US House Redistricting: Maine

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Your Bangor Daily News link is broken.

Here are the maps (from Daily Kos) for those too lazy to click through:



The Democratic plan is what was discussed above -- it just moves Vassalboro from ME-01 to ME-02.

[Kevinstat]

Your Bangor Daily News link is broken.

Fixed.

The BDN article has the same maps as Daily Kos.

In the Republican plan, ME-01 exceeds ME-02 in population by 1 person.  In the Democratic plan, ME-02 exceeds ME-01 in population by 11 people.  The Republicans seem to be making a big deal out of that, which Democrats are scoffing at.  Of course, in both plans ME-01 probably has more people than ME-02, and yes I know courts don't consider that but still.

[BigSkyBob]

Your Bangor Daily News link is broken.

Fixed.

The BDN article has the same maps as Daily Kos.

In the Republican plan, ME-01 exceeds ME-02 in population by 1 person.  In the Democratic plan, ME-02 exceeds ME-01 in population by 11 people.  The Republicans seem to be making a big deal out of that, which Democrats are scoffing at.  Of course, in both plans ME-01 probably has more people than ME-02, and yes I know courts don't consider that but still.

Not going to a difference of one is political incompetence.

[jimrtex]

Your Bangor Daily News link is broken.

Here are the maps (from Daily Kos) for those too lazy to click through:



The Democratic plan is what was discussed above -- it just moves Vassalboro from ME-01 to ME-02.

So are the 300,000; actually 150,000 persons shifted both ways? 

[Brittain33]

Yes, it looks like 150,000 people move from ME-2 to ME-1 and a different 150,000 people move from ME-1 to ME-2, plus or minus changes because the districts aren't balanced in population now.

[Torie]

Is there something special about the rules of the road in drawing Maine CD's? 

[Bacon King]

Is there something special about the rules of the road in drawing Maine CD's? 

It's a bipartisan "advisory" commission that draws the lines; the legislature isn't required to follow the map they draw but I'm not sure in practice if that ever happens.

[Torie]

Is there something special about the rules of the road in drawing Maine CD's? 

It's a bipartisan "advisory" commission that draws the lines; the legislature isn't required to follow the map they draw but I'm not sure in practice if that ever happens.

So the maps the parties drew their respective maps to lobby the advisory commission?

[Bacon King]

Is there something special about the rules of the road in drawing Maine CD's? 

It's a bipartisan "advisory" commission that draws the lines; the legislature isn't required to follow the map they draw but I'm not sure in practice if that ever happens.

So the maps the parties drew their respective maps to lobby the advisory commission?

I'm posting on my phone right now so I can't check, but I assume those maps are the official proposals of the respective parties on the board (for the record, the 15 member board consists of both state party chairmen, five legislators from each party, a private citizen selected by both parties, and a third citizen selected by the two other citizens). 

[Kevinstat]

Is there something special about the rules of the road in drawing Maine CD's?  

It's a bipartisan "advisory" commission that draws the lines; the legislature isn't required to follow the map they draw but I'm not sure in practice if that ever happens.

So the maps the parties drew their respective maps to lobby the advisory commission?

I'm posting on my phone right now so I can't check, but I assume those maps are the official proposals of the respective parties on the board (for the record, the 15 member board consists of both state party chairmen, five legislators from each party, a private citizen selected by both parties, and a third citizen selected by the two other citizens).  

You are correct.

And Torie, read this thread from the beginning and you'll probably get a good idea as to how "special" the rules of the road are for the current congressional redistricting.  There's nothing special as far as the Legislature and Governor being able to do whatever they want (although they'd be best to "notwithstand" the statutory 2/3 requirement even though that arguably only applies to redistricting in years ending in '3' and not to the current court-ordered congressional redistricting).  But please don't try to get national groups involved (they may be already) to make sure a pro-Republican plan goes through.  Stay out of my state's redistricting, darn it!

[Kevinstat]

My entry won in the "Official Congressional Districts" category of the Dirige Blue Congressional Redistricting Contest, but the way.  I've won a polo shirt or any item of equal or lesser value at that web site's store.

My winning entry is the new proposed plan of the Democratic members of the apportionment commission, according to Dirigo Blue.  The plan is also mentioned on the Maine House Democrats' redistricting page as the "China Vassalboro plan," with the Democrats' original plan being called the "Vassalboro plan".

[Kevinstat]

I've done some research since my last post and have found a press release of the House Democrats showing that the "China Vassalboro" plan is their new plan, while as for the Republicans there's one article suggesting the Republicans have a new plan which has Chellie Pingree's hometown in the first district so it must be a major change, unless they just flipped the numbers of the districts (or did that and made changes that wouldn't qualify as a "major change"), and another article, that is probably more accurate, that Republicans have discussed other options with the Democrats, but haven't changed their official plan.

Also, a conservative columnist in the Portland Press Herald pretty much urges the Republicans to use their majority for all it's worth.

[Kevinstat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source (I haven't found any story on the lawsuit outside Dirigo Blue yet)

Scribd download of Complaint

[Kevinstat]

Last Tuesday was the Commission to Reapportion Maine's Congressional Districts' public hearing, and an eventful one it was.

The Friday before, the Republicans showed the designated Democratic negotiator on the commission, but did not unveil to the public, a map they described as a "consensus map" that would have just moved towns in Kennebec County, but would have moved Waterville back into the first district and, according to the designated Democratic negotiator, shifted about 3,000 Republicans (presumably net Republicans minus Democrats) into the second district (as opposed to about 10,000 Republicans in the original - and still current at this point - Republican plan).  The Democrats didn't get back to the Republicans until Monday or Tuesday and called it a "good starting point," which Republican State Senate Majority Leader Debra Plowman said was "not exactly what we were expecting for a response."  (She later referred to the offer as having been "our give."  "You make a settlement offer in a trial and it get's turned down you go back to the original position.")  There may have already been some dissention in the Republican ranks as to that offer, feeling they were giving up to much, and Republicans seemed to feel that Democrats were stalling so they could continue to beat up the Republicans in the press over their original plan.  So the Republicans withdrew that offer (which I'm still not sure exactly what it was; and I think that's the case for most non-insiders), and Plowman re-presented their original map at the beginning of the public hearing.  Democratic State Senator Seth Goodall described both their original "Vassalboro plan" and their "compromise" (although it favors the Democrats in the second district about the same as the Vassalboro plan would) "China-Vassalboro" plan (the one I submitted in the Dirigo Blue Congressional Redistricting Contest) in his presentation after Plowman's and a brief corrallary of another Republican commission member.  A good column about this, in my opinion, although from a reporter conservatives in Maine can't stand.

Then the real fun began.  The public testimonies, around 50 of them (one of them mine), were overwhelmingly (I've heard of a 4:1 ratio) in favor of one of the two Democratic plans or a compromise but implicitly one along those lines.

I lost a lot of what I had composed yesterday due to a storm, but for some more information about the hearing, specifically the main sideshow.

http://www.pinetreepolitics.com/2011/08/24/susan-cook-is-a-lunatic/ (conservative take on Maine Democratic Party Secretary Susan Cook’s speech, with the speech itself shown)
http://www.pressherald.com/news/personal-attack-sparks-gop-ire_2011-08-24.html (article on the controversy)

The next meeting of the commission was supposed to be today, but was delayed to tomorrow by Hurricane (or just Tropical Storm in Maine) Irene.  The Republicans will apparently unveil a new “compromise” map before that meeting, which will have Waterville in the second district but will move Androscoggin County to the first.  The Democrats might prefer the withdrawn Waterville shift plan better.

[Kevinstat]

It seems like the Democrats think that because non-emergancy legislation doesn't go into effect until 90 days after the end of the session in which it is passed, any non-emergency congressional redistricting bill enacted in the special session beginning on September 27 will not meet the federal three judge court's September 30 deadline for the Legislature to enact a map, or even the November 15, 2010 deadline for the Maine Supreme Court to enact a plan (unless they were deemed authorized to enact one, or deemed themselves so authorized, after October 1 arrived without a redistricting plan having gone into effect).  I think the federal court would consider the legislature to have met it's deadline if the bill is signed on or before September 30, provided it goes into effect before the end of the year (and thus before candidates can start circulating nominating petitions).  As Maine's state constitutional provisions for the enacting of legislation provide for a people's veto (see sections 17 and 20 here, I don't think it would be correct for the three judge court to deem the matter settled as soon a Governor LePage's signature slides across the bill (unless it was enacted with an emergency preamble," but if no application for such a people's veto is submitted withing 10 business days of the end of the session (see subsection 1 here), or if that group failed to submit enough signatures by the 90-day deadline, or if and when the group were determined by the Secretary of State's Office to have come up short in valid signatures, the court would be able to declare the case settled.  If a group files an application by the 10 business day deadline, the court might decide to conditually impose the plan that some are attempting to veto conditionally upon it's suspension and perhaps repeal by the voters (I say conditionally as the court would not neet to impose it if the people's veto process had failed by the end of the year), but the court might make such conditional "court enactment" of that legislation only apply for the 2012 primary and general elections and any special elections to the Congress elected in 2012, as there would be plenty of time for the plaintiffs to get relief from having their vote dilluted in 2014, in 2016, etc, through the legislative process or through future litigation.  Under current Maine law there would be a redistricting a congressional redisricting in 2013 if the existing districts aren't equal in population as of the 2010 census by that time, which they wouldn't be if a people's veto of a Republican redistricting plan succeeded in 2012.  If both this hypothetical people's veto question and the actual constitutional amendment that will be on the ballot this November (that would rule out any congressional redistricting before 2021) were to both pass, than a plan would have to be put in place by a federal court for each election through 2020, and perhaps in that case the three judge court, if it's still presiding over Desena et al v. State of Maine et al by that time, might "permanently" (through the 2020 primary and general elections and any special elections to the Congress elected in 2020) "enact" the suspended or repealed redistricting plan.  They might conditionally "permanantly enact" that plan as soon as the constitutional amendment was deemed to have been ratified by the voters, as it would be clear that under the Maine Constitution there would be no polical remedy for the plaintiffs until 2021.

[jimrtex]

It seems like the Democrats think that because non-emergancy legislation doesn't go into effect until 90 days after the end of the session in which it is passed, any non-emergency congressional redistricting bill enacted in the special session beginning on September 27 will not meet the federal three judge court's September 30 deadline for the Legislature to enact a map, or even the November 15, 2010 deadline for the Maine Supreme Court to enact a plan (unless they were deemed authorized to enact one, or deemed themselves so authorized, after October 1 arrived without a redistricting plan having gone into effect).  I think the federal court would consider the legislature to have met it's deadline if the bill is signed on or before September 30, provided it goes into effect before the end of the year (and thus before candidates can start circulating nominating petitions).  As Maine's state constitutional provisions for the enacting of legislation provide for a people's veto (see sections 17 and 20 here, I don't think it would be correct for the three judge court to deem the matter settled as soon a Governor LePage's signature slides across the bill (unless it was enacted with an emergency preamble," but if no application for such a people's veto is submitted withing 10 business days of the end of the session (see subsection 1 here), or if that group failed to submit enough signatures by the 90-day deadline, or if and when the group were determined by the Secretary of State's Office to have come up short in valid signatures, the court would be able to declare the case settled.  If a group files an application by the 10 business day deadline, the court might decide to conditually impose the plan that some are attempting to veto conditionally upon it's suspension and perhaps repeal by the voters (I say conditionally as the court would not neet to impose it if the people's veto process had failed by the end of the year), but the court might make such conditional "court enactment" of that legislation only apply for the 2012 primary and general elections and any special elections to the Congress elected in 2012, as there would be plenty of time for the plaintiffs to get relief from having their vote dilluted in 2014, in 2016, etc, through the legislative process or through future litigation.  Under current Maine law there would be a redistricting a congressional redisricting in 2013 if the existing districts aren't equal in population as of the 2010 census by that time, which they wouldn't be if a people's veto of a Republican redistricting plan succeeded in 2012.  If both this hypothetical people's veto question and the actual constitutional amendment that will be on the ballot this November (that would rule out any congressional redistricting before 2021) were to both pass, than a plan would have to be put in place by a federal court for each election through 2020, and perhaps in that case the three judge court, if it's still presiding over Desena et al v. State of Maine et al by that time, might "permanently" (through the 2020 primary and general elections and any special elections to the Congress elected in 2020) "enact" the suspended or repealed redistricting plan.  They might conditionally "permanantly enact" that plan as soon as the constitutional amendment was deemed to have been ratified by the voters, as it would be clear that under the Maine Constitution there would be no polical remedy for the plaintiffs until 2021.

If the plan by the legislature is constitutional, then it preempts the federal court.  The court will consider whether the plan would provide a OMOV election for November 2012, and if it does, they won't quibble about missing one of their deadlines.

If there is a referendum and the plan is suspended, then they have two plans:

The 2002 plan which was lawfully enacted but is now unconstitutional; and a proposed plan passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, but is subject to popular veto.  A federal court will choose a starting point.  I suspect that they will start with the current map which was actual enacted law and constitutional until now (and would be used for special elections before next November), and would probably   They would likely make the minimum change that is necessary, which is to switch the one town, which switches the fewest voters.  They would likely note that the plan that is subject to popular veto had never actually become law, and refuse to even consider whether it complied with OMOV.

Maine could then change their plan at any time.

In Minnesota, the legislature had passed a plan and it was found to have technical errors.  A state court then ordered that plan be used with technical changes.  The legislature then passed the plan with the technical changes, but this was vetoed by the governor.  The federal appeals court then ruled that the plan approved by the state court was the Minnesota law; and not the identical plan passed by the legislature and vetoed by the governor (the veto was legitimate, but the judicial plan was already in place).   The appeals court was mainly slapping down the federal district judge who trying to take over.

So the Maine supreme court could also get involved.  They didn't rule the current plan to be unconstitutional, but they are bound by the federal court decision.  They probably have more freedom to craft their own decision, which would be approved in a party-line vote of the judges.

In California in the 1980s(?) there were referendums on both the congressional and legislative plans.  The state supreme court ordered that the congressional plan passed by the legislature be used, since it had enough districts; while the legislative plan from the previous decade be used for the senate and assembly.  But that didn't follow a decision that the existing plans were unconstitutional.

[minionofmidas]

My entry won in the "Official Congressional Districts" category of the Dirige Blue Congressional Redistricting Contest, but the way.  I've won a polo shirt or any item of equal or lesser value at that web site's store.

My winning entry is the new proposed plan of the Democratic members of the apportionment commission, according to Dirigo Blue. 

This should be sufficient reason for all of us to support its adoption.

Has anybody calculated the partisan outcome of the R map? Can't be hugely different.

[Kevinstat]

Last-ditch efforts on redistricting unlikely to produce compromise (Bangor Daily News)

The Gardiner-Vassalboro plan shown in that article is the majority (8 to 7, after an initial 7 to 7 vote with the Independent member obstaining) plan of the Commission to Reapportion Maine's Congressional Districts.  The Republicans released a new plan (also shown in that article) that had ME-01 stretching to Knox County but also including Androscoggin County (accomplished by putting northwestern Cumberland County in ME-02 and a crude split of Lincoln County), but either when the Democrats didn't support that plan or when the Independent member of the commission decided to vote for the Democratic plan, they went back to their initial plan which they voted in as the minority report.

Commission approves Democratic redistricting plan; GOP ready to approve its own plan (Lewiston Sun Journal)

Mentions the constitutional amendment that my State Representative sponsored at my request, although back then it only proposed to move of legislative redistricting after 2013 ahead two years (my aim at the time was to do the same thing for congressional redistricting, county commissioner redistricting, etc. in a companion bill making statutory changes).  The Democrats are saying it would be hypocritical of the Republicans to pass a majority plan after "unanimously" (there was a division with 7 State Representatives voting Nay, perhaps all Democrats) supporting a constitutional resolution ensuring that future congressional redraws will require 2/3 support in the Legislature (or go to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court).  Where were they in June when they let the Republcians insert that requirement in (and prohibit any changes to congressional districts after the constitutional amendment goes into effect until 2021) with no guarantee they would not ram through their own plan this year?  I'm sure Republican legislators and others who worked for the bill are chuckling.

If only I'd expressed my concerns about the late amendment to the bill to Democratic Legislators and not counted on the Vice Chair of the Democratic Party (the one whose arguments the three judge panel slammed in their ruling as jimrtex described) to pass them along.  I had a correspondence on redistricting going with her though and she was clearly concerned about the motivations behind the lawsuit when that was going on so I figured giving her a heads up was all I needed to do.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Democrats incompetent, there's a new headline for you...

[Kevinstat]

Maine redistricting could sway presidential race (Stateline.org)

Political Pulse: Presidential implications for Maine's redistricting fight? (Lewiston Sun Journal)

[Kevinstat]

GOP Tries to Out Maneuver Dems on Maine Redistricting (Maine Public Broadcasting)

Maine Republicans may suspend rules to pass their redistricting plan (Bangor Daily News)

Contained in the BDN article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it looks like the Republican party whip will be involved, not that that's a surprise.

The map of the Democratic plan in the BDN article is the map of the first Democratic proposal, which had a difference of 11 people between the two districts, rather than the plan the Democrats are now supporting (the majority plan of this year's reapportionment commission) which has a population difference of one.  You can view their current plan here with a close up on the changes here.

Bill Nemitz: GOP ready to go out of bounds on district lines (Maine Sunday Telegram)

I had to post some liberal commentary.  Nemitz did, however, write in an earlier column that the Democrats "need to accept that they no longer control the Legislature – where the new lines ultimately will be drawn – and thus they're in no position to hold out for "a few changes.""

Maine People's Voting Coalition promises people's veto if GOP bypasses 2/3 vote law (Dirigo Blue)

[Kevinstat]

Compromise looking likely on congressional redistricting (Bangor Daily News)

The Republicans finally unveiled their proposed "consensus map" from August that keeps the changes entirely in Kennebec County, but moves Waterville and Winslow into the first district.  It looks a little ugly, but compared to most other states it's neet, especially considering no municiaplities are being split and the proposed districts differ in population by the minimum 1 person.  The last three plans adopted had population differences of 8 (iirc), 6 and 23 in as of the 1980, 1990 and 2000 censuses respectively.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Compromise plan approved nearly unanimously.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

If I've got my sums right, here are the new numbers on Maine's districts:

ME-01 - 61.0 Obama, 37.3 McCain; 55.6 Kerry, 42.7 Bush
ME-02 - 54.2 Obama, 43.8 McCain; 51.6 Kerry, 46.7 Bush

The old ones were:

ME-01 - 60.5 Obama, 37.7 McCain; 55.1 Kerry, 43.1 Bush
ME-02 - 54.6 Obama, 43.3 McCain; 52.1 Kerry, 46.2 Bush

So, ME-02 gains about 1% of Republican performance.

[Kevinstat]

Voters to tackle redistricting rules with Question 4 (AP article (my link takes you to the article on the Bangor Daily News, but it's also on other online newspapers like the Washington Examiner))

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm the "activist constituent" mentioned.  The article doesn't mention that the original draft of the constitutional resolution had nothing to do with the 2/3 rule (it only dealt with Legislative redistricting that already had the 2/3 rule in the Maine Constitution)*, but it's a pretty good article as far as modern-day news articles go.  I pitched the bill to Representative Maloney (D-Augusta, also mentioned in the article) and a fairly nearby Democratic State Senator in the same e-mail in which I pitched it to my two Republican legislators.  Keschl responded first and Maloney responded a few days later and seemed to defer to Keschl but was happy to co-sponsor the bill.  She and the other Democratic co-sponsor (who had turned against the bill even before the initial redistricting lawsuit was launched, at the public hearing when it became known that I frequented a conservative Maine web site where she had been spoken poorly of) ended up doing a press conference that was I think the day before the special "redistricting session" (which also passed a bath salts bill) convened, when it still looked like the Repulicans were going to ram through their original plan and the Democrats were going to respond with a people's veto signature drive.

*I had submitted proposed text of a companion bill making the same timing changes to Maine's statutory provisions for non-legislative redistricting in Maine, which Keschl submitted to the Revisor's Office but they refused to draft, citing a 1941 Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruling that basically said that if something is precluded by language in the Maine Constitution, it can't be changed even conditionally upon a constitutional amendment removing that barrier.  You have to wait until after the constitutional is amended.  There's nothing currently in the Maine Constitution about non-legislative redistricting but there is about the Apportionment Commission, which current Maine statutes give a roll in congressional and county commissioner redistricting.  As I wasn't aware of the 1941 ruling, I kept the statutory references to Maine's Apportionment Commission in my proposed companion bill while changing the year, making the bill conditinoal upon the constitutional amendment being adopted.

Interestingly, you can make a bill or part of a bill conditional upon the adoption of a state constitutional amendment in Maine if it's something that would be constitutional even without any constitutional amendment.  Like if you're proposing to change the length of Legislator's terms from 2 to 4 years (a constitutional issue) but want to keep Maine's term limits (defined in statute by the number of consecutive terms, rather than a continuous time period) at 8 years without enshrining term limits in the Maine Constitution, you could draft a companion bill to reduce the number of consecutive terms a Legislator could serve in one chamber from 4 to 2 (perhaps with some clever transition language so a Legislator could serve two two-year terms followed by one four-year term), conditional upon the Maine Constitution being amended to change the length of terms after such and such a year to four years.  Such a constitutional amendment and a conpanion bill have been proposed multiple times in the past (although the companion bill is often rather poorly drafted in my opinion), but neither have ever gotten close to getting past the Legislature as far as I can tell.