Today a broad range of reform, business, and taxpayer organizations urged House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) to hold hearings on the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting (FAIR) Act (H.R. 3025). The legislation to improve the corrupted redistricting process that allows politicians to handpick the voters they will represent was introduced by Representatives John Tanner (D-TN) and Mike Castle (R-DE) last month.

Previous versions of the FAIR Act were introduced by Rep. Tanner in the 109^thand 110^th Congresses as were separate redistricting reform bills from Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA). None of the bills was ever granted a hearing.

The reform groups calling for hearings include the Campaign Legal Center, Committee for Economic Development, Common Cause, FairVote, iSolon, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, National Taxpayers Union, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG.

The full letter to the Chairman and the Ranking Member follows:

August 21, 2009

The Honorable John Conyers

House Judiciary Committee

2138 Rayburn HOB

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Lamar Smith

House Judiciary Committee

2142 Rayburn HOB

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith:

We, the undersigned groups, strongly urge you to hold hearings this fall on the issues affecting congressional redistricting reform.

Earlier this summer, a bipartisan group of Members introduced H.R. 3025, the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act. The bill seeks to fundamentally improve the congressional redistricting process by, among other things, permitting only once a decade redistricting absent a court decision striking down the districts, and by creating independent commissions in the states to conduct congressional redistricting.

As you know, the post-2000 redistricting cycle saw unprecedented efforts to use the redistricting process purely for partisan purposes. This was done through severe gerrymandering, and the creation of districts that lacked any serious level of competitiveness, as districts were carefully calibrated to protect the powerbase of incumbent officeholders and marginalize their political opponents. When necessary to maximize their political advantage, some states even resorted to re-redistricting by repeatedly shifting voters among districts in order to weaken the minority political party and shore up the majority's political base. The effect of all this was a clear undermining of democracy and voter confidence in the integrity of our political process. In short, the redistricting process became an effective tool for making a highly partisan power grab.

House action is needed to ensure that competitiveness, accountability and fair representation remain healthy parts of our democratic process, and to keep the overly partisan and unchecked redistricting process from spinning out of control. Our nation will be irretrievably weakened if we continue with a system that undermines our representative democracy by allowing elected officials to choose their constituents, rather than a system where voters choose their elected officials.

It is time for the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings as a means of starting the critical conversation inside and outside of Congress on potential solutions to fixing the broken redistricting process. Although some of our individual organizations may not necessarily agree with all of H.R. 3025's provisions, we do agree that the legislation is a good starting point for this important conversation. Accordingly, we urge you to schedule hearings on redistricting reform.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter that is so critically important to the future of democracy in the United States.

Sincerely,

Campaign Legal Center

Committee for Economic Development

Common Cause

FairVote

iSolon

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

National Taxpayers Union

Public Citizen

U.S. PIRG

Cc: Full Judiciary Committee

The Campaign Legal Center, the League of Women Voters and Americans for Redistricting Reform announced a "Statement of Essential Principles on Redistricting" supported by a diverse set of reform groups, civil right organizations, and academics. Many of those signing on gathered last month at the Pocantico Redistricting Conference late last month. The Legal Center, in partnership with the League, convened the meeting to explore ways that the public can best participate in the redistricting process in 2011 and beyond.

"The primary reform that redistricting stakeholders can agree on is that elected officials should not be choosing their voters in smoke filled rooms; at the very least voters must be given a view and a voice in the process," said J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director of the Campaign Legal Center. "The 2010 Census and the next round of redistricting are nearly upon us so the time to ensure that citizens have the ability to impact the process is now, or once again we're all going to be standing around looking at the new gerrymanders muttering to ourselves 'I can't believe they did this to us again.'"

The conference brought together organizations and individuals from across the nation to discuss ways to increase the role citizens play in the process, problems with the system in general and potential short- and long-term fixes to the process of redistricting. Those signing on to the principles ranged from Common Cause and the League of Women Voters to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) and Southern Coalition for Social Justice.

"It is so important to bring a broad cross-section of stakeholders to the table because as Proposition 11 in California clearly showed, redistricting reform can be incredibly controversial - pitting against each other groups that all agree the current process is broken," said Hebert. "Quite a few of the individuals and organizations gathered for the conference fought on opposite sides of hotly contested Prop 11 ballot initiative and yet were able to agree that more transparency and public participation is needed in the redistricting process."

The groups agreed to continue working together through the 2010 Census and the next round of redistricting to expand the public's role in the process to help restore the ideals of a representative democracy. The principles themselves and the organizations and individuals signing on are included below.

STATEMENT ON ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES ON REDISTRICTING

AS FORMULATED AT POCANTICO REDISTRICTING CONFERENCE JULY 2009

The statement below was agreed upon by attendees of the Pocantico Redistricting Conference on July 22-24, 2009. Additional organizations and individuals have signed on as well. All signatories are listed below.

The essential principles are:

1. An accurate and complete count in Census 2010 is an essential building block for all redistricting efforts.

2. The process used for redistricting must be transparent to the public.

3. The redistricting process, at all levels of government, must provide data, tools and opportunities for the public to have direct input into the specific plans under consideration by the redistricting body.

4. In order to achieve representative democracy, redistricting plans must be drawn in a manner that allows elected bodies to reflect the diversity of the populace, especially racial and ethnic diversity.

Organizations (in alphabetical order)

Meredith McGehee

Project Manager

Americans for Redistricting Reform (and Campaign Legal Center)

Margaret Fung

Executive Director
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF)

Justin Levitt
Counsel
Brennan Center for Justice, NYU School of Law

J. Gerald Hebert
Executive Director
Campaign Legal Center

Malcolm Rich,
Executive Director
Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice

Terry Pastika
Executive Director
Citizen Advocacy Center

Bob Edgar
President
Common Cause

Ellen Freidin
Campaign Chair
FairDistrictsFlorida.org

Cynthia Canary
Executive Director
Illinois Campaign for Political Reform

Mary G. Wilson 
President 
League of Women Voters of the United States

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)

Rich Robinson
Executive Director
Michigan Campaign Finance Network

Arturo Vargas
Executive Director
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO)

Catherine Turcer
Executive Director
Ohio Citizen Action

Christopher Brook
Staff Attorney
Southern Coalition for Social Justice

Dan McGrath
Executive Director
TakeAction Minnesota

Mike McCabe
Executive Director
Wisconsin Democracy Campaign

Individuals (in alphabetical order)
The intent of these individuals is only to speak for themselves and not for their institution.

Kristen Clarke
Co-Director, Political Participation Group
NAACP LDF

Edward B. Foley
Professor of Law
Ohio State University

Heather Gerken
J. Skelly Write Professor of Law
Yale Law School

Michael P. McDonald
Associate Professor
George Mason University

It is time for the House to hold hearings on redistricting reform legislation currently pending in the 111^th Congress. The issue is of huge importance to our democratic process and yesterday's endorsement of the legislation by the Blue Dog Coalition lends weight to the calls to reform the process before the 2010 Census and subsequent round of predictable extreme political gerrymanders.

For several Congresses running, legislation to curb these abuses has been referred to committee and left to die quietly without so much as a hearing. With the 2010 Census fast approaching and no redistricting reform ballot initiatives pending in California, it is time for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to green light hearings on the Fairness And Independence in Redistricting (FAIR) Act (H.R. 3025) introduced by Representatives John Tanner (D-TN) and Mike Castle (R-DE) last month.

Let's be clear: both Republicans and Democrats alike abuse the process for political advantage but it is the Democrats who are driving the bus in Washington today. We hope Speaker Pelosi will urge Chairman Conyers and the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings and advance the issue before the commencement of another shameless round of gerrymandering which allows incumbent House Members to handpick their constituents.

It is the voters who should be selecting their elected Representatives in Congress, not the other way around.

The way most states draw congressional districts must change if we are to break the partisan gridlock in Washington. Representatives John Tanner (D-TN) and Mike Castle (R-DE) and Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) are to be commended for moving the ball forward on reforming this process with the introduction of the Fairness And Independence in Redistricting (FAIR) Act. They clearly recognize that our current system is broken and must be addressed and addressed quickly. The gerrymandering clock is ticking loudly.

Redistricting reform must occur in the 111th Congress or the next round of gerrymanders will begin anew in the wake of the 2010 Census. Our representative democracy is undermined each time politicians get to handpick their voters instead of voters choosing their elected officials. No good comes of seats that are intentionally drawn so as to be so uncompetitive they ensure re-election for incumbents. These "safe seats" feed voter apathy, drive down turnout on Election Day, and produce incumbents who are more likely to face their only real competition from the fringes of their own party. This only serves to widen the distance between Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

The current system is a terrible disservice to the citizens of this country and a gross distortion of the democracy envisioned by the founding fathers for the legislative branch. The time to fix this system is now. It will be too late if we wait for the inevitable public outrage that will follow the next wave of gerrymanders. The time to act is now.
 

The nomination of John Sullivan by President Obama to a seat on the FEC is cause for concern. Mr. John Sullivan's only known statements on campaign finance issues have been made to the FEC on behalf of the union that employs him. While lawyers are of course obligated to represent their clients, the gusto with which Mr. Sullivan has bashed important elements of McCain-Feingold and repeatedly taken radical deregulatory positions does not inspire confidence that he will have different views if confirmed to the Commission.

More important is the question of what Mr. Sullivan's nomination says about President Obama's promises to change Washington and reform the FEC: certainly this nomination is a strange way to initiate such change. If the White House is serious about improving the FEC, it will need to fill the two other vacancies on the Commission with people who will shake it up, not fit right in to the status quo.

The Campaign Legal Center has long advocated the strengthening of campaign finance law enforcement through replacement of Commissioners who all-too-often express hostility toward the very laws they're charged with enforcing with Commissioners who, instead, believe in the agency's mission of enforcing the money-in-politics regulations that Congress has enacted. And lacking faith that any administration would truly bring the change that is needed, we have advocated a total restructuring of the agency by Congress.

But far from endorsing enforcement of Congress' campaign finance regulations, President Obama's nominee for the Commission, labor union lawyer John Sullivan, has over the years encouraged radical deregulation of campaign finance by the FEC. The fact that he has also worked for reform of the voting process is of little help, since that is the province of the Election Administration Commission, not the FEC.

In October 2007, for example, Sullivan filed comments in the FEC's rulemaking proceeding to modify its "electioneering communication" regulations in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL)-urging the Commission to go far beyond the Court's ruling by ceasing to enforce "electioneering communication" disclosure requirements not even challenged, let alone invalidated, in WRTL. Sullivan's urging of deregulation in the post-WRTL rulemaking was so radical that not even the most visible, well-known opponents of campaign finance restrictions supported it. For example, while the adamantly deregulationist Center for Competitive Politics urged the Commission to wait for a court decision actually invalidating the disclosure requirements before ceasing to enforce them (click here), Sullivan urged the Commission to cease enforcement of the disclosure requirements enacted by Congress and upheld by eight members of the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC. Fortunately, the Commission rejected Sullivan's advice and properly confined its rulemaking to the issues actually litigated in WRTL.

Sullivan's deregulatory approach to campaign finance law was also on display in 2006, when Sullivan filed comments in an FEC rulemaking on "coordinated communications." The Commission was conducting the rulemaking as a result of the federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Shays v. FEC, in which the court criticized the Commission because it "offered no persuasive justification" for the time-frame utilized in its coordination rule and "the weak restraints [i.e., an 'express advocacy' test] applying outside of it." The Circuit Court reasoned that the Supreme Court in McConnell had described the "express advocacy" test as "functionally meaningless" because it is so easily evaded and that, "by employing a 'functionally meaningless' standard . . . , the FEC has in effect allowed a coordinated communication free-for-all for much of each election cycle." Yet Sullivan, in his comments to the Commission, expressed "serious doubts about the validity of any [coordination] content standard that includes more than express advocacy and electioneering communications." Unfortunately, the Commission heeded Sullivan's advice and re-promulgated a coordination rule with the same flaw identified by the court-the rule relied on the "functionally meaningless" and easily evaded "express advocacy" standard. Consequently, the Commission was sued yet again-and yet again, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Commission's rule because it relied on the "express advocacy" standard. The court used even harsher language in its critique of the coordination rule second time round, noting that the rule "allows candidates to evade-almost completely-BCRA's restrictions on the use of soft money." The court further explained: "Thus, the FEC's rule not only makes it eminently possible for soft money to be 'used in connection with federal elections,' but it also provides a clear roadmap for doing so, directly frustrating BCRA's purpose." (internal citation omitted) Alarmingly, the Commission has been under federal court order to rewrite this invalidated rule since 2007 and has not yet even initiated the rulemaking. So President Obama's nominee to the Commission, if confirmed by the Senate, will play a critical role in rewriting the coordination rule for the third time since the 2002 passage of the McCain-Feingold law.

If John Sullivan's past advice to the FEC is any indication of the manner in which he would perform the duties of an FEC Commissioner then his nomination to the Commission is a far cry from the "change" promised by President Obama on the campaign trail and in the months since being elected. Quite frankly, we hoped for far more. Mr. Sullivan now has to show that the radical positions he advocated were those of the union that employs him, and that he'll be a far different Commissioner than he has been an advocate before Commission. And the President has yet to show that the change he advocated, including reform of the FEC, will become a reality in this Administration.