For those who remember the 2010 redistricting, MA04 was drawn for Barney Frank, at the expense of John Olver, when Massachusetts lost a seat in the 2011 reapportionment. I can’t imagine the legislature will see the survival of Jake Auchincloss as a priority, and given the peculiar shape of the districts south and west of Boston, there are opportunities for more compact, rational districts.
Three districts have new hometowns for the representatives – MA05, Markey (Malden) to Clark (Melrose); MA07 Capuano (Somerville) to Pressley (Boston), and MA04 Frank (Brookline) to Kennedy and Auchincloss (Newton).
In any case, old rules don’t apply, and I am sure there are friends of the legislative redistricting committee who have more influence over the process than Jake. Break out your cartographic scalpels and have some fun!
My recollection is that Olver already indicated he was retiring so he wasn’t really a victim of redistricting.
I recall the political world breathed a sigh of relief when Olver retired. Word was that Olver saw the handwriting on the wall, and that the redistricting that would reduce seats from 10 to 9 would have a major impact on western Massachusetts. Olver was from Amherst; with Neal in Springfield and McGovern in Worcester, the likely scenario was to push two of them into a merged district. (See image of MA01 from 2002-2011)
When he announced his retirement, there was a sense of relief among the rest of the delegation. From the October 28, 2011 Boston Globe:
I’m surprised that nobody from Attleboro, Taunton, or New Bedford tried to run, while so many candidates potentially split the Brookline-Newton vote. People in the southern part of that district have been frozen out of Congress since about 1960.
Well, the result of not having a southern-tier candidate was that the Brookline-Newton axis fragmented the vote and the minority preferences of the Attleboro, Tauntin, and New Bedford voters carried the day.
Not saying this was intentional, but it is what happened.
That’s one way of looking at it, but it might not be that satisfying to residents in those towns to be told that their political power consists of being able to pick which Brookline or Newton resident will represent them.
Of course, it’s partly the fault of potential candidates from the southern tier, who muffed a golden opportunity. How many selectmen, city councilors and state legislators from the Southern tier are just realizing that they could have gotten the 25k plus votes and be heading to Congress if they had a little foresight last winter.
I never put in the work to post about this, but my quick research showed that Fall River and other populated areas in the south don’t vote in the primary. Brookline, Newton, Wellesley, Needham really made a huge block of voters.
Whatever his ideology, Auchincloss will shift it to reflect those of his district (however drawn) well before the next election.
That’s a feature not a bug. On a lesser scale, Capuano grew into his district and held the seat for a very long time.
It’s unfair that Auchincloss can win with such a small splinter of the vote, but I expect that he too will grow into his district.
As for the unfairness, we have the option of changing that system in November. It will be on us after that if we do not.
And for the record 5/9 CD4 candidates endorsed RCV, including the top two vote getters, all endorsed ranked choice voting. It was smart strategy for Jake to chase after the south coast while the other 8 battled it out for Brookline and Newton. It’s why he won, lots of veterans and more moderate Kennedy voters down there. Ranked choice voting will also make it more likely a minority candidate or candidate from outside the affluent tip of the district can be competitive.
I agree with Trickle Up that he is smart and pragmatic enough to recognize he needs to win some of the 77% of the people who did it vote for him next time.
I think it was 8/9 candidates: all except Zannetos, who said he favored a delayed runoff election.
Why are we already gunning for him?
Right? Or rewriting congressional districts to screw over particular candidates. That’s a very Republican tactic in my book. We need non partisan redistricting across the board.
I have some questions:
One reason I ask these is that I think it’s difficult or impossible to describe a process for drawing district boundaries that isn’t based on demographics and geography. The geography of Massachusetts demographics is a canonical definition of systemic racism — affluent neighborhoods tend white, poor neighborhoods tend Black and minority.
I’m not sure that any approach based on property boundaries (and that is, by construction, every legal boundary in MA) can ever be both non-partisan and not racist.
Perhaps it is time to choose a different system for allocating congressional representation in MA.
No.
A political party controls the former, an independent commission the latter.
I think all CDs should be drawn by nonpartisan commissions.
I think all CDs should be drawn by nonpartisan commissions.
The current process is that districts are redrawn every 10 years by the legislature based on the census.
No.
By “criteria”, I meant more than who draws the line. I’ve had enough experience with “independent” commissions in this state to know that they are no panacea, especially when it concerns political power and money.
I appreciate the thrust of this response and I want to be sure I’m reading it correctly.
Are you proposing that an “independent commission” redraw every Massachusetts CD, with no further directives than the commission be “independent”?
Would this be like the “independent” town boards that approve or disapprove building permits, zoning exceptions, zoning changes, and so on? Or perhaps the “independent” town boards that select cable providers for a city or town?
Being “non-partisan” sometimes means “without concern for ANY voter”. There are lots of “independent” commissions who members are closely tied to influential players. I’m not defending partisanship or gerrymandering.
I’m saying instead that solving the problem requires more than attempting to strip party affiliation from the process.
I’m not sure if you are suggesting an alternative in your last line, but I am pretty sure that current federal law requires single-member undivided districts. IIRC CD7 was drawn to be majority minority. I’ve heard that MA is considered among the least obnoxiously gerrymandered states, but given our politics you could probably divide the state pretty much any way and elect all Democrats in most circumstances. I believe citizens commissions are generally considered a less partisan way to draw the districts than by the legislature.
I’m under the impression that federal law allows each state great freedom to set its own process for selecting representatives to Congress.
I don’t have any specific alternatives in mind. I do wonder if there are statistical or numeric measures that might reduce some of “discretion” that is too often a euphemism for ensuring that specific groups retain power of other groups.
At large districts are unconstitutional but multi member districts are not. Ranked choice voting, which we are voting on in November, combined with multi member districts drawn by non partisan commissions, is considered the gold standard of congressional reform. Along with a Wyoming rule style house expansion.
They even use our state as an example in this article from the Times. You could then select multiple candidates for the enlarged district using ranked choice. Perhaps under this scenario Capuano could have been retained and Pressley added in a larger Boston metro district. Perhaps at the expense of Lynch who would lose his suburban buffers in this scenario. Ask Fall River and southeastern MA would be in its own super district.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/10/opinion/house-representatives-size-multi-member.html
Not sure why at-larges are unconstitutional, but multi-members are not, the former being just the ultimate manifestation of the latter. Both have been used historically and I’m still fairly certain federal law currently requires SMDs, which I think are better anyway.
I favor an all at large model to be honest. We could ue proportional representation like the Cambridge City Council. Boston is still getting shafted relative to its overall population compared to the rest of the state. I think if we did this across the board for an expanded House, it would really make a difference in getting a Congress that actually looks like America.
For the small state/rural voters who might whine about this change: you still have a Senate and be grateful you get that.
I think there is something to be said for the Cape, the Merrimack Valley, Metro West, Boston, the Berkshires, and Worcester County (just as examples) each having their own representatives. Not sure why you think Boston is getting shafted when it currently dominates two districts, while its population only justifies one. As it is I believe a disproportionate number of Representatives live inside 128 and I only see that exacerbated by voting for an at-large slate since that’s where the votes are. MA is relatively compact, but what I’m describing would be worse someplace like TX or CA.
So about 80% of the states population lives within the 128 belt and has only about 50% of the members. Like I said you could do a few MMDs and cover the whole state without having to do at large or some combination.
Personally I have no issue with a state based district that’s selected by PR. I think the individual members ability to deliver the bacon to constituencies is less important in a post-pork Washington. Not to mention left out areas can always turn to the Senators who are supposed to deliver for states by design. Now I’m all for reviving pork as a way to reduce polarization and lubricate the legislative process, but I know it wouldn’t be popular. These days you vote for the ideology of the member over their personality.
Now PR in just our state would help the GOP in the short run but also help progressives. Going by presidential vote totals you’d get up to 3 GOP members and 7 Democrats with a 3/4 split of moderate to progressive among them based on the 20’ primary split. You do that across all states and we’d have a few Green and Libertarian members in Congress along with more Democrats in red states and more Republicans in blue states. It would do a lot to solve our polarization problem. Gradually I also see a Bernie/Warren party and a Biden/Kasich party emerging which would be similar to the Liberal/NDP divide in Canada.
Lee Drutman has a whole book on this subject that’s worth everybody’s time.
https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Two-Party-Doom-Loop-Multiparty/dp/0190913851
Do you put absolutely no stock in being from and knowing the communities they represent? You pointed out yourself that the Senate is for statewide interests. The House is for more parochial. I absolutely do not want to introduce party based PR into our system. That will just codify the worst of the concept that it’s all about the party.
In a multiparty system that will actually create more room for compromise. It also makes sure the voting constituency in every state is heard. If I’m a Republican here or a Democrat in Idaho I get nothing out of my congressmen. Under a PR Slate I would at least get the proportion of representation I deserve. It’s the winner take all model that is killing our politics and both nominated and elected Trump.
I think multi member districts would be illegal for congress, though they do exist for State legislatures. My understanding is that this has more to do with the Voters Rights Act than the Constitution.
Sabato says the Apportionment Act of 1845 for that and the need for majority minority districts took out the at large districts. So some changes would have to be made, but these are all enactments and not amendments so they need majority votes of both houses and the president. Same with expanding the House which has not been done since the 20’s despite the fact that the population has increased by 50% since then.
Also the Uniform Congressional District Act if 1967. Overturning that and switching to proportional representation for selection would enable MMDs and solve for minority representation. It would also go a long way to creating a multiparty democracy which would be more stable and less likely to go authoritarian than what we are seeing.
https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/multi-member-legislative-districts-just-a-thing-of-the-past/
I won’t say we are gunning for him. However, we start with Auchincloss starting off with the support of a minority of Democrats. Will someone who can influence redistricting make a few adjustments that would give them an advantage in a 2022 primary over Jake?
I like RCV to ameliorate that issue, but that doesn’t mean his district won’t ultimately be satisfied with him. Lori Trahan, who found herself in the same situation last cycle, didn’t even draw a challenger from either party this year. I do interpret your diary as motivated to leave him without a good district to run in.
Let the voters make that decision. It is highly elitist to suggest that we invalidate the votes of a primary by arbitrarily changing the composition of the district to disenfranchise the 22% we disagree with most. I also might add this would have the effect of packing the progressives into a smaller district which would make it more likely a Republican would get elected in the southern half of a new district. Maybe Hodgson who is popular down there. I would much rather a moderate Democrat represent the entire CD4 than a tea party Republican.
With ranked choice voting and non partisan redistricitng, the majority of voters will have the final say.
Any of the 9 candidates would have won with a minority of Democrats by definition, barring a very popular candidate getting 51% in a nine candidate field. Ranked choice solves this more than redistricting which should not be used as a partisan tool to begin with.
While Congressman Frank was always welcome in Brookline, I’m pretty dang sure he lived in Newton the entire time he ran for and was elected as a Congressman.
While I lived in Brookline, Barney Frank was my representative. He answered each and every letter I sent him by hand. He or his staff returned every phone call.
I don’t remember caring where he lived, I instead remember that he showed me genuine respect and I was happy to reciprocate in kind.
I always felt that Barney Frank represented me and did so with candor, competence, and enthusiasm.
Barney Franks biography ranks right up there with Tips and the Caro LBJ series on my top shelf of political biographies. Very good lessons on how to stay true to your principles while moving the ball forward. I’m a big admirer of his, even if he was never my constituent. I do wonder how much fun it would’ve been had he become a Senator.
A friend of mine speculated that Kennedy ran against Markey now because he wasn’t going to like the redistricting process and the chance his Brookline would have been merged with Pressley or Lynch’s districts. I doubt that was the case, but as the crow flies, Auchincloss, Pressley and Lynch are almost neighbors. But assuming Mass keeps are CDs, which is expected, no one will get redrawn out of a CD.
But if we had the independent commissions with the same charge as other states, their would be some consolidation in the Boston area and give regions like Fall River to have their own congressional representation.
Kennedy gambled on leapfrogging to the Senate and avoiding a crowded primary against Pressley or Healey and that it was better for his future presidential prospects to beat an old white guy than beat an LGBT woman or a woman of color. He lost his bet.
The ideal way to do this would be to have an independent commission draw up the districts and where the representatives currently live be damned. The 8th, 7th and 4th are Frankensteined to an absurd degree.
7th is drawn to be majority-minority I believe, and the 8th is impacted by that. 4th isn’t as bad as it used to be, but Fall River should not be divided. In fact IMO that city and New Bedford would ideally share a district. If it were completely up to me Boston would be entirely in one district.
I’ll say only that while I lived in Brookline, Barney Frank was my representative and answered every letter himself. A member of his staff ALWAYS answered every inquiry. After I moved to Somerville, I had similar responsiveness from Mr. Capuano (although I contacted him less often). I got immediate and marvelous responses from Ted Kennedy’s office when my wife and I needed assistance with getting her Green Card. I’ve had even more responsiveness from Ms. Warren’s office, and I’ve met with Ms. Warren often enough at campaign events that she remembers me I have worked with her staff regarding identity theft and regulatory changes that will further protect consumers. Mayor Joe Curtatone was at my polling place when I voted in the 2012 election (my first Presidential election as a Somerville resident), and welcomed my youngest son (who was voting for the first time) and me to Somerville.
I’ve had no response from Ms. Pressley in the two years that she’s been my Representative, despite reaching out by phone and email in constructive ways about issues that should concern all of us (privacy, robo-calling, and protecting consumers from predatory online behavior).
I don’t care too much about how the district lines are drawn, Mike Capuano represented Ward 5 Precinct 2 of Somerville before and after the most recent change.
What I do care about is that my own experience is that I have not had a Representative since January of 2018. I’m sure that she’ll continue to receive the enthusiastic support of whatever neighborhoods and constituents she does represent. She will not have mine until she finds a way to have her staff at least return a phone call or an email.
I will not be voting for Ms. Pressley unless and until that changes.
I’m surprised Pressley isn’t better at constituent service having once been a Senate staffer herself.
I am too.
It leaves me with a distinct impression that she is well aware of who her constituents are and that I am not part of that esteemed group.
She was a staffer for Kerry, unfortunately. I haven’t needed to contact Pressley yet, but Kerry’s staffers were by far the rudest and least helpful staffers of any office I had to deal with.
Back in the day you’d always go for the Kennedy office over Kerry. I have a signed copy of a letter Ted sent back to me as part of a school project, I believe about drilling in the ANWR. It was obviously a form response, but the signature was definitely real. Nice touch. Mayor Daley did that too when I worked in his office. Always Crickets from Kerry, even Browns office was better.
Well, the context in which I know Ayanna Pressley is I was an intern in Kerry’s Capitol Hill office when she was on his staff. It happens the task that occupied most of my time was opening and sorting constituent mail. I would scan the correspondence to determine the issue then place it in the box of the appropriate LA or LC who would address it. (There was usually also a few pieces of misdirected mail that I would need to deliver to Sen. Bob Kerrey’s office.) She was not that type of staffer, but I just mention this to point out the office definitely had a procedure for constituent response. I did my part – can’t say what happened after that:)