ProPublica

Journalism in the Public Interest

Cancel

How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission

To get the districts they wanted, Democrats organized groups that said they represented communities, but really represented the party.

« Return to Story

Sort by: Oldest Newest  1 2 3 >

Hal

Dec. 21, 2011, 4:16 p.m.

As a lifelong Democrat, I despise the underhanded tactics politicians of both parties use. I watched Republicans use redistricting to swing Texas to the Republican side a few years ago. We need a truly non-partisan agency to take charge of this duty. Better still, let’s eliminate the Electoral College and elect our politicians by popular vote. Let’s give everyone an equal input on who leads us. No more strategic nonsense to buy an election by targeting just a few states. Why should Iowa and the other early Republican primary states dictate who becomes the most powerful citizen in the World? It makes no sense. Iowa, for example, is not even close to being representative of our country.

gregorylent

Dec. 21, 2011, 4:28 p.m.

sick system, sick country ...

Richard Raznikov

Dec. 21, 2011, 4:29 p.m.

“I’m shocked!  Shocked that gambling is going on at Rick’s!”  Folks, get serious.  Maneuverings over redistricting has been going on since before my first days in the California Democratic Council in the early ‘60s, with the Burton brothers.  Both parties do it if they can.  Generally, both parties often work together to shield incumbents of each party –– though maybe not so much anymore. 
The notion of a ‘citizens’ committee’ or ‘non-partisan’ commission is and always will be a distraction and a waste of time. 
Personally, I’m glad the Democrats pulled it off in California.  It’s one of the few things these bozos have gotten right in the last ten years.

ReilleyFam

Dec. 21, 2011, 4:31 p.m.

In the end, no laws were broken. It’s pretty naive to think that both parties would not try to influence the outcome. In CA, Dems rule so they end up with more influence.

M

Dec. 21, 2011, 4:39 p.m.

Why am I not surprised at the Democrats’ tactics here?  They cry foul at every opportunity except when they’re not following the rules, eg. the presidential election and “community activist” voter signups. Why does Washington State have a democratic governor?  The voters clearly elected a Republican, but dems insisted votes had been “missed” and held vote recounts until they got the results they wanted.

I hope the voters of California become aware of what happened and undo the redistricting lines.

Doug Sherman

Dec. 21, 2011, 4:51 p.m.

OK, so I’m shamed by the above comments that I am shocked by the behind the scenes manipulation.  When the commission came out with the new district lines I believed that they were fair.  And when other states like Texas were shown to be engaging in outrageous gerrymandering I thought that we were better here in CA.  Guess it wasn’t so.  Disappointed.

ibsteve2u

Dec. 21, 2011, 5:04 p.m.

I do hope ProPublica watches the redistricting efforts underway elsewhere in the nation that are under the control of Republicans at least as carefully.

For instance, in Wisconsin where their Republicans have had to be taken to court in order to provide the public with any information about the ways in which their voting rights are being constrained and diluted?

Or a little something about the SCOTUS blocking a three-judge panel’s attempt at righting the wrongs inflicted upon the citizens of Texas by the Republicans through redistricting?

You see, the American right is so very corrupt that they have to seize any opportunity to bring any act on the part of the Democrats that approximates normal Republican behavior to the attention of the American people lest their own far more numerous examples finally overwhelm the right’s ability to practice “Divide, and conquer.”. 

Hence, for example, the new Republican effort to “investigate” high speed rail in California.  Given the amount of electoral votes California represents, of course you can understand why the Republicans would try any tactic in an effort to swing that state Republican. 

(And no, I’m not trying to infer that this article is such an effort.  But how did ProPublica come by those emails of Marks’, anyway - assuming they are indeed from Marks?  I do hope a rudimentary attempt was made to ensure that they weren’t spoofed as to point of origination; email headers are so very easy to manipulate that I am sure any credible journalist immediately ruled that possibility out.  Particularly as the believability of accusations and innuendo contained within this story hinges upon them.)

Bill Hayes

Dec. 21, 2011, 5:11 p.m.

One of the things that theoretically makes the USA a strong nation is our diversity. Plans that segregate and separate us into silos ultimately weaken us and make us more intolerant of each other. Read Bill Bishop’s book “The Big Sort.” No wonder we have gridlock at all levels of government. Every representative is steadfastly defending the position of their narrow, isolated and inflexible group with little or no thought of the greater community. My way or the highway, no compromise! Shame on the people who worked in secret and used devious methods to promote their own selfish interests over the needs and good of ALL the people they are supposed to represent. Shame on the people who were supposed to protect the rights of all of the voters. No wonder our country is in decline!

robert von bargen

Dec. 21, 2011, 5:17 p.m.

While I’m embarrassed and ashamed at what this story reveals, I’m going to nitpick one issue. 
In the portion describing the Loretta Sanchez district, the authors state: “A large section of Little Saigon ended up in a district with Long Beach, a town that is less than 1 percent Asian.”

In fact, the Asian population of Long Beach is over 12%.  True, the Vietnamese population is listed as only 1.1%, but that is suspect. I believe, based on having worked in the city and on my CSULB graduate daughter having lived there for many years, that the Vietnamese/Cambodian population may be much larger.

ibsteve2u

Dec. 21, 2011, 5:19 p.m.

I find it interesting that - of all of the redistricting tales available for recounting to the public - the collection at

http://www.propublica.org/series/redistricting/

features California five times

If that were not true - if the focus were not so selective all the way down to retelling California’s from a variety of angles - then Republican corruption would dominate this “investigative effort”.

Even down to the headlines.

robert von bargen

Dec. 21, 2011, 5:24 p.m.

I think what needs to be kept in mind, ibsteve, is that you and I probably never read anything at all about this story until P/P did the investigation and report.  On the other hand, some of the stories in the other states have been developing over a longer period of time and have been covered in much of the media.  No sense in asking P/P to pile on to a story with legs.  (I’m a Liberal Democrat, but I’d like to think we kept the state Blue on the square.)

Herbert A. Sample

Dec. 21, 2011, 5:33 p.m.

Interesting article. But I have to wonder why it did not mention that the commission’s final map resulted in two sets of two Democrats running against each other in the L.A. area: Brad Sherman vs. Howard Berman, and Janice Hahn vs. Laura Richardson. (There are some incumbent Republicans battling each other too.) And is it that big a surprise that Northern CA Democrats came away pretty happy? (Except for McNerney’s district, much of urban Northern CA is Democratic territory, and has been for years and years.)

Or, why the article didn’t mention that while there may be larger populations in “Republican areas,” GOP registration has fallen statewide over the last 10 years.

While what various Democratic aides, members and groups did appears on its face to be sneaky, it was up to the commission to ask hard questions of each person or entity who testified or submitted maps. That it didn’t should lead to improvements in the process 10 years hence.

Jesus DeMexico

Dec. 21, 2011, 5:43 p.m.

Actually, El Monte, North El Monte, and South El Monte are all in separate districts now. (27th, 38th, and another one)

Bob

Dec. 21, 2011, 5:44 p.m.

How about the scientific method? The scientific method is a mechanism for inhibiting bias, so why not use it for redistricting?


Write a survey with one question: “When it comes to the things that the elected official will control, what issues matter to you?” Present that survey to a random sample of registered voters in the state. Throw out any results that don’t meet the criterion. Gather the rest into a weighted list of issues.

Now write a second survey that asks how people feel about those issues. Present that survey to another random sample of registered voters in the state.

Use the results and the weights for the issues as the input to an algorithm that draws district lines based upon minimizing differences in opinion on those issues.

My only concern is whether you can do that on just a $1 budget.

Bob

Dec. 21, 2011, 5:46 p.m.

Err, I mean a $1M budget, of course.

Themistocles

Dec. 21, 2011, 5:59 p.m.

The Commission should have started from the obvious premise that because Democrats are not adding registrations and Republicans are, that the Democrat Party should not be entitled to any extra seats. Instead, they were played like a pipe organ by Dem pols.

[And IANAR. R=Republican; I are not.]

Based on the voter fraud conducted here and in the past, 99% by the Democrats, we can expect immense, widespread and flagrant cheating at the polls in November. Count on it. ACORN is still operative, despite its routine felonies and being caught repeatedly on-camera selling votes for money.

Randy

Dec. 21, 2011, 6 p.m.

Meh.  The scientific method is not completely free of social and cultural biases, either.

I say good on the California Dems for pulling this off, the Republicans have had a strangle-hold on dirty politics for way too long now and it’s way past time for the Dems to show some game and do it better.

Dave

Dec. 21, 2011, 6:04 p.m.

This is very disappointing. A certain amount of political gamesmanship on both sides is to be expected, but this is outright deception. I had hoped that the California Democrats would be above this. Unfortunately, this has become a vicious circle. Republicans Gerrymander Texas so Democrats Gerrymander California.

Jeff Larson

Dec. 21, 2011, 6:10 p.m.

robert von bargen: Thanks we fixed that in the story.

Chris

Dec. 21, 2011, 6:25 p.m.

How can the authors reasonably justify the snarky comment “But as ProPublica’s review makes clear, Democratic incumbents once again are insulated from the will of the electorate”?

The electorate voted to take Congressional line drawing away from the State Legislature.  That happened.  State Assemblymembers and State Senators were not involved with Congressional boundary discussions.

The electorate did not state a priority to prioritize creation of as many competitive seats as possible, without regard to communities of interest.  Dems far outnumber Republicans in California.  What pro-Republican partisan agenda does ProPublica want to implement?

Two pairs of incumbent House Democrats will run against each other in Southern California, guaranteeing more Democratic incumbent defeats than in any cycle in decades.  Did ProPublica want to split San Francisco in four so it could draw a ribbon to the Oregon/Nevada corner in Modoc County in hopes of reducing Leader Pelosi’s base?  The statewide election of 2010 resulted in a Democratic sweep - with no boundaries about which to protest.

The probable reduction in Republican Congressmembers from California well represents the state’s voter registration changes since 2000.  And most municipalities have been kept whole for this round of redistricting.

Dave Kisor

Dec. 21, 2011, 6:32 p.m.

All you have to know about politics is its true meaning.  Poli = many; tics = blood sucking creatures.

ibsteve2u

Dec. 21, 2011, 6:39 p.m.

@Themistocles:  Since you claim that “The Commission should have started from the obvious premise that because Democrats are not adding registrations and Republicans are, that the Democrat Party should not be entitled to any extra seats. Instead, they were played like a pipe organ by Dem pols.”

I thought I would give the readers of this article the opportunity to see if they can discern the trend you declare in the data itself:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/ror-odd-year-11/hist-reg-stats.pdf

Larry Lynch

Dec. 21, 2011, 6:44 p.m.

This story shows a surprising lack of historical perspective. The history that is neglected is not even that old. Remembering the genesis of your investigative news service, I thought your editors if not your reporters would do better than this.  Here’s what is left out:  The ballot measure that set up this redistricting process was backed by business and non-partisan groups like Common Cause. Where is this noted.  One of the more influential commissioners – based on his performance on task – was Vince Barabba, a Republican who was the director of the U.S. Census under Reagan. He’s a polling expert and a genius with numbers. It’s difficult to believe that he was duped by a secretive partisan political effort.  In the San Luis Obispo hearing I attended, obvious Republicans and Tea Party members were just as dedicated to seeking districts that might favor their causes. In any event, the commission followed the rules for redistricting that were laid down in the ballot measures which created it.  There may be no perfectly nonpartisan way to redistrict legislative boundaries but my betting is that this measure, combined with the open primary, will result in a much more functional state Legislature.  Ten years ago, Burton and his Democratic buddies gave away Democratic congressional seats in a deal aimed at controlling the state Legislature over the last decade . It proved to be a foolish bargain.  This effort was an honest one designed to set some important rules giving more voters a voice in choosing their local representative.  If the end result isn’t perfect, in politics what is?

Walter Hawkins

Dec. 21, 2011, 6:52 p.m.

The public policy implications resulting from the voters of California creating a Commission to draw districts was very clear after the initiatives passed. First, it was very clear that the redistricting rules had changed. Second, new strategies needed to be made by all political parties if they wanted to have a successful outcome. Finally, any politically astute Californian recognized that the demographics and residential housing patterns of the state favored Democrats.

Even if the concept of “communities of interest” was not in the initiative, unbiased mappers drawing maps based on population concentrations could not helped the Republican cause.  The deck was not stacked by Democrats. Republicans just did not work hard enough to organize their base or the grass root independent vote.

Walter D. Shutter, Jr.

Dec. 21, 2011, 6:56 p.m.

I am extremely gratified that Propublica has seen fit to expose Democrati gerrymandering efforts in the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia. Frankly, I did not think I would live to see the day.

CitizenK

Dec. 21, 2011, 7:11 p.m.

The redistricting commission members should take umbrage at the slant of this article, which paints them as inartful bumblers manipulated by big time political slickers.  The better story line, as observers and participants in the redistricting wars know, is that the redistricting commission, the requirement that the commission draw the congressional maps, as well as the state legislative and BOE maps, and the current lawsuits attempting to overthrow the commission’s state senate maps, are all a result of the california republican party’s desperate efforts to forstall their inevitable eclipse as a viable political force in California. The efforts of the Democrats described in this slanted story, which reads like a bad pulp fiction novel, should be no surprise to anyone. To the extent any of these events actually occurred they should be viewed as part of the continuing struggle between two ideological camps that make the commission just a pawn in the battle. The commissioners did great work, given the enormity of the task they were handed and the very limited resources they were given.

plaidsportcoat

Dec. 21, 2011, 7:24 p.m.

Wow. Anyone who thinks redistricting could EVER be non-partisan is living in a fantasy. People and computers can be manipulated - especially when dumbed-down Americans think inexperienced people are the ones to elect. When politicians are inexperienced, and especially if they are just naturally not-that-smart, they will easily be manipulated by smarter people America should wake up and stop being so anti-intellectual! The smart people know exactly how to take advantage of THAT stupid “value”. Smart people should battle with smart people, not dummies. If the stakes weren’t so high - it wouldn’t be much fun for the smart people! If you want morality, elect a LEADER who is moral, but the rest are all corruptible. If you get real lucky, you might find an executive that is not corrupt. But if they aren’t experienced - they won’t be able to withstand the barrage of corruption that falls on their heads. No way.

Robert

Dec. 21, 2011, 7:55 p.m.

Let the Bull Crap Begin. Full of holes aerate from Cow Dung in this article

Bob

Dec. 21, 2011, 8:10 p.m.

Randy, I agree that the scientific method isn’t perfect. Nothing in the real world is. But it’s far less prone to gaming and external bias than what we had before, or what we have now. It’s the least flawed of an infinite variety of flawed options.

TonyC

Dec. 21, 2011, 8:33 p.m.

Uh…this is pretty “dog bites man.”  I read nothing here that suggested any of this was illegal.  Newsflash: California is a blue state.  Dems outnumber Reeps in registration by significant numbers.  The only reason many Reep seats survived redistricting is because of gerrymandering in the past.  ANY redistricting would likely have had these political outcomes and ANY redistricting was going to split some community somewhere.  The Reep Party ENDORSED the Citizens Commission initiative.  They need to live with the result.

Marie

Dec. 21, 2011, 9:06 p.m.

I was a registered republican until about 6 years ago.  Much to my surprise, I received several e-mail contacts from a very staunch republican asking me to attend redistricting meetings and support his proposals.  I’m sure both parties tried to influence the outcome. 

I don’t think there is an easy solution to the dilemma.

Ventura Capitalist

Dec. 21, 2011, 9:29 p.m.

California: Home of the Culture of Corruption.
This fish stinks from the head: President Solyndra.

ibsteve2u

Dec. 21, 2011, 10:41 p.m.

There are professional specialists in redistricting who use all kinds of “scientific methods” to accomplish redistricting.  Curiously, they’re apparently partisan.  Magellan Strategies, for example, seems to specialize in assisting only the Republican Party:

http://www.magellanstrategies.com/index.php/services/redistricting/

Given that particular web page was written in anticipation of redistricting efforts in 2011, they may be a little too busy to accept new clients even if you are Republican.  Even if, in fact, you are a Republican who doesn’t come with their typical abhorrence of science and its…over-reliance…upon facts. 

(Although to overload the sarcasm a trifle, these days there is science…and then there is goal-oriented science.  lollll…and no, I don’t mean “R&D”.)

Doug M

Dec. 21, 2011, 10:51 p.m.

This reeks of a sleazy, hyper-partisan screed that one would expect of the likes of Glenn Beck.

First, if you have a coin toss and one group is screaming “heads, heads, heads” and another is screaming “tails, tails, tails”, and the coin comes up heads, the story is NOT that the first group fooled the coin into coming up heads. The basic premise of the article is that the number of safe districts was the result of the Commission being manipulated. However, the results are in line with what was widely predicted before the Commission began its work: Party registration is so concentrated and segregated by region that it was widely regarded by the experts of both parties to be impossible to not create many safe seats for both parties without resorting to extreme Gerrymandering.

Second, nothing the “reporters” describe the Democrats doing was unexpected, nor anything that the Republicans couldn’t do equally well or better. But the screed makes only one fleeting mention of that.

Third, the “reporters” get basic facts wrong. For example, in the first paragraph of the section “The commission blinds itself” they state “The ballot initiative excluded virtually anyone who had any previous political experience….” but follow the link and you will find NONE of the claimed exclusions.

Fourth, the first “evidence” that Democrats succeeded in manipulating the Commission was that they got the Golden Gate Bridge as a dividing line. The bridge is such a natural and obvious dividing line, I would have been amazed if any impartial group had not used it.

The second piece of purported evidence was that one particular county line had particular significance, although there is no explanation of what that might be. I have driven across that line many times, and I haven’t noticed any distinction.

Much of the remaining purported evidence seems nothing more than confirmation bias. We are told that keeping a ethnic group in one district is favorable to the Democratic incumbent only to be whipsawed by the claim that splitting a different ethnic group is favorable to another.  There are two basic schools of thought on this: (1) The ethnic group benefits by being concentrated in a single district because that representative will give them high priority vs (2) Having the group spread over multiple districts results in multiple representatives having to pay attention to, and advocate for, them. In different circumstances, both have their merits.

Emma

Dec. 22, 2011, Midnight

Someone should write story about the gerrymandering that the Republicans pulled off in North Carolina, where there’s hardly a whimper from the Democrats or the citizens about the weird shapes of the districts. Wherever possible, the dems will be running against each other in the primaries and the Republicans will run against, not each other in the primaries, but the dems who survive the primaries.
The genius running our state is only about 8 years past his residence in Fairfax, Virginia, and I seem to be the only citizen who wonders just how close he was to the C Street, Arlington, bunch that Jeff Sharlett has written about. The Repubs are taking over this country and I wish it had not taken so long for the young people to get the drift and start the fight against the takeover. If I were younger, I’d be occupying and calling for mic checks. This nation is in peril and only an active citizenry that won’t be shut down has a chance to stop the betrayal.

Pro RePublica-ns

Dec. 22, 2011, 12:10 a.m.

“Very little of this is due to demographic shifts,” said Professor Doug Johnson at the Rose Institute in Los Angeles. Republican areas actually had higher growth than Democratic ones. “By the numbers, Republicans should have held at least the same number of seats, but they lost.”

Quoting a partisan RePublican must be fun, especially when he neglects to disclose that (1) the percentage of voters registered as Republicans has dropped significantly since the last round of redistricting 10 years ago and (2) those “Republican” areas have been voting increasingly Democratic.  After all, the “octopus-shaped district” in which McNerney was elected was gerrymandered to…wait, elect Republican Dick Pombo!  Oh no, an octopus gerrymander was replaced by keeping San Joaquin County whole: must be some underhanded Democratic plot!!!

If anyone wants to learn what Paul Mitchell, the consultant that these authors claimed was the mastermind of eliminating that gerrymander, actually said during the redistricting process, his blog is publicly available at http://www.redistrictingpartners.com

Jennifer Poole

Dec. 22, 2011, 12:18 a.m.

The idea that it’s gerrymandering that makes Northern California majority Democratic, that the party had to interfere with the redistricting commission to “lock down” NorCal for the Democrats, is kind of foolish. As is the idea that not “crossing the Golden Gate Bridge” can only be attributed to some brainwashing by the Democratic Party. Talk about a natural barrier for a political district? I was at the Santa Rosa hearing of the Redistricting Commission, and I heard a lot of opposition to the concept of “crossing the Golden Gate Bridge,” and no way were they all Democratic Party “shills.”

This article is not easy to read and doesn’t seem to explain some key points or present evidence for some conclusions. Needs some serious editing.

Auric

Dec. 22, 2011, 12:25 a.m.

In light of this story of manipulation and astroturfing, I’m going to safely assume every comment in this thread that apologizes for the Democrats is from an intern at a K-Street lobbyist given instructions to flood the comments section.

ibsteve2u

Dec. 22, 2011, 12:44 a.m.

lolll..made me laugh, Auric.

But I warn you:  You’re furthering the stereotype that members of the right’s base will always choose to reject reality rather than accept the possibility that they can’t have it their way.

Auric

Dec. 22, 2011, 12:57 a.m.

@ibsteve2u - If crap lands on my car window, it’s reasonable to assume a bird just flew overhead. There are other possibilities, of course, but - in absence of further investigation - it’s entirely reasonable for me to assume a bird flew overhead.

If a story about astroturfing produces comments decidedly out of sync with those in parallel reports on the same story (as this has), it’s reasonable for me to assume the comments themselves have been astroturfed by the subject of the report. There are a thousand other possibilities but - for informal, discussion purposes - this is an entirely reasonable conclusion to reach.

BTW - I’m a card-carrying Green.

Auric

Dec. 22, 2011, 1:03 a.m.

Also, this - “will always choose to reject reality rather than accept the possibility that they can’t have it their way” - is a nonsensical sentence.

Is it reasonable for me to assume your degree is from San Jose State? Sure. Could it be from Stanford? In a universe of infinite probabilities, yes. However, with no further evidence, it’s safe - for informal, discussion purposes - to assume you’re a Spartan alum.

Ken

Dec. 22, 2011, 1:13 a.m.

What I got out of this is that Asians got screwed by the Dem machine.

What I get from the comments is that people think California politicians care about anyone else’s seats.  It’s every man or woman for themselves. I seriously doubt if any one of them care less if it would help the party as a whole if it meant losing their own seat.

And Bob.  I bet with a $250k prize, you could get someone to make that algorithm, and for $750k you could get the data.

Mark Elliot

Dec. 22, 2011, 1:17 a.m.

Outstanding post-mortem! You have to wonder what’s worse for us folks in California: the disease or the cure.

David Salaverry

Dec. 22, 2011, 1:26 a.m.

I was a conservative CA redistricting activist who attend 30 CCRC hearings, made 20 public comments, sent dozens of memos, followed the commish from Redding to San Diego and got to know all the players.  Six months of Motel 6 and Burger King, all on my own dime.

The commish *was* inept, arrogant and corrupt. The CA GOP was equally clueless.  I sparred with Paul Mitchell but we grew to like each other.  He’s a smart, focused guy… this article will make his career.  .

Bottom line: citizens commissions are easily manipulated.  Props 11/20 were rife with unintended consequences.  If Pelosi & Co had torpedoed the Props, at least citizens would have had perfect clarity they were getting screwed.

Kudos to ProPublica for digging and outing this boondoggle.

David Salaverry

Dec. 22, 2011, 1:30 a.m.

Roland De Wolk

Dec. 22, 2011, 1:34 a.m.

Two quickies:

—Why no disclosure that the cool old map graphic at top is so old it is wholly inaccurate? One wonders about the news judgment that led to that and what it says about The Nation/The National Review hybrid that folos.

—Hats off to the civilized and telling debate in the comments that tell much more than the editorial-wrapped-in-investigative-reporting Xmas tinsel from Walgreens.

I suppose I’ll stick to old-school news reporting that at least tries to simply tell the story and doesn’t preach at me what to think. I can get that in church Sundays. Thanks.

Merry Christmas! (With the salaries this non-profit is paying its editors it should be merry indeed.)

Auric

Dec. 22, 2011, 1:35 a.m.

@Salaverry - While this was obviously a boondoggle, is it - perhaps - too early to dismiss the CCRC as irrelevant just yet? I think any new institution is prone to error and manipulation and I think it would be naive to assume any attempt to limit or eliminate gerrymandering could produce meaningful reforms overnight. I’m quite hopeful - in light of this excellent ProPublica report - the next iteration of the CCRC will be somewhat more savvy and effective and, the third, better still.

The original method for electing the President and Vice-President broke down after just a few elections cycles and required the 12th amendment. The framers of laws can never anticipate every eventuality.

Auric

Dec. 22, 2011, 1:40 a.m.

@ Rolo - if indeed, this really is you, please limit your comments to the topic at hand, not regaling us with stories of how important stories printed with ink on the bark of dead trees was when you started working at the Chron back in 1883 and how relevant you believe this 16th century technology is to the present. Thanks, boo!

Fed up taxpayer

Dec. 22, 2011, 2:06 a.m.

The corrupt, power hungry Democrats strike again, but the biased liberal media won’t even report on this.

No wonder why the state is in the toilet.

Mykie

Dec. 22, 2011, 4:16 a.m.

After sifting and searching the entire article hoping to find something egregious enough to justify that title ...  I am left with a headache and bad taste in my mouth, not for “redistricting commissions” or “hired experts” or “consultants” but the authors of this blather. Shame on you, we are divided in our communities and country and while many of us take the time to better educate ourselves in this current mess, you purport to have earned a place in this arena by being “journalism for the public interest”? ...so you wrote a title to illicit a “jump” from your readers, and as it turns out, it’s nothing but more of the same divisive, one-sided, twisted drivel.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.
This article is part of an ongoing investigation:
Redistricting

Redistricting: How Powerful Interests Are Drawing You Out of a Vote

How secret money and power interests are drawing you out of a vote.

Get Updates

Stay on top of what we’re working on by subscribing to our email digest.

optional

Our Hottest Stories

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •