Remember when Blue Mass Group endorsed the idea of placing an Independent commission in charge of redistricting, with hopes the state could avoid the problems of the past?
Remember how this idea was supported by the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, the NAACP, Oiste, the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, Govs. Dukakis and Romney, Barney Frank, and Deval Patrick?
And remember how a bill doing this exact thing was supported by 12 senators last year?
Yea, well the Senate rejected the idea on Thursday by a vote of 7-28.
From the SHNS account:
[The Republicans] noted that several of the Democrats now voting against independent redistricting – Sens. Stephen Brewer, Susan Fargo, Brian Joyce, James Timilty, Jamie Eldridge and Steven Tolman – were once counted as co-sponsors of legislation in support of the proposal. Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) said he couldn’t remember an instance when so many co-sponsors of a proposal voted against it on the floor.
Indeed.
Just why would so many senators vote against a measure they claimed to support last year? Either a)they refuse to support any idea, no matter how good it may be, so long as it’s proposed by a Republican; b) Senate leadership told them to vote against it and they obeyed like usual c) they never really supported it in the first place.
Regardless of whether the answer is a,b or c, the members of BMG should demand an answer from their elected officials.
[UPDATE: Per your request, from the editors’ archives: “Jill Stein is running on a platform that emphasizes openness and transparency in government (including limiting the use of outside sections in the budget process), clean elections, independent redistricting, and Instant Runoff Voting. Good ideas all.” Sounds like an endorsement of an idea to me.]
without a doubt.
I meant B!
<
p>This smacks of a leadership decision. And I wouldn’t blame a single legislator for swapping votes if Therese very, very strongly asked them to do so. Suffice it to say, this issue is not important enough to risk punishment over.
<
p>There’s plenty of issues this state needs to reform, but I don’t think redistricting is one of the priorities. Same-day registration would be my issue numero uno.
<
p>I’m really disappointed to hear that.
<
p>Since the day this representative democracy was founded powerful incumbents have been at war with relatively powerless emerging populations, starting with non-land owning men,to women, to blacks and most recently to Latinos, all demanding that neighborhoods with a critical mass of their new voters be put into 1 district, and not split into 3 neighboring districts.
<
p>I think a fair open redistricting process is fundamental to a representative democracy. That said, if we can’t have an independent commission, let’s work to make a Legislative Committee open and accountable.
<
p>
We have to do it every 10 years, but do we really need to reform of the process? I’m sure there’s reforms to be made. For example, in Lynn, there’s a lack of true “Lynn” seats, because parts of Lynn are tied to other, larger chunks of surrounding towns. I would love to see more communities stay intact. While I’m sure the state could reform its ability to ensure minority communities are districted in such a way that they have the best chance for their fair share of seats, I don’t necessarily think independent redistricting will do that. Court oversight, for example, can ensure districts are drawn up in that way.
<
p>Redistricting is an incredibly difficult process. There is no “fair” way of doing it – because, no matter what, someone’s going to get screwed. Some town is going to get thrown in with a bigger town, making it exceedingly difficult to get a state rep from their town elected – ever. Some community within a community is going to feel as though they’re powerless within that community. An independent board is not going to fix that problem – I’m not even sure it’ll help it – so, no, I don’t view this as a priority that is going to make me put heaps of scorn on the likes of Sonia Chang Diaz and Jamie Eldridge.
please consider this my opinion, not the opinion of any of the legislators who’s names have come up over the course of this thread. I always throw that in there as my signature, but in this particular context I want to stress it. I have no idea what they’ve been thinking, but I know they’re too smart to have made a bad vote in this area. So either there was something funny about this particular bill or voting for it would have led to their being punished by leadership in a way that would have been bad for their constituents.
<
p>If that ladder fact angers people, they need to take it up with the Senate President. Actually if they want to see this bill passed, that’s exactly who they should be questioning. Make this her priority and it gets through.
I’ve unfortunately failed to follow this one recently. I put a lot of time and work into independent redistricting effort a couple of years ago, which IIRC passed out of committee successfully but then was allowed to lapse at the constitutional convention. However, before jumping to conclusions on this vote, I wonder: Was this vote on the same proposal? Or was it a different proposal for independent redistricting? And if different, in what ways? What, specifically, did this bill propose?
From the ‘Scaling the Hill’ blog:
<
p>http://www.scalingthehill.com/…
<
p>Perhaps the Three Amigos could consider adding this to the Differently Winged blogroll (BMG is on RMG!)
Ryan this is an important measure. You think its okay to cave for fear of “punishment” from Therese Murray.
Cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Insider deal redistricting has given us gerrymandered Congressional districts, a lock monopoly for incumbents (most uncontested seats in country-both primaries and general), screwed minorities in Boston (remember the federal case on redistricting that ultimately led to Finneran perjuring himself with a federal grand jury?).
This initiative was pushed and endorsed by Common Cause, League of Women voters MANY minority groups, Mike Dukakis, Gov Patrick to name a few.
To see “progressives” like Eldridge, and especially Chang-Diaz go in the tank this quick is sad.
Sonia represents the district the federal redistricting suit grew out of, that makes her vote especially troubling.
I’m not going to give a yes – I’m going to give a hell yes.
<
p>I’ve seen what “punishment” means first hand. Throw out all the lame slogans all you want, but it’s the constituents who suffer in the end. My former state rep went from being a chair of a committee to spending a decade in oblivion, all because of one vote. That cost my district millions. Was it an important vote? Yes. In fact, I’m glad that vote was made. But the calculus on this vote is radically different. The fact of the matter is Republicans are not the minority of this state because of redistricting, they’re the minority because their local party organizing infrastructure is non existent and they have no ideas other than tax cuts. Having an independent panel to do redistricting isn’t going to change that, or much of anything.
<
p>Because people I respect like Eldridge and Chang Diaz “caved” on this, clearly – to me – this means there was going to be major punishments for them on this vote. Eldridge had an entire career in the house that proved he was willing to buck the majority at times; there was obviously a reason he didn’t today. Maybe, as Cos says, this wasn’t a particularly good bill. Or maybe Therese suggested in not so subtle ways that this bill was to die by a wide margin. Believe it or not, those punishments probably would have been far more damaging to their constituents than not having independent redistricting. Not. Even. Close.
<
p>Bottom line: this isn’t Jamie or Sonia’s fault. If this bill was so damn good, go get 15-20 more votes for it and get the thing passed, or at least close. They’re not going to stick their necks out when it’s not even close to passing – you need to give them cover. If it’s close, then there’s a smaller chance that their constituents will be the ones who are punished should their representation vote for the bill, because leadership won’t have the leverage to do so.
<
p>The worst thing Sonia or Jamie could do as freshmen legislators is make themselves irrelevant for the next 4-6 years. Their constituents didn’t vote them in office for independent redistricting; they were voted in office to be effective legislators. Sonia or Jamie being irrelevant would mean 2 new freshmen legislators representing their districts 2 years from now, including a republican in Jamie’s district instead of an extremely progressive legislator. We have to realize that there’s a way politics works on Beacon Hill, because otherwise we’ll be shooting our own legs.
Yea to casinos, you’ll give legislators “cover” for making a poor decision too?
we pick and choose our fights. And she’s not going to be that much of a hard ass on that fight, because there’s already enough Senators against casinos to diffuse leaderships’ ability to push for it. That said, the Senate has long voted for slots in Race Tracks. I’m not sure it could be stopped there if the House vote were to be close. When it comes to casino gambling, it’s almost always been about the House.
There is of course truth to what you are saying, but to co-sponsor the bill and then vote against it? It just doesn’t jibe – assuming it has not substantially changed (which appears to not make a difference in your opinion anyway)
<
p>How about hey, I co-sponsored this bill, you have more than enough votes, I can’t vote against it. If that level of base (albeit not ideal) reasoning can not be accommodated and senators and representatives are not be held accountable (by us) for their actions, then will get the change we deserve.
<
p>
I remember when I innocently believed that if you get 81 sponsers in the House, your bill passes. Nope. Think 2004 and H4321…
if they dont vote progressive?
Why dont we have everyone go home and let your friend Therese run the place.?
if Eldridge and Diaz are simply going to do as their told, then they are already irrelevant.
Unless of course its all about getting some useless earmark in at budget time as their reward. They all get them anyway.
Somewhere Tom Finneran is smiling.
The laws that they file, the things they’ll do for their constituents will – and the breath of change they are in the Senate is all going to make a difference. But we need a larger progressive bloc to get some of those bills passed. This is obviously one of them.
<
p>Seriously, do you have to be so naive? You really just want them to shoot their feet off, don’t you? You’re not being helpful, not even to your own cause. Your bill was off by more than 20 votes and you want to blame Eldridge and Chang Diaz for it? Are you kidding?
Eldridge Co-Sponsored the Fair Districts bill in the House last year. Now in one his first votes in the Senate votes against it!
So I guess now it’s all about “the things he does for his constituents” Like vote maybe. I didnt elect him to shovel my driveway.
you’re interested in a conversation.
<
p>oh well.
and then voted against. For what reasons I dont understand. And I am not buying Jamies explanation provided on this site.
If you want a sense for how odd they are, look at these two Massachusetts congressional district maps, the current way on the left, and on the right a hypothetical map that tries to optimize a measure of district compactness. I’m often skeptical of ‘independent commission’ methods, which are often bizarre lotteries still run by the Two Parties. So, take away the map pen entirely and turn it over to impartial redistricting by computer (it’s Open Source!).
<
p>The map you provide is compact, but have you looked at it? It ignores town lines, it ignores county lines (not so relevant in MA but moreso in other states), it ignores natural boundaries between regions. It ignores areas of agriculture or industry or commerce, and it ignores the fourteenth amendment. It ignores transportation infrastructure which often influences culture, like highways and ports. None of those things — natural, man made, or happenstance — are necessarily compact, and they’re more important than a principle of mathematical topology.
<
p>Are districts gamed? Yip. Is compactness the answer? Nope. Methinks Iowa has a pretty good system though.
It’s really not that difficult.
is that it includes state jurisdiction over water… the nearest 5 miles or whatever. So, if you draw a bigger circle around cape and islands it starts to look like that… note also that the north shore is a bit “smooth”
Where’d you put it, stomv?
on the other side of a Möbius strip.
Don’t rush to judgment until you’ve seen the gosh-darn bill.
<
p>For all I know, their independent panel could be every former MA governor or lt governor, thereby stacking the deck. southshorepragmatist provides no context: no bill, no newspaper article online, no nothing.
<
p>Let’s get the facts first, shall we?
thanks.
Unfortunately we are unlikely to see (on mass.gov) any bills until March and then only few if the pace is the same as last session. Openmass.org, for the 186th session, is essentially on hold until the mass.gov site gets updated… Which is a couple of months away.
It’s a little odd to see Susan Fargo voting against this bill, since my modestly-sized town is currently split down the middle due to a very obvious abuse of districting to dilute her power.
I believe that the vote on the independent redistricting commission that occurred yesterday actually was proposed as an amendment or change to the Rules of the Senate, as that is what they were debating. Therefore, it was not a separate bill, meaning that there was no hearing, etc. rather the Republicans were trying to do it as an amendment to the Rules of the Senate. So, I suspect that those legislators who may have have supported/co-sponsored the bill in the past, but did not vote for it this time, still support the measure but felt that it should be done as a separate bill rather than tacked onto a rules debate.
…because the Senate would never pass a bill that hasn’t had a hearing, or a bill they haven’t even read. That would and has never happened.
pass a bill without a hearing? Who would want public comments! Seriously, dude, you’re not helping your cause in arguing they should pass something that represents a major change with no public comment. As has been indicated numerous times, we don’t know what the heck this bill was or how it was to be implemented.
Here’s a quote. Sen. Patricia Jehlen and Sen. Susan Tucker, both supported the bill said:
<
p>
<
p>I hope this is not some BS grandstanding instead of working on something that is truly needed. I think it’s an uphill battle to begin with.
an unexpected bill coming up makes it easier to kill than if there was a big, grand public hearing – which only increases my thoughts that this was gamed by the leadership. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if some people voted it down without knowing the bill’s full details, especially if they didn’t know it was coming up today.
<
p>If this was the best version of the bill, though, I believe there are measures to revive it. Heck, if someone would get the exact language and context of the bill, maybe I’d even be willing to push for it =p
Glad to see my senator had the spine.
Here’s a link to that thread.
<
p>http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
<
p>I do think BMG supports an independent commission.
<
p>Is it time to begin a ‘Conservative/Progressive’ alliance, to counteract some of the deleterious effects of the ‘Hack/Progressive’ alliance?
Good government is not just a BlueMassGroup or RedMassGroup issue. It’s an issue for all of us grassrooters who are tired of our favorite legislators talking big in our districts but cowering when it comes time to take action on the Hill.
<
p>I bet David and EaBoClipper could sit down and put together quite a list of issues where they agree.
Southshorepragmatist is correct in noting that I was a co-sponsor of this bill in previous legislative sessions.
<
p>My position on the bill has always been the same. I support creating an independent redistricting commission, but not as the final arbiter for redistricting legislative districts. I believe that the Legislature should have the final say on redistricting, because only legislators are truly accountable to the people, as opposed to a separate commission that is not elected by voters.
<
p>Even though I have never agreed with the exact language of the bill, I have co-sponsored it in the past because I support the intent of the bill, and have worked in the past to pass a compromise version of the bill as a member of the Joint Committee on Election Laws.
<
p>Yesterday’s amendment was filed without the ability to amend the language, and of course it did not have the benefit of a public hearing, or input from the general public, advocacy groups, or legislators.
<
p>No one has fought harder for election reform than myself in the House, and I will continue fighting for election law, ethics, and campaign finance reform in the Senate.
<
p>I have filed legislation for the 2009-2010 session on Same-Day Election Registration, Early Voting, strengthening the Secretary of State’s enforcement power over lobbyists, and banning “Pay to Play” fundraising in Massachusetts, and I have been a vocal supporter of Governor Patrick’s Ethics Reform Commission proposals.
<
p>I look forward to working with the BMG community on making this legislative session a “season of reform.”
<
p>- Jamie
Thank you for your constant attention, leadership and work on ensuring fair and open elections. You must admit for us progressives, your vote on the redistricting looked contradictory to your stated position.
Thank you for taking the time to explain this bill and your vote!
Thank goodness I resisted the urge to post some of the questions I had regarding your vote. It saved me a bit of embarrassment. Oops, did I just admit doubts? I’m learning a lot and gaining even more respect for your comprehension of the issues, commitment to progressive values and leadership.
You couldnt offer a further amendment to alter language in the original amendment.
Also please satisfy Ryans curiousity. Did Therese twist your arm?
Your above comment smacks of double talk.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. The more that I work with the details of legislation that on the surface sounds good, the more I realize that the devil is in the details.
Could you please clarify the procedural history of what happened, as well as what bills to clean up districting are properly filed and pending? I am sure among the 6000+ pieces of timely-filed legislation there MUST be actual legislation filed on this subject as opposed toa “take it or leave it” floor amendment.
I realize I’m not Jamie but I’ve been called Jamie before…
<
p>If this news report is to be believed and the house passes what the senate did approve yesterday (no commission) then it looks like nothing is changing and there will be no public hearing or other due course either way.
<
p> I hope I’m misinterpreting this, please do correct.
<
p>
<
p>
Let me say that again: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING.
<
p>The so-called “independent redistricting” proposals are just an attempt to transfer the power to redistrict seats from one set of elites to another.
<
p>Right now, those elites are popularly-elected representatives who have some accountability to the public (as President Obama would say, “I won”). The proposals that are out there eliminate this accountability.
<
p>The commissions would presumably be composed of fair-minded individuals, but they would be subject to both their own biases as well as the information put before them.
<
p>One of the reasons for “independent redistricting” is to transfer the power in redistricting from those in political power to those with the money to bankroll the campaigns to influence how the districts are drawn. If you can hire better experts, you can assemble a more convincing redistricting proposal and present it to the redistricting commission in a way that will take advantage of the commission’s biases.
<
p>Redistricting will always be affected by a set of value judgments. In Massachusetts, we have decided that precincts of voters (roughly 3000 people) will be kept in the same electoral districts. These precincts are drawn by the local cities and towns and reflect the local communities’ sense of who should vote together. Do we want to give that up? Some states give the power of drawing the lines of voting districts to their redistricting commission.
<
p>We’ve got some funny-looking districts, no question. In part this reflects the well-known interest of voters in stability of their districts, which shows up in nibbling around the edge every time districts are changed. Some people will remember the outcry when it was proposed to eliminate Rep. Meehan’s district in the interest of smoothing out the lines.
<
p>This is not to say that the process can’t be done much better on Beacon Hill. I’d hope that the progressive leaders, especially those connected to the leadership, speak up for a reform of the internal process. Reps who perceive that they were “punished” by Finneran are now on the other side of the fence. Last time out, Jay Kaufman’s district got messed with; I’d hope that Rep. Kaufman would use his influence with the Speaker to make sure that that doesn’t happen to any representative, no matter whose camp that they’re in.
<
p>In conclusion, there is nothing progressive about handing over the power to redraw state electoral lines to a group of unelected elites. There’s a reason these proposals are very popular with conservatives. It would be a mistake of historic proportions.
I presume you mean 30,000 for state rep seats…
Precincts are 3000 or so. (Except in Boston, where they don’t change).
<
p>State rep seats are 40,000 or so, or roughly 13 precincts. For example, my district has 10 Gloucester precincts, 3 Rockport precincts, and all of Essex (a single precinct).
And the “law of unintended consequences” meant that messing with Kaufman’s districts means Arlington has three representatives – a delegation rather than one – all very good. And that Jay Kaufman is known in several towns rather than one. Not what was intended.
I hope after reading Sen. Eldridge’s comment I hope the BMG community will see this vote for what it was: a GOP ploy – a “gotcha” vote – aimed at their Democratic colleagues, especially the progressives.
<
p>Eldridge, Fargo, Tolman and the others have indeed supported and sponsored bills to establish independent redistricting commissions. This was NOT one of those bills!
<
p>Let’s get our terminology straight: this wasn’t even a BILL at all – it was proposed as a change to the Senate Rules. Recently filed bills are just being delegated to committees; you won’t start seeing floor votes for a couple of months at least. This rule change was brought up as a surprise by the GOP senators (Sens. Tucker and Jehlen said so) for the purpose of catching the progressives off guard and forcing them into a bad vote, which they knew would sit poorly with the general public and the progressive grassroots.
<
p>Independent commissions are a good idea and should be filed, debated, and passed. But it should be passed as a BILL, not forced through as a rule change with no debate or opportunity for review or amendment. I thought we were all for open government here? Yesterday’s vote was anything but.
<
p>So please, before you start losing faith in our progressive legislators and accusing them of hypocrisy, understand what this vote was and what it was not. This was NOT a true vote on a bill to establish independent redistricting commissions. This WAS a gotcha vote sprung by the GOP to discredit progressives, and I’m sorry to see so many BMGers taking the bait.
For those who think redistricting is important.
<
p>From State House News.
<
p>
<
p>
What is that? Is that when you end up voting against a bill (you say you support and co sponsored) because a Republican brought it forward??
Wow those sneaky Republicans (all 5 of them!!!)
We sure showed them!!!
Turns out there was no “Redistricting Bill” at all – but a publicity ploy using procedural rules to get some notice without going through the legislation process.
<
p>That ploy was apparently a floor amendment that attempted to bypass normal procedures. Thus – a gotcha.
then debated, then voted on, A publicity ploy?
And how is that NOT part of the legislative process?????
They had 2 years to do that last session.
<
p>Are you saying that this issue will be voted on as a bill?
<
p>Or will a similar procedure be used to keep the system relatively the same?
<
p>Answer that question and then let’s talk about naivete. Sadly it appears to already be answered
One of the reasons I never ran for State Legislator, (kudos to you Jim) was I realized that as a rank and file person, lacking the staff or the resources or the time to do due diligence, would be faced with the fact that I would often have to rely on leadership to explain to me the full implications of an upcoming vote, including some institutional knowledge of the special interest groups who supported or opposed the measure. And sometimes there just isn’t enough time or access to accurate information, never mind consulting with constituents. And often those uninformed votes come back and kick you in the throat which ever way you vote. Only thing to do is stop chocking and move on.
Bill History and Link to Bill from last session
<
p>01/11/07 H Referred to the committee on Election Laws
<
p>01/11/07 S Senate concurred
Public Hearing date Apr 11 pm at 1:00 in Room A-2
<
p>04/30/07 S Proposal reported adversely by committee and placed on file -SJ 189
<
p>04/30/07 H Proposal reported adversely by committee and placed on file -HJ 356
<
p>05/03/07 H Called for consideration in the joint session -HJ 361
<
p>05/09/07 J Joint session held and recessed until June 14, 2007 -SJ 215
<
p>06/14/07 J Joint session adjourned with no action taken on this matter -SJ 498
<
p>Bill
So, this was the first time legislators INCLUDING those who Co Sponsored the bill had a chance to be recorded on this initiative. Many (including Eldridge,Fargo, Tolman, etc)voted against thier own bill.
Sue Tucker, Pat Jehlen stuck to thier guns and voted for.
I think a couple Repubs were also co sponsors of original bill and voted accordingly.
Jim, can you post roll call?
No published Roll call on committee votes though the journal does mention who dissented with the committees recommendation.
<
p>HJ 356
<
p>Here is the relvent portion of the journal:
<
p>
<
p>No, no they didn’t. Their bill wasn’t on the floor. An unamendable motion to a wholly unrelated topic was the vote in question. You know that — but it doesn’t appear that you’re interested in honest debate. Shrugs.
What a bunch of frauds especially Jamie Eldridge!!! He is the classic case of the “progressive” who once he assumes power throws all his beliefs away in order to suck up to the leadership.
<
p>Anyone wondering what this is all about needs only to take a moment to check out the language of the amendment that the senate voted for against the proposal put forth by common cause. They are pretty much an exact match.
<
p>FYI, what the senate was actually voting on was an order that would begin the redistricting process for the 2012 election cycle. It effectively created the committee that will redraw the House, Senate & Congressional districts.
<
p>Given that the order marked the start of another corrupt redistricting process, the republican members were actually pretty clever to substitute the league of women voters & common cause redistricting proposal and force a vote for REAL CHANGE.. The timing was totally appropriate.
<
p>So you can sugar coat it all you want – and offer up all the lame excuses you want (see Eldridge’s rather self serving and very embarrassing post above)- but the bottom line is that all of the so called reformers who talk a good game – like Eldridge – always end up showing their true colors when its time to take the actual vote.
<
p>By the way Sen. Pat Jelhan is the real thing! She is not afraid to stand up for what she believes. We need more of her to really change things!!!!!
Same language as last years bill. Totally amendable, although why would you want to if language is same as bill you cosponsored?
Maybe Jim can link/post both?
As you can see from Jim’s earlier post , last year the bill was killed in committee and didnt reach the floor. This was first chance to get a recorded vote on it!
If it is all about keeping Senate President happy – fine, just say so. Just dont feed me some doublespeak about un amendable..blah…blah.. when thats not true!
<
p> – Jamie Eldridge
<
p>
<
p> – ruppert
<
p>
<
p>So, my fellow BMGers: do we have a ruling? Which is it — was it amendable or wasn’t it?
but dont worry Jamie looks forward to making the upcoming session a “season of reform” We will be watching him and the other so called reformers closely.
Video of amendment. It is a pretty lively discussion. Go to the 17th minute for the video.
I’m not completely sure of exact Senate rules, but my guess is that technically it was amendable on the floor unless a special rule was adopted prohibiting such. However, that doesn’t mean that is what SHOULD happen. Debating amendment after amendment in full session can get rather chaotic and much of the work should be done in a committee mark-up session. It sounds like Jamie and others did not like being taken somewhat by surprise and still wanted a chance to work on the language before voting. Again, simply offering an amendment on the floor would not be an effective way to do this.
As i understand it, The Senate knew it was taking up rules;
Amendments to the rules are filed with the Clerk of the Senate and are printed for the Session. I am also told The Democratic caucus discussed amendments prior to debate.
I just dont get the “surprise” part of this discussion with our full time Legislature.