Nate Silver had a post up yesterday about how census participation rates in the red states aren't actually lagging. Will be interested to see if the trend holds up once the final numbers are in...

Following on from my earlier point, about the "good old days" when a census taker came around, that would be an interesting scenario this time, with principled non-responders.

especially with neo-confederates throughout the Sun Belt

Shouldn't Oregon maybe reconsider its position this time around? That's the nice thing about a confederacy. You don't have to be with them to be with them.

But, then, I still haven't accepted "nationalism" as a valid construct.

Don't forget that legislators are often elected with other than partisan votes.

Of the contested 2008 House seats (something like 20 had no opponent) only 12 members got elected by a larger number of votes than the NAV + other (small parties) voter registration in their districts.

Might that enter into redistricting at all?

The members are a politically and geographically diverse group!

D. Richardson B. Komp Deb Boone Mitch Greenlick Chris Harker M. Nolan C. Tomei JK Bailey M. Dembrow G. Whisnant G. Smith Bob Jenson

Kari, are you interested at all in supporting a way or ways to take politics out of re-districting, or is it just too easy to make sure that the corret governor and Secretary of State are elected? Iowa, for example, does this without the political fighting.

Bob Tiernan Portland

The priorities for re-districting should be:

• Population equality • Contiguousness • Respect of county and city unity • Compactness

We need to reduce the examples where each representative chooses his voters instead of the voters choosing the representative.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Bob,

Do you support an open public process? I can remember when the legislature had open debates. Should Dist. 23 and 25 have been drawn the way they were? If not, drawn how? Should communities of interest be kept together?

I can remember when Phil Keisling was Sec. of State and held a hearing in Salem. Parents from Englewood Elementary School in N. Salem spoke. "We don't care which district we are in, but would you please make sure the entire Englewood School attendance area is in the same legislative district?"

2001 legislative redistricting process was very secretive---how dare a citizen ask what district they might land in and want to have input?

If a bunch of judges were put in charge of redistricting, would they hire techinical help with the mapping and population studies? Would they do it all with software? Would they hold hearings?

Bob T, I agree with your priorities. But because of one-person, one-vote, the districts must be within + or - a few percentage points in population.

Decades ago, the legislature decided that there should be an imaginary line down the spine of the Cascades and no one should be required to represent both sides of the mountains.

In 2001, there were coastal residents tired of being in the same legislative district with Yamhill County. I think we can agree Yamhill County doesn't have a lot in common with coastal communities.

The more such details are openly discussed, and the less vague rhetoric ( like "each representative chooses his voters instead of the voters choosing the representative") the better off we will be.

And we should ditch the "caucus campaign arm" centralized campaigning. People who don't register with a major party deserve representation, which is why many of us favor nonpartisan elections, open primary, etc.

I think we should give credit where credit is due.

Oregon and it's current Gov help us achieve top national honors.

"The Portland area ranked No. 6 in the country in the fourth quarter for commercial bankruptcy filings, according to a new report. The rest of the state ranked No. 12."

With the kicker support, keeping the more bureaucracies intact, I think we could become number 1.

Yea team, go blue, Oregon lets kill more companies, we have 6 to got to be number 1.!!!!!

go blue, don't let 66-67 or the unions dues, or even ethics provide any dew.

go blue, let fit in the kicker, kill more jobs this winter, and soon we could center, of forking more money for the poor, for dinner.

With only 6 more to the top, come on blue Oregon don't stop, lets get bureaucracy and land management get involved with more Washington County crops, then let metro will provide the finale job killing drop.

Go Blue, Go Oregon, lets kill the job providers capitalist companies, Only 6 more to the top.

Non-partisan redistricting is an important innovation that strengthens democracy. We only need to look south to see the disaster that partisan redistricting causes. They won't be able fully recover until they finish nonpartisan redistricting in the 2012 elections. Unfortunately, no one is seriously talking about non-partisan redistricting here, so we'll end up with a gerrymandered mess and more partisanship in Salem.

LT:

In 2001, there were coastal residents tired of being in the same legislative district with Yamhill County. I think we can agree Yamhill County doesn't have a lot in common with coastal communities.

Bob T:

That's true, depending on how many districts there are overall. Look Tuesday evening for a longer reply to all of your points.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Bob T:

"That's true, depending on how many districts there are overall. "

Bob, do you forsee a time when there will be something other than 30 Oregon House seats and 30 Oregon Senate seats?

mlw: "Unfortunately, no one is seriously talking about non-partisan redistricting here, so we'll end up with a gerrymandered mess and more partisanship in Salem."

I have no problem with an open public process on redistricting. I do have a problem with a nonpartisan commission locking themselves in a room somewhere and then presenting a "nonpartisan" plan with no public input.

It is my belief that Dist. 23 and 25 were badly drawn (look at the pieces of various counties in 23, and whether Marion and Yamhill really have that much in common--25). Some question about the shape of Dist. 19, --these are local districts I know something about. Were those drawn by "partisan" Democrats? Because if they were, that was poorly done---they have been Republican districts.

When the 5th Cong. District was originally drawn, it had a little tail on the end (like the bottom of the state of Missouri). It wasn't a political party which wanted that, but one legislator considering running for Congress (but never did run). Activists used his name in vain for a decade making jokes about that extension.

Given that in Oct. of 2008 Oregon House Dist. 22 was just shy of 5,000 people registered outside of major parties, and all other Oregon House districts had over 6,000 NAV + other (not major party) registration, it is hard to see how the most "partisan" drawing of legislative districts should change that.

And all those twerpy little staffers over the years who talked about "lousy R to D ratio" in saying it wasn't worth contesting certain House districts should be required to explain how that is relevant when so few sitting legislators represent districts where if all Republicans voted one way, and all Democrats another way, the winning candidate would have won on only straight party votes. I believe it is Greenlick's district where one party has the most registrants, followed by NAV + other, followed by the other "major" party.

Does that exist in California? If not, why should we worry ?

LT

Do you support an open public process?

Bob T:

I want people to know how it's being done. And when it's being done in as un-political a process as possible there won't be much that they need to pay attention to, or at least will need very little time for grasping all they need to know.

LT:

I can remember when the legislature had open debates. Should Dist. 23 and 25 have been drawn the way they were? If not, drawn how?

Bob T:

I'm mainly concerned about the drawing of our districts for the US House of Representatives, but state legislative districts also need to be drawn as apolitically as possible.

LT:

Should communities of interest be kept together? I can remember when Phil Keisling was Sec. of State and held a hearing in Salem. Parents from Englewood Elementary School in N. Salem spoke. "We don't care which district we are in, but would you please make sure the entire Englewood School attendance area is in the same legislative district?"

2001 legislative redistricting process was very secretive---how dare a citizen ask what district they might land in and want to have input?

Bob T:

Wow, now there's a loaded term -- a "community of interest". Some people would be fine with cherry-picking blocks and even individual addresses in an attempt to build a legislative district based on color, race, ethnicity, religion, sports interests, political party identification, and so on, but I don't think this is what you have in mind. The example you provide is reasonable enough, and is fine so long as it fits within guidelines for districting that I've mentioned, such as compactness and contiguousness. Although I don't think having children in the same school district is enough of a reason, but since a school district is likely to be more or less compactly and contiguously shaped it would be easy to overlay with with a state legislative district that could cover all or at least most of it, depending on population and other factors colliding.

LT:

If a bunch of judges were put in charge of redistricting, would they hire techinical help with the mapping and population studies? Would they do it all with software? Would they hold hearings?

Bob T:

Probably a mix of all of the above, with some being less important than others. I'm not sure if judges are the best group to use (and this is what is called for in a ballot measure idea currently gathering signatures).

LT:

In 2001, there were coastal residents tired of being in the same legislative district with Yamhill County. I think we can agree Yamhill County doesn't have a lot in common with coastal communities.

The more such details are openly discussed, and the less vague rhetoric ( like "each representative chooses his voters instead of the voters choosing the representative") the better off we will be.

Bob T:

But that "rhetoric" you dismiss is exactly what both major parties have done at least nationally, with the prime examples being those drawn for the express purpose of ensuring an elected representative belonging to a specific race or ethnic group, which is racist in itself (i.e. to hold the opinion that one's race or ethnicity dictates political and even economic philisophy -- but this argument is for another time). That, and other political input has long resulted in districts that are hardly competitive (a bi-partisan deal). In one example, the special election to fill Murtha's seat may result in another Democrat being elected although it might be lost to the Republicans. If the Dems win, they'll cheer this as a confirmation of something when in fact the district's borders have for decades been fine-tuned to make it a Murtha district, heavily front-loaded with Democrats. I don't think non-competitive districts are a good thing. They're a joke, in fact. One thing is certain -- I don't think Murtha's successor, even if a Democrat, will be able to continue Murtha's vote-buying policy of making sure that every year coal from his district is shipped to American military bases in Germany instea of those bases using local German coal.

LT:

And we should ditch the "caucus campaign arm" centralized campaigning. People who don't register with a major party deserve representation

Bob T:

In what? The district drawing process, or in the legislature?

LT:

which is why many of us favor nonpartisan elections, open primary, etc.

Bob T:

As stated here before, I'm all for every election from county dog-catcher to President of the United States being non-partisan, with a good instant runoff system. But open primaries? -- no deal. The elections we are guaranteed in this democracy are the ones in which we make the final choice regarding who will actually win. No one's rights are violated by being left out of earlier elections or conventions in which the candidates for the later (actual) elections are chosen, by separate groups. Those who opt out of participation by refusing to be part of a party, whether the Republicans, Greens, Democrats, Whigs, Libertarians, Anti-Mason or whatever, accepts this or must accept this. In the end, such a person will be able to participate in the real election. In the meantime, I'm all in favor of ending the taxpayer subsidization of the primary elections for political parties.

Bob Tiernan Portland

<hr/>