publications | about us | on campus | jobs | alumni | cmap | straphangers campaign | fuel buyers group |
|
The Legal Obstacle to Reform
The US Supreme Court is a proven obstacle to political reform. In two recent decisions, the Court again overturned reform efforts – one the redrawing of Congressional and legislative district lines in Texas, and the other Vermont’s system of public financing of elections. In the Texas decision, the Court struck down a challenge to the Tom DeLay-inspired redrawing of district lines. You may remember the Texas case. A few years ago, former US House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom Delay pushed the Texas legislature to redraw Congressional district lines. The reason for this unusual move – districts lines are drawn once a decade, not twice – was that DeLay was trying to solidify his party’s hold on the U.S. House of Representatives. If the Texas legislature – which is controlled by Republicans – redrew the lines, it would likely lead to more Republican members of Congress. DeLay was successful and the changes in the Texas Congressional lines helped the Republicans keep their advantage in the House of Representatives. DeLay’s moves were challenged as unconstitutional since the Texas legislature’s mid-census redistricting was carried out solely to achieve partisan advantage. In its decision, the US Supreme Court conceded that one of the Congressional districts needed to be redrawn as it violated the rights of Hispanic voters there. However, it rejected the larger claim that the Texas Republicans had unconstitutionally engaged in partisan gerrymandering. Apparently, the Court is not interested in tackling the issue of partisan “rigging” of elections. According to the Court, it is legal for legislative district lines to be rigged solely for partisan advantage. And it is also illegal for states to enact low campaign contribution limits. So where does that leave reformers? Not in court, that’s for sure. The legal system provides no realistic path to changing the nation’s elections mess. The only hope is through politics. What remains clear is that reforms are needed. Step 1 is to fight for legislation creating an independent redistricting commission. Combined with strict standards for the drawing of districts, an independent redistricting commission is the best way to ensure that antics like the one advanced by Tom DeLay cannot happen. Politicians should not be drawing the district lines. When they do, it’s an effort to rig elections. An independent commission leaves the mapmaking in the hands of those with the technical skills but not the conflict of interest. Step 2 is to fight for a system of public financing of elections. The Court’s action against the state of Vermont was based on contribution limits being too low – it did not strike down public financing per se. New York already has a system of public financing that could serve as a model for the state. The city of New York has a system that relies on public financing and it has been in place for over 15 years – plenty of time to learn from their experiences. Public financing of elections provides the best way for people of average means to run for office. The current system – which is based on private donations – either benefits the wealthy, or puts candidates in a terrible conflict when elected. That conflict stems from the inherent problem of relying on private donations, namely that those who give the money expect something in return. And they must get it or they wouldn’t fork it over. Unfortunately, the failure of the current governor to take the lead on these issues has resulted in little action. The Assembly has approved sweeping campaign finance changes, but done nothing on redistricting reform. The Senate has done nothing. The new governor provides the best hope for change. New York’s governor is far and away the most powerful political figure in the state. If he digs in, he can force a real debate over these issues. And if history is any guide, whoever gets elected in November is likely to get re-elected in four years. In that second term, if the governor has pledged himself to reform, he can refuse to approve the district lines that are to be drawn after the next Census in 2010. His role in redistricting places him in a powerful position with legislative leaders. If you want Albany to change, pay close attention to what the candidates for governor have to say on these issues. The more specific the promise for reform, the more likely it will occur. That’s all for now. I’ll be keeping an eye on the Capitol and will talk to you again next week. |
 |
