[…]
Norton is divided up into three legislative districts. The largest is the 1st Bristol District, currently represented by outgoing Rep. Virginia Coppola. That district includes precincts 3,4 and 5 in Norton. Currently there are three democrats and one republican seeking to grab this vacated seat.
In the 4th Bristol District, Nortons precinct 1 is thrown in with Seekonk and Rehoboth – two towns with which Norton shares virtually nothing else. There are no less than six – countem, six – candidates seeking that seat, with all of them pretending Norton is a critical part of the district.
Precinct 2 is Nortons lone remaining precinct. That one is lumped in a district with North Attleboro and part of Mansfield, currently represented by Rep. Betty Poirier, who has no opposition. Poirier is also careful to pay the proper amount of public attention to Norton, insisting the town is lucky to in fact have three state representatives rather then just one.
[…]
So we are left with two races for three seats, and we are not a major factor in any of them. But that does not mean we should not vote on the 19th. Last year Claire Naughton won in two of the three towns in her district, including Norton. But she lost the race because she was unable to carry Foxboro – the only town in the district that has all its precincts included.
I was on that campaign. When Claire Naughton hired me to make her web site last December, one of the first things I did was look for a map of the district to put on her web site. Go ahead, look at the map. Does it make any sense that the district would snake distcontiguously through half of Mansfield just to grab half of Norton on the other side?
But that’s far from the strangest Massachusetts district I’ve campaigned in over the past few years. Check out, for example, the 18th Suffolk, which snakes around the outside of Allston-Brighton, dipping into Brookline for one precinct, and surrounding the 17th Suffolk, which is shaped like some sort of splatter. Or how about the bizarro 4th Congressional District – whose major population centers of Brookline, Newton, Fall River, and New Bedford, are at opposite ends.
When I volunteered for Tim Schofield in a special election in the 18th Suffolk in early 2005, even most of us on the campaign never quite had it clear in our heads which streets were in which district. If we were confused, walking precinct canvass lists every day, imagine how confused the voters of Allston-Brighton are about it! Hardly anyone can guess whether their neighbor has the same state rep as they do.
The 18th Suffolk district was drawn the way it is to protect former Rep Brian Golden, a conservative Democrat who campaigned for Bush in New Hampshire in 2000 and 2004. He initially won the seat in a 5-way primary with less than 30% of the vote. The the district was altered to remove some precincts that vote more liberally, protecting him from future challenges. It highlights the inherent conflict of interest we get when the legislature makes the map: legislators choose their voters, rather than voters choosing their legislators.
To level the playing field for challengers, John Bonifaz will advocate for independent redistricting.
(I am John Bonifaz’s campaign blogger, and I’m also still Claire Naughton’s web person.)
Somehow I am now a Bonifaz voter, and honestly I’m a little confused by it.
If I recall, didn’t the Legislature spike a bill that was aiming at fair redistricting? I really don’t see how having a novice SoS will change much of that — the problem here is the Legislature. I guess I’m not sure how much impact Bonifaz could have here…
having an SoS who doesn’t think in terms of bidness as usual wouldn’t have an impact? Duh?
= bully pulpit. Not as big as the Gov’s, obviously, but still, the SoS can get people to pay attention to him, if he wants to. Galvin has made lots of headlines in the past when he’s been talking big about stripping HMOs of their non-profit status (even though there’s a serious question as to whether he could actually do that). Bonifaz could do the same for election and/or redistricting reform.
The biggest political assasination by redistricting in MA this decade happened in Chelmsford. Carol Cleven (R), who represented Chelmsford and Carlisle in the legislature, was taken out by Finneran with the blessing of the house Republicans. Finneran got rid of the Republican maverick, who was on the legislative hit list because she was often aligned with the anti-Finneran Democrats, especially when it came to maintaining the integrity of the legislative process.
<
p>
Fairvote has the story. It’s interesting reading.
and as a former 4-year resident of Norton, I do remember that there are a bunch of districts that make up the entire town. I’m wondering why we need to break up towns that aren’t that large to begin with to make multiple districts.
but, to be Frank :), here’s the deal:
<
p>
Dems have all US House seats.
Dems have a (super?!) majority in the MA House and MA Senate.
<
p>
There’s only so much political time, effort, and money. I’d rather it be spent on issues that will benefit my causes. Gerrymandering ain’t one of them precisely because my state party is so damned good at it.
<
p>
And hell – I live in 18th Suffolk, the Golden district now held by moderate Dem Mike Moran. I personally think the Lege would be smart to unravel a bit of the really obvious/awful gerrymandering (like 18th Suffolk and Barney Frank’s congressional district) to keep the anti-gerrymandering dogs at bay. But by and large, it’s keeping my party in power. Why would I work to undo that?
Not having to compete, for real, over a long time, makes Democrats weak. In practice, Massachusetts is going to vote heavily Democratic no matter how we district, and gerrymandering actually protects some of the few Republican seats we have from competition. But the long term effect is a hollowing out of both parties’ candidates, while at the same time increasing political cynicism and resentment of the party in power. It’s like Bush living in a bubble, hearing no evil: eventually, that sort of structure collapses on you.
There are many in the party who argue that we would lose a Congressional seat if there were a true realignment of districts. I don’t agree and I wonder if that is something being held over the heads of elected politicians in the state to prevent a fair plan. Thoughts?
It’s confusing, but the decennial census causes two things to happen: “reapportionment”, which determines the number of congressional seats per state, and “redistricting”, which divides those seats into congressional districts. We’ll probably lose one congressional seat no matter what in 2012, no matter how the lines are drawn. Hope this helps.
I’m not sure if this was lolorb’s point, but you could argue that congressional districts drawn on more coherent lines could result in one district (or maybe two?) that would be friendly territory for a moderate Republican.
Cos, I agree with you 100% on this issue. It frightens me to say that. The genesis of the BMG is precisely because the Dem Legislative establishment has gotten fat, lazy, dumb and wholly-owned by special interests. Where’s the new thinking? Where’s the leadership in nationally cutting-edge reforms where Massachusetts once was a model of good government? It’s not a matter of Democratic or Republican philosophy–it’s a matter of political monopoly. Short of killing someone, all one needs to be is a Dem to win public office in the Commonwealth. Witness Wilkerson. The Republicans barely even try anymore and we’re all the worse for it. It’s probably too late this year, but there’s a remedy short of massive redistricting: Insider Out. Every voter should vote against every incumbent and purge them out of office. Sure, we’ll lose some good ones but there are lots more good people willing to step up who are excluded from public office. Besides, the good ones will win in a cakewalk after a two year respite as members of the private sector. But the others, and there’s many of them, would be deprived of the power of incumbency and likely fail in any effort to claw back in. In the famous words of John Belushi, “Who’s With Me?!?” Let the Massachusetts Political Purge begin here. Insider Out!
Primaries.
<
p>
Wilkerson is being challenged. The gerrymandered 18th Suffolk had a special election last year — four Dems competed for the seat. Sure, the Dem primary is in effect the election, but it’s still competitive, and in the case of 18th Suffolk, we had a conservative Dem, a moderate Dem, and a progressive Dem run.
<
p>
Sure, it’s rare that anyone beats incumbants, but that’s par for the course in electoral politics. The primary allows for competitive politics. We do have some competition there; I’d love to see more.
According to the State Secretary’s office last week, about 38% of Massachusetts voters are Democrats, about 10% Republicans and about 52% Unenrolled (I need Team Bonifaz to correct my memory on these numbers, but my point is still the same). About half of citizens eligible to register to vote are registered, about half (or 20% if you ask Bill Galvin) of registered voters vote, and if the only political “competition” provided in Massachusetts is at the primaries (which are open only to Party members and those few Unenrolled who actually turn out for Primary elections), and winning candidates need one more than 50% of the vote to win. That means that our Legislative candidates are being selected by fewer than 1/8 of citizens over 18 years old and that the balance of citizens effectively are disenfranchised. I posted this last week and don’t mean to consume more than my fair share of cyberspace, but the words of philosopher John Stuart Mill, in “Representative Government,” resonate here: “Rulers and ruling classes are under a necessity of considering the interests and wishes of those who have the suffrage; but of those who are excluded, it is in their option whether they will do so or not, and, however honestly disposed, they are in general too fully occupied with things which they must attend to, to have much room in their thoughts for anything which they can with impunity disregard.” I’m still with Cos on this issue.
You don’t need 50% plus one to win. You just need to get more votes than anyone else in the race. Someone could, theoretically, with the Gov or LG race with 34% of the vote.
<
p>
That said, the balance of citizens are not disenfranchised. I don’t think people who neglect to register or vote are disenfranchised, because they have the right to participate but don’t choose to exercise that right.
<
p>
If decisions are made in Democratic primaries, that’s good because it gives Democrats an amplified voice in governance. Except that may not be how it really works, because Republicans have no incentive to enroll as Republicans, and Republicans in unenrolled clothing come into the Democratic primary to select candidates.
<
p>
I tried to come up with a BMG case study to address this question, taking names out of the mix. However, I do understand people are much more interested in things with actual candidate names attached at this point.
90% of registered voters are eligible to vote in Democratic primaries. And like the other fellow said, if people refuse to register or vote because they can’t be bothered with “politics” that’s their choice.
<
p>
It would be different if you had a closed primary system like we do here, especially since most of the time it’s Republicans who have a lock on most districts. NPA’s (No Party Affiliation, what independents are called here) don’t get to vote in primaries except in special circumstances (an open primary is only held when there are no candidates at all, not even write-ins, representing other parties in the general election. If a candidate wants a closed primary, all they have to do is get a buddy to file with the SOE that he’s running as a write-in.)
<
p>
That said, impartial redistricting is a fine idea. It may not be as easy as it sounds, though. I imagine you all would do a better job than those *(@#$!!s at Common Cause did with their proposal for Florida.
Not having to compete, for real, over a long time, makes Democrats weak.
<
p>
Maybe. But, we’re not living in a “long time” right now. If the polls hold, on November 8th MA will be by far the largest state in the union to have Dem: * Governor (and lt gov) * Sec of State/Commonwealth * AG * Supermajority of state House * Supermajority of state Senate * both US Senators * 100% of US House members
<
p>
So… maybe we’ll be weak later. But right now, the Democrats are as strong as possible. Given that we’ve had three presidential candidates in the past 45 years shows that MA politicians are rising to the national level. Sure, we’ve lost in 88 and 04, and realistically I don’t think the nation will tolerate a Dem president from MA for another 20 years at least, so I’d argue that MA generating nationally elected politicians is moot anyway.
<
p>
Gerrymandering may protect a few GOP seats, but come on. The MA senate: 34-6. The MA house: 138-21 (1 vacant). Tge GOP would have to nearly double their numbers in either chamber just to break supermajority status.
<
p>
But the long term effect is a hollowing out of both parties’ candidates, while at the same time increasing political cynicism and resentment of the party in power.
<
p>
I disagree, and you’ve provided no evidence. The “action” in the state government is in the primaries. Sure, there aren’t many of them, but there’s always a scurry when a member of the lege retires. In fact, the 18th suffolk (Brookline p1 – Allston/Brighton hook) had a four person race for the Dem nomination during the special election last year. There was a very progressive Dem candidate (Tim Schofield), a very moderate Dem (Mike Moran), a conservative “Dem” (Glennon), and a guy who I don’t remember well named Joe Walsh. Whenever there is an opening there seems to be races. Fighting an incumbant? It happens rarely in politics regardless of gerrymandering, including in MA.
<
p>
…increasing political cynicism and resentment of the party in power
<
p>
Maybe. But in the mean time, the Dems have so much success in MA that it would be crazy to mess with a good thing.
<
p>
I support anti-gerrymandering efforts — in places where a lack of gerrymandering would help my causes. It’s pragmatic, not philosophical. As far as I’m concerned, its not obvious that a lack of gerrymandering in MA would help progress government in the direction that I’d like it to go. I don’t think more compact districts will help spread quality health care to more people, help reduce hunger and homelessness, help reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels or otherwise clean the environment, help MA young people get educated, or help MA adults get good jobs. Therefore, it’s effort that could be spent more productively elsewhere.
<
p>
I’m still going to vote for John Bonifaz 🙂
I think you misunderstood what I meant by “weak”, because the “strength” you point to is simply numbers. What are we doing with that strength? Untill progressive insurgents started challenging and in some cases knocking off incumbents in the past several years, we were doing almost nothing with it.
<
p>
Massachusetts could and should be the state to lead the nation – with public financing of elections, a big renewable energy program, real corporate responsibility, universal single payer health care, serious family leave, instant runoff voting – things that can shine as beacons to the nation, and show off true Democratic strength, while making life better for people here. Instead, most of the leadership has come from tiny Vermont and not-quite-as-blue California, until just the past few years.
<
p>
What has changed in the past few years? Has this state gotten significantly more Democratic in terms of number of officeholders? No. We’ve had a lock on the legislature for a long long time. We’ve had both of our Senators Democratic for a long long time. We had one or two Republican House members here and there, but they’ve been a rarity for a long time. No, what changed is competition for office.
<
p>
But gerrymandering makes this competition more difficult. You say the real action is in the primaries, and I agree, but districts drawn to protect incumbents make primary challengers rare and difficult. Practically speaking, we usually don’t get real competition until a seat opens up, and once someone wins it, that’s it until they choose to leave.
<
p>
Weakness is not having too few Democrats in office. That’s not a problem we’re likely to face in MA no matter how we draw our districts. Weakness is being in protected bubbles, not having to compete, lacking good ideas or the drive to push for them, not knowing how to campaign effectively because you don’t have to, not needing to cultivate strong community ties because your seat is safe, not needing to debate and face your political opponents, and weakness leads to a lowered ability to govern effectively.
Ditto Cos. I promise not to agree with you for another month at least.
Except at the statewide level.
<
p>
I think it is time for the Dmeocratic Party to stand up for a principle that is important because it promotes good government and furthers democracy. Gerrymandering like Finneran did the last time redistricting was done needs to stop. The problem with less competition in races is that we do not get the best candidates running as Democrats.
In my town, Finneran and his group gerrymandered the competition (Democrats not Republicans) out of the district to help out the incumbant, and I know it happened other places as well.
<
p>
This is an issue that is not going away and the sooner the Democratic Party jumps on board, the better it will be for the Democratic Party. Otherwise, I think the percentage of voters who are members of the party will decrease even more.
As the post said, one of the most gerrymandered districts was one gerrymandered to protect a “democrat” that campaigned for Dubya. Anybody that campainged for Dubya isn’t a Democrat and not one I want to protect. Let’s not forget that Finneran was about as much of a Democrat as Kerry Healey is.
He is pro-gay marriage. Go look up his statements from the floor calling legislatures who voted to put the issue on the ballot cowards.
He is solidly pro-choice. He was endorsed by NARAL.
Do you assume that he’s a moderate based on the fact that he is a heterosexual Irish-American male?
How progressive of you to not even know how progressive your own rep is.
What is “fair” redistricting and how will I know it when I see it? Who are the “independent” people that will sit on this commission, and how will they be selected?
As part of an effort that collected over 700,000 signatures for a “nonpartisan” redistricting initiative that got thrown out by our Supreme Court for utter failure to conform to constitutional standards for ballot questions, failure to recognize the existing constitutional standard it was attempting to amend, and to top it off failing to abide by the statutory word-count limitation for ballot question summaries (!), I just want to point out that it’s not as simple as it sounds.
There was a fairly detailed proposal submitted to the legislature last year, S.12, which I think passed committee and is going to be considered at an upcoming ConCon. It creates an independent commission and apportions the posts on that commission to people by expertise, for example one of them needs to be from a nonpartisan voter advocacy public interest group, one has to be a demographer, etc. I believe there are some slots for retired judges, and some for the house and senate leaders to appoint – they don’t get a majority, but they do get to put in people who understand the practicalities of districts.
<
p>
One of the best things about S.12 is this rule: Nobody who serves on the commission may ever run for office in any of the districts drawn by that commission. They can run for those offices after the next redistricting 10 years later, if they don’t serve on the next commission.
<
p>
You’re right, it is complex, and it’s possible to get wrong.
<
p>
We can’t get it nearly as wrong as it already is today, though, so even an imperfect independent redistricting solution would still be an improvement. We’d have better districts and candidates would no longer be in a position to pick their preferred voters by swapping precincts around.
If Dems take back Congress, the MA delegation stands to benfit tremendously. Barney Frank will be chair financial services, Jim McGovern will be 2-4 years away from the Chairmanship of the powerful Rules Committe and John Olver will chair an appropriations committee.
<
p>
Talk of an independent comission is a waste of time, just like term limits. Let the voters who elected these pols take some civic responsibility and decide who should represent them.
I’d love for Democrats to take back the house. Why is that a reason to oppose redistricting reform?
<
p>
First of all, no matter what we do, the next redistricting for Congress doesn’t take place until after the 2010 elections. The next three elections for Congress will use today’s districts.
<
p>
Secondly, with the national Republican party being what it is and their reputation being what it is in Massachusetts, it doesn’t matter what districts we have: we’re going to elect all Democrats to Congress. I don’t see that changing.
<
p>
Third, the current proposal for redistricting reform is for state offices only, and doesn’t affect Congress at all. Though I think it should.
<
p>
Let the voters who elected these pols take some civic responsibility and decide who should represent them.
<
p>
Exactly. Let voters pick candidates, not candidates pick their voters!.
<
p>
(I oppose term limits too. But that’s not what we’re talking about.)