(An obvious good-government direction for redistricting, but we’ll see once again how One Party Massachusetts handles its power. – promoted by eli_beckerman)
Representative Horan and Senator Rosenberg:
I was unable to submit my testimony to the Redistricting Comm. because my statement was too long!!!
The # of characters in my testimony was 10,815. The maximum amount of thought and opinion is 2,000 characters.
This is an example of your shameful procedures. Please fix this.
Below is my testimony. Please add my statement to the list of those who wish to publicly testify to the committee.
Thanks,
Mike Heichman mikeheichman@verizon.net 617-265-8143
TESTIMONY TO THE MA JOINT COMMITTEE ON REDISTRICTING
MAY 14, 2011
MICHAEL R. HEICHMAN
9 Jerome St.
Dorchester, MA 02125
mikeheichman@verizon.net
617-265-8143
REDISTRICTING IN MA: DANGERS AND OPPORTUNITIES
I’m Michael R. Heichman. I live at 9 Jerome St., Dorchester, 02125. I am an elected representative from Suffolk County on the State Committee of the Green-Rainbow Party and a member of the Greater Boston Chapter, and a member of the MA Black Empowerment Coalition for Redistricting. This is my personal testimony.
In the process of creating new political boundaries for our Commonwealth, I want to share with you the major dangers that I believe the Commonwealth faces and the opportunities that the legislature can choose, which would be an important step in creating a more just and inclusive Commonwealth.
I. Dangers
1. Danger #1: Who is in charge of the process?
“What is Redistricting? After the release of the U.S. Decennial Census, Massachusetts is constitutionally mandated to change its House, Senate, Governor’s Council and Congressional district boundaries to accommodate shifts in population and provide equal representation to its citizens.” (http://www.malegislature.gov/District/Summary)
What is Gerrymandering? “The manipulation of district lines to affect political power; Partisan gerrymandering occurs when the political party in control of drawing the lines does so to favor itself and to limit opportunities for the opposition party.” (A Citizens Guide to Redistricting, Brennan Center for Justice – NYU School of Law (2010), p. 7)
Who should decide how the political district boundary lines be drawn? In a few states, an Independent Commission is given an important say in making these decisions.
Included in my testimony are excerpts from this article-in quotations: (Poll shows Massachusetts residents back independent redistricting commission” By Paul McMorrow/CommonWealth Magazine, Posted Jan 13, 2011, http://www.metrowestdailynews….
“Massachusetts residents strongly favor empowering an independent redistricting commission and restraining the state Legislature’s redistricting powers, according to a new MassINC poll.” Overall, 62 percent of respondents to the poll said an independent commission should be charged with the decennial redrawing of legislative and congressional boundaries, while just 23 percent said the Legislature should remain in charge of the process.”
“The poll showed support for an independent redistricting commission cutting across geographic boundaries, and across age, gender, and party affiliation. Republicans and independents showed greater support for an independent commission than Democrats did, but even poll respondents who identified themselves as Democrats backed the idea of an independent commission by a nearly two-to-one margin.”
“Seventy-eight percent of poll respondents who said they viewed the state Legislature unfavorably said they want to take redistricting powers away from Beacon Hill. But, notably, even those who expressed a favorable view of the Legislature backed an independent redistricting commission, by a margin of 54 percent to 35 percent. Generally, the wealthier and more educated poll respondents were, the more they favored an independent commission.”
“People want a process that’s free of political shenanigans,” said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts. “They find it difficult to believe the Legislature can deliver on that, given its track record, its history, the political nature of the institution. The way business typically gets done in a centralized-way, they have reasons to be skeptical.”
2. Who benefits and who looses when the state legislature has most of the control of the process of creating districts?
Repeatedly, we have witnessed how our elected officials ignore public opinion when it is contrary to corporate interests and in the case of redistricting, their own self-interest. The public is not always right, but it usually has a better understanding than those we elect to represent us in the MA state legislature. In this case, we cannot blame the Republican Party for the decision not to have an independent commission. However, it is important to note that across the country there is a long history of bipartisan corruption when it comes to the issue of redistricting.
After all, redistricting is about jobs and most specifically, the jobs “our leaders” care the most about-their own. In many cases, the MA legislature has exempted itself from the conflict of interest laws that the rest of us have to obey. Conflict of interest applies to the public (you and me), but the state legislature exempts itself.
Despite the wisdom and justice of having an Independent Commission, the legislative leadership decided that it would be best to put themselves in charge. Despite a long MA history of gerrymandering and corruption on this issue, the same old same old will most likely behave in their same old way. (The word gerrymandering comes from MA history; the process is named after Elbridge Gerry, the 9th Governor of the Commonwealth of MA).
While this can be viewed as “ancient history”, corruption took place as recently as 2000, the previous census. There was a successful lawsuit and the court decided that the Voting Rights Act had been violated. The legislature was found guilty of passing a law that harmed the voting rights of people of color while benefiting Caucasian incumbents. Later the House Speaker, Thomas Finneran, resigned in disgrace from the legislature and pleaded guilty to criminal obstruction of justice.
It is hard to imagine a better example of conflict of interest than placing the legislature in charge of this process. This system allows the legislative leadership to make the decisions on what their own districts will look like and who will be the voters in their districts. Are there some areas in their current districts where they are unpopular? If yes, get rid of them! Because of the increase in population, every state house and state senate district will have more residents. Whom they choose to add to their districts becomes equivalent to selecting your favorite ice cream.
To its credit, the Joint Committee of Redistricting has created a much more open process than in the past. Holding hearings across the state is a big plus and the state legislature should do this much more often. For example, the most important decision the state legislature makes every year is to pass the budget. Hearings are held at the State House in Boston during the day. This makes it very difficult for working people and people who live far away from Boston to attend and participate in the process. Why not have hearings at different times of the day, including the weekend, in different parts of the state?
Regardless, the MA legislature has a long history of conducting “hearings” and choosing instead to listen to a higher authority (wealthy people) and making decisions behind closed doors.
There are three political parties in this state. By deciding not to create an independent commission, Democrats have decided more then just that that the slate legislature will be in charge of the process. It has decided that the leadership of the Democratic Party in the House and Senate will be the deciders. It was the House Speaker, Democrat, and the Senate President, Democrat, who chose the Co-Chairs of the Joint Redistricting Committee (2 Democrats). Almost all of the members of this committee are Democrats. The final plan will have to be passed by the state legislature, overwhelmingly dominated by the Democrats, and the final bill will be signed by the Governor, another Democrat.
Will the Democrats act in a fair and impartial way and not discriminate against those who are not Democrats? If you believe that this will happen, there is a bridge in Brooklyn that you may be interested in purchasing.
Additionally, will the legislative leaders attempt to help their closest and most loyal Democratic allies and punish those who demonstrate their independence? Once again, I see no need to believe that this time will be any different from what has happened repeatedly in the past.
3. The census has shown that population of people of color has grown over the last 10 years. Will the Joint Redistricting Committee act in ways that will ENCOURAGE more people of color to run for the state legislature and have a better chance of winning? Alternatively, will it act in ways to protect their fellow light-skinned colleagues?
4.
One major test of their commitment to fairness and justice will be how the legislature will redraw the congressional lines. Currently, there are 10 Congress people from our state; they are all Democrats and all Caucasians. MA will loose one of these seats. Will one (or more) of those Democratic Congress people decide to run for the US Senate against Republican Senator Scott Brown? If yes, then the legislature could redraw the lines to best advantage the remaining 9 Democratic Caucasian Congress people. If no, they will need to draw the lines where at least one of the current incumbents will loose her/his seat.
However, the legislature could make a better choice. It could redraw the lines to ENCOURAGE one or more candidates of color to run for Congress in 2012. It would be very easy for them to create a district in the Boston area, where the majority of voters would be people of color. However, to do so would mean that at least one Democratic Caucasian Congressperson would not retain her/his seat after the November 2012 election.
Based on what has happened in the past, justice and fairness are the underdogs to favoritism and white supremacy.
According to the Boston Herald, “But then it came to light that one of the first acts of redistricting co-chairs Rep. Michael Moran, D-Brighton, and Sen. Stanley Rosenberg, D-Amherst, was to schedule private meetings with each member of the state’s all-Democratic Congressional delegation to hear their preferences on how their districts should be drawn.” (“OUR VIEW: Shameful shenanigans from Massachusetts Legislature’s redistricting managers, http://www.heraldnews.com/news…
Did the Co-Chairs respectfully listen to every member of the delegation and promise that they would do what the best that they could, or did they inform our current delegation that the sun would rise and fairness and justice would rule the day?
II. Opportunities
Based upon the past and present behavior, I believe that the process that has been chosen and the players that are in charge (the Democratic legislative leadership) leads me to be pessimistic about the prospects that fairness and justice will emerge triumphant at the end of the day. I sincerely hope that I am completely wrong. More than hope, I have joined with fellow members of the Green-Rainbow Party and other members of the MA Black Empowerment Coalition for Redistricting in order to work in behalf of justice, equity and transparency.
What we do not need is a political system that serves the interests of the oligarchy (the rich and powerful). What we need is to create a system that will, for the first time in the history of our country, become a government of the people, for the people and by the people.
What we do not need is to strengthen the Empire of Dominance and Supremacy. What we need is to create a Republic, where it is the public, we the people, who are sovereign.
The process of redistricting can become an important place where we work together to create a more just and inclusive Commonwealth.
Recommendations to the Legislature:
1. The Joint Redistricting Committee will make all decisions by being true to the spirit of transparency. All important discussions and decisions will be made in public (when the sun is shining). After the hearings are held, no important discussions and decisions will be made by legislative leaders behind closed doors.
2. The Legislature will make all decisions by behaving justly. There will be no special partisan favors, no favors for friends and no punishment for those representatives who have demonstrated their independence by being loyal to their constituents, the people of the Commonwealth, and for the best interests for life on this planet.
3. The Legislature will make all decisions in ways that will lift every voice, especially those who have been historically silenced and strangled by the system. Specifically, it will draw boundaries in ways that ENCOURAGE people of color and low-income people to run for public office. At the end of the day, we should be able to see maps that will encourage a far greater diversity of elected public officials.