By Rep. Roz McGee
The 2007 legislative session is a good time to debate redistricting. Unfortunately, despite much public support, House Bill 373, Independent, Bipartisan Redistricting Commission, is unlikely to get a committee hearing.Voters should be reminded that the 2001 redistricting helped shape our current Legislature: Republicans hold 76 of 104 legislative seats even though 42 percent of voters cast their ballots for Democratic candidates in contested races.
Something is wrong when nearly half of our state is represented by only 28 of 104 legislators. This disconnect is the product of our redistricting system, in which legislators choose which voters can vote for which candidates.
Allowing our elected officials to custom-design their districts undermines our fundamental democratic values of electoral choice and officeholder accountability. The result of this conflict of interest is that entrenched incumbents are rarely ousted from office and legislative outcomes hardly reflect public opinion.
In our democratic process, voters should select their legislators, not the other way around. HB373 aims to do just that, following the examples of 12 other states, including Arizona and Idaho. These states use independent commissions to develop redistricting plans.
HB373 follows the examples of our neighbors by establishing a nine-member independent commission with four members from major party and the ninth member chair selected by vice chairs. The commission would redistrict only every decade after census data is released and be required to hold several public hearings.
Many concerned citizens recognize that fairness in redistricting has not been practiced in the past. Utah has already seen its share of gerrymandering and can expect this partisan abuse to continue in the future unless we change the process.
I note with some irony that excellent guidance was provided at a prominent redistricting-reform conference held here in April 2006. The gathering, hosted by the Campaign Legal Center, Council for Excellence in Government and the League of Women Voters, brought together national and state leaders from both major political parties as well as those involved in past reform efforts.
The overwhelming consensus was that while reforms are difficult to achieve, now is the time for state-level redistricting reforms in anticipation of the 2010 Census and 2011 redistricting cycle.
A conference in June 2005 in Airlie, Va., by the same study group, endorsed the following redistricting standards: 1) Adhere to all constitutional and Voting Rights Act requirements, 2) promote competitiveness and partisan fairness, 3) respect political subdivisions and communities of interest, 4) encourage geographical compactness and respect for natural geographical features and barriers.
In HB373, I have chosen the legislative route for changing the process. Yes, it is a long shot, but legislators should look at Utah's process, study models from other states, go on record and be held accountable for continuing to have legislators select their voters. If the Legislature is unwilling to consider HB373, there is another route: petitioning for a ballot initiative. Utah may be ripe for such a challenge.
The more I talk with voters in my district, leaders of nonprofits and businesses and former officeholders, I hear frustration and a deep-seated desire for change. That frustration, even anger and despair, can be mobilized into a movement to change Utah's redistricting process.
REP. ROZ MCGEE is a Democrat, representing Salt Lake City District 28.
7 comments:
I agree with the district boundary principles you have set forth here. However, if the 42% of voters who prefer Democrats were evenly distributed throughout the state, our current system of winner-take-all voting would not allow ANY seats for Democrats.
I think we should improve the process of creating voting districts. We should also look at other solutions such as instant-runoff elections that can elect multiple people in proportion to the preferences of the people. There is a site dedicated to the principle at fairvote.org.
Thanks for plugging FairVote, Bradley.
I've spoken with Rep. McGee, Rep. Wiley, Rep. Becker, Rep. Wheatley, and other elected Democrats about improving the fit between voter behavior and political representation in Utah through ranked/choice voting.
Unfortunately, elected Democrats appear to suffer from the same bipartisan bigotry (really, would it be deemed acceptable to divide up public goods according to the preferences of representatives from the "major" races or "major" religions? then why should representatives from the "major" parties have the only say?) that afflicts elected Republicans.
But we can continue to inform more Utahns about how the two-party duopoly continues to cheat all of us out of fair elections until the politicians start pursuing political reforms to prop up their legitimacy or the people begin denying power to the politicians.
I've created a "space" over at Politicopia to promote and discuss more competitive and representative elections in Utah.
Rob L,
Win an election and maybe someone would take you seriously.
The Grand Dame
Although anonymous, "The Grand Dame's" comment contains a widely-held myth -- promoted by members of the political class and their enablers, like Tom Harvey of the Salt Lake Tribune and Rod Decker of KUTV News -- that I'd like to debunk.
The myth is that, without winning an election, one cannot or should not be taken seriously.
To debunk the myth, think about whom you take seriously in your own life.
If I took seriously only those people who were elected, I'd be denying myself almost all of humankind's wisdom and inspiration.
Indeed, I follow the American tradition of skepticism toward -- not taking as seriously or as true -- what is said by members of the political class, given the enterprise in which they are engaged.
Remember that some candidates from nonincumbent political parties who participate in elections serve as a standing rebuke to another myth: that plurality electoral systems are fair and the results just.
Social change can be both nonviolent and deny power to those who purport to wield it. Perhaps The Grand Dame and others who are like-minded can join us in studying and practicing nonviolent strategies toward social change, rather than slandering them.
Let's have VOUCHERS for elections!!!!
Roz,
this article was really eye opening.
Thank you
McGee's claims are deceptive.
Notice how McGee used the term "contested" elections. That is critical. The Democrats received 42% in contested elections because they CHOOSE not to field candidates in many districts where they did not have a chance.
In 2006, Democrats did not field candidates in 20 districts. Republicans did not have candidates in two districts. If the Republicans had decided not to field candidates in an additional 18 districts, the Democratic perentage would have decreased.
Post a Comment