A SoapBlox Politics Blog
[Mobile Edition]
About
- About Us
- Email Us (news/tips)
- Editorial Policy
- Posting Guidelines
- Advertise Here
Feedburner

Subscribe to Michlib daily email summary. (Preview)
Enter address:

Donate
Become a sponsor and support our work.

 MichLib sponsor list

Michigan Political Blog Ad Network

Advertise Liberally

50 State Ad Network

Meadows v Brewer: the ballot proposal

by: liberalpragmatist

Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 18:10:11 PM EDT


As recently posted, Mark Meadows (D-in name only) and other dems who don't want their names released have recently complained about the Ballot proposal. They don't articulate what's wrong with the proposal; they only complain they "weren't included" in the design. As someone who has read the ballot proposal, knows a little about the problems its trying to solve, and also has some idea about what michigan gov't has been like since the "engler era" started after the 92 re-districting, i thought i would post my first diary here in response to the complaints. Maybe someone here can read it and start passing on some information to dem activists first and the public later.

Read below, and i will go thru some background and explanations -  
liberalpragmatist :: Meadows v Brewer: the ballot proposal
First, why is the proposal necessary?

Because if something isn't done soon (i.e., before the 2010 elections), the likely result of the 2012 redistricting is going to be an even more gerrymandered house and senate than we have now, and permanent republican control over State Gov't for the next decade - despite a State that voted for Granholm by 59% and Stabenow by 60+% in 2006, and that will probably go for the dem presidential candidate for the 5th consecutive time.

Ask yourself - how could a party that wins a gubernatorial landslide only manage to pick up one state senate seat in 06, and still not control the chamber? Because the redistricting done when Engler controlled all levers of government in 02 created districts that gave the republicans de facto control over the senate.

As for the house - while house dems were extraordinarly successful under Minority leader byrum in recruiting good candidates in marginal districts, we also have the absolute ineptitude of the house republicans to thank for our majority. The fact is that as drawn, the house should be a 63-37 republican majority.

In 2010, many of the house dems that were elected for the first time in 2004, and who form an important part of the current majority, will be term limited. That means that new recruits must be found to run in 2010, in districts that are drawn to favor the republicans, and who will face two serious headwinds: 1. History - michigan has historically elected a governor from the party opposite the one that holds the white house - if Obama wins, that favors a republican; 2. Taxes - like it or not, many michigan citizens are still incensed by the raising of taxes in 07. Any democrat who runs will have to overcome that vote. The likelihood of a republican return to power in 2010 is at least even money, based on the structural considerations.

Also in 2010, their will be a number of candidates will be running to replace Granholm - who's approval rating is low.  The republicans have a number of state wide known politicians: Cox, Land, even Devos, while the Dems do not (how many people across the state know who the lt gov is?) giving a republican a fair shot at capturing the job, even without the historical tendency of the state as mentioned above.

Finally, the MSC (Supreme Court) remains in republican hands. And under the current constitution, it is the final arbitrer of any re-apportionment plan. And the "gang of four" led by current Chief Justice Taylor, is as political a group of judges as has ever stained our judicial system.

So - if nothing is done, those elected in 2010 will have the privilege of re-drawing already republican leaning districts to further entrench republican rule. long and short term history tells us that the republicans are likely to control as much as 3 if not all four of those branches.

2. How does the proposal solve the problem?

By taking the re-apportionment out of the legislature and the supreme court, and requiring a bi-partisan commision (4 dems, 4 repubs + 1 independent) to re-draw the districts in a new way - a way that limits their discretion and requires the creation of a large number of "swing districts" (districts whose base vote is within 2.5% of 50%; and each dem leaning district must be balanced by a repub leaning district). It also staggers the state senate so that each election 1/2 of the senators are up. That way you can avoid the current situation, where a guy like bishop has no incentive (none, nada, zilch) to negotiate in good faith with the minority, because his caucus won't be up again until 2010, as the entire senate currently comes up at the same time. And, as things now stand, he knows he is at basically zero risk to lose the majority - if the dems couldn't do it in '06, they are unlikely to be able to do it ever.

3. What else does the ballot proposal do?

Aside from the re-apportionment solution, the ballot proposal contains a host of good government solutions that have bounced around lansing for years, with no chance of getting enacted by a republican controlled govt. No reason absentee voting; paper trail for electronic voting; ban on elected officials who oversee elections from also endorsing or participating in other campaigns (ie, no more Terry land as Bush's campaign chair in michigan).

4. So why would meadows oppose this?

Because the ballot proposal hits him (and other sitting legislators and judges) in their pocket books. It revokes the 02 pay raise that engler pushed thru. Did you know that michigan pays its reps and sens more that 45 states in the country? did you know that after 5 years in office, a legislator gets life time health care? heard about the revolving door in politics and private lobbying? this proposal puts a 2 year ban in place. Same with pensions - the proposal puts legislators and judges back on the same scale as other civil service employees - serve 30 years, and you'll do well. But why should a state rep (who are getting into office at younger and younger ages) be guaranteed a full pension at the age of 29 when their term-limited out?

All of these proposals make sense to a vast majority of michigan voters. That's why the "elite" want to kill it - including the dem elite. If anyone here reads Somerby, this is what he means when he talks about the failure of "your leaders." They like losing because they still get paid; this ballot proposal makes them work harder to get elected, for less money. But guess what - most of michigan is working harder for less; it's time for the politicians we pay to do the same.

5. But wasn't this done in secret?

It certainly was done quietly; but hardly secretly. For example, RMGN obtained 500,000 signatures this spring/summer. Had the republicans or democrats who claim they were blindsided paid attention, they could have found out what was going on in their districts. The fact is that many of them don't pay attention to their districts at all. Because as currently drawn, once a seat is won, it stays in that person's control until term limits put them out.

6. But i have a better idea - why not ...

... get rid of term limits? No doubt that term limits have been part of the problem in michigan's government. But the fact is that the majority of michigan voters would not approve a proposal that got rid of them. While i would wager than many who read this blog oppose them, like it or not, we are not representative of the majority of voters.

.... a constititutional convention? This is the biggest joke of all. A "con con" elects one delegate from each district - you will be guaranteeing that the republicans control the con con, because the current gerry mandered districts elect the delegates. Moreover, the con con takes 2 years - by then, we have lost the chance to fix the districts for 2012-2021.

If the voters got a chance to vote, would it pass?
Current polling puts the ballot proposal at over 70% approval. That's not a guarantee of passing, but its a great start. And the approval is bi-partisan, if not republican leaning - 73% of republicans approve and 67% of dems. Educating dems to vote yes is an important component of a fall campaign. If this proposal gets on the ballot - it streamlines the house and senate, reducing their size from 110 to 80 and from 38 to 28; puts the courts back on a much less ideological basis (by eliminating 2 of the gang of four, it still leaves a republican majority of 3-2), increases transparency in state govt - by making subject to FOIA how they spend our money on their internal staffing.

What about the courts?

The biggest hurdle this proposal faces is the court challenge. Not on the merits (the baloney in the papers about typos and missing sections notwithstanding). On the drafting, the two arguments are the "typo" (the proposal in one place talks of a "Board of commission" instead of a "Board or commission"); and the missing section reference. Neither defect is of the type that previously derailed an amendment or proposal. (The missing section reference - where the proposal references section 11 rather than 7 occurs in an implementing section of the proposal, not in the amendment itself)

As far as the argument that the change is too broad for the voters - the changes in this amendment are no more than those in the term limit constitutional amendment, which survived court challenge a decade ago. Both affect 4 sections of the michigan constitution - a constitution that has over 40 sections to it.

Will the judges, whose pay is cut and positions eliminated, vote to allow this on the ballot? That we have to ask this question shows how corrupt our judiciary has become. The reality is that public pressure will have to be brought in the next 6 weeks on both the court of appeals and the supreme court to "let the people decide." Even then, i have doubts that it will get on the ballot.

So what do we do - If you made it this far, and i have no reason to believe anyone will - i'm open to suggestions. At the end of the day, judges are politicians. if they get pressure from engaged citizens, maybe the voters will be able to decide. As soon as we know who the panel will be that get's this case, i'll post it here.

Thanks for listening.
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Meadows v Brewer: the ballot proposal | 15 comments
Still Quite Skeptical (4.00 / 4)
History - michigan has historically elected a governor from the party opposite the one that holds the white house - if Obama wins, that favors a republican

If you look at an event that has happened only a small number of times, all sorts of meaningless patterns emerge (e.g., professional sporting events predict the winner of the presidency, etc.). Perhaps there is a causal connection between the two that would indicate the pattern would continue, but it's not obvious to me.

Taxes - like it or not, many michigan citizens are still incensed by the raising of taxes in 07.

Maybe. But if so, they sure aren't acting on their anger -- witness the utter failure of Leon Drolet's recalls. If a highly motived person can't drum up significant support in the immediate aftermath of the tax increases, just how much of a factor can it be once even more time has passed?

By taking the re-apportionment out of the legislature and the supreme court, and requiring a bi-partisan commision (4 dems, 4 repubs + 1 independent) to re-draw the districts in a new way - a way that limits their discretion and requires the creation of a large number of "swing districts" (districts whose base vote is within 2.5% of 50%; and each dem leaning district must be balanced by a repub leaning district).

What is the justification for trying to engineer a 50-50 split (at least in tendency) between the two parties? If the state happens to lean 60-40 (either way), why should we force the districts toward a more even split?

And the mechanism of breaking deadlocks by a coin toss, as has already been pointed out by others, creates an incentive for parties to tilt the proposals as much in their respective favors as possible. After all, if they think a deadlock is going to happen anyway, what reason would they have to submit a more fair proposal?

Moreover, the con con takes 2 years - by then, we have lost the chance to fix the districts for 2012-2021.

Why couldn't a new consitution a redrawing of the districts? Even something as simple as shrinking each chamber by one member would require a new districting map.

Both affect 4 sections of the michigan constitution - a constitution that has over 40 sections to it.

The amendment alters four articles, not sections. Nitpicky? Perhaps, but a four-article amendment is far more sweeping than a four-section amendment.

nicely done (4.00 / 2)
You've articulated my main reason for supporting the proposal (warts and all):  if it fails, the Republicans will gerrymander the heck out of the redistricting process (again) and the Gang of Four on the Supreme Court will continue to legislate from the bench.  I admit that the proposal uses a flamethrower to light a candle, but at least it will get the job done.
Implicit (4.00 / 3)
in this statement by supporters of this boondoogle is the idea that Democrats won't take the Governors race and the state Senate.

In other words..what we can't actually gain through legitimate means, we will do by nefarious means...

Sounds like something the Republicans would do...

The truth is that this is nothing more than a Democratic power grab wrapped up in poll tested ballot proposals.

Stupid all the way around.

[ Parent ]
Underlying Problems (4.00 / 5)

I believe that many of the components of RMGN are necessary and important, however many people (including me) were and are angry about HOW it was accomplished.  The MDP continues to (appear to) stumble over things like the Presidential Primary, a MI Supreme Court nominee and now RMGN.  It's about process, rather than content.  These kinds of things only serve to drive wedges between the Democrats, rather than unite us at a time when we have a marvelous candidate for President and a whole host of excellent local, true progressive Democrats running for office.

One final note to the author of this piece.  You created your account just days ago and then in your first sentence you take a cheap shot at Rep. Mark Meadows (D-East Lansing).  Mark has been a warrior for liberals since before I was born.  He is a good, honest, faithful community leader and your comment is unwarranted.  You think that Rep. Meadows is a DINO?  Prove it.  Show a voting record in which he voted against choice (you won't find it), the environment (nope) or bullying in schools (nope).



Do stupid people know they are stupid?
Meadows -- 100% from LCV for 2007-2008 (4.00 / 3)
Here we have yet another (cough ... primary fiasco ... cough) of the creative ways Mark Brewer divides the Michigan Democratic Party.

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast
[ Parent ]
Do you have personal issues with Brewer? It seems to me that you always chime in with negative remarks when his name is mentioned. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
"username" do you want to discuss (4.00 / 1)
the effects on Party unity that the Primary Fiasco and RMGN have brought?  Or are you only interested in hiding behind a new "username" and launching silly attacks.

But, OK, my answer: No.  He seems to be a nice enough guy, there are just other folks who would do a much better job and I'm interested in the well-being of the Party, not any one individual.

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

[ Parent ]
Liberal Ranking (4.00 / 1)
Mark Meadows scored a 96.6% liberal ranking by the most recent Inside Michigan Politics survey of the State House.  He was tied with Andy Meisner and Rebekah Warren.
[ Parent ]
Thanks. (0.00 / 0)
Yes, I just agreed with Brady about something.  No, the world isn't ending.  (Although that earthquake in California could be a sign of the Apocalypse.)  Rep. Meadows is a liberal, a progressive and a Democrat.  The author's erroneous statement to the contrary undermines his or her credibility.

Do stupid people know they are stupid?
[ Parent ]
Read the Proposal, First (Redistricting) (4.00 / 2)
One error is made: the margin for a swing district is 53-47%.

On the redistricting panel note

1) The Legislature is divided up 50-50 -- a Governor's veto ends discussion.   Veto over-rides are effectively eliminated.  

2) Plans are adopted only if the other side agrees (6 to win)

3) State courts are barred from interfering -- without a federal issue, there is no recourse to the courts.

4) In case of deadlock, plans are selected by lot. As explained elsewhere, Party redistricting plans will be quite creative.  

As a matter of selfish electoral politics, RMGN may give only two D seats to W Michigan (one in Kent, one in Kalamazoo). For a variety of reasons, lack of representation  in Lansing increases the resistance of local governments to pay attention to Dems, while shrinking the pool of potential credible candidates for Dems. This is a return to Kent County of a generation ago.

And fwiw, it's not at all clear the proposal helps Dem chances in retaining the Governor's seat.  How does a Dem candidate stand out as a representative of what R's and the press will label a "power grab?"

In short for the sake of the courts we risk the Governor's office plus end up with a deadlocked legislature.  This is pragmatic?  Hardly.

think about the why the proposal redistricts (4.00 / 1)
1) The Legislature is divided up 50-50 -- a Governor's veto ends discussion.   Veto over-rides are effectively eliminated.

How is this any different than it is today? Answer: it's not...

2) Plans are adopted only if the other side agrees (6 to win)

Assuming you mean redistricting plans, the rules constrain the districts pretty tightly

3) State courts are barred from interfering -- without a federal issue, there is no recourse to the courts.
This is a feature, not a bug - i.e., currently state court interference (i.e., MSC interference) guarantees republican dominance in 2012-2022

4) In case of deadlock, plans are selected by lot. As explained elsewhere, Party redistricting plans will be quite creative.  

Plans still have to comply with the swing district rules; ultimately you end up with a chance to take democratic control, something impossible in the senate now.

And fwiw, it's not at all clear the proposal helps Dem chances in retaining the Governor's seat.  How does a Dem candidate stand out as a representative of what R's and the press will label a "power grab?"
The proposal is not intended to help retain the gov seat - that is a seat controlled by the state majority. The plan is intended to give dems a fair shot at the legislature. The electoral fight for the gov seat requires a majority vote.

In short for the sake of the courts we risk the Governor's office plus end up with a deadlocked legislature.  This is pragmatic?  Hardly.

First, what do you think we have now in the legislature? We have a senate, controlled by a majority that knows it need not be responsive to the majority of citizens in the state. Why? because the way the districts are drawn now means that Bishop will never lose his speakership to a dem - only to someone else in his caucus. So, he need only practice a majority of the majority strategy. In 06, the dems had two landslide winners at the top of the ticket, and still won only one of the 5 marginally competitive senate seats - and they need 3 just to have a tie in the senate that the lt gov could break.

And How does this proposal "risk the gov office"? Currently 70%+ of voters approve of the proposal. The only risk is faced by a politician who doesnt back it.

You want to live in a state where the politics are like the last decade, at best? a dem gov who can't get his/her programs thru unless they are approved by a republican senate. And that senate is only interested in making sure that the dem can't do anything that will help their re-election. That's the reality of what we have now. At least this proposal changes that for a fair fight.

[ Parent ]
Differences (0.00 / 0)
How is this any different than it is today? Answer: it's not...

There is a big difference between a legislative branch that happens to be 50-50 and a legislative branch that is engineered to be 50-50. Just because RMGN would yield a similar result now does not mean the change is insignificant.

[ Parent ]
Larger district sizes do not make seats more contestable. The reverse. (4.00 / 1)
You imagine that there will be more contested seats?  In fact, the plan assures that only a minimum of seats will be considered as Swing Districts.  Nobody in their right mind would devise 20 Swing Districts when 18 would do.  

Second, there is nothing in the proposal that prevents travesties like SD 17.  Since RMGN specifically rejects the necessity of consideration of such boundaries, these districts are more likely than not.  I would agree that in metro D some of the districts are convoluted.  RMGN would institutionalize this type of district, albeit conforming to the rules of swing districts.

Larger districts raise the amount of funds needed to run a successful campaign.  Here, let's take a look at the two strongholds for Dems in the West.

Kalamazoo.  Presently SD-20 is roughly co-terminus with the county.  Under RMGN it would need to add the equivalent of Allegan County next door (and at 65% R, this would assure that  no Dem would have a chance at representing Kalamazoo, currently in the swing category 51/49).
Kent.  RMGN would give it 1.5 seats.  The remaining .05?  Toss in Ionia, Barry, and for good measure Montcalm. Instead of one county the candidates now cover 4 counties.  The remaining rump (Grand Rapids Wyoming and townships) could easily be configured to prevent any D from winning. Or something genuinely hideous (and possible) put Grand Rapids and Walker with Ottawa County.  That would meet the definition and you can say good-bye to representation.

And here's the point about both of these dire scenarios, above:

The other side will draw up districts to achieve this end and it will be a fifty-fifty shot whether you get them.   NO.  Give me the smaller districts where we're making progress. These enlarged districts represent a dilution of our voice.  And what is worse, it changes the landscape to make it less possible for the marginally financed to compete.  

Finally, you don't care if you have the governorship?  Perhaps if you are 22 and don't remember Engler, I'll give you the pass, otherwise this is an idea of immense political foolishness.


[ Parent ]
Good piece ... thank you. (0.00 / 0)

Yuk! (4.00 / 2)
Just blind attacks on our electeds.  

Shame.

West Michigan Rising: The Progressive Blog for Our (future) Left Coast

Meadows v Brewer: the ballot proposal | 15 comments

Features

Mobile Blog Reader - powered by Notice Orange
RSS
Politics & Elections Library:
- US Senate
- US House
- Executive Branch
- Michigan Senate
- Michigan House
- State Supreme Court
- Michigan Media

Special Sections:
- Technical Politics - Grebner
- Michigan's Fallen

Search
Progressive Blogroll
For MI Bloggers:
 - MI Bloggers Facebook
- MI Bloggers Myspace
- MI Bloggers PartyBuilder
- MI Bloggers Wiki

Statewide:
 - Blogging for Michigan
- Call of the Senate Dems
- [Con]serving Michigan (Michigan LCV)
- DailyKos (Michigan tag)
- Enviro-Mich List Serve archives
- Democratic Underground, Michigan Forum
- Jack Lessenberry
- JenniferGranholm.com
- LeftyBlogs (Michigan)
- MI Eye on Bishop
- Michigan Coalition for Progress
- Michigan Messenger
- MI Idea (Michigan Equality)
- Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan
- Rainbow Mittens
- The Upper Hand (Progress Michigan)

Upper Peninsula:
- Keweenaw Now
- Lift Bridges and Mine Shafts
- Save the Wild UP

Western Michigan:
- Great Lakes Guy
- Great Lakes, Great Times, Great Scott
- Mostly Sunny with a Chance of Gay
- Public Pulse
- West Michigan Politics
- West Michigan Rising
- Windmillin'

Mid-Michigan:
- Among the Trees
- Blue Chips (CMU College Democrats Blog)
- Christine Barry
- Conservative Media
- Far Left Field
- Graham Davis
- Honest Errors
- ICDP:Dispatch (Isabella County Democratic Party Blog)
- Liberal, Loud and Proud
- Livingston County Democratic Party Blog
- MI Blog
- Mid-Michigan DFA
- Pohlitics
- Random Ramblings of a Somewhat Common Man
- Waffles of Compromise
- YAF Watch

Flint/Bay Area/Thumb:
- Bay County Democratic Party
- Blue November
- East Michigan Blue
- Genesee County Young Democrats
- Greed, Eggs, and Ham
- Jim Stamas Watch
- Meddling Outsider
- Saginaw County Democratic Party Blog
- Stone Soup Musings
- Voice of Mordor

Southeast Michigan:
 - A2Politico
- arblogger
- Arbor Update
- Congressman John Conyers (CD14)
- Mayor Craig Covey
- Councilman Ron Suarez
- Democracy for Metro Detroit
- Detroit Skeptic
- Detroit Uncovered (formerly "Fire Jerry Oliver")
- Grosse Pointe Democrats
- I Wish This Blog Was Louder
- Kicking Ass Ann Arbor (UM College Democrats Blog)
- LJ's Blogorific
- Mark Maynard
- Michigan Progress
- Motor City Liberal
- North Oakland Dems
- Oakland Democratic Politics
- Our Michigan
- Peters for Congress (CD09)
- PhiKapBlog
- Polygon, the Dancing Bear
- Rust Belt Blues
- Third City
- Thunder Down Country
- Trusty Getto
- Unhinged

MI Congressional
District Watch Blogs:
 - Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood (CD08)
MI Campaigns:
- ActBlue (MI Congressional Candidates)
- Michigan Round Table for Diversity and Inclusion
- MichUHCAN (Affordable Health Care)
- Politics1 (MI Candidate Listings)
- Senator Carl Levin

MI Democratic Orgs:
- Michigan Democratic Party
- Michigan House Democratic Caucus
- Michigan Senate Democratic Caucus
- MDP Youth Caucus
- Michigan Young Democrats
- Ingham County Democratic Party
- Genesee County Dems Progressive Caucus
- Saginaw Area Democratic Club
- Justice Caucus
- South County Dems (Berrien Co.)
- Western Washtenaw Democrats

MI Progressive Orgs:
- America Votes Michigan coalition
- Michigan Labor organizations
- Michigan Voice coalition

MI Misc.:
- Absolute Michigan
- Center for Michigan
- Citizens Research Council
- Detroit News Politics Blog
- Freep Opinion
- Media Mouse (Grand Rapids Indy Media) Blog
- Michigan Campaign Finance Network
- The Michigan Citizen Blog
- Michigan Interfaith Trust Fund
- Michigan Future (WWJ)
- Michigan Nonprofit Association's blog
- Michigan Prospect
- Michigan Public News Service
- Michigan Radio
- Michigan Secret Court
- MLive.com Blogs
- Political Graveyard
- Red Tape Blog (Government Documents Librarians of Michigan)

National Alternative Media:
- Air America Radio
- BlogTalkRadio
- BuzzFlash
- ePluribus Media
- Indymedia
- New Journalist Program (Center for Independent Media)
- PoliticsTV

National Blogs:
- AFL-CIO Weblog
- BlogPAC
- Daily Kos
- Firedoglake
- From The Roots (DSCC)
- The Gavel (Speaker's Office)
- Huffington Post
- HuffPo: Rich Robinson
- Kicking Ass (DNC)
- MyDD
- My Left Wing
- The Next Hurrah
- Open Left
- The Thicket (NCSL)
- Senate Guru
- Smart Ass (CDA)
- The Stakeholder (DCCC)
- YDA



© Michiganliberal.com, LLC
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
Powered by: SoapBlox