How #moleg Tricked MO Voters into legalizing Gerrymandering for $5 in 2020
How #moleg Tricked MO Voters into legalizing Gerrymandering for $5 in 2020
Ballot Titles are Important
One of the best questions in Missouri politics is: Would Missourians vote to ban gerrymandering?
Surely, they would, if given the chance. Yet, Missouri’s elected official overlords have deceitfully deprived them of that chance.
In 2020, the ol’ Gov and #moleg tricked MO voters into allowing severe gerrymandering, for $5 with a bait-and-switch ballot title.
They falsely claimed they were clarifying and fixing the districting provisions in the 2018 Clean MO Act.
In a very rare scenario, we need to have A THIRD VOTE on gerrymandering: Just a clean up and down vote. It would make for an exciting trilogy!!
The fix is easy: change the “wasted vote level” from an outrageous 15%, to 3%. That is banning gerrymandering.
Selling Missourians severe gerrymandering for $5 should be recognized as one of #moleg’s TOP THREE[1] most deceptive, anti-voter maneuvers of the last few terrible years!
They tricked the voters into devaluing their own votes, to increase their own power. THAT’S LOW!!!
We will get nothing worthwhile accomplished with these people in charge.
I. 2018 Clean MO Act
II. THE BALLOT TITLE BAIT: the 2020 #moleg “fix” of unclear redistricting rules
III. THE BALLOT TITLE SWITCH: Severe gerrymandering
IV. Current Rules
V. Life in the Gator
VI. Conclusion
***Podcast Interview*** I got to appear on Democracy on the Move! We talked about:
-the ballot initiative process
-gerrymandering
-the 200 case backlog (the “lagoon”) of Sunshine requests left for AG Bailey by former AG (and now-Junior Presumptive MO Senator) Eric Schmitt.
Great time and such important issues!
Host Dan Schaeffer made a very good point--- we don’t need ballot initiative restrictions, especially since our representation is already being skewed by gerrymandering. There cannot be the same justification for 54% or 60% vote in the ballot initiative if the legislature has already intentionally separated itself from where a true 50% majority would be.
Good guy, good talk, no doubt. The Democracy on the Move episode is on Spotify and the internet.
____
Gov. Parson and the GOP are right: the 2018 Clean MO Act had a pretty decent number of provisions.
It got 62% of the vote, which is an absolute TON in Missouri (or most anywhere) these days. It limited $ in politics, changed redistricting and opened some records:
1. Changed redistricting
2. Lowered campaign contribution AND gift limits
3. Prohibited former legislators from becoming lobbyists for a period of time
4. Made some legislative proceeding records public
The GOP said voters may have been baited-and-switched. Good provisions were supposedly used to sneak important redistricting rules past the voters.
It was a big campaign issue. During the debate, Gov. Parson did a great job summarizing the GOP argument.
He said,“There’s a lot of things on these ballots. Nobody talked…about how the redistricting would work. They talked about everything BUT that.”
He said we need to,“make sure the voters understand directly what they’re voting for.” He said,”And NOW, we CAN talk about redistricting… where everybody understands that, and make it very clear and not have four or five different issues mixed in there.”
“That’s what they also do… it’s never the main issue, it’s about all the other things, and that’s exactly what they did.”
So, based on his argument, there were TWO POSSIBILTIES:
1. Over 50% of voters would have liked the redistricting provisions (this is what I think), or
2. As Gov. Parson SUPPOSEDLY thought: maybe the redistricting rules were INTENTIONALLY MISMATCHED with the rest of the proposal. Maybe over 50% of voters would have disliked the redistricting provisions. Bait-and-switch. Good for bad. Boom.
So, Gov. Parson and the GOP had a clear criticism and (therefore also) an implied goal:
Propose a constitutional amendment that clearly tells voters how redistricting is decided.
________
II. THE BALLOT TITLE BAIT: The 2020 Tricky #moleg fix for redistricting
So, how well did they clarify the redistricting rules?
As readers may have guessed: extraordinarily poorly.
First, they failed to clear out the bait (the other, popular proposals).
The proposal mimicked two 2018 Clean MO Act provisions: 1) Gifts from lobbyists and 2) Campaign Finance limits. Here’s the first two lines of substance from ballot title text:
· Ban gifts from paid lobbyists to legislators and their employees;
· Reduce legislative campaign contribution limits;
BOTH POPULAR MEASURES!! IT’S EXACTLY THE SAME ISSUES THE GOP SAID WERE THE BAIT!!!
The campaign contribution limit was modest and only involved the state Senate. It was listed second and the wording was not really misleading. However, it helped to prime voters into thinking that the proposal was designed to “rein in” politicians- like the 2018 Clean MO Act.
The ban on gifts from lobbyists was the FIRST thing voters read. Ban gifts from lobbyists. NUMERO UNO.
The 2018 Clean MO Act ALREADY limited those gifts to $5. Yet, the ballot title failed to indicate that THIS ONLY INVOLVED $5.
Unbelievable.
It would have been LESS misleading to simply leave it out entirely.
The circuit court judge explicitly stated the limit was merely being lowered “from $5 to $0.”[2] The Western District removed this essential clarification.
The 2020 vote was incredibly close: 51-49%. A mere TWO PERCENT of people needed to be BAITED. Could a few voters have been swayed by a desire to: 1) BAN GIFTS FROM LOBBYISTS, and 2) REDUCE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS???
Of course. The GOP claimed that is what happened in 2018. That was obviously their deceptive strategy.
III. THE BALLOT TITLE SWITCH: SEVERE GERRYMANDERING
If the ballot title clarified the redistricting rules, then the bait might have been harmless.
So, did it clarify the rules? NO. Of course, not. Please, try to pay attention.
Bizarrely, in the last footnote of the case, the WD App Ct acknowledges, since the “wasted vote” level (aka “efficiency gap”) would be raised to 15% (from “as close to zero as practicable”) the new redistricting rules would permit “uncommonly severe gerrymandering.” The COURT ITSELF VERY CLEARLY ACKNOWLEDGES THIS:
“By permitting an efficiency gap as high as fifteen percent, SJR 38 would apparently permit a very heavy partisan bias in redistricting plans. As one court has explained:
A 7 percent efficiency gap is at the edges of the overall distribution of all state house plans in the modern era, making it indicative of uncommonly severe gerrymandering. Historical analysis shows that with a 7 percent efficiency gap, the gerrymandering is also likely to be unusually durable. Over its lifespan, a plan with an efficiency gap of that magnitude is unlikely ever to favor the opposing party.
Whitford v. Nichol, 151 F. Supp.3d 918, 922 (W.D. Wis. 2015) (emphasis added)”
Well, don’t bury the lede! PUT THAT IN THERE!!! Let the voters know!!!!
The term “UNCOMMONLY SEVERE GERRYMANDERING” did not make the Court’s editorial cut. Nor did the word “gerrymandering.”
Nor did the phrases “wasted vote percentage” or “efficiency gap.”
In fact, not a single, substantive redistricting rule was summarized for the voters.
Instead, in the final part of the ballot title, the Court offered an entirely secondary (at best) focus: the mapmaker.
The mapmaker draws the first draft, subject to whatever the SUBSTANTIVE rules are. The legislature maintains ultimate power and can amend the proposal, subject to the SUBSTANTIVE rules.
The mapmaker is not in charge.
Regardless, here is the text of the final part of the ballot title, which gives no indication that the wasted vote percentage was lifted to a tremendous 15%, or any other substantive rule:
· Change the redistricting process voters approved in 2018 by: (i) transferring responsibility for drawing state legislative districts from the Nonpartisan State Demographer to Governor-appointed bipartisan commissions; (ii) modifying and reordering the redistricting criteria.
THANKS FOR CLEARING UP THOSE REDISTRICTING RULES GOV PARSON AND #MOLEG
IV. CURRENT RULES
I think all the same rules could stay in place, except gerrymandering would be banned. All maps would need a wasted vote level or 3% or less.
But, what are the current rules? What are the PRIMARY considerations (that should be secondary to an un-gerrymandered map).
The current primary priorities are: 1) to maintain contiguous, districts that are as compact “as may be” and 2) to “follow political subdivision lines to the extent possible.”[3]
The factors are explicitly designed to keep communities together. Legislators should not artificially divide communities for strategic reasons.
That goal, of keeping communities together, is entirely consistent with the goal of banning gerrymandering. It makes complete sense to say:“Try to keep communities together along natural lines, instead of artificially rigging the districts for political reasons.”
The factors are basically an indirect approach to having normal, un-gerrymandered districts. The wasted vote level is a direct approach.
The factor test is problematic since there is not a brightline for a violation. Instead, the legislature is left with a lot of discretion. Proof of a violation can be difficult.
On 9/12/2023 a Senate map was upheld under the current rules. Plaintiffs challenged the state Senate map, primarily based on it splitting Buchanan County and the City of Hazelwood.
However, the court found #moleg’s districts to be more compact than Plaintiff’s. Compact districts are prioritized over splitting subdivisions in the constitution. Plus, crossing subdivisions is not entirely banned, anyway. So, the legislature was arguably prioritizing compactness over cross subdivisions.
Obviously, the factors are also explicitly only required to be followed “to the extent possible” or “as may be.”
Maybe the current rules still have teeth. Maybe the appellate courts will see things differently. However, the judgment shows how difficult the factor test can be.
So, if you want to keep communities together, how do you make sure the legislature is doing its job?
_________
We live in amazing times. The wasted vote and proportionality tests unequivocally show if someone is rigging the game. It’s math.
You can tell if someone’s plan is in the worst 99.9999% of all plans, or if it tosses out 11% of the People’s votes.
You can just ban gerrymandering. Lower the crazy 15% wasted vote level to 3%.
Slaves counted for 3/5ths of a person for representation purposes. Should we only be given 85% of the value of our vote? It’s more than 60%, but still terrible.
Are the numbers bad, here in MO? Oh, they’re pretty bad Remember, even a 7% wasted vote level is uncommonly severe gerrymandering.
MO has been voting 57/43 in favor or the GOP. One would expect the MO Senate to favor them 19-15. It favors them. 24-10. So, the Democrats have 5 fewer seats than their political support.
The MO Senate wasted vote percentage is 6.29%, so very close to the “uncommonly severe gerrymandering” mark.
One would expect the MO House to be a 93-70 split in the favor of the GOP. IT is 112-51. So, the Democrats have 19 fewer seats than one would expect.
The wasted vote level is at 4.29%- so still highly slanted.
________
V. LIFE IN THE GATOR
So, why would anyone oppose gerrymander limits?
The GOP tried to convince everyone that communities would not be kept together.
Makes no sense. Why would you need a map that is gerrymandered more than 99% of all others, just to make normal-shaped districts that don’t cross too many political subdivisions?
Maybe I prejudged them, though. The MO Constitution does not have gerrymandering limits for U.S. House districts. Let’s look at the U.S. House map to see if these heroes kept our communities undivided.
I will just walk two blocks across Broadway, here in Columbia, and buy a cup of coffee, before seeing how my community fared at being kept together.
OK. That didn’t take long. Now I shall just get a huge, 100% full, mouthful of coffee and look at the map on my perfectly clean computer screen:
Oh, yeah- that’s RIGHT, I LIVE IN THE GATOR. They split Columbia right done the middle- right down Broadway. Our community was literally divided in half.
North of Broadway, is district 4: KC-based Mark Alford is the rep.
South of Broadway, is district 3: STL-based Blaine Luetkmeyer is the rep.
They did not care at all about keeping communities together.
There were TONS of articles written about how all the focus on #moleg was on whether they could create a gerrymandered 6-2 map, or an even more crazily gerrymandered 7-1 map. They were ENTIRELY open about it.[4]
The map ended up with an outrageous 11% wasted vote level. Basically, at least one representative is not really representative of the People.
They cracked Boone County in half to avoid a competitive district. St. Charles got divided too, to help keep the 2nd district in GOP control. So, Senators Schroer, Eigel and Schatz had their area affected too. Schroer wanted to crack KC also- divide their community- to achieve a 7-1 map.
My Senator, Caleb Rowden, and all the St. Charles Senators expressed deep, sincere regret at their communities being divided. The proof is clear, though. Their actions showed their true priority is to dilute our votes for greater power.
The GOP divides communities on substantive political issues AND on the map too. Everyone is affected. Just like when they attacked Columbia schools, to try to justify cutting funding, it is a statewide problem. Everyone’s school is affected.
Here, when they made the Gator district, the St. Charles (Snouts?) and the Boone County (Brains?) both suffered divisions.
Plus, every community in between had their district decided based on partisan gerrymandering. They came along for the ride, instead of having their communities viewed objectively. It affects everyone.
If voting power is diluted, elected officials have less need to be responsive to the People. The power of elected officials is increased at the expense of everyone.
_________
VI. CONCLUSION
Voters did not know they were passing severe gerrymandering in exchange for $5. They were tricked.
The Court already called the rules a setup for “uncommonly severe gerrymandering.” There should be no more tricky ballot title issues.
Use simple math and plan and straightforward language to undo this #moleg deceit.
Change the wasted vote limit to 3% and call anything above that “gerrymandering.”
[1] The other top two?
Trigger law abortion ban: In 2019, our #moleg “representatives” passed the wildly unpopular trigger laws. 77% of Missourians do not like them. They were among the most draconian in the nation, with no exceptions for rape or incest.
Since the “trigger” laws were not effective upon passage, the legislature avoided the fully scrutiny of their own constituents.
They used statutes (instead of constitutional amendments), so there would be no automatic vote of the people.
Ashcroft ran the clock down to 14 days on the referendum process, which obviously left insufficient time to collect 107,510 signatures for The People to have a vote.
About 7 minutes after Dobbs, AG Eric Schmitt gleefully ordered the trigger laws effective- thus certifying he felt they were Constitutional, despite there not even being a rape exception. MO was first to ban abortion (hooray for those 23% of the people that supported the policy!!!).
In 2023, Ashcroft and AG Bailey have been feverishly violating rights, by making frivolous arguments and intentionally delaying the ballot initiative procedure.
The GOP is noticing that all the USA-state by state- is simply reinstituting normal Roe-like abortion rights. So, they are scrambling.
First, Gov candidate Kehoe stated he would “consider” rape and incest exceptions. Then, Josh Hawley admitted that people should be given a chance to vote. Now a Republican group creating a ballot initiative measure with non-draconian provisions.
These are the attempted remedial measures of elected officials who always knew they were tossing aside their constituents’ wishes, while sneakily grabbing as much power as they could.
Medicaid Expansion: In 2020, Missouri was forced to use the ballot initiative to become the 38th state to expand Medicaid to 138% of the poverty level. #Moleg obviously did not want that to happen, otherwise they would have done it themselves.
90% of the expansion was federally funded. So, financially, it was an incredible deal, that was becoming accepted by over 80% of the states.
It also could be a building block, for expansion to more Missourians. That’s how negotiations work.
Our “representatives” refused to institute the law. They were not satisfied to among the last states to accept the money. They were not satisfied to be forced to accept it, by the common sense vote of the People.
They, seemingly quite uniquely, claimed the law unconstitutionally infringed on the legislature’s power to appropriate funding. A unanimous MO Supreme Court rejected the argument. They tried as hard as possible, for an extra year, to avoid the desires of their voters.
Then, after the Court case, they were apparently not ready to implement the law. Enrollment was far slower than in other states.
All this delay undoubtedly caused needless medical and financial emergencies (and almost certainly, many earlier deaths) among the 275,000 people that should have had coverage.
When I worked for legal aid, Medicaid coverage was often the ONE stable part of the financial profile of the clients. Clients would have tons of debt, low pay, job instability, child custody problems, domestic violence problems, housing problems, child care problems- you name it.
But, they would basically always have Medicaid. They did not have to worry about a horrid medical emergency causing a financial emergency too. They could just take themselves and their family to the doctor.
If they did not have Medicaid in the past, you could very often tell. They had tens of thousands of dollars of unpaid medical debt or a bankruptcy. Missourians pick up those costs indirectly- plus all the additional costs from the inefficient system built to collect (some) of the debt.
Expanding Medicaid to those in need is the first step to others getting coverage.
If this were on the ballot again, I bet it would pass by an even higher margin. The sky has not fallen (despite #moleg trying to convince us it would).
I highly doubt voters would come close to yanking health coverage from families.
[2] There is a chart comparing the #moleg language, circuit court language and WD language towards the bottom of this excellent Ballotpedia entry.
[3] That is summarized for relevance and importance. The full list of priorities in order of importance: 1) equal population; 2) U.S. Constitution and federal obligations; 3) and 4) Contiguity and compactness; 5) political subdivisions; 6) partisan fairness; and 7) competitiveness.
That is a lot of factors.
The second priority raises another difficulty of the 2020 trick laws. It seems like a good (although highly duplicative) idea to not violate discrimination protections under the US Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
However, when approving a map, the legislature does not need to PROVE there’s no violation. That’s fine. But, someone challenging the legislature’s map in court might be required by the court TO PROVE they know that their map does not violate those standards.
[4] They probably felt very comfortable being so open about basing the districts on partisan bias because: 1) the 2018 US Supreme Court Rucho case determined the US Constitution does not ban gerrymandering, and 2) the 2020 redistricting vote was over, so there was far less incentive to talk about keeping communities together.