How safe Congressional districts contribute to gridlock and how to fix it

This is the unedited version of my 9/7/2011 column that appeared in the print edition of the Sky Hi Daily News.  The unline version has not yet been posted.

Do you really want to change the way Washington works?  Angry with the gridlock and control by  members  of  the House of Representatives or even state legislatures  who draw a line in cement and refuse to budge? The cure  could lie in making districts more competitive .

There is a controversy   shaping up in redistricting  Colorado’s  6th  Congressional district held by Republican Mike Coffman that illustrates how making a district more competitive could  blunt   vitriolic partisanship and unwillingness to compromise.

There is a rule of political science in play here that applies to all levels of districts:   the more a district is  divided equally among  parties and interest groups,  the more a candidate has to appeal to a wider variety of factions in order to put together a winning majority vote. Compromise is forced to take place at the lowest level .  Waiting until the elected candidate gets into office means that to compromise might require backing down on a  campaign promise and risk  losing the next election.  

 Incumbents elected from safe districts have a greater chance of getting re-elected  provided  they are  able to fight off primary challengers. The more they  stick by campaign promises , the more likely they will retain their seats.  This certainly makes compromise less likely.

Political parties understandably  strive to carve out safe seats in areas where  their party  registration dominates.  In 1985 the Supreme Court ruled manipulating boundaries to give one party an advantage was unconstitutional.  As a result, judges tend to look more favorably on competitive districts if they are asked to rule on competing plans .  In spite of this, of 435 Congressional seats, the Congressional Quarterly found 359 safe. i

To keep up with population shifts reflected in the census, redistricting is required every ten years. Because Colorado Democrats and Republicans could not agree in the state legislature on  Congressional  boundaries last spring, redistricting will be in the hands of the courts.

The State Supreme Court  will review a redistricting commission proposal  this fall for  how the state legislative boundaries will be drawn, including whether Grand County will be put in a solely west slope state house  district or straddle the continental divide  with some eastern counties.

  Given Grand County’s predominantly  Republican registration, being placed with  more Democratic leaning eastern counties  in a state house district might be seen more favorably  by judges as making for a more competitive district , with an eye to higher court decisions,   though the state constitution does not list the degree of  competition as a criteria.

 The US Congressional district boundaries will also be decided this fall, but  in federa l Denver District Court because both political parties and Hispanics have sued.   Some criteria judges will  use  are whether  districts are more competitive and whether Hispanic voices are being given short shrift in representation, contrary to the Voting Rights Act.

 Rep. Mike Coffman  recently advocated  restricting  bilingual ballots in the name of cost cutting . The Hispanic community, already angered by  Republican’s over the top anti immigration reform positions , took his proposal as an attempt to make it harder for Hispanics to vote.  The Democratic  Party immediately put forth their plan to Denver  District Court that would have changed Coffman’s currently heavily  Republican  district boundaries to include more Hispanics  and to make this district more competitive, divided equally between Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.

Both increasing competitiveness and Hispanic representation are strong  arguments that could sway a judge to rule in favor of  plans submitted by  Democrats and Hispanics.  That could force  Coffman, a party line loyalist,  to  appeal to a wider variety of ideologies  and special  interests  to win  his upcoming 2012 race.  

If enough  redistricting decisions in ours and in other states  decrease the number of safe districts,  eventually we could  change the polarization plaguing Washington and other legislative bodies . Of course,  in the short term, the best route would be for  voters themselves to kick out  those unwilling to compromise.

Reapportionment and Grand County; being part of an eastern district OK

The on line verision of my column that ran in the on line edition of the newspaper today. A heavily edited version appeared in the print edition.

Grand County's tempest over reapportionment has even merited the attention of big city Denver Post, and we are now their hot topic of discussion regarding our placement in a state House district.

There was a time when the Colorado Legislature was of interest only to those with statewide concerns. But after the brouhaha in Wisconsin over public employees unions, the boycott by the minority Democrats, court suits, and recalls, who controls a state legislature warrants extra attention by even those who usually focus on national policy and politics. State districts safe for one party have gained new importance.

The final opportunity for input to the state Reapportionment Commission is Sept.1. Even if the matter is eventually decided by the Colorado Supreme Court, no doubt a report by the Reapportionment Commission will be part of the testimony considered by the judges, so there is still time to influence opinions.

I listened the other day to comments by a Democratic county official, shaking his head sadly that Grand County would even consider not being a part of a West Slope legislative district because our commonality of interest on water issues, agricultural concerns and resort industries was so obvious. No matter which of the possible districts we could join, Grand would be only 20 percent of the vote, so that our ability or lack of ability to influence issues would not change. We would always be the tail trying to wag the dog, barking loudly to get attention.

I am scratching my head to recall any negative experiences of our being a part of other East Slope districts. Grand County is already in an Eastern Slope district. We have been in a state Senate district now represented by Gilpin County resident Jeanne Nicholson (D). Nicholson has spent many hours in Grand County and advocating for us. Just being part of an East Slope district in itself has not been detrimental to Grand County interests. So what is the flap about?

Is it partisan politics? Grand County's registration is weighted toward Republicans. Being part of a Boulder Democratic district would introduce a tad more Republican competition to a solid Democratic district. However, inclusion in a western district would make that district safer for Republicans. No wonder they approve. I can understand why there are Democrats who do not want to be an even more diminished minority in an enhanced heavily Republican western district. It would make it harder than it is now for Grand County Democrats to challenge the GOP candidates and the resulting frustration could discourage participation in party activities.

There are valid arguments of substance on both sides that deserve serious consideration, but the rebuttals by the east district advocates to arguments made by supporters of western district inclusion have gotten belittled. There are some points are worth heeding.

If Grand County were combined with Clear Creek, Gilpin, and western Boulder (including the Peak to Peak Highway), we would share common interests in tourism and recreation, fire protection, pine beetle infestation, and small community concerns with transportation and education. Only 21 percent of that possible configuration is suburban. Grand County wage levels are far more similar to these three counties and are 50 percent less than the average in the rest of the proposed west district. Those to the west want to suck more of our Grand County water for hydrofracking and our county has only a minor interest in supporting such drilling efforts. While a western district appears compact on a map, we have quicker access to western Boulder than to the core population of the western slope district. It would take four hours driving to reach Rangely and two to Steamboat, yet at most it would take two and a half hours for us to reach the farthest eastern regions of a western Boulder district.

Job creation: The President will focus on the short term while the GOP looks at the future. Why?

The column today appearing in the Sky Hi News:. The Long and the Short of it.

Copyright 2011 Sky-Hi Daily News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. August, 23 2011 3:42 pm

Muftic: The long and the short of it

Sky-Hi Daily News

I listened last Saturday to radio messages delivered by President Barack Obama and Republican Gov. John Kasich of Ohio. I was struck by contrasts in their long and short visions.

President Obama was talking about jobs and what could be done in the short term … reducing payroll taxes and infrastructure investment. Kasich was promoting longer term solutions for future generations and steps to encourage business to invest and eventually to create jobs.

The Republicans talk a big game of creating jobs but they are avoiding proposing ways to improve the job situation here and now, relying on slow-acting solutions. Solving the federal deficit problem is a long term goal of both the White House and the Republicans. However, solutions to the short term unemployment problem call for a different set of approaches and recognition of reality. The reality? It's demand, stupid.

It is a demand problem that is causing the current lack of private sector investment. More investments will not make their customers more willing to buy their products. Consumers need the means to buy with confidence. Those unemployed and fearing unemployment are far more concerned about their problems today than something taking place in the future.

With business sitting on nearly $2 trillion in cash, and interest rates at historic lows, access to capital is not the issue stifling investment. While tax breaks may help, even then no CEO in his/ her right mind is going to take the leap to expand if there is no one able or willing to buy their products. It could mean idle production facilities and large inventories

Who can we blame for this? I nominate two: A Congress that failed to compromise on a workable, credible plan on reducing the deficit, and the irresponsible attempt by the Tea Party to ignore collateral damage of the fallout from their strategy in the debt ceiling debate. The result: Consumers thinking about making purchases and investors seeking opportunity have lost faith in Congress to produce any plans that will address long and short term problems and have clamped shut their wallets.

Congress, left and right sides of the aisle, deserves condemnation for lack of willingness to compromise, wanting to force the president to take the fall for hard choices instead of making those choices themselves about what will be cut. Passing the painful choices to a super committee was one way out; the other was to criticize the president for his lack of leadership — a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

In the past, Obama has allowed Congress to battle it out, remaining above the fray, and avoiding being blamed for making choices that tread on some valued constituencies. That may have been good strategy for getting a stimulus bill passed in 2009 and for passing health care reform, but it has made him vulnerable to attacks from both the right and the left for not being a strong leader on economic issues. It is resulting in his plummeting poll numbers and endangering his re-election. He has been forced now to take the lead.

Republicans have succeeded in making government stimulus a dirty word and thus have taken a major weapon away from the administration's ability to provide more public sector jobs. There are other measures he can still take and he will outline them in September. I fear the GOP will find some excuse to stonewall any of the president's short term job creation proposals because they have Obama where they want him. It is in their political interest to see unemployment remain high so they have 2012 talking points.

Even if prospects of passing Obama's proposals for immediate job creation through Congress are dim, he can at least make his case and pounce on Republicans for being hypocritical obstructionists. If he also presents a credible, fair plan for reducing the deficit and long term job creation, he may help his prospects for success in 2012 even more.

 

Charting a course back to confidence in the economy

my column published in the online version of  the Sky Hi News 8/17/2011; Another, edited version appeared in the print edition

 

The United States has a confidence problem ... a big one. It lost it two weeks ago when the debt ceiling debate came to an end, and the thorniest issues are still hanging fire since they were tossed to a committee.

There is a way out of the loss of confidence, but it will take some guts to do it.

The first step of any recovery is to admit the problem. The world has lost faith we can govern ourselves to solve the economic mess. Consumers have lost confidence that the economy will ever improve enough that they can stop planning for possible job losses and be able to spend for more than the bare necessities.

Corporations sitting on $1.3 trillion in cash will not invest until consumers start buying again. Investors are deer caught in the headlights, not knowing which way to jump so they freeze in place.

Voters have no faith that Congress can come up with a plan to reduce the deficit. Both the far left and the far right have lost confidence that President Obama is leader enough to give them the solutions they demand and absorb the political blows that result on their behalf.

We can thank the Tea Party for the largest contribution to causing the problem. This minority within a party fabricated a crisis by threatening to prevent the U.S. from being able to pay its debts. For them it was simply a strategy to force their hard line views on the majority. Their taking the threat to the brink caused a moderate earthquake as the stock market ran amok and fears of a double dip recession were revived as economists here and abroad trembled in the aftershocks.

Imagine if the Michele Bachmanns of the world had their way and the U.S. had defaulted. The markets and investors would have reacted as if it were a 9 on the Richter scale.

The left has also contributed to the loss of confidence. Its reaction to the crash was to blame President Obama for not making rousing speeches in defense of keeping the status quo on entitlements or tying up decisions while the conservative leaning Supreme court ironed out the intent of the 14th Amendment. They joined their brethren's litany on the right in condemning Obama for failed leadership. That is the most self-defeating strategy possible.

Someday the left will realize that they do not have enough votes in Congress to leverage their proposals and that joining the GOP in a feeding frenzy of attacking a Democratic president will not be the path to changing the balance in Congress or keeping the White House.

What can restore confidence? For one: Let's stop equating compromise with failure and let's cut the president some slack so he can make some grand bargain that will make the economy better. The left should stop cutting him off at the knees even if it tweaks entitlements a little.

The right may have to suck up some revenue increases. So be it; what we need is a credible plan that investors, business, and especially consumers feel will give them confidence that the future will be better .

The Simpson-Bowles plan to reduce the deficit has gotten the most votes of confidence from economists. Yes, it proposes raising some revenue and reforming some entitlements, but so what. It has the best chance of working.

Let us also reform the tax structure, simplify it, eliminate loopholes, reduce the top rates and make it fairer to small business and the middle class. Some incentives to encourage companies to hire the unemployed and more breaks for those willing to invest in infrastructure may help in the short term.

If the Democrats and President Obama were to take the lead in advocating a plan along these lines, my guess is 2012 will look a lot better for them.