Looking back: The 2011 Gerrymandering of

The initial state legislative redistricting bill was introduced on June 16, 2011. It received final legislative approval on June 28 (12 days later). The bill describes each district using census tracts and blocks, not streets or other identifiable landmarks.

Here is a timeline of how the legislation moved through the Senate and House:

SB 498 was introduced in the Senate on June 23 and referred to committee. It was reported out 7 days later and passed by the Senate the same day.

Jun. 16: Introduced by Senator Joseph Hune Jun. 16: Referred to Committee on Redistricting Jun. 21: Printed bill filed Jun. 23: Reported favorably with substitute (S-1) Jun. 23: Committee recommended immediate effect Jun. 23: Referred to Committee of the Whole with substitute (S-1) Jun. 23: Rules suspended for immediate consideration Jun. 23: Reported by Committee of the Whole favorably with substitute (S-1) Jun. 23: Substitute (S-1) concurred in Jun. 23: Placed on order of Third Reading with substitute (S-1) Jun. 23: Rules suspended Jun. 23: Placed on immediate passage Jun. 23: Substitute (S-3) offered (Democratic alternative) Jun. 23: Amendment(s) adopted Jun. 23: Substitute (S-3) defeated Jun. 23: Passed

It was sent to the House and referred to committee where things went even faster. The House Committee on Elections sent the bill to the House five days after receiving it from the Senate. On the House floor “substitute” House of Representatives was introduced (bold face) and immediately passed. The “amendment” completely rewrote the bill — the minority party didn’t have a clue what was in it.

Jun. 23: Received on - 6/23/11 Jun. 23: Read a first time Jun. 23: Referred to Committee on Redistricting and Elections Jun. 28: Reported with recommendation with amendment(s) (Journal Page 1754) Jun. 28: Referred to second reading Jun. 28: Read a second time Jun. 28: Amended (this was a complete re-write of the bill, written with census tracts and blocks) Jun. 28: Placed on third reading Jun. 28: Placed on immediate passage Jun. 28: Read a third time Jun. 28: Passed Jun. 28: Returned to Senate

presented to Governor Date: 7/26/11 Time: 2:40 PM approved by Governor Date: 8/9/11 Time: 11:09 AM

Along the way, testimony was given that discussed in general redistricting. But there was never any testimony about any specific district, or about the number of cities or townships or county lines cut, or the specific decisions made to develop any of the districts – because of the tactics used by the majority party along the way. The public was denied a chance to offer its views on the bills, all drawn up in back rooms outside of the public eye by legislative staffers and consultants guided by computer systems paid for by special interests.

The Senate started the legislation, introducing SB 498 on June 16. On June 22, the Senate Committee on Redistricting held a hearing at 8 a.m. on SB 498. At 8:06, two GOP staff members, Dan McMaster and Terry Marquardt, presented testimony supporting the bill. They completed their testimony by 8:15.

At 8:17, Susan Smith of the League of Women Voters testified opposing SB 498. At 8:25, Dr. Jerome Reide of the NAACP testified opposing the bill. At 8:35 a.m., Christina Kuo of Common Cause testified opposing the bill.

At 8:47, McMaster and Marquardt returned for more testimony. Then at 9:02, Chairman Hune offered a substitute bill – a new piece of legislation, and entertained a motion to adopt the bill. Sen. Rick Jones so moved. The bill was approved by Sens. Hune, Jones, David Hillenbrand, , Jon Moolenaar and . The two Democrats present passed. The substitute was adopted.

At 9:03 – without any testimony on the substitute – the bill was moved to the Senate on the same party line motion. At 9:08, the committee adjourned.

So in six minutes, the committee members received and approved their version of the SB 498 (S- 1), with no public input on that piece of legislation. It is worth noting that all supporters of the bill were white male Republicans.

Later that very same morning, June 23, the bill was taken up by the Senate. Sen. Gretchen Whitmer offered a substitute, and gave this as her reason for that offering:

“Today, I’m offering a substitute to this bill. We have followed the progress of this bill, and we’ve heard many times about the Apol standards and the Voting Rights Act. We believe that the Voting Rights Act requires six majority-minority seats, and thus, I’ve submitted a bill that provides for six such districts.

“In conversations with the legislative majority, they believe only five are required. While I disagree with their legal assessment, I am offering this amendment to see if the majority is serious about meeting the Apol standards. This map provides for fewer breaks under the Apol standards than the majority map: one fewer breaks in between Oakland and Genesee Counties and no municipal break in Clinton Township in Macomb County.

“So it’s a simple issue. The majority either believes that it must follow the Apol standards and pick the best map with the fewest breaks, or it is only treating the Apol standards for public relations purposes. My substitute contains a cross-reference to expressly incorporate the Apol standards at MCL 4.261, and that’s also found in the majority (S-1) substitute. If those standards mean anything, it means that the best map with the fewest breaks wins. That is what is before you. I ask for your support.”

Republicans refused to consider it.

Senate Majority Leader Republican offered a massive amendment, replacing 122 pages of the bill. The amendment consisted of lines and lines of numbers – census tracts and block numbers. Richardville’s amendment was accepted. And his version was approved by a vote of 29-8, with Democratic Sens. Morris Hood Jr. and Coleman Young Jr., whose districts were protected under the bill, joining Republicans in approval.

The bill then was sent to the House, where it was referred to the House Committee on Redistricting and Elections. Rules require a bill to lay over for five days, and meeting that bare minimum, on June 28, the committee chaired by Rep. Pete Lund, held a hearing starting a 9 a.m.

Before any testimony was heard, Lund moved to amend SB 498 by taking out some sections that addressed Detroit districts. But he did not vote to support his own motion. It failed, with three Democrats supporting, and the Republicans voting no, 3-6.

Rep. Paul Scott then moved to report out SB 498 – and it was approved by the Republicans there: Scott, Lund, Ed McBroom, , Rick Outman and Sharon Tyler.

The committee was adjourned at 9:40. Twenty minutes later at 10 a.m., the House came into session. The bill was taken up – and Rep. Lund reported that the committee had recommended the bill be amended, with page after page of census block data only provided to the public and members to consider – nearly 300 pages of dense numbers only a computer could make sense of. But that amendment was not adopted.

The bill moved to third reading and was put up for a vote – passing 65-42, on party lines. Many Democrats offered no vote explanations. Here is a piece of one endorsed by a number of Democrats:

“The Republican Majority introduced Senate Bill 498 on Thursday, June 16th, without any information describing the Senate and House maps that are before us today. Just late yesterday, SB 498 was revised with a new House map and we have yet to receive that new map that fully describes the changes that were before the Redistricting and Elections Committee this morning and is before us on the House floor now. Today, without giving us any time to analyze this plan, I have been asked to vote on it. “A number of nonpartisan organizations have asked the Republican majority to slow down this process so the public has an opportunity to weigh in on the newly-drawn lines. Democrats and the nonpartisan organizations asked for more time so a meaningful analysis of this plan can occur, an analysis that would include a thorough understanding of the implications of these new lines on Michigan’s citizens and communities, and to ensure the plan is compliant with state and federal law. The Republican Majority has not provided the necessary time to evaluate their plan, nor the analysis, or assurance that the plan is legal.

“During Committee, Republican staff members testified on the details of the Senate and House maps. The staff members were unable to address basic drafting and legal questions. Democratic Members asked if we would have the opportunity to have an expert answer questions. We never received a response.”

No public hearings. No ability of anybody but a few chosen members to understand what was going on. Blind faith by the others.

The bill returned to the Senate, where it was given final approval 29-9, with Sen. Hood again joining Republicans to support the package, and a district drawn specifically for him.

The bottom line:

• The process was far from transparent. • Incumbents were protected – including those from the other party when it proved useful to the majority. • One community of interest was served: That of the party in charge. • The fiction of “fewer line breaks should prevail” was clearly demonstrated.

This is the process that those opposed to redistricting reform want to continue to use.

. ave testimony in Sea substitute to the bill was was approved by the Senate Committee on Redistricting.

. It was SB 498, . The key tactic: the real bill wasn’t introduced until the day of final House passage. Everything prior to that was simply moving a sham vehicle bill through the process to satisfy constitutional requirements. The bill that actually passed was never debated in committee nor did the public (or minority party) even know what was in the bill because it was passed by the House within minutes of its introduction as an “amendment.”

Rep. Byrum recalls having heated battles with House staff member Dan McMaster who was the point person for the GOP. She says the minority party was given access to the same software used by the majority party to draw maps, but that concession was made effectively meaningless by the tactics used to introduce and enact the “real” bill at the last second.

All of the following (other than my editorial comments) is directly from the journals of the Senate and House. All recorded votes were party line.

SB129 was introduced in the Senate on June 23 and referred to committee. It was reported out 7 days later and passed by the Senate the same day

Jun. 16, introduced by Senator Joseph Hune Jun. 16, referred to Committee on Redistricting Jun. 21, printed bill filed Jun. 23, reported favorably with substitute (S-1) Jun. 23, committee recommended immediate effect Jun. 23, referred to Committee of the Whole with substitute (S-1) Jun. 23, rules suspended for immediate consideration Jun. 23, reported by Committee of the Whole favorably with substitute (S-1) Jun. 23, substitute (S-1) concurred in Jun. 23, placed on order of Third Reading with substitute (S-1) Jun. 23, rules suspended Jun. 23, placed on immediate passage Jun. 23, substitute (S-3) offered (Democratic alternative) Jun. 23, amendment(s) adopted Jun. 23, substitute (S-3) defeated Jun. 23, passed

It was sent to the House and referred to committee where things went even faster. The House Committee on Elections sent the bill to the House five days after receiving it from the Senate. On the House floor “substitute” House of Representatives was introduced (bold face) and immediately passed. The “amendment” completely rewrote the bill — the minority party didn’t have a clue what was in it.

Jun. 23, received on - 6/23/11 Jun. 23, read a first time Jun. 23, referred to Committee on Redistricting and Elections Jun. 28, reported with recommendation with amendment(s) (Journal Page 1754) Jun. 28, referred to second reading Jun. 28, read a second time Jun. 28, amended (this was a complete re-write of the bill, written with census tracts and blocks) Jun. 28, placed on third reading Jun. 28, placed on immediate passage Jun. 28, read a third time Jun. 28, passed Jun. 28, returned to Senate presented to Governor Date: 7/26/11 Time: 2:40 PM approved by Governor Date: 8/9/11 Time: 11:09 AM