Study Group Updates: Fair Representation

League of Women Voters of New Mexico

Study Guide for Redistricting Consensus

Fair Representation Study Group

The two-year Fair Representation Study has reached the Consensus stage. This November, the group will be visiting each local League to get your opinions, in order to formulate a new State position on Reapportionment and Redistricting. When the group solicited the opinions of members last spring, the general feeling was that it would be best to concentrate on Redistricting for the 2010 post-Census redistricting. The Consensus questions will thus focus on who should draw the redistricting plans, what criteria should be used, and how should the public be involved.

Information to help you participate in the Consensus discussions is provided in this Study Guide. It's brief and you can bring it with you to the Unit meetings in November. Also, bring along your La Palabra - it includes the Consensus Questions. We urge you to also explore the Fair Representation web page, recently updated, as well for additional background information: www.lwvcnm.org/fair/

Join us and be a part of League history!

--------------------------------------

Definitions of Terms Commonly Used in Redistricting
Adapted from League of Women Voters of Oregon Study

apportionment	Assigning one or more representative seats to geographic areas or political jurisdictions according to some plan.
communities of interest	Areas defined by shared socio-economic, ethnic, geographic, economic, or other interests. The definition should not include any relationship between a community and a political party, incumbent, or candidate.
competitiveness	When candidates of more than one party have a reasonable chance of winning elections.
gerrymander	To draw districts in a way to give one group or party an advantage over another.
one person, one vote	The principle affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964, which generally requires that each legislative district contain an equal number of potential voters, so that each legislator represents the same number of people and the influence of each vote on government is as equal as possible.
partisan fairness	Using political data when drawing district boundaries to purposefully make districts about equally competitive between political parties.
redistricting	Defining new boundaries for representative districts

BRING THIS INSERT TO UNIT MEETING

ON NOVEMBER 10

Pros and Cons of Criteria for Redistricting Adapted from League of Women Voters of Oregon study.
Criteria	Advantages	Disadvantages
Contiguous	Current federal law requires this for congressional districts. Gerrymanders, with their odd shapes, will be easier to detect. It is easier for voters to identify their districts and participate in politics with their neighbors. Legislators can represent their constituents more easily.	This may break up communities of interest.
Reasonably compact	Gerrymanders, with their odd shapes, are easier to detect. It is easier for voters to identify their districts and participate in politics with their neighbors. Legislators may represent their constituents more easily.	Precise definition of what it means to be compact is required. Communities of interest may be broken up. Gerrymandering is still possible.
Communities of Interest	Shared traits or values may be more relevant than geography in producing accurate representation.	There is no clear definition of community of interest. It is unclear how competing communities of interest shall be weighed against each other.
Residence of Incumbents	Helps to assure stability and seniority of representation.	Can be used to either protect or defeat current incumbents. Can result in selecting voters for the incumbent rather than vice versa.
Preserve "core" of previous district	If a district is built around a community of interest or racial/language minority, preservation is a worthwhile goal.	Not all districts represent cohesive communities. Result might be protecting the incumbent's core of support.
Natural geographic boundaries	People with common interests may be kept together. Citizen participation with neighbors and media coverage of races may be easier.	Other, more important communities of interest may be split.
Jurisdictional boundaries (county, city, etc)		Other, more important communities of interest may be split.
Be connected by transportation links	Transportation links make it easier for legislators to represent their constituents. Voters are better able to communicate with each other.	Mass communication and modern media can ease communication between legislators and voters.

Political competitiveness	If voters believe their parties' candidates have a chance of winning, turnout may increase. Highly ideological candidates may be less likely to dominate than in districts that are safe for one party. An increased possibility of election victory may encourage potential challengers and increase the number of races with more than one candidate on the ballot.	Maximizing competitiveness may dilute minority voters or communities of interest. No foolproof way exists to determine how competitive a district will be. Past voting or party registration data must be considered. The cost of campaigning may increase and discourage potential candidates. Because voters sometimes self-segregate, oddly shaped or non-compact districts may be required to increase competitiveness. A representative from a competitive district is less likely to be in office long enough to attain seniority.
Not favor any incumbent or candidate	Incumbents don't have an unfair advantage over challengers. Other criteria are more important than protecting incumbents or candidates.	If the legislature has a seniority system, citizens may favor incumbent protection to increase the influence of their legislator compared to those from other more competitive districts.

Who Could Design a Plan

that Best Assures Fair and Effective Representation

in the Public Interest?

A Summary of Arguments
Adapted from the League of Women Voters of California Study

Favoring the Legislature	Favoring a Commission
Legislators are accountable to the public at the polls.	When districts have been gerrymandered in favor of incumbents or one party, removing those legislators becomes almost impossible. Accountability no longer means anything.
The legislature is representative of the diversity of the total population. No commission can come close to that. The California Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission favored legislative redistricting; concern that minority gains in representation in the legislature could not be reflected on a commission.	A commission would not have the built-in self-interest of legislators and would focus on statewide fairness. A commission would act in the best interests of all residents including minorities protected by the Voting Rights Act.
Negotiations among 40 or 80 may be more difficult but a pluralistic society is better served.	A smaller redistricting body would require reconciliation of fewer positions and would foster greater adherence to principles and standards. In practice, legislative redistricting is also done by only a few people.
Legislators are elected, not appointed. They have weathered public scrutiny. Legislators have experience and superior qualifications in balancing interests and achieving compromise among different groups. It is wrong to assume that all legislators have a conflict of interest; the priorities for many do not include partisan or personal gain. Redistricting is inherently very political in nature, so it is wiser to address it through a political body, in the political arena.	Redistricting involves change and commissioners are not committed to the status quo the way legislators are. Commission decisions would be the result of reasoned deliberations and not deals and swaps that violate important standards. There is an inherent and intolerable conflict of interest in the legislature redistricting itself. Incumbent and party interests are the only priorities. A commission would end the abuse of power by the majority party. It would not have legislators' incentive to diminish or enhance any party's power.
Incumbents know best the make-up of their districts, and the possible effects of different boundary changes. Incumbent protection promotes the public interest by providing stability and experience.	A commission has no reason for excessive secrecy. It would open up the redistricting process and not be influenced by special interests. A commission has no interest in self-preservation. It can restore public confidence in redistricting.
Who can be trusted to appoint commissioners who would act in the public interest? A nonpartisan commission is an impossibility. Anyone asked to serve would be a politically informed person and would have substantial political biases.	There are many knowledgeable and honorable individuals who would serve in good faith and accomplish redistricting in the public interest.
Appointment of a commission is an elitist act. All interested parties will try to influence commissioners hiding behind the "neutrality." Legislators, too, are persons of integrity.	Legislators just want to protect their jobs. Redistricting affects elections for the entire decade. It should be entrusted to persons of proven integrity.
Commission plans have been challenged in court.	A plan developed by an independent, bipartisan group would be less vulnerable to court challenge.

INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSIONS
Submitted by Cheryl Haaker, Chair, Fair Representation Study Group

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, twelve states currently give primary responsibility for developing a redistricting plan to some form of commission. A major goal of using a commission, rather than the legislature, to develop redistricting plans is to eliminate the inherent conflict of interest in having legislators in effect select their own constituents. However, as currently constituted, not all redistricting commissions can be considered "independent" of political partisanship. The record shows that plans produced by these commissions are as likely to be challenged in court as plans produced by the legislatures.

A five member commission where one member each is selected by the majority and minority leaders of the State's house and senate is used in states of Arizona, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Washington. These four commission members then select a fifth member, not affiliated with either party, as chair. Arizona is unique in specifying that the pool of candidates be named by the commission on appellate court appointees, and defines the party breakdown of the pool. Key aspects of this popular system include the two party balance, with the power literally being placed in the hands of a third party/unaffiliated member.

Selection by all three branches of government is used in Alaska, Colorado, and Vermont. Arkansas uses a commission made entirely of members of the executive branch: governor, secretary of state, and attorney general. Party dominated selection occurs in Idaho and New Jersey. In each case, third parties are explicitly frozen out. Moreover, the representation of each of the major parties is the same: 50-50, regardless of the degree of actual support for each. Only Arizona and Vermont state that there will be members who are not from the two dominant parties.

Iowa is really different in that the redistricting plans are drawn up by the Legislature's nonpartisan, professional service group, the Legislative Service Bureau (LSB). The LSB uses specific constitutional and statutory guidelines for drawing the new districts. Protection of incumbents is prohibited, and the LSB is forbidden to discuss the plan with any legislator during the drafting process. Once the plan has been released, public hearings are held.

Unlike the independent commissions described earlier, the LSB's plan must be approved by the Iowa legislature. No changes, other than technical changes, are allowed. If the legislature rejects the first plan, the LSB prepares a second plan. The legislature then votes on the first or second plan. Only if both plans are rejected will the LSB prepare a third plan, which can then be amended by the legislature. However, in 30 years of using this system, the legislature has never gotten to Plan 3. Legislators know that if they make any changes, it will be assumed that the changes are political and their amended plan will be challenged in court. The Iowans have elected not to go there, yet. Their system of substituting simple professionalism for partisan balance has been frequently cited, but has not yet been imitated.

References:

1. "Redistricting Commissions and Alternatives to the Legislature Conducting Redistricting," National Council of State Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/redistrict/com_alter.htm

2. "Does Your Vote Really Count?" League of Women Voters of Virginia, http://www.lwv-va.org/redistrict.html

League of Women Voters of New Mexico

Consensus Questions

on Redistricting

Fair Representation Study Group

Under the current system of electing representatives to Congress and the Legislature, there has been very little turnover of elected officials and fewer candidates for election. Voters have few (often no) meaningful choices and as a result, are less able to hold their government accountable. An opportunity for change is coming up: the 2010 Census will result in reapportioning and re-drawing the district lines for the US Congressional and New Mexico Legislature seats, and other state-level offices.

Current LWVNM position:

"The State League supports apportionment for the Legislature which shall be based substantially on population and shall meet the provisions of the Federal Voting Rights Act (1982)".

At the last decennial redistricting, the League of Women Voters of New Mexico was asked to become involved in the process, but after consideration, decided that the LWVNM position was too generic to permit political action. Your responses in these Consensus Units will determine how the State position should be updated so that the League can become involved in the 2011 redistricting process.

1a. Who should be responsible for drafting a plan/drawing a map that assures representation in the public interest?

The New Mexico Legislature, according to the NM Constitution, "may by statute reapportion its membership"; the Governor then ratifies or vetoes the plans. At present, individual legislators commission plans to be drawn, and the Legislature selects from them, and amends the plans as required. While both the Legislators and the Governor are elected by the public, legislators have a conflict of interest in that by establishing their own districts, they're choosing their constituents. Who should develop plans, which may subsequently be voted upon?

The Legislature? An independent commission? Other?

1b. What qualifications or characteristics should people who draw the redistricting maps have?

2. Should the criteria used for redistricting in New Mexico be modified or expanded?

Current Federal law requires equal population and protecting the strength of minority and language groups through the Voting Rights Act. Most states also include contiguity, compactness, and preservation of counties and other political subdivisions. NM statute only specifies that single member districts will be formed.

Redistricting criteria, of necessity, are often at odds with one another.

What importance should be given to each of the following criteria? Rate each.

Criteria: Essential Important Not Not to be Used

important considered in 2001

a. Contiguous O O O O yes

b. Reasonably compact O O O O yes

c. Respect communities of interest O O O O yes

d. Residence of incumbents O O O O yes

e Preserve "core" of previous districts O O O O yes

f. Natural geographic boundaries O O O O yes

g. Jurisdictional (municipal, county, etc)

boundaries O O O O yes

h Be connected by transportation links O O O O no

i. Partisan voting history O O O O no

j. Political competitiveness O O O O no

k. Not favor any political party O O O O no

3a. Should the redistricting process include opportunities for public involvement, such as open public hearings throughout the state, public comment on redistricting criteria, broadcast of meetings, all documents made available free and on a timely basis, and public education via public service announcements and other means?

3b. What would encourage you to participate in the redistricting process??

NOTES