt the Dem citizens will. They’re feisty. But the horse trading is what we need to watch out for.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I think under the current setup – partisan horse-trading is probably inevitable, likely, and not what folks were expecting.

Leave a Reply

Read More