Stupid Remap Tricks
Republicans partnered with the Fair Map Group to promote the proposed amendment. Under the measure, a commission with nine members would draw the map. The leaders would appoint four of the members, and the commission would chose its ninth member.
But I thought the “leaders” were the problem according to Patrick Collins and his group?
I have no idea how this is an improvement. It essentially creates one of two things. An incumbent protection map which all of the leaders can agree to or a tie breaker by some great non-partisan commission member who is chosen by the leaders.
How the hell is this an improvement? Sitting there and trying to say that legislators aren’t drawing the map while the four leaders appoint representatives is a distinction without a difference.
Worse, if you are naive and stupid enough to think they will do the real negotiations in public, you are hopeless.
If you want to go for a truly open process and you think you can do it by initiative (debateable) go for something similar to the Iowa plan which sets out criteria for districts, has a computer then draw lines according to the criteria, and then allow the General Assembly to accept or reject. The only reason the Simon Institute initially proposed using the 8 member committee is because they assumed the change had to come from the General Assembly where this would not be approved. However, if you think you can do it by Initiative there is absolutely no reason to have the 8 member panel selected by the Four Tops.
I think the Dem plan isn’t much better, but easier to work with–if you assume that they will not pass a computer based system with objective criteria, then go with the Democratic plan, but get rid of the commission. The commission is pointless–if the legislature cannot agree, it’s not going to happen there. Instead, move it directly to the Special Master who has objective criteria specified to use and is appointed by a Justices from both parties. This is far more effective in doing what the 1970 Constitution tried to do. Let the politics sort it out (this is a democracy after all) and then if they can’t sort it out politically, go to a truly objective process.
In the current situation you had a fifty-fifty chance of coming out ahead. In the case I’m outlining, objective criteria by a Special Master mean everyone could end up with less preferred outcomes making choice to punt far more risky. Will everyone compromise in this case? I don’t know, but the incentives improve. Does this solve the problem of incumbent protection? No, but the only process that does is the Iowa system and no one is pushing that.