Will Dems Redraw Districts?
From an editorial this morning in The Montgomery Advertiser on the state Senate’s dysfunction and slowdown:
At the heart of the slowdown is an attempt by a minority of senators — 12 Republicans and five Democrats — to modify changes in the rules for this session that the minority feels gives too much power to the Senate leadership. Chief among the minority’s concerns is a rule change that allows 18 senators, instead of 21, to cut off debate on the state budgets and on bills to redesign legislative and congressional districts.
The minority coalition has a point. The rule changes do tend to concentrate power with the Senate’s leadership. Also, the coalition’s fear that the new power could lead to budgets that are pushed through without thorough debate are legitimate. And it is likely that the majority will use the rule change to redraw district lines to make it easier for themselves and their fellow Democrats to be elected.
It’s a good editorial, though my main point here is to comment on whether the Democratic majority will redraw district lines before the next census.
The rule change clearly makes it easier for the majority to redraw district lines, and no doubt the Democratic majority created the rule change with an eye toward doing so. But I hear that the Democrats do not intend to bring such a proposal in this 2007 session. I have heard of no specific proposal or any talk on such a subject this year.
So if they were to bring the legislation next year, in 2008, candidates will already be well into the election cycle for the 2008 elections. Theoretically, I believe that redistricting could be passed early in the session (which starts Feb. 5 next year). For example, the new district lines in 2002 were passed into law on January 31, 2002.
However, everyone understands that the new 2002 district maps were necessary because of the 2000 census, just as they will be redrawn after the 2010 census. Any changes made at the 11th hour in 2008 will be for political gamesmanship, not necessity. Candidates will have made plans and been fundraising for the 2008 election for many months. The hue and cry raised because of the political gimmickry of redrawing districts in the middle of the decade will no doubt be amplified by those who are well into their plans to run for office under existing district lines.
If the Democratic majority wanted to press their advantage to redistrict without bringing legislation this year, then the 2010 election is the next one they would most likely affect. But would they want to provoke the rancor and the bitter, hard feelings that would arise from using these Senate rules to redraw the maps before the census for the purpose of affecting only one election in 2010? After that, the new census data would require that the lines be redrawn again.
Am I missing something? Am I underestimating the possibility that the Democrats would try to redistrict early in the 2008 session for the 2008 election? New maps would have to have Department of Justice clearance, and lawsuits often follow. The Democrats in the legislature would create a lot of hard feelings by redistricting before the next census, even more if they do it in 2008 for the 2008 elections.
2008?
If you’re talking about state legislative elections, the next ones aren’t until 2010.
Comment by jamy — April 30, 2007 @ 10:26 am
What I’m missing is why would the Democrats change the rules effecting redistricting procedures and create the furor it has caused if they don’t plan to use it to their advantage, and if they don’t plan to use it, why don’t they give in to the minority coalition on at least this one change in the rules?
Comment by Don — April 30, 2007 @ 11:16 am
I don’t believe their serious about this. I had one “prominent” Democrat in Cullman tell me exactly that over the weekend. She said Zeb is just doing this for kicks because he knows the GOP and their talk radio friends literally flips out anytime him and Lowell opens their mouth.
Comment by jason — April 30, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
Jason, if what you are saying is true, and the redistricting rules change was just to “mess with” the minority coalition, it is further proof that the Mitchen/Barron faction of Senate Democrats are unfit for leadership.
Comment by Susan — April 30, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
Jamy, you are right that there are no state legislative elections in 2008. The only elections to be affected in 2008 would be the U.S. House districts. There has been some speculation that districts might be redrawn to increase the chances that a Democrat would be elected in CD-6 (represented now by Republican Mike Rogers).
Don, your point is a good one. The natural assumption is that they created a rule to make it easier to redraw district lines because they wanted to create new district lines. Maybe Jason is on to something. And Susan’s point is duly noted.
My take is that having districts lean left or right by the way they are drawn stifles real debate. A few more evenly divided districts, and we would have some honest policy discussions about what is best for the state or country. (I can dream, can’t I?)
Comment by Danny — April 30, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
Danny, your point about the nature of debates is on point, but you seem to be talking about some future time. For the first half of the current session debate on bills in the senate has been stifled because of the changes to the rules, this being one. The way things are going some good bills will die because of this, and even the ones that are rushed through at the last hour won’t get the debate they deserve and we may end up with more flawed legislation. Some people will fault the minority coalition for this, but this squabble could have been avoided or already ended by the Democrat majority.
Just to be clear, I don’t consider myself either a Republican or a Democrat.
Comment by Don — April 30, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
“Some people will fault the minority coalition for this, but this squabble could have been avoided or already ended by the Democrat majority.”
Don, you touch on a good point that has been percolating in my head as a future blog post. What you say could be true of either side, and there is an interesting question to be raised on who will and who should bear the blame for the slowdown. (That’s really two questions.)
A more important question is what will it take to work through it because, as you said, there are some good bills that are not being considered.
Comment by Danny — April 30, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Danny, placing the blame, I guess, depends on the perspective of whoever is placing it. If they consider the rules changes fair and in the interest of good government they will blame the minority coalition. Otherwise they will blame it on the Democrat majority, I would expect.
As to what it would take to work through this mess: good will, and having an honest interest in what is best for the people who pay the salaries of the senators. In my opinion, both of those qualities are sadly lacking in the senate.
Comment by Don — April 30, 2007 @ 5:34 pm