It may well be, unless certain questions can be answered.
Controversy over how to reapportion Michigan’s Congressional and legislative districts every decade has existed for almost as long as Michigan has been a state. Delegates to the 1961-62 state Constitutional Convention thought they had the problem solved.
They didn’t come close. Now, the most recent attempt is the voter-approved Proposal 2. Its sponsors —the organization known as Voters Not Politicians (VNP) — think they have achieved the “Final Solution.” But just as debate once raged over whether World War I really was “The War to End All Wars” (it obviously wasn’t), there is reason to question whether the new language in the state Constitution imposed by Proposal 2 really WILL get the job done, or make it worse than ever.
Let’s start with who will serve on the Redistricting Commission that will draw the new maps after the 2020 Census.
Redistricting Commissioners are to be selected by Benson based solely on a statistically-weighted random drawing that will produce 13 individuals who, within the last six years, have had no governmental or political experience, nor will they have any “close family relatives” who do. However, the Commissioners must “reflect the state’s diverse geographic and demographic characteristics.”
The proposed amendment does not detail what specific demographic questions will be asked on the application. The text of the proposed amendment says only that Benson shall make applications available to the general public no later than January 1 of the year of the federal decennial census (that would be January 1, 2020). Does Benson get to write the application without any statutory or administrative rule in place defining the demographic categories?
What kind of demographic questions (age, race, gender, disability status, educational level, income, etc.) will Secretary Benson ask on the Commissioner application? Will she use the same categories used in the American Community Survey employed by the U.S. Census Bureau to create its Michigan Electorate Profile? Does anyone other than the Secretary of State have input as to the content of the application?
The U.S. Census Bureau in its most recent Michigan Electorate Profile found Michigan’s median family income to be $50,803. That means half of the 13 Commissioners will come from households at or above that median income level and the other six or seven Commissioners will come from households below the median income level. Nearly 15% of households in Michigan currently live below the poverty line (poverty line in Michigan is defined as $16,000 for a single person and $24,250 for a family of four). If the Commission is to truly mirror the state’s demographics, that 15% translates into two Commissioners on the 13-member Redistricting Commission coming from applicants whose household income is at or below the poverty level.
Only 27.4% of the Michigan electorate possess a bachelor’s or higher degree (masters or doctorate) in educational attainment. That means only four Commissioners will be selected who hold a bachelor’s or higher degree. The other nine Commissioners will not have attained a college degree. With that restriction, the Redistricting Commission may have the lowest level of educational attainment of any public board or commission in state government.
Proposal 2 supporters have said commission selection will be akin to jury selection. Not true. A prospective juror is subject up-front to “voir dire” by the judge or both sides in a case and can be excused under a pre-emptory challenge, or for cause. The four legislative leaders each get to strike five applicants from the final 200 names. Five won’t be nearly enough.
Here is what the Commission will look like if it actually reflects, as it claims it will, the U. S. Census Bureau’s Michigan Electorate Profile based upon its most recent 2016 American Community Survey:
% of the Michigan Electorate
Gender
Male 48.65% — Six Commissioners
Female 51.35% — Seven Commissioners
Voting-age population
18-24 years 18% — Two Commissioners
25-44 years 26.2% — Three Commissioners
45-64 years 35.9% — Five Commissioners
65 years and over 19.9% — Three Commissioners
Race and Hispanic origin
White 79.3% — 10 Commissioners
Black 13.9% — Two Commissioners
Asian 3.1%
American Indian 1.2% — One Commissioner
Hispanic 3.9%
Median household income (MHI) $52,492
Higher than MHI — At least Six Commissioners
Lower than MHI At least — Six Commissioners
Income below the poverty level 13.3 % —Two Commissioners
Educational attainment
Bachelor’s degree or higher 28.3% — Four Commissioners
Less than a college degree 71.7% — Nine Commissioners
Veteran Status 7.2% — One Commissioner
Disability status 14.5% — Two Commissioners
Political Party allocation required in the VNP amendment:
Self-identified Republicans — Four Commissioners
Self-identified Democrats — Four Commissioners
Self-identified as having no party affiliation — Five Commissioners
Geographical Allocation:
Wayne, Oakland, Macomb Counties — Five Commissioners
Thumb, Genesee, Saginaw, Bay, and surrounding counties — Two Commissioners
West Michigan-Grand Rapids, Muskegon, Holland, Kalamazoo, Benton Harbor, etc. — Three Commissioners
Mid-Michigan- Ann Arbor, Brighton, Lansing, Battle Creek, Mt. Pleasant, Jackson, Monroe, etc. — Two Commissioners
Northern Lower Michigan & the U.P. — One Commissioner
In other words, the VNP amendment does not require anyone to have experience, training, education, skills or expertise. Selection as a commissioner is based entirely on an applicant’s geographic residence and the demographic characteristics s/he possesses, along with a lot of random luck.
In Michigan, an applicant will not not even have a face-to-face job interview. This is in sharp contrast with a thorough interview process that applicants for Independent Redistricting Commissions have in California and Arizona. No one will ever know if an applicant is a bigoted social misfit until the first meeting of the Commission if that person is somehow randomly drawn as a Commissioner.
In sum, the VNP proposal is an attempt to enshrine what is called “identity politics” in the Michigan Constitution. Opting for a commission where no commissioner has governmental or political experience is an invitation to failure. It is part of a disturbing trend in Michigan to use the initiative petition process to amend the Michigan Constitution to “dumb down” Michigan government. Most recently, that has manifested itself as term limits, efforts to create a “part-time” Legislature, and now what its champions are calling an “Independent Redistricting Commission.”
It will be fought tooth-and-nail every step of the way by its opponents as unconstitutional. This litigation seems certain to drag on for months, probably years. But that’s not the worst part. It’s the remapping plans the commission will produce — there will be an unrelenting legal assault against them forever that will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The news media, however, will love the new maps — they will be an endless source of print fodder and mindless pontificating by clueless reporters and editors.
Clearly, Proposal 2 was designed not to enlist Michigan’s best and brightest for the task of redistricting, but rather to draft to the lowest common denominator. This is what voters said last November they wanted, so, however this turns out, they’ll deserve what they get.
**********************************
That is a plan headed for disaster. It certainly not what we Delegates to the 1961-62 Constitutional Convention would have endorsed. I think most of us felt that political and governmental experience (and formal education) were necessary to draft apportionment plans. This probably means that a few members of the Commission will dominate the discussions, research, and final product. Now, if you think all demographic variables should be included in the Commission–how about religion? Just saying…
I don’t disagree with the fact that there are issues and problems with the new system. However, I would argue that the worst system is the one we, and most other states have had in the past. IMHO gerrymandering has not simply made some legislatures unfairly picked, but the gerrymandering of congressional district has been a major factor in the gridlock, venomous hostility and failure to accomplish major policy reforms at the national level, such as on immigration. When the only danger to your seat is a primary challenger more extreme than yourself, you provide no incentive for cooperation. That, combined with the historical compromise giving both the largest and smallest states two senators, has resulted in a toxic congress.
Ok…. we are agreed there are problems with this.
What experience is needed to draw unbiased districts? None. Experience and skill is only needed to rig the system. All they have to do is draw a set of maps and agree “That looks reasonable.” This isn’t something where a high degree of sophistication is required — if they just avoid giving one side or the other a deliberate advantage, they’ve done their job.
Kirk: But will they be astute enough to avoid being “played” by their outside consultants, each with its own bias? They will of course need to rely on others for input. And besides, there is significant expertise required to ensure compliance with other state and federal statute.
“In other words, the VNP amendment does not require anyone to have experience, training, education, skills or expertise.”
Neither does the current process. And the members of the redistricting committees tend not to have any of those things. They are selected solely for their ability to provide party leadership the votes they need. In other words…the worse possible trait needed for good decisions on drawing fair and ideally competitive districts.
“Selection as a commissioner is based entirely on an applicant’s geographic residence and the demographic characteristics s/he possesses, along with a lot of random luck.”
Selection for the committees previously was based, again, on random luck. If you wanted to affect the redistricting process, your changes were infinitely small.
As for the goal of having the Independent Citizens Redistricting Committee look like Michigan…look at who voted YES on the committees in the House and Senate. One person of color. I believe one woman. The rest white males. Clearly not looking like Michigan at all. I missed the outrage when that committee did it’s dirty work.
“The worst ever devised…” It’s hard to think of a set of maps worse than those we have now. Bill is apparently of the thought that “to the victors belong the spoils…forever and ever amen.” I think the voters showed he was one of the minority.
Bill: If you have questions…and you certainly posed a lot…and want some answers, please feel free to contact the folks at Voters Not Politicians. We can offer some answers.
There are so many errors in this “report” I can’t begin. I’ll leave it up to the VNP folks to detail them. I can only say that this article is unjustifiably skewed that I hope most readers will ignore it. Ballenger obviously belongs to the group of Republican riggers who is being pushed out of power by the will of the people and is clinging to straws to keep some of it. I say good riddance – let’s have a fair, open, transparent process for redistricting that keeps pols out of power and subject to the will of the people.
I belong to no “group of Republican riggers.” Your baseless charge gives you away. I know your hair is on fire. Get ready, more is coming …
Bill Ballenger should get his facts straight. He said citizens commissioners are not selected like a jury would be since they are not subjected to pre-emptory challenges or for cause. He is CLEARLY WRONG on both counts. I guess he should go back and read Prop 2 (favored by 61% of Michigan voters).
The truth?: (1) PROP 2 DOES SELECT CITIZEN COMMISSIONERS LIKE A JURY. PRE-EMPTORY LIKE STRIKES ARE REQUIRED BY PROP 2. Prop 2 in its language makes clear it allows for something akin to pre-emptory strikes. The randomly selected pools of potential commissioners will be presented to the majority and minority legislative leaders of each chamber of the Michigan Legislature, who each may strike up to five applicants, for a maximum of twenty strikes total. From the remaining pool of applicants, the secretary of state will randomly draw the names of four Democrats, four Republicans, and five independent or third-party members.
The truth?: (3) POTENTIAL CITIZEN COMMISSIONERS ARE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL “FOR CAUSE” (a) if they do not meet the qualifications, as revealed by a review of their application, (b) if they are subject to removal based on fitting the disquafication criteria. These removal grounds are very close to a precise match to how jurors are selected.
Ballenger also FALSELY says Secy of State Benson “selects” citizen commissioners. If he read Prop 2, then he would know they are randomly selected. Secy Benson selects them no more than the Lottery Commissioner selects the PowerBall winner. This is his third mistake.
(3) SECRETARY OF STATE DOES NOT “SELECT” CITIZEN COMMISSIONERS. Prop 2 limits her role to ascertaining if they meet the criteria as stated in their application — are ready, willing, able to serve and fit the geographic and demographic criteria.
THREE STRIKES YOU ARE OUT, BILL !
Also, Bill is clearly WRONG about claiming Prop 2 enshrines identity politics. Maybe he means he favors All Men juries or All White juries. Of course, as we know, this was the reality in Michigan & the US for decades — are a result of the “key man” system and racist jury selection processes.
No longer. The U.S. Supreme Court said all White and all women juries are subject to challenge. In the famous Batson case, the Court set up criteria for seeking to insure juries are selected in a manner that represents a fair cross-section of the Population. I will send Bill a copy of the Batson decision to read. It applies to both racially discriminatory practices in jury selection and gender based discrimination.
Michigan voters chose to follow this U.S. Constitutional idea and core value to seek a fair cross-section of citizens by gender, geographic area. I suppose he wants a Citizens Commission of all suburban Grand Rapids voters living in high income/high wealth areas with the same Ivy League degree he has.
The U.S. and Michigan jury systems believe that all citizens have a role — and all can decide equally. They will be trained and learn what they need by consultants and will deliberate to teach each other. This is no different than citizen legislators do. Finally, many citizens will serve, and can serve, on the citizens redistricting commission based on extensive political experience and community involvement. The only disqualification is if they served in a partisan political office or in a partisan party office.
The number of Michigan citizens who have served in these offices is a tiny, tiny fraction (one tenth of a per cent) of all citizens. Prop 2 allows citizens to serve in government in non-disqualifying positions.
We allow Michigan citizens to vote and serve on juries. Bill Ballenger thinks they are not good enough to hold positions of responsibilitysuch as deciding to amend a constitution or find a person guilty of a crime.
Based on Bill’s hostility to Prop 2 and stated reasons for opposing it, we must ask his stance toward Democracy. The only citizens Bill appears to trust are those who took campaign money to stand for election for a partisan office or served in a political party leadership position.
In other words, Bill appears to favor politicians, not voters and citizen statesmen. The only thing we can be sure about is Bill Ballenger’s elitism and his hostility to Democracy and the Republican form of government — that depends in citizens holding politicians accountable to THEIR WILL.
Bill wants the politicians to control even how to design districts so that the voters cannot hold them accountable. He favors Oligarchy or Plutocracy or something other than our Democratic form of Republican government.
Bill Ballenger has his facts straight. This writer doesn’t. Proposal 2 is law. Questions have been raised, and many more will be as time goes on. This writer answers none of the questions posited, and he doesn’t appear interested in doing so, only in “shooting the messenger” …
GOOD comments by all. We’ve got to devise a system that’s fair and equitable. Perhaps researching other states which have a system similar to what the amendment says ought to r=be researched. That way we’ll find out what works and what doesn’t.
Let’s not kill the proposal before the system is designed,.
Let’s Give the New System a chance
As most of us observed it could not be worse than the old ones . I’m concerned about Facist influences
In the GOP .These Characters are
Really Dangerous to The People’s
Rights!!!!
Let’s Give the New System a chance
As most of us observed it could not be worse than the old ones . I’m concerned about alt right influences
In the GOP .These Characters are
Really Dangerous to The People’s
Rights!!!!