A model redistricting plan from the Maryland GOP

The following post is from a column that I wrote for the Washington Post - the full text (with nice maps) can be veiwed at the Washington Post's Opinions Page.

Maryland is home to some of the most gerrymandered congressional districts in the country. But the decennial redistricting getting underway gives Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley and state leaders a chance to remake the partisan, unrepresentative districts created 10 years ago under Gov. Parris Glendening, another Democrat — districts that have harmed Democratic and unaffiliated voters as much as they have Republicans.

And the good news is officials don’t have to spend much time reviewing voter rolls and computer data to achieve this good-government outcome. All they have to do is adopt the plan offered by Maryland Republicans. Yes, you read that correctly.

That’s not the process that’s in the offing, of course. Instead, a task force created by O’Malley will redraw districts so that each contains roughly 721,000 people, a map which will then be sent to the General Assembly for its rubber stamp. O’Malley has promised to produce a map representative of Maryland’s diversity. Given the Democratic makeup of the task force, however, I suspect this will be a decidedly partisan affair (as it is in most states) dedicated to the electoral interests of O’Malley’s party.

It is important to consider how Maryland’s bizarre congressional districts came into existence. Before the 2001 redistricting, the state’s congressional delegation included four Democrats and four Republicans. That split was unacceptable to Glendening and state Democratic leaders, given their party’s sizable registration advantage, so they drew lines to dilute Republican counties and expand the reach of Democratic strongholds.

The goal was clear — elect more Democrats — and it was met. But there was a cost. Rather than respecting political diversity and natural community boundaries, districts were designed solely to maximize Democratic influence.

Counties were sliced and diced. The boundaries of the 1st and 2nd districts were altered to pack more Republicans into the 1st and more Democrats in the 2nd. The 8th District, mostly Montgomery County, was spread over three districts, with the more Republican areas shifted into the 6th District along with Western Maryland and much of northern Baltimore and Harford counties. To offset Republican voters elsewhere in Baltimore, Harford and Howard counties, the city of Baltimore’s residents were treated as spoils to be divided among the 2nd, 3rd and 7th districts. As a result, the unique urban interests of Democratic Baltimore City residents were diluted by the suburban demands of Baltimore, Harford and Howard.

Closer in to Washington, Prince George’s County was divided among the 4th, 5th and 8th districts. Montgomery was spread across the 4th, 6th and 8th. Again, this was done to maximize the impact of these Democratic bastions.

Anne Arundel, Baltimore and Harford counties were divided in ways that defy all reason — except one: diluting the GOP vote. Harford was cut into thirds and given to the 1st, 2nd and 6th districts. Baltimore County was spread across the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 7th. Anne Arundel was divided among the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th. The 2nd and 3rd districts look like someone spilled ink on a map of Maryland.

Rather than correct the mess, however, most observers expect the O’Malley task force to try to make the congressional delegation even more Democratic. The 6th District, currently a Republican stronghold, is the most likely target, with many of the District’s Republican voters being shifted to the 1st District which would then stretch from Somerset County to Carroll County. The process is being driven by the National Democratic Party and its desire to gain the two-dozen seats needed to reclaim control of the House of Representative; representing the interests of Maryland’s voters is of little concern.

Meanwhile, state Republicans have proposed a map with compact districts that treat the borders of counties and communities with respect. Only Baltimore County would occupy more than two districts. A badly needed Baltimore City district (a new District 7) would be created by adding a sliver of Baltimore County’s population to the city’s 631,000 residents. Harford would occupy one district. Anne Arundel would be in two districts not four. Montgomery and Prince George’s would each be included in two districts — the minimum possible given their large populations.

But the Republican map will be ignored. Fatally, it would probably produce a five-to-three party split, with the newly drawn 1st, 3rd and 6th Districts likely to elect Republicans. The 2nd District would become a new swing district, and the 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th would almost certainly stay in Democratic hands.

Yet those results would better represent the political and geographic diversity of the state. Democrats make up 56 percent of Maryland voters and Republicans 27 percent. But the Democrats’ advantage is tightly confined to the city of Baltimore and the D.C. suburbs, with the remainder of the state more competitive or leaning Republican, and unaffiliated voters (about 15 percent) are the fastest rising voting bloc in the state. Because of that, a congressional map yielding a delegation of four Democrats and three Republicans, with one swing district, would be a fair representation of the true political geography of the state. It would without question be much more accurate than a map creating a seven-to-one Democratic advantage.

The Republicans’ proposal isn’t perfect, but it is the standard by which the coming O’Malley map should be judged.

Redistricting in Maryland: Can O'Malley Make Maryland a Republican-Free Zone?

Update: Make sure your voice is heard - there will be 12 public hearings on the issue of redistricting - dates and times are available here.

Governor O'Malley has named the members of his Redistricting Task Force and no one should be surprised by its composition.

• Jeanne D. Hitchcock will serve as chair of Task Force. Hitchcock is O'Malley's Secretary of Appointments. Prior to joining the governor's office, she served as Deputy Mayor to then-Mayor Martin O'Malley.
• Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr., Maryland State Senate President since 1987 and a veteran of past redistricting efforts in 1991 and 2001.
• Michael E. Busch, Maryland Speaker of the House since 2003.
• James King, a former member of the House of Delegates from 2007 to 2011. King is a Republican, but he sided with O'Malley in the past, specifically on the issue of a Slots referendum.
• Richard Stewart, President and Chief Executive Officer of Montgomery Mechanical Services Incorporated.

The Task Force is decidedly Democratic and regardless of O'Malley's promise that the task force will develop a map that represents the diversity of Maryland this will be a decidedly partisan affair and the only thing represented will be the interests of Martin O'Malley and the state Democratic Party.

Recent Census data shows that Maryland's population has grown, but more important to the redistricting process, it has grown more in some Congressional Districts than in others. This means the redistricting Task Force must balance out the district populations such that each district has roughly 721,000 people.

The table below shows the districts that must shrink (Blue) and the ones that need to grow (Green).

A quick review of the table should show why Democrats are excited about redistricting - 2 of the 3 districts that must shrink are home to Maryland's only two Republican members of Congress. Democrats would very much like to eliminate at least one of those Republicans and most of the focus is on the 1st Congressional District and Representative And Harris. Harris was narrowly defeated in 2008, but won decisively in 2010 in a district that is roughly equally split between Democrats and Republicans - it is Maryland's only swing district.

The 6th Congressional District is more solidly Republican and it would take more than a shift of 17,000 voters to make it competitive.

Democrats may have a very tough time trying to improve upon their current 6 to 2 advantage in the state's Congressional delegation and it largely results from the successful redistricting process completed after the 2000 Census. Prior to the 2001 round of redistricting, Maryland's Congressional delegation was split 4 to 4 between Republicans and Democrats. A Task Force (of 4 Democrats and 1 Republican) appointed by then Governor Parris Glendening developed a map that altered the boundaries of the 1st and 2nd Congressional districts so that two Republicans - Robert Ehrlich and Wayne Gilchrest would now be in the 1st Congressional district. Ehrlich opted to run for governor (and won). The newly open 2nd district was more Democratic and elected Democrat Dutch Ruppersberger.

Maryland's 8th Congressional district was home to moderate Republican Connie Morella. Morella's district consisted of much of Montgomery County and her strength came from the Republican northern suburbs. To eliminate Morella, Montgomery county was spread across three Congressional districts with the more Republican elements packed into the reliably conservative 6th Congressional district.

The plan in 2001 was clear - elect more Democrats. Casper Taylor (D-Allegany), then Speaker of the Maryland House said the plan was the best way to elect more Democrats, arguing "We Democrats deserve six [Democrats] and two" Republicans.

The plan worked. Morella was defeated, Ehrlich left - the delegation was 6 to 2. In 2008, moderate Republican Wayne Gilchrest was defeated in the Republican primary by conservative Andy Harris. Harris narrowly lost to Frank Kratovil thanks largely to the Obama win in Maryland. For 2 years Democrats enjoyed a 7 to 1 advantage, but Harris won big in 2010 and now Democrats want the 7 to 1 advantage back.

But how can they do it? Below is a map of the current Congressional districts. The first thing that she be obvious is that the 2001 Task Force produce a work of partisan art - the 2nd, 3rd, 4th are ridiculously drawn districts - drawn not to preserve existing communities but to maximize Democratic votes. Baltimore City is chopped up and spread across 3 districts (denying Baltimore a dedicated member of Congress) and Montgomery County is spread across 3 districts to dilute Republican votes and maximize Democratic votes.



The 1st Congressional district covers the Eastern Shore and then slices of Harford and Baltimore County and hops across the Bay Bridge to include parts of Anne Arundel County.

So what can Democrats do in 2011 to improve upon their master gerrymandering stroke of 2001? First, they need to accept that the dream of an 8 to 0 delegation is a lost cause. It would require to many changes to current districts and the state's 6 sitting members of Congress are unlikely to accept that. Democrats should take the 17,000 voters from Bartlett's 6th Congressional district and add them to Edward's 4th and Cummings' 7th. Both districts are overwhelmingly Democratic and overwhelmingly African-American - they could easily absorb the 6th Districts excess (even if that excess is more Republican). Edwards won re-election with 83% of the vote and a 130,000 vote margin in 2010.

Cummings' 7th district would still be well shy of 721,000 and the best scenario would be to take a significant chunk of Prince Georges county from Hoyer's 5th district along with elements of Anne Arundel county. Cummings won with 75% and a 106,000 vote margin in 2010 - Cummings needs 60,000 new members in his district, but so long as some of those folks come from Prince Georges County he can absorb more Republican voters.

Hoyer's strength is in Prince Georges and Charles County and he would likely protest the loss of parts of Prince Georges County, but the task force could compensate Hoyer by taking elements of Anne Arundel - a portion of his district that he lost in 2010. Hoyer won with 65% of the vote and an 85,000 vote margin in 2010 - but he lost Anne Arundel County by 12 percentage points (he'd be happy to see it go). Hoyer's district includes 231,000 voters in Prince Georges County and 37,000 in Anne Arundel - he can afford to lose some Prince Georges county voters so long as he loses most, if not all, of his Anne Arundel voters.

Those changes would balance the populations in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Districts - leaving only the 1st and the 2nd. The 1st Congressional district needs to shed 22,000 voters and the 2nd Congressional district must add nearly the same - this present Democrats with their greatest chance for a seat gain. Ruppersberger won reelection in 2010 with 64% of the vote and a 64,000 vote margin. Harris won 55% and a 35,000 vote margin. Anne Arundel, Baltimore, and Harford counties accounted for nearly 28,000 of his 35,000 vote victory.

The Task Force could take elements of those three counties and move them into Ruppersberger's district - the problem being that Harris won by 35,000 votes and can only lose 22,000 (and some of the 22,000 would be Democrats). Ruppersberger won by 64,000 votes but any movement of Republicans into his district would make it more competitive - at present, it is the most competitive Democratic district in the state.

I believe that the scenario I just presented is the best option for the Democrats - the only way to ensure an 8 to 0 or even 7 to 1 delegation advantage would be via dramatic changes in the states current congressional districts - but I see no way that the state's 6 incumbent Democrats would accept such radical change. Rather, Democrats can make the 1st Congressional district more friendly to Democrats while only making the 2nd district slightly more competitive. The 6th Congressional district must remain a Republican stronghold.

As a final note, I would like to add that I find the whole process of partisan redistricting to be an affront to representative democracy. As with many states, Maryland's current Congressional district map is a ridiculous mess of oddly drawn districts. Communities are divided, counties spread across multiple districts, Baltimore City is treated like a cash machine for Democratic voters spread across 3 districts when it could have its own member of Congress. It would be nice to see the Task Force propose a map that respects county lines, regardless of partisan advantage - that, of course, will not happen.

I would also like to commend the Maryland GOP for releasing their own proposed map:

Notice how county lines are respected. Note as well that Maryland's traditionally recognized regions are represented. The Eastern Shore, Southern Maryland, the DC suburbs, Central Maryland, and Western Maryland. Baltimore City would have a dedicated member of Congress.

Compare the proposed map to the current map - no embarrassments like the presently drawn 2nd, 3rd and 4th Congressional districts. Baltimore County appears to be the only county in more than two districts and even there the division makes sense as elements of the county are joined with Baltimore City.

The Maryland GOP map would protect the 1st and 6th districts for the party. It's also likely that the 2nd, but especially the 3rd would become more competitive. In fact the 3rd would probably flip to the Republicans. But a 5 to 3 delegation would be more representative of Maryland than the current 6 to 2. Democrats make up 56% of Maryland voters, but hold all statewide offices and 75% of the Congressional Delegation. The current district map was drawn to ensure that Democrats won more seats than their registration advantage would naturally produce and it marginalizes Republicans and the growing number of unaffiliated voters in the state. If the Redistricting Task Force draws a map that would make Maryland a 7 to 1 state, 87.5% Democrats in Congress, it would be a body blow to the actual political diversity of the state, a tremendous abuse of process, and a victory for the worst kind of petty partisan politics.

If I were on the Governor's Redistricting Task Force I would walk into work today, hand out copies of the GOP proposal and declare the job done. That probably helps to explain why I am not on the Task Force. That said, the Maryland GOP has proposed a reasonable map, one not marked by partisan gerrymandering, will the Governor's Task Force rise to the occasion and release an equally responsible map?

In a future post I'll talk about Maryland's State Legislative districts - I think there will be a far more drama in the redrawing of those districts.

Eliminating the Filibuster is a Cure Worse than the Disease

Update: Word comes today that Illinois Senator Dick Durbin has now joined the effort to essentially eliminate the filibuster. So what has changed since May 23, 2005 when Durbin said “Those who would attack and destroy the institution of the filibuster are attacking the very force within the Senate that creates compromise and bipartisanship.”? All that has changed is that Democrats had only 45 seats in the Senate when Durbin defended the filibuster... today they have 59. Those who would abandon the filibuster for short term political gain need to sit down, take a deep breath, and truly consider what they are proposing.

Original Post: Two Senate Democrats have formally launched an effort to kill the filibuster. Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) introduced a bill that would set a gradually lowering threshold to shut off debate on legislation, starting at 60 votes and lowering to 51 over six days.

So let’s just imagine the future – a future where the filibuster is no longer an option and only 51 votes are needed in the Senate to pass, or repeal, legislation.

In the near term, Democrats will pass Cap and Trade, Comprehensive Health Reform, and a truly progressive tax code. Then, by 2012 Republicans reclaim the House, the Senate, and the White House – a very plausible scenario, especially if the public reacts negatively to Democrats passing their agenda by changing the rules to circumnavigate debate and public scrutiny.

The new Republican majority, needing only 51 votes in the Senate to accomplish anything, shuts out the minority Democrats and repeals Cap and Trade, repeals Health Reform, passes a flat tax – and with their new freedom they privatize Social Security, next they decide to turn Medicaid into a block grant giving states the freedom to cover whomever they wish –or no one at all. Vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals? No problem, no debate. Vacancies on the Supreme Court? No problem, no debate. Drilling in ANWAR? No problem, no debate. Offshore drilling? No problem, no debate.

Are you thinking “well if they did all of that then the people would vote the Republicans out of office.” Indeed they would, and Democrats would then spend their time repealing what the Republicans had done… and then proceed to pass their partisan legislation and approve their partisan nominees… and the process would repeat.

Make no mistake, if Democrats repeal the filibuster it will set the stage for a complete breakdown of the legislative process – and yes, I reject the claims that the process is already broken. The best fix for our federal woes must take place at the state level where congressional districts are drawn. Partisan gerrymandering has created a polarized House making compromise with the Senate difficult and has served to polarize the Senate by discouraging turn-out among moderate and indepedent voters.

In Federalist 63 James Madison wrote of the Senate “that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought… ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers… how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves…”

The Senate was intended to be the place where everything slowed down, where the passions of the people, as expressed in the House, received a more discerning look. Where “the cool and deliberate sense of the community” prevailed. The filibuster does not represent what is wrong with our system of government, rather it represent what is best. The filibuster served our nation when it forced more intense scrutiny of George W. Bush’s judicial nominees and his proposal for Social Security reform and it serves us now as we debate fundamental policy changes.

Indeed, in 2005 when Senate Republicans were threatening to strip the ability of Democrats to filibuster judicial nominees it was current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who defended the filibuster saying that "stripping away these important checks and balances is about the arrogance of those in power who want to rewrite the rules so that they can get their way... This isn't about some arcane procedures of the Senate. It is about protecting liberty and our limited government... It would mean that one political party — be it Republicans today or Democrats tomorrow — gets to have all the say." Reid's words were true in 2005 and are true today.

In Federalist 73, Alexander Hamilton bragged openly about the difficult nature of policymaking in America “It may perhaps be said that the power of preventing bad laws includes that of preventing good ones; and may be used to the one purpose as well as to the other. But this objection will have little weight with those who can properly estimate the mischiefs of that inconstancy and mutability in the laws, which form the greatest blemish in the character and genius of our governments… The injury which may possibly be done by defeating a few good laws, will be amply compensated by the advantage of preventing a number of bad ones.”

If Democrats cannot muster 60 votes in the Senate, the answer is not to change the rules so that they only need 51 – the answer is to craft legislation that can attract a coalition of 60 Senators – whether that is 59 Democrats and 1 Republican, or 40 Democrats and 20 Republicans, or 35 Republicans and 25 Democrats. Anyone who dismisses that approach should take the time to read Robert Caro’s Master of the Senate and read how Lyndon Johnson negotiated the Civil Rights Act of 1957 – a bill that liberals viewed as toothless and hollow. But Johnson knew that he needed a bill that could pass, so he caved to Southern Democrats and accepted a weak bill – he didn’t win their vote, but he overcame their filibuster. That legislation then served as the foundation for the Civil Rights Act of 1960, and then 1964, and most importantly the Voting Rights Act of 1965 - perhaps none of which would have been possible without that crucial, and toothless, first bill.

Coalition and compromise that’s the Senate and it forces us to recognize that the true test of any bill is not how effective or comprehensive it may be – the true test is whether it can pass. If it can’t, move on, start over, make changes. Only those measures that can successfully navigate the obstacle course that is the American legislative process are worthy of becoming policy – and that’s how it was always meant to be. In Federalist 10, Madison argued that the only way to eliminate the threat of faction was to eliminate liberty. Today we face the question of how we might eliminate obstacles to legislating, the supposed solution is the elimination of the filibuster.  I'll respond in the same manner as Madison - such an option would be a "cure worse than the disease."