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

[Dan Meek]

I know of its use a few times in some sessions.  It almost always fails, because the specific motions 
to withdraw do not command a majority vote on the floor.  In recent years, the users have been 
Republicans, when the respective chamber is majority Democratic. That makes sense, because the 
majority party also has a majority on every committee (except the House Redistricting Committee, now 
evenly split) and can send to the floor any bill favored by the caucus of the majority party.  It is 
the minority party that must use the withdrawal rule to get bills to the floor.

If Republicans were bottling up in a House committee a redistricting bill favored by the majority 
Democrats, it would almost certainly be used successfully, as the Democrats have a 37-23 majority in 
the Oregon House, and redistricting is very important to the members.

Dan Meek ⚖

	503-293-9021 	dan at meek.net <mailto:dan at meek.net>	855-280-0488 fax



On 6/22/2021 8:18 AM, Hugh L Brady wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 list
>>     Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>>     https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Law-election mailing list
>     Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto: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/bfb4ae9d/attachment.html>