Electoral Reform Amendment (Passed)

[Adam Griffin]

This is a terrible, terrible idea.

[Adam Griffin]

Why are we using a different standard for drawing the boundaries than what was discussed with FTRA (unanimous consent of panel; if panel is deadlocked, DoFE gets to draw)? We're putting all of the Senators in effect into a regional-based system. Have we not learned yet that this method is an abject failure? Anyone who supported FTRA and/or consolidation in general should automatically be against this, as it's a complete reversal of what that was attempting to accomplish.

[Adam Griffin]

Am I missing something in the bill? How does the commission determine the maps that are sent to the Senate? It no longer says majority as best I can tell; is it majority, unanimous or what?

[Adam Griffin]

Bottlenecks are no longer a problem...if everyone stops forgetting that we now have Canada to consider, too.

[Adam Griffin]

I'm a little skeptical as to why it should take three months for the maps to be drawn? That's a disaster waiting to happen. Think about how much the geography could change politically and in terms of registrants per state over that time period. At most, it should be a two-month period: one month for the initial team and one month for the back-up team.

Another concern I have is that with a three-month period, this would presumably be from the end of one election until one month before the next election. This in effect reduces the quality of campaigns across the board (as opposed to just a majority of cases) by preventing anyone from announcing, running or campaigning until one month before the election (after all, they'll have no idea which district they'll be in).

We need to reduce, in my opinion, the amount of time that the redistricting process will take on the front-end (to reduce likelihood of district dynamic changes between redistricting and the election) and on the back-end (to allow more time for campaigning). I've went over this with several scenarios and I actually think the best way to handle this is to cut the redistricting process time in half, from 12 weeks to 6 weeks. Yeah, I'm sure some aren't going to like that, but plot the math out and consider the variables I've outlined, and I think you'll come to the same conclusion. Even if you don't, I've also included an example using 8 weeks. Here's an example:

Current Proposed Method:
April 17-19: At-Large Elections
April 20: Redistricting Process Begins
July 13: Redistricting Process Ends
August 21: District Elections

My Proposed Method (6-week calendar)
April 17-19: At-Large Elections
May 11: Redistricting Process Begins (1st Phase; 21-day period)
June 1: Redistricting Process Begins (2nd Phase; 21-day period)
June 22: Redistricting Process Ends (60 days before election)
August 21: District Elections

My Proposed Method (8-week calendar)
April 17-19: At-Large Elections
May 11: Redistricting Process Begins (1st Phase; 28-day period)
June 8: Redistricting Process Begins (2nd Phase; 28-day period)
July 6: Redistricting Process Ends (46 days before election)
August 21: District Elections

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

So are we just taking the changes made to the PRA of 2014 and applying them to regional seats, too? Because in the case of at-large seats, this is already the case. Wasn't the wording in the PRA "less than 35 days before the end of the term", though? I remember we cleaned that up for a reason.

[Adam Griffin]

Because I never got clarification:

NAY

I am not against parties being able to appoint its own members to fill seats in the weeks of a term, but the reason I am voting against this is that it appears to use old language ("three weeks before an election") rather than the 35-day window we specified in PRA of 2014.

[Adam Griffin]

I cannot support the addition of a bunch of bureaucracy involving the Senate (the Senate, despite its constant wishes, doesn't need to provide consent nor have its hands on everything) nor the lack of a clarified timeline for when redistricting will take place.

[Adam Griffin]

I may or may not be here by the time Senator Windjammer's amendment is adopted or rejected, but I offer the following amendment to be considered thereafter, formatted based on the assumption that his amendment will be adopted. Obviously, portions in bolded red font are notes and not to be included in the actual amendment if adopted.

Summary of changes:

1) Cleaned up some language/formatting issues I noticed in the original and subsequent amendments offered; attempted to clarify several existing portions more thoroughly.

2) Establishes a precise time-table using the 8-week method I outlined earlier in debate; the initial commission of Governors/SoFE would have 4 weeks/28 days to produce a set of maps with 4/5ths approval among themselves; if they fail, then the RG would have the same amount of time to product a set of maps, with the process ending no later than 46 days before the commencement of the election. It also adds a concrete time-table as to when the conversion from at-large to district-based Class B elections would begin (Clause 8 ).

3) Stipulated a more accurate use of the Census figures to base maps off of; each 4-week commission would use the most recent Census update prior to their particular redistricting period (instead of it being fixed to a Census update that could be potentially months old if/by the time the RG were tasked with creating the maps).

4) Specified how to handle non-contiguous territories (Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Oceania). In this amendment, they would be required to be in a district in which at least one other territory from their Region is included.

5) Updated the Constitutional text we're amending to reflect current text, which was ratified by the regions as part of the PRAF of 2014 and details how to handle special elections for seats vacated 35 days or more (not 21 days or more) before the end of the term. I also added reference to the statute portion of PRAF of 2014 that pertains to the handling of vacant Class B Senate seats less than 35 days before the end of the term (for clarification's sake).

6) Did away with the (what would now be) confusing state/regional moving differences; with the District system, nobody would be able to move from state to state more than once every six months. This language is now simplified to state that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article V, Section II, Subsection VI is hereby amended to read:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

SINCE THERE IS A LOT OF FORMATTING AND CHANGES IN THE AMENDMENT ABOVE, HERE IS A COPY OF MY AMENDMENT WITHOUT ALL THE STRIKING OUT/BOLD/RED STUFF; WHAT IT WOULD ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE IF ADOPTED

[Adam Griffin]

Just to clear up a potential language issue, I have replaced two instances of 'DoFE' with 'Secretary of Federal Elections' in the language. This potential could have created an issue as the 'Department of Federal Elections' simultaneously isn't a person and is comprised of multiple people. I don't know if that resets the clock on this or whatever, but it was a needed alteration that doesn't change the dynamic of the amendment.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Adam Griffin]

I'm confused: why does the current text still have all the bolding and strikes from my amendment? This text in full has been adopted, no? Perhaps I'm a nazi when it comes to updating formatting for amendments once they're adopted...but really, I just want to make sure there isn't some new amendment in there that has been proposed or recently adopted (besides the most recent one by Talleyrand, which, shame on all of you).

[Adam Griffin]

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.