Revisions/extensions (10:07 am 3/26/2007) – Added some further thoughts on just how few “competitive” seats would be required and the lack-of-moderation that would result.
The Fifth Column at 4th and State wins with their support of a draft bill being circulated by a pair of ‘Rats that would ensure ‘Rat majorities in the Legislature. Since it’s a draft bill and thus unavailable for public viewing, I’ll just have to take out my chainsaw on O. Ricardo Pimentel and company….
Wisconsin is a purple state. Not rabidly red and not ballistically blue. Pragmatically purple.
And Pimentel and company are cursing because it’s not ballistic.
But you might not be able to tell that, given how intensely partisan the voters’ representatives often are on a variety of important issues. It is as if they represent a state riven into implacable, ideological camps. The result has been a state Legislature unable to move the dial on various vital issues, campaign finance reform key among them.
I for one do not consider this a problem. Of course, I don’t want bigger gubmint, or gubmint meddling further in campaign finance. Look at what a “success” the McShame-Slimeroad Lieberal Protection Act is on the federal level.
This happens because the districts legislators have crafted for themselves are too lopsidedly blue or red. This means maximum advantage for incumbents’ own re-elections and the luxury of remaining as ideological as they choose. The better to survive primary races to earn, essentially by default, their party’s votes in the general election.
Actually, the problem is that once a leggie is elected, nobody ever gathers up the gumption (or, thanks to campaign finance rules both current and proposed, money) to challenge him or her, especially in the primary, so the leftward tug exerted in Madistan by the other members of the Party-In-Government and the presstitutes is left uncountered by the leanings of the district.
This system pretty much guarantees that the Legislature clones itself virtually every election, though circumstances can change outcomes at the margins, as in the 2006 election, when the state Senate changed hands and Democrats picked up seats in the Assembly.
I wouldn’t necessarily call that changing the outcome at the margin. On second thought, considering the lack of Republican leadership exhibited by Dale Schultz (and before him, Mary Panzer and Mike Ellis), that can’t even be called a change. Countering that, how does the Journtinel explain the shift from a 60+-seat majority in the Assembly for the ‘Rats in the mid 1980s to a 60+-seat majority that the Pubbies so recently enjoyed?
The likely cause of that shift, however, was the Iraq war and general dissatisfaction with the national party in power for a variety of other reasons as well. This had discernible local fallout.
But absent such political riptides, the present-day redistricting system is simply too prone to promoting political inbreeding. A paucity of new blood from sturdier stock means an imperfect genetic pool, politically speaking, with bad traits repeated through the generations.
Even a flashing VCR is right once a day.
Redistricting reform can be the political equivalent of genetic engineering.
We all know how well gubmint has done with social engineering, so let’s have them do genetic engineering </sarcasm>.
Wisconsin simply must reinvent itself politically so its representatives are more reflective of the state’s pragmatic norms than its political extremes.
To do that, competitiveness must be what substantively guides the redrawing of legislative districts that occurs every 10 years after the U.S. census. If most districts are solidly blue and solidly red, with little chance of seats ever changing hands, there is virtually no incentive for lawmakers to legislate from anything but immovable positions. There is no need to moderate positions to reflect minority-party views existing in their districts. Those people and those views then don’t get represented by their representatives.
You want competitiveness? How about a forced ouster of every PIG every so often?
There is circulating in the state Legislature a draft bill, the result of a compromise between Reps. Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee) and Spencer Black (D-Madison), that would impose this condition of competitiveness on more of Wisconsin’s state legislative districts.
The bill is imperfect but is ideal as a jumping-off point to change how the state crafts its legislative districts. That change is imperative.
Off the cliff, that is.
It would create a state redistricting board composed of state constitutional officers, plus one – the attorney general, secretary of state, state treasurer, superintendent of public instruction and a member appointed by the state Supreme Court.
Strict partisans might sense a Democratic tilt. But this board would not draw the lines. That would be left to the revisor of statutes, a civil servant appointed by the Legislature. He, in turn, would be constrained from broad political mischief by a formula in the legislation that results in more competitive districts.
The revisor of statutes would present three plans to the board, which would pick one.
I’m shocked, SHOCKED that there would be a ‘Rat tilt.</Casablanca>. You can bet that they’ll choose the one that services their desires for a socialist Wisconsin the best. As for the fool that would draw the lines, the only way there would be consensus on who that fool is would be if one party controlled both houses of the Legislature, and since the he or she would be serving at the pleasure of the party in power, the job would necessarily be contingent on pleasing the party in power.
The formula involves the revisor considering the state’s party split by looking at how Wisconsin voters on average split their ballots in the previous five general elections.
Talk about cloning a mindset.
Say that split was 51% Republican and 49% Democrat. A 99-seat Assembly would have 50 seats with voter percentages favoring the Republicans. Those 50 seats would be drawn so that Republicans number above that average 51%.
In this formula, Democrats would get majorities in 17 of the state Senate’s 33 districts.
Kessler says this simply reflects the reality that it’s perhaps not possible in much of Wisconsin to craft competitive districts given residential patterns – people living next to like-minded people.
Note the language here, kids. First you get a tiny hypothetical bone thrown to the Pubbies, then the reality of ‘Rat domination is driven home like a piledriver. Oh, and Red Fred, how exactly does Oak Creek connect to UWM and Milwaukee’s East Side? My map of the 7th Senate District shows that it runs through MMSD’s Jones Island, not exactly a hotbed of residential activity.
But this bill would mandate competitiveness in 20 Assembly seats and eight Senate seats, with narrow enough margins between Republicans and Democrats so either candidate has a chance.
So the guaranteed ‘Rat majority in the Senate is anywhere between 1 and 17. Convenient, isn’t it?
(Start extensions) Further, this “mandated” comptetitiveness will do absolutely, positively NOTHING for moderation. I could’ve swore the “new blue blood” Dems that put SanFranNan 2 heartbeats from the Presidency was supposed to “moderate” the ‘Rats. However, they’re running things much like Tip O’Neill did back in the day, with aspirations of being the second coming of Carl Albert (except without the honor to allow a replacement of the VP).
We’re not convinced the formula is workable and are particularly puzzled by how it divides the bulk of non-competitive Assembly and Senate seats. We are convinced, however, that mandating competitiveness, even by formula, is the right direction – if it can be done and still comply with the minority representation dictates of the Voting Rights Act.
It’s not workable – unless you want to turn Wisconsin into a Soviet Republic. Again, if you want competitiveness, auto-retire the leggies every so often.
The revisor of statutes – with no expertise on this issue – is likely not the best redistricting agent. The Legislative Reference Bureau is a better choice.
But it’s so much easier to pressure one person than an entire department.
And reform legislation also should deal with congressional districts, which the state is tasked with drawing.
How better to make the Congressional delegation 6-2 ‘Rats after 2010 while ousting those “pesky” Pubbies Jim Sensenbrenner and Paul Ryan (both live near the border of their respective districts) then to turn over that redistricting to a bunch of ‘Rat hacks?
Other states have enacted reform but subordinated competitiveness. That is not reform.
Neither is this.
This kind of change in Wisconsin would require a constitutional amendment, meaning votes by two consecutive legislatures before it is put on the ballot.
How touching; the Jourtinel actually recognizes that there is a built-in process for amending the state constitution, and it doesn’t involve activist Supreme Court justices. I wonder if they’ll remember that when assuming the editorial position on the state Supreme Court race (er, no).
The temptation will be for legislative leadership to quietly deep-six this bill. It should instead view it as an opportunity. It should recognize that if it also enacts broad campaign finance reform, redistricting reform could make this the year that Wisconsin becomes the nation’s model for good government.
All I have to say is, “Match generated bearings and shoot!”