Redistricting update

Thanks for the info George. I had wondered why there was that "Notwithstanding..." part, but I assumed it was just some technicality that had to be overcome. Sometimes when the legislature (or the people through citizen initiative) enacts new statutes, they will say notwithstanding something in order to avoid having to edit other sections. See here for an example. This, however, seems like evading the law since the legislature wouldn't be able to change the section you pointed out and have it go into effect immediately without enacting an emergency law, which would require a 2/3 majority, and the Democrats apparently tried to ignore that section by adding a "notwithstanding..." provision. The legislature using the word notwithstanding to get around a law telling it how to do something is very different from the legislature using that word to make an exception to older legislation, as long as is isn't tying to hide what it's doing. Some "notwithstanding..." provisions mention a certain section, so there's no question as to what it means, but even that I believe is not as good as making the changes in the same section or subsection. Well, I'm glad that effort was thwarted, even though I am a Democrat. From what I know about the two plans, I actually prefer the Republican plan, although what I think the Democratic plan was a good effort to create districts with close to even population while only shifting territory one way and splitting only one county. It's too bad the description of the plans isn't included in the text of the bill. Oh well. I'm sure we'll find out the plans soon enough.

What else is new?

I had writen a bit on some recent developments on the redistricting front but then I got a waol message on my computer and lost everything. So I'll just urge you to check the links I mentioned above and look at the Senate roll call on the House redistricting plan. The House and County Commissioner plans have been enacted by both houses, although the deadline for the House plan at least passed on Sunday. I have to get going, but I will mention that the vote on the House plan was a lot closer in the Senate, and the Republican opposition included those who are considered both moderates and conservatives and seemed to be slightly concentrated amoung the newer Republican legislators.Sincerely,Kevin Lamoreau

George,When I first looked at that section (along with Article IV Part First Section 3, which seems to identical with the last three paragraphs of the section you mentioned except it deals with the reapportionment of the House of Representatives instead of that of the Senate and it substitutes "Clerk of the House" for "Secretary of the Senate"), it seemed inconsistent to me too. I think that what these sections mean is that the apportionment plans must be submitted within 120 days of the convening of the Legislature and that the Legislature has until either 30 days after the commission submits a plan or 130 days after the convening of the legislature, whichever comes first, to enact a reapportionment plan for both the House and the Senate. If the commission was to submit a plan for both the House and the Senate exactly 100 days (130 - 100) after the convening of the legislature, the two deadlines would coincide. If it was to submit its plan less than 100 days after the convening of the legislature, the 30-day deadline would render the 130-day deadline obsolete, since the legislature would have to enact a plan within 130 days of the convening of the legislature in order to enact it within 30 days after the commission submits its plan. If the commission was to submit its plans more than 100 days after the convening of the legislature, as it did this time, the 130-day deadline would render the 30-day deadline obsolete. If the House and Senate plans were submitted on different days, I guess there would be different deadlines, unless both were submitted 100 days or more after the convening of the legislature. I know it seems kind of strange that the people who made this amendment to the Constitution would do this, but there are also non-coincident deadlines for the citizen initiative process (a citizen initiative petition must be submitted by either 25 of 50 days after the convening of a legislative session - depending on which session it is - but must also be submitted within a year from the date of issuance, and that deadline could come before, after, or could coincide with the other deadline depending on what the date of issuance was). The one thing that causes me to be less than sure about my interpretation (although there may be other things wrong with it) is the inconsistency in language referring to the two deadlines. These sections of the Constitution say, "The Legislature shall enact [a plan]... within 30 calendar days after the plan of the commission is submitted" (a statement of what should be done), but also say, "In the event that the Legislature shall fail to make an apportionment within 130 days after convening, the Supreme Judicial Court shall... make the apportionment" (a statement of what shall happen if something else doesn't happen, like the "if...then" statements they teach you in math classes). In law, there are often examples of something being required to be done but there not being any consequences if it isn't done, and there are likely also examples of something being done if something else isn't done that don't mean that someone abrogated their responsibility to do something. In other words, neither a statement of requirement nor an if/then statement if something is not done implies the other. Even with that, I believe all the plans will now be made by the Supreme Judicial Court, since the Constitution does say the court shall make the apportionments if the Legislature doesn't enact a plan within 130 days of convening, which it didn't even on the House plan, although the court may take the fact that 2/3 majorities were mustered in both houses on that plan into account when making that apportionment. The confusion lies as to within what period the court shall make the apportionments. The Constitution says that, if the court is required to make the apportionments, it shall do so "within 60 days following the period in which the Legislature is required to act but fails to do so". One could argue that that 60-day period begins not 130 days after the convening of the legislature but 30 days after the apportionment commission submits it's plan, which in this case would over 2 weeks later, and we could be in a period where nothing can be done. Of course one could say that since the responsibility has now been transferred to the court that the Legislature is no longer required to act or even that it never failed to live up to it's requirements, in which case the apportionment would never be made (I know that won't happen). I agree with you that it is really confusing. What's also confusing is that Title 21-A, Section 1206, Section 2 of the Maine Revised Statutes Annotated mentions that the Supreme Judicial Court shall make the apportionment if the Legislature fails to make an apportionment within 120 days (rather than the 130 days for the House and Senate plans) after convening (see [url=http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/21-A/title21-Asec1206.html).]http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/21-A/title21-Asec1206.html).[/url]Thanks for the information about what happened with the congressional reapportionment bill. I had thought maybe that's what happened but I wasn't sure. I wonder though, what's from preventing the Democrats in the Senate from passing an amendment undoing the amendment just passed and passing the congressional bill without a 2/3 majority (and the "notwithstanding..." clause could also get the Legislature around the 120-day deadline). It may be that now that the bill is engrossed, it cannot be amended. If you, or anyone else here, knows that that is or isn't the case, feel free to let me know. I have to get going again now. I hope you all have a great evening.Sincerely,Kevin Lamoreau[ 04-15-2003: Message edited by: K-Dog ]

David Emery made an excellent presentation to the Cumberland County Republican Committee tonight. I meant to ask him about whether the house and county commission plans, which passed the senate today, would be reworkable by a judge since he is going to get the senate and congressional plans. Both David tonight and Phil Merrill on the phone today told me that the sen and cong palns are going to courts to resolve.I spoke with Phil Merrill because I called the state legislative office and asked for the redisticting office and they put me through to the democrats office. They didn't ask who I was until they were done giving me most of the information.I was looking for the two proposals on the senate plan for Portland.Dave brought lots of neat color maps showing the breakdown of the various house districts including blowup that allowed us to see to the street level for Portland.It turns out the Dems were so concerned with districting John Eder out of his district, that they created 3 or 4 winnable republican districts including moving the islands off the pennisula.dumb.Steven Scharf
97 Grant Street, 2nd Floor
Portland, Maine 04101
Tel: 207-774-9393
Fax: 207-774-1819
[ 04-15-2003: Message edited by: Steven Scharf ]

Last week, I e-mailed the webmaster of the Maine Legislature and requested information about the state house, congressional, and county commissioner redistricting plans that would be enacted by the three bills mentioned above. I received several documents in the mail yesterday detailing the plans, but never got around to posting the information here. I have lent the information to a friend of mine to look at over April break, but I was able to recreate both the congressional plans by a combination of the memory of the plans themselves and my memory that in both plans the second district had one more person than the first. Because I'm not looking at the documents as I write this, I can't be 100% certain that what I'm writing is correct, but I'm fairly certain and am fully certain about what counties are wholly or partially in each congressional district under each plan. As soon as I get the documents again and I get a chance, I'll verify what I posted here and will mention if any of the information I gave was wrong. So here goes.The Republican plan is detailed in the Appendix "A" to both House Amendment "A" (which was indefinitely postponed by the House on Thursday) and Senate Amendment "A" (according to the status summary of the bill, nothing has been done with that, although another Senate amendment described by George earlier in this thread has been adopted) to LD 1556. Both of these, according to their summaries, would put the minority (Republican) plan of the apportionment commission into effect, and I remember looking at them and them being the same. This shows that this has been the Republican plan since last Thursday, although perhaps the Republican members of the commission could have changed between the final report and submitting the plan to the Clerk of the House. Under this plan, the First District would consist of Cumberland, Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc, Waldo and York counties and the municipalities of Albion, Augusta, Chelsea, China, Hallowell, Pittston, Randolph, Unity Township, Vassalboro and Windsor in Kennebec County. The Second District would consist of Androscoggin, Aroostook, Franklin, Hancock, Oxford, Penobscot, Piscataquis, Somerset and Washington counties and the municipalities of Belgrade, Benton, Clinton, Farmingdale, Fayette, Gardiner, Litchfield, Manchester, Monmouth, Mount Vernon, Oakland, Readfield, Rome, Sidney, Vienna, Waterville, Wayne, West Gardiner, Winslow and Winthrop in Kennebec County.The Democratic plan is detailed in the Appendix "A" to LD 1556. According to it's summary, this plan would put the majority plan of the apportionment commission (supported by the Democratic members of the commission plus the chairman) into effect. This plan is also different from the original Democratic plan, although the differences are smaller than those between the original and current Republican plans. Under this plan, the First District would consist of Cumberland, Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc and York counties, the municipalities of Augusta, Belgrade, Chelsea, Farmingdale, Fayette, Gardiner, Hallowell, Litchfield, Manchester, Mount Vernon, Pittston, Randolph, Readfield, Rome, Sidney, Vassalboro, Wayne, West Gardiner, Windsor and Winthrop in Kennebec County, and the municipalities of Belmont, Liberty, Montville, Palermo and Searsmont in Waldo County. The Second District would consist of Androscoggin, Aroostook, Franklin, Hancock, Oxford, Penobscot, Piscataquis, Somerset and Washington counties, the municipalities of Albion, Benton, China, Clinton, Monmouth, Oakland, Unity Township, Vienna, Waterville and Winslow in Kennebec County, and the municipalities of Belfast, Brooks, Burnham, Frankfurt, Freedom, Islesboro, Jackson, Knox, Lincolnville, Monroe, Morrill, Northport, Prospect, Searsport, Stockton Springs, Swanville, Thorndike, Troy, Unity, Waldo and Winterport in Waldo County.I don't have time to discuss much else, but I'll mention a few things about the House plan. Whoever responded to my post about the potential constitutional dilemma about the splitting of municipalities in the Greater Portland area was right about there not being a problem. South Portland and Cape Elizabeth (which have a combined "quota" of approximately 3.84, which is within 5% of 4) still have 4 whole districts between them (2 entirely in SoPo, 1 entirely in the Cape, and 1 split), and Westbrook (whose quota is approx. 1.91, within 5% of 2) has 2 whole districts. Even Portland and Falmouth (which have a combined quota of approx. 8.83, within 2% of 9) have 9 whole districts between them (7 entirely in Portland, 1 entirely in Falmouth, and 1 split), even though Falmouth and Portland, unlike SoPo, Cape or Westbrook, border a town (Cumberland) whose quota is less than 1 and could be divided under the Constitution. They didn't even put Long Island in one of those 9 districts, although perhaps that's because the district that includes Cumberland and Long Island (and something else, I forget what) was smaller than any of the Portland-Falmouth districts and could use Long Island's population. One other thing that stuck out was the division of southwest Androscoggin County among House districts, with Minot, Mechanic Falls, and each part of Poland (Poland is split) in different districts. Lewiston and Auburn have 7 whole districts between them, with 1 district partly in both cities (their combined quota was about 6.975, so unlike in the Greater Portland area there's no argument to be made that the 5% tolerance level was abused). I'm not sure if this plan is final since the Senate passed the plan after the deadline, but we'll probably find out soon. I have to get going now, but I hope you all have a great evening and a great weekend coming up.Sincerely,Kevin Lamoreau[edited to change southeast Androscoggin County to southwest Androscoggin County][ 04-18-2003: Message edited by: K-Dog ]

Some comments on Kevin’s comments.Scarbrough will have two districts and will not share with any other town. The line will move closer to the ocean. They are currently both Republican seats.Cumberland gains Long Island and loses North Yarmouth. Terry McKenney was lamented that he will have to trudge out to Long Island. It should remain solid for us and Terry will probably not have competition next years as in 2002Yarmouth, which may have included parts of other towns now is just Yarmouth. They elected and independent over the Rep and Dem in 2002. He vote with the Dems.As I said above the Dems most screwed themselves in Portland where to move John Eder in with Ben Dudley (who couldn’t vote for that cutie, a candidate made for swooning the old ladies). In order to do this they took the Portland Islands and the B&M Bean Co. to Martin’s Point area from Ben and expanded his reach on the South side of the Peninsula. I actually think this makes sense, except it should have been a straight line across the Penn probably at Franklin Arterial. But these lines are never made where logical.The West End District in it self makes sense for the most part and since it could never take in all of Parkside, I like that the made the line along Congress Street leaving Parkside as one district (except two blocks of short streets). The 33rd is a Parkside/Bayside district which essentially follow our neighborhood lines where it matters. They also created a square Stroudwater to Libbytown district. I am a little confused as to how a district that went for the middle of the West End to the Westbrook/South Portland line could be essentially split in two. There has not been any significant development out there and it has been all single family housing which would produce those numbers. They have the census block counts so they must know. Me thinks that the previous divisions might not have been accurate.The dividing line between this Stroudwater district is now straight down Brighton Avenue which is a welcome clean of lines (it puts Rosemont into two diff districts and moves Sagamore Village to the Northern district). This territory is Joe Branigan and funny thing he lives half a block from the line that would put him in with Glen Cummings.Portland’s Growth has come from the North Deering area so it is up there that we will get some compaction of area. I don’t have the maps in front of me so I can’t remember where the lines will be. I do know that they all make more sense and a sliver that used to go up the east end of Portland has been moved into the North Deering district. Currently served by Bill Norbert who has told people he will not seek a 4th term.We don’t have much chance on the Peninsula of gaining ground, but the outlying areas are ripe for taking with the right candidate.Steven Scharf
to Kevin, See how I have broken this down to readable paragraphs (g). SCS

I'm amazed at the lengths the Democrats went to to get rid of Eder's seat.

Is there any news on Senate District #24 (Bruce the Boozer's seat)? I have heard rumors of the dems trying to add Jay to the district, so as to make it more democrat friendly.

Steve, :p Just kidding. That postscript was funny. Don't expect me to pair down my megaparagraphs though.[ 04-22-2003: Message edited by: K-Dog ]

Putting Jay into Bryant's district is a bad idea. He can and will be defeated next time. This OUI is only part of the plan to get rid of him. The democrats are not interested in a plan unless they can get the republicans to promise them a continuing majority.

I hope that plan to defeat Bryant doesn't include running the same person against him...Bryant should have been easily defeated the first time, no need to chance it again with a proven loser.

Below is an article about the final Hancock County house redistricting plan. Does anyone know where the whole state plan can be found on the internet? I am particularly interested in the city of Bangor's new districts and where through the city the lines will be drawn. I cannot even find the current lines through Bangor on the internet. Ellsworth American, By Alan Baker:

ELLSWORTH—The 37 municipalities and the townships and unorganized territories of Hancock County have been divided among 10 new state House districts, up from eight House districts in the last redistricting adventure. As a result, Rep. Eugene Churchill (R-Orland) will be introducing himself to a new constituency of 5,805 citizens in Waldo County should he choose to stand for re-election.The state Constitution requires the Maine Legislature to re-examine the legislative, county commissioner and congressional districts every 10 years after the latest census has been completed.The state redistricting proposal was undertaken by a 15-member Reapportionment Commission with seven Democrats, seven Republicans and an impartial chair, former dean of the University of Maine law school Donald Zillman of Portland.Democrats and Republicans reached agreement on the redistricting of the 151 House seats and the county commissioners. The House and Senate have approved the proposals, which have been signed into law. But the parties were unable to resolve their differences on the Senate and congressional districts by the April 16 deadline. Under Maine law, both the Senate and congressional reapportionment now will be referred to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court for final decision.The population of Maine increased 3.8 percent in the decade from 1990 to 2000 to a total of 1,274,923. The average population size of each of the 151 House districts increased to 8,443 as a result of the new census figures.Hancock County’s population increased in the decade by 10.3 percent to 51,791 while neighboring Washington County declined 3.9 percent and Penobscot County declined 1.1 percent.Based on the new district average size, Hancock County could have been split into six in-county House districts. Instead Hancock County municipalities have been spread among 10 House districts, only four of which are exclusively Hancock County municipalities. District 127, now represented by Robert Crosthwaite (R-Ellsworth), will include Ellsworth, Otis and Trenton.District 130 now represented by Ted Koffman (D-Bar Harbor), will include Bar Harbor, Cranberry Isles, Southwest Harbor and part of Mount Desert. Seal Harbor, Northeast Harbor, and Otter Creek will remain in what is now District 130. Most of Somesville, including the Long Pond area and Pretty Marsh, will move to what is now District 129, which also includes Tremont.District 132 now represented by Earl Bierman (R-Sorrento), will include Gouldsboro, Hancock, Lamoine, Sorrento, Sullivan, Waltham, Winter Harbor and an unorganized portion of central Hancock County. A new district has been created including Blue Hill, Brooksville, Castine, Penobscot, Sedgwick and Surry. With the exception of Sedgwick, these towns and Orland and Verona now are represented by Eugene Churchill.Other Hancock County municipalities are scattered among six other House districts shared by towns in other counties.Bucksport remains with Orrington (Penobscot County) in District 113, now represented by Richard Rosen (R-Bucksport).Orland and Verona, now represented by Rep. Churchill, move to a district dominated by four towns in Waldo County, Frankfort, Prospect, Searsport and Stockton Springs.Dedham moves to District 116, including the Penobscot County municipalities of Bradley, Clifton, Eddington, Holden and a small portion of Brewer, now represented by Mary Ellen Ledwin (R-Holden).Amherst, Aurora, Eastbrook, Franklin, Great Pond, Mariaville, Osborn, and unorganized portions of Eastern and Northwestern Hancock County, with a total population of 2,677 have been combined with a House district with 15 towns and unorganized territories in Washington County with a population totaling 5,572.Part of Mount Desert moves into District 129, now represented by Hannah Pingree (D-North Haven), joining Brooklin, Deer Isle, Frenchboro, Stonington, Swan’s Island and Tremont from Hancock County and Isle au Haut, North Haven and Vinalhaven from Knox County.Twenty-one souls in the unorganized territories of Eastern Hancock County will join a House district comprised of 11 towns in Penobscot County from Winn to Indian Island and nine towns in Washington County from Danforth to Princeton.

It looks like the democrats hosed Hancock County.There are no hosue district maps on the internet. I did speak with Dave Emery about getting a version of the maps that could be read electronically. We talked about his pdf'ing sections of the file. I have not gotten back to him on it. I suggest you call him at the State House.I need to do the same, but it will not be on Thursday.Steven Scharf
[ 04-30-2003: Message edited by: Steven Scharf ]

Skipper J.,If my memory is correct, which I'm pretty sure it is, Bangor, Veazie and Orono will have five House districts between them. Three of them will be entirely in Bangor, one will be entirely in Orono, and the remaining district will include the remainder of Bangor and Orono along with Veazie. The five districts combined would have 42,329 people, so the average population of each district would be 8,465.4 people (1.0027 times the ideal district population). I don't know the population of each district (although I'll be able to tell you when I get back the documents I lent to my professor), but if they're close to even in population the hybrid district will have a little less than 3/4 of it's population from Bangor, over 20% of it's population from Veazie, and just under 8% of it's population from Orono. The documents I had didn't tell me the nature of the districts where municipalities were split. I got the information I got from the Clerk's office of the Maine House of Representatives. A good person to e-mail would be Judy Barrows, the House Webmaster. After I e-mailed her requesting information on the plans, she was able to have the texts of each of the reapportionment bills that currently exist (with the appendices for each, which is where the actual districts are detailed) sent to me in the mail, as well as the House and Senate Amendments "A" to the congressional bill (with the appendices to those as well), which would both change or have changed the plan from the Democratic plan to the Republican plan. The House amendment was defeated in the House, and the Senate one, which is identical, will likely not prevail either, although likely neither will the bill itself now that an amendment has been passed requiring a 2/3 majority in each house for passage. If you e-mailed Judy Barrows at webmaster_house@legislature.maine.gov and asked her for that information I'm sure she could get it to you as well. As I said above, the documents did not detail the splits within municipalities, but they did mention if only part of a municipality was in a district. Since no municipality was split among congressional districts and I believe among county commissioner districts as well (although perhaps some of the large unorganized townships were split), there shouldn't be a problem with those plans. I have to get going now, but I hope this information helps. Thanks for the information on the House Districts in Hancock County.Sincerely,Kevin Lamoreau

George,Thanks for the update on the congressional redistricting process. I had composed most of my reply to Skipper J. last night before reading your reply (I had computer problems so I couldn't post it then) and I forgot to make the updates. So both the Senate and House Amendments "A" to LD 1556 ("An Act to Reapportion the Districts for Representatives to the United States Congress") have now been defeated. It seems like you're right about the congressional district plan now being decided by the Supreme Judicial Court (along with the State Senate district plan) since 30 days after April 3, which was when the Apportionment Commission submitted its plan, is this Saturday and the Senate doesn't meet again until Monday (the House is meeting at 4:00 this afternoon). One thing, though: couldn't the Legislature, if it wanted to, "notwithstand" the 30-day time period as well? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't, because that would look really bad and since the Senate Democrats have already avoided a chance to "notwithstand" the law to their advantage by agreeing to the 2/3 requirement and I doubt they would do so here. Besides, if the two sides were to reach a compromise, they'd have done it already. Still, I think that, theoretically, the legislature could still enact a congressional district plan (but not a Senate plan since the 30-day deadline there is in the Constitution), but that would create confusion because after Saturday the court will likely start working on creating a plan.Steve,I agree that it would have been nice for there to be six districts entirely within Hancock County and part of only one other district (and you could have actually had just six district since Hancock County's quota for House districts is 6.1340 which is well within 5% of 6), but remember that both parties in the apportionment commission agreed to this plan, and that more than 2/3 of the Representatives from both major parties (and exactly 2/3 of the independents) voted for it (with only the Greens voting against it, and by only a 1 vote margin :) ). Even Kevin Glynn, who issued a press release attacking the plan, voted for it. In the Senate, a majority of Republicans voted against it, but only a one-vote majority. I'm sure there were elements of the plan that Republicans particularly liked, just as the Democrats particularly liked getting rid of Eder's district, and that's why the Republicans on the commission supported it. I actually think more Republicans on the commission voted for the plan then Democrats, since I remember reading that one Democrat voted against the plan. Since a majority of Senate Republicans voted against the plan, I can understand why you wouldn't call it simply a bipartisan plan, but you could call it a Democratic-led bipartisan plan or even a Democratic/RINO plan, although that would mean calling Dave Emery, Paul Davis, and Kevin Glynn and a majority of Republicans in the legislature RINOs. I don't have a problem with what you wrote, but I just thought I'd point out that it wasn't just a Democratic plan.Everyone,I wonder what will happen now with the congressional redistricting. The Republicans have talked as if they'd bring out their original plan if it went to the court, but I can't imagine they'd really go for it. At least three other plans have been discovered now that have only a one-person population difference between the districts, and maximum number of counties any of them divide is two, compared to five for that plan. The plan I suggested on an earlier thread that splits Franklin County, with most of it plus York, Cumberland, Androscoggin and Oxford counties in the first district, would accomplish an western and a eastern district without putting Portland in the Eastern District. It splits one census tract, compared to three for the current Democratic plan and four for the original Republican plan. The current Republican plan doesn't split any census tracts. I'm sure census tracts aren't a major factor in redistricting, but the court might consider it if someone mentioned it. I think if Republicans try to get their original plan adopted, they should submit a backup plan to the court as well, or have someone else do so. Perhaps it would be my plan (which seems similar to what their second plan was) or perhaps their current plan (or perhaps both). I have to get going now, but I've enjoyed writing about this.Sincerely,Kevin Lamoreau

Hello,My name is Eric Olsen and I work for a company in Madison, WI. We've been attempting to get a copy of the maps for the current State house and senate districts or the proposed 2004 election redistricting maps for Maine, but have been unable to do so through the SOS or any other governmental channels. Do any of you all know anywhere online that these maps are stored or if there is someone within the government that I can contact regarding these maps?I am looking for them in a specific digital format (ESRI shapefile), but at this point I'll take whatever I can get.Thanks,Eric Olsen
gis@theshopconsulting.com

Eric,This discussion has largely moved on to another thread, so I'll give you a link to that thread. It's http://www.asmainegoes.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=016811 . I will make a post on that thread to answer some of your questions that have not been answered yet.Sincerely,Kevin Lamoreau