November 25, 2004

Turning Point?

For the first time in 30+ years, Democrats in Texas picked up seats in the state House. That's not too surprising -- the trend had been Republican since the '60's*. Then, before the '02 session a new redistricting map was adopted that some considered a pro-Republican gerrymander.

What usually happens is that the gerrymandering party maxes out in the election immediately following the map drawing. People in the minority party that win their seats are usually left alone. They are either in ridiculously safe districts or have exceptional political skills and were able to survive against a well funded candidate running in a district tailored to elect that exact challenger. Rematches don't typically work that well and when the district is drawn with someone in mind and they lose, well, how else could someone else have a better shot?

The first election after redistricting also highlights for the minority party which majority held districts were diluted too much to help surrounding districts. Then the minority party targets these districts and is able to knock off oftentimes senior members who had considered themselves invincible and let their districts get a little too competitive (Tom Murphy, Charles Walker).

Anyway, Virginia's Democrats have started to pick up seats in the state House there and as I mentioned above Texas Democrats have started to slowly turn around their legislature. Only in a move straight out of Jimmy Carter's Turning Point, at least one and perhaps three losing Republicans in the Lone Star state are going to petition their state house colleagues to have their elections overturned.

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. But, this is the logical next step for DeLay-ism. It is a belief that one is entitled to power regardless of process and without need for accountability. The worrisome thing is that unlike old-fashioned election fraud there isn't even an effort to hide their corruption. It is in full display.

* (In addition, 2002 so far was a low point for Democrats nationwide. For the first time in at least 70 years there were more Republican state legislators in the country elected than Democrats. In 2004, despite losing ground in many Southern states, overall Democrats moved back into a 50+ lead nationwide)

Posted by Chris at 06:27 AM | Comments (0)

November 19, 2004

Some primary thoughts

This year, 56,413 Georgians voted in the Republican primary (in July) that had voted only in Democratic primaries since 1998. 19,922 voted in the Democratic primary after previously only voting in Republican primaries. Not the best trend in the world!

Of first time primary voters (or their first primary since '98), Democrats had a slight edge. 143,114 to 139,381. I guess that's good news. I've been thinking a lot about open primaries in the state, or maybe having a separate ballot for state and local races. Many jurisdictions, thanks to non-partisan elections, do have a defacto separate primary for state and local races, so that probably isn't that practical of a concern.

But an open primary would allow each primary voter to choose the candidate of his or her choice in each race individually. For example, you could vote for a Democratic candidate in the governor's race and then a Republican candidate in the Secretary of State race, back to a Democrat in the Sherrif's race and then your neighbor, running as a Republican, for county commissioner.

The general idea behind the open primary is that it would encourage moderation. Most voters, even primary voters, aren't hyper-partisans. I doubt there would be that much room for mischief. In the Presidential Primary this year, 58,768 people that voted in the Republican non-Presidential primary in 2000 voted in the Democratic presidential primary. Nearly 107,000 people that voted D in March voted R this past July.

Al Sharpton got 39,000 votes. A lot of people (mainly Republican pundits) thought that mischievous Republicans would try to help Sharpton win Democratic primaries by crossing over or re-registering as Democrats. In both Forsyth and Cherokee counties he got less than 6%, his statewide average was 6.2%. So I don't think there are that many faithless actors out there to really mess with the results.

So are open primaries a good idea or not? On the state level, I don't really think Democrats have an extremist problem (that can be cured) with an open primary. Republicans, on the other hand, may be interested in the idea. After all, they'd much rather have a guy like Bobby Franklin or Max Burns lose in the Republican primary than the general election. Something to mull over.

Posted by Chris at 02:47 PM | Comments (2)

November 16, 2004

Roundup

I'd like to (for now) end the discussion on redistricting reform because in it's current state in the comments I don't think it will make much more progress. I will concede, as commenter davenfl seems to want me to, that if the Republicans want to redistrict to protect their newly won majorities then they do have the "right" to do it.

That doesn't make it right and it does make it hypocritical on one front -- most of these Republicans were against political gerrymandering when the Democrats did it most recently in 2002 -- and theoretically more abusive on another front -- the Democrats didn't redistrict mid-census as the Republicans would be doing.

Additionally, the Democrats maintained control from 1870 - 2002 mainly without redistricting's help. Had the Republicans fielded a full slate for the state legislature in 1994 they probably would have taken it over. In the state Senate, only 27 seats were contested by the Republicans -- they won 21 of them. Impressive, but Democrats had already won 29, a majority, on qualifying day. They ran unopposed. In the state House, Democrats had locked up 77 seats when qualifying ended and only had to win 16 seats to retain a majority. It wasn't a problem, but the Democrats did lose 15 seats that cycle, similar to this year.

In some redistricting housekeeping, I would note that a powerful algorithm is not necessary for egregious redistricting, just a good computer program. Any person with some knowledge of elections could point and click their way to an ugly, highly partisan map without help from a formula. It doesn't take long, either. Additionally, I would point out that basing your critique of a map on precinct unity is pretty useless as the precinct lines are arbitrarily drawn and change at the whim of elections officials, pastors and school principals -- county and city lines and geographic features like rivers, lakes and major roads are a better guide as they don't change nearly as frequently. You may know where you vote, but very few people consider it an identifying feature of their lives the same way living in the city of Atlanta or Ware County or outside the perimeter or in a lakefront community is.

Finally, I'm delighted that the comments have evolved into a moonshine/North Georgia forum. It's good to know that there are some Democrats left in North Georgia, unfortunately it's hard to know what exactly the Democratic party does or should stand for up there. Groups like G.R.I.D. sprang up to oppose Bush, which is fine but to truly become competitive you can't just oppose everything, you've got to stand for something on your own. More here. I can go to Cherokee or Forsyth county and find 100 people who hate George W. Bush and Sonny Perdue. It might be satisfying but it isn't going to elect Mark Taylor or Cathy Cox governor.

I'll leave you with an interesting statistic to ponder: George W. Bush ran ahead of the gay marriage ban in every county but three, Cherokee, Forsyth and Dawson. In Forsyth, only 16% of voters chose John Kerry, but 22% thought that gays should be allowed to marry. That may be an opening for Democrats, it might be statistical noise, and it might be 3,510 gay Republicans, but I doubt that last one.

Posted by Chris at 04:13 PM | Comments (6)

November 13, 2004

Making Our Case

I would like to further add to what commenter davenfl says by pointing out that state-level Democrats consistently "make the case" to Georgia voters that they should represent them, even as the same voters choose Republicans at the federal or Presidential level.

Greg Morris, running in HD 155 received 52.9% of the vote. That's 21% better than Roy Barnes in 2002 and about 15% better than Max Cleland and Al Gore. Hinson Mosley, before he switched, did 22% better than Barnes, 15% better than Cleland and 18% better than Gore.

The easiest way to get rid of the Greg Morris' of the world isn't to beat them at the ballot box. Tried that, only works so often. Far easier would be to redistrict their home county into the district of an incumbent Republican. That's not "fair".

As an aside, please feel free to click on the link to my Georgia District Explorer. I've spent a lot of time on it, although it is still a work in progress. If you are interested in a sensible, fair, centrist Democratic Party for Georgia, stay tuned. In the coming years I want to do a lot to forge a winning, working coalition for this state. Gaining a full understanding of where we're at is just the beginning, and the Georgia District Explorer is there to help people who have lives and don't know every district off the top of their head.

Posted by Chris at 01:34 PM | Comments (10)

November 12, 2004

A Little More

I'd like to add to what's below that after the court maps were released, many House Democrats advocated passing a new House map and making a "dirty deal" with the Republican Senate, who were hawking their own gerrymander. I argued against this at the time, and was not the most popular person among House Democrats. I still think I did the right thing, and not only because Glenn Richardson was hawking his own map and it was no secret to most of us that he had the votes to amend his version in place of the House Democrats'. Fair maps are the right thing to do. Now let's get started defining the word "fair".

Update: A commenter seems to argue that the Republicans are now entitled to the spoils of victory, including redistricting and anything I say to the contrary is just loser's whining. I would point out to the commenter that I had nothing to do with the 2001 redistricting. In fact, my personal residence was placed in a district gerrymandered to be extra-Republican. I ran for that district and lost badly. Under the court map, my house was put in a highly competitive district and actually will now be represented by a freshman Democrat.

Additionally, and more importantly, I think, is that the one opportunity I had to work for a Democratic gerrymander, I argued against it. Had the House Democrats passed a new map in the 2004 session, they most surely would still be in power. But it wouldn't be "fair."

When I say it's time to define the word "fair" I do not mean gerrymander/not gerrymandering. To me that is settled in favor of not doing it. By fair standards I mean whether and how much a reapportionment process should consider incumbency, county lines, political competitiveness and so forth.

Posted by Chris at 09:28 PM | Comments (1)

Fair Maps

One of the worst things that could now happen to Democrats (admitedly) and one of the most arrogant things the newly elected Republicans could do would be to redistrict the state House and Senate.

For many years, Republicans as well as Jim Wooten used the total percentage of votes for a party's legislative candidates as some sort of benchmark for fairness for the maps used in that chamber. For example, Wooten would complain that though all Republican candidates received more votes than all Democratic candidates in the state House, they did not have a majority of seats -- thus the maps were unfair.

This year, Republicans received 56.6% of the two-party vote for state House, the Democrats got 43.4%. Republicans had more uncontested seats, however under the "fairness" formula advocated by the Republican party in years past they should be at about 102 seats. They are at 99. Close enough.

In state Senate races, Republicans got 57.7% of the two-party vote, Democrats got 42.3%. Under the "fairness" formula they would get 32 seats -- they actually won 34. Again, that seems close enough.

In congressional races, Republicans got 61.5% of the two-party vote, Democrats got 38.5%. Under the "fairness" formula they would get 8 seats and the Democrats would get 5. They've got 7, one short of 8 but Republicans ran uncontested in twice as many Congressional races in Georgia. In the 4th district, the polarizing Cynthia McKinney underperformed John Kerry by at least 10%. Right now we have 6 safe Republican Congressional seats, 4 safe Democratic ones and 3 highly competitive ones. Democrats have 2 of the 3 competitive ones -- Jim Marshall is clearly a good candidate, having won every county in a district that John Kerry only carried a handful of. John Barrow will be in Congress in part because Max Burns was such an embarassment, and Phil Gingrey returns in part for the same reason as Barrow.

The healthiest thing for a state's politics is for changes in the mood of the electorate to be implemented through the ballot box. Republicans have had a few good years in Georgia, and fair maps have finally reflected this in the makeup of the legislature. The worst thing, for the state, would be for the Republicans to use redistricting to crystalize one year's success for semi-permanent control of state government. Hopefully a party that believes redistricting brought down it's opposition won't change their convictions now that it would be convenient.

Posted by Chris at 08:51 PM | Comments (0)

November 08, 2004

Priority #2

Probably the second (or first) thing Democrats should do, and now is the time to do it, is to insist that the legislature's cloture rule be returned to a 2/3's constitutional majority instead of a simple majority.

Now, the primary reason that the Democrats decreased the margin necessary is that unserious wingnut Republicans would offer ridiculous amendments to appropriations bills (such as eliminating all taxes) that any reasonable member of the legislature has to vote against but which sounds bad to vote against.

I would seriously hope that the Republicans, now in power, would consider this change. After all, the legislature's primary aim is to set policy and specifically work on the state's budget, and as the newly majority Republicans would surely tell you not all of the good ideas come from the majority party. I'd seriously doubt if the Democrats in the House would waste their time or effort with amendments offered in bad faith as the Republicans did in the past.

For the Democrats, this is a no brainer as well. It's time to show Georgians what our priorities are and the best way to show them is to offer them as bills, and when those bills fail to reach the floor, offer them as amendments to Republican bills that deal with the same areas of policy. If Republicans are confident that they are the majority party in this state, they have nothing to fear.

Posted by Chris at 10:37 PM | Comments (5)

The First Step

Now that we're in the minority party in Georgia, things kind of suck. Naturally. But some things improve. Democrats no longer have to be the party of pork or any other thing that is done solely for political power, and not ideals.

The first step I think we should take is to offer, in both the House and Senate, bills to establish that redistricting will be done on a non/bi-partisan basis. Basically, the state's reapportionment office plus political science professors and representatives from the two political parties should draw Congressional and legislative maps.

It's hard to legislate a strictly non-partisan process. The process by which the judges reapportioned our districts came close. Saying that you didn't care where incumbents lived and then changing your mind halfway through produced a few bizarrely shaped districts, but more or less it was a good way to do it. I think it's fair to include representatives of the political parties (who would together make up a minority of the map drawers) as well as political science professors.

A "neutral" map drawing process after all could produce maps that greatly benefit one party or the other and it would be helpful to be able to raise that red flag. Additionally, I think having competitive districts are in the interest of the state and country and having the political science teachers as well as representatives from parties could help to reach that goal but in a fair way.

Having seen Glen Richardson and Eric Johnson draw maps, I don't have any more faith in them to draw a fair map than I have in the Democrats who did it last time. With so many Democrats entering the legislature after the 2001-2002 session, now's the time to wash our hands of power politics and this is a great place to start. I can't be sure if the Republicans will take up ownership of trickery and naked partisan power but I do know that we can disown it. I don't really see how we have any other choice.

Posted by Chris at 04:56 PM | Comments (1)

November 01, 2004

My endorsements

Here is who I'm voting for and why:

John Kerry. I was wrong in the primaries when I supported John Edwards. From what I have learned about John Kerry and seen in the debates, I think he would make not just a better President than George Bush, but perhaps the best President of my lifetime. I trust him to clean up the mess that Bush has gotten us into and truly turn a divided country around. I'll happily vote FOR Kerry as well as AGAINST Bush.

Denise Majette. Ditto Majette. The DSCC has gotten behind a lot of candidates and told donors not to give to Majette. But Majette, unlike Brad Carson and many other national party targets is actually running a campaign that Georgia and National Democrats can be proud of. She's not running as Republican-lite. She's a Democrat. If you can name one significant thing Johnny Isakson has done for Georgia in his years of service, that will be the first thing I've heard. You don't earn a seat in Congress by hanging around longer than anyone else, and that's basically the message being sent if you vote for Isakson. Hopefully this will be the last year that a Georgia Senate candidate will be able to run as a rubber stamp for George W. Bush and not much else.

Rick Garnitz and Mike Jacobs. Both are well qualified and exactly the type of new blood the state legislature could use.

Gwen Keyes. For some reason, many white DeKalb residents have fallen for Jeff Brickman and other's smear campaign that compares Gwen Keyes to Vernon Jones and other black politicians that North DeKalb doesn't like. It's not true. In fact, Jeff Brickman has violated the oath of his office and used drug seizure money earmarked for law enforcement activities to influence a poll of DeKalb lawyers, which then gave him a favorable response. The AJC would not report on this story because Brickman is their golden boy. The fact of the matter is that Brickman is a Republican trying to con DeKalb voters into thinking he is a Democrat. He's dishonest and he and his friends J Tom Morgan, Bob Wilson and, yes, Sonny Perdue need to learn that public office in DeKalb county needs to be won legitimately and not stolen by deception.

In the race for Congress I recommend leaving your ballot blank in DeKalb county.

Posted by Chris at 03:38 PM | Comments (1)

Special Place In Hell

There is a special place in hell reserved for the Progress for America Voterfund and everyone involved in the Ashley's Story advertisement. I don't think there is much to be said about it, but basically you have a Republican family that were big Bush supporters in 2000. The mother tragically died on September 11th, and then Bush hugged the daughter at a rally. A touching story in private. To turn it into a deceptive campaign ad publicly is disgusting. One candidate and his supporters exploit the terrible events of September 11th for personal political gain. It is not John Kerry.

Posted by Chris at 03:32 PM | Comments (0)