Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2006 > August > 30 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USStill suffering from the hangover, Democrats forswear the bottle
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Four weeks ago, the GOP leadership of the Legislature told a task force appointed by Gov. Sonny Perdue that — since the right people were now in control — all this talk of an independent commission to draw the state’s political boundaries was just plain silly.
On Wednesday, a team of out-of-power Democratic legislators faced the same panel. And with the air of repentant sinners, they declared that the time had come to make redistricting — if not apolitical — then less political.
“The temptation is just too strong, in my opinion,” said Doug Stoner of Smyrna, speaking for Senate Democrats. “I don’t exclude myself from that, in the sense of that temptation.”
State Rep. Jane Kidd of Athens, in the midst of a bid to replace Republican Brian Kemp in the Senate, offered evidence that Republicans are proving themselves just as talented at manipulating district lines as Democrats ever were. She faces Republican Bill Cowsert, Kemp’s brother-in-law, in November.
Last spring, to help assure that the seat would stay Republican, the GOP-controlled Legislature altered the boundaries for Senate District 46, splitting Athens and Clarke County in two — and increasing the number of Republican-leaning voters from 51 percent to 58 percent. “The public does not like to be jerked around like that,” Kidd said.
That particular Republican effort, in fact, prompted Perdue to appoint the task force — even as the governor signed the bill.
If elected, Kidd promised her first piece of legislation would be a constitutional amendment to put redistricting in the hands of an independent commission.
Judging by the questions with which Democrats were peppered, the panel appears headed toward recommending some form of non-partisan — or less partisan — buffer when it comes to redistricting.
Panelists, headed by former state Supreme Court chief justice Harold Clarke, focused on whether it was in fact possible to build a line-drawing commission that wasn’t subject to political pressure — in other words, who would appoint the line-drawers?
The panel has until the end of this year to decide.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Ernest
August 30, 2006 6:32 PM | Link to this
Seems I recall reading some states currently use an independent panel to help with redistricting. For some reason, Utah is one that comes to mind. Districts are drawn in a compact manner so as not to split communities. Given the number of counties and municipalities in our state, would this work?
By Eric
August 30, 2006 10:54 PM | Link to this
There is no such thing as non-partisan unless a computer draws it and a another computer programmed it, It ain’t gonna happen!
By Rod
August 31, 2006 9:54 AM | Link to this
Anything other than non-partisian should be considered criminal.
We’re not statistics - we’re real people who want our votes heard. We don’t need a greedy political party skewing lines so they stay in power longer. Then, once the other party gets power they re-draw the lines. This is a*******inine.
By Melissa
August 31, 2006 2:33 PM | Link to this
Sounds like a GREAT reason to vote for Jane Kidd.
Have y’all checked out her website? She’s an awesome Rep., and would do the district a lot of good as their State Senator - surely a lot better than that nasty Bill Cowsert. How can somebody NOT pay their taxes, have multiple tax liens filed against them, and then decide the day AFTER they qualify to run for public office? Bill Cowsert is an arrogant jerk who had his brother in law DRAW a district for him after he couldn’t win one fair and square.
www.electjanekidd.com
By SamIAm
August 31, 2006 2:35 PM | Link to this
Jane Kidd’s got my vote.
Anyone who takes time off the campaign trail to work on the good of the district has my support.
By BPJ
August 31, 2006 3:32 PM | Link to this
Iowa has used a nonpartisan commission to draw districts; according to The Economist magazine, in 2002 Iowa had more competitive Congressional races (in the general election) than California, Texas, and New York combined. Arizona has adopted a similar system by referendum.
The virtues of such a system are that, with fewer “safe seats,” legislators have to appeal to a broad swath of voters, including moderate independents. Under the current “safe seat” system, a legislator’s main electoral concern is satisfying his party’s base (the “wingnuts,” of the left or right) in order to avoid a primary challenge. Also, voters get to choose politicians…..as opposed to the current system of politicians choosing voters.
By Cobb GOPer
August 31, 2006 5:00 PM | Link to this
I just think it’s hilarious. After 130 years of gerrymandering this state to their liking, the Democrats now want a non- or less-partisan redistricting process. Not because it’s good for the people, but because the GOP is using the Dem’s own tactics against them to redistrict them out of existence. Pot and kettle, you get the idea.
By Justin
August 31, 2006 5:29 PM | Link to this
I, too, think it’s ironic that now Democrats want a nonpartisan process. However, I think both parties use the process to their advantage, so I am in favor of a nonpartisan process.
I recall the last redistricting process involved a first map that was so “nonpartisan” that many politicians complained. It completely redrew many districts and both parties agreed that was “too much.” So I truly wonder how a new nonpartisan process would go over. And how truly “neutral” would it be in light of Georgia’s need to adhere to the Voting Rights Act?
By Houckster
August 31, 2006 5:35 PM | Link to this
As a very strong Democrat I’ve always been uncomfortable with using party as part of the criteria for drawing district lines. A truly nonpartisan or bipartisan body should draw the lines so that all the people of Georgia are properly represented.
Of course, we see no sign that such a nefarious scheme to remain in power is going to be discarded by the Republican that are now in power so, frankly, both parties are equally guilty and I don’t think we’ll see a nonpartisan commission drawing district lines much before they breed a pig that can fly.
By James
September 1, 2006 8:53 AM | Link to this
Oh, so we didn’t need a bi-partisian redistricting commission for the 130 years the Dems were in control, but now that they’re not, we do? Dream on, Jane.
By yellowdawg
September 3, 2006 6:16 PM | Link to this
Jane, who was elected to the House in 2004, has never served in a Dem controlled House. I believe she said last January, and when she testified last week, that gerrymandering was wrong when the Ds did it and wrong when the Rs did it. This “Well they did it to us….” argument sounds like 10 year-olds on a play ground. REDUCE the politics of redistricting with a once every ten years bipartisan commission.