| Subject: news of the day 2/18/05 |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 2/18/2005, 8:27 AM |
| To: election-law |
The Los Angeles Times offers this
report,
with the subhead: "Democrats' measure would make sweeping changes in
the national voting process to ease task of balloting. A GOP version
focuses on fraud." Senator Clinton issued this
press release. I have not seen the bill itself yet, but here is how
the press release describes it:
To encourage more citizens to exercise their right to vote, the Count Every Vote Act designates Election Day a federal holiday and requires early voting in each state. The bill also enacts "no-excuse" absentee balloting, enacts fair and uniform voter registration and identification, and requires states to allow citizens to register to vote on Election Day. It also requires the Election Assistance Commission to work with states to reduce wait times for voters at polling places. In addition, the legislation restores voting rights for felons who have repaid their debt to society.
The Count Every Vote Act also includes measures to protect voters from deceptive practices and conflicts of interest that harm voter trust in the integrity of the system. In particular, the bill restricts the ability of chief state election officials as well as owners and senior managers of voting machine manufacturers to engage in certain kinds of political activity. The bill also makes it a federal crime to commit deceptive practices, such as sending flyers into minority neighborhoods telling voters the wrong voting date, and makes these practices a felony punishable by up to a year of imprisonment.
Stephen Medvic reports
that Reps. Ney and Hoyer have introduced a bill "to establish a single
date for presidential candidates to receive public funds for the
general election. The date would be the Friday of Labor Day weekend." I
agree with Medvic that this is a no-brainer, but it is also quite
obvious that more comprehensive changes are necessary. One proposal out
there is the Thomas-Toner proposal (linked here) that
I hope to examine in the next few weeks.
The day after news broke
that Common Cause likely will be supporting the governor's plan, Demos
and the Center for Governmental Studies issued this report
critical of the proposal. Here is an excerpt from the press release:
Drawing Lines recommends criteria for selection of Independent Redistricting Commission members, key components to be included in any redistricting plan, and analyzes the major features of each current proposal against the recommendations. The report finds that each one falls short of assuring fair representation of California's population.
"In California's 2004 legislative and congressional elections, none of the 153 seats changed party hands, even in districts where no incumbent was running," noted Bob Stern, CGS President. "This lack of competition is due significantly to the legislature's decision to redraw electoral districts to protect party boundaries."
Drawing Lines shows that, while redistricting should be conducted by an Independent Commission, none of the various proposals under current consideration does enough to encourage the creation of more competitive districts or better representation of communities of color, the areas where California is most in need of improvement.
"A number of states are considering Independent Redistricting Commissions. This is an opportunity for California to draft model legislation that other states can use to end decades of limited minority representation and partisan cronyism," said Steven Carbó, Director of Demos'Democracy Program.
Public Interest Goals
The report finds that the public interest will be served better by
amending current and any future proposals to achieve the following
goals:
* Independence: Create an Independent Redistricting Commission
and
insulate the redistricting process from legislative control.
* Minority Representation: Protect minority influence in a judicious
manner.
* Competition: Increase the number of close contests.
* Partisan Fairness: Ensure that no party can capture and unfairly
exert influence on the redistricting process.
Recommended Features of an Independent Redistricting Commission
Drawing Lines also outlines five key areas for Commission composition
and execution that would ensure a fair process for drawing district
lines in California.
* Membership: Commissioners should reflect California's diversity
and be balanced to ensure that no single party can unduly influence the
process. Commissioners should be insulated from political influences
and ambitions to ensure fair, objective decision-making.
*
Selection Process: The Commissioner selection process should emphasize
neutrality, equality and fairness, while mitigating possible political
and incumbent-protection gerrymandering.
* Criteria: Voting Rights Act, minority representation and
competitiveness criteria should not be compromised in favor of other
redistricting criteria. The Commission's objectives should be carefully
and clearly defined to avoid allowing Commissioners to pursue partisan
or incumbent-friendly goals.
* Transparency and Public Accountability: The Commission must reject
the backroom deals that characterize much of the public's image of
redistricting and restore public confidence through rigorous
requirements for public hearings, open meetings, accessible data, and
transparent decision-making.
* Implementation and Review: The Commission must be assured the
capacity to enact a plan, subject only to Supreme Court review. The
Commission should also be provided with legal resources sufficient to
defend the plan. The traditional decennial redistricting rule should be
respected to avoid what the Washington Post calls "a dangerous trend,
threatening a new front in partisan warfare as district lines become
subject to change whenever the political balance shifts."
Currently Proposed Measures
"Unfortunately, the current measures don't go far enough to protect the right of the public to choose their elected officials rather than having the legislators choose their constituents," stated Jacqueline Jacobberger, President, League of Women Voters of California.
The three most prominent proposals to reform the state's redistricting process – Ted Costa's ballot initiative, ACAX1 3 (McCarthy, R-Bakersfield), which is supported by Governor Schwarzenegger, and SCA 3 (Lowenthal, D-Long Beach) – are each considered in-depth in this report. These measures have provoked an important discussion and put the national spotlight on California's flawed redistricting process.
Daniel
S. Goldman has written "Note, The Modern-Day Literacy Test?: Felon
Disenfranchisement and Race Discrimination," 57 Standrod Law Review 611
(2004).
I received the following via e-mail:
See this column
in the National Journal.
-- Professor Rick Hasen Loyola Law School 919 Albany Street Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211 (213)736-1466 - voice (213)380-3769 - fax rick.hasen@lls.edu http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html http://electionlawblog.org