[ad_1]
The song "New Jersey Working Families Alliance" protests against a grymandering amendment. SNL Sketches are a "real scandal" that "should be tested in court"
Why Nancy Pelosi's calm Trump Burn was particularly satisfying
The Diabolical Gerrymandering regime of the New Jersey Democrats is an affront to democracy
A family of a 7-year-old girl who died under the control of a border guard denied having spent days without food or water
New Jersey Democrats' Proposal Spoiled – It Was not Killed by Republican Reproaches, But by Nearly Universal Opposition of Progressive Grassroots Activists Who Challenged Democratic Party to Defend Its Right to Vote .
The Democratic leaders of New Jersey hoped to pass the constitutional amendment with record speed. By approving it in December and January, lawmakers would have put the plan on the ballot in 2019. If it had been passed, this amendment would have given politicians more control over the redistricting process. It would also oblige the cartographers to give priority to political considerations, which would allow them to create a partisan advantage for the Democrats.
The intention and the precise impact of the amendment sparked lively debate among political scientists. The expert in redistricting, Michael McDonald explained that this would not necessarily give an advantage to Democrats. Sam Wang of the Princeton Gerrymandering Project pointed out that it was ill-conceived because it could turn a moderate Republican wave into considerable gains for the GOP in the Legislature. McDonald and Wang claimed that the amendment reflected a feud within the party between Democratic lawmakers and Governor Phil Murphy. Under the current rules, John Currie, chairman of the Democratic Party and Progressive ally Murphy, chooses the Democratic members of the state's redistricting commission. Democratic legislative leaders, more conservative than Murphy, feared that the next card would diminish their power. Their plan would have allowed them to appoint more members to the commission, thus helping to consolidate the functions of business-friendly machine democrats.
Whatever the purpose of the amendment, its consequences would not have been beneficial to democracy. As the Brennan Center for Justice pointed out, the proposal would force cartographers to focus on partisan results, which would no doubt allow Democrats to manipulate district boundaries to their advantage. This could have diluted the electoral power of communities of color, "wrapped" them in some districts or "cracked" them in others to produce more Democratic seats. The formula of the amendment actually motivated this unseemly strategy.
More importantly, the New Jersey proposal did exactly what the defenders of voting rights almost universally opposed: it gave the politicians more control of the redistricting process . Any plan that allows lawmakers to influence the cut will almost certainly result in a more politicized map. That's why the gerrymander reform is an independent redistricting commission that optimizes competitive neighborhoods.
With Democratic legislators preparing to vote in December, the progressive New Jersey community rallied to the proposal. A huge coalition of local activists, union leaders, advocates and advocates of racial justice opposed the amendment. More than 100 activists and academics – representing a wide range of organizations, including the New Jersey Working Families Alliance and the League of Women Voters – testified against the amendment. They held press conferences and demonstrations to shame the democratic leaders and demand a real reform. It worked: Saturday, Democratic lawmakers waived the amendment, canceling a Monday vote and effectively killing it.
There are two lessons to be learned from this debacle. The first is that the Democratic base really seems to value the right to vote in principle and not for convenience. Even when a gerrymander could help their party, the progressives defended the cards fairly and resisted partisan manipulation of the district lines. The Democratic Party can not present itself as the party of the right to vote and then give up its support for free and fair elections, which could help them win more seats. Liberal voters will not tolerate it.
The second lesson is that Democrats can not give up their support for citizen-led independent redistricting commissions. Fair Districts New Jersey, a project of the League of Women Electors of the State, is currently advocating for this reform, which was recently passed in Michigan and Colorado. These commissions create competitive elections where Democrats can win on a level playing field. The current map of California was drawn by an independent commission and the Democrats swept the elections in November.
When the GOP legislatures in Wisconsin, Michigan, and North Carolina deprived the new Democratic governors of power, we did not see Republican militants marching past their capitals in the opposition. . Both parties can get married, but not all sides of the political spectrum are to blame for the current sad state of the franchise. For years, the Democratic Party has promised at its core to vigorously protect the right to vote. The calamity in New Jersey shows that progressives expect Democratic legislators to keep their word.
[ad_2]
Source link
