A few days late, from the pay to play Roll Call, Stuart Rothenberg discusses the failure of redistricting initiatives in OH and CA:
In both Ohio and California, some voters almostcertainly opposed the ballot measures simply because they regarded the entire matter as arcane, complicatedand confusing.
As one insider who supported the Ohio redistricting ballot measure told me Tuesday, it’s far easier to explain the benefits of simplified absentee voting orthe advantages of campaign contribution limits than itis to first explain how districts are drawn, then explain why that system needs to be changed andfinally to propose a new system for drawing the lines.
Days before the results were in, true “reformers” —I’m not talking about partisans who jumped on the reform bandwagon but only wanted to redraw districtsto improve their electoral opportunities next time —were claiming victory of a sort. They insisted that they had already begun to “educate” voters and would press on with the battle to change the way districts are drawn.
Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt.
A dispassionate assessment of the Ohio and California ballot measures can only interpret the results as a blow to those who want to change how district lines are drawn. Voters simply don’t care enough about theprocess of drawing legislative and Congressional districts, and it will be hard to motivate them in other states to support changes via the ballot.
Agreed. Redistricting, for all its importance - and I'd put it at the top of the list even ahead of campaign finance - is too inside-baseball for Real People.
No comments:
Post a Comment