2017 SJR 10 thru 14: Independent commission for redistricting

In this post, we will look at Senate Joint Resolutions No. 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.  All of these resolutions are intended to establish independent commissions to perform the redistricting following the decennial census by the federal government and thus change the current provisions of redistricting in the Oregon State Constitution.  I had looked only at SJR 9 and when I wrote the previous post, I did not realize that 10 through 14 would be dealing with the same subject matter.  I will review briefly what are the differences to SJR 9 of each.

SJR 10

This version does not have calendar dates, but rather just elapsed days since the publishing of the results of the decennial census.  Also, there is a requirement to publicize the results.

SJR 11

This seems to be the most trimmed down version of the amendment.  Since it is missing quite some details, I think it is too vague.

SJR 12

This version includes a 9 person panel rather than a 5 person panel.  I do think that the smaller group is better.  This version also allows office holders to be appointed to the panel.  This version has, in subsection (8)(b), an even more details list of characteristics that a legislative district should have than in SJR 9.

SJR 13

This version includes that the Judicial branch creates a pool of potential commissioners and then certain persons in the Legislative branch then selects among those candidates.  Also, this version has a clause for removal of a member of the commission that is doing the redistricting.  This version seems to have the strictest prohibitions against members of the commission being office-holders either before or after the process of redistricting.

SJR 14

This version is by far the lengthiest of the lot.  There are a few things in here, but I am of the opinion that some of it should be at the level of statutes rather than in the Constitution such as the compensation rate.  It also calls for a 14 member panel of people drawn randomly from a pool.  And there is a panel to review the candidates in the pool.  This is too complicated.

My View

I don't see why Senator Ferrioli filed all of these different versions.  It seems to be rather wasteful.  There are some good things that come of you these different versions, and here is the parts I would want to incorporate into a final bill:

• Publication of the final re-districting plan:  In SJR 10, subsection 10, there is a requirement to publicize the re-districting plan.  I think this is a good idea, although, nowadays, newspapers are rather quaint and really the right way to do this is via web pages and social media feeds.
• Clause for removal:  In SJR 13, subsection 8, there is a mechanism for removal of a member of the panel for non-performance.  This is necessary.
• I would stick with a panel of 5 and make it a simple nomination process.  There does need to be some restrictions on eligibility and the 2 year non-partisan, non-office holding requirement seems to me to be sufficient.  If the D's and R's go at this to nominate partisan commissioners, this will end up on the supreme court's doorstep.  Frankly, that's where it probably should be in the first place.