CPR

Supreme Court Punts on Redistricting Reform, Now Up To Voters /  by Matthew Weil

FIRST APPEARED ON THE BPC BLOG JUNE 19, 2018

The Supreme Court is not going to overturn this year any political district boundary maps based solely on partisan unfairness. It’s not entirely shocking that the Court decided to avoid the thorniest issue of partisan gerrymandering. But it does mean that redistricting reform will need to come from the voters and their representatives directly, as recommended by the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Commission on Political Reform in 2014.

In its rulings yesterday in Benisek and Gill, the Court found ways to punt on the merits of the cases. Either the challenge was not timely—as in the Maryland Benisek case—or the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the statewide map in the Wisconsin Gill case. Both cases involved plaintiffs who argued that mapmakers’ purely partisan considerations made it impossible for voters to elect candidates who represent their political beliefs by drawing the craziest and most inequitable distract boundaries.

If the Court will not confront directly the partisan gerrymandering concerns, there are options for reform-minded citizens to pursue.

If the Court will not confront directly the partisan gerrymandering concerns that clearly tilt maps in inefficient ways purely for partisan political gain that in no way improve the representativeness of maps, there are options for reform-minded citizens to pursue.

BPC’s Commission on Political Reform made dozens of recommendations about Congress, the electoral process, and public service to improve governing during a period of hyperpolarization. The first four in the report are to improve the redistricting process:

  • States should adopt redistricting commissions that have the bipartisan support of the legislature and the electorate.
  • States should use neutral line-drawers in their redistricting processes
  • States should move to a more open process for redistricting.
    • Private individuals and groups should have access to technological redistricting tools, such as sophisticated mapmaking software, which would allow them to more easily participate in the process.
    • States should publicly release initial redistricting plans with sufficient time for public comment.
    • States should implement contests by which private individuals or groups submit redistricting plans to encourage citizen engagement and to ensure that the line-drawers are informed about as many public opinions as possible.
  • States should adopt some forms of neutral geographic factors that limit the ability of mapmakers to draw districts that are strangely shaped.

The focus of the Commission’s recommendations on redistricting is that in our system, it is imperative that both parties have a voice in drawing political boundaries. While acknowledging that drawing these lines will always have a political component, it is possible to develop a fair and transparent system that includes the voters. We endorsed bipartisan commissions, an open process, and an emphasis on geographic cohesion that would lead to maps more readily acceptable to all voters.

And our recommendations have borne fruit. Shortly after the release of the Commission’s report in 2014, BPC began work in Ohio on electoral reform issues including voter registration, provisional voting, and especially redistricting.

Our work helped to lead the Ohio legislature toward a bipartisan plan that reformed how the state draws lines for state legislative districts, an action that was ratified by referendum in 2015. In 2018, the state made similar reforms that expand the fairer process to federal congressional districts. The reforms enshrine a role for the minority party where none had previously existed, and the plans passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.

It has taken a long time to become this polarized and it’s going to take proactive, deliberate steps to move the needle back in the positive direction. The Commission’s recommendation to legislators and reformers is that both parties must seize opportunities like bipartisan redistricting reform to make the playing field a little fairer no matter who controls the levers of power. The public demands it.

My Turn on the Smerconish Show /  by Matthew Weil

On August 15, 2017 I was on The Michael Smerconish Program discussing the Bipartisan Policy Center's Management Excellence Tracker, which I helped to create, update, and analyze.

The Michael Smerconish Program is on POTUS Radio (Politics of the United States) on SiriusXM (ch. 124).

The links below are partial recordings of my 20 minute segment.

Part 1

Part 2

Remarks on Civility /  by Matthew Weil

Illinois Campaign for Political Reform (ICPR) Event: Can Civility be Restored in Politics?

August 16 @ 12:00pm (CT) - 1:30pm (CT)

Columbia College, Ferguson Hall, 600 S Michigan Avenue, Chicago

 

Prepared remarks for delivery

Thank you for inviting me to be here with you today. Recent events and the daily onslaught of fresh political bickering certainly serve as constant reminders that we have to do better as a country when it comes to resolving our disagreements.

I will admit that when I was asked to sit on this panel I was—at first—a little confused. I know about the political brinksmanship and stalemate that has paralyzed Illinois in recent years, and I have previously participated in an event hosted by the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform focusing on efforts to reform the redistricting process where I was positioned quite literally between the two opposing sides of the debate. But inviting the guy from Washington, DC who grew up in New Jersey and went to school in Philadelphia to speak about restoring civility? That was unexpected!

“But inviting the guy from Washington, DC who grew up in New Jersey and went to school in Philadelphia to speak about restoring civility? That was unexpected!”

Let me talk very briefly about why I think I am here today. I have spent my entire career in Washington, DC. I have worked for a right-leaning public policy think tank. I have been a federal civil servant working on nonpartisan election administration issues, and I was a political appointee in the Obama Administration. Maybe I am rare, but I have friends on the right and left with whom I can agree or disagree about policy without becoming personal and petty.

Today I am the Associate Director of the Democracy Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. I know what many of you are quietly thinking because I have heard all of the questions and comments before. What does a “bipartisan” think tank do? Do you have any effect or success? Are you really bipartisan? How can you be on both sides of an issue today?

The Bipartisan Policy Center, or BPC, is a nonprofit organization in Washington that combines the best ideas from both parties to promote health, security, and opportunity for all Americans. BPC drives principled and politically viable policy solutions through the power of rigorous analysis, painstaking negotiation, and aggressive advocacy. That’s our mission.

Here’s how explain the work BPC does in my own words. On almost every issue at the federal and state level, there are competing priorities that must be reconciled during the policy development process. Before being enacted, both major political parties often have significant ability to slow or derail the political debate, even when one side has a substantial majority over the other. And the best policy tends to be created by compromising rather than attempting to run rough shod over one’s political opponent. That said, we live in a very polarized political environment. So BPC brings together strong Ds and strong Rs to work on not a middling solution but one that true partisans are willing to sell to their colleagues.

BPC is a relatively large institution that works on issues related to the economy, energy, financial institutions, governance, health, housing, immigration, infrastructure, and national security. My main focuses are on governing institutions and election administration.

Back in 2013 and 2014 BPC convened the Commission on Political Reform, chaired by former Senate Majority Leaders Trent Lott and Tom Daschle, former Senator Olympia Snowe, and former Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman. The commission included other former members, governors, business and religious leaders and more. The 62 unanimous recommendations this group of 29 individuals made were all aimed at ameliorating the causes and consequences of America’s partisan political divide while advocating specific reforms that will improve the political process.

Without reading to you all 62 recommendations, I will note that they fall roughly into three buckets: electoral system reform, congressional reform, and a call to service. And I am happy to shed more light onto the specifics during the question and answer session.

The Bipartisan Policy Center is also in the midst of what we are calling a summer of civility. To quote from some of our former CPR co-chairs, “[w]e are not under any illusion that these problems can be quickly changed, and we are not naively calling for an end to partisanship. We are, however, challenging all Americans to listen to each other more, and to be more open to others’ perspectives. Members of Congress are gathering to sign a Commitment to Civility, pledging to act with respect and collegiality toward one another.” To that end we helped to gather the Freshman class of representatives from both parties to sign a commitment to civility pledge at the U.S. Capitol in June 2017.

Also in 2014, the Bipartisan Policy Center took on the continuing work of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, which was appointed by President Obama to improve the voting experience. The commission, co-chaired by President Obama’s campaign attorney and Governor Romney’s campaign attorney, took seriously its work looking at bipartisan solutions to America’s voting woes in areas the parties can truly agree.

Finally, the Bipartisan Policy Center hosts a Governor’s Council. BPC initially convened its Governor’s Council in 2011 to bring the pragmatism that most governors bring to governing to Washington. They have issued recommendations related to workforce, higher education, Medicaid, and opioid abuse. We are honored that Linda Lingle, a former governor of Hawaii and most recently the COO of Illinois, remains a member of our council.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the work we do at BPC, and I look forward to the panel’s discussion and questions from the audience.