Responses to Civic Caucus survey and to DRAFT STATEMENT on redistricting --

9.6 average 1. On a scale of (0), least urgent, to (5), neutral, to (10), most urgent,
how important is it for the Legislature to assign responsibility for
redistricting to someone else?

8.6 average 2. On a scale of (0), strongly opposed, to (5) neutral, to (10), strongly
favor, how do you feel about the redistricting proposal of the Mondale-Carlson
commission?

6.0 average 3. On a scale of (0), strongly opposed, to (5), neutral, to (10), strongly
favor, should the Legislature retain final approval over a redistricting plan
prepared by an outside panel?

7.2 average 4. On a scale of (0), strongly opposed, to (5), neutral, to (10), strongly
favor, should majority and minority legislative leaders appoint an outside
panel?

5. If someone else should make the appointments, whom would you suggest?
Minnesota Supreme Court; Legislative Auditor; governor

Please place an (x) below by the option that most closely represents your view.
6. A panel assigned to draw boundaries should be:
11 Retired judges
5 Members of the general public
0 Non-partisan legislative staff
2 Other; please specify _____________________

Please place an (x) below by the option that most closely represents your view.
7. A panel assigned to draw boundaries should be
2 Prohibited from trying to make some districts more competitive.
9 Required to try to make some districts more competitive.
8 Left free to do what it wants.

Results above come from rankings by the following persons:
Ayotte, Ray
Broden, David
Brown, Bob
Brown, Ellen
Farrell, John
Finnegan, John
Hauge, Paul
Hetland, Jim
Jennings, Wayne
Kiedrowski, Jay
Lutz, Charles
Mansky, Joe
McLean, Malcolm
Olson, Jim
Quie, Al
Ring, Ward
Schluter, Larry
Swails, Rep. Marsha
Swain, Tom
White, Bob


Additional comments

Ray Schmitz
The attorney general in a speech today on public corruption prosecution was asked about a non-partisan commission that apparently fulfills this function in other countries, his comment - when he hears the word non partisan he reaches for his gun. I don't know that that means but it is interesting.

There should be a recommendation for funding the new redistricting proposal..

Wayne Popham
I believe that reapportionment is such an inside game that unless a person has been directly or closely involved in a reapportionment it is not possible to fully visualize the dynamics involved. So I do not know how questions can be formulated to obtain a valid reaction to this proposal from general readers. Having gone through two reapportionments during my service, I still had to read the H/I plan several times to get the implications of it.

As I indicated this morning, I believe that reapportionment is an inherently partisan issue, for elected officials and for persons who vote for them. It is not like a bill to abolish cruelty to animals. Persons who support, work for, contribute to a legislative candidate hope that person will, if elected, will be in the majority and making the decisions.

Once elected and doing reapportionment, I would expect that the legislator would try to do everything possible, within the constitution that will tend to preserve or attain a majority. I have never heard suggested that we should adopt a system that would have the political parties taking turns at having the majority. If I ever supported a candidate who I later discovered had tried to create a reapportionment plan that implemented such a philosophy I would feel betrayed. Not that it would be the first time.

I think that the H/I plan would increase the power of the legislative leaders. Now members of the Elections Committee typically do reap. Plans for their caucus, with staffing help from the Chuck Slocums. Legislators serve on the ten-member conference committee to negotiate a bill. During and after the conference committee there are negotiations with the governor. Under the H/I proposal the leadership will control the process. The leaders will select persons, frequently lawyers, who are sharp on election matters. The four of them will have to agree on a fifth person, who will have to be someone who they all know and hope will perhaps lean slightly to them, or at least will not sell out to the other party and stick a knife in them. The leadership appointees will report back to their leaders, who will periodically report to the caucus on progress. I do not see the new process as making reapportionment less political, nor do I think that should be the objective. With our view of the increasing power of the legislative leaders I do not see the proposed system as a plus.

Bill Frenzel

1. You got a tough job. No way to accommodate Wayne's views which I think I understand, but to which I do not fully subscribe. Its pretty hard to avoid having the Leg get into this if it wants to do so badly enough. I agree with Broden in preferring that it does not, but with Wayne in understanding that it can if it wishes.

2. The appointment of the Commission is another sticky wicket. Everybody is political, but the farther we can remove this appointing power from the Leg. the better I will like it. Unfortunately, I don't know who to give the power to. Maybe we ought to draw them out of a hat. In the end, we will probably have to accept the H. I version, anyway.

3. Broden has another good point about regionalization of the Commission, but 5
Commissioners cannot be spread very far over 87 counties. Here I guess we piously hope that appointers will try for a reasonable geographical spread. I don't think we want a larger Commission.

4. If Competitiveness is the only criterion mentions, the Commissioners should be prohibited from basing the districts on it. However, if all the usual criteria are mentioned, it would be better, in my judgment, to let the Commission decide how to apply the criteria. Judicial precedent had already condemned them to give first priority to the 1 man 1 vote rule. I would prioritize them one way; Clarence another; and someone else, an entirely different way. Parenthetically, I have strong doubts that the Leg would ever pass a bill with Competitiveness in it, anyway.

5. Because of the nature of the difficulty, and our obvious lack of unanimity, I think we still have to make our recommendation rather general. I like the current version of "a plan like that of the Mondale/Carlson group". We will have trouble getting signatures if we add much else, no matter how good our ideas are. We have already lost Wayne and those who believe as he does. I would prefer not to lose any more.

Al Quie
Try to protect geographical commonality. Don't gerrymander for safe districts or competitive districts. Take the citizens into consideration, not professional political theory.
Bob Brown
Districts should not be drawn by any panel, but a neutral computer program that would take into account only raw census data with no consideration of political factors.

While I would like to see the maximum number of competitive districts in order to force the parties to put forth competent candidates, I think it is a mistake to leave the mechanics of redistricting in human hands. As a legislator I have been on a redistricting committee and have observed the process many other times and I am convinced that you cannot keep politics out of the situation if humans actually draw the districts. As I have mentioned earlier someone (the legislature or one of the proposed panels) could determine some basic criteria (e.g., not dividing a city of less than a certain population), but then the actual redistricting should be done by a computer program that would apply those criteria, using a random selection to determine the corner of the state in which to start and then develop the districts based on the actual census data.

David Broden
Question 1: I have seen how the system does not work, based on supporting or being on a panel for the Minnesota Republicans in one form or another in 1966, 1970, 1980, and 1990. Each time the process broke down for various reasons. Only by separating the panel from the legislature, as in your comment outline, can the process have any clarity of operation. Further the panel and organization of the panel should be established at least
18-24 months prior to the completion of census data to further isolate the selection of personnel from the press and related political dialogue.

Question 2: The Mondale--Carlson approach of 5 members and how they are selected is a very reasonable approach. There are, of course, some others, perhaps, but this one has been defined by some very thoughtful people, and the result has established a solid base.

A few added suggestions: Without forcing the selection to a true regional location for each panel member I would suggest that there should be some statement about selecting members from across the state--if some broad regional distribution can be worked out that would be great. The members must have the greater Minnesota vision and not lock to their interest but having an understanding of what Minnesota is--the people and communities etc. in all areas of the state must be a consideration. My suggestion for consideration would be 4 from a regional basis and the 5th at large. This deserves some thought.

A second thought might be for the 5 member group to charged with not only open town meetings to gather opinions but also to form some sort of regional advisory groups (less than 10 people each) that is a second tier level for them to dialogue with during the process rather than just among themselves or with the total population. This group could be available for meeting 2-5 times during the redistricting process. This would serve as some of the comments that came when drafts were leaked etc. to the legislature in prior efforts.

Question 3: If the process is forced to move from the panel to the legislature, this suggests political games--we need to build in some sort of protection such that even though the panel may be working --the legislature is just going to say no 4-5 times and then do it themselves. This needs a hook so the legislature never does the job itself directly. One approach may be that after the 3rd panel submittal the panel must submit not just one but two alternates or something like that. Keeping the legislature out of a dialogue is key--yes or no should be their only vote.

Question 4: The selection of panel members is at the center of the issue. Selection by the majority and minority leaders is reasonable but there needs to be some criteria for the people considered. This too gets tough. One thought is to definitely exclude anyone who has been a paid staff person of the legislature or one of the political parties within the past say 3 years. Further no prior legislators who have served within 5 years etc. The majority and minority leaders should establish and publish a list of criteria and consider asking for interested persons--similar to the U Regent process. Somehow the selection must result in members who are: objective, have a vision capability, understand what makes Minnesota tick, have very visible and demonstrated integrity etc. Simply giving the majority and minority lead the task without asking them for a criteria and then evaluating alternatives in not going to work. An outside group providing a list of candidates to the majority and minority leader for final selection could work.

Question 5: Consider something like this if it can be done without a huge discussion etc. The legislature (majority and minority) selects 2 members for a selection panel, Congressional (House and Senate) members --pick --2, other groups-TBD--pick 3-5. This group solicits names and recommends candidates for final selection by the majority and minority leader or just makes the selection. Making this work effective would be tough but could work with the right leadership etc. I don't know if we could do this but could the State Supreme Court provide the name of the person who would chair the selection committee or does that cross the line of separation of power etc.

Question 6: The members of the Redistricting Panel must be a cross section of Minnesota--business--agriculture--academia--family etc. There are certainly people with those backgrounds that may not be involved in the legislature but who have shown leadership and integrity in their community and related activity. Finding the 5 of these will be very beneficial etc. and could be key to a successful redistricting plan.

Question 7: The panel should be left to do what it wants based on the public hearing and other input --such as the second tier idea suggested above. There is certainly sufficient guidelines of what meets the judicial standards to avoid follow up court challenges so they need to take those guidelines and adapt them to the situation in the year or redistricting. The panel needs to set their agenda not be told what steps to take at each point-- we want leaders and integrity in the members lets select them and give them our confidence in doing a good job.

Tony Solgård
FairVote Minnesota studies have shown that even when the court has considered competitiveness as a criterion in redistricting, as they did in the 2002 plan, the overwhelming number of districts remain safe for the dominant party. See
http://www.fairvotemn.org/resources/no_contest_elections. The problem is not gerrymandering; it is the inherent nature of single-winner districts and the winner-take-all voting method. It is simply not possible to create a districting plan that makes most (or even just many) seats competitive.

The solution to ending the permanent disenfranchisement of large numbers of voters and to ending safe seats is to create multi-member districts and elect those members by proportional representation using Instant Runoff Voting. With the state House elected from 3-member districts, all areas of the state will be represented by members of both parties. Nearly all voters will be able to help elect someone who will represent them in the legislature. A party nominating 3 candidates for what effectively is limited
to one or two seats will inevitably have intra-party competition. This will also reduce polarization and give "the vast middle" and voters across the political spectrum more of a say in the flavor of their representation.

This method of districting and voting is compatible with an independent redistricting panel. However, should the legislature retain control, it will make less effective efforts to manipulate districts for political advantage. And, if it is less effective, then less time will be spent on it, allowing more attention to be given to the critical issues of the day.

John Finnegan
It is time to change the current process and distance the legislature from redistricting.

Peter Hennessey

The commission report contains the seeds of its own failure. This time it's in the form of the multiple choice basis for drawing district boundaries:

Among possible guidelines:

--Equality of population within reasonable limits
--Compactness, that is, making districts of similar shape
--Conformity to natural communities of interest.
--Competitiveness

As long as the redistricting entity is free to choose among these and other guidelines, the problem will prevail despite all the "reforms."

In my humble opinion the problem is fundamentally insolvable precisely because it is nothing but political. The Founding Fathers recognized the problem but could not come up with anything better than a divided government and a strong stand for individual rights -- and a weak admonition against "factions."

If people running for office were truly civic-minded, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, rather than driven by a lust for power, as is most often the case, then common sense would dictate that the primary emphasis should be on competitive districts, not safe districts, because it is competitiveness that would draw most voter interest and therefore be most likely to represent the true sentiment of the voters. (On the other hand, we still do have freedom of association, which is often expressed in the form of politically, racially, ethnically, economically and culturally homogeneous communities. So now what?)

After that, the emphasis should be on retaining some semblance of community integrity. The Founding Fathers established a House of Representatives to represent the people, and a Senate to represent the States, precisely as a result of their recognition of the fact that different regions as a whole have different overriding interests, peculiar to a region, regardless of political opinion or philosophy. The States followed this example by creating an Assembly for the people and a Senate for the counties. However the totally misguided and unconstitutional "one man, one vote" rule obliterated the legal and philosophical basis for the bicameral structure, and resulted in outrageous gerrymandering, such as downtown San Francisco and remote rural parts of Marin county being in the same district. No, cows don't vote, but in the greater scheme of things the interests of a handful of farmers are at least as important as the interests of thousands of wage or welfare slaves. But with "one man, one vote" the blatant political machinations have a legal cover.

After that, yea, you should pay attention to compactness. We now have districts a fraction of a mile wide and hundreds of miles long. That might make sense in a remote rural area served by one road, but we have examples that cut across mountain ranges.

After that, sure, try to make the population counts the same if you can.

Just never ever create "safe" districts. We have that in California and we have a totally dysfunctional legislature that can never produce a budget on time, and balances the budget by means of popular votes on bond issues.

Charles Lutz
Competitiveness should be included as one (but only one) of the guidelines.

Clarence Shallbetter
Whatever happened to the thought that it's from the safe districts that committee chairs and legislative leadership comes?

Ward Ring
A combination of retired judges, and legislative leaders' and Governors' appointees should serve on redistricting panel.

Joe Mansky
I would envision a commission that would consist of members selected by each legislative caucus and by members appointed by the governor, some of whom would be suggested by the major political parties and other public members who could apply under the open appointments process.

Based on personal experience with this process, I can attest to the fact that there are limits to the extent that our redistricting plans can be made politically competitive, probably no
more than half the districts at present. Nevertheless, I believe this should be an explicit goal of the commission, within the constraints imposed by the application of "traditional districting principles."

I continue to believe that the responsibility to enact a redistricting law should remain with the legislature and the governor. However, I wholeheartedly support the establishment of a commission with public members to do the work of drafting the plans and presenting them to the legislature for an up or down vote.

Jim Olson
Impractical to suggest that political information be prohibited from consideration.

Ellen Brown
I am neutral on the legislative appointments, though I would be inclined to perhaps prefer the Supreme Court.

Non-partisan legislative staff seems to be too risky to pressure from legislators, who after all are their bosses, even if they are non-partisan.

Ann Berget
Due to the gerrymandering and obscene delays of finalizing the "1990" redistricting, I had no city councilperson who had been elected by voters in my ward for nearly 4 years (2001-2005). I was redistricted from W10 to W8 and the old 1980 census boundaries were used in the city election of 1991, resulting in many of us voting for council members who would not be representing the areas in which their voters actually lived. Additionally, the council member who did represent W8 during this time (as a result of the 2001 election) had actually been redistricted into W6 and during that time, was actively seeking election (re-election?) to his "new" W6. This situation continued until the election of 2005. Although a group of Minneapolis residents (including me) sought relief from Minnesota courts, the courts delayed and postponed addressing this matter for several years, and even then, incredibly, did not hold this delay to be a meaningful disenfranchisement.

Malcolm McLean
The last sentence in the Summary (They know how the game was played...) seems gratuitous to me. It is a bit slangy and the rest of the document is serious and well written. If it is meant to suggest that the Mondale-Carlson group has deep experience and knowledge, then put it that way. However, I don't even think that is necessary. The group is a self-evidently a serious, committed handful of Minnesotans with great prestige. Small point, but take it for what it is worth.

Chuck Slocum
This is not an especially new idea. I recall testifying in support of using the MN Supreme Court as the overseer of redistricting; it was in 1976 and Bruce Vento was chairing the House Committee. He was elected to Congress later that year.