"That" argument goes to the matter of trying to find a non-partisan group in
a partisan arena. Judges become judges through partisan politics. How about
three non-partisan U.S. Supreme Court Justices to do every reapportionment
in the nation. Years ago, I stopped managing campaigns for judicial
candidates because I realized in most cases a judge is an attorney who
decided not to run for office but had enough political conntections to get
appointed. They make terrible candidates. In my experience in California
it's easier to find non-partisan election administrators (through the civil
service system) than it is to find non-partisan reapportionment commission.
"Seen as less partisan" may be worse than by-partisan because it creates the
illusion of something that isn't real. I'm reminded of a California Court of
Masters reapportionment a few decades back that led to the election of 50
Democrats to the state assembly, the highest number in anyone's memory.
Anyway, Trever, lighten up. There is no perfect system of election
administrator or reapportionment. It will work in some places and not in
other places, depending mostly on the people involved and less on the system
in place. Fact is the Democratic majority in the California legislature at
the time of the last reapportionment could have sacked and burned the place.
Instead, they worked out a bi-partisan plan. It's been called a terrible
plan. But tell me what plan hasn't been called terrible by someone. If you
put a non-partisan panel in charge of California reapportionment, charged
them with the need to comply with all federal statutes, rules and
regulations, you would get a map not to different than the one we have.
There might be a seat swapped here and there. Then the new incumbents would
settle into safe seats for a decade.
Larry Levine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Trevor Potter" <TP@Capdale.com>
To: "Larry Levine" <larrylevine@earthlink.net>; <FredWooch@aol.com>;
<Rick.Hasen@lls.edu>; <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: news of the day 12/6/04
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.