Maine Legislative (and other non-congressional) Redistricting

[Kevinstat]

Maine commission unanimously approves redistricting (Kennebec Journal)

Lawmakers tentatively agree on new boundaries for Maine legislative districts (Bangor Daily News)

[Kevinstat]

The most in-depth maps I've been able to find so far:

Senate (Full screen)

House (Full screen)

Unfortunately the House map has several pairs (and at least one trio, although only one of those three may border the other two) of House districts in the same color, so it's not incredibly useful.  The House map from this article, which I can't get to zoom in and which has annoying partial population figures, might be useful in showing the rough boundaries between those districts.

[Kevinstat]

Senate plan PDF

I haven't seen a similar document for the House plan yet, nor have I seen either maps (online) or components files for the proposed county commissioner districts.  I saw maps of the proposed CC districts for 15 counties at the commission's public hearing a week before yesterday (Oxford County was still outstanding at the time) but I didn't commit much to memory.

[Kevinstat]

Maine redistricting bill awaits LePage approval (Portland Press Herald)

VoteTrac: Reapportionment  (This is a neat feature I hadn't noticed before; I'm sure there are VoteTracs on other legislation - I'm just really focused on redistricting)

-----

Until it becomes law (if it does, which it probably will but the Governor has vetoed some legislation that passed without any opposition and the Republicans actually voted to sustain those vetoes*; where Legislator's seats at state it might be a different story), a copy of the engrossed bill (reflecting the adopted amendment) won't be available online.  But the bill and amendments can both be viewed (in .asp, PDF and MS Word formats) here (other information shown here).

*In fairness to the Republicans, the veto of one bill that lawmakers in both parties had supported was sustained unanimously.  Perhaps legislators plan to address some of the Governors concerns in legislation later this session (although there isn't much time) or in next year's session.

[muon2]

How important are the counties in Maine's redistricting? There seems to be some following of the lines, but clearly towns are most important as they are elsewhere in New England.

[Kevinstat]

How important are the counties in Maine's redistricting? There seems to be some following of the lines, but clearly towns are most important as they are elsewhere in New England.

There's no mention of counties in the provisions for legislative redistricting (or congressional redistricting, FYI), although the clause that "Each Representative District ... shall cross political subdivision lines the least number of times necessary to establish as nearly as practicable equally populated districts" arguably gives county boundaries some weight as "political subdivision lines."  In practice, they're largely followed for the big hunking Senate districts in largely unorganized territory where otherwise it might be difficult for people to know what district they're in (not that most people know who their state legislators are or what state legislative district they're in anyway).  They're followed less in House districts, I've noticed.

Until the 1968 elections (although I'm not entirely certian there weren't any exceptions in the 1800s or early 1900s) the counties were the State Senate districts, although before 1932 they actually had numbers (even though the House districts, which could have in many cases used them, didn't) which makes it difficult to be certain all the way back to 1820.  In theory the "districts" (counties) were to elect a number of Senators proportional to their population, but in practice the Legislature had wavered from that in their decennial apportionments until in 1931 a state Constitutional amendment was adopted creating a "sliding scale" formula.  Counties with less than 30K people would elect one Senator; counties with between 30K and 60K people would elect two; between 60K and 120K, three; between 120K and 30K, four; and greater than 140K, five.  That resulted in the number of Senators, which had been fixed at 31 in the Maine Constitution up to that point, going up to 33 (it went up to 34 for the 1962 elections when Penobscot County passed the 120K threshold).

In the House, before the 1974 elections, districts were entirely within a county, and municipalities couldn't be divided, and only the single-member districts could combine municipaliteis.  They didn't have to be contiguous though (Harpswell was in a district with Casco and Naples from the 1922 though 1954 elections, and in with Scarborough for 10 years before that).  Apportionment of the districts between counties was proportional in theory (roughly but not perfectly in practice; Penobscot County once was apparently happy to forfeit it's second new House seat to Oxford County so they could just give another seat to Bangor and call it good without rearraging the "classes" (districts) in the smaller towns).  But there was a limit of 7 Representatives to an individual municipality that affected Portland, thus giving the rest of Cumberland County greater representation not only than Portland but the rest of the state, at least on average.  There was also a provision, added to the Maine Constitution in either the early 1930s or in 1950, I forget which, that fractional excesses in a county's due number of representatives were awarded in favor of the smaller counties.  I'm sure it wasn't the intent, but that meant that theoreticaly a smaller county could have one more representative than a sligthly larger county, dependine on how the numbers crunched.  I'm not awere of that having happened, although that did happen in a couple instances on the Senate side (a smaller county having more Senators) in the period before the adoption of the "sliding scale" formula.  Some of that could have been ethnic politics (or party politics in a time when ethnicity largely dictated party) as the two examples I'm aware of are Kennebec County having 3 Senators to Androscoggin County's 2 in the 1920s despite Androscoggin County having more people and Somerset County having 2 Senators to Oxford County's 1 (also in the 1920s if I recall correctly) despite Oxford County having more people.  Androscoggin County was dominated by Fronco-Americans and Oxford County also had a significant Franco-American population in towns like Rumford and Mexico.  Perhaps more relevantly, Androscoggin County was the one Democratic stronghold in the state and Oxford County was at least far less Republican than the state as a whole at that time.

As far as I can tell, from personally looking at districts and some statements in the Legislaive record and a case study of reapportionment in Maine that I've read, the House Districts were the same, and elected the same number of Represenatives, from the 1922 through 1954 elections, except that the city of Bath in Sagadahoc County lost it's third seat to Rockland (a city now but it might not have been then) in Knox County, which gained a second State Representative, for the 1932 election and on (until the end of that 1922-54 period, and beyond until 1974 in the case of Bath - not sure about Rockland).  There were apportionments passed by the Legislature in 1931 or 1941, but they just extended the current districts for another 10 years (with the exception of the Bath and Rockland changes in 1931).

The worst (by modern day one person one vote standards) of the Maine Constitutional provisions for House and Senate districts were gotten rid of for the House effective for the 1964 elections (Portland's House delegation was 4-3 Democratic going into that election and 11-0 Democratic coming out - thank you, Barry Goldwater) and in the Senate effective for the 1968 elections, but the Senate districts could still vary +/- 10% from an extablished 30,000 figure and the House districts still couldn't divide municipalities (or combine municipalities if it elected more than one Represenative), and the House districs still couldn't cross county lines.

I have to get going now but I'll describe the 1970s House and Senate redistricting drama, and the end of any "official" role of counties in Maine's redistricting process, sometime later.

[Kevinstat]

Tomorrow, June 17 (10 days other than Sundays after the law was passed to be enacted in the second chamber) is the last day for Governor LePage to veto the redistricting bill.  Nobody seems to think he's going to, but the Governor does have a habit of waiting until the last day to veto legislation.

[Kevinstat]

Tomorrow, June 17 (10 days other than Sundays after the law was passed to be enacted in the second chamber) is the last day for Governor LePage to veto the redistricting bill.  Nobody seems to think he's going to, but the Governor does have a habit of waiting until the last day to veto legislation.

I hate it when I lose what I've composed because I didn't use Microsoft Word.  That just happened.  When that happens, I tend to be a little choppier when I try again.  So here goes.

From looking at this page (rather than this one), I see that the Governor signed the redistricting bill on Friday.

Four towns in Cumberland County (Cumberland, Chebeague Island, Long Island and Yarmouth), which last voted for a county commissioner in 2008 (for the standard 4-year term), will not get to vote for one again until 2016.  That 4-year deferral (and a 5-year acceleration for some towns in that county) is possible by the combination of a 2011 redistricting which I believe used 2009 estimates (it must have been done before the final census figures came out) to accomodate the expansion of the board of commissioners from 3 members to 5 and the normal redistricting in 2013.  The towns experiencing 4-year deferral were in a "Presidential Class" district (my own terminology) in 2010, a "Gubernatorial Class" district in 2012, and will be in a "Presidential Class" district in 2014.  Those four towns all went for Elliot Cutler in the 2010 Gubernatorial Election.  The towns of Gray and New Gloucester, on the other hand, were in a "Gubernatorial class" district in 2010, a district without an incumbent commissioner in 2011, that by coin flip between the two new commissioners became a "Presidential Class" district in 2012 (the newly elected commissioner having to run again after one year; I'm not sure if he/she was reelected), and now those towns will be back in a "Gubernatorial Class" district in 2014.  Both those towns went to LePage in 2010.  I noticed all this last weekend but didn't think the Governor would be moved to veto the bill based on that, considering the towns that were adversely affected.  That's probably my Democratic bias showing when I think about it.  At the public hearing I attended in May, although I didn't speak about the possible four-year deferral of some Cumberland County voters, nobody seemed too concerned about that phenomenon, even when I mentioned a municipality that was about to be deferred that was deferred 10 years earlier when it was shifted the other way.

Somerset County also expanded to five members in 2011, and it was during my efforts today to see what the case was there that I saw that the bill had been signed.  I just determined the deferral/acceleration results there, and they're not nearly as bad as in Cumberland County (no voters who don't move will be or have been "deferred" during this period, and the maximum acceleration that can be acheived without moving is 3 years), but I did notice something else.  A county commissioner in Somerset County who was reelected to a four-year term in 2012 has his hometown moved to a district with another commissioner whose term is up in 2014.  But the law says that the former district is to elect commissioners in 2016 and every four years therafter while the latter district is to elect commissioners in 2014 and every ten years thereafter.  I think there is a requirement in state law that county commissioners reside in the district they're representing, and county politics in Somerset County has been controversial, so someone might argue that a special election will have to be held in District 2 (that's the district a commissioner reelected in 2012 is being moved out of) due to that guy no longer being elligible.  Of course, he could run against the relatively new commissioner in his new district next year.  Somerset County established non-partisan elections in it's charter adopted in 2010, but the commissioner whose town was moved out of his district (unless he's moved since the last election) was elected as a Republican previously.  He was also a critic of the charter process and the expansion of the board of commissioners.

[jimrtex]

At the public hearing I attended in May, although I didn't speak about the possible four-year deferral of some Cumberland County voters, nobody seemed too concerned about that phenomenon, even when I mentioned a municipality that was about to be deferred that was deferred 10 years earlier when it was shifted the other way.

They ought to give the commissioners the option of having their terms truncated, or permitting anyone in the county whose representation is deferred being exempt from property taxes.

[Kevinstat]

At the public hearing I attended in May, although I didn't speak about the possible four-year deferral of some Cumberland County voters, nobody seemed too concerned about that phenomenon, even when I mentioned a municipality that was about to be deferred that was deferred 10 years earlier when it was shifted the other way.

They ought to give the commissioners the option of having their terms truncated, or permitting anyone in the county whose representation is deferred being exempt from property taxes.

Do any counties actually do that?

The logical extension of that would be deferred (in the State Senate) residents of California having their income tax bill cut in half for two years (they're not deferred in State House/Assembly elections).  

Given the number of states that allow voters to have deferred representation in the State Senate, I imagine that allowing deferral on county boards of commissioners, which are probably much lower profile in most states, is the norm.

[Kevinstat]

At the public hearing I attended in May, although I didn't speak about the possible four-year deferral of some Cumberland County voters, nobody seemed too concerned about that phenomenon, even when I mentioned a municipality that was about to be deferred that was deferred 10 years earlier when it was shifted the other way.

They ought to give the commissioners the option of having their terms truncated, or permitting anyone in the county whose representation is deferred being exempt from property taxes.

I could see states doing that, and having the process proceed like it would if that person's term were up that year anyway (so no resignation and seeking appointment to replace oneself before running in a special election for the second half of one's own term - that's what would have to happen in Maine).  But if the commissioner says, "I'll serve out my term, thank you very much," I imagine the deferred voters just have to suffer through it, like they do in several State Senates for two years in a decade.  You might have been thinking more of the four-year deferral in Cumberland County.  I imagine four-year deferrals have happened before when boards of commissioners expand or districts are challenged but allowed to stand for the first election or districts are redrawn in non-redistricting years for political advantage, but it's probably a lot less common than 2-year deferrals which lawmakers may not see as significant (although I agree that they should).

[jimrtex]

At the public hearing I attended in May, although I didn't speak about the possible four-year deferral of some Cumberland County voters, nobody seemed too concerned about that phenomenon, even when I mentioned a municipality that was about to be deferred that was deferred 10 years earlier when it was shifted the other way.

They ought to give the commissioners the option of having their terms truncated, or permitting anyone in the county whose representation is deferred being exempt from property taxes.

Do any counties actually do that?

There was a bill that would have required it for Texas counties.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Deferred is a euphemism for abridged.

Its only justification is elevating the right to hold office above the right of the people to choose the officers.  America is a republic, not a feudal monarchy.

It may have made sense in an era when districts were unchanged.  It is silly to worry about one voter have 1.1 votes and another having 0.9 votes, while some have 2.0 and others 0.0.

In Texas and Illinois, 1/2 or 1/3 of senators know that when they are elected in 20x0 that it will be for two years.  Voters don't notice one way or another.  "I'll take a chance on Joe Newcomer, since we can replace him in two years", simply doesn't happen.

[jimrtex]

At the public hearing I attended in May, although I didn't speak about the possible four-year deferral of some Cumberland County voters, nobody seemed too concerned about that phenomenon, even when I mentioned a municipality that was about to be deferred that was deferred 10 years earlier when it was shifted the other way.

They ought to give the commissioners the option of having their terms truncated, or permitting anyone in the county whose representation is deferred being exempt from property taxes.

I could see states doing that, and having the process proceed like it would if that person's term were up that year anyway (so no resignation and seeking appointment to replace oneself before running in a special election for the second half of one's own term - that's what would have to happen in Maine).  But if the commissioner says, "I'll serve out my term, thank you very much," I imagine the deferred voters just have to suffer through it, like they do in several State Senates for two years in a decade.  You might have been thinking more of the four-year deferral in Cumberland County.  I imagine four-year deferrals have happened before when boards of commissioners expand or districts are challenged but allowed to stand for the first election or districts are redrawn in non-redistricting years for political advantage, but it's probably a lot less common than 2-year deferrals which lawmakers may not see as significant (although I agree that they should).

I was thinking of it being a collective decision by the board.  They could say depending on how many voters being shafted, whether they want to have a reduced budget for two years.

[Kevinstat]

In Texas and Illinois, 1/2 or 1/3 of senators know that when they are elected in 20x0 that it will be for two years.  Voters don't notice one way or another.  "I'll take a chance on Joe Newcomer, since we can replace him in two years", simply doesn't happen.

I'm going to try to get the Texas method (minus the drawing of lots after the election; I'd have the determination of which seats start with 2-year terms be part of the redistricting bill or court decision) adopted in Maine for county commissioners sometime before 2020 (Maine will be redistricting in 2021 for everything, finally joining most of the nation).  I was initially drawn to the Illinois method, but there you have, in the elections of xyz2, xyz4, xyz6, xyz8, [xyz+1]0 and [xyz+1]2, 100%, 33%, 67%, 67%, 33% and 100% of Senators elected respectively, whereas in Texas it's 100%, 50%, 50%, 50%, 50% and 100%, respectively.  In Illionis, two of the three classes (2-4-4 and 4-4-2) share only one election in a decade, while they each share 2 with the 4-2-4 class.  Of course, 12 of Maine's 16 counties have only 3 commissioners, so the Texas method leaves one district as the oddball (as it currently is in Maine), but just having 2-4-4 and 4-4-2 is simpler and means the staggering runs smoothly with alternating elections through most of the decade.

In 1983, the Maine Legislature enaced emergency legislation providing for the county commissioners to be redrawn that year (they didn't exactly plan ahead), and that legislation provided that if any district changed territory (not just gained it from a district that held elections on different years), that that seat would be up in 1984 even if it had just elected a commissioner in 1982 for what at the time was assumed to be for a four-year term.  County commissioners may not have been paying attention when that bill was going through, but it sure got their attention when the Apportionment Commission, following the new law, announced that several commissioners would have to run again after two years even though, as one commissioner put it, "My certificate that the governor signed said I was elected for four years."  A copy of the 1983 county commissioner redistrricitng plan that I've looked at at the Maine Law and Legislative Refernce Library notes that the Maine County Commissioner's Association wanted the Apportionment Commisssion to get an opinion from the Attorney General as to whether commuting commissioners' terms was constitutional, but the commission saw that as not in their purview but suggesting that the Legislature consider action.  In the end, what seemed to hape happened was that the commissioners who had to run in 1984 after only two years (or their sucessors) got to serve a 6-year term after 1984, which was apparently enough to stave off a lawsuit.  I'm not sure what happened in the 1990s but in the 2003 law codifying the new districts it was explicitly made clear that "A person holding the office of county commissioner on September 13, 2003 continues to serve the remainder of the term for which elected. Candidates for the office of county commissioner for districts in which the term of office expires in 2004 will run for office for the districts established in this section. As of January 1, 2005, all county commissioners represent the districts established in this section, regardless of when elected."

[jimrtex]

In Texas and Illinois, 1/2 or 1/3 of senators know that when they are elected in 20x0 that it will be for two years.  Voters don't notice one way or another.  "I'll take a chance on Joe Newcomer, since we can replace him in two years", simply doesn't happen.

I'm going to try to get the Texas method (minus the drawing of lots after the election; I'd have the determination of which seats start with 2-year terms be part of the redistricting bill or court decision) adopted in Maine for county commissioners sometime before 2020 (Maine will be redistricting in 2021 for everything, finally joining most of the nation).  I was initially drawn to the Illinois method, but there you have, in the elections of xyz2, xyz4, xyz6, xyz8, [xyz+1]0 and [xyz+1]2, 100%, 33%, 67%, 67%, 33% and 100% of Senators elected respectively, whereas in Texas it's 100%, 50%, 50%, 50%, 50% and 100%, respectively.  In Illionis, two of the three classes (2-4-4 and 4-4-2) share only one election in a decade, while they each share 2 with the 4-2-4 class.  Of course, 12 of Maine's 16 counties have only 3 commissioners, so the Texas method leaves one district as the oddball (as it currently is in Maine), but just having 2-4-4 and 4-4-2 is simpler and means the staggering runs smoothly with alternating elections through most of the decade.

The Texas Constitution doesn't actually say that the last terms may be truncated, but it does require that a new senate be elected after every apportionment.  So it was known that senators elected in 2010 for a "four-year term" would have to face election again in 2012.

The senate was redistricted in 1991, which was redrawn by a state court and a federal court in 1991, and a special session of the legislature in 1992.  The last plan did not gain preclearance until late in the summer, and the 1992 election was based on the federal-court drawn plan.  Terms were drawn in 1993, but since the 1992-special-session plan was used in 1994, all senators ran, and terms were drawn again.

The 1994 districts were challenged in court, and as part of a consent decree, the senate acknowledged the districts, but did not actually enact them.  An Attorney General opinion said that was not actually an "apportionment" and so those who had drawn 2-year terms in 1995 ran in new districts in 1996.  Those who had drawn 4-year terms in 1995, did not run in new districts until 1998.

As it turned out, my senator elected in 1994, drew a 2-year term, and did not seek re-election.  I was moved into a district represented by a senator who had drawn a 4-year term.  So between 1996 and 1998 I was represented by a senator who I had not voted for, and the senator I had last voted for was no longer in the senate.

In redistricting in 2001, it was proposed that I be placed in 4 different senate districts, none of which was the one I was placed in from 1996 to 2002.

The lottery system used in Texas deliberately gives 16 senators a 4-year term.  The numbers 1-31 are written on a slip of paper, the slips placed in envelopes and the envelopes placed in a box and stirred.  The senators draw in alphabetical order.  Those who draw an odd number receive a 4-year term.

Hawaii uses the Texas form (half 4-4-2 and half 2-4-4), but the assignment of terms is part of the apportionment plan, and done such that it maximizes the number of persons who have only two elections in the 6-year period beginning with the election before apportionment.

That is residents may be classified based on the last election in the old district (eg 2008 or 2010).  Then the number of 2008-residents and 2010-residents can be tabulated for each new district.  The new districts with the most 2010-residents are assigned 4-year terms.

So as much as possible, voters are 442-R-442, or 244-R-224, and much fewer 244-R-442 or 442-R-244.

This might be particularly a good idea when you have very small bodies (3 or 5 commissioners).  If there are 3 districts, then about 2/3 of voters will be 442-R-442 and the other 1/3 will be 244-R-244 (or 3/5 and 2/5).

This works even if there is an early redistricting.  Imagine that the system was already in place, but that the redistricting was still being advanced two years in the 2020 cycle,

So you would have 242-R-442 and 44-R-244.  In actuality you have (2)42-R-442, where the (2) represent the last 2 years served in an altered district.

[Kevinstat]

I just wrote a whole bunch and lost it just as I was trying to send it, so I'll be very brief (for me at least here.  I'll use snippets even.

Major messes in the law enacted in June re: county commissioners' districts and terms - commissioners in Cumberland and Piscataquis counties would be forced to sit two years out when their term expires next year as their placed in districts with a commissioner who was just elected last year - would be the case in Somerset County but there it's the district with two incumbents that will elect someone next year while the one with none won't, and Maine does have a residency requirement that might render that guy ineligible to keep serving - some terms of commissioners in Androscoggin and Cumberland counties reduced to four years or lengthened to six - one Sagahahoc County commissioner district not contiguous - moving one water census block would make it contiguous without cutting off the other district  - bill requests for 2014 session change or "clarify" commissioners districts and/or terms in Androscoggin, Piscataquis and Sagadahoc counties - Maine Constitution seems to prohibit new changes to the districts before 2021 - Maine Constitution also limits bills to bugetary matters, emergencies, and some other categories that wouldn't apply here, but if naming a state sandwich counts as an emergency... - Legislative Council (6 Ds, 4 Rs - Senate Pres./House Spkr., Maj./Min. Leader and Asst. Maj./Min. Leader in each chamber) to meet this coming Wednesday to decide which bills get drafted - appeals possible with final decision on November 22 - I'm hoping to use these bill requests to advocate for what jimrtex and I were discussing in our last several posts - wrote a mammoth e-mail to the sponsors of the three bills Cc: my Legislators yesterday - haven't heard back yet - stay tuned!

[muon2]

Another provision that might be helpful is to allow individuals adversely affected by redistricting to avoid residency requirements in the first election after the remap. The IL constitution (Art IV Sect 2(c)) says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This doesn't unduly favor current officeholders since it applies to all candidates. It also provides for a time period to move into a new district for those candidates who take advantage of the provision.

[Kevinstat]

All three bill requests dealing with redistricting (or with the redistricting bill passed in June, even if the proposed bill would have been dealing with county commissioner's terms) failed to clear the Legislative Council today (so did the bill to designate the lobster roll as the official state sandwich).  According to the article my last post linked to (okay, you can just click here) to see it, "Lawmakers have until Nov. 6 to file appeals, which would be brought before the council on Nov. 21."

From an article on today's Legislative Council decisions: "Debate was not held during the Legislative Council meeting, but [a sponsor of a bill that failed to win approval today (also a member of the Council)] said he would appeal the Council’s decision in November, when bill sponsors will have a chance to argue their case before the Council."

Still no word from the people I e-mailed on Sunday.

[Kevinstat]

Redistricting shortens Cumberland County commissioner’s term, prevents re-election bid (Bangor Daily News; also in the weekly (I'm pretty sure) The Forecaster, but with a less descriptive title)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Kevinstat]

When I first wrapped my head around the new districts and the initial term endings listed in the law, I thought that Mark Grover would simply go from being the District 3 commissioner to being the District 2 commissioner when current District 2 commissioner Susan Wintonis's term expired (which was supposed to be at the end of this year, as the article says) and a new District 3 commissioner was elected.  But apparently the fact that the new district where Grover and Wintonis both live keeps Wintonis's district's number (it also has more territory and population from Wintonis's old district then from Grover's) trumped the fact that Grover was elected more recently (both were elected to what was supposed to be a four-year term).  Interestingly, Wintonis went from being the District 3 commissioner to the District 2 commissioner in 2011 when lines were redrawn and two new commissioners elected to expand the Cumberland County Board of Commissioners from three to five members under the county charter adopted in 2010.  All three existing commissioners at that time were placed in districts with a different number from their old districts, but the new districts used 2009 Census estimates if I recall correctly (it might have been very early 2011 when those lines were finalized, I'm not sure) so they weren't within range as of 2010 Census totals.  So that goes against the claim that district numbers trump all.  But Grover announced in early June of last year on his Facebook page (before the Governor had signed the bill, actually) and in a commissioners' comment period of an August commissioners' meeting that his term was being changed to two years (and on Facebook that he would not be able to run in 2014).  So it would be a little late for him to now tell Susan Wintonis now that he thinks he is entitled to serve as the District 2 commissioner (her current position) in 2015 and 2016.

Perhaps this mess will make it more likely that my idea to have a Hawaii-Texas State Senate-style "staggering except in the '2' year" system will be seriously entertained in 2015.  The even-year sessions are more limited.  Requests for new bills (so not countying carry-overs) by legislators for the Second Regular Session (the even-year session) are supposed to be for emergencies or budgetary issues under the Maine Constitution, although it's not really followed in practice.  One legislator put in a request for a bill for this year's session making the lobster roll the Official State Sandwich.  That bill was rejected by the Legislative Council, I'm glad to say (that 10-member body, consisting of the top three majority party members and top two minority party members in each chamber in terms of leadership decides which bills make the cut for the even-year session).

[Kevinstat]

I never mentioned what finally happened with the three bill requests I had mentioned in October.  They all failed.  One of the sponsors didn't appeal the Legislative Council's initial decision to reject his bill requests.  His was the one that seemed to violate the Maine Constitution as it proposed to change the county commissioner districts in his county which now can only be done in 2013-14 (but within a period of time after a certain action that had passed by the time I saw his bill request), then 2021-22, 2031-32, 2041-42, etc.  That wouldn't have violated the Maine Constitution before 2011 as provisions for non-Legislative redistricting weren't in the Maine Constitution.  Adding those provisions was an addition to the state constitutional amendment I had been working on since 2008 to get Maine's Legislative redistricting (and non-Legislative redistricting under a separate bill making statutory changes) aligned with the rest of the nation.

The Legislative Council's rejection of the other two bill requests I had mentioned was appealed but they were rejected again in late November.  I eventually got replies from my two Legislators.  My State Representative, a first-term Democrat (who I had just spoken with at a county committee meeting - the day the appeals were held and the decisions were made - and who had requested I resend my earlier e-mail, but I soon found out that both of the remaining potential bills that e-mail had dealt with had been killed off so I mentioned that at the beginning of the resend of that e-mail) mentioned that "they didn't let many bills through" (although I may be paraphrasing as my old e-mail account crapped out in December) but that all three of her requests went through, with something to the effect of "I don't know how that happened."

My State Senator, a second-term Republican and the Senate Assistant Minority Leader (that kind of thing can happen with term limits), mentioned that (if he recalled correctly - it was only a week or two after that Legislative Council meeting when he replied) the Democratic sponsor of one of the bills didn't even show up to plead its case while the Republican sponsor did speak (his bill would have changed the term expiration dates in Androscoggin County to prevent a situation where two Republican commissioners' terms were shortened from four years to two while a Democratic commissioner's term was extended from four years to six), the bill was rejected by (again, if he recalled correctly) a (would have been 6-4) party line vote and that "I was shaking my head following that vote."  It's interesting the different reactions to arguably partisan decisions you get from members of different parties.

[Kevinstat]

Certain errors in Maine's 2013 law reapportioning the State House, State Senate and County Commissioner districts (such as a whole census tract in the City of Portland not being assigned to a County Commissioner district) were fixed in an emergency election law revision bill the Governor signed Tuesday.  The Androscoggin County issue I had alluded to in an earlier post (two Republican commissioners having their terms cut short while a Democratic commissioner had hers extended, plus two districts with no commissioner living in them that weren't to elect a commissioner until 2016) was fixed as a last minute change (the bill had already been passed to be engrossed (but not enacted) in both chambers).  Androscoggin County has a charter that the commissioner term cycle provisions in the 2013 apportionment law conflicted with, which the summary of the floor amendment mentioned, although the revisions in Tuesday's bill seem to also, but not as badly.  No fixes to the messes in any other counties.

[Kevinstat]

In the 2010 census, the State House "quotas" of Maine's largest municipalities** (those over 0.9/151 of Maine's population in any one of the three following tables), were as follows (with instances where the "Estimates Base" (EB) yields a different quota than the official census numbers noted in parentheses):

=7.6 (8*0.95) "cutoff"=
Portland city 7.5245 (EB 7.5244) (State Senate quota* 1.7441, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs")
=7.35 (7*1.05) "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.1596 (EB 4.1595) (State Senate quota* 0.9641, between 0.95 "cutoff" and 1.0 mark)
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.7557 (EB 3.7539)
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
South Portland city 2.8421 (EB 2.8423)
Auburn city 2.6208 (EB 2.6211)
Biddeford city 2.4186 (EB 2.4185)
Sanford city 2.3642 (EB 2.3634)
Brunswick town 2.3051 (EB 2.3052)
Augusta city 2.1753 (EB 2.1755)
Scarborough town 2.1506 (EB 2.1496)
Saco city 2.1009 (EB 2.1031)
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
=2.0 mark=
Westbrook city 1.9886 (EB 1.9910)
Windham town 1.9326 (EB 1.9321)
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
Gorham town 1.8621 (EB 1.8609)
Waterville city 1.7872 (EB 1.7873)
York town 1.4242 (EB 1.4228)
Falmouth town 1.2714 (EB 1.2709)
Kennebunk town 1.2275 (EB 1.2269)
Orono town 1.1779 (EB 1.1775)
Standish town 1.1224 (EB 1.1222)
Presque Isle city 1.1017
Wells town 1.0900
Kittery town 1.0788 (EB 1.0792)
Brewer city 1.0779 (EB 1.0782)
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0248 (EB 1.0245)
Lisbon town 1.0241 (EB 1.0250)
=1.0 mark=
Topsham town 0.9985 (EB 0.9988)
Old Orchard Beach town 0.9803 (EB 0.9791)
Skowhegan town 0.9763 (EB 0.9758)
Bath city 0.9678
[Old Town city (0.8912 (EB 0.8919)) + Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (0.0693)] 0.9605 (EB 0.9612)
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Yarmouth town 0.9491 (EB 0.9492)
Caribou city 0.9309
Buxton town 0.9133 (EB 0.9134)
Freeport town 0.8956 (EB 0.8955)
...
Gray town 0.8822 (EB 0.8824)
...
Ellsworth city 0.8799
...
Cumberland town 0.8197 (EB 0.8188)

The largest municipalities as and according to the 2018 estimates and their State House "quotas" are as follows:

=7.6 (8*0.95) "cutoff"=
Portland city 7.4932 (State Senate quota* 1.7368, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs")
=7.35 (7*1.05) "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.0552 (State Senate quota* 0.9400, below 0.95 "cutoff")
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.6099
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
South Portland city 2.8889
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
Auburn city 2.6170
Biddeford city 2.4272
Sanford city 2.3899
Brunswick town 2.3107
Scarborough town 2.2961
Saco city 2.2280
Westbrook city 2.1407
Augusta city 2.1076
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
Windham town 2.0803
=2.0 mark=
Gorham town 1.9914
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
Waterville city 1.8780
York town 1.4837
Falmouth town 1.3809
Kennebunk town 1.3007
Orono town 1.2048
Wells town 1.1896
Standish town 1.1376
Kittery town 1.1108
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0507
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Brewer city 1.0211
Presque Isle city 1.0152
Lisbon town 1.0130
Old Orchard Beach town 1.0050
=1.0 mark=
Topsham town 0.9987
Yarmouth town 0.9610
Freeport town 0.9601
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Bath city 0.9397
Buxton town 0.9375
Skowhegan town 0.9312
Gray town 0.9258
Cumberland town 0.9212
Ellsworth city 0.9080
[Old Town city (0.8415) + Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (0.0660)] 0.9075
...
Caribou city 0.8590

Taking the "Estimates base" from April 1, 2010 (usually within a few people of the official numbers) shown in the same Census Bureau tables showing the above estimates, and adding to it the population gains (negative for losses) from that base to July 1, 2018 multiplied by 10/8.25 (I use a linear progression rather than exponential as it has the benefit of municipal projections being the same as county projections), the following are the projected 2020 State House "quotas" for all municipalities (in descending order) with projected (or 2010) quotas above 0.9000:

=7.6 (8*0.95) "cutoff"=
Portland city 7.4867 (State Senate quota* 1.7353, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs")
=7.35 (7*1.05) "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.0333 (State Senate quota* 0.9349, below 0.95 "cutoff")
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.5797
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
South Portland city 2.8987
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
Auburn city 2.6161
Biddeford city 2.4291
Sanford city 2.3955
Scarborough town 2.3269
Brunswick town 2.3118
Saco city 2.2542
Westbrook city 2.1721
Windham town 2.1115
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
Augusta city 2.0933
Gorham town 2.0188
=2.0 mark=
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
Waterville city 1.8971
York town 1.4965
Falmouth town 1.4041
Kennebunk town 1.3162
Orono town 1.2105
Wells town 1.2105
Standish town 1.1408
Kittery town 1.1175
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0562
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Lisbon town 1.0105
Old Orchard Beach town 1.0105
Brewer city 1.0092
=1.0 mark=
Topsham town 0.9987
Presque Isle city 0.9970
Freeport town 0.9737
Yarmouth town 0.9635
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Cumberland town 0.9427
Buxton town 0.9426
Gray town 0.9349
Bath city 0.9338
Skowhegan town 0.9219
Ellsworth city 0.9139
[Old Town city (0.8309) + Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (0.0653)] 0.8962
...
Caribou city 0.8439

*assuming 35 Senators.  With 33 or 31, Lewiston would be too small for a Senate district even under the 2010 Census figures.  Portland would still be comfortably between 1.05 and 1.9 State Senate quotas.

**I grouped Old Town city and the Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (big enough for a House district in 2010, although there are a couple census blocks (perhaps with no population) outside those two municipalities in that district, I think because they were entirely surrounded by the Penobscot Reservation) together, as technically Old Town doesn't belong in these tables but I thought it should be included.