Weekly update of my legislative agenda issue.
A tremendous amount of activity last week on these bills. And this Daily Press article gives you some sense of why. Despite bipartisan sponsorship, there are those who think any change to the process of drawing the lines is unnecessary. The last thing these guys think about is the voters.
At this point, the only bills remaining in contention are the Senate bills: SB625 (Stolle) and SB38 (Deeds) (these two are almost the same and are supported by the Virginia Redistricting Coalition), SB105 (Cuccinelli) and SB243 (Howell). These bills are scheduled to be heard Tuesday in the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections subcommittee Constitutional Amendments, Reapportionment, Referenda. It is my understanding that a single redistricting bill will emerge from this committee, with language that has changed. It is unknown at this time what the language will be, but the controversy surrounds the pool of potential commission members. The VRC originally proposed that the pool be drawn from retired judges. For a number of reasons, that pool is not acceptable. The last I heard, the pool will be retired legislators, but that could change.
As individuals, we have to keep the pressure on our legislators to not forget us, the voters. So if you have not done so, please head over and sign the petition.
Note that the study bill HJ103 (Moran) is still in the House Rules committee and has not been acted on.
Below the fold is what happened to the other bills.
Temporary commission bills:
- HB836 – (Moran/Morgan) – Bipartisan, 5-member commission. This is the bill supported by the Virginia Redistricting Coalition.
In HP&E committeeWithdrawn by sponsor after request to delay vote was denied. - HB339 – (Plum) – Bipartisan, 5-member commission.
In HP&E committee.Killed in subcommittee. - HB1070 – (Brink) – Bipartisan, 7-member commission.
In HP&E committee. Killed in subcommittee.
Constitutional amendment bills (note that since all these are first reference bills, they will likely be carried over to 2009 since constitutional amendments require passage in two successive General Assembly sessions separated by a House of Delegates election – all of the House bills were continued 1/18/08):
- SJ5 – (Deeds) – Bipartisan, 13-member commission. In SP&E committee.
- SJ59 – (J Miller) – Bipartisan, 5-member commission. In SP&E committee.
- HJ28 – (Moran) – Bipartisan, 5-member commission.
In HP&E committee. Continued - HJ70 – (Plum) – Bipartisan, 13-member commission.
In HP&E committee. Continued - HJ120 – (Amundson) – Bipartisan, 13-member commission.
In HP&E committee. Continued - HJ181 – (Barlow) – Bipartisan, 11-member commission.
In HP&E committee. Continued
Technorati Tags: Redistricting
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Vivian why should we put redistricting in the hands of people who are not elected and accountable to no one? And if your answer is that in the end the GA gets to decide, then why go through the commission process at all?
Um…Glen, how about because once redistricting is over and done with, the “elected and accountable” folks will have decided who they will be elected and accountable to?
I don’t have the time to go through every single proposal, so you’ll forgive me for trying to cut to the chase and hoping you can answer for me:
Did anyone think to make it like BRAC? BRAC was (at least in theory) a great method for taking some of the politics out of base closings and putting them back into the hands of people who would consider the needs of a service before the welfare of a single legislative district.
This commission model is not perfect by any stretch–the last base closures and realignments was entirely too-politically convenient in terms of throwing just enough Senators and Members just enough red meat to make sure it passed while concentrating closures in areas represented by legislators not entirely loyal to the administration (and Thelma Drake, but that was mainly her misfortune for representing some of the same people John Warner does). But at least it’s better than nothing.
Sorry – I’m playing catchup. NGC – I think I’ve answered your question a number of times in my writings about redistricting but the short answer is that the GA is elected yet unaccountable, and they have proven that they only thing that matters is protecting themselves. Removing incumbency protection from the redistricting process is a tremendous step towards competition in elections. And that’s good for the electorate.