Todd Rokita and the $110,000 question!

FAIR Act (4.00 / 2)

Rokita just dismissed this in his address, but Baron Hill is one of the sponsors of the FAIR Act - Fairness and Independence in Redistricting. This bill would help take politics out of the redistricting process while avoiding Rokita's unworkable felony plan. (I wish the Star would have mentioned that in their piece this morning.)

This idea is so transparently desperate and self-serving, even Scott over at HoosierPundit has a piece about what a bad idea this is.

Oh, and Mr. Wall Street Journal himself, the voice of "responsible" state budgeting, has defended Rokita wasting $110K.

--


http://twitter.com/bmk

---

by: BrianK @ Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:56:26 AM CDT

He's on to something.... (0.00 / 0)

I think Rokita may be on to something (though I admit the criminal stuff is over the top.)

Still, I wonder how long it will take before a candidate challenges an incumbent to "sign the pledge" to have districts drawn without regard to historical voting patterns and without regard to where incumbents live.  How many incumbents will want to defend gerrymandering as a good thing, especially in an election year that could well be very anti-incumbent?

If Rokita is doing nothing else, he's starting to publicly demonize gerrymandering and those who defend it.  He'll have the media on his side and he'll be claiming the side of "good government."

---

by: Anonymous123 @ Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 20:55:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

how can you tell (4.00 / 1)

Legally the districts will need some adjusting due to population shifts.  As soon as one line is changed, someone will claim gerrymandering.  What is adjusting to one person could be gerrymandering to another....so .......

---

by: Howard C. @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 05:34:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rokita may have stumbled into something (4.00 / 2)

God knows how he did it, though.

The best argument for removing redistriciting from legislative bodies, is the 2003 City COuncil redistricting snafu.  It also involved a blatant last-ditch attempt by the GOP to alter ballot design, and it failed.

It failed because it was stupid.  And because a Marion Superior Judge who heard the case didn't have the sense God gave a rock,, and ruled in favor of the GOP, altho his brother was a member of the GOP Council Caucus.

Thankfully the appeals process promptly told the offending judge he was wrong to hear the case, and wrong on the merits.  Judge Bradford's reward?  A near-permanent seat on the Appeals Court, from a grateful GOP governor.

The public's reward?  Ultimately, a judicial panel drew the lines, fairly, and in the subsequent tow elections, council control shifted slightly form one party to the other, then back again.

It still irks me that FIeld Marshall Todd came up with this idea, but it is worthy of discussion.  Need proof that he's gigging the establishment?  Look at the immediate legislative response, particularly from within his own party.

Give Todd some rope.  See if he can hang himself.  

---

by: Blue State Blues @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 05:39:47 AM CDT

Who appoints the judicial panel? (4.00 / 1)

The idea of de-politicizing redistricting is one that appeals to me, but I haven't seen any plans yet.  If a judicial panel provides the redistricting, who is appointing the members of the panel?  Might there still be politics, but just more hidden from view?  I'd rather have the politics out in clear site than hidden by appointments given as favors for party loyalty.

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority."  --Benjamin Franklin

Yes, even Democratic authority.

---

by: Daily Activist @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 14:45:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rokita's Plan (4.00 / 1)

The felony idea is silly, though his idea to try to make districts based on county and township lines is interesting as long as each district is representative of roughly the same number of people.

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority."  --Benjamin Franklin

Yes, even Democratic authority.

---

by: Daily Activist @ Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 14:58:38 PM CDT

Far from non-partisan (4.00 / 1)

These districts are drawn on clearly partisan lines.  Look at the new 2nd CD; all of Elkhart and none of Kokomo? Yeah, that wasn't drawn to benefit future Republican candidates.  Completely negating any effect Kokomo would have on a district by overwhelming it with Hamilton county?  

He says it's done to keep communities of interest together; yet break North Central Indiana into four districts.

Why do I get the feeling this is the map the GOP wants to draw in 2012?

---

by: Hank Scorpio @ Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 20:06:31 PM CDT

However.. (4.00 / 1)

What the Second loses the Fifth District would gain, regaining the northern third of Kokomo as well as Anderson, and if I read the map correctly, even Muncie.  Chopping Kokomo up made no sense except to assure Republicans that Democrats would have a huge hurdle there, in a district that formerly was competitive, or does no one remember Ed Roush?  Rokita's map resembles older maps of the Fifth at least.  This map in theory gives residents of Kokomo, Anderson, and Muncie a fighting chance of having a Democratic Congressman.  

But it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hades of being adopted.  

---

by: FishersDemo @ Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 17:27:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kokomo, Anderson, and Muncie are going... (4.00 / 1)

to see their populations drop as their workforce move on to find new jobs; leaving the rural conservative cores of those counties without balance.  Add in that Hamilton County is growing at near hyper speed and staying a deep dark red; Burton took 69% of the vote there last time (creating a 46,000 vote lead there alone)McCain broke 60%, and Mitch 80%.

Given that odds are you lose the small rural counties, you're talking about needing to win Kokomo, Muncie, and Anderson by a net of probably 60,000 vote to make it a nail biter; and that's just hard to imagine.

---

by: Hank Scorpio @ Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 00:00:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]