SENATE COMMITTEE ON RULES
May 23, 2005 Hearing Room B
3:00 P.M. Tapes 79 - 80
Corrected 10/27/05
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sen. Kate Brown, Chair
Sen. Ted Ferrioli, Vice-Chair
Sen. Jason Atkinson
Sen. Charlie Ringo
Sen. Frank Shields
STAFF PRESENT: Tiffany Harris, Committee Administrator
Dawn Tuso, Committee Assistant
MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD:
SJR 32 – Public Hearing
SJR 33 – Public Hearing
Approval of Drafting Request - Work Session
These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words. For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.
|
TAPE/# |
Speaker |
Comments |
|
TAPE 79, A |
||
|
003 |
Chair Brown |
Calls meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. |
|
010 |
Tiffany Harris |
Committee Administrator. Gives overview of SJR 32 and SJR 33. |
|
018 |
Chair Brown |
Calls Thomas Mann on the conference phone. |
|
030 |
Thomas Mann |
Brookings Institution. Introduces himself and offers background information. |
|
038 |
Chair Brown |
Asks Mr. Mann if he has a copy of SJR 32 and SJR 33. |
|
039 |
Mann |
Replies yes. |
|
040 |
Chair Brown |
Opens public hearing on SJR 32 and SJR 33. |
|
SJR 32 & SJR 33 – PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
041 |
Chair Brown |
Asks Mr. Mann to talk about redistricting trends across the country. |
|
042 |
Mann |
Discusses trends in redistricting across the country. |
|
111 |
Chair Brown |
Clarifies what Mr. Mann means by saying “constrain the process”. |
|
113 |
Mann |
Replies yes and further explains what he means by saying “constrain the process”. |
|
132 |
Chair Brown |
Asks for more information regarding Iowa’s process. |
|
134 |
Mann |
Discusses the process in Iowa. |
|
179 |
Sen. Ringo |
Asks Mr. Mann to comment on his opinion regarding appointing judges as special masters. |
|
189 |
Mann |
Comments on appointing judges as special masters. |
|
240 |
Sen. Ringo |
Asks if there are twenty-four special masters or if there are three special masters. |
|
244 |
Mann |
Replies that the initial pool consists of twenty-four special masters and that three special masters are selected from that pool. |
|
246 |
Sen. Ringo |
Asks if the priorities are given literal interpretation. |
|
256 |
Mann |
Explains. |
|
280 |
Sen. Ringo |
Asks for Mr. Mann’s recommendation regarding whether or not to provide information to the decision makers. |
|
286 |
Mann |
Offers opinion. |
|
307 |
Sen. Ringo |
Asks question regarding comment about New Jersey. |
|
310 |
Mann |
Explains. |
|
325 |
Chair Brown |
Asks what kind of redistricting process Nebraska has. |
|
327 |
Mann |
Replies that he is not sure. Offers information regarding Nebraska’s legislature. |
|
348 |
Curtis Gans |
Director, Committee of the Study of the American Electorate. Introduces himself and offers background information. Discusses redistricting. |
|
TAPE 80, A |
||
|
001 |
Gans |
Continues discussion on redistricting. |
|
035 |
Chair Brown |
Asks why he feels parties are important and why parties do not contribute to partisanship. |
|
038 |
Gans |
Replies that parties do contribute to partisanship. |
|
050 |
Chair Brown |
Asks about comment that the way districts are drawn and the voter turn out has increased polarization. |
|
052 |
Gans |
Responds. |
|
063 |
Chair Brown |
Asks if there are specific principles that should be used in establishing criteria for redistricting plans. |
|
067 |
Gans |
Replies. |
|
074 |
Sen. Ringo |
Asks about self political segregation. |
|
090 |
Gans |
Responds to comment. |
|
105 |
Sen. Ringo |
Comments on the red blue map. |
|
106 |
Gans |
Comments that he does not believe the red blue map. Talks about the rekindling of politics of shared values rather than of divided values. |
|
128 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Talks about major population centers and comments that there is an urban rural divide. |
|
155 |
Gans |
Responds to comments. |
|
173 |
Chair Brown |
Clarifies Sen. Ferrioli’s comment. |
|
178 |
Gans |
Asks if they are talking about a statewide level or a statewide level of the legislature. |
|
180 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Clarifies that the question of interest is in regards to a concentrated political power in a population base in certain states across America. |
|
184 |
Chair Brown |
Disputes Sen. Ferrioli’s comment. |
|
187 |
Gans |
Asks if they are talking about a statewide election because it is the character of the candidates that has been determinative. |
|
189 |
Chair Brown |
Asks is he really believes that. |
|
190 |
Gans |
Replies absolutely. |
|
195 |
Chair Brown |
Asks if it is true in Washington as well. |
|
196 |
Gans |
Replies that it is less true in Washington than it is in Oregon or California. |
|
202 |
Chair Brown |
Asks if he would agree with the two criteria, fairness and competitiveness. |
|
205 |
Gans |
Replies yes, in addition to compact and contiguous. |
|
206 |
Chair Brown |
Asks what the benefits are of compactness and contiguousness. |
|
207 |
Gans |
Discusses the benefits. |
|
211 |
Chair Brown |
Asks how to make sure that minorities are represented in the legislature. |
|
216 |
Gans |
Responds. |
|
238 |
Chair Brown |
Calls John Giese on the conference phone. |
|
254 |
Giese |
Senior Vice-President, Rockey Hill and Knowlton. Introduces himself and offers background information. |
|
275 |
Chair Brown |
Asks if he has had a continuing position on the commission. |
|
276 |
Giese |
Replies no. Discusses redistricting efforts. |
|
296 |
Chair Brown |
Clarifies that it is a temporary service. |
|
298 |
Giese |
Replies yes. |
|
301 |
Chair Brown |
Asks what prompted Washington to move toward nonpartisan redistricting commissions two decades earlier than the rest of the country. |
|
307 |
Giese |
Explains. |
|
333 |
Chair Brown |
Asks if Washington has two members of each party and an independent member. |
|
337 |
Giese |
Explains. Comments that the chair of the committee is a non voting member. |
|
349 |
Chair Brown |
Asks about the practicalities of staffing. Asks if the legislative staff primarily staffs the commission. |
|
352 |
Giese |
Replies yes, but not solely and explains. |
|
366 |
Chair Brown |
Asks what criteria the commission is required to use. |
|
368 |
Giese |
Explains the two sets of criteria used by the commission. |
|
403 |
Chair Brown |
Asks about decreasing polarization in the legislative process. Asks for Washington to be used as an example. |
|
TAPE 79, B |
||
|
001 |
Giese |
Offers observations. |
|
016 |
Chair Brown |
Asks if he means polarization. |
|
022 |
Giese |
Replies yes. |
|
026 |
Chair Brown |
Asks if the structure of two members from each party and one non voting Chair in effect has the impact of protecting incumbents. |
|
029 |
Giese |
Responds. |
|
063 |
Chair Brown |
Clarifies that he is saying that it is truly a partisan process so lets make it a fair one. |
|
065 |
Giese |
Replies yes. |
|
078 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Expresses appreciation for testimony. Comments on the idea that redistricting redistributes political power. |
|
100 |
Giese |
Stresses having a process that is transparent to the public. |
|
109 |
Chair Brown |
Thanks Giese for his testimony. |
|
126 |
Andi Miller |
Executive Director, Common Cause Oregon. Testifies in support of SJR 32 and SJR 33. Submits written testimony (EXHIBIT A) and submits Common Cause redistricting guidelines (EXHIBIT B). |
|
150 |
David Buchanan |
Common Cause. Testifies on SJR 32 and SJR 33. |
|
172 |
Norman Turrill |
State Board Member, Common Cause. Testifies on SJR 32 and SJR 33. |
|
218 |
Chair Brown |
Makes comment. |
|
226 |
Turrill |
Comments that they have term limits in Washington state. |
|
231 |
Buchanan |
Comments on another factor in Washington state. |
|
239 |
Chair Brown |
Asks if he agrees with the analysis that the districts are at least competitive. |
|
242 |
Buchanan |
Replies yes. |
|
244 |
Turrill |
Agrees and offers comment. |
|
268 |
Chair Brown |
Explains reason for questioning term limits in Washington. |
|
274 |
Buchanan |
Comments that Oregon had a short experience in multimember districts in the 1960’s. |
|
290 |
Chair Brown |
Asks how nonpartisan redistricting will help women and people of color get elected to legislatures and diversify us. |
|
298 |
Buchanan |
Replies that he does not think it will help. |
|
307 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Comments that it seems that Washington has realized that partisanship cannot be taken out of politics. Says that it makes more sense to acknowledge the reality of partisanship in politics and figure out a way to make the process more fair. |
|
320 |
Turrill |
Responds to comments. |
|
350 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Comments that there are two versions. |
|
355 |
Buchanan |
Makes comment. |
|
365 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Asks question regarding comment that the commission should be incumbent blind. |
|
373 |
Turrill |
Responds to question. Replies that districts can be tailored through the use of technology. |
|
406 |
Chair Brown |
Asks if one-third is a good portion for competitive seats in the Oregon Senate. |
|
411 |
Buchanan |
Comments on competitiveness. |
|
TAPE 80, B |
||
|
006 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Comments that there is a complication in the equation discussed. |
|
008 |
Miller |
Responds to question and comments on the issue discussed. |
|
017 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Asks how to convince someone that redistricting someone out of their district was not intentional. |
|
026 |
Buchanan |
Comments that the blindness is a troubling issue. |
|
040 |
Turrill |
Responds to Sen. Ferrioli’s question. |
|
046 |
Buchanan |
Comments on another factor regarding incumbents. |
|
057 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Asks about communities of interest. |
|
062 |
Buchanan |
Comments that it is a vague and virtually meaningless concept. |
|
068 |
Chair Brown |
Offers example of a community of interest. |
|
076 |
Buchanan |
Responds that the community of interest is caught up in the order that districts are drawn. |
|
082 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Comments on a community of interest. |
|
085 |
Turrill |
Discusses hierarchy of criteria that should be applied when looking at communities of interest. |
|
095 |
Chair Brown |
Comments on diverse populations that live near one another. |
|
099 |
Turrill |
Says that neighborhoods in Portland are divided by freeways. |
|
103 |
Miller |
Thanks the members for allowing them to testify. |
|
107 |
Chair Brown |
Says that she has counted twelve or thirteen very competitive Senate districts. |
|
110 |
Miller |
Comments on motivation for redistricting. |
|
125 |
Bruce Miller |
Assistant Staff Counsel, Office of State Court Administrator. Testifies on SJR 32 and SJR 33. |
|
147 |
Chair Brown |
Asks if judges knowing that they will be tied up in redistricting will have an impact on their opinions or ability to settle cases. |
|
151 |
B. Miller |
Responds that it would only apply to retired judges. |
|
154 |
Chair Brown |
Asks about retired judges who are still working. |
|
157 |
B. Miller |
Replies yes. |
|
162 |
Chair Brown |
Comments on using retired judges and whether or not it is fair to them. |
|
167 |
Sen. Ringo |
Points out that some retired judges make good money by doing arbitration, etc. and that being committed to redistricting could potentially take away from good financial opportunities. |
|
170 |
Sen. Ringo |
Asks whether there should be a requirement for geographical distribution in the pool of judges. |
|
175 |
B. Miller |
Responds to comment. |
|
179 |
Chair Brown |
Closes public hearing on SJR 32 and SJR 33. Committee stands at ease at 4:44 p.m. Calls committee back to order at 4:45 p.m. Opens work session for consideration of request for drafting and introduction. |
|
APPROVAL OF DRAFTING REQUEST – WORK SESSION |
||
|
182 |
Chair Brown |
Reviews request for drafting (EXHIBIT C). |
|
185 |
Chair Brown |
MOTION: Moves one drafting request be approved for drafting by Legislative Counsel and BE INTRODUCED as a committee bill. |
|
|
|
VOTE: 3-0-2 EXCUSED: 2 - Sen. Atkinson, Sen. Shields |
|
|
Chair Brown |
Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED. |
|
189 |
Chair Brown |
Closes work session and adjourns meeting at 4:46 p.m. |
EXHIBIT SUMMARY
A. SJR 32 & SJR 33, written testimony, Andi Miller, 4 pp
B. SJR 32 & SJR 33, guidelines, Andi Miller, 2 pp
C. Approval of drafting and introduction requests, memorandum, Sen. Kate Brown, 1 p