[EL] Ornstein gerrymandering article's facts are wrong

[Michael McDonald]

I think Norm may be referring to "nonpartisan" commissions in Arizona and
California adopted by voter initiative, as opposed to commissions that are
composed primarily of partisans. It's implicit in his phrase "such
commissions" referring back to Iowa's model. However, if one wants to
quibble, Arizona and California are standalone commissions compared to
Iowa's commission which advises the legislature. The latter is also used in
Maine and New York (by a constitutional referendum adopted by voters in the
recent 2014 election), although they are not "nonpartisan" in the same vein
as Iowa.
 
Btw, if this constitutional referendum reform is adopted in Ohio, its state
legislative commission would be amended to include more protections for the
minority party. The proposal is expected to pass out of House committee
today.
 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0bHdAFS4MgqTkdTc19memdad28/view
 
============
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor
University of Florida
Department of Political Science
234 Anderson Hall
P.O. Box 117325
Gainesville, FL 32611
 
phone:   352-273-2371 (office)
e-mail:  dr.michael.p.mcdonald at gmail.com                
web:      <http://www.electproject.org/> www.ElectProject.org 
twitter: @ElectProject
 
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas
Johnson
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 1:03 PM
To: 'Rick Hasen'; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Ornstein gerrymandering article's facts are wrong
 
Unfortunately Mr. Ornstein has his facts and conclusion wrong in this
article. At the heart of the article is his claim that:
 
"With the exception of Iowa, where the state Legislature turned the drawing
of lines over to a nonpartisan agency in 1981 after disputes and deadlocks
handed the power to the Iowa Supreme Court, the one outlet for change has
been using the initiative process to implement such commissions."
 
There are, in fact, nine states with congressional redistricting
commissions, not three: California, Arizona, and Iowa are joined by Idaho,
Maine, Hawaii, Montana, Washington and New Jersey. 
 
[For details, see our Rose Institute Report "
<http://redistrictingonline.org/uploads/Rosereport_on_redistricting.pdf>
Redistricting in America: A State by State Analysis" (published in April,
2010, before California gave control of Congressional redistricting to its
commission) and Dr. Michael McDonald's "
<http://datadrivendetroit.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/McDonald_Comparativ
eAnalysisRedistrictingInstitutions_2004.pdf> A Comparative Analysis of
Redistricting Institutions in the United States, 2001-02," published in
2004), both published before the November 2010 addition of California to the
'Congressional redistricting by commission' group.]
 
As noted by Mr. Ornstein in the article, Iowa's commission was created by
the legislature via statute. But he misses that Maine, Hawaii, Idaho,
Montana, Washington and New Jersey were all created by measures put on the
ballot by the legislature. Only the Arizona and California commissions were
created by initiatives put on the ballot via signatures.
 
One may debate the level of independence of the various commissions, but all
are at least as structurally independent as Iowa, so the omission should not
be due to the form of the commission.
 
Mr. Ornstein's conclusion that "If the Supreme Court throws out these
redistricting commissions, we can kiss good-bye any efforts to effectively
change the redistricting process, to reduce the pernicious effects of
gerrymandering," is incorrect - the delegated-by-the-legislature-by-choice
redistricting models of Iowa, Maine, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Washington and
New Jersey are likely to remain valid and legal.
 
-          Doug
 
Douglas Johnson, Fellow
Rose Institute of State and Local Government
at Claremont McKenna College 
 <mailto:douglas.johnson at cmc.edu> douglas.johnson at cmc.edu
310-200-2058 
 
 
 
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick
Hasen
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2014 9:16 AM
To: law-election at UCI.edu <mailto:law-election at UCI.edu> 
Subject: [EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/4/14
 

 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68793> "The Pernicious Effects of
Gerrymandering"

Posted on  <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68793> December 3, 2014 8:05 pm by
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
 
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/washington-inside-out/the-pernicious-effects
-of-gerrymandering-20141203> Norm Ornstein on the Arizona case coming to
SCOTUS.
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141204/db611892/attachment.html>