Donate
News. Debate. Community. Levers for a better democracy.

Redistricting commission plan vetoed by N.H. governor

Gov. Chris Sununu has vetoed legislation that would have created an independent commission to draw New Hampshire's electoral boundaries.

A first principle of the democracy reform movement is that the job of electoral mapmaking must be taken out of the hands of the politicians running each state, because whether they're Republicans or Democrats their top priority will be gerrymandering the districts to perpetuate their own partisan advantage.

But the Republican governor, in the veto message released Friday, said the state Constitution gives elected officials — state legislators and the governor — the authority to draw lines for congressional districts, state legislative districts and members of the governor's executive council.


"The members of the commission proposed in House Bill 706 would be unelected and unaccountable to the voters," Sununu wrote.

His veto message also cited the fact that gerrymandering issues are extremely rare in New Hampshire — which has just two U.S. House seats to fill but also a whopping 400 seats in the state House — and that an unnamed outside group pushing for the legislation had as its mission to "favorably position Democrats for the redistricting process."

That phrase is used by the National Democratic Redistricting Committee in one of its filings with the IRS. The advocacy group, formed by former Attorney General Eric Holder and supported by former President Barack Obama, believes the GOP has succeeded in recent years in skewing the map-drawing process to its favor and seeks reforms that give Democrats a fair chance.

Holder called Sununu's veto "completely unacceptable" and, in a statement, said he "has truly revealed himself to be a captive of the special interests who fear the will of the people."

The legislation passed the solidly Democratic state House with the support of 16 Republicans, about 10 percent of the GOP members, but in the narrowly Democratic Senate the vote followed party lines.

The bill called for creating a commission comprised of five Democrats, five Republicans and five independent citizens.

The Supreme Court ruled in June that federal courts have no role in determining the excesses of partisan gerrymandering but said the states were free to set their own rules or procedures to curb the practice.

In most states, the new boundaries are drawn every 10 years, after the census, through enactment of legislation. Fourteen states have put the process in the hands of commissions, with varying degrees of autonomy. The New Hampshire commission would have had the sole power to create the boundaries, although the maps could have been challenged in court.

In July, Sununu also vetoed four election transparency bills.

We’re all about the issues that have broken American democracy — and efforts to make governments work again for you, your family and your friends.
Donate
Washington Bureau/Getty Images

The House on Friday passed legislation to restore a provision of the Voting Rights Act struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013. The bill would require advance approval of voting changes in states with a history of discrimination. Here President Lyndon Johnson shares one of the pens he used to sign the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with civil rights leader the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Passage of historic voting rights law takes a partisan turn

In a partisan vote on an issue that once was bipartisan, House Democrats pushed through legislation Friday that would restore a key portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Advancement Act passed the House 228-187, with all Democrats voting for the bill and all but one Republican, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, voting against it.

The bill faces virtually no chance of being considered in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Keep reading... Show less
Big Picture

TV stations fight FCC over political ad disclosure

Broadcasters are pushing back against the Federal Communications Commission after the agency made clear it wants broader public disclosure regarding TV political ads.

With the 2020 election less than a year away and political TV ads running more frequently, the FCC issued a lengthy order to clear up any ambiguities licensees of TV stations had regarding their responsibility to record information about ad content and sponsorship. In response, a dozen broadcasting stations sent a petition to the agency, asking it to consider a more narrow interpretation of the law.

This dispute over disclosure rules for TV ads comes at a time when digital ads are subject to little regulation. Efforts to apply the same rules for TV, radio and print advertising across the internet have been stymied by Congress's partisanship and the Federal Election Commission being effectively out of commission.

Keep reading... Show less
News. Community. Debate. Levers for better democracy.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.

1952 Eisenhower Answers America

On TV, political ads are regulated – but online, anything goes

Lightman is a professor of digital media and marketing at Carnegie Mellon University.

With the 2020 election less than a year away, Facebook is under fire from presidential candidates, lawmakers, civil rights groups and even its own employees to provide more transparency on political ads and potentially stop running them altogether.

Meanwhile, Twitter has announced that it will not allow any political ads on its platform.

Modern-day online ads use sophisticated tools to promote political agendas with a high degree of specificity.

I have closely studied how information propagates through social channels and its impact on political messaging and advertising.

Looking back at the history of mass media and political ads in the national narrative, I think it's important to focus on how TV advertising, which is monitored by the Federal Communications Commission, differs fundamentally with the world of social media.

Keep reading... Show less
© Issue One. All rights reserved.