Talk Elections

This seems like a good enough development to start the forum discussion on Maine's congressional redistricting:


Full article (http://www.pressherald.com/news/suit-looks-to-speed-up-maine-redistricting_2011-03-30.html) (from the online Portland Press Herald; the Bangor Daily News (http://new.bangordailynews.com/2011/03/29/politics/federal-lawsuit-aims-to-speed-maine-redistricting/) posted this earlier with what from a quick glance is the same text, but I cited from the PPH's article since they named an individual author from the AP as opposed to just "The Associated Press".)

Maine, like Connecticut, requires a 2/3rds vote in the legislature to approve a map, so it will likely be drawn by the courts. This happened last time, and they minimized the shifting around of towns between districts.

Well, the current Congressional District populations aren't that far apart.  ME-01 has 668,515 residents. ME-02 659,846.  If the legislature wanted to keep current boundaries intact as much as possible, only 4,334 residents need to be shifted from ME-01 to ME-02.

That's a statutory requirement (for congressional and county commissioner redistricting; it's a constitutional requirement for legislative redistricting) and can be either amended, repealed or "notwithstood" by other legislation that can be passed in the normal way, ie. a simple majority among those present and voting in each house of the Legislature and being signed by the governor (or being vetoed and overturned by a 2/3 vote in each house of the Legislature, but with Republicans holding the "trifecta" in Maine but without supermajorities the former path is much, much more likely).

In 2003, the Democrats had the trifecta and an initial draft of Democratic congressional redistricting bill would have passed the majority plan of the Apportionment Commission (the chair of the commission voted with the Democrats on that plan), but if they had done that the Republicans would likely have withdrawn their support for the State House disrtrict plan and sent that process to the courts.  The Republicans had largely "won" the 1993 court battles on House and Senate redistricting (when the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which makes the apportionment if the Legislature fails to do so, was dominated by McKernan (R) appointees) on the  and legislators were probably more willing to risk Mike Michaud getting a less favorable district than to risk themselves (and to a lesser extent, their party) getting a less favorable district.  The court's preliminary plan did put Knox County in the second district (that's where Chellie Pingree served in the State Senate and last I knew was still her official address (I know it was in 2008 when she was first elected to Congress), and she probably would not have been elected to Congress under that set of lines), and the Democrats actually made it clear to the court that they would prefer what had by the minority (Republican) congressinal district plan of the Apportionment Commission, which would have moved all of Waldo County to the first district and had the second district in Kennebec County hug Augasta very closely.  The Republicans' attorney, former Congressman and later Gubernatorial primary candidate David Emery, defended the court's preliminary plan, but the court ended up keeping tha changes to Kennebec County, although the portion of the first district in Kennebec County now looks to me like the head of some mythical beast.

The cheif counsel to the governor is an admitted Republican partisan but is also good government minded, and based on some correspondence I've had with him (I've posted for years at a conservative Maine political website) I think the Republicans will try to get a congressional district plan adopted this year than can command a 2/3 majority, perhaps not cancelling the 2013 redistricting and allowing the Apportionment commission to deliberate on that in 2013 along with legislative and county commissioner redistricting (he would like the 2/3 requirement for congressional and I think county commissioner districts added to the Maine Constitution).  The plantiffs' attorney, by the way, is a former mayor of Bangor (the city council elects the mayor from among their own, which has been the case in Portland although that will change this year) and ran for the open ME-02 seat in 2002, finishing recount close (there was a recount and Woodcock made up some ground but after the Bangor area was recounted with little to no difference he withdrew his recount request) to Kevin Raye (who's now the Senate President and one heartbeat away from replacing our portly governor) in the Republican primary.  I wouldn't be surprised if there's a connection between the lawsuit and Republicans in the Legislature/Governor's office, but I suspect more of a "let's get good government brownie points" way than "let's gerrymander Maine" way.

Maine's ideal congressional district population in 2000: 1,274,923/2 = 637,461.5
Maine's ideal congressional district population in 2010: 1,328,361/2 = 664,180.5

Maine's Existing Congressional Districts:

ME-01
Cumberland County (all)
Kennebec County (all except for Litchfield, Wayne, Fayette, Oakland, Waterville, Winslow, Benton and Clinton)
Knox County (all)
Lincoln County (all)
Sagadahoc County (all)
York County (all)
2000 census population: 637,450 (11.5 people (0.0018%) below state ideal)
2010 census population: 668,515 (4,334.5 people (0.6526%) above state ideal)

ME-02
Androsscoggin County (all)
Aroostook County (all)
Franklin County (all)
Hancock County (all)
Kennebec County (Litchfield, Wayne, Fayette, Oakland, Waterville, Winslow, Benton and Clinton)
Oxford County (all)
Penobscot County (all)
Piscataquis County (all)
Somerset County (all)
Waldo County (all)
Washington County (all)
2000 census population: 637,473 (11.5 people (0.0018%) above state ideal)
2010 census population: 659,846 (4,334.5 people (0.6526%) below state ideal)


My Preferred Maine Congressional District Plan (for the time being) for the 2012 elections (which could be revisited by the advisory Apportionment Commission in 2013):

ME-01
Cumberland County (all)
Kennebec County (all except for Litchfield, Wayne, Fayette, Sidney, Oakland, Waterville, Winslow, Benton, and Clinton and Unity UT)
Knox County (all except for Isle Au Haut)
Lincoln County (all)
Sagadahoc County (all)
York County (all)
2000 census population: 633,826 (3,635.5 people (0.5703%) below state ideal)
2010 census population: 664,191 (10.5 people (0.0016%) above state ideal)

ME-02
Androsscoggin County (all)
Aroostook County (all)
Franklin County (all)
Hancock County (all)
Kennebec County (Litchfield, Wayne, Fayette, Sidney, Oakland, Waterville, Winslow, Benton, and Clinton and Unity UT)
Knox County (Isle Au Haut)
Oxford County (all)
Penobscot County (all)
Piscataquis County (all)
Somerset County (all)
Waldo County (all)
Washington County (all)
2000 census population: 641,097 (3,635.5 people (0.5703%) above state ideal)
2010 census population: 664,170 (10.5 people (0.0016%) below state ideal)

2010 census population of municipalities shifted between districts: 4,324 (0.33% of Maine's Population)
   From ME-01 to ME-02: (0.65% of current ME-01; 0.65% of proposed new ME-02)
   From ME-02 to ME-01: 0

So the faster growing district is the larger one unlike in the current plan as of the 2000 census, but the deviation of each district from the ideal is 1 less and you're only shifting territory 1 way (unlike in 2003), shifting 10 fewer people than you'd have to to get the districts within 1 person of each other.  Isle Au Haut is connected by ferry as far as I know only to Stonington on Deer Isle in Hancock County, which is connected by a pair of bridges to the Hancock County mainland.  And I imagine most of the 43 people (2010 census figures) in Unity Township (called Unity UT by the Census Bureau) live on or off state route 139 and are not connected via road to the rest of ME-01.  A road from Benton to Albion crosses a small corner of Unity Township, but any people who live on that very small stretch of road would be functionally contiguous to the main portions of each congressional district.  Sidney is bordered on three sides (including its two longer ones) by municipalities I have kept in ME-01 and on only one of its shorter sides by municipalities I have kept in ME-02, but one of the two long sides is along the Kennebec River where there is no bridge connecting Sidney to Vassalboro and much of the opposite side is Messalonskee Lake.  And public school students from Sidney go to high school (and last I knew, middle school) in Oakland, as do students from Belgrade and Rome which I've kept in ME-01 but I had to draw the line somewhere, and I'm envisioning this as a bipartisan two-year fix to the lines (with my own strong aesthetic preferences accounted for; I've long thought Isle Au Haut should be in the second district and the current Unity Township protrusion of the first district is ridiculous, unless residents there vote in Albion which wouldn't make much sense as most of the town isn't connected to it while it's all connected to Benton; it's in a different county than Unity so voting there might not be optimal).

The Democrats might not like any of Knox County being moved into the second district because of the precedence it might set about moving Knox County territory into the second district.  Chellie Pingree lives (or at least did as of 2010; well, as much as she doesn't live with her hedge fund manager and wealthy campaign contributor boyfriend in Portland or the Virgin Islands) in North Haven (which seems to have a corner water boundary with Isle Au Haut, although it's ferry connection is to Rockland), and that's where she lived when she was in the State Senate.  But considering that the Republicans could fairly easily put her and Michaud in the same district (they could do pretty much whatever they want, and if the Democrats tried to launch a people's veto against the plan I could see the courts ordering the one being suspended pending referendum to be used in 2012 even if the people's veto passed to ensure that the plaintiffs got relief from their under-representation), taking one small town (2010 census population: 73) in her area out of her district and in with its ferry connection ought not to be too objectionable.

[Edited over 8 years later to correct some syntax issues with boldface and underlining, plus some spelling errors (I was quite sloppy with this post).]

Yeah, I never really understood why Maine waits the extra two years to redistrict.

The really good lobster has to age, and it's easier to redistrict on a full stomach.

Full article (http://www.pressherald.com/news/judges-find-speedy-resolution-to-redistricting-lawsuit_2011-04-28.html)

-----

We don't care about "fair share" (like a 75 word limit without express permission to go beyond that) regarding quoting newspaper articles at this forum, do we?  I paired the article down some but there were too many things I didn't want people to miss if they didn't click on the above link to the full article.

So what, they desperately want a chance to try to gerrymander a 2-district state? How Republican could you make ME-02, really?

Chellie Pingree's hometown of North Haven is at the eastern end of ME-01 and could easily be put in the same district as East Millinocket (Michaud's hometown).  Under Maine law, candidates for Representative to Congress have to live in the district they are running in, not just in the state which I know is all the U.S. Constitution requires.  Pingree could still run in ME-01 while keeping her legal address in North Haven if it was moved to ME-02, and could easily "move" to Portland (I think she or her hedge fund manager boyfriend already have a home or apartment there), but part of her appeal is her connections to North Haven, where she served in the Maine Senate from and ran a successful small business (something to do with clothing, I think, by magazine rather than through a store), and that would could be weakened slightly if she had to change her legal residence to Portland in order to run for reelection North Haven was no longer in her district.

If she chose to run in the new district including North Haven that would likely mean running against Michaud, and while the primary would not be a lost cause depending on the district (like if Michaud lost Lewiston/Auburn and the entire mid-coast and the Augusta area was shifted into ME-02), she would likely run poorly in northern and downeast Maine and state Democratic leaders would likely suggest she still run or even move "back" into the first district.  A Portland-based challenger could possibly emerge, and while such a challenge would likely fissile (Pingree would have all the institutional backing) it could cause her some headaches.

The midcoast would not be particularly good territory for Michaud either, although in 2010 he did slightly better than district-wide in Waldo County and slightly wore than district-wide in Androscoggin County, where his opponent was from (Auburn) and where the Lewiston-Auburn suburbs are strongly trending Republican (Michaud lost 5 of the 7 towns in ME-02 that surround Lewiston and Auburn).

Basically, the Republicans couldn't draw more than a leaning Republican, but they could give Pingree and Michaud headaches which might be worth it for them (particularly giving Pingree headaches).  If they stretched the second district down the midcoast all the way to and including Portland like a preliminary plan of there's did in 2003, then it would become fairly likely that one of the Maine's current U.S. Represetntatives would be out of office come 2013, but the result could well be one of the two current congresspeople and a new Democratic congressperson.

[Edited to correct the false statement I believed to be true at the time that Maine law required candidates for the U.S. House to live in the district there running in (apparently it can't, but in any event it doesn't), and to adjust my analysis accordingly.]

Maine (nor Congress for that matter) may not add qualifications for Representatives.  The requirement is to live in the State on election day.

I think you would be better of trying to pick up some more Republicans for ME-2.  You can't eliminate Aroostook from ME-2.  Is even Oxford possible?

I didn't know that, thanks.  I was wrong when I said that Maine law required candidates for Representative to Congress to live in the district they're running in.  I've looked through where it would be in the Nominations (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/21-A/title21-Ach5sec0.html) chapter of Maine's election law title and didn't see any such requirment, and the Maine 2010 Candidates Guide to Ballot Access (PDF) (http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/2010candidatesguide.pdf) just mentions a Maine residency requirement with the only statutory reference being to the U.S. Constitution.  Not that it would matter if the state had additional requirements if they would be deemed null and void, but I thought I'm mention that I was wrong about there even being such a provision in Maine law.  If all of York and Cumberland Counties are still in the same district, then Pingree would likely run in that one, but some of the territory both she and Michaud might each not be as good a fit for the territory she/he would be gaining as for the territory she/he would be losing.


Well, if you moved the remainder of Kennebec County Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc and part of Cumberland County into ME-02 (but a small enough portion that a majority of the population of the current ME-01 would remain in ME-01), you could go clockwise along the New Hampshire and Canadian borders and shift the whole counties of Oxford, Franklin, Somerset and Aroostook Counties to ME-01.  But yeah, any plan that wasn't totally rediculous (and that wouldn't reliably benefit anyone but wuold just tick a bunch of people off) would keep Aroostook in ME-02.  Moving Oxford County into ME-01 is definitely doable, though.  York, Cumberland, Oxford and Androscoggin Counties combine for 97.01% of an ideal Maine congressional district population, and you could add a majority of either Sagadahoc or Franklin counties to get the district to the appropriate population.  Franklin County would be easier to do without splitting county subdivisions (cities, towns or grouped unorganized territories such as "East Central Franklin UT") there are a lot more small (population-wise) county subdivisions there than in Sagadahoc County.

A good plan for a more Republican ME-02 would be to have ME-01 consist of York, Cumberland and Sagadahoc counties, Androscoggin County except for Turner, Minot, Mechanic Falls, Poland, Wales, Sabattus and maybe Lisbon (which would have been a Democratic stronghold 20 years ago but is trending heavily Republican) and Durham, the town of Jay in Franklin County, and portions of Kennebec County going up the Kennebec River including Gardiner, Hallowell, Augusta and Waterville.  You might have to add some more territory into ME-01, and the district's portion of Kennebec County could be fleshed to include marginal towns like West Gardiner, Manchester, Readfield and Winthrop, perhaps pairing off Republican-leaning towns of Chelsea and Sidney along the river.  Both districts would look very ugly, though.

It's not totally obvious that the Constitution has such a restriction.  Some of the precedent setting cases had other circumstances involved.  It's kind of like Gore v Bush.  It was decided on a political basis, but it gets cited now in other legal cases.

In the first congresses, States used different systems of electing representatives.  Georgia required representatives to live in districts, but elected at large.  Massachusetts had a weird system in 1792.  It elected one representative at large, and then 4 representatives from District One (Essex, Middlesex, and and Suffolk), with 1, district-wide and 1 from each county (Norfolk was not set off from Suffolk until later); 4 from District 2, again with one districtwide, and one each from Berkshire, Hampshire, and Worcester counties (the Connecticut Valley was all in Hampshire).  Two representatives were elected from District 3, but none districtwide, so they were elected from 2 subdistricts, Barnstable, Dukes, and Nantucket; and one from Bristol and Plymouth; and 3 were from District 4, which was Maine, including one from York, one from Cumberland, and one from Lincoln, Hancock, and Washington.  I assume the counties went northward forever, but there might not have been deep inland settlement.

If Congress had dictated election by district from the start, they might have required district residency, and no one would have argued that was not just a manner regulation (eg voters of district vote for one of themselves as representative).  If the Supreme Court ever had a case, they would look at how Congress had interpreted the Constitution.  But they didn't get around to requiring district elections until 1872, and this wasn't fully enforced until the 1960s.

I think the precedent with regard to district residency came from Maryland, where there was a requirement that one representative come from Baltimore city, and one from Baltimore county, with both elected from the whole area.  The principle was probably that a representative should come from the area where those voting for him lived.  But it has come to be interpreted as merely requiring residency in the State (Congress made the initial decision, and the courts have since applied it).

Residency is only required on the day of election.  The precedent for the current interpretation was Philip Barton Key who lived outside Georgetown in the District of Columbia (at the time DC had three cities: Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria).  A few weeks before the election he moved to a new estate he was building in Montgomery County.  He had family ties in the area, and owned land and practiced law solely in Maryland.  But it is unclear how much he actually lived in Maryland, since his main residence was near Georgetown.

When his election was contested, he made a speech that the case wasn't about residency at all.  As a young man, he had enlisted in the British Army during the Revolution, had been captured in Florida, and paroled to England (instead of keeping POWs, captured combatants would be released on condition that they not participate in further combat).  He returned to the USA and became a lawyer, mayor of Annapolis, and a federal judge.   He was elected to Congress in 1806, and wasn't challenged for about a year.  It was at a time when the status of D.C. was still somewhat ambiguous, and he had deep connections to Maryland.  But it may have been a political decision to say that he could keep his seat.

The modern interpretation by the courts is that you only have to be an inhabitant of a state on election day.  This was applied to Tom Delay in 1996.  In Texas, a party candidate who withdraws after nomination can not be replaced, unless the party finds that he is ineligible.  In the past, legislative candidates have moved out of their district, so that they can be found ineligible.  Legislators not only have to reside in their district, they have had to reside in their election for a year before the election, and continue to reside in their district while serving.  So a nominee moves to a different district, is replaced, and then returns to his former residence.  In 1996, Delay moved to Virginia, got a drivers license, fishing license, and registered to vote.  The Republican party declared him ineligible, and replaced him. The court decided that it was impossible for anyone, including Delay himself, to know where he might be residing on election day, and so could not be replaced.

There have been other cases where it has been ruled that a candidate from another state could be issued nomination papers.  So I am eligible to run for either House or Senate seat in Maine, and at most, Maine might demand that I intend to live there on election day.  If elected, I could continue to serve even if I moved back to Texas.

Because Maine has had 2 districts for 50 years, with minor changes as the boundary has slowly moved south and west, I suspect that any sort of radical change would be considered unfair.

They have an abnormally early filing deadline or something.

It's later than some other states that are redistricting this year (like Illinois, where filing will be in November).

Yeah, a lot of people assume that it's either because of early filing deadlines (Maine's is the first business day on or after March 15 for primary election candidates and the first business day on or after June 1 for non-party candidates or for candidates for positions on the state/federal ballot that don't have primaries or party designations listed like county charter commission or the finance/budget committee in a couple counties with charters providing for elections to that committee) and/or because our odd year sessions are so short.

The delay in Legislative redistricting was established in the Maine Constitution in a constitutional amendment adopted in 1980.  Maine didn't redraw its congressional districts (or at least didn't draw them any differently) from 1961 to 1983, although voters in the town of Otisfield started voting for second district candidates in 1978 when it was moving from Cumberland County to Oxford County (it officially changed counties between the primary and general elections, if I recall correctly from some e-mail correspondence I had with an Otisfield geneology buff over a decade ago - it's on Dave Leip's webblog somewhere).

A personal message string with a Republican cyberfriend of mine from December 2008 that ought to provide a clearer idea of why Maine has redistricted after the "2" year elections for as long as it has for its various types of districts (see the previous post):

Some more correspondence in January 2009 that starts and ends on the topic of trying to correct Maine's delayed redistricting, near the end contains rejoinder to my earlier explanation of possible causes for the delay, and in the middle goes to another topic but one that I'll hope people will find interesting:

The scheme of not splitting towns is not necessarily in violation of SCOTUS OMOV rulings.  Given Maine's system of local election administration it is conceivable that apportionment by county, and the sub-apportionment by town is legitimate.

Following the then-language of the Maine constitution (which had already been amended to repeal the 7-member limit and the apportionment of partial seats to the smaller counties) in the redistricting following the 1970 census would have given Kittery 1 Representative (over 50% greater than the ideal district population) and Bath, which by that time was smaller than Kittery, 2 Representatives (and the population of Bath divided by 2 was I think forty-something percent smaller than the ideal district population).  The Maine Supreme Judicial Court didn't see fit to do that when the Legislature and Governor couldn't enact a plan by the deadline.  The Republicans, who controlled the Legislature, had proposed a plan that followed the Maine Constitution, but if they passed it Democratic Governor Ken Curtis vetoed it.

There were two committees tackling Maine State House redistricting following the 1970 census, one of them I think in 1971 and the other I think in 1973.  The first commission had a Republican majority, and proposed the plan I mentioned above.  In a minority report (I've borrowed both commissions' reports from the Maine Law and Legislative Reference Library before, but it's been a while), the Democrats called the attempt to follow the Maine Constitution "an academic excercise" or something like that.  They said that for that reason, they mostly went along with the Republican plan, although the plan doesn't indicate what districts were not unanimously agreed to), and that therefore the plan significantly benefited the Republicans, but fortunately the plan would never go into effect because of its presumed violation of U.S. Supreme Court opinions.

The second commission, though Republicans still controlled the Legislature at this point (although Democrat Ken Curtis was still the Governor), had an even number of Republican and Democratic members with a presumed neutral chairman.  That commission, in a lengthly "preface" (the part before the actual plan) to their report, outlined "A rational approach to reapportionment" (or it may have just been 'apportionment') that melded the Maine constitution to comply with OMOV.  Portions of several cities were placed in single-member districts with surrounding territory with the remainder of the city being a multi-member district.  Auburn and Waterville were apparently closer to an even 4 quotas than an even 3 so parts of Minot and Winslow (the latter of which had a whole single member district of its own), respectively, were added to those towns to form 4-member districts.  They did the same for Bath, creating a 2-member district consisting of Bath, West Bath and part of Brunswick, the remainder of Brunswick being a 2-member district itself).  The boundaries of counties within a certain percentage of an integer number of "quotas" were not crossed, while otherwise pairs of trios of counties were grouped together and the external boundaries of those groupings were not crossed.  The only counties with more than one "partial" district were Franklin and Oxford counties, which had three districts partly in each county, and Somerset County, which was grouped with Piscataquis and Kennebec counties which don't come near each other and had a partial district with each of those counties.  The other three-county grouping was Lincoln-Knox-Waldo which had the remainders of each county in one district.

The Maine Supreme Court largely followed the commission's plan.  A couple of changes I've noticed were that the 2-member district including Bath was divided with Bath having a whole single-member district and part of another (perhaps because Bath had less than 1.5 quotas, although they would have had a two member district under the Maine Constitution the way the numbers crunched, or perhaps it was so the remainder of Brunswick would be in a single-member district), and the town of Isle au Haut in Knox County was placed in a district otherwise entirely in Hancock County (I'm pretty sure the commission's plan hadn't done that).

For more information, see pages 138-144 according to my Adobe Acrobat Reader (pages 141-147 according to the numbers on the pages) of this article (PDF) (http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/8117.pdf) I discoved from Ballotpedia's article (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Redistricting_in_Maine) on redistricting in Maine.  In at least one instance, the article states that the Republican House and Senate couldn't agree on a plan when I know from another article that goes into detail that in fact they had passed a plan but the Democratic Governor vetoed it after taking perhaps intentionally dragging his feat and appointing a commission to study the Senate redistricting (and the Democrats had over a third of the members in both chambers and the veto was sustained, although by that time the Maine Supreme Court was already well into making its own apportionment).  Also, the "sliding scale" formula of Senators per county wasn't part of the Maine Constitution until 1931 and the apportioning of extra Representatives after remainders were tossed out to the smaller counties wasn't in there until the 1950s.  Before then the respective chambers were supposed to theoretically be apportioned among the counties based on population, but that had not been fully followed in the 1920s.   In a couple of instances a smaller county had one more Senator or Representative than a larger county (I'm not kidding).  But it still seems like the best source available on line on Maine redistricting in the 1960s and 1970s.

The salient point to note is that Democrats are yelling "bloody murder" at the prospect of legislative elections being held in 2011 under the old map, but, are defending the right of  Maine to hold an election under the old maps in 2012! In Mississippi, if there is a wait until 2012, the Republican may control the entire process then, while in Maine, the Republicans do control the process now, but, might not in 2012.

It is just another example of results-driven rank partisan hypocrisy.

The Maine issue is not a partisan one. Not least because it takes a 2/3rds majority to forward a map anyway. The Republicans don't have numbers to do anything even if they wanted to. Whether or not the maps are redrawn this year or next year, it will be a compromise.

There is in fact a good reason for the Senate GOP to punk things to 2013 though. The best case option for the GOP, which has nearly zero chance of holding the House under any map in 2012, is to do a deal to give the Democrats free-range with the congressional and house maps in exchange for drawing the senate. They might be able to wing enough Democrats for such a deal, but the sticking point would be the currently GOP house voting for their own elimination. If the House were to narrowly flip though while the GOP were to hold the Senate, a deal becomes more practicable.

If the three-judge panel (or a Maine court, if the panel refers the case to them to fashion the form of relief to the plaintiffs after ruling that the current delay violates the plaintiffs' rights to equal representation) holds that the statutory 2/3 requirement for congressional redistricting only covered redistricting in years ending in 3, and that there are no valid Maine law pertaining to congressional redistricting in 2011 and thus the redrawing can be done by the Legislature as provided for in the Maine Constitution for "normal" legislation (a simple majority vote in each chamber and the Governor's signature, with the possibility of overriding the Governor's veto with a 2/3 vote in each chamber), then the Democrats couldn't stop the Republicans from doing whatever they want.  That is, unless the Democrats collected signatures for a people's veto that is provided for in Maine's Constitution for non-emergency legislation (and anything passed without a 2/3 vote in each chamber could not have an emergency preamlbe), but if a June 2011 congressional redistricting plan that the Legislature had been mandeted to do by the courts law was suspended by a people's veto a court might rule that the suspended plan be used in 2012 even if the people's veto passed to ensure relief for the plaintiffs before the preparation for the 2012 primary and general elections has progressed far enough to make granting that relief after the people's veto election results (and the vote on the people's veto couldn't be held before November of this year) difficult.

That's an absolute worst-case scenaro for the Democrats, and there might still be a rationale for a people's veto if the new law canceled the scheduled 2013 congressional redistricting that the Democrats could force to go to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (which could adopt a new plan even if a plan had been adopted in 2011 based on the 2010 census, and a magority of justices on that court right now are Baldacci appointees) if they had a majority in the House by then (if Republicans still had a "trifecta", the 2/3 requirement could be "notwithstood", subject of course to a people's veto - if the 2013 congressional redistricting was repealed this year, than Republicans could block any attempt to undo a Republican gerrymander unless and until the Democrats (or non-Republicans) gained either a "trifecta" (which they couldn't get until January 2015 assuming LePage serves out his term) or a 2/3 majority in both houses of the Legislature.  A court would be incorrect to nullify the statutory provisions for congressional redistricting in 2013 (as opposed to nullifying any interpreted restriction against redistricting in 2011 or ruling that the 2/3 rule doesn't apply to 2011), but a very shortsighted court could perhaps completely nullify Maine's congressional redistricting provisions.

So there is a possibility that a non-compromise congressional redistricting map could be drawn (even if the courts construed the 2/3 requirement for a "3" year congressonal redistricting to apply to a court-mandated "1" year redistricting, that law could be "nothwithstood" by the ace adopting a new plan), but there would be both public reations and future retaliation risks to that stategy for Maine Republicans.   The 2/3 requirement for legislative redistricting is in the Maine Constitution, and a court-drawn plan in 2013 would seem be more likely to help Democrats than Republicans, particularly if they still held more seats in either or both chambers with a bunch of second term Legislators who were starting to entrench themselves in their districts and wouldn't be termed out until 2018.  As I have written earlier, I think there is some desire among Republicans to put the 2/3 requirement for congressional redistricting in the Maine Constitution where is is for legislative redistricting, and they wouldn't advocate that any time soon while or just after they had rammed through a congressional district plan without signficant bipartisan support that they were proposing to leave unchanged until 2021.

On the Desena et al v. State of Maine et al front, the three-judge panel divided the case into a "liability" phase and a "remedy" phase, and drafted a Schduling Order (http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/maine/medce/1:2011cv00117/40961/13/) on April 28 for the "liability" phase.  The three parties (the Plaintiffs, (State) Defendants, and Intervenor Defendant (the Maine Democratic Party)) all submitted their opening briefs on Friday, May 20, the day of the deadline for those briefs.  Reply briefs may be submitted on or before this coming Tuesday, May 31 at noon.  (No reply briefs had been submitted when I checked on PACER (http://www.pacer.gov/) last night.)  Oral argument is scheduled for Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 11:00 a.m.

You can view the Scribd (http://www.scribd.com/) downloads of the Plaintiffs' (http://www.scribd.com/doc/56172140/Desena-Opening-Brief-20-May-2011), State Defendents' (http://www.scribd.com/doc/56172065/State-s-Opening-Brief-20-May-2011) and Maine Democrats' (http://www.scribd.com/doc/56172068/MDP-Desena) opening briefs and the Joint Stipulated facts (http://www.scribd.com/doc/56172043/Desena-Joint-Stipulated-Facts-20-May-2011) the three parties agreed to, all of which are linked to from a blog entry (http://www.dirigoblue.com/diary/3170/briefs-filed-in-case-claiming-maines-congressional-reapportionment-law-is-unconstitutional) on the briefs at Dirigo Blue.  (Included with the Plantiffs' opening brief are the two Exhibits they attached; the State Defendents attached to their opening brief the Joint Stipulated facts and, either as an attachment to their opening brief or to the Joint Stipulated Facts, a copy of this (http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/apport/CongressMap.pdf) map of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court's final congressional district plan in 2003 (the one currently in use).)

As the editor of Dirigo Blue noted in his blog entry, Attorney General William Schneider (a Republican who was elected to his post by a secret joint ballot (although I know the Democrats used to collect the ballots their Legislators didn't cast from each Legislator so they would know if someone defected) of the new Republican Legislature) (joined in his brief by Deputy Attorney General Paul Stern), representing the State Defendants including the State of Maine itself, agreed with the plaintiffs that "this Court should conclude that given the differences in population between the two districts, which are shown by the 2010 census to be 0.652 percent from the ideal, Maine must engage in a good faith effort to reapportion those districts to achieve equliaty before the next Congressional election."  Schneider and Stern did oppose the nullification "in general" (my words) of the statute delaying Maine's congressional redistricting (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/21-A/title21-Asec1206.html) as theoretically the two districts, drawn to be substantially equal in population as of and according to one census, could be within an acceptable range of deviation as of and according to the following census, even perhaps closer than as of the census upon the results of which they were drawn.  But they argued that "as applied to the present situation, the timing provision in Maine's statute is unconstitutional" (emphasis theirs).

Full article (http://www.pressherald.com/news/Maines-congressional-districts-must-be-redrawn-.html)

So I take it the court is going to either choose the map they like best or draw the lines themselves?

A better (in my opinion) MPBN article (http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNewsArchive/tabid/181/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3475/ItemId/16719/Default.aspx) on the ruling, with some commentary from some of the parties involved and some others like the Maine GOP Chair.

I'm not sure about that.  It might be that "let the Legislature redraw the lines under the provisions in the Maine Constitution" (which are none beyond the general provisions for "normal" legislation, the statutory provisions arguably only applying to years ending in 3) would be an acceptable "proposal".

The Maine legislature is free to redistrict at any time (at least under the US Constitution and federal law).

The federal court can't do anything beyond determining that Maine may not conduct an election on the current boundaries, and if it appears that there will be no State remedy, to fashion a remedy, which would be limited to minimal changes (the federal court has no authority to make political decisions).

They could just set a deadline for the legislature to act (November-December), and then draw a map that shifts the fewest towns.

It would seem like a similar case could be made against legislative districts.  It appears the maximum Senate deviation is around 20%, and for the House 44%.  It might require different plaintiffs.

Yeah, it would probably require different plaintiffs, assuming the 2010 redistricting data's populations for the Senate and House districts covering the plaintiffs' hometown of Cape Elizabeth are correct (they aren't everywhere, at least in terms of some municipalities not being in the right district or not split where they are or split where they aren't, so it would be a freak coincidence if the population figures for those districts are correct).  Senate District 7 (South Portland, Cape Elizabeth and part of Scarbourough) is given a 2010 resident population of 37,687 (-0.70%).  House District 121 (part of Cape Elizabeth) apparantly had only 7,666 residents (-12.86%).  House District 123 (the remainders of Cape Elizabeth and South Portland, which has two whole districts of its own) had 9,154 residents (+4.06%), which is odd considering the four districts in those two towns average 3.33% below the ideal district population, but the figures for the House district portions of each town add up as do the Senate district portions of Scarborough.  I didn't check the Senate district including the remainder of Scarborough which has another split town the remainder of which is in with the remainder of Portland (too much work).  But anyway, House District 123 is within acceptable range and the 2013 redistricting will likely result in residents of that portion of Cape Elizabeth only losing 39 more fellow district residents than they gain, as Cape Elizabeth will most likley coincide with one House district (2010 resident population 9,015 (+2.48%)) and South Portland and Scarborough (which currenly has an even two House districts which are overpopulated by an average of 7.53%) will probably combine for five (averaging 0.15% below the ideal district population).

Finding the appropriate plantiffs., and filing, are merely technical exercises. The only reason there won't be a legeslative redistricting for 2012 is that noone wants one.


The pathetic part is that instead of taking the Congressional ruling seriously, Maine might wait to be forced to redistrict in a seperate lawsuit that ends with Maine paying the second set of plantiffs their attorney fees.

Well, BigSkyBob beat me the point of the paragraph I breifly added to my last post (I posted multiple times while I was composing because I had earlier lost a lot), but I thought I'd add it here as I spent some time on it.

-----

Of course, the reason a lawsuit challenging Maine's delayed congressional districting may not happen (I'd say probably not at this point) has nothing to do with where plaintiffs live (although if either of my legislative districts were overpopulated by more than 5%... (my Senate district is +0.57%, while my House district is +3.66%; although my House district at least is more than 10% (of the ideal district population) greater than some House districts (like House District 121)).  Anyway, the two main reasons such a suit might not happen are (a) a favorable federal court ruling is less certain, as jimrtex discussed here (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=76144.15)) and (b) the likely result of a successful lawsuit against the 2012 legislative elections being held using the current districts being used in 2012 would be a court-drawn plan being used, while the liekly result of the successful lawsuit against Maine using its current congressional districts in 2012 is the Republican-majority legislature and Republican governor being able to do whatever they want, subject only to a people's veto (and in the event of a plan being suspended by a people's veto, even if the signatures were collected early enough for the referendum to be this November rather than with the primary elections next June, the three-judge panel might order the suspended or "people's vetoed" Republican congressional district plan be used in 2012 anyway).  And the current Maine statute governing congressional redistricting (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/21-A/title21-Asec1206.html) requires it only "If the districts do not conform to Supreme Judicial Court guidelines," so a people's veto couldn't even force a 2013 review where LePage couldn't veto any change to whatever plan the Republicans rammed through in 2012, although there might be some room for litigation by the Democrats if the congreessional districts used in 2012 weren't on the books yet due to a successful people's veto.

Well, "noone wants one enough to get the necessary legal staff (including paying them or convincing them to work pro bono) to have a decent shot at prevailing in a less than slam dunk lawsuit" (I considered the one just informally decided to be a slam dunk for the plaintiffs) might be a more accurate discription.


What makes you think that might happen?  (I imagine the current plaintiffs will be paid their attorney fees though.)

The 20% variation in one district.

Oh, I thought you meant that the state would ignore the ruling to redraw its congressional districts, when that would be (well, it probably isn't unprecedented but it would be asking for serious legal trouble) and the Republicans in power probably won't mind redrawing the districts anyway.

Maine's Constitution would seem to bar the state from redrawing its Legislative districts before 2013 unless forced to by a legal challenge.  The constitution could be amended this year to allow for a redistricting before the 2012 elections but with Maine's filing period beginning on January 1 the year of the election and a 1941 Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruling that you can't pass a law that goes against the current language of the state constitution even conditionally upon the constitution being amended to allow whatever is being done in statutory law, you'd probably have to add the definitions of the new legislative districts into the Maine Constitution, which would probably make the majority of the text of the constitution House and Senate district descriptions.

Looks like the taxpayers of Maine are going to be stuck with another legal bill.

The US Constitution trumps the Maine Constitution, and it is extremely questionable whether a court would allow a 20% variation in one statehouse district stand for 2 years when the data to redraw districts is readily available.  In my opinion, such a large disparity should not stand, even for a relatively short duration - but stranger things have happened.

What happens if a state passes a statute that is in violation of the state constitution but would seem to be mandated by the U.S. constitution but there hasn't yet been a federal court challenge to the pending U.S. Constitutional violation?  It's tough for me to tell what the appropriate thing for the state to do regarding legislative redistricting at this point is.

A constitutional resolution (LD 494) that I basically drafted to move legislative redistricting after 2013 ahead two years (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_125th/billtexts/HP038701.asp), with an amendment (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_125th/billtexts/HP038705.asp) I didn't draft and which I think is kind of sloppy (although I support the concept) to basically add the current congressional and county commissioner redistricting provisions (most notably the 2/3 vote requirement) to the constitution (except of course to move future redistrictings ahead two years as would be done with the legislative redistricting provisions), has been Finally Passed in the House and is currently (http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280039621) before the Senate on what's called the "Special Appropriations Table" pending Final Passage there.

I've discussed this earlier on this forum, but just so people don't think I don't take timely redistricting seriously, I'd like to point out LD 211 in 2009 (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/billtexts/HP017601.asp) that my then-State Representative put in at my suggestion that would have moved future redistrictings from 2013 and every 10th year thereafter to 2011 (originally drafted by the revisors as 2012; fixed in committee (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/billtexts/HP017602.asp)) and every 10th year thereafter.  I had envisioned both in 2009 and 2011 a companion bill moving non-legislative redistricting to the same schedule (I wasn't aware of that pesky 1941 ruling at the time; there's currently nothing in the Maine Constitution on congressional or county commissioner redistricting but those redistrictings use the Apportionment Commission provided for in the constitution and my bill would have kept that use of the Apportionment Commission while changing the years it would meet for congressional and county commissioner redistricting).  If LD 211 had passed and the voters had accepted the constitutional amendment, I'm confident that a law moving congressional, county commissioner and the elected finance/budget committees in those counties that have them redistricting to 2011 and every 10 years thereafter would have sailed through in 2012.  But LD 211 was killed despite having gotten a unanimously favorable report in committee as it would have moved the cost of redistricting to the state into (pegged at $485,000 in the fiscal note) into the fiscal biennium the Legislature was budgeting for at the time.  LD 494, which I expect will be adopted this year in some form, didn't even get a unanimous report in committee; one paranoid first-term House Democrat on the committee voted "Ought Not to Pass" after she learned that I posted to a conservative Maine website and became convinced I had a secret agenda, even though my posts there are almost entirely statistical and analytical like most of my posts here and I actually volunteered a fair amount at the state Democratic HQ in 2008 and 2010.  The congressional lawsuit being launched while the bill was still before the committee and the cold Democratic reaction to it probably didn't help.

Two news articles on the three parties' implementation plans submitted yesterday (except that the one submitted by the state wasn't available at the time of the PPH article and was only discussed by comparison in the other article), one from the Portland Press Herald (http://www.pressherald.com/news/earlier-start-proposed-for-state-redistricting_2011-06-18.html) that makes it look like the plaintiffs are hoping for a Republican gerrymander and one from the Maine Public Broadcasting Network (http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3478/ItemId/16838/Default.aspx) that suggests a bipartisan commission to deal with congressional redistricting is in the awning, and in which the plaintiffs attorney endorses a bipartisan commission "and if the Legislature thinks that's the right way to proceed."  (So basically, "We were hoping for a Republican gerrymander but we're not going to openly oppose a bipartisan commission that at least one our own party's legislative leadership has endorsed.")

Full article (http://www.pressherald.com/news/maine-Judges-deadlines-congressional-redistricting.html)

The court also issued its written order, in which slammed the Democratic Party, saying that their arguments rested on quicksand, were red herrings, and that the decision that the current districts were unconstitutional was child's play.  And this was before they even started addressing the Democrat's rationale for delay.

When the court issued its oral order on July 9, it asked the plaintiffs (DeSena and Dunham), the defendants (Governor LePage and the legislature), and the intervenors (Maine Democratic Party) to suggest their plans at remediation.

It is settled case law (Growe v Emison) that federal courts should interfere in redistricting efforts only as a last resort.

The Democrats proposed that the federal judges adjust the schedule under Maine law, so that the redistricting commission would be appointed this year.  The plaintiffs appeared to ask that the judges said a detailed schedule.  The defendants wanted pretty much what was ordered, giving the legislature an opportunity to act followed by the Maine Supreme Court if necessary,

The order says that the court "anticipates" the legislature acting by Sept 30, and if they don't, they "anticipate" that the Maine Supreme court will do so by November 15.  In the next sentence, they admit that these are deadlines.  The defendants are also required to report every 20 days, with other parties able to comment, so conceivably the federal court could intervene.

I suspect the legislature and governor are quite happy to have a deadline, since now anything they do is simply to keep the federal court from imposing its plans and to maintain Maine sovereignty.

I expected the Democrats to be chastised, although I wasn't sure it would be as bad as it was.  In "League of Women Voters of Maine v. Gwadosky" (which struck down Maine's "Scarlet Letter Law" passed by citizen initiative in 1996 that would have written "VIOLATED VOTER INSTRUCTION ON TERM LIMITS" as part of the listings of incumbent members of Congress or the Legislature on the ballot who didn't vote in favor of a specifically worded application for a congressional term limits amendment or that amendment itself if in Congress, or didn't propose such an application or amendment if no one else did, or "REFUSED [I forget what exactly but similarly not flattering]" for non-incumbent candidates who refused to pledge to support such an application or amendment), the district judge (this didn't go to a three-judge court) wrote that the Intervenor Defendents' (U.S. Term Limits, the On Our Terms-Campaign Committee (perhaps the Maine group behind the challenged citizen initiative) and two ex-Democratic current or former State Representatives from Auburn (one of whom ran for Governor in 2002 and used the n-word on a radio show to describe how he was being "put in his place" - he's white, btw)) argument that "the Act is not coercive but rather provides non-binding instructions from Maine's voters to their legislators... raises naivete to new heights. (http://174.123.24.242/leagle/xmlResult.aspx?page=8&xmldoc=19971018966FSupp52_11010.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7)"  But they weren't slammed as much as the Democrats were.  Unlike in this case the State actually tried to defend the challenged law.

Technically though, what the court said was "child's play" was the plaintiffs' showing that the disparity in the two congressional district's populations "was not "unavoidable despite a good-faith effort to achieve absolute equality"", not the decision that the current districts were unconstitutional (not that the court would have disagreed with your statement).  The court was not at all appologetic about rejecting the Democrats' argument that (as the court put the Democrats' arguement) "the policies supporting Maine's carefully constructed redistricting process, laudably designed to prevent partisan gerrymandering, are worthy of deference and, therefore, justify the state in using the 2010 census figures more deliberately in revamping its congressional district lines (with the result that reapportionment will be delayed until after the 2012 election)" and didn't themselves conceed that the designs of Maine's provisions were laudible, but they weren't as savage toward the Democrats there as they were with the various defenses of such a large deviation as Maine's in general, like how large Montana's at-large congressional district was (I gawked when I first saw that in a Democratic brief) and the several cases (regarding legislative districts all) in which larger deviations than those of Maine's congressional districts had been upheld.

Links to the two recent orders:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/maine/medce/1:2011cv00117/40961/33/) (basically the court's "Opinion" regarding the "liability phase" of the case, ruling that Maine's congressional districts have to be drawn before the 2012 elections)

ORDER REGARDING PLAN FOR REDISTRICTING (http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/maine/medce/1:2011cv00117/40961/34/)

I'm not sure when the three-judge court says, "To the extent that the Maine Supreme Judicial Court plays any role in the redistricting for the 2012 congressional election, the Court anticipates the Maine Supreme Judicial Court will complete its work no later than November 15, 2011," that they are saying that the Maine Supreme Court would necessarily have any role in the event that no plan is passed by the Legislature by September 30, 2011. If no specific law or order was passed making the Maine Supreme Judicial Court the backup in 2011 and the Legislature failed to meet it's September 30 deadline, then I think the federal three-judge court might determine its deadlines to have not been met and thus "proceed with its own reapportionment of Maine’s congressional districts in order to cure the Constitutional violation prior to January 1, 2012" (from the text of the second order linked to in my last post).


Yeah, I think they're happy with the result too.  So far though, signs point to an attempt at a bipartisan solution rather than a Republican gerrymender.  The court rulings and the lack of a state constitutional 2/3 rule (or any 2/3 rule specifically for 2011) does give the Republicans that opportunity though.

Under the US Constitution, State legislatures are responsible for providing the time, place, and manner of congressional elections subject to override by Congress.

Congress has set the time and requires election from districts.  There are other procedural requirements such as those for voting machines, campaign finance, military and overseas voters, and the VRA, but we can ignore those.  The Supreme Court has interpreted the congressional requirement for districts and the constitutional specification that representatives be chosen by the people of the States to mean that districts must be equipopulous to a high level of precision.

So all the federal court cares about is that Maine conducts its 2012 elections with two equal population districts.  It doesn't really care about how the Maine legislature actually creates the two districts.  It also accepts without question the filing deadline for the 2012 election (ie it is Maine's decision to have filing for the November 2012 election in January, so that is when the districts have to be defined.)

The Democratic Party tried to interpret the decision as meaning that the court had found the redistricting procedure unconstitutional because of its schedule (they argued in succession: (1) the deviation is not so bad; (2) we plan to fix it 2 years from now; (3) since you don't like the schedule, adjust the schedule).  The court ruled: (1) the deviation is too much; (2) we don't care what you plan to do two years from now; and (3) you obviously didn't understand (1) and (2).  It is possible that the 2003 process is still valid, depending on how it is written.  Though the legislature could change it before then.  For example, they could redistrict this year, and change the current statutory process to be used in 2021.

Presumably, the Maine judiciary has authority to oversee any legislation or the legislative process to ensure it complies with the Maine and US constitutions.  So the federal court is interpreting "legislature" to mean the "legislative process", including the governor (veto power), and judiciary (legal review).  If the federal court had set a November deadline for the legislature, then it would have interfered with the Maine judicial branch by not giving them time to act.  If the legislature fails to create lawful districts, I suspect that the Maine supreme court does have the authority to do so.

In 2001 in Texas, the federal district court and state district court held joint hearings on the congressional map.  The legislature had failed to draw a map in the 2001 regular session, and it was apparent that a special session would not be called.  The state court drew a plan, but then-Speaker Laney said he wanted to have the judge make a few changes.  The judge said that the good map was not his final order.  His final map made rather major changes, and the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the state district court had violated due process.  It was only then that the federal district court took over.

So the Maine courts can review the legislative actions and perhaps draw the map if the legislature fails to do so.  The Maine courts probably can be more creative.  The federal court is limited to make the minimal changes necessary, which would probably amount to moving a town or two.  In so doing, they would be respecting the last clearly expressed Maine legislative intent.  I suppose that if the Maine legislature did a major revamp, and it was challenged on grounds of population equality, they could work off that map.  For example, if the legislature were to split a town, they would be required to make the districts equal.  

It looks like LD 494 (http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280039621) (the resolution, not the constitutional amendment therin which will go before the voters in November) is now law, or is just awaiting receipt by the Office of the Secretary of State (which is what happens with constitutional resolutions that have been passed; the Governor Action section in the bill's status summary will say "Received in the Office of the Secretary of State (Governor's Signature Not Required)" (example from 2009 (http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280032077); that constitutional amendment was rejected by the voters)).

LD 494 passed with a floor amendment, House Amendment "B" (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_125th/billtexts/HP038705.asp), that basically added the current statutory provisions for congressional and county commissioner redistricting (moved from years ending in '3' to years ending in '1' like LD 494 already did (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_125th/billtexts/HP038701.asp) for legislative redistricting) to the Maine Constitution.  This includes a 2/3 vote requirement in both chambers to pass a redistricting plan, in the absence of which the Maine Supreme Judicial Court shall make the apportionment.


With congressional and county commissioner redistricting, however, rather than provide for redistricting in 2013 and then in 2021 and every 10 years thereafter like it would for legislative redistricting, the constitutional amendment proposed to the voters by the resolution as passed adds provisions that read "Beginning in 2021 and every 10 years thereafter," and then go on to describe the redistricting process.  I'm not sure if these additions would be construed to prohibit congressional redistricting between the time the constitutional amendment is adopted (if is is adopted, by which time new congressional districts will likely have been drawn pursuent to the three-judge court's order in Desesa et al v. State of Maine et al (http://dockets.justia.com/docket/maine/medce/1:2011cv00117/40961/)) and 2021.  But I've heard it said that our current constitutional provisions providing for the redrawing of legislative districts during "the Legislature which convenes in 1983 and every 10th year thereafter" (House) or "Legislature which shall convene in the year 1983 and every tenth year thereafter" (Senate) prohibit at least a general redraw of those districts in years not ending in '3'.  (There were some minor changes to House and Senate districts in 1995 I think, and in 2003 or 2004 but after a state House district plan was passed and signed there was an amendment to change the House district lines in Waterville so a Colby College dorm (singular) wouldn't be divided between House districts; the block they moved was actually quite sizable; a smaller block near the center of town was moved the other way.)  Perhaps the word "Beginning" could be interpreted to mean that the new constitutional congressional and county commissioner redistricting provisions don't apply before 2021, but the paragaph before the paragraphs beginning with "Beginning" reads (after the section title), "{Congressional, County commissioner} districts must be reapportioned as follows."  Even the current legislative redistricting provisions (and the legislative redistricting provisions as LD 494 would amend them) don't contain such a preamble.

So the adoption of this constitutional amendment by the voters this November could fix whatever congressional district lines are drawn this year in place through the 2020 elections, where under current Maine statute (which could be amended but could be amended back or "notwithstood" later) the existing lines would be reviewed in 2013, although that section (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/21-A/title21-Asec1206.html) only says that the apportionment commission shall reapportion the state into congressional districts "if the districts do not conform to Supreme Judicial Court guidelines," which the congressional districts drawn this year presumably will.  And there's no constitutional 2/3 requirement, and arguable no statutorory 2/3 requirement governing the coming 2011 court-ordered congressional redistricting which this constutional amendment would arguably enshrine until 2021.  The joint order (http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280042328) to create a bipartisan congressional redistricting commission passed both houses today, but there's nothing stopping the Republicans from passing a plan with a simple majority when the Legislature has a special session to take up redistricting.

For county commissioner redistricting, the proposed state constutitional language is similar regarding the timing of redistricting, but unlike Maine's congressional districts I see no signs of Maine's county commissioner districts being redrawn this year.  Some counties' commissioner districts are going to have to be drawn before 2021 under federal court guidelines (even if the standard there is only that states must redraw the lines every 10 years based on a census that was the most recent one of its kind at the time the lines were drawn, Maine's county commissioner districts haven't been redrawn since 2003, and I know the difference in population between the largest and smallest districts in Kennebec County is more than 10% of the ideal district population which is the general standard for non-congressional redistricting, above which the burden of proof in an equal protection court challenge rests with the apportioning body (in Maine's case the state of Maine).  The word "Beginning" in the new provisions should the constitutional amendment be adopted) combined with federal court standards might result in the current Maine statutes governing county commissioner redistricting, which provide for redistricting in 1983 and every 10 years thereafter, prevailing until 2021 without the need for litigation.  It is a bit of a mess though.

I pretty much wrote the original draft of LD 494 (which the favorable majority committee report didn't change), but I never followed through with a promise to whip up text for an amendment to add congressional and county commissioner redistricting provisions (including the 2/3 rule) into the Maine Constitution until after the House Amendment "B" (and the earlier House Amendment "A" (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_125th/billtexts/HP038704.asp) that House Amendment "B" was a slight cleanup of) had been drafted, and by the time I e-mailed it to my two legislators and someone else I had been discussing the bill with things were moving on a pace, and when my State Representative, the sponsor of the bill, told me last Thursday that the Revisor's Office had given their okay to the bill as engrossed (by that time the only remaining step was "Final Passage" in the Senate in concurrence with the House) I gave the bill my blessing.  I've had some second thoughts about that since then, but I still plan to support it unless the Republicans pass a really rediculous congressional plan this year, in which case I might somewhat actively campaign against it (I had envisioned actively campaigning for the amendment until a couple days ago when the full extent of the potential consequences of House Amendment "B" hit me.)

Some of the deadlines in the proposed constitutional provisions for county commissioner redistriciting are also inconsistent with each other and with the proposed constitutional deadlines for legislative and congressional redistricting, but that might not pose a big problem as the constitutional and statutory deadlines for the redrawing of all three types of districts have some inconsistencies and that didn't seem to create much of a hassle in 2003.

So they passed the 2/3rds requirement for next time (when the Democrats will probably have control of the legislature again) but don't have to follow it this time?

Yes, and necessarily by a 2/3 margin as it is a constitutional amendment resolution.  In otherwords, the first part of what you wrote above (and the implied prohibition on redistricting between 2011 and 2021) couldn't have gone through without Democratic support in each chamber.  There were no roll calls but the divisions on final passage were 132-7 in the House (so 11 Representatives absent or excused with 1 vacancy) and 34-0 in the Senate (so 1 Senator absent or excused).

I tried to point that out to Janet Mills, the Vice Chair of the Maine Democratic Party (also the previous Attorney General and the attorney who represented the Democrats in the lawsuit), whom I have had a sporadic e-mail correspondence with going back to when the lawsuit was first announced.  She questioned me about the deadlines in House Amendment "A", thinking I might have written it, and I replied that I was surprised the wasn't more concerned about the "Beginning in 2021" part.  A couple days later, she posted me a link to House Amendment "B" and when I asked if she had anything to do with it she said that she had mentioned to my State Representative (a Republican) in the hallway (presumably of the State House) "that the earlier floor amendment was not consistent with the timeline in the underlying bill."  The next week, a couple weeks ago, after the bill had been finally passed in the House and just needed appropriations committee (for the potential referendum costs, presumably, as the moveup in redistricting isn't until 2021) and final Senate approval, I forwarded her a copy of an e-mail I had sent to my two Legislators and my Republican cyberfriend I mentioned earlier in this thread who now works in the Governor's office that had my proposed amendment to the resolution attached.  In that e-mail to Janet Mills, I wrote the following, with italics added here (not in the e-mail) for emphasis:


I haven't heard back from her since then.

I don't understand the process.   Did the two chambers engross different versions of LD 494 in April, and then came along in June and pass different versions?   Are there ever record votes in the legislature, even for proposed constitutional amendments?

There is always the issue whether a state constitution may bind action by a legislature with regard to congressional districts.  This is under current litigation in Florida.  The Supreme Court precedents are where a constitution provided a role for the governor (through the veto power) or the people (through the referendum) in the legislative process.

What are the Supreme Judicial Court guidelines for congressional districts?  Could they conceivably include that they had been recommended by the apportionment commission or an alternative approved by 2/3 majority?

How is the fewest lines crossed provision interpreted?

Plan 1:

A B B
A B B
A A

Plan 2:

A A B
A B B
A B

Is Plan 2 preferred because 6 boundaries are crossed vs.  7 under Plan 1?

Yeesh, that's pathetic.

Hardly anyone in Maine does either.


If you meant, "did the two chambers engross (concorring with each other) one version of LD 494 in April, and then came along in June and pass a different version?," than the answer is yes.  The House reconsidered the resolution's passage to be engrossed in June, passed House amendment "B" (in "non-concurence" with the Senate even though the Senate's last action had been in concurence with the House at the time), the Senate receded and concurred so the bill was engrossed again, and then both chambers gave the resolution final passage (the Senate after the bill went on the "Special Appropriations Table" that my State Representative who is on Appropriations told me the bill was later "exempted" from).


There are often roll calls.  I think at least a division is necessary for a constitutional resolution.  If you go to LD 494's status summary page and click on "Bill Text and Other Docs" and then replace the '1456' in the resulting URL with '0', some more menu items in that .asp page will appear.  You go from this (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?ld=494&PID=1456&snum=125) to this (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?ld=494&PID=0&snum=125).  The "House Docket" and "Senate Docket" "pages" show the division tallies.


What are the (U.S. I assume you mean) Supreme Court precedents in those cases?


Yeah that's kind of jibberish.  I think what it means is, if the districts need changing when the apportionment commission or whoever is reviewing them as provided for by statute (or now perhaps the Maine Constitution), ... if the districts need redrawing, redraw them.  I'm not joking here.


I assume you're referring to, in the statutory (and proposed constitutional) provisions for congressional redistricting,


or for county commissioner redistricting,


That language is probably based on the Maine Constitution, Article IV, Part First (http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/Constitution2005-04.htm#P94_12792), Section 2 (governing State House redistricting; "carried over" to Maine Senate redistricting in Article IV, Part Second (http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/Constitution2005-04.htm#P94_12792), Section 2), which is worded the same way as what I quoted from the county commissioner redistricting provisions except that the word "shall" appears instead of the word "must" (in past perenial constitutional resolutions to reduce the size of the Legislature, the people drafting the resolution have replaced the "shall"s with "must"s, but I didn't do that in drafting suggested language for LD 494 (again, I didn't draft either of the floor amendments to the resolution).

For legislative redistricting at least, that provision basically treated like a guideline I think, like standard order balancing of regard for political subdivision lines with population equality, yada yada, yada, but is not really interpreted verbatum.  To be honest I've never thought much about that requirement as an arguably tight provision, and I consider myself to be pretty with it regarding the potential consequences of how legislation is worded.  The sentences following that about not having what Lewis Trondheim would call "additional county splits" (or rather "additional municipal splits") for municipalities having more than enough population than a whole district drew my notice much more when I first looked at the various provisions and that seems to be mostly followed for Legislative redistricting.  I say "mostly followed" because Old Town had too many people for one district in 1990 but most of the city was in with the Penobscot Indian Island Reservation, but most of the part of that reservation where people live is in Old Town according to the Department of Transportation and DeLorme's The Maine Atlas and Gazeteer (that's practically an authoritative source in Maine).  There are two overlapping types of "minor civil divisions" in Maine when you get into the boonies.  Redistricting generally uses the Census Bureau's county subdivisions but the fact that there is another kind, with a lot of townships ending in "West of the Easterly Line of the State" (WELS) can make things a little murky.

The "maximum number of whole districts" requirement has been in place since beginning with the 1983 redistricting (before that the constitutional provisions were too strict to be followed without seeming to violate OMOV), while the "don't split municipal remainders" rule was added after the 1983 redistricting.  Auburn and Portland had at least 2 "partial" House districts (exactly 2 in Auburn's case I know) from 1984 until 1994.

What specifically, may I ask?  Not that I disagrre, but I'm not sure who or what of what I recounted there that you are calling pathetic.  Am I included?  It's okay if I am.  I tried my best to create a positive outcome, that's all I can say.

No, it's the sheer level of naivete and incompetence that the Democrats in the legislature are showing by letting the Republicans roll over them.

Davis v Hildebrandt 241 US 565 (1916) was a case from Ohio where the referendum power was used to overturn a redistricting law.  It is slightly ambiguous, because Congress in 1911 had passed legislation that indicated that the referendum was properly part of the redistricting process (ie a referendum could be seen as part of the manner legislated by Congress, rather than part of the "legislature").

Hawke v. Smith , 253 U.S. 221 (1920) is somewhat related in that it was the (attempted) use of the referendum to ratify a constitutional amendment.  It is helpful to understand the delineation between "State", "State legislature", and "State legislative process" in the US Constitution.  State legislative process is not used in the US Constitution, but in some cases the US Constitution has been interpreted as meaning that when "legislature" implies "passing legislation".   When a legislature ratifies a constitutional amendment it is not "legislating" and the Constitution also provides an alternative body, which Congress may choose for ratification.

Smiley v Holm 285 U.S. 355 (1932) was a case from Minnesota where a governor vetoed a redistricting plan, and the legislature then passed a resolution saying that it was in force.

In both Davis v Hildebrant and Smiley v Holm, the state constitutions had added elements in in the law-making process beyond the legislature proper.  Presumably, this would also include all the constitutional provisions that control the legislative process.  For example, in Texas, the congressional redistricting law was passed in the special session.  Only matters put on the agenda by the governor may be considered in special session.  So had the governor not added congressional redistricting to the call, any legislation on the matter would be void.

Where it gets interesting is whether a state constitution may provide special process rules for redistricting legislation (eg requiring a 2/3 vote; or restricting legislation to one year per decade; and the content of that legislation (eg minimal town splitting and racial considerations).

Note that "prescribing the manner of congressional elections" does not necessarily mean that the legislature (or legislative process) must draw the lines, but could mean that the legislature prescribes a separate body draw the lines.  But does this mean that the California Constitution may prescribe that delegation?

I had thought Growe v Emison, 507 U.S. 25 (1993) might apply, because there was a gubernatorial veto there, but the legislature had passed a bill that the state court had already provisionally imposed.  The case is mainly about the role of federal and state courts and legislature in redistricting, and would be useful in understanding why the federal district court in Maine provided an opportunity for the Maine supreme court to act.  Conceivably, someone could make a claim in state court that the ending in "3" statute is unconstitutional because it has resulted in unconstitutional congressional districts, and that the state court should remedy this by changing the schedule in the law.  The federal court might stand by while the Maine courts interpreted Maine statutes, so long as the overall deadline is met.

All commission members named except for the designed-to-be-neutral member. (http://www.dirigoblue.com/diary/3361/members-of-reapportionment-commission-named)

I may have posted this earlier, but here (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_125th/billtexts/HP118601.asp) is the joint order establishing this commission.  It's modeled after the Apportionment Commission for legislative redistricting (and congressional and county commissioner redistricting beginning in 2021 under the proposed amendment) established in the Maine Constitution, Article IV, Part Third (http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/Constitution2005-06.htm), Section 1-A.

What is a "Joint Order"?  What is an HP?  (vs an HB)?  Does the legislature have the authority to call itself into special session, or does that require the governor?

See the Glossary (pages 117 through 145) of (and I'm showing how I accessed it here so you'll know where it comes from) Maine State Legislature (http://www.maine.gov/legis/) -> PUBLICATIONS (http://www.maine.gov/legis/pubns.htm) -> Legislators' Handbook (PDF) (http://www.maine.gov/legis/opla/LegHandbook08.pdf), which is the 15th edition from October 2008, the most recent version I've seen (although it wouldn't surprise me if there's a new one).  For an older glossary (from the 118th Legislature which lasted from December 1996 to December 1998) in .htm format go to Maine State Legislature -> PUBLICATIONS -> Path of Legislation (http://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/billpath.htm) -> Glossary (http://www.maine.gov/legis/opla/glossary.htm).  The link at the bottom of that older glossary to the Table of Contents to the Maine Legislators' Handbook yields "We're sorry, but the page you requested cannot be found (http://www.maine.gov/legis/opla/handbook.htm)".  I was about to recommend the older one which I thought was much easier to reference but if you set Acrobat reader to "show side-by-side pages with continuous scrolling" than the more recent PDF version becomes fairly convenient.

HP, which is not in either glossary, stands for House Paper, and HPs (the 's' at the end is just added be me; it may not be correct Maine legislative lingo) along with SPs (Senate Papers) can be LDs (Legislative Documents, which propose public laws, private and special laws, resolves and constitutional resolutions; see the glossary), joint orders (see the glossary), joint resolutions (largely sentiments or "memorializing" (urging) somebody or some body like Congress to do something) and possibly other stuff.  Single chamber orders, resolutions (which are infrequent; the last one proposed was an HR in 2007, and that one was killed) and sentiments have their own paper types.

I'll have to get to research your question about special sessions later.  You can check out the Maine Constitution (http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/)

So in this case they the legislature didn't have time to change the law, but the Joint Order is creating the commission to prepare (possible) legislation that the legislature may enact when they come back into session?

See articles IV.1, V.8, and V.13 in constitution.  So it can  be either.

A curiosity of IV.1 is that would imply that a 3rd political party could block the legislature from meeting in special session ("majority of each party")

Interesting.  I hadn't thought about that.  I'd read that section before but hadn't remembered it and I had to get going somewhere but wanted to post what I had written earlier today.  The Independent in the Legislature right now used to be a member of the Green Independent Party* and may have been the de facto Green candidate in his district in 2010 (as well as perhaps the de facto Republican candidate as the Republicans didn't replace their withdrawn candidate in July when they could have; not that they had any chance in that district).  I don't know why he left the party but I based on what I know about him I could see him rejoining it.  The way the law reads now (and which won't likely be changed unless and until the Democrats have a trifecta or a legislative supermajority) the Greens shouldn't have any trouble keeping ballot access for the near future at least.

*The Independent in the Maine Green Party's name is there because their candidate for Governor in 1998 (also in 2006 and Cobb's VP runningmate in 2004) used that designation when the party had lost official ballot status by Nader's <5% showing in 1996 but were suing to get it back; the law then required 5% for Governor or President in the last general election, with the Greens emphasizing the "or" and the state (which seems to me to match the likely intent of the law) assuming that it meant whichever of those two offices was up for election in the last general election; the state prevailed).

Well, I think the Legislature could have passed a joint order (with a simple majority vote in each chamber) after the oral ruling authorizing the State and Local Government committee (Maine's main committees are joint committees) to report out a bill to reapportion the state and could probably have even spelled out the plan, and that the plan would be enacted notwithstanding Maine's 2/3 rule, in the joint order, and the Republican majority of that committee could probably have reported out the bill in one or two meetings and had the bill signed before the session adjourned, and if no people's veto was initiated by 5 p.m. on the first business day on or after the fifth day after the session adjourned, the three-judge panel would probably have dropped jurisdiction in the case (otherwise they would presumbably drop jurisdiction if and when the requesite number of signatures for the people's veto were determined not to have been collected by 5 p.m. on the first business day on or after the 90th day after the session adjourned).  See IV-3 (http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/Constitution2005-06.htm).17 of the Maine Constitution.

For perhaps a better idea of what is being done in Maine in response to the court order, watch the first 18 1/2 minutes of the Redistricting/Good Will-Hinkley (http://www.mpbn.net/Television/LocalTelevisionPrograms/MaineWatch/tabid/477/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3470/ItemId/17114/Default.aspx) episode of the Maine Public Broadcasting Network's Maine Watch program.


It's pretty clear that there will be a special session, and legislation will almost certainly be proposed.  Whether or not legislation is passed, and whether the legislation is passed with a 2/3 majority or not, is not clear.  The Democratic Vice Chair on the Maine Watch segment tried to pin the Republican Senate Majority Leader, who will be on the commission, about that, and the latter seemed to succeed in making friendly overtures without pinning down her own party.  On June 17, the Portland Press Herald reported that a special election in Cape Elizabeth to replace the State Representative who had been elected to the Senate in a special election in May, which the town councillors had requested be held on November 8, 2011 to coincide with a statewide election (there's always something on the ballot), had been scheduled instead for August 16 (http://www.pressherald.com/news/election-to-fill-cape-house-seat-set-for-aug_-16_2011-06-17.html) on the grounds that, as Cape Elizabeth's Town Manager relayed, "As the Maine Legislature will apparently be having a brief special session in September to resolve congressional reapportionment, Governor LePage believes it is inappropriate to wait until November for the special election.  His office today contacted us to discuss the need to move forward with an election as soon as possible."  Everything I've read or heard since then seems to back up that there will be a special session and that it will probably be in September.

I was wondering about where the 2/3 rule came from.  I don't think there can be any presumption that any part of the current procedure is valid.   If the legislature passes a bill and the governor signs it, are the Maine courts going to overturn it?

So Mills was not only the Maine AG, she is vice chair of the Democratic Party, and was the lawyer whose arguments the federal court ridiculed?

I think the folks on the panel need to be reminded that it was their State's governor who is the eponym for gerrymandering.

What is the reason that Androscoggin is in the 2nd?

Consolidating the Francophone/French ancestry voters in the 2nd. Lewiston-Auburn has a long-established French population, much higher than its relatively southerly and border-distant location would suggest. IIRC, Androscoggin is one of the few counties in the country that is plurality French in ancestry.

Edit: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oQZ_n2oOa9o/TYFV9ACpS9I/AAAAAAAAVTg/TIRyT2QpYXw/s1600/map%2Bof%2Bancestry.gif

Plurality French-Canadian, specifically. I think it's mostly industrial workers who immigrated from Quebec over the past century in Lewiston as opposed to descendants of colonial French residents up in Aroostook, but the community of interest is still there.

If the legislature passes and the Governor signs a bill without a 2/3 majority (presumably it would be a Republican bill) and doesn't even reference the 2/3 rule (either to get rid of it or to "notwithstand" it, like the Democrats feinted at doing in 2003 but if they'd done that the State House plan would probably have gone to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court which hadn't gone well for them in 1993), the Democrats would probably challenge it in state court, not necessarily because they would expect to win (although it wouldn't surprise me if they did expect that) but to try to use the trial to win in the court of public opinion.  It seemed to me at the time that that was part of what they were doing in their intervention in the federal lawsuit, which may be partly why the three-judge court was so harsh in their rebuttals of the various claims the Democrats made.  I haven't heard anyone other than you, jimrtex, mention how unimpressed the judges revealed themselves to be with the Democrats' arguments, so it may be that the Democrats would feel they woul have nothing to lose by suing (other than money and blaim for the state having to spend more money - also not something I've heard mentioned regarding the federal case, like how the plaintiff's attorneys fees the state will most likely end up paying might have been less if not for the Democrats' intervention, what with the state defendents agreeing with the plaintiffs on the essential point).

The Republicans might look silly for giving the Democrats a not totally ridiculous avenue for challenge by not simply adding a notwithstanding clause (which wouldn't need to be something that was interted into any statutes (the Democrats withdrawn 2003 move wouldn't have), and I don't see the problem with notwithstanding a statute that didn't need to be nothwishtood when that otherwise potentially confusing notwithstanding clause isn't goint into the statutes and only applies to the staturory change iteslf).


Yes.  She was also a State Representative from 2002 to 2008 (she was reelected in 2008 while simultaneously campaiging for her caucus's nomination for AG, but declined to take the oath of office after winning that nomination as the would apparently have prevented her from serving as AG), District Attorney for Androscoggin, Franklin and Oxford counties from I'm not sure when to 1994 or early 1995 and ran for Congress in ME-02 in 1994 when Olympia Snowe ran for the Senate, finishing third in a seven-candidate Democratic primary to Baldacci and Libby Mitchell's husband Jim, who had Bangor listed as his residence in that primary even though Libby was running (sucessfully, it turned out) for reelection to the State House in Vassalboro which was and still is in ME-01 (although I could see it being moved to ME-02 this year).  Jim Mitchell has also been Kennebec County's Judge of Probate (an elected position in Maine, unlike regular judges and justices) since like forever although there might have been a gap around his 1994 campaign for Congress that I'm not aware of.  I've heard he was actually the favorite in that primary by most pundits.  Baldacci was one of the most fiscally conservative Democrats in the Maine Senate back then.


And votes from the District of Maine (mostly Democratic-Republican in it's later pre-statehood years I've read) could possibly have played a key roll in Elbridge Gerry (a Democratic-Republican) being elected Governor of normally-Federalist Massachusetts in one or both of his sucessful races in 1810 and 1811.

There were Franco-American (probably predominently Québécois like Lewiston) communities in the first district as well though.  Biddeford, Sanford, Waterville (which was only moved into the second district in 2003).  These southern Maine communities don't seem as Franco now but back in the early 60s when Maine lost its third district they would have been.  Of course a district streching from York County to the St. John Valley and including the Lewiston area and Waterville would have been very ugly, and you might have had proably have to split multiple counties to get the district to stretch all the way and do things like take advantage of the Aroostook-Somerset county boundary where few if any people live.  The Aroostook-Piscataquis county boundary which seems almost as remote was taken advantage of in a State Senate district combing Piscataquis County with much of the St. John Valley from 1968 until 1972 (Maine didn't use redrawn Senate districts following Reynolds v. Sims until 1968, and the population variances in the 1968-1972 districts wouldn't pass muster nowadays (they just had to be between 27,000 and 33,000 in population, with no set size of the Senate)).

The main reason I think that Lewiston is in the second district is that the Republicans, who controlled the Legislature and the Governorship at the time and had just retaken every big prize except for Ed Muskie's Senate seat (which wouln't be up until 1964) in 1960 thought that by keeping York and Cumberland counties in a separate district from Androscoggin County (and Oxford County may leaned Democratic by Maine standards back then), and adding them respectively to the midcoast and eastern Maine, which included the St. John Valley but also heavily Republican southern Aroostook County and probably fairly Republican Presque Isle-Caribou area, they would most likely hold both districts.  I'm pretty sure there wasn't a 2/3 rule anywhere on the books back then or any history of bipartisanship (except that the small but more cohesive Democratic caucus might have occasionally have in a position of power between rival factions of Republicans in the Legislature, I've read there was a major divide between the Republicans in the 1959-60 Legislature when the Governor (who died late in 1959) was a Democrat and the Democrats actually had enough seats in both the House and the Senate to sustain a veto), and even if there had been a 2/3 the Republicans had regained supermajority status in both chambers in the 1960 elections.

For a totally wild experience scroll down this table (http://www.maine.gov/legis/house/history/makeup.htm) of partisan tallies in the Legislature from 1911 to the present (it doesn't start in the best place as base on what I've read the tallies in the 1900s (the decade) were similar to those in the later 1910s and 1920s), although I don't think the Democrats had gooseeggs in the Senate back then (they had at at least one point in the late 19th Century).  Maine didn't like Barry Goldwater very much.  And we had a "big box" where voters could check one box to vote for all of one party's candidates from ? (before that may have been back when the parties printed their own ballots) through 1970.  Before 1960 we elected all offices besides the President and Vice President in September, so the Presidential coattails effect wasn't as great, nor was the effect of others' coattails on the Presidential race (Ike's percentage margin in 1956, when the Democrats reelected Governor Muskie and took a congressional seat, was second only to Calvin Coolidge's IIRC).

Anyway, the 1961 congressional redistricting plan worked for the Republicans in the first election in 1962 (although just barely in the second district, which may have caused the Repulibcan incumbent to decide to end his carreer in a glorious campaign against Ed Muskie for the Senate in 1964 rather than risk losing to the Democratic challenger that nearly upset him in 1962), but by 1967 (after the 1966 election) both seats were in Democratic hands.  Republicans held both seats again from 1975 until 1991 but by then it was clear that both seats could be won by either party.  Now (unlike in 1961) it seems to be in the Republicans' best interest to maximize the partisan differential between the two districts as their chances of winning both of them under any lines are probably less than them losing both, but we'll have to see what they do or if the tradition since 1983 of bipartisan or Supreme Judicial Court redistricting is kept (from Senate Majority Leader Debra Plowman's comments on the MPBN program I think it's unlikely the Republicans will allow the decision to go to the courts, but they might be willing to give a bit to get Democratic support to blunt bad PR over a partisan redistricting).

Maine Democratic activist and blogger Gerald Weinand has been following the redistricting process on his site Dirigo Blue (Redistricting tag (http://www.dirigoblue.com/tag/Redistricting)).  He's started a redistricting contest (http://www.dirigoblue.com/diary/3473/dirigo-blue-congressional-redistricting-contest) that finally got me to learn to save maps with Dave's Redistricting App (I hadn't realized how easy it is).

My proposed entry (in the "Official Congressional Districts" category) moves Unity UT (Unity Township), Albion, China, Vassalboro and Rome from ME-01 to ME-02, while moving Oakland and Wayne from ME-02 to ME-01.  ME-01 would have 3 more people than ME-02.

Also, the Governor has called a special session for September 27 (http://www.kjonline.com/news/Legislature-to-consider-redistricting-plan-Sept-27.html) to consider a congressional redistricting plan.

Here's a map of my entry showing almost all of the boundary area:

()

I didn't want to lose detail by zooming out to the next level.  There aren't any surprises on either end I promise!

And here's a map of the towns I have moving from one district to the other in my proposed plan:

()

So the negative would that you are infringing on Waterville, while the traditional divide in  Kennebec is between Waterville and Augusta?  Was Waterville in the southern district at one time?

Any problems with splitting Kennebec in 5 pieces?  And what is the reason for keeping the 3 towns SW of Gardiner with the norther district?  Ties to Lewiston?

My solution is just to move Sidney from ME-01 to ME-02. That makes the population roughly equal (127/-126). Why make things complicated?

That is true.  Oakland is in the same High School area (I say that rather than school districts as there have been a lot of mergers in the last few years that haven't resulted in High Schools being closed, although that has also started to happen) as Belgrade and Sidney (and Rome, but Rome's smaller than Oakland).  My plan also reunites the Lawrence High School area (Albion, Benton, Clinton and Fairfield) and the Maranacook High School area (Manchester, Mount Vernon, Readfield and Wayne, although a lot of kids from Fayette which I've left in ME-02 and which hasn't had a set high school go to Maranacook, or at least did until recently (I'm not sure if Fayette joined in with the new Jay-Livermore Falls middle and high school merger)).  That wasn't what I was specifically going for when I came up with this plan, although I did eye Wayne as a town to move "the other way" in exploring possible "close to least change" plans and I think my desire to reunite the Maranacook area had something to do with that.
 

Yes, from the 1962 elections until the 2004 elections.  The part of Kennebec County that was in the second district from the 1994 though 2002 elections only shares Wayne (which my plan moves back to the first district) with the part of Kennebec County that's now in the second district.


Wow, I hadn't thought of that, at least not that way (I knew that there were four distinct portions of Kennebec County in the second district under my plan).  The county is split into 4 pieces now (ME-01 portion, Oakland to Clinton portion of ME-02, Wayne+Fayette, and Monmouth Litchfield).


That's just one town, Litchfield, actually (which has three census block groups).  And yes, I have heard (or rather read) of the State Senator from Litchfield in 2003 talk about how he thought his town had ties to Lewiston (it had been in a district with Lisbon, Livermore Falls, Turner, etc.) when he said that he wished Litchfield wasn't boing moved unto the Gardiner-Winthrop area Senate District (he still voted for the plan as he thought it was fair; he didn't run for reelection and soon after moved out of state I've heard).  A less open to interpretation reason is that Litchfield is in the same High School area as Sabattus and Wales in Androscoggin County.

I've submitted my entry in the contest, but I haven't stopped crunching numbers (as if that would ever happen :) ).  I was starting to settle on that plan as "my plan," but your comments have helped convince me to press on with an eye toward finding something better.  (If I'm moving towns around but think I already have my plan than I'm less likely to find something that contradicts that).

Moving just Vassalboro yields a closer result (-5/6, or -5.5/5.5 if you're me or -5/5 if you're Lewis Trondheim (he considers the fractional average district population rounded either up or down to be ideal district populations; I use the pure, not necessarily integer average populations per district; not that I favor chopping people into halves or other fractions, mind you).  Moving Sidney, Unity UT (Unity Township) and (in Knox County) Isle au Haut from ME-01 to ME-02 yeilds 10.5/-10.5 .  Most of the residents of Unity Township probably live on route 139 or dead end roads off of it and would have to go through Benton or Unity (both in ME-02) to get anywhere else.  And Isle au Haut is connected by public ferry only to Stonington in Hancock County.

Even better. I figured since Kennebec County was the only one split in the current map, it would be best to maintain that, so I didn't try moving anything around elsewhere.

Source (http://bangordailynews.com/2011/08/12/politics/partisan-battle-looms-as-maine-redistricting-recommendations-due/)

And the proposals are out.

Coverage (with maps shown or with links to maps provided) at:

The Bangor Daily News (http://bangordailynews.com/2011/08/15/politics/republican-democrat-congressional-redistricting-plans-widely-divergent/) online

The Portland Press Herald (http://www.pressherald.com/news/Maine-congressional-redistricting-panel-meets-.html) online (the links on that article show clearer maps)

As Maine Goes (http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/download-maine-gop-congressional-redistricting-map) (conservative Maine political web site)

Dirigo Blue (http://www.dirigoblue.com/diary/3538/two-diametrically-opposed-redistricting-plans-proffered-for-maine) (liberal/Democratic Maine political web site)

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

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.

Fixed (http://bangordailynews.com/2011/08/15/politics/republican-democrat-congressional-redistricting-plans-widely-divergent/).

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.

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

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.

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!

My winning entry is the new proposed plan (http://www.dirigoblue.com/diary/3558/maine-democrats-propose-new-redistricting-map-moves-7-towns-with-deviation-of-just-3) 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".

I've done some research since my last post and have found a press release (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Maine-parties-seek-middle-ground-in-redistricting-2129861.php&rct=j&sa=X&ei=F_JOTumeG5GugQfu5L3dBg&ved=0CDEQ-AsoADAA&q=maine+redistricting&usg=AFQjCNGZjK4Bg8w7NZo0xtTsA0A6vsZ_DA) of the House Democrats showing that the "China Vassalboro" plan is their new plan, while as for the Republicans there's one article (http://www.google.com/url?url=) 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 (http://bangordailynews.com/2011/08/19/politics/gop-holds-firm-on-redistricting-plan-democrats-barely-budge/&rct=j&sa=X&ei=F_JOTumeG5GugQfu5L3dBg&ved=0CDUQ-AsoATAA&q=maine+redistricting&usg=AFQjCNFbBeCDBVXiNURT4XZCpVbmRkosuA), 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 (http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/maine-gops-redistricting-plan-no-cause-for-attack-of-the-vapors_2011-08-19.html).

Source (http://www.dirigoblue.com/diary/3565/lawsuit-seeking-temporary-restraining-order-on-reapportionment-comission-filed) (I haven't found any story on the lawsuit outside Dirigo Blue yet)

Scribd download of Complaint (http://www.scribd.com/doc/62771822/Turcotte-v-LePage)

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. (http://www.dirigoblue.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3578)"  (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 (http://www.sunjournal.com/state/story/1077355) (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 (http://www.pressherald.com/news/redistricting-drama-sinks-to-absurdist-levels_2011-08-24.html), 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.

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 (http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/maine/medce/1:2011cv00117/40961/34/) 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 (http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/Constitution2005-06.htm#P142_24539), 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 (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/21-A/title21-Asec901.html)), 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.

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.

Last-ditch efforts on redistricting unlikely to produce compromise (http://bangordailynews.com/2011/08/29/politics/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 (http://politicalpulse.sunjournal.com/post/9613023457/commission-approves-democratic-redistricting-plan-gop) (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.

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

Maine redistricting could sway presidential race (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=597397) (Stateline.org)

Political Pulse: Presidential implications for Maine's redistricting fight? (http://www.sunjournal.com/columns-analysis/story/1082192) (Lewiston Sun Journal)

GOP Tries to Out Maneuver Dems on Maine Redistricting (http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNewsArchive/tabid/181/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3475/ItemId/18176/Default.aspx) (Maine Public Broadcasting)

Maine Republicans may suspend rules to pass their redistricting plan (http://bangordailynews.com/2011/09/23/news/state/maine-republicans-may-suspend-rules-to-pass-their-redistricting-plan/) (Bangor Daily News)

Contained in the BDN article:


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 (http://static.bangordailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Vassalboro-Gardiner-State-600x871.jpg) with a close up on the changes here (http://static.bangordailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Vassalboro-Gardiner-Plan-2-600x590.jpg).

Bill Nemitz: GOP ready to go out of bounds on district lines (http://www.pressherald.com/news/gop-ready-to-go-out-of-bounds-on-district-lines_2011-09-25.html) (Maine Sunday Telegram)

I had to post some liberal commentary.  Nemitz did, however, write in an earlier column (http://www.pressherald.com/news/redistricting-drama-sinks-to-absurdist-levels_2011-08-24.html) 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 (http://www.dirigoblue.com/diary/3737/maine-peoples-voting-coalition-promises-peoples-veto-if-gop-bypasses-23-vote-law) (Dirigo Blue)

Compromise looking likely on congressional redistricting (http://bangordailynews.com/2011/09/26/politics/redistricting-battle-rages-in-eleventh-hour/?ref=latest) (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.

Compromise plan approved nearly unanimously. (http://freepressonline.com/main.asp?SectionID=52&SubSectionID=78&ArticleID=15174)

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.

Voters to tackle redistricting rules with Question 4 (http://bangordailynews.com/2011/10/16/politics/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))


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.

This is a 2+-year old thread now and even this article is pushing two years old, but as I just updated the Maine Legislative/county commissioner redistricting thread I thought I'd post a link to this article as some of the legally minded Forum members (like jimrtex) might be interested in it.

Court Slashes Baker & Hostetler Fees in Maine Redistricting Litigation (http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2012/03/judge-slashes-baker-hostetler-fees-in-maine-redistricting-litigation.html) (Am Law Daily, March 30, 2012)


I looked sometime last year at the PACER directory of documents for this case and didn't see anything after the decision as to attorney's fees discussed in this article, so I guess there was never an appeal filed.  It's worth noting that even though the Attorney General at the time was a Republican, and the lawsuit was pretty clearly aimed at allowing the Republicans then with the trifecta in Maine to redraw the second district to their advantage, the Attorney General wasn't afraid to recommend major cuts to Plaintiffs' counsel's totals that the state, as the losing party in a civil rights vindication case, would have to pay.  The local counsel for Plaintiffs was a former Mayor of Bangor and 2002 Republican candidate for Congress in Maine's second district, finishing a very close second to Kevin Raye in the Republican primary.