Post by Poor Richard on Apr 1, 2023 9:10:30 GMT -7
Constitutional amendment to change MT redistricting process moves forward
Lee Newspapers reports "Republican lawmakers have advanced a proposal to reshape Montana’s independent redistricting commission in a way they say will remove the politics from the process.
Senate Bill 534 has the backing of GOP leadership in the House and Senate and passed the Senate State Administration Committee on a party-line, 6-3 vote after minimal debate Wednesday evening.
Sponsored by Sen. Tom McGillvray, the bill would propose a constitutional amendment to voters in next year’s general election that would add new language to the Montana Constitution’s provision creating an independent Districting and Apportionment Commission. That commission is responsible for drawing new legislative districts every 10 years to account for population shifts identified by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The language would require the commission to produce maps that contain the fewest possible divisions “of any city, town, county or community of interest.” It would also forbid the commission from considering “any data pertaining to the political affiliation of electors or prior election results.”
“I really think this is a common-sense addition to the Constitution,” McGillvray told the committee, “I would bet that any Montanan would say that we don’t want partisan politics in districting.”
Montana was one of the first states in the country to create an independent body to oversee its redistricting process, by writing it into the state Constitution drafted in 1972. That commission is made up of five members, the first four evenly divided between the state’s top two political parties. Those four partisan members must attempt to nominate a nonpartisan fifth member to serve as the chair. Failing that, the Montana Supreme Court is given the task of appointing the fifth member.
Commissioners can’t be legislators or serving as partisan elected officials in any other capacity. And unlike the commissioners prior to the 1972 Constitution, the new maps aren’t subjugated to the will of the Legislature. The law-making branch gets to offer feedback as part of the process, but lawmakers have no control over the final maps.
The proposed amendment had several proponents, including Dan Stusek, one of two Republican appointees to the most recent redistricting commission. He noted that the commission had adopted similar-sounding criteria for its recent map-drawing efforts, but that they had been part of the discretionary goals for the process. Those goals aren’t given the same weight as the mandatory criteria, which are those requirements found in the Constitution and in federal law.
“Most of it here is discretionary, and it’s not equally applied across the spectrum in different parts of our state and in different types of districts,” Stusek said.
No other former commissioners spoke at the bill hearing. Two of the most recent Democratic members of the redistricting commission, Kendra Miller and Joe Lamson, both declined to comment on the record when reached by phone.
The committee chair limited each speaker to just two minutes each during the bill’s hearing. SB 534 was one of seven bills scheduled for the committee on Wednesday ahead of a procedural deadline Tuesday.
Helena resident Norane Appling-Freistadt called the bill a “one-size-fits-all” proposal that would remove the aspect of the process that allows local residents to engage with the process and give feedback on proposed district maps.
“This bill reduces the voices of the locals who engage in hearings and know about the communities,” Appling-Freistadt said.
The use of political data is a bedrock of the redistricting process. In the most recent commission’s deliberations, legislative map proposals advanced from each side of the aisle, each predictably more favorable to the party advancing them. But Republicans repeatedly argued against making that an explicit consideration, saying the commission should follow the state Constitution’s requirement that districts be “contiguous and compact” and let the other chips fall where they may.
Those proposals were notably more favorable to Republicans, however, and would have likely locked in GOP majorities far in excess of the majority party’s actual share of voters across the state. Democrats argued that political data was the only way to check whether the state’s voters were getting a fair shake in how the districts ultimately got drawn.
Each party is going to use tools to model political outcomes of each map regardless of whether there’s language banning it in public, argued Sen. Janet Ellis, D-Helena, during the committee’s discussion on the bill.
“They’re going to know exactly what the election results will be and it’s all going to have to happen behind closed doors and not out in the open, at least for citizens to see,” Ellis said in arguing against the proposed amendment.
Legislative referendums to put constitutional amendments on the ballot require a higher threshold of votes than most bills. They must get a combined 100 votes from both chambers, or two-thirds of the total. Republicans control a combined 102 seats, meaning three defections would be enough to kill the proposal if Democrats remain united against it.
SB 534 has the backing of GOP leadership in both chambers. House Speaker Matt Regier on Tuesday told reporters Tuesday that it’s “the top of the list” for him, and Senate Majority Leader Steve Fitzpatrick said Wednesday he is also throwing his support behind the bill.
Three other GOP proposals had been floating around the Legislature but were all voted down in committees this week. One sought to require the Legislature’s approval for a proposed legislative map, while the other two would have stacked the commission in favor of the party that gets the most votes in statewide elections.
All three were tabled by the House Judiciary Committee, but could get resurrected if SB 534 fails to attract enough votes to make it to the ballot."
Senate Bill 534 has the backing of GOP leadership in the House and Senate and passed the Senate State Administration Committee on a party-line, 6-3 vote after minimal debate Wednesday evening.
Sponsored by Sen. Tom McGillvray, the bill would propose a constitutional amendment to voters in next year’s general election that would add new language to the Montana Constitution’s provision creating an independent Districting and Apportionment Commission. That commission is responsible for drawing new legislative districts every 10 years to account for population shifts identified by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The language would require the commission to produce maps that contain the fewest possible divisions “of any city, town, county or community of interest.” It would also forbid the commission from considering “any data pertaining to the political affiliation of electors or prior election results.”
“I really think this is a common-sense addition to the Constitution,” McGillvray told the committee, “I would bet that any Montanan would say that we don’t want partisan politics in districting.”
Montana was one of the first states in the country to create an independent body to oversee its redistricting process, by writing it into the state Constitution drafted in 1972. That commission is made up of five members, the first four evenly divided between the state’s top two political parties. Those four partisan members must attempt to nominate a nonpartisan fifth member to serve as the chair. Failing that, the Montana Supreme Court is given the task of appointing the fifth member.
Commissioners can’t be legislators or serving as partisan elected officials in any other capacity. And unlike the commissioners prior to the 1972 Constitution, the new maps aren’t subjugated to the will of the Legislature. The law-making branch gets to offer feedback as part of the process, but lawmakers have no control over the final maps.
The proposed amendment had several proponents, including Dan Stusek, one of two Republican appointees to the most recent redistricting commission. He noted that the commission had adopted similar-sounding criteria for its recent map-drawing efforts, but that they had been part of the discretionary goals for the process. Those goals aren’t given the same weight as the mandatory criteria, which are those requirements found in the Constitution and in federal law.
“Most of it here is discretionary, and it’s not equally applied across the spectrum in different parts of our state and in different types of districts,” Stusek said.
No other former commissioners spoke at the bill hearing. Two of the most recent Democratic members of the redistricting commission, Kendra Miller and Joe Lamson, both declined to comment on the record when reached by phone.
The committee chair limited each speaker to just two minutes each during the bill’s hearing. SB 534 was one of seven bills scheduled for the committee on Wednesday ahead of a procedural deadline Tuesday.
Helena resident Norane Appling-Freistadt called the bill a “one-size-fits-all” proposal that would remove the aspect of the process that allows local residents to engage with the process and give feedback on proposed district maps.
“This bill reduces the voices of the locals who engage in hearings and know about the communities,” Appling-Freistadt said.
The use of political data is a bedrock of the redistricting process. In the most recent commission’s deliberations, legislative map proposals advanced from each side of the aisle, each predictably more favorable to the party advancing them. But Republicans repeatedly argued against making that an explicit consideration, saying the commission should follow the state Constitution’s requirement that districts be “contiguous and compact” and let the other chips fall where they may.
Those proposals were notably more favorable to Republicans, however, and would have likely locked in GOP majorities far in excess of the majority party’s actual share of voters across the state. Democrats argued that political data was the only way to check whether the state’s voters were getting a fair shake in how the districts ultimately got drawn.
Each party is going to use tools to model political outcomes of each map regardless of whether there’s language banning it in public, argued Sen. Janet Ellis, D-Helena, during the committee’s discussion on the bill.
“They’re going to know exactly what the election results will be and it’s all going to have to happen behind closed doors and not out in the open, at least for citizens to see,” Ellis said in arguing against the proposed amendment.
Legislative referendums to put constitutional amendments on the ballot require a higher threshold of votes than most bills. They must get a combined 100 votes from both chambers, or two-thirds of the total. Republicans control a combined 102 seats, meaning three defections would be enough to kill the proposal if Democrats remain united against it.
SB 534 has the backing of GOP leadership in both chambers. House Speaker Matt Regier on Tuesday told reporters Tuesday that it’s “the top of the list” for him, and Senate Majority Leader Steve Fitzpatrick said Wednesday he is also throwing his support behind the bill.
Three other GOP proposals had been floating around the Legislature but were all voted down in committees this week. One sought to require the Legislature’s approval for a proposed legislative map, while the other two would have stacked the commission in favor of the party that gets the most votes in statewide elections.
All three were tabled by the House Judiciary Committee, but could get resurrected if SB 534 fails to attract enough votes to make it to the ballot."