SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008
Senate Committee on State and Local Government Operations and Oversight
Hearing on Redistricting Commission Bills
SF 595 (Rest) This transcript is an unofficial, partial transcript of a hearing SF 1810 (Michel) related to redistricting. See SF 2211 (Pogemiller) the link to the audio recording for the full hearing. January 11, 2008 15 State Capitol St. Paul, Minnesota
Senate Audio Recording https://www.leg.state.mn.us/senateaudio/2008/cmte_stgov_011108.mp3 Transcribed by Trint Edited by Peter S. Wattson December 21, 2018
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [00:00:00] Good morning. It is my pleasure to call to order this hearing of the State and Local Government Operations and Oversight Committee. Today we are going to be focusing on reports and testimony from those who have been working on coming up with ideas for the creation of a bipartisan redistricting commission. We're going to begin our hearing with a bit of background from Senate Counsel Mr. Peter Wattson and then we will go from there to testimony from former Governor Arne Carlson and former Vice President Walter Mondale. The agendas are available for the public as well as members and because some of you may not know the members among our distinguished guests, I would like to ask them to state their names and what their districts are.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [00:01:04] Senator Betzold.
Sen. Don Betzold: [00:01:08] I'm Don Betzold. I live In Fridley and represent the area of Blaine, Mounds View, and Spring Lake Park.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [00:01:12] And I'm Ann Rest, chair of the committee and I'm from New Hope and my district includes Robbinsdale, Crystal, and the northeast corners of Golden Valley and Plymouth.
Sen. Larry Pogemiller: [00:01:24] Larry Pogemiller, represent Minneapolis area, northeast and southeast Minneapolis.
Sen. Dan Larson: [00:01:29] Dan Larson. I live in Bloomington. I represent parts of Bloomington, the entire city of Richfield, and southwest Minneapolis.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [00:01:36] And the staff at the table to my left is Peter Brickwedde, my legislative assistant and Brenda Schafer-Pellinen, the committee administrator. Mr. Wattson.
Peter Wattson: [00:01:48] Madam Chair, thank you. For the record, my name is Peter Wattson. I'm 1
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008
Senate Counsel and I'm pleased to be with you at the start of the four-to-five-year process for adjusting the boundaries of legislative and congressional districts to accommodate the population shifts that have been occurring since the 2000 census.
[00:02:07] Our first order of business here today, I think, is to begin deciding who will draw the plans, how will they do it, and what principles will guide them. And you'd asked me to provide the committee with background materials and I have done so, not designed to bury you in paperwork, but there are a lot of documents in the folder. What I'd like to do is, first just go through what's in your folder, so you'll see what all is there and then I'll come back to the first piece.
[00:02:38] First thing should be the "History of Minnesota Redistricting." That's what I'll come back to.
[00:02:44] You have a copy of your bill, Senate File 595, which would create a constitutional commission to draw the districts. It's similar to the constitutional provision that was put to the voters in 1980. But it does not include the 1980 statutory language that detailed the process that was to be used and the principles that would guide the commission in drawing their plans.
[00:03:11] Next you should have Senate File 1810 and a summary by me explaining that. It would create plans via the nonpartisan legislative staff. It's similar to the plan that's been used in Iowa since, I think, about the 1970s. There would be a temporary advisory commission to hold hearings on the plan that had been drafted by the nonpartisan legislative staff and then the plan would be enacted by the legislature on an up or down vote.
[00:03:46] There are detailed principles to guide the staff in drawing the plans and they are to be strictly non-political. To show a comparison of these principles in Senator Michel's bill with the principles followed by other states, there is an attachment, Table 5, which may or may not be in your folders, I think it might be a couple of pieces ahead of the bill. Table 5 shows all those redistricting principles in each of the 50 states. Then there is another handout, I think that was just placed on your desk, Appendix G, which has the text, the detail of all of those principles.
[00:04:32] Next in your package should be Senate File 2211, Senator Pogemiller's bill that would have a statutory commission made up of retired judges draw the plans, again presented to the legislature for an up or down vote. In this case they would be required to make the districts politically competitive. So, the Michel bill says don't consider political factors at all, and the Pogemiller bill says make districts politically competitive.
[00:05:06] There are a couple of attachments there to the summary, Appendix E and F. E is the description of all of the other commissions that draw legislative plans and Appendix F is a description of all the other commissions that draw congressional plans, and many commissions draw both legislative and congressional.
[00:05:30] Somewhere after that should be a table called "Redistricting Success Rates, Legislatures v. Commissions," and it shows the success of legislatures and commissions over the last four decades at adopting plans that were either not challenged in court or, if challenged, were upheld without any change.
[00:05:56] Just behind that should be detailed tables of the 50 states for the 2000s and for the 1990s showing all of the litigation that occurred and whether the plans were upheld or not.
2
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008
[00:06:12] Then, I think maybe on the side, is a stack of three papers that were provided to me by my friend Tim Story of NCSL. One is an article that he wrote for State Legislatures magazine in February of '92 called "Dickering Over the Districts," which essentially says you can try to take the politics out of redistricting by creating a commission, but it still doesn't really take the politics out of redistricting.
[00:06:45] The second is a law review article, "In Defense of Foxes Guarding the Hen Houses," saying that legislatures do have a role in drawing plans, and the third is an opposition paper for California's 2007 Redistricting Commission ballot initiative saying that this commission, to be composed of retired judges, wasn't all that its proponents made it out to be.
[00:07:15] So that's a lot of reading and I don't expect that we're going to go really through all that today. We have a different focus for today.
[00:07:22] So, back to the first paper, my "History of Minnesota Redistricting." As you can see, just glancing at the first page, for the first 100 years of Minnesota history, redistricting was easy. In the 19th century, as you can see, as the population grew and shifted the legislature just added more seats. At least they did that until about 1905, when this building was built and they kind of stopped adding any more seats.
[00:07:51] In fact, they didn't even bother to redistrict between 1913 and 1959. (No trouble with the courts there, because the courts were staying out of it at that time.) And why was that? Well, I think it was primarily because around 1914 the growth of population in rural areas began to lag the growth of population in urban areas and, for some reason, rural legislators seemed to lose interest in accommodating population shifts. [Laughter]
[00:08:30] By 1958, as you can see on the bottom of the page there, Honsey, top of the next page, the bottom of the first page, McGraw v. Donovan. In 1958, the federal district court found that the largest House district had a population 15 times the size of the smallest population House district and the largest Senate District had a population nine times the size of the smallest Senate district. The court found that the districts were grossly unequal in population, but it deferred to the legislature the task of adjusting boundaries to accommodate the shifts in population. The legislature did that in 1959, they passed a law.
[00:09:20] But then, 1960, we have a new census. So, 1964, the court says the plan is invalid. In 1965- 66, the legislature submitted two plans to Governor Rolvaag, which he vetoed, finally approving one in 1966.
[00:09:39] But, right around the corner, we had the 1970 census. The legislature did its duty and passed both legislative and congressional plans in the 1971 session. The congressional plan was signed by the governor, but the legislative plan was vetoed, so we had a federal court undertake, for the first time, the job of redrawing those legislative district boundaries. And they thought, if they were going to do it for the first time, they ought to do it right. And so, they cut the size of the Senate from 67 to 35 members, as you can see on the little table there, and they cut the size of the House from 135 to 105. They thought that was a good idea. The Minnesota Senate didn't think it was such a good idea, and we intervened in the lawsuit, took an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, who found that the lower court had gone too far, made them go back and do it again in a more conventional way.
[00:10:42] The 1980 census. The legislature was unable to pass either a legislative or congressional plan. They just never did and the federal court drew the plans. 3
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008
[00:10:55] In the 1990s, anticipating the need for court action, plaintiffs filed suit in both state and federal courts, even before the census counts had been received. Both the legislative and congressional plans passed by the legislature were vetoed by Governor Carlson. In a battle between the state and federal courts, one state court found the veto of the legislative plan to be invalid and a special three- judge state redistricting panel drew their own congressional plan. A three-judge federal court enjoined the secretary of state from using the state court's plans, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the orders of that three-judge federal district court.
Sen. Larry Pogemiller: [00:11:35] Who was that Secretary of State, Madam Chair?
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [00:11:39] Senator Pogemiller asks, Mr Wattson, who was that Secretary of State?
Peter Wattson: [00:11:43] It would have been Secretary of State Joan Anderson Growe. [Laughter]
[00:11:50] So, the orders of the U.S. Supreme Court permitted the legislative plan approved by the state court to be used in the 1992 election and then the congressional plan drawn by the three-judge state court panel to be used for the 1994 congressional election and since.
[00:12:15] In 2001, the near to the last page here, plaintiffs sued to have the plans declared invalid, even before we had census data received. The Minnesota Supreme Court stayed its hand and did not appoint a panel until after giving the 2001 legislature an opportunity to pass plans. They made it into conference committee but were not enacted. So, in the summer, the court appointed this time a five- judge state court redistricting panel, to be ready in case the legislature failed by the March 19, 2002 deadline to enact plans.
[00:12:59] Well, the legislature did and the courts did and the plans we have been using since then are those plans drawn by the five-judge state court panel, except that in your district, Madam Chair, we did a change to the House boundary in 2003 and in Senator Michel's district we did a change to the House boundary in 2004. And that's where we are.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [00:13:26] Thank you very much, Mr. Wattson.
[00:13:29] We now have some very distinguished guests that we want to welcome to the witness table and we'll ask Governor Carlson and Vice President Mondale if they would proceed there. And we'll hear first from Governor Carlson. Welcome to the committee, we are honored to have both of you gentlemen with us this morning.
Gov. Arne Carlson: [00:13:52] Madam chairperson and members of the committee, thank you very much for holding this hearing and for your kindness and generosity in putting this kind of time aside, because the issue that is before you is one that truly embraces the nation as a whole.
[00:14:10] We're going through a period of time in our political history where the word change seems to be on the lips of every Democrat and Republican running for public office, and as ill-defined as that phrase is, it seems to have a resonance with the American public. And what that should tell us is that we, who are and have been, in the area of government, have probably created a growing distance between the public we say we serve and our own self-interest, and therein lies the ultimate rub.
[00:14:49] When you look back on the intentions of the founders of this nation, they combined 4
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008 idealism, being sensitive to how fragile a young democratic society could be, and the necessity for being able to draw laws that provide for change and flexibility. And it's not an accident that our national Constitution is the oldest in the world and it's because it has made, very thoughtfully, the kinds of accommodations necessary to keep us together as a society. But the growing cynicism that is prevalent today is something that we do have to intelligently address, because, as I indicated, a democratic society is fragile.
[00:15:40] There is a perception, it's a growing perception but it's also a truthful perception, and that is one, the role of money, big money, and the access that it has to power, being cloaked up, and pardon me for my bluntness, by both political parties, because both political parties are in the business of power, they're not really as much in the business of public service as they are in the business of power and who gets it. In order to get that power, compromises have and continue to be made with money.
[00:16:21] The second part is the role of incumbency. Our founders originally thought that communities could gather together and send to the representative halls of government those people who represented the best and the brightest. Today, as Vice President Mondale will tell you, we now have a system where incumbents seek their own constituencies, as opposed to the constituencies seeking their public servants. That is a frightful reversal of what a representative government ought to be.
[00:17:02] And it's toward that end that the University of Minnesota, through its Humphrey Institute and through the efforts of Professor Larry Jacobs, have come up with a proposal and have utilized a number of people active in our community, and who have been active in our community, to come together for the purpose of drafting legislation, not perfect by a long shot, but infinitely superior to the system that we currently have in place, with the notion that one, a legislative body should remove from itself its own conflict of interest. A legislative body cannot be in the business of drafting legislation defining conflict of interest for others while exempting itself and at the same time making all the rules and regulations that govern conduct of their challengers.
[00:18:05] Since we are a nation that truly loves sports, let's just imagine this, imagine one, a good Gopher football team [laughter]. Imagine that it continues the spread offense with its emphasis on the pass. And then it travels to Michigan and at Michigan it's told, since we won the game last year, we'll decide what the rules are and so we have selected the referees for today's game. And we have decided that we're not going to allow the forward pass as an instrument for the offense. Now it's eminently fair, because both Michigan and Minnesota will have to play by the same rules. So therefore, you shouldn't have a problem. Well, that's sort of what we're saying in terms of the power of legislative bodies to make decisions drafting their own districts. The human temptation of saying, I'll protect my incumbency versus the public good, is too much.
[00:19:17] I remember my father, an old Swedish immigrant. We had three children in the family, and if there was a pie or whatever and it had to be divided up, his thought always was, you know Arne, you can cut but Lars, you get to pick. And that's kind of the way it should be. Because that ultimately defines what fairness is.
[00:19:40] But, much more importantly, because Minnesota traditionally has always been at the vanguard of progress, the vanguard of idealism, being able to combine the best sense of public service with a deep sense of pragmatism, it would really be well for us to lead the nation in this kind of reform and to be able, once again, to go back to the 1960s and be able to say to a nation that wants change, that wants public service to succeed, to say we are the state that succeeds.
5
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008
[00:20:16] We have decided to empower a panel of appellate judges who have retired, giving them the decision on a nonpartisan basis, the opportunity to define what the lines are, and placing language in the statutes of the state that emphasizes the word competition. Competition is at the heart of our American enterprise system. And it's really at the heart of any democratic society. We scoffed at the Soviet Union for rigging elections. But the honest truth is, there are occasions when we should look at ourselves in the mirror and ask ourselves, "Are we also rigging the system?"
[00:20:57] Let me, if I may, at this time, introduce the former vice president of the United States. I had been misinformed and thought that his 80th birthday was tomorrow. It is not. It was last week. So, he's now working on his next anniversary. But it has been a pleasure for me, one to get to know him, and to begin to understand why the people in America entrusted so much into his life. And it's because he is the epitome of a good public servant, regardless of how we may feel on the role of government. And that is the natural tug and pull between Republicans and Democrats and independents. There is an overriding concern that should bring all of us together and that is constantly focusing on the public good. I can think of no one that has done more from the State of Minnesota, on behalf of his nation, to always represent what he honestly and truly felt was the long term good of a nation, than Walter Mondale. So, it's truly an honor to work with him on this endeavor.
VP Walter Mondale: [00:22:13] Thank you very much, Arne, for those kind words and for your leadership on this issue. It's been a joy to work with you.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [00:22:20] Mr. Vice President, Happy Birthday from all of us. [Applause]
VP Walter Mondale: [00:22:29] Thank you Madam Chairman, and thank you to each member of the committee who came out today. Particularly pleased to have the leader, who I think is now my state senator, here today ---
Sen. Larry Pogemiller: [00:22:41] If we get a good map next time! [Laughter] Very close.
VP Walter Mondale: [00:22:50] Drop over, let's talk.
[00:22:53] We have established, I think, a citizens advisory group that represents a broad cross section, bipartisan cross-section of leaders in Minnesota interested in civic reform, and I will submit a copy of that, if I might, so you can look at its members. Arne and I co-chair that committee and several of our members, Governor Quie, Joan Growe, Roger Moe, and maybe Kathleen Blatz, Chief Justice, wants to be here today, will be testifying about various aspects of these concerns.
[00:23:36] We have a very important, but in another sense a modest agenda. It has two elements in it. One is Governor Quie's commission's recommendations for protecting Minnesota's remarkable judicial system from big money and the other that we're discussing today, which is the need, we believe, for handling redistricting in a way that is open, fair, competitive, and helps build on democratic principles.
[00:24:20] We heard the first summary of the problem, I think really helped us bring us up to date, but what we're dealing with here today is really a relatively new problem, at least in terms of its importance. And it began 40 years ago, when the Supreme Court, in Baker vs. Carr, held that each legislative and congressional district had to be based on one-man one-vote, with almost identical voting population.
[00:24:55] That started a cottage industry that has now arisen across America to comply with these 6
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008 decennial redistricting requirements. And with time, and with the astounding advance of new wizard technology, experts at gaming the system can now design border proof plans within minutes that will protect incumbents or sharply advantage the controlling party over almost any, overall it gets, regardless of overall voter sentiment.
[00:25:33] One expert called it the great election grab. And this is transforming American politics. Although our founders clearly wanted popular will to influence what they called, and I use their words, a numerous and changeable body, today there are very few competitive congressional districts to be found anywhere in all of America. Politicians have become increasingly able to pick their own voters and horror stories abound.
[00:26:09] In California a few years ago, all the incumbent members of the Congress, there were about 50 of them, in California got together and had a meeting and they agreed on a magnanimous principle, which was that the next redistricting plan should be designed so none of them would have a serious competitive challenge. And it worked. They were all reelected and, moreover, not a single one of them had a difficult challenging competitor.
[00:26:41] It used to be believed, in the days of magic markers and acetate overlays, that gerrymandering was self-regulating. In other words, if you got too greedy when you designed it, you might lose it all in a close election.
[00:26:58] But today, with this miracle software and with harsh partisanship, there are very few limits. In fact, this new industry has developed a new vocabulary for us, words like "packing" and "cracking" and "kidnapping" describe how they do it. If you want to bunch up one voter type in one district, so they can't influence other districts, that's packing. If you want to crack 'em, you divide 'em, sprinkle them around like salt all over, so they'll have no influence. Or, if you want to kidnap, you kidnap a congressman in one district in designing so that he suddenly appears in another incumbent congressman's district.
[00:27:55] All of this is designed to manipulate the ability of the public to have a straight and even crack at their public officers. Many experts believe that this system has contributed to the polarization of American politics and we all hear about that wherever we go, because districts are designed to protect incumbents. Where little competition occurs, it tilts the politics toward conformity politics. These new districts tend to be designed against the center. The incumbents need only stay well with the primary-voting party activists. As a result, many Americans feel left out in the real decision-making process of their state or nation.
[00:28:48] Since the state must redistrict every 10 years, another serious problem has arisen. Soon you'll hear from Roger Moe, one of our great members who's had an awesome career in the Senate, unbelievably extending over four separate redistricting cycles. Nothing like it, I don't think, in our history. He's experienced it all, and I think he will testify that it's never really worked, even though their redistricting struggle paralyzes the legislature over long, extended periods of conflict.
[00:29:27] I also talked to Bob Vanasek, who is not here today, but he said that they've had similar experiences, in his opinion, in the House. The deadlock of this process and its futility has caused this issue repeatedly to be dumped onto the Minnesota Supreme Court.
[00:29:50] Chief Justice Blatz, who we hope will be able to testify today, also served in the state House. She knows, she's seen the game from both sides, and I think she will testify to the need for 7
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008 reform and will say ---- at least let me say what I believe, I think there is a real institutional crisis when we act in a way that requires the judiciary to substitute for the legislative branch when dealing with an explosive, profoundly political issue like this. And we must deal with it. Redistricting scandals, fortunately, have not yet hit Minnesota. Well, of course it wouldn't here, we're special, we're different, and we're better, and we all know that. But let's not risk it in the future.
[00:30:45] We can lead the nation in solving this problem. Other states have tried. You'll hear about that. Some have come closer than others, but we can be the state that shapes an answer that really works. We begin this effort with the support of the leadership in both houses and of both political parties. They have different views about how it should be done, but I think they've all told us that they believe this action should go forward.
[00:31:12] We particularly thank Chairman Rest and this committee for beginning this great discussion and we're pleased to be a part of it.
[00:31:20] Thank you.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [00:31:21] Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Are there comments or questions for Governor Carlson or Vice President Mondale? And before we do that, I do want to welcome two other members who have joined us. Senator Gerlach, if you would introduce yourself to our guests, I'd appreciate it.
Sen. Chris Gerlach: [00:31:38] Thank you very much, Madam Chair. State Senator Chris Gerlach and I represent the southern suburbs of Dakota County, Apple Valley, Rosemount, and Burnsville. And I came here today wanting to dig in to learn more the details and I realized you've already got my name on the bill. [unintelligible] the spring. So, this is good. I think this is really the right direction to go. I'm really pleased to get all this additional background information and hopefully we can sell it to our colleagues.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [00:32:05] Senator Gimse.
Sen. Joe Gimse: [00:32:06] Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Gimse from Wilmar. I represent Kandiyohi County, Polk County, and the western third of Stearns County. Thank you for being here and look forward to the discussion on this issue.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [00:32:19] Senator Pogemiller.
Sen. Larry Pogemiller: [00:32:21] Madam Chair, governor, and vice president, a lot of the discussion is around the polarization in Congress and the safe districts. And if the legislature does those boundaries, there's not that inherent conflict of interest, at least on a personal basis, except for the ones who are running for Congress, and there's usually 10 or 20 of them. So, don't we need to think about the difference of those two bodies, or do you take it as a given that what has happened to Congress is ultimately going to happen at the state level too in terms of that polarization? Because I, you know, Minnesota has experienced a back and forth here in the last few years. So how do you think about that? I think everybody agrees: Congress, those are safe seats. Once you're in it's pretty much over. Not so in most, in a lot of, in a lot of legislative seats. There obviously are very safe legislative seats. But there are many that aren't.
VP Walter Mondale: [00:33:13] You know, we talked about competition and that's one of the 8
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008 principles that we put in our proposal. But of course, the way people live sometimes is such that it's almost impossible to create a competitive seat. So, this is an objective that should be considered. We believe that the separation of that decision-making process from the incumbents in the legislature protects against the self-serving process that I discussed early. And while it is true that the Congress is not a part of the legislature, it is also true that there is a very close connection between the members of the Congress and the legislature. And many of the most outrageous examples of distorted redistricting, of this abuse that I'm talking about, have occurred in the Congress.
[00:34:11] You know the recent experience in Texas, where for the first time under the pressure of the Congress, the legislature, the Democrats get on a plane and hide in Oklahoma. They drive through a redistricting plan that defeats several incumbents and finally leads to some indictments. We have, we had not the same thing, but we've had several examples of pressure put upon legislatures in order to accommodate congressional and often national political challengers. So, I would say while it is technically different as you pointed out, operationally and effectively it's part of the same problem.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [00:34:57] Governor Carlson.
Gov. Arne Carlson: [00:34:57] Yeah, I would very much agree. I think if you come back to the point that the vice president raised relative to tilting the system, so if you build a legislative system where incumbents or challengers are loyal to their party's base, and that's the phrase that we constantly hear, so-and-so can carry his base. If you empower that base to ultimately determine the outcome, it stands to reason that that exact same base will transcend state lines and be just as oriented toward party power when it comes to drawing congressional lines. So, the inherent conflict of interest, while it takes a different twist, still remains.
[00:35:41] In other words, if you take a group of legislative districts that all have a fundamental loyalty to their party and to their base, that same philosophy that governs that decision on a legislative basis, base, also goes to the congressional level as well.
[00:36:03] I can honestly say, and I would yield to Senator Moe on this, I can't think of a single occasion on redistricting where the congressional influence was not absolutely enormous. And I don't think you can separate the two.
VP Walter Mondale: [00:36:21] I quoted the Federalist papers, saying that the constitutional vision was that the Senate would be kind of a long-serving, sort of dispassionate, in those years appointed by the legislature, and be a kind of a contemplative body. But they wanted the House to be vulnerable to public opinion, to be frequently changed. They wanted, and this was their idea, the House would be fully responsive to the public will so that you could somehow press the system. That is not how it is today. There are very very few, far less than maybe 10 percent, fewer than 10 percent, of congressional seats that are really under competition at all. And so, one of the objectives here is to try to get a little more competition. In the few states where they've made some progress, like Iowa, I think in the last election they had four competitive House elections.
[00:37:29] So I think that's part of the challenge here.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [00:37:36] Any other question or comment? Thank you, gentlemen, very much and we look forward to working with you as the discussion continues on redistricting and how to make it more independent.
9
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008
Gov. Arne Carlson: [00:37:49] Thank you very much.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [00:37:51] Next, I would like to invite, I think I'll ask all three of them, to come forward. Former Senate Majority Leader Roger Moe, former Governor Al Quie, and former Secretary of State Joan Growe. If you will join one another at the table and we will make sure that there is a third chair there.
[00:38:25] Senator Moe, welcome to the committee, and we are pleased to hear your comments this morning on this very important topic.
Sen. Roger D. Moe: [00:38:34] Thank you, Senator Rest and members of the committee. Also want to express my thanks to Vice President Mondale and Governor Carlson for the leadership that they have exhibited on this very important issue.
[00:38:49] I would be remiss if I didn't comment about Mr. Wattson. Just for those of you that do not know this, Peter Wattson is considered one of the nation's experts in this topic and I know that because I sent him to a lot of meetings on the subject.
[00:39:08] I want to thank Senator Rest and Senator Pogemiller for their interest and leadership on this issue as well. It's been almost six years since I sat in this room at this table appearing before senators and I can assure you that almost six years has not lessened the intimidation factor that I still feel.
[00:39:31] So, in spite of that I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about this very important issue. Over the last four decades, I have seen redistricting up close and personal and I've come to the conclusion that the current system is simply broken.
[00:39:48] I served on the redistricting committees in '71, '81, '91, and '01, and I think, Mr. Wattson will refresh my memory, I think I chaired the committee that had the jurisdiction in '81, '91, and '01, and the only plan we developed that saw the light of day came as a result of an honest mistake.
[00:40:09] That's not a record that I'm very proud of. And redistricting is a tradition we must reconsider. For those of us who have watched the process from the inside for many years, I can tell you that it's not a particularly pretty process. Even legislators who come from safe districts seem to come down with a bad case of paranoia at the start of each decade. Legislators who are preoccupied with various boundary drawing scenarios and monitoring the machinations of what the other side may be plotting are not focused on the issues they should be. Redistricting acts like a slow-moving political toxin, poisoning the policymaking environment and basically mucking up our business for a year or two. Then after all that angst, the courts usually end up doing it anyway, a role, I might add, that they do not relish and one that they are often forced to do at the last minute. So, I'm sure you'll agree with me that we can do better.
[00:41:11] The proposal that this group is advancing is not only something we think both Republicans and Democrats can buy into, which is critical, but is a reasonable step in the right direction. It won't fix all the things that can and do go wrong with politics, but it can have a gradual and positive effect. If you step back and look at the net impact of our proposal over the long run, even if just a handful of seats become more competitive, control in the legislature will have shifted, not necessarily right, left, or center, but more towards our constituents. Even a marginally more competitive statehouse and Congress will be forced to refocus its agenda back on more broad-based, bread-and-butter issues and the environment will shift, the environment that shifts the [unintelligible] will increase the chances of 10
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008 making progress on these issues.
[00:42:09] I can tell you, having been involved with it, I know exactly how I used to orchestrate the campaigns for the Senate. We would take the 67 seats and we knew the seats that were not in play, we couldn't win. We knew the seats that we were going to win and then we focused on those in the middle. And the more you can broaden that pool, I'm convinced, the better off we're going to be.
[00:42:44] Another key function we would like the independent commission to perform is federal census oversight. We have recently received the alarming information from State Demographer Tom Gillaspy that Minnesota's very close to losing one of its congressional seats. The most recent population estimates put that margin at a minuscule .4 percent, or only 2,200 residents. Even the most accurate census counts have a margin of error of one or two percent. So, our .4 percent distance from losing a congressional representative merits immediate attention.
[00:43:23] Without the kind of redistricting reform we're talking about today, the loss of a congressional seat could set us up with an epic redistricting battle in 2010 as both parties scramble to carve up the pieces of a smaller pie. The Star Tribune has chronicled some of the likely scenarios if Minnesota loses a congressional seat, and one strong possibility, which pit two incumbents against each other in the same district. If Minnesota no longer has the population to support our existing complement of federal representatives, then so be it. But we believe there is an important and much needed role for the independent commission to play in ensuring the federal census is as accurate as possible and that no one is undercounted.
[00:44:10] Taken together, we believe the benefits of utilizing a nonpartisan and independent commission for the purposes of redistricting and census oversight are significant and it will help keep legislators' focus where their focus should be. It will minimize political polarization and take incremental steps towards healthy competition, and it will provide needed oversight of the federal census, helping to protect Minnesota's fair representation in Congress. I believe these are all good, not just for Democrats, not just for Republicans, but for all Minnesotans, and it would be a wonderful legacy to leave the citizens of this state for the next four decades.
[00:44:50] Thank you.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [00:44:52] Thank you Senator Moe. Governor Quie, welcome to the committee, and we would be pleased to hear from you next.
Gov. Al Quie: [00:45:01] Thank you, Senator Rest and the other of your colleagues who are here. I am one of those who suffered from that angst, which was removed, because I was in Congress in 1961, when we were wondering what in the world the legislature was going to do and they didn't do anything, and so I began my statewide campaign. So those of you of the DFL Party should know that that's when, that's what caused me to run for governor, probably figured I could do for [unintelligible, laughter].
[00:45:49] In 1971, it was that same thing. But let's just take a look at what happened there.
[00:45:57] In the 1960 election, or 1962 election, what had happened is they took away two counties that were really supportive of me and gave me Dakota County, which the Republican congressman couldn't carry, but that was the end of Republicans not carrying Dakota County.
[00:46:27] And then in 1972, I was faced with taking away Mower County, which really hurt me 11
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008 because, you know the Hormel plant, how could a Republican ever get elected down there? I carried Austin at the end and I didn't want to lose that for Washington County, which was given to me, because they were supporting Joe Karth, who was in the Congress. So, what I did was talked to Joe Karth and said, tell me how to win Washington County. He told me, and I won.
[00:47:02] But here's the interesting thing, as all this process went on, my position became less competitive all the time. So that can happen, when a person can just respond to their constituents.
[00:47:18] So I want you all to look at that. I want look at where we are today, because we had two significant elections, one in 2006 and then the beginning of 2008. The one significant in 2006 was the election of Keith Ellison to the House. My feeling is there would be no other congressional district in Minnesota that Keith Ellison could get elected in.
[00:47:45] And I wanted to take and find out about this man, because he is pretty well different than we Norwegians here you know. He's kind of a tendency to go for it. Now, I was meeting him in his office and he came across a constituent on the street and he was coming to his office and I got out of my car. He stopped to talk with her. She was agitated with him about something or else just concern that he should do something. I saw him pay attention to her. She was more important to him than I was.
[00:48:23] I saw a person, to me that is a good representative and we went up to his office and I watched him since. He's a man who deals with principle. He does some things differently than Republicans, he does some things differently than some Democrats want, but he operates under his principles.
[00:48:42] Now, why would we try to run wedges in congressional districts so that Minneapolis becomes more competitive? You just have to ask yourself that question.
[00:48:56] The second one I want to raise is the most recent senatorial race down in Rice County, the one where Senator Neuville once served and now you have a new senator. I mean, it was just a foregone conclusion that Ray Cox would win down there because he served the House and everything. But Northfield has changed, Northfield and the students down there. Now, if you're going to run to redistrict so there be competitiveness, and that was the main principle that you operate under, you just run that line right down the main street of Northfield, put the Carlton people over on, into, to make those other conservative people to the east more competitive and the ones to the west were more competitive, because Northfield has become much more, much more liberal and concerned about the environment before.
[00:49:51] And so here's a principle I think is most important, using those. I think that geographical, geographic commonality is what's important. I looked down through that list. You know, some of us say the old judicial jurisdiction, you could cut Rice County in half. As it is. And that's no problem, because Northfield and Faribault have always been at odds with each other. But if you use any of the, you use Northfield or Faribault and cut them in half in order to do it, I think it'd be harmful.
[00:50:26] And when you look here at Minneapolis, I mean, this is unique, what's happened in Minneapolis, for us in Minnesota. But we have the large cities, we have the suburbs, and we have the rural areas, and then the cities that are growing within the rural areas.
[00:50:43] But even our suburbs are different. I just, you know, when I was in the governor, I was out in Washington County, we're in the St. Croix, weekends we spend out there, and now I live over in 12
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008
Minnetonka on the western side.
[00:50:55] They're different, people are different, because in Minneapolis, or in the western suburbs, people are willing to face the sun every morning and face the sun every night and so mornings like this we're so thankful it's cloudy, 'cause we want to put our sunglasses on, put our [unintelligible] on. In St. Paul, for some reason or other they have brains enough over there to have the sun to their back when they come and the sun to their back when they go home. And they're just thankful that it is sun shining so they can drive more safely.
[00:51:31] You know, now they say it’s kind of facetious. No. There are things within people.
[00:51:36] So when you look at then redistricting Minneapolis, there is a Phillips neighborhood as one everybody knows about. There's a Central neighborhood and people come together in that and understand that.
[00:51:50] I was on the board of Urban Ventures for six years. And what I did was to walk around and talk to people in their [unintelligible]. You know, here's what something festinating, just say to that. On the board of Urban Ventures, I said, "Is this going to be a village? You ought to have some people from the village who are on the board instead of out in the suburbs." They said, well, there isn't anybody.
[00:52:09] So I walked around and I found two people there and people, and the board said "Where do you find them?" An African-American man said, "Where did you find them?" You see there is wisdom in people. But what we're doing here is in a democracy. It was built on that whole concept in New England, not in the South. The whole concept where people met together in town meetings. There's a paucity of that now.
[00:52:36] But anytime you break that up it doesn't work. You put me in a district and you get a sort of a finger that sticks out there, but everybody around me except to the north are in another legislative district. So, but look at it, because we are really a part of Hopkins. And so, that's what I said, I urge you to do that.
[00:53:00] And I urge you to not put the emphasis on competitiveness, but not prohibit it because, as you say, Senator Moe and others, you know, that you've got such a system now to find all that information out. I mean, everybody who serves on this commission's going to be curious to find out how is it going to be out there, but not [unintelligible] the principle.
[00:53:26] Now, I want to then look at who do you pick. Now you mentioned, Mr. Wattson, that they had some difficulty with the former judges and so forth. But I think that, if you look at impartial judges, and that's what we're working on with our effort that will be coming to you too, because you just look at this, partisan battles are waged for power not impartiality. But impartial judges are the only way you're going to assure justice for all. So, you look at that. Now I look at this one, power and politics are a part of this. I would say, and if we can get that performance evaluation through you can see, judges who are retired who have shown an impartiality.
[00:54:15] And the other one I would say, and I got to name a name, when I became governor, one person who I noticed in the Perpich administration who I thought was just outstanding was the state demography [sic], Hazel Reinhardt. And I asked her to stay and to work with me in the administration. But she, like you folks, she eventually didn't stay with me. Now I, she probably had other ideas about how to advance her career, and I watched her since then. You know, if I were you, I would make sure 13
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008 that either that Hazel Rinehardt helped you, Hazel Reinhardt got to be the chair of that new commission, or at least be on the board, because of the integrity and as more than her brilliance as a demographer, it's just the way she is, that's the kind of people. I just, because sometime you need to look, appoint a person you can identify as that.
[00:55:06] And so, then I come to the last thing I'd want to point out, is that who's going to pick the pickers? And who's going to make that decision? So that's a balance, because you look in the states, some of them the legislature is doing it and you turn to somebody else, and former Chief Justice Blatz will talk about that the legislature shouldn't, I mean the courts shouldn't, be redistricting for another branch.
[00:55:37] You know, one way is balanced and states figured out a way that you could share it between the branches of the government. Would you help us? The judicial branch pick a third, executive branch pick a third, and we pick a third. Those are the way, the only way you can do it, try to get some bipartisanship into it. So those are my suggestions and recommendation and I really appreciate that you're working on this.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [00:56:03] Thank you very much, Governor Quie.
[00:56:06] Secretary of State, former Secretary of State Joan Anderson Growe. Welcome to the committee.
Sec. of State Joan Growe: [00:56:11] Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee thank you for hearing from us today. Roger, you're right. It's fun to be back in this room and Peter Wattson is such a familiar face to all of us.
[00:56:23] You know, Minnesotans enjoy, and our state enjoys, a great reputation nationally in terms of electoral politics, in one way because of the high rate of participation that we enjoy, which I think is partially due to the fact that Minnesotans themselves love to debate public policy. But the other piece of our national reputation comes because of the way we administer elections. That's partially due to our statutes, to our regulations, and also due to the hard work of the people at the local level who actually do the work: the county commissioners, the city clerks, and the township officials. But it all fits together to give us a reputation around the country for what is considered, and what I believe is, a fair, open, honest, and transparent system. Luckily, we don't see Minnesota as a headline after an election, when they're going back and looking at what has happened there. And I think that this is a tradition that we really want to uphold. And I think that the idea that you are discussing this terribly difficult issue of redistricting is really to our benefit. And I think solving it in some way will help uphold that tradition.
[00:57:47] So, as you're evaluating the different plans, and thank you for your leadership on it, Senator Rest and Senator Pogemiller, I want to encourage you to think about several points.
[00:57:59] And the first is the importance of redistricting in a more timely, expeditious fashion. My first experience with redistricting occurred in the summer of 1972. I was running for the legislature and I was walking down my suburban district knocking on doors and passing out literature and I bumped into a fellow who was coming towards me on the street and he was knocking on doors and handing out literature. And I was running for the legislature in District 40A at the time. And I introduced myself to him. It turned out he was Jerry Knickerbocker, who was running for the legislature in District 40B. And Jerry and I looked at each other and we both had gone, I think this is my block. No, this one's my block. We sat and looked at, you know, the maps, the rough draft that we had. Neither of us knew 14
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008 exactly who that block might belong to or the block over and the block on either side. So, hand in hand, we went off to the city hall, talked to the city clerk, and the poor city clerk didn't know who that block belonged to at that time yet in that season.
[00:59:10] And so, while we jump ahead, it hasn't always happened any faster, as we look forward into the future from 1972.
[00:59:19] In 2002, the process didn't come to a conclusion until March 19, and that meant that the whole process of creating new legislative districts, new precincts, putting over 3 million registered voters into those precincts, had to be done, and then notifying them, had to be done in a span of three months, just weeks before candidates were starting to file for office. And I think, as any of you will know, when you take a huge task and try to do it in a short period of time it is much more likely that you're going to have some mistakes or some errors. I think ideally, in years that end in one, state and federal redistricting should be completed by the end of August and then the local districts should be completed by the end of November.
[01:00:22] Second, I think there should be a way to give the public a more meaningful role or more meaningful input into the process.
[01:00:30] In 2001, lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the redistricting plans were filed early in January, before the legislature even had an opportunity to begin their formal work, before the public had an opportunity for input, and so they were really prohibited from any kind of a role in it. And, thankfully, the Supreme Court's special redistricting panel did hold public hearings around the state before they adopted their final plan. But I think there has to be a way to have more transparency, more input into this whole process and I would encourage you to think about that.
[01:01:14] And third, I think it would be a great help if you stated the redistricting standards and put them into statute. In 2001, again there was almost an entire year spent debating the standards before people could get to work looking at what the districts should look like. And I'm talking about the accepted standards, such as population, contiguous territory, compactness, protecting political subdivisions, looking at, as Governor Quie spoke to, communities of interest, and then also looking at political competitiveness. But if those standards could be debated and put into the statute prior to the time that redistricting was going to begin, I think that might help put the process forward.
[01:02:18] And then last, but certainly not least, I guess I want to echo what my fellow panelists have said in this regard: that the trend toward safer and more secure districts really doesn't help our democratic process. You know, more competition, I think, helps to flourish greater public debate and it gives voters an opportunity to choose between ideas and between candidates. And I think that that's really only very healthy for our democracy.
[01:02:57] So I look forward to working with all of you, and I know all of us look forward to working with all of you, and hopefully we will come up with a better solution to what is a really difficult political decision making.
[01:03:10] Thank you.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:03:12] Thank you, Secretary of State Growe.
[01:03:15] I'm now going to ask if there are questions or comments for these three, and I would like to 15
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008 begin with one, with one or two questions. Secretary of State Growe, if we did adopt the standards in statute, would not that still bring about court challenges to plans, but that they would be, we would still end up in the courts, but it would be challenges based on whether the standards had been met? Where would you not predict that?
Sec. of State Joan Growe: [01:03:56] Madam Chair, it's possible, and I can't predict that and perhaps Mr. Wattson can better speak to that. I think the one thing that happens if you adopt the standards early is that, they can be controversial in themselves to a degree, but if you have those basic standards, then the legislature or commission has a basis from which to begin their deliberations.
[01:04:20] But I can't predict whether or not they would be challenged in the courts or not.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:04:28] Senator Betzold.
Sen. Don Betzold: [01:04:30] Madam Chair, Secretary Growe, I just got to ask, who is right between you and Representative Knickerbocker, which block did that [unintelligible, laughter].
Sec. of State Joan Growe: [01:04:38] I hate to tell you this, but I think we both avoided that entire neighborhood. [Laughter, unintelligible] I think turned out to be Jerry Knickerbocker's. And he also won that year, so.
Sen. Don Betzold: [01:04:49] Thank you.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:04:52] A second question I have, Governor Carlson talked about the issues of a concentration of power that ended up being, or ends up being a goal all too often with regard to redistricting and then as a secondary effect of that is the protection of incumbency. And I wonder if any of the three of you would care to comment on how, even though it's unlikely that Minnesota would ever adopt term limits for its legislators, how you might see term limits confounding that concentration of power or protection of incumbents and, if you just observed in any other states, have they been more successful, that ones that have term limits, with regard to lessening the concentration of power and, obviously, after a certain period of time, they would not be protecting, at least, individual incumbents?
Sec. of State Joan Growe: [01:06:08] Madam Chair, I'll take a stab at it. As you're well aware, that term limits is a separate issue than redistricting.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:06:16] Yes, I understand.
Sec. of State Joan Growe: [01:06:17] And while the goal of our group is to try to have redistricting take place in a timely, sensible, open, fair manner, and part of that means bringing some competitiveness into it, there is absolutely no way that you are going to make every district competitive, nor should you. I mean, can you imagine what some of the cities and the rural areas would look like if you were trying to make it competitive? You could have little [peanut?] people popping in from all over. So that isn't the goal. The goal really is [unintelligible]. And so, it isn't to have turnover, necessarily. That isn't the goal as it is in term limits. So, I think the effect is different. I think, if you could make up for a number of the, if you could make ten more legislative districts competitive, I think that would be of help. I think, if you didn't, you know, if gerrymandering weren't taking place, if you weren't pushing people here and there to give someone else a little less safer district or say [unintelligible]. I can remember the conversations that went on about well, you know, they've got a 60- percent DFL district. We can take a few people away and give them to so and so who only has a 51- 16
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008 percent DFL district. And then there was, I guess I could say this without offending any of the congressmen, you know that, I just hear legislators say, and we used to feel that way, the only time you ever heard from your congressman was every ten years when you were doing redistricting, [laughter] when it became important to them. So, I think people are used to that. So, I think you don't want to confuse the two. And I know you don't. But I think the goals are not the same either. And I think it is not so much the concentration of people being in for long periods of time in garnering experience and power. It is the fact that their races may not be competitive.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:08:21] Governor Quie.
Gov. Al Quie: [01:08:22] Can I please respond as well? The most glaring example of redistricting in order to get power was what happened in Texas between the census. That made everybody in the country know what's possible. Everybody's going to say it is plain wrong. In fact, the guy who engineered it didn't even stay in Congress because of other things that he did.
[01:08:51] Now let's look at my old first district. The first district that is the way it is now, other than the fact that my farm wouldn't have been in the first district, but the way it is now, I used to say, if I could have a district like that, I could stay in office for two years after I was dead. [Laughter] But just look, no one did anything with redistricting in the last election, and Walz was elected. So, there's something to a person to be able to express ideas the way that resonates with those voters.
[01:09:34] You look at another one [unintelligible] I could pick some other ones, but I got to pick out where we came out the losers on the Republican side.
[01:09:48] When Tim Penny came in, and then his opponent was an incumbent on the western part of his district, they expanded this way, he lost, not in the new part of his district but in the old part of his district. So, just realize there is some sense in people's minds on their end.
[01:10:16] And when there's a resurgence of Republicans, you know, when I became governor, and that happened, and then the political party really had lost touch with the people in there. [unintelligible] So that's how I look at it. When I look at this, at what happened the last election, I said the same thing, the Republicans lost touch with the sense of the people.
[01:10:39] Now, what is the sense of the people? The people's sense is not partisan to the sense that a lot of people in office think that it is. They want you to get the job done. That's where it is right now. They look at, are we going to protect the waters? Are we going to grow trees in Minnesota so that it will absorb the CO2 and the earth warming? That's a part of people. And they talk about it in cities and in the rural area and over a period of time, and you think of climate change, now it gets to be accepted. People say it is, it takes a while.
[01:11:19] So have a system where I, that's why the geographical commonality where people then just naturally talk with each other, just like you in your office, you most naturally talk with your colleagues who are in the next offices, you don't have to call a meeting for those, you go see 'em. And you need to have it so that people interact, so you don't have to call a meeting in order to interact.
Sen. Roger D. Moe: [01:11:45] Well, I ---
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:11:47] Senator Moe.
17
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008
Sen. Roger D. Moe: [01:11:47] It's with a certain amount of reluctance that I should give you advice. But let me give you some advice. Madam Chair, members of the committee, keep your reform package to discussions about this. And Governor Quie will probably be back with some discussions about retaining judges. And keep away from term limits. That would be my suggestion.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:12:10] Well I'm not a supporter of them, but I thought that the distinction that Secretary Growe made about the level of importance we should assign to competitiveness is one thing and that the ideas that would form a better basis on which to do redistricting is not turnover, and that we should keep that in mind as we're moving forward here.
Sen. Roger D. Moe: [01:12:48] I can say, in talking with the states that have adopted term limits that, almost without exception, not a one of them would do it again. It is not, it's not produced results that people might have thought that it would have.
[01:13:08] But again, I get back to, if over a period of a number of decades you can incrementally move a few more districts into a competitive election, I just, I firmly believe, if you're going to move the public discussion to those issues that have a broader appeal to the state and I think that would be a positive.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:13:39] Senator Gerlach.
Sen. Chris Gerlach: [01:13:41] Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two related questions, and I've been looking through the bills that we have that we're gonna have before us. There's three of them here in our packets, and one fundamental difference between them is one of them does not require enactment by the legislature. It's that the commission puts the plan together and then after any court challenges it becomes effective, if I'm reading it right. And then the other two before us, they require legislative enactments. I'm also reading in some of the materials here that says, of the 19 states that have redistricting commissions, all but Vermont provide for the plan to become effective without legislative enactment. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the with or without legislative enactment. It occurs to me that maybe if you, it's some kind of a middle ground, but then if you have to come back for legislative enactment, I mean, is it amendable and such, and you've never really reached escape velocity so to speak, because it just kind of pulls it right back in the political maneuvering. And so, I just wonder what your thoughts are on legislative enactment or not.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:14:50] Senator Moe.
Sen. Roger D. Moe: [01:14:53] Madam Chair, members of the committee, I feel strongly that you need legislative enactment, concurrence. And the concept, if I could, of the kind of the base closing, of the federal base closing, where Congress had to kind of take it or leave it, I think that's the best process and I'll tell you the dynamics of what will happen. OK, right now. It'll pass.
[01:15:22] No exactly. Because really what happens in this process is you get down to a few districts that are, from the inside I watched it too many times to know that you end up haggling over a very few districts. Overwhelmingly, you can draw up plans that a majority of all caucuses are going to agree on. So, I have no doubt that this independent panel will come back with a plan and there's going to be a few that are upset, but by and large, it's, I have no doubt that it will pass. But I believe that you need that in the process, that the legislature has to review. I would guess if you took that away, would you need some change in the Constitution?
18
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:16:10] Yes. The one bill that I have is similar to the 1980 constitutional question that, although it got more than 50 percent of the votes, it did not get more than 50 percent of the voters, so it did not prevail.
[01:16:34] Just one further point on that about legislative enactment. I note that, and perhaps Professor Jacobs will be speaking about this in just a few minutes, but that Senator Pogemiller's bill does have that up or down vote for the first two times that a plan would be subjected to, or brought to, the legislature, but the third time, in a decreasingly, or increasingly short period of time, the legislature can then make amendments to the plan. And it seems to me that it should be a constitutional issue. I am very leery of, quite frankly, even though it's in my own bill, I don't think that's the way we ought to go at this point. But I also am not enamored of the legislature being able to vote it down, vote it down, and then get to where they really want to do it, and amend the plan that comes in front of them. I think for the, in my view, to have any teeth in it, it has to continue to be an up or down vote. But that conversation can continue as we take these bills up in our regular session hearing.
[01:18:06] Senator Gerlach, did you have another question?
Sen. Chris Gerlach: [01:18:08] Thank you, Madam Chair. One I'm related, and this is may be for Mr. Wattson more, but I'm wondering, I don't know when these 19 states that have redistricting commissions now have all come into effect. I assume over time, over years. I don't know if it's been decades or not or if these are all just recent occurrences, but do we have any knowledge of the competitiveness trends in these states that do this? Is it fixing the problem? Are we getting more statistically competitive races because of this, or is it status quo? I mean, is it really solving the problem? I don't know if you have any experience with that or if anybody else does.
Peter Wattson: [01:18:44] Madam Chair, Senator Gerlach, I've not seen any analysis of that. To the extent there has been an analysis of the success of commissions, it's just whether they've managed to get their plans enacted without court intervention. Whether they're more competitive or not, I've not seen anything on that at all.
Sen. Chris Gerlach: [01:19:02] OK, because the reason I ask that, I think that's probably pretty critical to try to figure that out. Be a nice, I guess, graduate school or Ph.D. project for some students somewhere, but to figure that out, or we do have Mr. Jacobs with us here, and the reason is because of, if, I mean, we hear about how the situation is getting worse, less competitive districts, yet we're having states that are, over time, here at least, putting into place, again, I don't know over how many decades this has been, but if it's not solving the problem, I'm concerned about that. If it were, we might be doing something for naught. That's the only reason I bring that up.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:19:39] Senator Pogemiller.
Sen. Larry Pogemiller: [01:19:42] I think on that point, we should encourage the NCSL to do that work. I think they want, they would like to do that, probably, and I think we're in a position to encourage that because of the relationship our nonpartisan staff has with NCSL. So, I think that's actually something we should do, encourage them to do that.
[01:19:58] But I do have a question.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:20:00] Senator Pogemiller.
19
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008
Sen. Larry Pogemiller: [01:20:01] You know, at first blush, Governor Quie disagreed with Senator Moe on competitiveness, directly. You said, we should not focus on competitiveness, we should keep community interests together. So I want to ask Senator Moe, based on your experience, having done this, could you give us a more layered discussion of that tension, because it seems that, if you did keep communities interest together, which is a fundamental court criteria, fundamental, if you had perfect communities of interest, wouldn't you have 100 percent districts, all the same kind of people in every district, or politically, in that sense? So, if you're arguing for competitiveness, but you also have to keep communities of interest together, how do you resolve that tension, and how has it been, in your judgment how, if you're trying to be fair, or correct, or non-devious, how does somebody resolve that? How does a nonpartisan judge resolve that? How does a League of Women Voters person, who has no partisan leanings at all, resolve that? Because that is the issue: communities of interest versus competitiveness.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:21:19] Senator Moe.
Sen. Roger D. Moe: [01:21:21] Senator Rest, Senator Pogemiller, being devious and tricky hasn't worked. So ---
Sen. Larry Pogemiller: [01:21:36] But Senator Moe, on that point though ---
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:21:41] Senator Pogemiller.
Sen. Larry Pogemiller: [01:21:41] If you keep a community of interest together ---
Sen. Roger D. Moe: [01:21:44] No, I, I ---
Sen. Larry Pogemiller: [01:21:44] Some people view that as devious and packing. Other people view that as, you kept the community of interest together. And the classic example is over race. For years it was a good thing to try to get minorities in the same district. Well it's a good thing until you put too many minorities in the same district and dilute their power. I mean, that is, that's what we're talking about here, those tensions between, when does a good thing not become a good thing, and who makes that judgment?
Sen. Roger D. Moe: [01:22:19] I think my reference to devious and tricky was more in terms of my own actions in redistricting ---
Sen. Larry Pogemiller: [01:22:30] Oh! [Laughter]
Sen. Roger D. Moe: [01:22:32] And it hasn't worked.
Sen. Larry Pogemiller: [01:22:32] You're not even Catholic. You're not even confessional.
Sen. Roger D. Moe: [01:22:34] I'm pleading for the committee and members of the legislature, on a bipartisan basis to, to clean up my failed legacy on redistricting.
[01:22:44] No, Senator Pogemiller, you certainly have touched the point, but if I'm not mistaken is the word competitive, is not in our statute. It's not in our statute. We don't have the word competitive.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:23:00] Mr. Wattson. 20
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008
Peter Wattson: [01:23:02] Mr. Chairman, it is not in the current law but it is in the bill of Senator Pogemiller. Political competitiveness would be added as a new principle of plans under Senator Pogemiller's bill.
Sen. Larry Pogemiller: [01:23:14] An additional balancing factor, I think is how it has to be viewed, rather than the goal is a competitiveness. It's an additional balancing factor.
Sen. Roger D. Moe: [01:23:23] Senator Pogemiller.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:23:23] Senator Moe.
Sen. Roger D. Moe: [01:23:24] So, I think, I don't think we're, I don't think, I don't think that the governor and I are inconsistent on this at all.
Gov. Al Quie: [01:23:33] Only in this, that if you're going to have something in statute or where they would push for the number one priority. You see some of them prohibit any look at partisanship or how people voted at all and I've said, I mean people aren't going to look at that, and so why prohibit it?
[01:23:52] But rather than put that as the number one, to the extent of it, and it, maybe more with your bill too Senator Pogemiller, will [unintelligible] because you put that competitiveness is right up there at top as it is.
[01:24:05] But let's just look at this. For years with African Americans, when you said there's too many of them. Now, between Dennison and Kenyan, there were too many Norwegians. [unintelligible, followed by laughter]
[01:24:31] And people were talking about that because they have that commonality of interest.
[01:24:35] But you should have heard those Norwegians arguing with each other in debate. Now, would it have been better if you split them up and it is now that we have and so you know it really helped in all these communities when there is a mixture. But you go through that. And so, when you look at African Americans, we have to take some responsibility outside of redistricting for why are they living together. If we fail the education of African-American kids, we'll relegate them to ghettos. But I tell you, if every African-American child can read proficiently in the fourth grade you won't have to worry about that. They will then engage.
[01:25:26] And I, just at Christmas time, because I have a granddaughter who because of her connection now to two African-American girls, one in fourth grade and one in second grade, they live in St. Louis Park, and my son asked them to read the Christmas story. Now, one of the things you say when this whole disparity with educational achievement of kids, you know, what was he doing? I tell you, the fourth-grade child read that without a flaw, except for one word and that's the name of that governor who, I wouldn't even try it myself. And the second grader needed help with a couple of big words. When I saw those two girls, they will be able to be who God made them to be.
[01:26:28] And you see, all this other part is in there as well.
[01:26:33] And so, when I say, you know, when I look at this and see those communities, that's my deep concern, are the people who are without power, you know, should we artificially break up their 21
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008 community in order to have this, so there will be competition, or should we let the whole process carry on to, while they will be dispersed, because African-Americans are all over the place now. And one of the things we don't pay attention to, the ones who have moved into middle class and above with that, I mean that's happened with us. But, you see, we had the Emancipation Proclamation at the end of the Civil War. It wasn't until 1965 that we really gave them freedom to have jobs and freedom by law and to vote. And that doesn't, you know, that isn't even 100 years yet.
[01:27:29] Literally there's a professor at Howard University talked about this in Africa and he said, and what he really astounded me, it takes 750 years for all that to leave in a society. So that's why I wanted to have a priority.
[01:27:49] But you know, the opposite of having safe districts, and in redistricting you get safe districts, is competitiveness. And so, I'm all for competitiveness, rather than safe districts.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:28:03] You know, it occurs to me that the questions that are now being raised we might want to hear comments from Governor Carlson, who has indicated he would like to speak to this issue, and Vice President Mondale. And we also are very pleased to welcome Chief Justice Blatz. And so, I wonder if maybe you could just bring your chairs up to the table and on those issues that you would like to speak to or questions that we raise that we would, we could do that at this point.
[01:28:39] And first I'm going to ask Governor Carlson to make his comment and then I think I'm going to ask former Chief Justice Blatz for her comments and then we can continue this discussion and then hear also from Professor Jacobs.
[01:28:58] Governor Carlson.
Gov. Arne Carlson: [01:29:00] Thank you very much Madam Chair.
[01:29:01] The question that Senator Pogemiller raises is one of the most valid that can be raised and I'm delighted that he did this early in the hearing.
[01:29:10] The reality is that all these characteristics that go into redistricting are not necessarily harmonious. They are in conflict, just as ideals are not always harmonious, they are in conflict. The real question becomes, how do you broker those interests and who ought to make the decision relative to how they're going to be brokered. And our argument would be that it ought not to be the legislative bodies that themselves benefit from their decision, but it should be someone who is in fact impartial and the solution, not a perfect solution but we think a good solution, an improvement over what we currently have, is to have four appellate judges, retired appellate judges, each appointed by each caucus and then the four coming together and selecting a chairperson. So that's kind of the process, if you will, of mediation and it is deemed to be about as impartial as you're going to get.
[01:30:15] Someone said you can't take politics out of politics. I fully agree. We all know that. We all have human bias. The question is to minimize that in terms of how you arrive at a decision. So, the issue that's before you is, really, are those five people the right set of people to make this kind of decision, realizing that all of these characteristics, not just the two that we're talking about here, but all these characteristics, are in fact in conflict. That's just the bloody reality and that's how a democratic society works. But traditionally we have put this role on the courts. What Kathleen Blatz will undoubtedly say is just don't give it to the active bench. [Laughter] And, prayerfully, will advocate for the retired bench, of which she is now a member. [Laughter] 22
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008
[01:31:08] Thank you.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:31:13] Chief Justice Blatz, welcome to the committee and we are delighted that you could join us. We welcome your testimony on this very important policy issue.
C.J. Kathleen Blatz: [01:31:22] Well thank you, Madam Chair, and I'm sure everybody ahead of me has applauded you for taking this subject on. I can't tell you how pleased I am as a citizen of this state. And I truly believe that this is the best part of public service, you have to do a lot of things that are maybe not as rewarding, but to really dig in on an issue that could serve the state. It requires tremendous leadership to get this job done. I want to add my applause to that I'm sure that's gone before.
[01:31:51] I am here as, really with, even though I'm retired, my judge's hat on. But my views are informed for having had the privilege of serving in the legislature for almost 16 years.
[01:32:04] I kind of inherited my district. I won the seat, but I don't even know how that plan was put together. I wish I had been here for Senator Moe's history lesson. I would have enjoyed that. You'll have to tell me later who did the '72 plan. But I was here through two redistrictings, one done by the courts and then the second one done by the legislature, not to bring up a sticky subject, but because the veto didn't go through and probably would have ended up in the courts in that instance also.
[01:32:33] And then, as chief justice, the legislature did not agree on the plan in 2002, as you all are painfully aware, and there I was stuck and kept reading the stature going, "I have to do this?" And spent a lot of time and worry and concern about picking the right panel, for lots of different reasons. Understanding how vital it was to the State of Minnesota, how it would be viewed by many people. I was worried about the potential repercussions to the court system, the judiciary, not in a superficial way but a structural way. I was very concerned about that. And have a lot of thoughts today as I sit here because of that experience and all of them put together.
[01:33:16] I can tell you that I did, yesterday, read quickly through the different proposals. I have not been involved in the formation of any of them, as you all know. I like pieces of all them and I am not here to really speak about that, but what I do think would serve the state very well is, obviously legislative input is always going to be there, so the input on the membership, starting with the membership of a bipartisan, and I don't mean ten of one party three of another, I mean more with equality, bipartisanship, group that has a neutral selection factor and, as I read the proposals, that's what they do and they have a different approach. But I think that is a real key, because with trying to get then a majority vote, having to go to the other side. I don't think it's problematic that people have strong views about things. It's how are you going to bridge those and come up with a plan that serves the state.
[01:34:15] When you look at the current structure, I mean if you, I just think, if you went down the street, put 100 people in a room, and that you don't have to know anything about constitutional law, or all the considerations that you must consider. I think you would get a large majority of 100 people, citizens of the state, who would say things that I heard pieces of this morning. They would be concerned about their counties, their cities, their townships, their school districts, those kind of natural constituencies, maybe Norwegians and things like that too. [Laughter] But just the natural constituencies, the demographics would come to play. I think that would be elevated and that's what people would be concerned about. You wouldn't hear a lot, even though many of them would like their legislators, that that would be driving their decisions on their districts. 23
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008
[01:35:06] You throw it in the legislature, and what comes to the top, and I'm speaking from my own point of view of when I was there and my own experience, and these are human beings, they are not bad people, I think what we cared about, we started with, where were our district lines? It's incumbency, and the fact that it does correlate with townships and counties and school districts, many times it's more coincidental than purposeful. It wasn't what was driving us. And you would hear it from somebody when their town was severed in maybe four parts and going out or something. Then they would speak about the city needing to be together. But if they had been an incumbent from the city, you wouldn't hear that. It was really their district lines and the risk that was being brought to them. So, it's just, it's structurally just fraught with problems. And we, as legislators, especially the party that's in control, and that goes back and forth on occasion, I understand to the victors go the spoils, but this system just doesn't work.
[01:36:12] It's kind of like my friend's uncle Ted, she was telling me about him, just quickly that, his wife left him. He got fired from his job. His house was one month from complete foreclosure and they were trying to get him to go into this place, had a lot of problems. And he said he couldn't stay, he was so mad at the family. Why? Because I like to be in control of my life. And that was his defense.
[01:36:36] And the legislature likes to have control. But let me tell you folks, you're not in control. This is not working. [Laughter] Okay? But it's that feeling that you're in control that keeps us not making the change.
[01:36:50] It doesn't work. As you know, if you have one party that's not there, if the governor is not the same party or House and Senate, it's unlikely you're going to come up with a plan. You might, you could do it, I'm not saying it's totally impossible. And then, when it "works," I put quote marks around that, I would argue that that's probably the time it really doesn't work. If you want to serve natural constituencies and that, because if you've got one party, you name the party, in control of the House, the Senate, and the governor, then it's probably the most incumbent protection plan and the most ignorant, so to speak, of natural constituencies that you should be concerned about.
[01:37:27] So that's the context in which I speak. But let me, right, and probably the worst public policy, and that's when it works. And that's the way it's designed. It's not because of bad people. It's designed to work that way. It's just functioning as it's intended, so to speak.
[01:37:44] I'm really here as, with my judge's hat on. I want to say something about the courts, and this is the active bench and that I'm not here to talk about retired judges. I mean, the thought, it does not bother me as much, but I can tell you that I really believe that the court's role should be last resort. It is a fail-safe. It has worked as, I mean, when things all fall apart the state has to have districts. Somebody has to do them and as Secretary of State Growe mentioned, time is of the essence. Ballots, elections do go on. But I just don't think that's the proper role for the court to be interjected into creating the facts and the fact finding in a, inherently legislative branch, policy-making role and it's very uncomfortable.
[01:38:38] It isn't that they are not capable people. I can tell you that when I put together the last draft, and there were other judges that could have served very well in it, I started with a list of people that I would literally turn over anything in my personal life to have them handle the most intimate matters of a family. Any of you would do, you think what judges would you trust. And that list was quite, was much longer than the five-judge panel. And then I started worrying about all the perception considerations of how it'd be perceived because the courts, they're not better than any other branch, but they're very different than the other branches. 24
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008
[01:39:12] And the judicial power really comes from the confidence that the people have in our court system. It's what, I believe, distinguishes our society from many other societies. And we need to work very hard on that. And that's another issue of preserving that for another day. But I don't think, because our function is very different, and to make them into a mini-legislature or to assume those functions, I think there's a real blurring of the lines and that, if anything, I'm here to do today is to caution you to keep that in mind and to do your very utmost to create a system that does not end up in the courts. All of it, and it's fine that constitutional issues have to be raised and maybe even, I think, one time was just some minor changes that had to be done toward the end, but not to do the entire job is what's been happening in the last few decades. So, with that I'll rest and ---
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:40:08] Thank you very much, Chief Justice. Are there questions?
[01:40:12] All right. And maybe at this point we can add another chair and invite Professor Jacobs to join us and make a few comments before we end this hearing about the three legislative proposals. If you can manage another chair there and if anyone wants to comment about them, we'd welcome that as well.
[01:40:40] Welcome to the committee, Professor Jacobs, and we're very pleased to have your testimony.
Prof. Larry Jacobs: [01:40:48] Thank you for inviting me. Senator Rest, members of the committee, Majority Leader Pogemiller.
[01:40:55] When I travel around the country, which is more than my family would like, I'm always reminded of the special traditions we have here in Minnesota. And this panel here today and the fact that this hearing is being conducted is a great illustration of that special tradition we have here in Minnesota. Here we have some of the most accomplished and well-known public servants who are loyal to very different parties. Some notable differences on policy, but they share a common commitment to the health of our democracy and our civic life. And they are truly remarkable Minnesotans. And I want to applaud this committee for its leadership in introducing legislation on this important topic and holding hearings. One of the biggest challenges on any policy reform is just getting it on the agenda. And so, I want to thank Senator Rest, Majority Leader Pogemiller, and other leaders who have stepped up to the plate on this. You two are demonstrating a commitment to our common good that all Minnesotans applaud.
[01:42:01] I've been asked to compare three bills under consideration by your committee, namely those introduced by Senator Pogemiller, Senator Rest, and Senator Michel.
[01:42:09] My analysis is informed by two decades at the University of Minnesota and by my study of redistricting approaches and some of their effects. To offer a balanced assessment, based on my study analysis, I've organized my concerns on each bill to highlight positive features as well as to highlight some concerns or questions that I would suggest you consider in the months ahead.
[01:42:35] I'd like to start by noting a similarity in all three bills. They all recommend that Minnesota adopt an independent commission of various sorts. This reflects a shared interest, a positive one in my view, in distancing legislators from the unseemly business of drawing their own districts. I applaud that common starting point. There is also a shared agreement to tie redistricting to the U.S. Census every ten years and making that part of the annual process. And again, I think that's another positive step. 25
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008
[01:43:10] Senator Pogemiller's bill comes closest to embracing the Mondale Carlson proposal. Here are some of the notable, in my view, positive points of overlap. The membership of the commission would be retired appellate court judges who have not run for party endorsed positions or held party endorsed offices. This is critical for giving Minnesotans confidence that the commission will be independent and guided by the overall interests of all of Minnesota, particularly in addressing the important question that Senator Pogemiller raised earlier about balancing, at times, competing sets of considerations.
[01:43:47] The Pogemiller bill is, in my view, courageous in stipulating, and here I want to quote from the bill, "Districts must be created to encourage political competition." Close quote. In an era when we are told that politics is a fight for every advantage, the Senate majority leader has put a stake in the ground for integrity. The support we've received from House Minority Leader Marty Seifert, and other Republicans unable to join us here today, gives me hope that this difficult hurdle can be accomplished together and on a bipartisan basis. I think when we start looking at what's going on in other parts of this country and other states in using independent commissions and other forms of commissions, what we're going to see is that competition has not been stipulated as one of these key concerns. Indeed, in Arizona, which adopted reform in 2000, competition was added as part of the constitution. That was a major breakthrough. But what they did was they put it in a secondary status. And so, it's had little effect. So, we are, and the work of our distinguished leaders in this effort, is informed by the experience that we've seen in other states and particularly in Arizona.
[01:45:04] The Pogemiller bill's code of conduct, budget provisions will help avoid inappropriate political gamesmanship that we've seen in other states. In Arizona, for instance, failure to lock in funding led to political chicanery of fairly predictable sorts, namely that the commission was starved of money in order to extract concessions. Here's another area where the Mondale Carlson proposal has attempted to learn from positive forward-thinking reforms and some of the slip ups that have occurred.
[01:45:39] The Pogemiller bill's backup plan, in case of a legislature that rejects the commission proposal for a second time, is a thoughtful failsafe and is not in the Mondale Carlson proposal.
[01:45:56] Let me raise some questions. In my view the Pogemiller plan offers a number of important and pioneering elements that deserve serious consideration.
[01:46:06] I also want to provide for your further thoughts and comments on some components that may deserve additional thought. The commission's work may require more time than presently allowed. I very much agree with former Secretary of State Joan Growe's comments about that timeline. That's consistent with what we've seen both here in Minnesota and around the country.
[01:46:31] Secondly, what role does the governor play in the Pogemiller bill's approach? Under the current system, the legislature's approval of a bill then goes to the governor for his signature or veto. That does not appear to be in the Pogemiller plan. If not, my understanding is that would then require a constitutional amendment.
[01:46:50] Third, the Mondale Carlson proposal calls for the commission to take responsibility on serving as a watchdog of the U.S. Census as it's conducted here in Minnesota. While none of the bills today contains this element, I would strongly urge consideration of that element. Having talked with the state demographer, which I would recommend that you do, one of his concerns is, moving forward, how do we lock in that kind of institutional watchdog function? 26
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008
[01:47:23] We move on to Senator Rest's bill. Senator Rest's bill is bold and innovative in several respects. It offers the most dramatic break from the current legislative process by using a constitutional amendment to put redistricting in the hands of a commission. This would be a sharper departure from today's practice than the Pogemiller bill, which has the commission making a recommendation to the Legislature.
[01:47:50] Another attractive feature of the Rest bill is that it would expedite the passage of reform redistricting by getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November 2008. I share that sense of urgency. To take but one reason for that urgency, consider the prospect of Minnesota having to redistrict with one less congressional seat.
[01:48:14] Here are some questions that may deserve further discussion and thought. Practically speaking, there may be greater difficulty in enacting reform through a constitutional amendment, as witnessed by the unsuccessful effort here in Minnesota in 1980. But also, I would ask that you consider the resounding defeat of constitutional amendments in Ohio and California in 2005.
[01:48:40] Second, the Rest bill does not incorporate competition. Even the political tsunami that hit Minnesota in 2006 could not raise the percentage of competitive House races above a third nor diminish the average winning margin below a staggering 25 points in Minnesota House and Senate races. I took with note the majority leader's comment about Minnesota having more competitive and more regular turnover. It's a good point. We've done some careful analysis of that and I'd be glad to share the data with you. I'm not quite as convinced of it.
[01:49:19] Let me just mention a couple things. We looked at the percentage of incumbents who've won. In the Minnesota Senate, 84 percent of incumbents who ran for re-election won. In the Minnesota House it was 89 percent. This is in 2006, a year in which we were told there was a political tsunami sweeping the land. And then open seats were controlled by the previous party in 89 percent of the Minnesota Senate races and 70 percent of the Minnesota House races. So, you can see a little bit of a shift could flip the control of the chamber, but the actual competitiveness of those races is quite limited. We've also looked at the competitiveness of the House and the Senate races using a pretty liberal measure of competitiveness, which is races in which the margin of victory is ten points or less. And what we see, just looking at the House, is that there's quite a variation. Again, I'm glad to share this data. Back in 1998, we had hit a low point of just 16 percent of the House races being more than this ten-percent margin of victory, which is, I think, in my view, pathetic. It's just not a very competitive process. In a tsunami year, the highest we've seen in some time, it hit 34 percent. Now, we could disagree about whether 34 percent is a high number or not. But I would say, if that's the high point, in my view we can do better. And I'd like to see that. And again, I'd be glad to share this data with anyone interested.
[01:51:00] Let me raise one last question with the Rest bill and then a few comments on Senator Michel's bill.
[01:51:09] The Rest bill proposed a number of innovative ideas, including the mix of members and the majority-rule decisions. I think those are smart ideas and I think there's real value in them. But it does not rely on the retired nonpartisan appellate judges, as the Mondale Carlson plan does. As such, the door may still be open to partisan gaming. My fear is that, without distance from politics and without the neutrality that judges bring, retired judges, there is a risk that the commissioners will find common cause to defeat their shared enemy: a challenger. The Rest bill also does not specify a code of conduct 27
SLG Hearing on Redistricting Bills January 11, 2008 or budget process to avoid political gaming, and I concur with Secretary of State Growe's suggestion that the commission be given more time.
[01:52:02] Finally, Senator Michel's bill. Senator Michel's bill merges Iowa's civil service approach with a more robust advisory role for independent commission. It's got a number of attractive features. Let me just quickly mention some questions that I think may emerge.
[01:52:20] One is that the advisory role of the commission is pretty limited.
[01:52:26] In addition, the omission of competition as a standard, among others, for drawing boundaries is not there. Research on the experiences of other states reveals that incumbent influence is remarkably durable in the absence of structural change.
[01:52:43] There is also a tactical consideration. Opponents of redistricting reform in other states, and I'm thinking here of what we've seen in Ohio and California recently, have mounted successful and persuasive campaigns against proposals that can be cast as replicating the work of the legislature. So, we get into arguments about more and more bureaucracy, which have hit a nerve.
[01:53:05] I would welcome Senator Michel's reconsideration of these elements.
[01:53:09] Thank you very much.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:53:11] Oh, thank you very much, Professor Jacobs. And, once again, we'd like to thank all of you for being here and getting this discussion off on the right note and making sure that it remains a policy discussion and that it has bipartisan support as we're going forward.
[01:53:37] We will continue to have discussions on redistricting and we will have, if the authors request, we will have regular hearings during the 2008 legislative session and perhaps even into the 2009 session.
[01:53:58] We want to thank all of you who are present here today particularly our members, Mr. Wattson, and staff. And once again, Happy Birthday, Mr. Vice President.
VP Walter Mondale: [01:54:10] Thank you.
Sen. Ann H. Rest: [01:54:10] We are adjourned.
28