He
has pushed for creating an independent body that would take over preparation of
the maps that detail boundaries of political districts. Of course, the
definition of “independent” can be open to interpretation.
 |
| It's not just a Texas issue. Provided by Texas Politics Project. |
AS
IN I wonder if it means anyone “independent” of the current political
leadership who would deliberately favor the current political minority. It
makes me suspect it to be an effort to undermine the current process – by which
the boundaries are drawn by the legislators who (theoretically) are the
representatives of the people who elected them.
In
short, the people who couldn’t win the elections are now trying to find a new
way to win – rather than going out and winning the election themselves.
So
it is with some interest that I try to figure out what the significance is of
the Supreme Court of the United States’ latest ruling on Monday – one that
rejects the Arizona Legislature’s efforts to strike down the state Independent
Redistricting Commission. It was created following a voter referendum, and was
meant to take away the ability of legislators to draw political boundaries to
favor themselves.
Although
the real harm from the current process of redistricting is when politicos draw
boundaries meant to screw over their opposition.
THE
HIGH COURT on Monday ruled that there is nothing preventing a state from
implementing a redistricting procedure that relies on someone other than the
legislature to do the dirty work of political map-making.
 |
| RAUNER: Did high court give him a boost? |
The
Los Angeles Times reported Monday that officials in California are viewing the
ruling as supportive of their own state’s efforts. Which makes me suspect
Rauner was very happy as well.
The
governor now has a very high authority (the same one that pleased progressives
by backing healthcare reform AND gay marriage just a few days earlier) in his
favor.
Could
this become the measure that makes Democrats now hostile to Rauner for his
anti-organized labor rhetoric a little bit willing to compromise? Heck, could
support for this Rauner desire become THE compromise issue that allows for the
state to get something resembling a budget compromise in coming weeks?
OF
COURSE, I’M not thinking that Democrats in the Legislature would back something
meant to deliberately undermine themselves. I suspect we’d have to get a
commission that wasn’t so blatantly biased in favor of any political party.
 |
| MADIGAN: He'll figure out way to protect self |
Because
the honest truth is that there is no such thing as absolute non-biased. Everybody
is going to have their preferences they will want to favor. And for those who
suggest a computer to take the human element out, I’d question the biases of
those people who program the device.
But
is the fact that this issue appears to have some sticking power means Democrats
in this state ought to try to get a grasp on it so that it doesn’t wind up
being implemented in a completely hostile form.
Otherwise
we’re going to continue with the current format in Illinois, which is one that
always amazes political people elsewhere – the idea that the balance of power
can (and often does) fall to the draw out of a hat (or, one time, from a
crystal bowl once owned by Abraham Lincoln).
IT
WAS PUT into the state Constitution that way because it was believed that the
fear of an all-or-nothing draw, with someone getting nothing, would be so
fearsome it would force people to cooperate.
Instead,
the greed of political people and the chance that they can get everything at
the expense of their opposition has turned out to be stronger.
I
don’t doubt that some Republicans are viewing the 2018 gubernatorial election
as being all-important because it would give the GOP a veto come the 2021
reapportionment that could result in them having a chance at the “all-or-nothing”
prize.
Which
could also influence the Dems with their current veto-proof majority that
prevents Rauner from being able to push his ideological will down their throats
to consider this issue further – because nothing lasts forever.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment