publications | about us | on campus | jobs | alumni | cmap | straphangers campaign | fuel buyers group |
|
One Person, One Vote
One of the bedrocks of representative democracy is the concept of “one person, one vote.” The “one person one vote” principle traces to a 1962 US Supreme Court decision. At the time, legislative districts had wildly unequal numbers of people, and representatives from underpopulated rural districts controlled many state legislatures. In the 1962 decision, Tennessee voters challenged their state's unequal legislative districts, and the Court ordered Tennessee's lines redrawn. Two years later, the Court struck down Alabama's legislative districts. The Court held that the constitution required that "as nearly as is practicable one man's vote" must "be worth as much as another's." And that is the basic point – every vote should have the same weight as anyone else’s. In New York State, Congressional districts contain almost exactly the same populations. Yet when it comes to legislative districts, the situation is completely different. State Senate districts have populations that range from as few as 290,000 citizens to districts with as many as 320,000! Assembly districts range in population from 121,000 to 133,000. Why do Congressional districts have to contain equivalent populations while legislative districts do not? The Supreme Court’s ruling allowed a range due to state constitutional issues that impact on legislative mapmaking, but do not have the same effect on Congressional lines. As a result, New York mapmakers in 2002 maximized the allowable population range to further incumbency protection and to strengthen the Senate Republican majority’s and the Assembly Democratic majority’s control over their respective houses. So the wide range in population is legal, but is it right? No. Why should the concerns for incumbency protection and majority party rule trump the “one person, one vote” principle? They should not, and reformers are working to advance legislation (Assembly bill 6287, by Assemblyman Gianaris) to replace New York’s system with one that empowers an independent redistricting commission to be the mapmaker instead of politicians. Will legislators agree to this change? After all, they are the winners in the current system, changing it could put their political careers at peril. While there is considerable legislative support for the Gianaris bill, it will take a supportive Governor to make the system change. And there is hope. Gubernatorial candidates Spitzer and Weld have publicly stated their support for creation of an independent redistricting commission. The next Governor has to take a firm stand. He has to unequivocally state that he will not agree to new district lines unless an independent commission draws them – a commission whose standards include requirements that district populations be of similar size and that redistricting is not used to protect incumbents or majority power. On May 9 th, this issue and others will be discussed at an Albany “Reform NY” Lobby Day, which will feature gubernatorial wannabes speaking about their reform proposals. People interested in attending the event can contact Common Cause at 1-800-300-8707 or www.commoncause.org/reformnyday. That’s all for now. I’ll be keeping an eye on the Capitol and will talk to you again next week. |
 |
