Bend Bulletin Editorial Board | 09.29.21

Was anybody really surprised that Oregon legislators couldn’t agree on redistricting? We’re guessing you weren’t.

The post Editorial: Independent redistricting commission should be on the ballot appeared first on People Not Politicians.

It was an ugly way to get there. But last week’s agreement by House leaders to include an equal number of Republicans as Democrats on the redistricting committee was a surprisingly positive resolution of what threatened to devolve into a hopeless mess.

After weeks of resisting calls to do so, House Republicans are now waiving the constitutional requirement that the full text of bills be read before a House vote. The time-sucking tactic had significantly slowed passage of bills, much to Democrats’ frustration.

More significantly, House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, has added House Minority Leader Christine Drazan, R-Canby, to the committee that sets legislative and congressional districts ­– a belated but beneficial move considering that a plan developed by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans has far more legitimacy than one presented by an imbalanced committee. While such power-sharing may seem a recipe for gridlock, the only time the Legislature successfully met its redistricting responsibilities in the past century was 2011, when both House and Senate committees had equal representation.

And in the case of redistricting, in which lawmakers are determining the geographical boundaries that shape Oregonians’ political representation for the next 10 years, the Legislature must assure voters of the integrity and fairness of the process.

That said, the jockeying for equal membership on such a critical committee shows that voters have reason to be wary. It also doesn’t guarantee a successful outcome; if lawmakers fail to reach a plan, legislative redistricting responsibilities will go to Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, a Democrat. Rather, this all provides another argument why politicians aren’t the best people to be handling this responsibility. Several states, including California and Washington, have already reassigned redistricting authority from politicians to independent citizen commissions with guidelines for including members of the public from across the political spectrum. Considering that nearly 1 million Oregonians are unaffiliated with any political party ­– numbering almost as many registered Democrats and more than the state’s Republicans – the state should take pains to reflect the interests of those who don’t identify as an R or a D.

Unfortunately, just like Oregon’s refusal to broaden voter participation in primary elections, our state continues to lag its neighbors on adopting an independent commission, consistently choosing to empower established political parties over the voices of individuals.

This year could have been different. A coalition of good-government groups had sought to put an initiative before Oregonians last year, but fell short of signature-gathering requirements due to the pandemic. Although a federal judge initially cleared the way for the “People not Politicians” initiative to move forward despite the shortfall, Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum appealed the decision and secured an injunction that kept the initiative off the November ballot.

Norman Turrill, chair of the People Not Politicians coalition and the former head of League of Women Voters of Portland, told The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board that the group’s advocacy will continue. The coalition is waiting to see whether the Legislature takes up House Joint Resolution 7, sponsored by Drazan, which largely adopts the initiative that Turrill’s group sought to put before voters. Unfortunately, that bill has yet to be scheduled for a hearing.

Legislators should recognize the precariousness of the situation we are in with epic levels of mistrust in government and with false information circulating more easily than truth. They face challenging deadlines to complete a redistricting plan due to delayed census information, making it even more important to act with meticulous transparency and involve the public. Setting up and incorporating an independent commission as much as possible to help develop a redistricting plan can build trust.

But finally, lawmakers should understand that it’s only a matter of time before Oregonians adopt the same kind of innovations that their neighbors have already embraced. As leaders, they should show they are committed to Oregon’s future, rather than their own, and lead the way to change.

The post Editorial: Proof, again, that Oregon needs an independent redistricting commission appeared first on People Not Politicians.

Oregonians trust politicians to make decisions about what taxes are collected, how taxes are spent and policies that shape lives. But should politicians be trusted with setting up voting districts?

A proposed ballot measure aims to take politicians out of political redistricting. The measure would create a citizen commission to draw the lines. Would it be more fair? That’s unclear.

The new census will mean Oregon’s congressional and legislative districts will be redrawn. In Oregon, the districts are now redrawn by legislators. That could be putting the fox in charge of the henhouse — at least that’s what the groups supporting a citizen commission argue. The measure is backed by the League of Women Voters of Oregon, Oregon Common Cause, the Independent Party, The Taxpayer Association of Oregon and more.

It would work like this: It creates an independent, multipartisan commission of 12 Oregonians. They would hold public meetings across the state and draw up the boundaries in an open process. The goal is it would be done fairly, respecting communities and less manipulated by partisanship or other politics.

The proposal takes substantial steps to keep politicians out of it. People would apply for the commission spots. Basically paid politicians couldn’t be chosen. People who have recently run for such offices couldn’t be chosen. Neither could their staff. Political consultants are barred. An individual who has given more than $2,700 a year to any single candidate couldn’t be chosen. There are also requirements to limit the members from the two largest political parties and include nonaffiliated voters. From the pool of applicants, candidates for the commission would be winnowed by administrative law judges and would eventually be chosen by lot. The governor could remove someone from the commission, but only with a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

If you are interested, you should read the full text of the proposal, not just how we or its advocates summarize it. The website is www.peoplenotpoliticiansoregon.com. Supporters are trying to gather enough signatures to get it on the ballot.

Gerrymandering began before it was called gerrymandering, before the country’s independence. It’s the idea of drawing a voting district so it will get a certain kind of candidate elected. The name was immortalized in a political cartoon satirizing a law signed by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry in 1812. The law redrew state senate districts to ensure Gerry’s party — Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans — would be strong and John Adams’ and Alexander Hamilton’s Federalists would be weak. It worked. One of the districts looked a bit like a salamander. Gerrymander was born.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been reluctant to decide when partisanship goes too far in gerrymandering. It would require two things difficult for the courts: defining what is fair and divining the future. What’s a clear test for fairness? There are many different ways to measure what’s fair. Fair to whom? Fair to what? As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, choosing one “poses basic questions that are political, not legal.” The courts would also have to look at a district and somehow know that in the future the outcomes it creates would turn out to be unfair — by some definition. It’s additionally unclear that the founders intended judges to decide such things.

These days, leaning on big data, political consultants have more tools than ever to draw up districts to get an outcome they want. Does Oregon need to change? Oregonians could do nothing. If legislators are making the redistricting decisions, they can be held accountable by voters, though it would be mostly after the districts are drawn.

An independent redistricting commission creates a way to try to minimize the influence of some politicians on the process. Commissioners will still have to make choices about defining what is fair. They will still have to guess if sticking the lines in one place will produce more “fair” outcomes in the future. We don’t know if the commission would be more fair. It might. It would get more Oregonians involved in making important decisions about how they are governed.

The post Editorial: Do politicians need to be kicked out of redistricting? appeared first on People Not Politicians.

The post Editorial: A promising proposal to counter self-serving politics appeared first on People Not Politicians.

A proposed initiative that would change the way Oregon draws its legislative and congressional district boundaries promises to get a lot of attention next year, and for good reason.

A new U.S. Census will be conducted in 2020, and estimates indicate Oregon could gain enough population to add a sixth U.S. House member when redistricting takes place in 2021. Who gets to draw the lines for six instead of five congressional districts becomes extremely important.

Beyond that, there will be a wide-open race for Secretary of State. Bev Clarno, the Republican appointed to finish Dennis Richardson’s term after his death last February, will not seek the office. That’s important because, under the existing system for redistricting in Oregon, the task of drawing new legislative districts falls to the Secretary of State if the Legislature cannot agree on a plan.

Democrats control both houses of the Legislature and the governor’s office, so that party likely would call the shots on redistricting, unless the voters decide to take the job away from lawmakers.

A broad coalition of political and governmental watchdog groups is proposing a constitutional amendment that would create a 12-member redistricting commission, evenly divided among registered Democrats, Republicans and members of neither party. Interested citizens would apply, and a three-member panel of administrative law judges would select a pool of 150. Six applicants would be randomly selected, and those six would choose the remaining six from the same pool.

The coalition includes the Oregon League of Women Voters, Common Cause, the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group, the Independent and Progressive parties, the Farm Bureau and the Taxpayer Association of Oregon.

Notably absent from that list is Our Oregon, the political organization that represents the interests of labor unions, environmentalists and other liberal groups. Our Oregon is apparently happy with the way things are, as long as Democrats remain in control in Salem. But that could change if the Democrats should lose their majority — or a Republican is elected secretary of state and the Legislature fails to produce a new district map.

Democrats in the Legislature are unlikely to get behind this effort, because the existing situation favors them — for now. They should consider, however, the possibility that the tables could turn before the next Census a decade from now.

Backers of the proposal have filed three separate measures in case one is shot down for violating the legal prohibition against initiatives that address more than one subject. They have until next July to collect nearly 150,000 signatures to qualify for the November 2020 ballot.

Relying on those in power to draw the lines that help determine who stays in power is not the best way to protect the public interest in fair representation. Voters should give this proposal careful consideration.

The post Redistricting plan would shake up system appeared first on People Not Politicians.

A proposed initiative that would change the way Oregon draws its legislative and congressional district boundaries promises to get a lot of attention next year.

A new U.S. Census will be conducted in 2020, and Oregon could gain enough population to add a sixth U.S. House member when redistricting takes place in 2021. Who gets to draw the lines for six instead of five congressional districts becomes extremely important.

Beyond that, there will be a wide-open race for Secretary of State. Bev Clarno, the Republican appointed to finish Dennis Richardson’s term after his death last February, will not seek the office. Under the existing system for redistricting in Oregon, the task of drawing new legislative districts falls to the Secretary of State if the Legislature cannot agree on a plan.

Democrats control both houses of the Legislature and the governor’s office, so that party likely would call the shots on redistricting.

A broad coalition of political and governmental watchdog groups is proposing a constitutional amendment that would create a 12-member redistricting commission, evenly divided among registered Democrats, Republicans and members of neither party. The coalition includes the Oregon League of Women Voters, Common Cause, the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group, the Independent and Progressive parties, the Farm Bureau and the Taxpayer Association of Oregon.

Democrats in the Legislature are unlikely to get behind this effort, because the existing situation favors them — for now. They should consider, however, the possibility that the tables could turn before the next Census a decade from now.

The post Redistricting reform appeared first on People Not Politicians.

Politics is rarely pure and simple. Senate Bill 761, however, is an exception. It is purely and simply an attempt to hobble Oregon’s vaunted initiative process.

The bill – which has no legislator listed as its chief sponsor ­­– would restrict a common method through which Oregonians can collect the minimum number of voter signatures to support putting an initiative or referendum on the ballot. Under the bill, initiative supporters could no longer hand out copies of electronic signature sheets to Oregonians to sign and submit. Instead, voters would have to print their own forms or personally ask someone to print one for them. And each signature sheet must include the complete text of the proposed measure ­­– a requirement that could add dozens of printed pages and related costs to a simple signature submission.

The end result? By discouraging voters from participating, it will become harder for Oregonians to enact their own legislation or overturn bills passed by elected officials. Legislators would keep tight control over what becomes law – and what remains law. And the bill would deeply undercut Oregon’s cherished reputation for encouraging direct democracy.

That’s not how supporters describe it, of course. Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, told The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board that the bill is about “quality control.” E-sheets were originally meant to let people in rural areas submit signatures in support of qualifying an initiative for the ballot, since they would be less likely to encounter a signature gatherer in person.

But advocates may be distributing the sheets without making a copy of the actual measure available, she said, leading to people submitting signature sheets without knowing what the proposed initiative is about. Requiring voters to personally download and print a signature sheet with the full measure will ensure they know what they are doing, she contends. Although the bill has received near unanimous opposition from the public, the Senate Rules Committee, which Burdick chairs, passed the bill on a 3-2 party line vote.

The words “quality control,” particularly in the context of new requirements for voter participation, should immediately raise concerns. While communities fare better when people are engaged and well-informed, legislators must have a clear, compelling reason before setting up any kind of obstacle for people to engage in basic acts of democracy. This, however, isn’t the case. Instead, SB 761 smacks of the same voter suppression tactics that Republican legislators in other states have pursued.

There’s no actual, documented problem to begin with. In recent reviews, the validity rate of signatures submitted on e-sheets is higher than the rate of those collected by signature gatherers in person, according to the Oregon Secretary of State’s office. And Burdick and the caucus administrator collectively cited two anecdotal examples in which someone may have been distributing e-sheets without providing a copy of the measure. Neither have resulted in a formal complaint.

This “theoretical fraud concern,” as the League of Women Voters of Oregon put it, is no reason to impose a new requirement that is “reminiscent of poll taxes.” Some Oregonians don’t have easy access to printing a signature sheet and it’s not without costs, the organization’s president, Norman Turrill noted in a May letter to legislators.

Especially considering that some measures can be many pages long, campaign finance reform and Measure 47 architect Dan Meek pointed out. Measure 47, which not only qualified for the ballot but passed in 2007, spans 19 pages. How many Oregonians would have willingly printed out and sent a 19-page measure plus signature page?

The urgency for this initiative suppressant may well be a local business group’s ongoing efforts to refer the newly passed corporate taxes in the Student Success Act to voters. While legislators are understandably protective of the law, which finally delivers a stable funding source to Oregon’s struggling K-12 schools, this isn’t the way to do it.

Rather than rig the system, legislators and leaders can ­­– and must – make the case to voters that this tax is fair, necessary and justified. They can show how this money is vital for providing the educational investments and mental health supports for students that Oregonians across the state have called for. And they can explain that failing to take this step will only translate into a grimmer future for all.

But if legislators instead abuse their power to manipulate the system and cut out voters, it will only increase people’s mistrust of the political establishment. Senate Democrats, don’t mistake your supermajority for a coronation. Join Republicans in voting this down and show your faith in the people who put you there.

The post Editorial: Initiative bill smacks of voter suppression appeared first on People Not Politicians.