Voters shut out on redistricting

Every decade, the law requires every state to redraw every legislative and congressional district to reflect changes in population discovered by the Census.

The cycle’s process is about at its end, with maps for both Congress and Michigan’s Senate and House districts now being rushed through the Legislature before its summer break.

Phil Power, CFM founder and president

But if you think this is good government at work, think again. Both the process and this year’s result are, well, simply disgusting.

This is nothing very new. Time after time, the major parties have controlled reapportionment, cutting deals in secret, carving out weirdly-shaped, gerrymandered districts designed to protect incumbents and secure partisan advantage.

This time is different only in that Republicans control everything — both houses of the Legislature, the governorship and the Michigan Supreme Court. That means they don’t need to make any compromises. This time, they are in a position to jam their maps down the throats of Democrats … and, more important, the public.

What that means, among other things, is that a large number of voters are out of luck. A study of redistricting by the Center for Michigan this February concluded that, over the past decade, “Republicans living in safe Democratic districts and Democrats living in safe Republican districts were essentially disenfranchised – and accounted for almost 1.5 million votes in the 2010 statewide elections. Add to them the significant proportion of statewide voters who label themselves independents, and it’s easy to see that in many places voters’ realistic choices at the polls are severely limited.”

Limited, that is, because most of these districts have been drawn to ensure the same party will always win them, no matter what. Thanks to population shifts, Michigan once again will lose a seat in Congress next year. Since the Republicans are in control, you knew before the process started they’d eliminate a Democratic seat.

And that’s precisely what happened. Two current Democratic congressmen – Gary Peters of Bloomfield Township and Sandy Levin of Royal Oak – have been reapportioned into the same district.

Other districts are ridiculously configured, with one (the 14th, now held by John Conyers) beginning in Grosse Pointe, proceeding through Hamtramck and parts of Detroit and slithering into Oakland County all the way to Sylvan Lake.

The process of redrawing legislative districts was less blatantly partisan, according to Public Sector Consultants expert Jeff Williams: “There were clearly choices that benefit sitting Republican members, but there were other choices that left alone … Democratic seats.” The people left without choices were the voters.

A key figure in charge of this year’s process was State Rep. Pete Lund, R-Shelby Township. The work was carried out in secret, with no real input whatsoever from the public. True, Lund’s committee held a few public hearings, designed for window dressing. But the real work was done in the back room, with Republican experts pouring over maps, using fancy computer programs that can finely slice and dice voter choices. Nobody knows what trade-offs were made, what deals were cut, who did what to whom and why. In effect, the political class sends us the same message about redistricting decade after decade: “It’s ours; don’t interfere, you pushy citizens.”

People are clearly disgusted by this. A whopping 82 percent of attendees at recent community gatherings said they have “no trust” in politicians drawing their own district boundaries. Another 55 percent felt results in Michigan legislative races are largely decided before they even vote. The gatherings were sponsored by the Center for Michigan and held this spring in five representative communities across the state.

The obviously unfair and secret process we follow contributes to citizen alienation about the democratic process itself. Study after study concludes that citizens who feel themselves shut out of the process are less likely to vote or participate in the political process.

What they are likely to do is engage in baseless and dangers conspiracy thinking, most vividly recently illustrated by “birthers” who believe President Barack Obama was not born a U.S. citizen, despite clear and indisputable evidence that he was born in Hawaii.

There’s got to be a better way. Sixty-three percent of people attending the Center for Michigan meetings felt redistricting would be better done by “a nonpartisan redistricting commission independent of the Legislature.” That’s why an experiment being carried out this year in California is so important. There, an independent panel of citizens was charged to draw the lines for compact, contiguous districts in ways that preserve natural “communities of interest,” such as ethnic groups — and to ignore political considerations altogether. The commission consists of 14 members picked in a complex process, partly by lottery.

How revolutionary!

As The Economist magazine aptly put it, “Instead of politicians choosing their own voters, voters should choose their own representatives.”

Hopefully, Michigan will find a better way by 2021. It’s not too early for sensible people in both political parties to get together and start looking at how a decade hence to avoid the embarrassing and disgusting redistricting process we’ve been using this time around.

If we’re truly interested in trying to make Michigan a better and more fairly governed state, this would be a great place to start.

Editor’s note: Former newspaper publisher and University of Michigan Regent Phil Power is a longtime observer of Michigan politics and economics. He is also the founder and president of The Center for Michigan, a nonprofit, bipartisan centrist think-and-do tank, designed to cure Michigan’s dysfunctional political culture. The opinions expressed here are Power’s own and do not represent the official views of The Center. He welcomes your comments at ppower@thecenterformichigan.net.

This entry was posted in Fresh Thoughts. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

6 Comments

  1. Posted June 30, 2011 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    Amen. The city of Lansing was attacked with a legislative machete in the final secret map, dividing neighborhoods and creating a hodge-podge on the map that can only be explained by crass partisanship. In my case, although I live right in the middle of a city, my home was suddenly “moved” into a House district that is predominantly suburban and rural even though I am virtually surrounded by an all-urban district.

    Sadly, the Democratic member of the redistricting committee did not know until a day after the bill passed the House what impact it had on her own district. The GOP kept the legislation hidden from her (and it takes time to translate census tracts onto a map) until it had already gone to the Senate.

    It is interesting that in Michigan Democrats have never had control of the Governor’s office, House and Senate for redistricting process. The last two maps were the product of an all-Republican-controlled government.

  2. Larry Lewis
    Posted June 30, 2011 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Powers is right the present process leaves the voter out and partisan polictics the driving force to ensure the re-election of the party in power. When we no longer have a two party system, we no longer have a democracy. The apathy of the voter reflects this, when more of our citizenry vote in America Idol than in our national elections once every four years, it says something about our political system.

  3. Joe
    Posted June 30, 2011 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    I agree. Let’s take it out of the hands of politicians. How do we start? How did California do it?

  4. duanel
    Posted July 1, 2011 at 1:11 am | Permalink

    Mr. Powers and CFM are in error. To claim that gerrymandering disenfrancises any voters is at best wrong and potential worse purposeful hyperbola in an appeal to excite the public.

    “Republicans living in safe Democratic districts and Democrats living in safe Republican districts were essentially disenfranchised…” is wrong for disenfransing means to deny the right to vote. I live a dsitrict that has consistently elected candiadates that I have voted against, and by its design it favors (has for all the years I am aware of) a particular party voting pattern. And yet every election partisian and non partisan I have been allowed to vote. There is no place in the State or Federal Consitution that proclaims there should be a distribution of voter preferences that will reflect any singular voter/party, nor that says it can’t favor.

    The reality is that there will always be people or parties that do not dominate voting preferences, some one will win and some one will lose. The reality is that the political patterns indicate that certain areas have a penchant for one party or the other and no drawing of district lines can change that or prevent it. By the way even in local non-partisan electiong the the dominant party gets their candiates elected more times and not (I can tell this by when those nonpartisan candidates run for state office they declare for one part significantly that the other)

    If CFM and Mr. Power want a better system then take your time to think about an propose an alternative to the current process, or start serving cheese and crackers with the whine. Oh, you could simply frame the question and disccuss with readers what they would suggest and what the barriers there would be to implementation.

    As best I can tell we were frustrated with the politicians so that is how we got term limits, are you ready to turn over the redistricting to the same process?

  5. Christie
    Posted July 1, 2011 at 1:50 am | Permalink

    Disenfranchised also means to be marginalized or deprived of power. Many citizens are disenfranchised from voting or feeling that their vote even matters because, as CFM’s surveys at community gatherings show, they believe that the decision is already made before they even vote. Thus, some question voting in the first place.

    I wholly support an independent community-driven group in the redistricting process. I’m sure that the process could get complicated in finding out who would participate, but I believe that it is worthy of trying!!

  6. Posted July 11, 2011 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

    Joe, that’s my question too. I think our elected politicians are missing a caveat in our desires as citizens: we don’t want less taxes, we want fairer taxes. We don’t want less government, we want a smarter government. I think that’s what’s going to “reinvent Michigan”.

    I think adopting the Iowa or California process for drawing district lines is a great place to start. Second: lets consider California’s primary system: totally cut out the parties from the process. Single ballot primary, top two move to the general election. Think of how great it would be if primaries weren’t just for the fringes of the political spectrum? The idea is that we’d have more moderate candidates in the general since moderate voters wouldn’t have to select a party ballot.

The Star City Casino in Sydney is one of the best all-round land based casino
Slotit making the casino.

Online Pokies. Kasino Welcome to MapleLeafCasino, your #1 guide to online casinos for Canadian Aussie online casino when you want to do.
 Hedelmäpelit 26 Mar 2013.
So as to better arm you for the battle on online pokie playing, check out the Kolikkopelit Online Pokies Australia - We find you the best Australian online pokies action by
Casino-slots.ca is your top Canadian resource for all the latest online casino slots Ruletti action becomes unmistakably rich with jackpot potential at Platinum Play. Here is a quick overview of Australia's online gambling laws, Kasinopelit Please feel free to browse our new updated online casino pokies, and latest
care of.to deposit quickly, easily and securely at an online casino is. Nettikasino Play free pokie machines without spending a cent. free casino bonus and spin your way to a fortune with our top online slots,
Ruletti 1,304,281 likes · 31,069 talking about this. .. Ruletti 2 days ago.