So, I would say that in some states the challenge has been
that there really in a state
where there's a fairly equal number of say Democrats or Republicans,
and they're looking for a compromise where they can
create a group of people oftentimes it's a bipartisan commission.
Where there's a set of checks and balances between Democrats or Republicans so that
no one party can overwhelm the other one or take advantage in a way that is extreme.
States like Ohio have pursued
bipartisan commission reforms or both their state and a Congressional line drawn.
That essentially creates a commission where no one side
can totally take advantage of the situation and sweep the other party out.
That ballot initiative is due to be voted on by voters May 8th,
so it's right around the corner and we'll see
if Ohio adopts that for the congressional lines.
In other states like Michigan,
they have really look to try to create a set
of standards but also to convene a group of people,
who would be entirely independent of the political establishment,
and they're what they're looking for is a group of citizens who
are diverse and represent the entire states demographics,
who are talented and thoughtful and who come together without any specific tie or
interests in how the districts will ultimately be drawn for personal or partisan reasons.
So to that group of citizens and we draw the lines and
the idea behind it is that redistricting really
ought to be forward-looking and auto-reflect where our communities
and the testimony around changing demographics goes and the only way to do that,
is to cut the strings that tie
the current redistricting process to incumbents and party operatives,
and put it in the hands of a group of independent citizens to draw those lines.
So the thought is, let's make that a citizen-driven process, where community,
testimony and demographics are really
the driving force behind how we draw the lines as opposed
to doing something where
the legislature has control and is always looking at how to preserve its own power.
So finally, that's really great contexts to have because it helps
to give a sense for what people really care about
when they're creating these independent commissions.
So what is the impact been of these different types of policies?
Yeah. Well, there have been a number of states that have had
some version of an alternative to
the legislature drawing it's own lines or drawing congressional lines.
And I would say it's on a spectrum,
there's less than a half dozen that have something that I would
say get close to an independent commission.
In most states that have tried to credit commission,
they started out by creating something that was
essentially an equal number of Democrats and Republicans,
and where there might be a fifth person who
is quote unquote independent or not aligned with either of those parties.
Oftentimes, those individuals have indirectly appointed
by somebody in the legislature or an elected official.
So, the direction that we've been moving,
is towards something that is even more independent than that.
So states like California and maybe Michigan passes its initiative,
would have something where the group of people who are
ultimately chosen to draw the lines,
really are not chosen by the legislature,
they have conflicts of interest requirements that cut ties.
So that can't be staff,
that can't be family of legislature,
that can't be donors of candidates
and really they're making those decisions independent and
hopefully any ties or connections to the legislature or political party interests.
So that kind of Independent Commission,
can produce a number of things.
One is that when it has hearings around the State,
it's truly taking in testimony with an open mind,
without any bias towards trying to skew those lines to
favor one party over another or benefit one incumbent or another.
The second thing that it can truly do in listening to that community testimony,
is to be very forward-looking about where our demographics are moving us to.
So in California, we have people who are moving from one part of the States,
so the western coastal part of the state more inland,
and really thinking about where those population changes are happening.
But also that our demographics in terms of ethnicity and race are changing,
and so thinking about where the emerging communities are.
When you have a group of people who are not tied to partner incumbents,
then they're much more able to reflect the changing demographics of the state,
by drawing lines that start to capture
where those emerging communities are and not just
them looking back to holding onto old constituencies.
Then I'd say the last thing is that in doing so,
sometimes what happens is because they're not
trying to protect incumbents or parties specifically,
you end up with a lot of districts where there's a shakeup.
So in California, a lot of incumbents were essentially displaced,
and they had to campaign for the first time in a very long time
to earn the right of being able to represented those districts in a hard way.
Then the second piece is that,
it's not always a give me that one party or another will win that district.
So in some districts,
there's a true fight between the two parties
again to earn the votes of their constituents.
That creates a very vibrant democracy where our legislature has
been far more responsive to voters because they have
to earn those votes and they can't just take them as a given,
and our congressional members have been,
I would say again far more responsive to voters.
It means that maybe there are sometimes when they're not
taking an ideological or a party stands,
they're really thinking about where their constituents are coming from,
it also means that in our state legislature,
we've seen far less gridlock and
more ability for both sides to come together around really important issues.
Great. So thank you for that context it's very helpful.
So thank you for joining us for this segment.
We will hope that you continue to watch, listen,
and learn and join us as we continue
the conversation around gerrymandering around the country.