News-Record.com

Come on, who is painting with too broad a brush now?

The NC Center for Voter Education has been advocating for reform of the redistricting process for almost seven years.

During that time the Democratic leadership of the NC House and NC Senate have resisted any change - but so did the Republican leadership of the House when they were in the majority, even though it was one of their most respected members, John Weatherly, who was the principal House sponsor. The late Sen. Ham Horton led the effort in the NC Senate.

Throughout this time, no independent nonpartisan organization was more vocal than the NC Center for Voter Education in calling for redistricting reform.

During this time, we were joined by such legislators as John Blust (a consistent champion for redistricting reform), and Paul Stam, though Sen. Horton remained the driving force once Rep. Weatherly retired.

We're the ones who brought the likley GOP presidential front-runner, John McCain to NC to talk about...what else?...reform. We're the ones who brought then-Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court (and G.W. Bush ally) Tom Phillips to NC to talk about... reform!

So, I'm not sure how the NC Center for Voter Education gets dismissed as "advancing a liberal agenda"?

Reform is not a Democratic or Republican issue - sadly it is usually an issue eschewed by those in power and championed only by those out of power.

The reality of redistricting reform is that it is an uphill challenge that makes the K2 look like Kansas.

The Center continues to inch up that cliff, as do a few lawmakers dedicated to the issue, like Rep. Blust.

But redistricting reform was not considered last year, while several other reforms were. Mostly because of the scandals in the legislature, there was enough media attention to what might normally be overlooked as business as usual that legislators were forced to address many problems, and they did.

- The use of candidate funds for personal use was restricted.

- Out of control 527 electioneering was curbed. Far less than it should have been in my opinion, but still a positive step.

- Disclosure requirements were toughened.

- The State Board of Elections was given more staff and resources to actually enforce the laws on the books.

Then there were issues of lobbying and ethics reforms and public campaign financing.

Personally, I admired some of the stances taken by Rep. Blust on lobbying reform, but when his proposals weren't adopted, he, perhaps to make a point of protest, voted against the overall bill. So he did vote against lobbying reform, 527 reform, and other issues of importance to the reform coalition.

There are a lot of criticisms that could be leveled at the lobbying and ethics bills, but to say that they were so "weak" and "half-effective" that "real reformers" had to vote against them is, either very, very stubborn, or very, very naive.

If you have the chance to do some good, even if you are frustrated that you can't solve everything, do you accept the good you can do? Or toss in the towel and quit? The "my way or the highway" approach doesn't work in the legislative process, which is built on compromise.

Many important public policy changes in North Carolina have only been advanced through an incremental approach. We are hardly a state that tolerates radicals.

There were, in fact, several legislators who support redistricting reform who also supported these other important reforms, who were.....Republicans! And they all got high scores.

If I were the one making the rules, we'd have both signifigant reforms to the redistricting process, and also the campaign financing process.

The scorecard released by the North Carolina Voters for Clean Elections reflects the votes and legislative actions of legislators on key pieces of legislation concerning public campaign financing and lobbying reform. It is based on objective criteria and can't give points for "intent". A vote against lobbying reform, even if the reason was that stronger measures were sought, is still a vote against improving from the status quo.

So, while I greatly appreciate Rep. Blust's support of redistricting reform, and while we've been toiling away in the vinyards trying to get the media and the legislature, (Democrats and Republicans) to take a serious look at redistricting reform, the report card wasn't about redistricting reform, which was not even an issue (despite our best efforts) in last year's legislative session. It was about issues where Rep. Blust's views differered with those of the reform coalition.

If I can respect Rep. Blust's disagreement with me on a very important set of issues that he had the opportunity to support but did not, and still work with him and praise his commitment and hard work on other issues that we both support, then why must an accounting of his votes (and others) be seen as an attack?

The scorecard is not perfect, as it readily admits on its front page, but it is an accounting of votes on issues of importance to a particular group. It was developed by a coalition of groups with different priorities of their own. Personally, I may have weighted some things differently, but I stand by its legitimacy. You can agree or disagree with whether these issues are right or wrong or what priority to give those issues, but I really resent what looks like a dismissal of it as an attempt to "advance a liberal agenda".

The NC Center for Voter Education's reputation as fair and free of partisan bias is extremely important to us. Ask any of the candidates running for judge, Republicans or Democrats, how they have been treated when interviewed for our radio or TV series, and if there was any partisan bias or agenda. Look at our voter guides (www.ncvoterguide.org) for any indication of partisan bias.

Implying a partisan agenda on our part, or through our involvement with a coalition of other groups, is something I will strongly contest, in this format or any other that you prefer.

Chris Heagarty
Executive Director
NC Center for Voter Education

Thanks, Chris.

Yes, I swiped with a bit of a broad brush. It's just that the survey, and the statement by the coalition expressly noting that Democrats scored better than Republicans, gave a distinctly partisan flavor to it.

At any rate, I heard from John Blust that he's preparing a response to the scorecard. I hope he'll post a copy here.

Thanks Doug,

I am trying to get him on my radio show as well.

Now that Senator Horton has passed on, we need a strong, articulate leader who can explain to people why a system where legislators get to draw their own districts (that is, legislators get to hand pick their voters, rather than voters picking their legislators) is bad for Democracy and why the voters should care.

But because this is a technical issue that most voters don't rally to (many hear "redistricting" and assume you are talking about school assignments), the campaign for redistricting reform will not be one for the short-winded or the short-of-patience. Voters, legislators, and advocates will have to think very carefully about how to keep the issue alive and will have to accept incremental progress when possible.

In a way, you could liken it to trying to convince the Las Vegas casinos to change their odds to make the games more fair. Except in Vegas, they have to let at least a FEW people win.

Chris, we plan to run an editorial next week supporting an independent redistricting commission.

Even John Blust should have to run against someone every two years.