Fresh off his chamber’s capitulation to the Will of Schoenbeck in the 2021 redistricting process, Representative Fred Deutsch (R-4/Florence) wants to drag the Legislature into another discussion of its map-drawing process with House Bill 1007, a curious little edge-natterer that does little to ensure a less partisan and more open redistricting process.
HB 1007 would require the Legislature to appoint a fifteen-member joint committee to advise the Legislature on reapportionment. The joint committee would have eight Senators and seven Representatives in 2031. In 2041, the balance would flip: eight from the House, seven from the Senate. And so on, back and forth, every ten years. The Senate President Pro-Tempore would appoint members from the Senate; the Speaker of the House would appoint members from the House.
The bill does not require any sort of proportionate representation: in 2031, if Senate Pro-Tem Remi Beautiful Bald Eagle and Speaker of the House Jenae Hansen want to appoint all Democrats, they will be able to do so. I’m tempted to say that if Fred leaves that door open, 2031 Remi and Jenae should walk right on through, but such partisan imbalance is bad for representative government and the people of South Dakota no matter which party is in charge.
HB 1007 also fails to demand any public accountability from the joint redistricting committee. The Legislature has directed other committees to hold a certain number of public hearings, but when it comes to discussions of picking their voters and keeping their seats, Rep. Deutsch apparently has no concern about bringing those discussions out of the back room.
HB 1007 would return the Legislature to the practice of 2011, when a joint committee of eight Representatives and seven Senators heard public testimony and worked up that decade’s gerrymandering. In 2021, the House and Senate had separate redistricting committees, which produced separate maps, which led to much Grousing until the Senate Blackbirds drove a Sparrow through the House‘s hearts. Deutsch perhaps hopes to forestall any similar knock-down-drag-out or medical emergencies in future redistricting sessions with a joint committee to hash out differences before any map hits the Special Session floor.
HB 1007 does offer the opportunity for an enterprising advocate for citizen rights to hoghouse the bill into establishing an independent redistricting commission to draw Legislative maps. Such a commission could exclude self-interest legislators from bending boundaries to favor their reëlection and engage citizens in improving their representation in Pierre. Instead of codifying the status quo and entrenching the powers that be, let’s see some changes to HB 1007 to promote the power of the people.
Redistricting should not be left up to the legislature. An independent, non-partisan group should be in charge of that. It’s the only way to get fairer lines drawn in a state that’s dominated by the Republican Party.
How would one provide “partisan balance” in legislative work when there is SUCH an imbalance in party representation (magnified by the winner-take-all district election system)?
Come on the Trumpies have everyone in their minds and hearts don’t they? Of course they don’t. They need enemies to thrive. If you want to at least keep out the dipsticks, you should join the Republican party and vote them out in the primary. Wear your Rino badge with honor. You can always vote Democratic in the general, but at least you won’t have absolute imbeciles as your representative even if you lose. Even in a bright red state you can elect a moderate. A Thune is better than Noem.
Guess what if the Democrats had a hold on the SD legislature. Like the Republicans do they would be doing the same thing. As they do in other states.
Austin, I agree that any political party allowed unchecked power is prone to corrupt power grabs… although in 2018, New Jersey Democrats rejected a gerrymander that would have benefited their political fortunes. Can you provide examples of Republicans being so magnanimous?
Even so, Austin, I am willing to legislate from behind the veil of ignorance, not knowing which party may end up in charge and thus supporting removing legislators from the process of drawing their own maps and assigning the task to an independent commission.
Austin, you say Democrats would do as Republicans do. I accept that proposition as a possibility, but what’s your opinion on either party gerrymandering? Were you suggesting we should accept continued gerrymandering, or what?
Caleb, Austin,
The anti-math, anti-STEM, anti-inquisitive courts FAILED gerrymandering rulings punting to the constipated “will of the voters” verses doing the right thing ensuring equity in voting and representation.
The courts chose making themselves another illegitimate reference of our governance. This is every much as the illegitnacy of the SD Supreme Court’s tossing the recreational marijuana initiative over specious single subject nonsense.
Eight states comprise 50% of US voters.
There is no chance the founders foresaw the travesty that ridiculously proportionally under populated states would drag the nation through their mud of Lufddiite self-serving agrarianism.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/04/next-us-civil-war-already-here-we-refuse-to-see-it
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/585185-democrats-decry-gerrymandering-unless-they-control-the-maps
The Hill found 2 Blue States that gerrymander like magats. Texass, alone, can out gerrymander both blue states.
John, in case my comment suggested otherwise, I agree with you.
And in case anybody thought otherwise, when I said I accept Austin’s proposition as possible, I did not at all believe the Democratic party generally tends toward gerrymandering nor that it likely would, but instead simply that it could, since that’s a choice the Democrats could make had they the power the GOP has wielded in crafting legislative districts all these years. I asked Austin my questions suspecting he supports the right and may lack boldness and/or clarity of thought required to state his opinion in explicit terms given his implied moral equivalence between the two parties.