Which parties in Utah seldom have primaries. The minority parties. This means
three members will come from minority parties. If democrats make
up 25% of the voters in Utah, They should be limited to only one member of the
group. That would make the group un biased. Take biased
gerrymandering out of federal elections. Have the whole state vote for the
state representatives. That is the most unbiased democratic solution to
gerrymandering. Anything else is gerrymandering with bias.
@2 bits,This is an old article and you may not even see my replay.
But, you are telling me to "swallow my pride" and register with the
republicans just so I can vote in their primaries.That to me is as
abhorrent as signing up to be a member of the KKK just so I can internally work
against their racism. Or, that I should join MS-13 so I can give them
constructive criticism of their chosen gang activities.I am NOT
going to register and become a member of a group that is so abhorrent as to vote
for Trump. Equally, I cannot register and become a member of a group that is so
abhorrent as to vote for Clinton (though I did caucus for Sanders, even though I
didn't like Sanders that much).Even the local elections field
candidates that are abhorrent. No, I cannot in good conscience become a member
of those political parties; just so I can play their game.A better
system would be to disallow the choosing of candidates based on party at all;
rather parties should only chose their "platform" and candidates
indicate which platform they would like to adhere too. Everyone should be
allowed to vote in the primaries so that candidates represent people rather than
Districts are not redrawn every year.According to Ballotopidia
"Redistricting in Utah"..."District lines are redrawn
every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal
government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must
not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity"...Google
"Federal requirements for congressional redistricting"...These
laws are the same in every State (including Utah).Rs out number Ds
in our State. There's no getting around it. It's not even close in
most parts of the State (SL County being the only exception).We
could carefully carve out a district for Ds in SLC. But that would be
"Gerrymandering", wouldn't it?I think that's what
Ralph Becker and the backers of this resolution want. Not districts impartial
to party demographics. But one district they can win. Carefully drawn to
give D's (the minority in all but one city) the majorityThe
minority always sees district lines as unfair. Always. Utah or elsewhere.
1coveyRE: "The only fair way, but probably more expensive, is for the
people to decide the boundaries. 6 months before each election"...---That's the most unstable plan I've ever heard.Congressional Districts (which is what we are talking about here) do not
change frequently. Certainly not months before every election. That's
just crazy. You wouldn't even know what district you live in till months
before the election. No time to mount a campaign for office. Campaigns take
years to pull together. Convention, hire staff, campaign for the party primary,
campaign for the general election.... Drawing lines just 6 months before each
election is crazy talk.The add for Prop-4 says the lines change
every year, but that's baloney. Last time I remember was 2010 when the US
Census gave Utah another HOR seat.6 months before very election is
crazy.==MillenialRE: "I don't understand
how a voter in Sandy has anything in common with a voter in Kanab"...---I do. Freedom. Liberty. Civil rights. Justice for all, etc...Those are things they have in common.We don't send
people to Washington to do local things (kanab vs Sandy). That's what
local elections are for.
I feel like my voice doesn't count. I'm a moderate and I feel like my
voice is constantly drowned out by ultra conservatives. Being
extreme gets us no where. I want every race in Utah to be competitive because
that ensures that the person running needs to listen to the majority and not the
Boundaries need to make sense.I don't understand how a voter in
Sandy has anything in common with a voter in Kanab.Their lives and
issues are completely different.Group the city together, and the
rural parts of the state together. It just makes sense.
@NeifyRE: "I am very informed, but I cannot vote in
"primaries" because I refuse to sign up to be a member of a political
party"...---I suggest you just swallow your pride and register
so you can vote in Republican Primary. I did. I don't consider myself a
Republican, but I don't regret doing it.You will get emails and
information from them, but you don't have to read it.Just
register.I have no problem with Rs wanting Rs to pick who wins the
R-Primary. That makes perfect sense to me.The alternative make
Zero sense to me (Ds or others pick who wins the R-Primary).Independents like me and you can vote in the R-Primary if we want. You just
have to swallow our pride for 2 seconds and register. You only have to do it
once. It's painless. It has changed nothing for me. Just do it.You have to register to vote in the General Election too (regardless of party
affiliation). Nobody complains about having to register to vote in that
election. I don't see why people balk at having to register for the
Primary. Both are super easy and no declaration of allegiance is required.
Just do it.
The only fair way, but probably more expensive, is for the people to decide the
boundaries. 6 months before each election ( or every other election ) provide a
map of demographics, showing voters, party affiliation or 'none', and
each party provide their districting proposal and let the voters decide. Any
'independent person could provide a proposal to be on the ballot, if they
obtain 'X' amount of signatures.
I voted against prop 4. If the opposing party does not like current
redistricting, let them win the next election and draw the lines as they please.
I have never liked the idea of unelected committees making our decisions.
This isn't "insulting" or "statutory degradation."
That's ridiculous inflammatory rhetoric on Pignanelli's part. Calling
it "apartheid" is far enough into the realm of abuse that I'm
astounded an editor let this fly. It'd be only one step further down that
road to compare Jeff Wright to Hitler and equate disqualification from the
redistricting commission to being sent to the gas chambers.Having a
conflict of interest doesn't mean you're an unperson, it just means
you should not be tasked with making an impartial decision. We expect all kinds
of ethics rules to help establish such separation. Judges have to recuse
themselves from decisions affecting their interests. The principle is nothing
new and nothing degrading.Requiring that three commissioners
haven't voted in primaries does seem silly, and 'measures of partisan
symmetry' could be interpreted badly. (Nationwide, because Democrats
self-sort into heavily urban districts, any 'partisan symmetry' that
asks for proportional-representation results from our
single-representative-district system would have to be badly gerrymandered.) But
I don't think most of Pignanelli's or Webb's concerns are real or
worthy of discussion.
Prop 4 sounds good on the surface, but the more you look into it... the worse it
sounds.What first made me suspicious of this plan was... they
trotted out a grainy video of Ronald Reagan saying something that seemed like he
supported them. When somebody feels they need to trot out Ronald
Reagan videos (Liberals or Conservatives)... I get very suspicious of what they
are trying to sell me. It's a red flag.Anybody trotting out
Ronald Reagan at this point is trying to pander to Utah's Conservative
majority. That's a sign they are trying to manipulate us. So I looked
into it more.The people leading this drive would not agree with
Ronald Reagan on anything. So them trotting out the Ronald Reagan video
becomes extra suspicious, and manipulative.Ralph Becker just wants
impartiality? Hardly.We all know what Ralph Becker wants, and
it's not impartial.So while I think Gerrymandering and being
manipulated by Rs is not a good thing, I think being manipulated by Ds is also
not a good thing. So I'll probably be voting no on this one. Just
because of who's pushing it.District lines will always be
questioned by some. Even if we pass this.
@RiDal and DN Subscriber,Both of you presume that not voting in a
primary election means uninterested or uninformed persons. That is simply not
true.I am very informed, but I cannot vote in "primaries"
because I refuse to sign up to be a member of a political party. (I get that
the democrats here hold open caucuses; but republican's carry 90% of the
state; and they close their caucuses and primaries on the occasion they hold
primaries to only republicans.)By disallowing those voting in
primaries that opens at least half of the commission to people like me,
independents who are not part of a political party. That is what absolutely
need, otherwise the appointees will be appointed based on party affiliation; and
will be expected to gerrymander in accordance to their party affiliation.
Vote for four. Ignore the people arguing that the perfect is the enemy of the
good. I find it funny but not at all surprising to read the most partisan people
who post here are on the desnews are afraid to give up the silly gerrymandering
which assures them at least one extra extremist in congress. I will
say it again. Vote for #4 and lets work for more sane political boundaries.
RiDal - Sandy, UT: "In other words, the commission is comprised
of people who are so uninterested and unaware that they have not voted in four
years ??!?!"That is one way of looking at it. Another way of
looking at it is a commission comprised of people who haven't lined their
pockets with lobbyist money for four years. I prefer the latter.
So Pagnanelli's number one reason for not liking Prop 4 is because his mom
would be excluded?
Just pick people from out of state who know nothing about the demographics of
the state. Better yet, just have a computer program take the population of each
zip code and just add another adjoining zip code until the number of people
needed to create a district is reached and then it starts on the next district.
Because the charade the legislature conducted in 2011 was so transparent a
process that saw four? months of statewide meetings dozens of proposed maps from
citizens as well as legislators. And at decision time the republican
delegation trots out a map no one had ever seen and ask all in favor, the super
majority said aye and they're districts became safer for ten more years.
"The proposition merely says 50% of the commissioners cannot have voted in a
primary election in the last four years. "In other words, the
commission is comprised of people who are so uninterested and unaware that they
have not voted in four years ??!?!
The idea of an "unbiased commission" is a hopeless myth. No one is
really "unbiased". The best we can hope for is "fair".
Fairness is created by the election itself. When the other party creates the
boundaries, your party calls it "gerrymandering". When your party
creates the boundaries, you call it "restoring fair boundaries". But
both parties say that. Don't want gerrymandering?....make sure you vote
for your party! Simple, huh!
A very bad proposal, with huge political overtones camouflaged with the cloak of
"impartiality." Having someone on the commission who has
not bothered to vote in any of the last 3 primary elections guarantees members
who are clueless about political issues, or deliberately fail to vote to ensure
they can play the game. Be wary of anyone who proclaims themself to be
"non-partisan and impartial" and worthy of being on the committee, they
are likely neither.No one will ever like the boundaries, regardless
of who draws them. Letting an unaccountable bunch do it in secrecy, following
vague guidelines is even worse than letting legislators fiddle with crayons on
the maps.No, having computers draw the maps is not any better.
Someone has to program them, and they can set them to whatever partisan goal
Heaven sake, P & W! We have the most populous and important city in the
state carved into 4 ridiculous districts. I happen to live in Holladay, which
is now in the 3rd district, which used to be the Utah County district of Jason
Chaffetz, who was so surprised that his "constituents" didn't agree
with him at a town hall. My neighbors up the hill are in the 4th district. An relatively independent commission could only do better than the very
partisan legislature that made this mess after the 2010 census. Salt Lake
County, or at least most of it, deserves its own congressional district for
geographic reasons alone. Carving this space up is the worst example of
gerrymandering. We can and will do better. Perfect cannot be the enemy of
good, so stop nitpicking, P&W. Vote for fairness, vote for proposition 4.
What I love about Utah is that we pass these propositions then the legislature
gets to override them. Why do we bother?
Proposition 4 is bad. When it comes to politics, no one is truly independent in
their judgment. We should leave it to the legislature to draw boundaries. At
least they are subject to a vote at election time, while an "independent
commission" is never directly answerable to the people.
Prop 4 will not make things worse. That's simply not possible.
I’m not sure why Pignanelli and Webb are so insulted by the Redistricting
Committee creating rules to make sure those on the committee are as
non-partisan as possible. For example, not voting in a recent primary is a good
measure of a one’s level of commitment to party lines yet Pignanelli and
Webb find it particularly objectionable. Ironically Pignanelli and Webb use
inflammatory language such as “political apartheid” and
“statutory degradation” to describe a process that is built on
fairness and supports voting rights. I can only assume that as a political
consultant it is in Webb’s personal interest to keep the current districts
in tact. And as a lobbyist Pignanelli interests are best by maintaining the
Proposition Four seems better than what exists now. Insisting on perfection
only allows the current process to be engrained for years to come. The
composition of the Commission appears to winnow out a lot of people who are
politicians, good and bad so what we have left are actual somewhat average
citizens of Utah which in other words are people closer to the residents of
Utah. Let the Commission figure out in good faith what the rest of the details
mean. With good intent there are ways to bend bad rules. Let's something
done now to improve our state elective boundaries now before the 2020 Census.
From here on, it will be nearly impossible to get any changes done for at least
I voted for Prop 4, only because it is a step in the right direction. It
certainly is better than what we have. But, still very flawed.What
I would like to see is an independent commission; who when convene to redistrict
are not allowed access to any statistical data except population.The
best way to take politics out of it; is to disallow them to review any other
data such as voter registration records, historical voting results, business
data, socioeconomic data and much more; that they currently review when making
their decisions which always come down to gerrymandering.If the
commission was given only access to population, and nothing else; then they
could unbiasedly draw district boundaries based on population (which is what the
Constitution requires).Then it wouldn't matter if they had
other political leanings; they couldn't do anything nefarious.But, given that they aren't going there; the prop is better; they
shouldn't have people who are lobbyists, in fact lobbying should be
outlawed completely (it changes our democratic-republic into a plutocracy); and
others mentioned obviously show biases as well.
"To their credit, legislators deeply respect the will of the people through
initiatives"Aren't these the same legislators that are
saying they're going to do something different on medical marijuana?
Don't let perfect stand in the way of good enough. Prop 4 is a solid step
in the right direction. We have to get to a system where the contestants are
not also the referees. The current situation in Georgia where Kemp is both a
candidate and running the election is simply unconscionable.
My goodness, how hard is it to understand the concept of
“independent?”The proposition merely says 50% of the
commissioners cannot have voted in a primary election in the last four years.
Not be a former lobbyist, principal of a business that employed a lobbyist, a
political candidate or appointed to any public office.The other
three can be all those things! Can you please understand that a
lobbyist, or political candidate or someone appointed to a public office might
be beholden to a party, benefactor or ideology that would color how they want
congressional district boundaries are drawn?As it stands now 100%
of the politicians gerrymander the lines in Utah to perpetrate the one party