17. Sally Fineday, Native Vote Alliance of Minnesota Monica Meyer, OutFront Minnesota Adam Faitek, CHANCE Jeff Narabrook, Minnesota Council of Nonprofits Laura Fredrick Wang, LWV MN
Notas do Editor
Introduction Thank you for inviting me to speak today Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Mike Dean and I am the executive director of Common Cause Minnesota, a non-partisan government watchdog group. It is fitting that the committee is holding this hearing during sunshine week. For those of you not familiar with sunshine week, it is a national initiative to promote a dialogue about the importance of open government. It is important that we spend a little time focusing on those principles of openness and transparency, especially when we talk about the redistricting process. Openness and transparency in government is critical to the strength of our representative democracy. Without those principles, government is more prone to corruption and undue influences because of the lack of oversight. As U.S. Supreme Court Louis Justice Brandeis said, referring to the benefits of openness and transparency in government, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” That is why this issue tends to be supported on both sides of the aisle. But more importantly, openness and transparency are key to ensuring accountability. Whether that is accountability in the free market or with free governments. Having the knowledge to make informed decisions is the heart of our society, but we can’t take it for granted.
That is why Common Cause, the League of Women Votes, the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits, and TakeAction Minnesota created the Draw the line Coalition. The coalition is focused on improving the redistricting process through the following principles:
There appears to be common agreement within this committee of fairness, transparency and citizen input. Here are two quotes from Rep Anderson and Rep Murphy publically stating their support for these principles. The challenge is moving beyond statements and developing a redistricting process that is fair, open, and has meaningful citizen input.
Before we discuss that, it is important to acknowledge the challenges to the current redistricting process. First, the process has largely been a failure. In the last 40 years, the legislature and governor have been unable to agree on a new map. However, the 1990 map did make it through because of the failed veto by Governor Carlson. Over the last 40 years, the redistricting process has mainly happened in the courts. This has protected the state from the large-scale gerrymandering that we have too often seen in other states. There has been a lack of transparency and citizen input in the process. Mainly because it is not in the nature of the court to do that. There are some inherent problems in the redistricting process that the leaders of both of your political parties have spoken out about.
You know, it's one thing to draw lines that ensure the adequate representation of minority populations, it's another to draw them for purely partisan advantage. Both parties have been responsible for doing this. Both parties should be responsible for ending it. This is something that I find myself with strange bedfellows. Arnold Schwarzenegger, as you will recall, proposed this in California and it was fought vigorously by Democrats. In Ohio, it was fought vigorously by Republicans. But the fact of the matter is that we now have a system where, too often, our representatives are selecting their voters, as opposed to the voters selecting the representatives. That is a situation that I think the American people should not accept.
It is these problems that have contributed to the public distrust over the redistricting process. A paper in the Election Law Journal in November of 2010 looked in to the public attitudes around redistricting. They analyzed a variety of public opinion polls and concluded that the public has a low level of knowledge and information about the redistricting process. Their research also found that the public is less likely to view the redistricting process as fair, if the final lines are drawn by a partisan body. These are huge challenges that the committee will face in carrying out the redistricting process. How will you build trust in a process that public believes is flawed? Especially when voters in Minneapolis, California, and Florida all supported referendums that limit the ability of partisan actors to draw the new lines. Source: Partisanship, Public Opinion, and Redistricting, Election Law Journal, November 4, 2010
The final challenge that you face is the timeline. You have less than ten weeks until the end of the 2011 session to draw the lines. Considering where things currently stand, it will be extremely difficult to draw the district in a fair, transparent manner that allows for meaningful citizen input.
Contrary to statements made last week, the Minnesota Constitution is actually quite vague on the redistricting process and does not guarantee fairness, transparency or citizen input in the process. Over the years, the courts and the legislature have identified additional criteria that you must follow when drawing the lines.
With this level of vagueness, it is critical that the redistricting committee better define that process. There are three areas that the committee should focus on: 1. Fairness 2. Transparency 3. Citizen Input
Draw the Line Minnesota is a coalition that seeks to reform and improve the redistricting process in Minnesota.
Draw the Line Minnesota is a coalition that seeks to reform and improve the redistricting process in Minnesota.