| |
A
Count Of Manifesto By Mike Tully
It’s not polite to turn down an invitation to a good clambake,
which is how I feel about Emil Franzi’s invitation to weigh in on
the "Liberal-Conservative Manifesto On Election Reform." To kick the
analogy farther down the road a bit, I found a couple of the clams
half-baked. The best thing about the invitation is that there’s an
outside chance I can milk it for five columns. That’s like having
term insurance protection against writers’ block.
1. TERM LIMITS. I hated this idea from conception (the
idea’s, not mine) and was pleased to see the Manifesto condemn the
concept, even if at least one of the
authors might have been an Emil-come-lately on the issue. That’s
forgivable, given that a lot of tip-top IQs were tipped over by the
imperfect wave of the term limits movement and its seductive
bumper-sticker simplicity. Take away their ability to squat in
office, argued the term limiters, and they’ll be more responsive to
the voters. Right. What sense does it make to tell a thief he has
limited time in which to steal? That won’t make him less greedy or
venal, just more desperate, more Groscostish. My take was always
quite simple: we already have term limits. They’re called
elections. My opposition to term limits was based on the
arguments eloquently set forth in the Manifesto. It really wasn’t
hard to foresee that unelected bureaucrats would seize the power
that elected officials would lose to term limits. Venality abhors a
vacuum. Seniority and institutional memory are powerful weapons in a
legislative culture and should not be wielded exclusively by
bureaucrats.
Term limits also deprive us of elected talent. I recall
discussing term limits one Halloween with Mike Witte, the CEO of
AlphaGraphics, as we kept an eye on our trick-or-treaters. He said
he favored term limits because of his experience working for
Illinois Governor Jim Thompson. Mike was shocked at the levels to
which politicians would descend to maximize their power and
re-election opportunities. The distaste for Illinois politics led
him into the term limits corral. I suggested it would have been a
hell of shame to lose Mo Udall after three terms. He understood, and
suggested that perhaps there could be some exceptions. So much for
the term limits argument. (Normally, I’d leave Mike’s name out of
this, but when you pull your corporation out of Tucson in favor of
Salt Lake City – Salt Lake City! — no more meester nice guy!)
Those of us old enough to recall the days when Pima County had
serious clout in the Leg fondly remember Tom Goodwin, Chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, who spent so many years up there that
he effectively had something on nearly everybody and was owed a
favor by the rest. There are no Tom Goodwins in the Land of Term
Limits.
Finally, I suspect there might be a link between familiar faces
and voter turnout. It’s rewarding to vote for somebody you believe
in, somebody who repays the electorate with a good performance in
office, effective constituent relations, an aura of decency and
caring, and a demonstrated ability to think outside the party
channels. That’s a fun vote to cast and, in my opinion, it’s
occasionally more fun to cast it across party lines. That’s why I
vote for John McCain, even though some of his conservative positions
curdle my snot. It was a gas to vote for Mo Udall. I think you need
stars to help generate interest in Election Day. It’s great to have
new faces and new ideas and new blah blah blah, but little of that
cranks out the vote. Term limits give us too many "who are these
guys?" reactions, and that’s not good for turnout. Term limiting is
not just bad policy. It’s bad show biz and that’s bad politics in
2003.
I don’t understand the fuss over 2.
NON-PARTISAN REAPPORTIONMENT, except for the accusation that
it’s too "wonkish." (Like there ain’t wonks on this web site?) Here
is what the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is
charged with:
A. DISTRICTS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
AND THE UNITED STATES VOTING RIGHTS ACT;
B. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS SHALL HAVE EQUAL POPULATION TO THE
EXTENT PRACTICABLE, AND STATE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS SHALL HAVE
EQUAL POPULATION TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE;
C. DISTRICTS SHALL BE GEOGRAPHICALLY COMPACT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE
EXTENT PRACTICABLE;
D. DISTRICT BOUNDARIES SHALL RESPECT COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST TO
THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE;
E. TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, DISTRICT LINES SHALL USE VISIBLE
GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES, CITY, TOWN AND COUNTY BOUNDARIES, AND
UNDIVIDED CENSUS TRACTS;
F. TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, COMPETITIVE DISTRICTS SHOULD BE
FAVORED WHERE TO DO SO WOULD CREATE NO SIGNIFICANT DETRIMENT TO
THE OTHER GOALS.
The authors of the Manifesto concede A and B, but object to the
rest. Their complaint is that all six factors are "physically
impossible to possess simultaneously." Yes, they are, and there is
no requirement under the law that they must be, given the verbal
safety net "to the extent practicable." That’s a popular legal
phrase that really means, "screw it if doesn’t work." It’s the
greatest verbal bailout in the law.
Proposition 106 implies a hierarchy by listing the factors as A
through F and weakening B through F with the "extent practicable"
escape hatch. The farther down the list an "extent practicable"
requirement falls, the less it will be likely to impress a judge. A
lawsuit based on Section F, for example, would be a non-starter in
court. Every judge I know would more than likely tell a petitioner,
"You want competitive, go compete!"
Section E doesn’t have much throw weight, either. How could a
court entertain a complaint that visible geographic features,
political boundaries, or undivided census tracts were not given
appropriate weight? Judges know better than to open flood gates.
Sections E and F are virtually unenforceable and would not survive
summary dismissal in court. They probably should have been left out
of the Proposition, but they are not going to cause any harm. They
are merely words of wonkishness without bite.
That leaves C and D. What is the problem with C? Geographically
compact and contiguous is a good thing, not a bad thing, especially
when it comes to legislative districts. Just ask a rural or
foothills candidate who envies the compact, contiguous walking
routes of some inner city colleagues. The authors of the Manifesto
complain about the serpentine legislative district 25 because it is,
well, not geographically compact and contiguous -- in other
words, in violation of Section C. If they dislike Section C, why do
they complain so vehemently when it’s violated?
Which brings us to Section D, the "communities of interest"
language. I don’t know whether to endorse or denounce this part,
because I don’t know what it’s supposed to be. What’s a "community
of interest?" Mormons? Philatelists? Mormon philatelists (assuming
Mormons are allowed to philatelate)? Bikers? Democrats? (No, can’t
be that one!) Frankly, the only "communities of interest" I
recognize when I see them are the online communities one encounters
at MSN, Yahoo, and the like. If that were the definition of Section
D then the result would be more pornographers in public office. (At
least we’d have the sellers instead of the buyers, which is a minor
increase in status.) The law says it should be respected to the
"extent practicable" (wink) and the Commission will have to give it
lip service for that reason but, really, a court challenge based on
Section D would bring nothing but laughter.
If C through F are not the issue – and they really are not – what
issue does that leave? Ah, yes, partisan versus non-partisan. The
authors of the Manifesto apparently support partisan reapportionment
over non-partisan, and that is where the junction is and I take
another road. I preferred non-partisan reapportionment to partisan
before Tom DeLay tried to "Tommymander" Texas with the help of
federal power and sure as hell won’t back away from the issue now.
As long as one of the political parties openly talks about one party
rule – I have never heard that kind of talk before in my lifetime –
non-partisan redistricting is necessary. I think the voters got this
one right and I support it, wonkishness and all.
© July 16, 2003 by Mike Tully |
Mike has been writing a regular column on
Inside Track
Online since July 1, 2003. |
