[EL] How Democrats are ‘unilaterally disarming’ in the redistricting wars [not doing that in Oregon]

[Hugh L Brady]

Dan:  How often is the withdrawal rule used? I tried to search thru OLIS
but that was quite unproductive. I ask because it if it's not used often,
using an extraordinary procedure in the redistricting context seems to be
evidence of some purposeful intent to do something that's extremely
partisan or, in other instances, racially discriminatory. Thanks, Hugh

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 6:27 PM Dan Meek <dan at meek.net> wrote:

> Oregon has not created an independent redistricting commission of any sort.
>
> Also, the Politico story is wrong about Democrats in the Oregon
> Legislature giving up their power to redistrict their own seats and
> congressional seats.  They did not do that.  They only added one Republican
> to the House Redistricting Committee, making it evenly balanced D/R.  The
> Oregon Senate Committee remains with a 3-2 D majority.  But neither of
> those committees has veto power over adoption of new districts by the large
> D majorities in both chambers.
>
> Both chambers have a "withdrawal" rule that allows any member to move to
> bring any bill to the floor for an immediate and final vote.  The motion to
> withdraw is not debatable and succeeds on a majority vote on the floor.  If
> the motion succeeds, the bill is immediately put to a vote on the floor and
> also succeeds on a majority vote.
>
> The Oregon House is 37 Ds v. 23 Rs.  The Oregon Senate is 18 Ds v. 10 Rs
> v. 2 Independent Party members who vote with the Rs.  The Rs cannot bottle
> up a Democratic redistricting bill in the House Redistricting Committee,
> due to the "withdrawal" process.
>
> Dan Meek ⚖
> 503-293-9021 dan at meek.net 855-280-0488 fax
> On 6/21/2021 2:12 PM, Pildes, Rick wrote:
>
> I have a question about the recent Politico story with that title.  I’m
> inclined to think it’s misleading.
>
>
>
> From my recollection, in most of these examples, it is not Democratic
> legislatures that have created these independent commissions.  It is
> voters, through voter initiatives, that have created them.  As far as I can
> recall, the only two states in which Democratic legislatures did this are
> VA and OR.  In VA, that was because Democrats campaigned throughout the
> decade against the Republican gerrymander and insisted on a commission;
> once they got in power, most Democrats tried to walk away from their prior
> commitment, but just enough of them felt obligated to stick with that
> commitment, and so, with a lot of Republican votes, the commission was
> adopted.  The situation in OR, which is unique, does fit the claim of the
> piece.  But it seems to me more wrong than right to claim that Democratic
> legislatures are voluntarily giving up the power to redistrict where they
> have it.
>
>
>
> Let me know if I’m missing parts of the larger picture.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rick
>
>
>
> Richard H. Pildes
>
> Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
>
> NYU School of Law
>
> 347-886-6789
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttps://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> >> This message is from an external sender. Learn more about why this <<
> >> matters at https://links.utexas.edu/rtyclf.                        <<
>


-- 
Hugh L. Brady
Senior Lecturer in Law | The University of Texas School of Law
M (512) 289-0535
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210622/ba55f7a0/attachment.html>