Bob Brown Gets His Facts Wrong

by: Matt Singer

Fri Sep 21, 2007 at 13:07:40 PM MST

But there's some problems with the op-ed that suggest trading a repeal of term limits (conservatives giving up something) for a move away from Montana's current non-partisan redistricting law (liberals give up something).

1. First, I've seen no real indication that this is actually a right-left compromise. The drive for term limits repeal is currently coming from the center-right -- with a number of frustrated Republicans realizing that forced retirement left them with a bit of a leadership vacuum. As for the non-partisan redistricting commission setup, it's non-partisan. So to think that one ideology is tied to it for reasons of power is just straight up bizarre.


2. Second, Bob Brown makes the blanket claim that Democrats "have benefited from the gerrymandering of state legislative districts." This is actually a loaded statement -- it first assumes the presence of gerrymandering. Now, gerrymandering is actually different from simple partisan control of the commission -- Republicans had that in the 1990 commission (and amazingly, they won in a landslide in 1994, the first year the new lines were in effect). The Great Falls Tribune, I believe, analyzed the new lines and found that the 2000 commission redrew the lines in such a way as to increase competition, not necessarily to ensure Democratic victory (ensuring D victory is a tough thing to achieve in a lean Republican state with any strategy other than maximize competitiveness and work to run the table).


3. By all available indications, the legislature is not gerrymandered. Republicans throw around the figure that Republicans won contested races by a margin of 53.5% to 46.5%. What they omit is that Democrats contested more races than Republicans, but only won 44.3% of the contested races (races where they won roughly 2.2% more of the vote). In other words, far from being gerrymandered, Democrats underperformed their share of the vote in these contested races.


4. Contrary to Bob Brown's statement that reform on these issues would "require two-thirds majorities of the Legislature," either proposal could pass without ever being submitted to the Legislature through that proposal known as a Constitutional Initiative. This is a minor point, but a worthwhile one. If Bob Brown wants to see some reforms, maybe he should lead the way by forming a ballot issue committee and doing the hard work of organizing, rather than pointing the finger at the Legislature. Additionally, process reforms of the type Brown is considering are often the toughest initiatives to pass at the ballot box. Trusting to do it through referred amendments is probably an unsound strategy for success.


5. Bob Brown never actually proposes a replacement for the redistricting commission. He clearly implies that term limits ought to be repealed, which is simple enough. But the alternative of "redistricting commission" isn't simply "no commission" because someone has to draw those lines. Now, drawing those lines could be handled a bunch of ways. It could be a random judicial panel. It could be a legislative bill that follows the normal (and highly politicized) legislative process. It could simply be a four-member panel of two Dems and two Republicans (presuming our two party system maintains its stability. But all Bob Brown offers in terms of solutions is, "the Democrats [would have to vote] to restore balance to the redistricting process [so that the people] should be able to cast their votes in districts that are not contrived by an apportionment commission." Well, who should contrive the districts, Bob? We can't simply eliminate the old system. We need an alternative.

I think Bob Brown has a long history of noble service in Montana. As much as it may surprise people, I was quite happy to hear he was appointed a position at the Center for the Rocky Mountain West, which I thought was a great fit for a thoughtful senior statesman like Senator Brown. But this piece is disappointing.