Letter transmitted
via E-Mail
Dear Interested
Parties:
Thank you for
contacting me about House Bill 2420, legislation designed to take the politics out of the redistricting process.
I, like you, want
reform in the General Assembly to move forward, and I share your frustration with legislative and congressional districts
that are clearly drawn to protect one particular person or one party. But we must make sure that what we are doing
does not create unintended problems that are worse than what we now have.
I first listed
House Bill 2420 for a committee vote, because it was endorsed by organizations for which I have great respect: the League
of Women Voters and Common Cause. It was not until I had thoroughly analyzed the proposal and discussed it with experts
that I realized it was fatally flawed. I predicted that such a bill might not even be reported out of the State Government
Committee. In fact, a similar bill was tabled by the Senate State Government Committee just last week. I judged
that such a defeat would seriously set reform back, so I removed it from our agenda.
I enclose the
letter I wrote to the Inquirer explaining my position.
As someone cleverly
said: The voters should be selecting the office holders; the office holders should not be selecting the voters.
I agree.
Yours,
Babette Josephs
Enclosure:
Letter to the
Editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer from State Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Phila.,
www.babette.org
May 30, 2008
To the Editor:
A May 29, 2008, Inquirer editorial scolded me for removing a legislative redistricting bill from
the agenda of the State Government Committee, which I chair. A little state history and perspective are in order. The existing
constitutional system for redistricting the General Assembly was initiated by the Constitutional Convention of 1967-68. This
voter-approved change to the process was hailed by press and governmental reform groups as critically important reform.
Forty years later
there is undoubtedly room for some improvement so that less oddly shaped, stretched or carved up legislative districts are
created. Many government reform groups coalesced around House Bill 2420 which was referred to the State Government Committee
only 22 days ago. Sharing their hope for reform of the process, I scheduled a vote on the bill.
However, after
I analyzed House Bill 2420 more thoroughly and contacted the Legislative Reference Bureau, the office that would be charged
with implementing the new procedures, I realized that House Bill 2420 is not reform. Instead it is reform regression.
First, as currently
drafted, House Bill 2420 would give full and complete authority to a bureaucrat to make hundreds of critical decisions creating
new districts, eliminating existing districts and significantly altering many more without any public notice requirements.
And furthermore, this faceless paper shuffler is accountable to and controlled by the General Assembly itself. Why would anyone
consider this scheme reform?
Moreover, the
director of this well-respected bureau informed me that his office did not have the expertise to carry out the requirements
of this legislation. Additionally, House Bill 2420 proposes that disagreements between dueling redistricting plans be
settled by casting lots, essentially reducing critically important policy resolutions to a coin toss. What is reforming about
that?
Finally, House
Bill 2420 has an absolute ban on the use of historical electoral statistics in formulating a legislative district plan. Referencing
these statistics is the only way possible to draw legislative districts that are competitive between the political parties.
Reformers have said that creating competitive districts is an important public policy value.
While I commend
the Inquirer for championing changes to the redistricting process, I also know that it must be done right. I am very
willing to examine alternative proposals that would improve on the current process for legislative redistricting – unfortunately,
the bill that was to be considered is a step backward. Passing a bill, any bill, details be damned, just because it is labeled
reform, is not reform.
State Rep. Babette
Josephs, 182nd District
Pa. House of Representatives
