RI redistricting bill receives criticism from both sides of the aisle

[ad_1]

For example, the GOP claims the proposed Senate map shifts a narrow slice of Lincoln into District 22 because Senator Stephen R. Archambault, a Smithfield Democrat and co-chair of the redistricting commission, owns property straddling the Lincoln/Smithfield line.

And the GOP claims the proposed House map places part of the center East Greenwich into House District 24 because Representative Justine A. Caldwell, an East Greenwich Democrat in an adjacent District 30, “is afraid to lose the Harbor area” of the town.

“The General Assembly leadership should think carefully before they go forward with these maps,” the Republican Party said. “Past gerrymandering in Rhode Island not only led to costly litigation but also ended up costing some State House politicians their power.”

Also, before the meeting, the progressive Rhode Island Political Cooperative sent out a message criticizing a section of the bill that appears to give party leaders the ability to replace the local district committee members who decide on party endorsements.

“Want to see how democracy dies in darkness?” the cooperative asked. “Look no further than the new redistricting bill. In this proposed bill, lawfully elected district committees (the committees that decide the endorsed Democratic candidates) are replaced with handpicked committees selected by the entrenched, conservative party – with the explicit mission of blocking progressives from winning power in our state.”

Representative Evan P. Shanley, a Warwick Democrat who chairs the House Committee on State Government and Elections, said that was not the intent of the legislation.

And Representative Robert D. Phillips, a Woonsocket Democrat who co-chaired the redistricting commission, said the language reflects redistricting legislation going back to the 1970s. He said it’s only meant to give party chairs the power to make “temporary transitional appointments” when some district committees no longer live in their districts because of new district boundaries.

But that section of the proposed redistricting legislation drew the ire of many of those who tested Monday.

For example, Enrique Sanchez, political director of the Black Lives Matter RI PAC and a Democratic candidate in House District 9, said it is “immoral and unethical” to give that much power to the party chairs who’d favor committee members representing “the of the corporate power establishment.”

“It’s clear this bill is a roadblock to keep progressives from winning more districts across the state,” Sanchez said. “Working people deserve to participate in these local district committees. This bill minimizes the chance for individuals who have no ties to current leadership to get involved in local politics.”

John M. Marion, executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island, said the group had emphasized the importance of making the underlying redistricting data public, disclosing communication with the redistricting consultant made outside of public meetings, and ensuring the public had a chance to review the final maps before the final redistricting commission vote.

“Examining the events of the last several months, we are not surprised that the commission disappointed in almost every respect,” he said.

Marion reiterated that the proposed maps favor the Democratic Party that dominates Rhode Island politics.

“These plans are Democratic partisan gerrymanders,” he said. “Why is this? The plans you have before you value one thing above all else – protecting incumbents of both political parties.”

Nothing in the law requires the commission to favor incumbents, Marion said. “By ceding this process to the state’s consultant, the commission thing to value incumbent protection above all else,” he said.

Steven Brown, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, said he appreciated that the redistricting commission recommended counting state inmates at their home addresses rather than at the Adult Correctional Institutions if they’re expected to be in prison for less than two years.

But he said he was disappointed that inmates serving terms of more than two years would continue to be counted at the Cranston prison complex for redistricting purposes – a practice that critics have labeled “prison gerrymandering.”

“A dozen other states have taken care of this issue universally,” Brown said. “The problem with doing it halfway is there is still a significant problem in terms of the districts in Cranston where there is over-representation that gives those districts more power than any other districts in the state.”

He said he hopes the Assembly will amend this bill or consider separate legislation to eliminate “prison gerrymandering” completely in 2030.

Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @FitzProv.

[ad_2]