Time for the public to look at redistricting One thing can be said for sure about the redistricting process that occurs once every decade in Rhode Island - it's going to ruffle feathers one way or another. Ongoing questions about the objectivity of the
This item is available in full to subscribers.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
One thing can be said for sure about the redistricting process that occurs once every decade in Rhode Island — it’s going to ruffle feathers one way or another. Ongoing questions about the objectivity of the process, and the influence of political incumbents on the redrawing of districts to stymie election challengers, are sure to continue well into the process ahead of the final submission of the new map proposals by mid-January. The goal of redistricting, on its face, is simply to realign House and Senate voting districts so that they more evenly disperse the population to account for the movement of people throughout a 10-year process.
The reality, however, has shown there is a fair amount of politics that goes into the creation of new districts. For instance, redrawn maps released recently have shown a significant amount of effort went into making sure that no incumbents were drawn out of their currently represented districts. This makes some degree of logical sense, considering the disruption that would be caused by an elected official being essentially voted out of office not through the will of the people, but by a redistricting commission. However, others may criticize this move as evidence of the influence that powerful incumbent politicians have on the overall process.
Simply put, both points likely have some truth within them. Criticism is already ringing out from challengers of incumbents regarding the new maps — specifically those who have seen themselves wind up in a totally new district where either a like-minded incumbent currently sits, or those who have seen their district stay the same but suddenly devoid of hundreds or thousands of constituents that would likely vote for them in the upcoming election; moved to a separate district and stacking the deck against them, so to speak. The orchestrators of the redistricting process have insisted that the home addresses of political challengers are not taken into consideration throughout the process, while the addresses of incumbents are at least a secondary consideration, citing — again — a cognizance of the disruptions that would be caused by uprooting incumbents from their districts. We can understand the bad taste left in the mouth of challengers who feel betrayed by the process or beset by an unfair advantage as the result of that prioritization. The ongoing question regarding how to count prisoners at the state ACI — should they count as residents of Cranston or residents of their home address — remains without a firm answer at this moment. Again, it seems a situation where regardless of the ultimate solution, there will be unhappy parties on one side regardless. The most important thing to be done throughout the remainder of this process is to take seriously the voices of the public. Redistricting as it is currently viewed is being viewed through the lens of the politicians who represent those districts, and less so through the lens of the people being represented within those districts. Public comment and meetings will be essential to ensure the fairest, most transparent outcome in this important process, and we hope that objectivity will reign supreme throughout all the noise.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here