The Utah Constitutional Revision Commission knows better than to rock the boat. Why, it reasons, should it bother to suggest that a committee of citizens redraw the boundaries of Utah House and Senate districts after each census when it knows that the Legislature wants to do the job itself?
Actually, there are good reasons to turn reapportionment over to an independent board. But the Constitutional Revision Commission knows that such a recommendation would never get past the Legislature.
Incumbent legislators want to gerrymander the map to protect their own re-election chances, just as they did two years ago. The majority party, that is, the Republicans, also wants to protect its stranglehold on power in Utah.
So the chance that a constitutional amendment would win approval in the Legislature and make its way onto a general election ballot, where it could be approved by the people, is nil.
For that reason, the commission has given up on the idea of recommending a constitutional amendment to create an independent body to redraw legislative boundaries. That's too bad, because political expediency and good policy often are not the same thing. Especially in this case.
As the reapportionment follies of 2001 proved, legislators are not about to put their personal political interests aside when they redraw election maps. Lawmakers will carve up neighborhoods, cities and counties in illogical ways to assure themselves an edge in the next election.
But 12 states have said "enough" to this decennial disaster and have turned the job over to a commission of citizens. By coincidence, three of the states that have taken this progressive approach are Utah's neighbors -- Idaho, Colorado and Arizona.
Rather than follow this lead, however, the Constitutional Revision Commission bowed to practicality.
That is a nod to political reality, but it also is a missed chance to improve the electoral process.
Actually, there are good reasons to turn reapportionment over to an independent board. But the Constitutional Revision Commission knows that such a recommendation would never get past the Legislature.
Incumbent legislators want to gerrymander the map to protect their own re-election chances, just as they did two years ago. The majority party, that is, the Republicans, also wants to protect its stranglehold on power in Utah.
So the chance that a constitutional amendment would win approval in the Legislature and make its way onto a general election ballot, where it could be approved by the people, is nil.
For that reason, the commission has given up on the idea of recommending a constitutional amendment to create an independent body to redraw legislative boundaries. That's too bad, because political expediency and good policy often are not the same thing. Especially in this case.
As the reapportionment follies of 2001 proved, legislators are not about to put their personal political interests aside when they redraw election maps. Lawmakers will carve up neighborhoods, cities and counties in illogical ways to assure themselves an edge in the next election.
But 12 states have said "enough" to this decennial disaster and have turned the job over to a commission of citizens. By coincidence, three of the states that have taken this progressive approach are Utah's neighbors -- Idaho, Colorado and Arizona.
Rather than follow this lead, however, the Constitutional Revision Commission bowed to practicality.
That is a nod to political reality, but it also is a missed chance to improve the electoral process.
Election Day '09 was a roller-coaster for election reformers. Instant runoff voting had a great night in Minnesota, where St. Paul voters chose to implement IRV for its city elections, and Minneapolis voters used IRV for the first time—with local media touting it as a big success. As the Star-Tribune noted in endorsing IRV for St. Paul, Tuesday’s elections give the Twin Cities a chance to show the whole state of Minnesota the benefits of adopting IRV. There were disappointments in Lowell and Pierce County too, but high-profile multi-candidate races in New Jersey and New York keep policymakers focused on ways to reform elections; the Baltimore Sun and Miami Herald were among many newspapers publishing commentary from FairVote board member and former presidential candidate John Anderson on how IRV can mitigate the problems of plurality elections.