Electoral Reform Amendment (Passed)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

AYE

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If it's all the same Senator, I also like to assume sponsorship

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I will not support this being in place until the December at-large election, August at the absolute earliest.

Mind you, party GOTV is not my concern, nor should it be.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

How about this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the language is a little too fluffy, it gives too many outs. I do think we should make clear when we're intending this to start.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think I'm the only Senator who has been through the districting process as a Governor. It can be a very easy process, or it can be very lengthy and problematic. It just depends on the mix of those negotiating.

I think the first districting process needs to take a bit of time as it will end up being the 'base' map for future processes. I don't think it's going to take 3 months to do it, but we need to realistic time-table. I'm not entirely opposed to Griff's 6-week process, but I would feel more comfortable with the 8-week one.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Keep in mind that if we do pass this bill, we'll need to change the registration period for state changes. Having districts is useless if people can switch states once a day. It needs to be tied to region changes so people can't switch for 6 months.

Senator Talleyrand makes an important point, there are knock-on effects of this that need to be considered.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I object, only for the reasons I outlined. There should be a hard deadline attached.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

NAY

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I will propose an amendment if this one passes.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Putting in a concrete date is a very bad idea- we have no idea how long the regions will take to ratify this.

I don't disagree - but having a fluffy timeline invites a lack of incentive to action.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

A concrete date is going to be hard to accomplish; perhaps we can investigate allocating the powers to the DoFE to set it stone for the first occurrence? I'll be ready to offer this after the vote concludes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suppose I'd prefer a window.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

NAY

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I agree that Senators should not be involved at all in the process.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I believe Senator Griffin's amendment is a good one.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I obviously do not agree with Talleyrand's amendment, if only because the problem he is proposing to fix isn't one. If the districts on balance do not look like the regions, then the non-contiguous states (my bad) won't necessarily be confined to the same region. For instance, if one state in the Pacific Region were drawn into a district that comprised a chunk of the Midwest, then Hawaii could be added to that district (because non-contiguous states only "must be in a district with territory from the same Region").

This was designed to be a mechanism to prevent lazy/sloppy map-drawing where people just lump all of the non-contiguous territories together and tack them on the tail-end of the last agreed-upon district, as well as a nominal risk reduction for gerrymandering.

I agree - I don't see any issue with making instructions/expectations crystal clear.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I would agree to Talleyrands side of the issue here.

Another thing to note is that it's definitely not a good idea to put such specific guidelines in the constitution anyway.

As someone who was one of those governors once, it's not an easy task. But I do take the point that we need to separate the intention from the operation. I would be a touch hypocritical, as someone who hates extraneous detail in the Constitution. But I would not be at all comfortable with the group being able to place their own standards each time they meet... which is something that could happen and I would argue is not at all desirable.

What I would hope we could do, is have a Bill that outlines the operation of this reform, in concert with the amendment that institutes it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

But that raises the conflict of interest concerning whether the Senate should set the qualification for the electoral boundaries affecting half its body. I'm not opposed to it in the right circumstances, but I would have to hear more about what exactly you would suggest in this instance.

I would need to think more about it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Just pooping in here to remind Senators that based on the schedule outlined in the current text, this process would need to be completed - along with ratification - by May 3rd in order to go into effect for the August elections. This means that the bill would need to clear the Senate no later than the 26th to allow for seven-day voting periods in the regions.

Ah, I had been wondering about this part.