|
|
 |
|
Politics: Where to draw the line |
|
Author: Chris Faraone |
|
May 31, 2005 - A map of state Rep. Marty Walz's 8th Suffolk legislative district resembles Snoopy straddling the Charles River. "I represent six neighborhoods in two cities in two
separate counties," said Walz, whose district stretches from the elite Beacon Hill neighborhood to the student-immigrant sections of Cambridge. That plan, which would have moved 19 percent of minority voters from Finneran's district, was thrown out by a three-judge federal panel that ruled it "sacrificed racial fairness to the voters on the altar of incumbency protection." Finneran, who retired last year, is under investigation for allegedly perjuring himself about his role in the redistricting plan. Such evidence of the influence of power politics over the way the state's legislative districts are drawn has given new ammunition to lawmakers and others who want to change the way the districts are reconfigured every 10 years. The Legislature is considering a constitutional change that would move the redistricting authority from a handful of lawmakers to a nonpartisan, independent commission. Reformers say the plan would create fairer districts, give minorities better representation and avoid splitting constituencies, as was done in Walz's district. But there are opponents to the plan. Some lawmakers question the composition of the proposed commission. Others are unwilling to give up legislative authority over redistricting. "How are we helping our credibility by just turning over the process," said Rep. Karen Spilka, D-Ashland. The history of political mischief in the redistricting process is nearly as old as the country. In 1812, Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry famously meddled with the redrawing of an election district so severely it resembled a salamander. His actions gave rise to the word "gerrymandering," a term used to describe such politically motivated actions. National reform movements against gerrymandering began in the 1960s. A legal challenge resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1962 ruling that representative districts must have equal population. The 1965 Voting Rights Act signed by President Lyndon Johnson sought to end the disenfranchising of black communities through redistricting. Groups such as Common Cause and the Massachusetts League of Women Voters have been concerned about redistricting since the 1970s. "Minority voters have been on the short end of the redistricting stick for years," said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts. Wilmot said gerrymandering is a tool used by both parties. She cites the recent carving up of Texas districts to the detriment of Democrats, who in earlier years did the same to Republican legislators. "We need to stop the tit for tat," Wilmot said. "It's wrong no matter who's doing it." Common Cause was among a coalition of reformers that helped draft Senate Bill 12, a proposal that would transfer redistricting power from legislative committees to a nonpartisan independent commission. The proposal was drafted to follow laws in seven other states with proven independent commissions. Wilmot claimed none of the independent commissions in those states have ever lost a redistricting lawsuit. The bill must be passed in two succeeding years by the House and Senate meeting in a state constitutional convention. The amendment would then go to voters in 2008. Because district lines are redrawn every 10 years to reflect population changes recorded by the Census, the reformers' plan could take effect in the 2010 redistricting. "It's time to take a better look at this issue now, when we're so far away from when it would take place," said state Sen. Richard Moore, D-Uxbridge, the bill's lead sponsor. Fifty-eight representatives and senators signed on to Senate Bill 12. "It's out of hand," said state Sen. Steve Tolman, D-Boston, of the current redistricting process. "It's time to take the B.S. out of it and do it right." In April, Tolman, Walz and more than a dozen other legislators joined citizens and voting-rights advocates to testify before the Joint House-Senate Committee on Election Laws. The 17-member bipartisan committee with state Sen. Edward Augustus Jr., D-Worcester, and state Rep. Anthony Petruccelli, D-Boston, as co-chairmen, listened to more than three hours of testimony challenging the way districts are now redrawn. "Does the leadership run the redistricting in this building?" Rehoboth Democrat Philip Travis said. "You'd better believe it. If you don't think so, you're kidding yourself." Although committee members conceded redistricting reform is needed, several challenged how Senate Bill 12 would change things. The prevailing gripe was the bill's plan for an independent nonpartisan commission. "I'm a pessimist at heart," said committee member state Sen. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham. "I have yet to meet a group that doesn't have a hidden agenda." Senate Bill 12 proposes an Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) that would consist of five direct appointees. It would include:
The five direct appointees would consider nominees made by the Senate president, Senate minority leader, House speaker and House minority leader for the four remaining commission seats. "This makes us look foolish and guilty when we aren't either," said state Rep. Steven Walsh, D-Lynn. "Election system reforms, like redistricting, are different than other types of reform because they directly involve and implicate the careers and futures of the people who are being asked to vote on the reforms," Keyssar said. According to a Common Cause survey, Massachusetts residents agree. Sixty-seven percent of 229,425 people polled support shifting the redistricting authority from the Legislature to an appointed panel. State Rep. Paul Frost, R-Auburn, who dissented on Senate Bill 12, said he was fearful an independent board would create more political strife by redrawing districts that would force incumbents to campaign against each other. He also questions claims the bill would encourage better representation for minorities. "There's an illusion that an independent board will not split communities, and that's not the case." Frost said. Wilmot said Common Cause is not surprised by the committee's decision. "This bill is almost like a trial balloon," Wilmot said. "We understood that we were not going to come up with the perfect solution the first time around, particularly about who's going to be on the commission." "We're pretty much where we expected to be," she said. "Now it's time to build public support." "My guess is you won't get this perfect the first time," said Harvard's Keyssar. "Trying to change such rules is sometimes like getting the foxes to change the rules of access to the chicken coops." |
