Iowa's legislative service staff is close to civil service in nature. They are staffers who have jobs more secure than partisan staff, work for all four caucuses, and do not get involved in partisan debate. In the 90s, Dem and Rep. Leaders agreed. A. battle served no purpose and the staff plan was accepted. Both chambers flipped to Rep. In 01 the GOP leaders wanted to fight, the Dem. Gov's threatened veto scotched that.

Will the media EVER stop refering to the Iowa commission?  There's no such animal!

Jeff Wice
-----Original Message-----
From: "Larry Levine" <larrylevine@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 15:26:10 
To:<election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>, <jonathan.gass@1webmail.net>
Subject: Re: news of the day 12/6/04

Just curious - the non-partisan bureaucrats in Iowa, what were their party
affiliations and how did they acheive their jobs? Serioiusly. I'd like to
know. I'm not being contentious. Also, what were the margins of victory in
those contestable seats and how many were won by incumbents?
Finally, isn't there a state somewhere (I've been told without verification)
where it's left to a bi-partisan group with equal numbers from both parties
and each party having veto power with deadlocks broken by a coin toss?
Larry Levine



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <jonathan.gass@1webmail.net>
To: <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: news of the day 12/6/04

I recalled a point about this in the amicus brief I
helped draft in the Vieth case when I was at the
Brennan Center, so I went to the website and had a
look.  Here's what I found:

"In Iowa, for example, the civil servants charged with
drawing districts are directed not to take account of
incumbency or other political factors. Not
coincidentally, four of Iowa's five Congressional races
in 2002 were competitive. A State with one-ninetieth of
the House seats produced one-tenth of the meaningful
elections."

One can of course dispute the causal argument that is
at least implicit here, but I do find the facts
striking.

Another approach is a "baseball arbitration"-style
commission, with an equal number of Democratic and
Republican appointees chaired by an individual regarded
as neutral by the two parties.  This system is used in
New Jersey for its state legislative districts, I
believe.  The dynamic is that each slate of partisan
members simultaneously prepares a "Democratic" or
"Republican" plan, and the neutral member chooses the
more fair.  Thus, the partisans try to shade things in
their favor, but not to go too far lest the other plan
turn out to be less drastically skewed in the other
direction.

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 13:13:29 -0500, "Trevor Potter"
wrote:

One certainly could make "that" argument about
non-partisan commissions: but what IS that argument?
That it is not easy to create a non-partisan group?
True, but hardly impossible-many states have created
redistricting commissions that were-at a minimum-seen
as less partisan than the legislative process they
replaced.

 That they don't work? But they almost always produce
more competitive seats than the legislative process.
That nonpartisan efforts are not worth the trouble?

Why

not? Both election administration and redistricting

are

central enough to our democracy to warrant the

effort...

Trevor Potter

 -----Original Message-----
From: Larry Levine [mailto:larrylevine@earthlink.net]
Sent: Mon Dec 06 12:59:05 2004
To: FredWooch@aol.com; Rick.Hasen@lls.edu;
election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: news of the day 12/6/04

One could make the same statement about "non-partisan"
reapportionment commissions."
Larry Levine
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: FredWooch@aol.com
  To: Rick.Hasen@lls.edu ;
election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
  Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 9:32 AM
  Subject: Re: news of the day 12/6/04


  In a message dated 12/6/2004 8:14:06 AM Pacific
Standard Time, Rick.Hasen@lls.edu writes:
    "Top Vote Getter? We May Never Truly Know"
    The Seattle Times offers this report.


  You know, it's fascinating.  We talk about the need
for "nonpartisan" elections officials.  Does anybody
reading this article, in which the Secretary of State
decries the manual recount and hopes that "it stops
there," want to venture a guess as to whether he is a
Democrat or a Republican?  It's just so hard to take
the politics out of politics.

  Fred Woocher




<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - ->
This message is for the use of the intended recipient
only.  It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is
privileged and
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient
any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this
communication is
prohibited.  If you have received this communication

in

error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received
this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the
document.

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile.