According to today’s Taunton Gazette:
Looking forward to 2011, the Massachusetts Republican Party is already starting to organize its efforts to redraw the map of legislative and congressional districts throughout the state.
In Massachusetts, the state legislature has the authority to determine the boundaries of voting districts, but the state Republican Party says it will propose maps of new legislative and congressional districts and be prepared to file civil rights lawsuits to enforce redistricting requirements.
Daniel B. Winslow, the man the GOP picked to head up the redistricting effort, said the party’s goal is to ensure the “fair and impartial drawing of district lines that protect the civil rights of minorities and all voters.”
If you recognize Daniel Winslow’s name, he was the former Chief Legal Counsel to Mitt Romney for the initial year’s of Romney’s Governorship.
Apparently, the GOP is hoping that the 2010 census will show a population decline, Massachusetts will lose a representative, and all congressional districts would have to be redrawn.
For starters, I do not think losing a vote in the House of Representatives in Washington would be good for our state.
To quote John Walsh, the incredibly hard working Chair of the state’s Democratic Party:
“They think losing a congressman is an opportunity?” he said. “That’s ridiculous… Only the Republican Party would consider the loss of congressional representation to be an exciting opportunity.”
Walsh said his party is working hard to make sure every Massachusetts resident is counted in the census to avoid losing a representative in Congress.
One target of Winslow’s efforts is Barney Frank’s district; given current events this hardly seems neutral:
In a move that could impact Taunton, the Fourth Congressional District could potentially have its boundaries altered. The district, which is represented by U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, is mostly centered in southeastern Massachusetts, but has an oddly-shaped offshoot stretching up to some of the Boston suburbs, such as Brookline and Frank’s hometown, Newton.
“I think the current district configuration doesn’t pass the laugh test when put up on the wall,” Winslow said. “It undercuts the representation of Bristol County.”
“It looks like it was the result of a compromise, and that’s what it was,” he added. “I helped draft it. It was a settlement between Gov. Weld, Senate President Bulger and Speaker Flaherty.”
I admit that the districts as drawn in our state, whether for the State Senate or Congress do add luster to the history of gerrymandering and that many deserve a second look in order to rationally serve constituents. None the less, it is NOT good for our state to lose a congressman, and Barney Frank is a credit to our delegation.
As Chairman Walsh puts it:
Walsh said the most important concern with the Fourth Congressional District is not it’s shape, but that the “overwhelming interest of the people is that they’re very happy Barney Frank is their congressman.”
for the entire Taunton Gazette article [or to comment on the article online] go to: http://www.tauntongazette.com/…
Can anyone honestly say that Districts 3, 4 & 9 make any sense whatsoever?
<
p>And that’s just the Congressional map. The Massachusetts legislative map is where Gerrymandering was born.
<
p>Redistricting should be taken out of the hands of the legislature. Voters should pick their representatives. Representatives should not be able to pick their voters….
These towns were cherry picked so a democrat could win. Split the Republicans up, so they can’t win a seat. Eldridge Gerry is alive and well in Massachusetts.
I actually did this, based on the 2004 data and it was really really hard. This was the result:
<
p>
<
p>Even still Bush only won by 580 votes. Note the use of the “four corners” around Spencer, MA (a bit West of Worcester). The Second district would have to squeeze through there. (The North Carolina 6th and 13th district perform a similar maneuver, so there is precedent.) Also there would have to be some weirdness with Bristol Country and the Cape and Islands, probably connecting the New Bedford area with some of the Eastern Parts of the cape by connected across Buzzard Bay and Nantucket Sound.
<
p>Anyway, my point is not that the current districts aren’t Gerrymandered (they are), but rather that there is no natural Republican leaning district that would exist if it weren’t for the Gerrymander.
I live in Millbury, the 2nd district. I have nothing in common with Springfield. Worcester, next door, is in the 3rd district. Worcester has nothing in common with New Bedford.
If we could keep the old Worcester County as the majority of a district, Jim McGovern would have to put a little interest in his district, rather than be hanging with his Columbian terrorist buddies.
Even though it’s not necessary to get Democratic leaning districts, though just want to make those districts safer.
<
p>I agree, by the way, that our districts are absurd. I favor a neutral commission to draw them.
FWIW It’s Elbridge not Eldridge. In addition most folks incorrectly pronounce it “J”errymandering. Elbridge pronounced his last name “G”erry – hard “G”. Like Gerry Studds, not “J”erry Studds.
The “G”erry School was attended by many of my friends in Marblehead.
Sorry if I’m boring and peripheral.
…at least according to the American Heritage dictionary (1st ed., 1973 printing; and 4th ed., 2004 Dell paperback reissue): ger-e-man-der is the alternate pronunciation; jer-e-man-der is the first pronunciation listed.
These lines should be drawn blindly with no regard to party, race, income, ethnicity or anything other than geography and population. Let’s get Obama involved and tell him we CHANGE from the old ways of Washington (and Beacon Hill).
She was the only Republican in Eastern Mass when we lost a seat in 1980, so the legislature sliced and diced her district as many ways as possible. I suspect that the 1990 and 2000 redistricts merely continued the preexisting boundaries.
The most sensible thing would be to have the western 4 counties be a District. We all share a common geography, economy, and culture (“share” may be too generous a word — I recognize that there is a lot of heterogeneity even in this smaller geographic area),
<
p>Living, as I do, on the New York border, I share a lot more with Springfield than I do with Fitchburg (it’s also about an hour closer!), yet Fitchburg is in my CD and Springfield is not. Makes no sense, culturally.
<
p>A nice contrast to the gerrymandering in sco’s map is the map of the Governor’s Council seats. These seem to have been drawn up to respect County borders where possible, making eminent sense. Shouldn’t the CD map look more like this?
<
p>By minorities, does he mean Republicans?
We almost lost a seat in 2000; we WILL lose one in 2010. Not because of nefarious Republicans, but because no matter how hard Mr. Walsh counts, we’ve lost that much population in 10 years – 15 to be honest.
<
p>Former Judge Winslow is knowledgeable about the process, and the last redistricting by the Mass. House resulted in felony charges. We’d be crazy NOT to keep an eye on that process.
<
p>For example, Chelmsford was split into four parts to punish a GOP woman incumbent by removing her base, while Mr. Frank is now expected to equally represent the interests of Newton and Acushnet, which have little commonality. Fro the record, I support the Common Cause petition which takes redistricting away from the legislature.
<
p>And the potential civil rights charges stem from the 2000 court case – that Boston was being gerrymandered to prevent a minority-majority district to keep those white men in power.
Frank – Newton (South Coast)
Tierney – Salem (North Shore)
Markey – Malden (Northern and Western Suburbs)
Capuano – Somerville (Urban Core)
Lynch – South Boston (Southern Suburbs)
Delahunt – Quincy (South Shore, Cape and Islands)
<
p>With the exception of Capuano and Markey, the bulk of these districts are outside of 128, yet are represented by someone from inside 128. I don’t really have a logical expatiation of this, (or even an illogical one), but it does serve to amplify the power of the Boston’s immediate environs.
The first time Lynch ran to “represent” his district, local pols would have to steer him away from his efforts to knock on garage doors seeking to talk to voters.
Therefore, as soon as I knew “the game was afoot” I posted about the fact that, if a representative is lost, in part due to certain issues I discuss in other posts [housing, education, and economics generally, for example] that not only will redistricting be made mandatory, but that a proactive process is afoot from the Republicans, who I think choose as strong an author of the process as available to them in Judge Winslow.
<
p>I would rather NOT see our state lose a vote by losing a congressman, but agree if redistricting does occur, it should be fair and impartial, and I do like the Common Cause proposal.
MA Population Info, from the Census
<
p>1970 – 5,689,170
1980 – 5,737,037
1990 – 6,016,425
2000 – 6,349,097
2006 – 6,437,193
<
p>http://quickfacts.census.gov/q…
<
p>We have GAINED population, every ten years, going back decades… the only question is if we’ve gained enough to off-set more rapid growth in other parts of the country.
Start with this assumption:
<
p>District 1: Berkshire, Hampshire, Hampden, and Franklin
District 2: Worcester
District 3: Norfolk
District 4: Bristol
District 5: Middlesex
District 6: Essex
District 7: Suffolk (+Brookline)
District 8: Plymouth
District 9: Cape & Islands
<
p>From there play around the edges of the counties to achieve population equity.
<
p>Other thoughts:
<
p>I believe the city of Boston has about the right number of people to be a CD in its own right; that city should not be divided.
<
p>I’ve believed for a long time that it would make sense that the entire Merrimack Valley should be a CD; I don’t share the fear of some that this would be a GOP district. Democrats have represented and done well in both ends of the MV for some time.
<
p>The first district should be consolidated geographically; Pepperell should not be in a district that touches New York!
<
p>The Fall River/New Bedford area should all be in one district.
<
p>The 4th district should not snake its way toward Boston the way it does in the north.
To repeat here:
<
p>The Governor’s Council, or Executive Council, Districts seem to have been drawn up to respect County borders where possible, making eminent sense. Shouldn’t the CD map look more like this?
5 Senate districts equals 1 GC district. Maybe we could make 4 State House districts equal 1 Senate district. Unless (God forbid) we lose two US Reps., we will have more Congressmen than Councilors.
If you look at the Senate and House districts themselves, they’re just as gerrymandered as the CDs.
<
p>Rep Guyer’s district, e.g. goes from the NY border to Orange — what sense does that make?
<
p>Or take Springfield (and no Rodney Dangerfield jokes!), which is split down the middle between two Senators. What sense does that make?
<
p>I agree with Porcupine — the Common Cause proposal for an independent body is the way to go…
and the South should have two between Bristol, Plymouth and the Cape and Islands. Otherwise I think that’s a great idea.
Every state must redraw these districts after each decennial census, even if the state does not gain or lose any representation. All states must ensure that districts have approximately equal population.
First, as it’s been pointed out in other comments, we’re going to redistrict no matter what.
<
p>What the GOP is talking about is the process of transferring the redistricting from the legislature to the Federal courts. While we had the case last time around where minority plaintiffs challenged the state rep seats in Boston, it’s been ages since we saw a full-blown court-ordered redistricting of the lines in this state (if ever).
<
p>In other states, the process of ending up in the courts is much more common.
<
p>Putting aside state legislative redistricting to just focus on the congressional seats, the GOP might actually have a valid case, depending on the standards used for redistricting.
<
p>Absolute numerical equality of districts has been used as a primary factor in the past, most notably in 1991 based on interpretations used by President Bush’s Department of Justice. In that cycle, even Massachusetts complied by creating absolutely equal population districts by subdividing a handful of precincts across the state (believe it or not, the small town of Lincoln was split that year). Last time around, we went back to the older standard that allowed the actual precincts to be used for districting.
<
p>What has been contested in the past in other states is the idea that reducing population is always a good thing. For example, if I have a map where the districts deviate by 1000 people, is one with a deviation of 100 inherently better? From 100 to 10? From 10 to 1? From 1 to 0? This argument has worked in the Federal courts in the past.
<
p>Now imagine Massachusetts Congressional districts getting drawn similar to last time out. Since the precinct is our basic building block (generally 3000 people), the basic standard has been whether you can lower the level of deviation by moving precincts along the border of a district. For example, if district A has 600,000 and district B has 605,000, any precinct along the border could be moved from B to A and improve the numbers.
<
p>What well-financed groups who would lose in the ordinary political process have done in other states is to draw maps that have lower absolute deviances and present them to the court as “more constitutional.” Again, this has been a winning strategy.
In Somerville, for instance, each ward has three precincts. Seven of our aldermen are elected by ward, so the ward boundaries have to change after each census in order to ensure each ward has equal population.
In cities where each ward has a city councilor, or in towns where the town meeting is elected by ward, these lines must be redrawn to meet standards. Typically, the standard is 10% total deviation (lowest to highest) but there may be exceptions.
<
p>In addition, communities that are growing have to add precincts to keep the total population in each of the precincts in line with the standard.
<
p>Boston never redistricts precincts; the city council districts do get redistricted using the changed population in the precincts.