Will all state senators have to stand for election following redistricting?

Rep. John Patton of Sheridan talks during the Joint Corporations
Committee meeting in Room 302 of the Capitol Dec. 6.

Redistricting Wyoming’s Legislature this month again revolved around defining communities of interest, ranging from fairly specific definitions to the open ended claim that “there’s a community of interest wherever you go in Wyoming.”

That generous idea was presented by state Sen. Curt Meier who found himself drawn out of his district by the committee’s proposed redistricting plan. He mounted a spirited argument for his ideas to amend the proposed boundaries to save his seat. Meier’s predicament forced a discussion of how the new boundaries affect sitting legislators, an issue the committee previously had avoided publicly.

It also served to focus attention on the effect of redistricting on sitting senators. Will the boundaries change enough to justify requiring senators who won four-year terms in 2010 to campaign again in 2012?

The Joint Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Interim Committee met Dec. 5 and 6 to put together a basic plan. It produced one that gives Campbell County five seats in the House. It also adopted new boundaries for House District 22, completely separating it from Teton and Lincoln counties. And it reversed a decision made in October to split Rawlins.

The process of reconfiguring the boundaries of legislative districts is known as “redistricting.” It is constitutionally mandated. The Legislature must redraw legislative district lines in the first budget session following completion of the decennial U.S. Census. Under the principle of “one person, one vote,” those districts must be nearly equal in population to ensure that each voter wields roughly equal power in legislative elections.

Population grew in some areas of the state and declined in others since the 2000 Census. Now legislative district boundaries must change to reflect those shifts. Campbell County saw the largest growth in population in the state in sheer numbers. Sublette County experienced the greatest percentage increase. Goshen and other northeastern counties and counties in the Big Horn Basin either suffered declines in population  or saw such low growth that they now hold a lower share of the state’s total number of residents.

Once the committee adopted its plan for 60 House districts, it realigned four Senate districts in eastern Wyoming to accommodate the new boundaries of the House districts. (The Wyoming Legislature “nests” two House districts inside each of the 30 Senate districts.)

The committee still must determine whether it will require all 30 senators to run for election when the new districting plan takes effect in 2012. One of the committee’s co-chairmen, Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander, vigorously argued to require only those senators whose terms are up in 2012 to run.

Redistricting aside, all senators serving even-numbered districts must stand for election in 2012. The question is whether the changes that have moved other communities into new Senate districts are significant enough to require all the senators to run. Most of those communities are small. Along with Sen. Meier’s LaGrange, among them are Atlantic City, Dubois, Big Piney and Marbleton, Farson, and Meeteetse.

The committee’s redistricting House and Senate plans are now up on the Legislature’s website. The joint committee will meet again Jan. 19 to consider the written version of the bill that will implement the boundaries agreed to in Cheyenne Dec. 6. Amendments to the plans can be offered at that time.

Final action will take place during the 2012 Legislature.

Wyoming Legislature

Redistricting options proliferate
County clerks offer second statewide plan; other new options surface for Southwest Wyoming and Laramie County

       Wyoming’s legislative redistricting effort will take the stage again Monday with new plans added to the mix.
       Three more plans have been posted on the Legislature's website, including a new plan drawn up by the County Clerks and a new alternative plan for Southwest Wyoming drafted by two senators from the region. Both these new plans would eliminate the gerrymandered district created in 2002 that combined most of Sublette County, northern Lincoln County, and Wilson  and in Teton County. Officials from both Sublette and Teton counties dislike that combination and have pleaded with legislators that it be changed.
        A third new plan for Laramie County also has been posted on the Legislative Service Office's website.
        The Joint Corporations, Elections, and Political Subdivisions Interim Committee will work tomorrow and Tuesday (Dec. 5 and 6) in Room 302 at the Capitol to finalize its proposal to the Legislature. The redistricting discussion is begins at 11 a.m., according to the committee's agenda.
       Redistricting – the process of periodically redrawing district lines to equalize district populations – takes place every 10 years following the federal census. The 2010 Census revealed considerable growth in the energy boom counties, particularly Campbell and Sublette counties, and in Teton County. Those numbers also found that population had declined in other counties, mostly in northeastern Wyoming and the Big Horn Basin.
       Districts must shift accordingly, though legislators have considerable discretion in doing so.
   
       House District 22 in western Wyoming
       The committee has seen considerable tension around plans to redraw lines for what is now designated House District 22. Growth in Sublette County gives it more than enough residents to form a single House district within its boundaries. But Sublette County was involved in a “gerrymandering” imposed in 2002 when northern and eastern areas of the county, including Pinedale, were combined in a district extending from south Wilson in Teton County through northern Lincoln County, up the Hoback River to Bondurant and down the east side of the county.
       Wilson and Pinedale residents have been clear that they don’t share a significant community of interest and want to be separated.
       The latest proposal for the region posted on the LSO website again was developed by southwestern Wyoming Sens. Marty Martin, a Democrat, and Stan Cooper, a Republican. It severs Sublette County from Teton County to create the new House District 22. The plan combines Wilson with Afton in a new configuration of House District 21.
     
       Eastern Wyoming
       The new plan offered by the county clerks appears to carve a seat out of the eastern border counties and to give Campbell County five representatives (compared to four under the present system).  One of those districts is combined with northern Converse County. (Analyst's caveat: The plan appears to do this but this is a cursory comparison with other plans.)

       Co-Chairman Pete Illoway, a Cheyenne Republican, told the Associated Press that the committee could meet again in late December or January if does not finalize its work this week.

Redistricting plans enter last phase

Corporations Committee readies two state plans

       Wyoming’s legislative redistricting effort will take the stage again next week in what could be the last meeting of the committee given the task of  drawing new boundaries before the February session.
       Or it might not be the last meeting.  But the Joint Corporations, Elections, and Political Subdivisions Committee will work next Monday and Tuesday (Dec. 5 and 6) in Room302 at the Capitol to finalize its proposal to the Legislature.
       Redistricting – the process of periodically redrawing district lines to equalize district populations – takes place every 10 years following the federal census. The 2010 Census revealed considerable growth in the energy boom counties, particularly Campbell and Sublette counties, and in Teton County. Those numbers also found that population had declined in other counties, mostly in northeastern Wyoming and the Big Horn Basin.
       Districts must shift accordingly, though legislators have considerable discretion in doing so.
       As it did in 2001, the Legislature’s Management Council handed the job to the Joint Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Interim Committee. In its first big decision, the committee voted in April to maintain the current structure of the Legislature with 60 House seats and 30 Senate seats. It also adopted guiding principles that include respecting county lines as much as possible, keeping districts contiguous and as compact as possible, and recognizing “communities of interest” – though the committee has not specifically defined that term.
       Over the summer, the committee held more than a dozen community meetings around the state. Those meetings largely were attended by sitting legislators, county clerks, and county commissioners. Using a web-based tool made available on the Legislature’s website, various regional plans have been developed redrawing the lines. Most of the state’s county clerks got together and drew up a full plan for the state that had been the only complete plan available. But at its last meeting the committee itself put together those regional proposals, then made a few adjustments of its own. Two working proposals resulted and can be seen on the LSO website.
       The ESPC attended many of the meetings intent on making sure the committee sticks to the principle of one person, one vote, and that it maintains a legislative district in Fremont County created in 2002 which holds a majority of Native Americans. The federal Voting Rights Act protects significant minority populations, in this case Native Americans, by prohibiting dilution of their vote by splitting them up among several districts. The committee has adhered to both principles.

       Gerrymander in western Wyoming
       But there still has been considerable tension. Growth in Sublette County gives it more than enough residents to form a single House district within its boundaries. But Sublette County was involved in a “gerrymandering” imposed in 2002 when northern and eastern areas of the county, including Pinedale, were combined in a district extending from south Wilson in Teton County through northern Lincoln County.
       The Wilson and Pinedale residents have been clear that they don’t share a significant community of interest and want to be separated. One proposal to do just that would have redrawn district lines in a way that left the House District 20 representative outside the district.
       A counter proposal was developed by southwestern Wyoming Sens. Marty Martin, a Democrat, and Stan Cooper, a Republican. It maintains the district combining Pinedale with Wilson. The Corporations committee favored the Martin-Cooper plan when it met in October.
       It appears to be impossible, or nearly so, to divide the population of northwestern Wyoming without splitting counties. The Teton plan that ended the Wilson-Pinedale gerrymander requires maintaining an existing district the combines Dubois and parts of northern Fremont County with Teton County. There’s a relatively strong community of interest argument, however, since both those local economies rely heavily on tourism and recreation.
       The committee heard at a Lander meeting that Dubois wants to be connected to the rest of Fremont County. Subsequently, other legislators say there’s a substantial number of Dubois residents who favor the link to Teton County.
        There’s also a struggle over redrawing lines in northeastern and eastern Wyoming. Campbell County grew enough to add another House seat. Population declined in relation to the rest of the state elsewhere in the region, meaning a seat will likely shift. The question is how this will be done. Will the Legislature allow Campbell County to be relatively self-contained like Albany, Laramie and Natrona counties? Or will the Campbell population be carved away to maintain something closer to the status quo?
       The two committee proposals on the LSO site show distinctly different approaches to resolving these shifts in eastern Wyoming.
       Each of the various plans will make some happy and others angry. Part of the problem is that roughly 70 percent of the Census blocks in Wyoming have no one living in them in them at all. (Redistricting rules allow dividing counties, cities, towns, and precincts but prohibit splitting a Census block.) As a result, a few districts, just as they are now, will be bigger than some eastern states. One district that encompasses a large part of Carbon County will be stretched across Sweetwater County to Farson to bring the district up to the necessary population level. There’s a lot of empty Red Desert between Rawlins and Eden.

       Plenty of action ahead
       The committee could finalize its redistricting bill at the coming meeting or schedule a final meeting prior to the session.
        And the session may bring other proposals. In a budget session, non-budget bills require a two-thirds vote of approval for introduction in either the House or the Senate. But that’s not true of redistricting bills. Any member can bring a proposal to apportion the Legislature and introduce it without a vote. Such bills likely will be referred to the Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee.

One person, one vote

Joint Corporations panel eyes redistricting

Fremont County seeks ability to manipulate voting power

By Sarah Gorin

ESPC researcher

I’ve often characterized the ESPC’s work by using the title of a regular feature in The Week news magazine, called “Boring but Important.” The drawing of lines for election districts definitely falls into this category. In fact, it may take the prize for most important action that gets the least public attention.

This week the Legislature’s Joint Interim Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee (“Corporations Committee”) met to discuss, among other things, county districting and the legislative redistricting that will follow receipt of the final 2010 census numbers.

Every ten years following the decennial census, election districts – congressional districts, legislative districts, city wards - are redrawn to recognize population changes. Each election district is supposed to contain approximately the same number of people to incorporate the principle of “one person, one vote.”

The advent of geographical information systems (GIS) has made drawing districts a relatively simple mapping exercise. However, the politics that go into it are anything but simple.

One complication is the mandate that we as a democratic society have imposed on the process via the federal Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act prohibits dilution of the voting power of “communities of interest” – primarily racial or ethnic populations – by carving them up in separate districts.

We saw the Voting Rights Act applied here in Wyoming recently when several tribal plaintiffs successfully sued Fremont County to force creation of districts for county commissioner elections. The tribal plaintiffs pointed out that their votes were drowned in the current practice of electing county commissioners at-large (that is, county-wide).

The federal district court decision was scathing in its description of pervasive racism in Fremont County and ordered the drawing of five single-member districts for election of the five county commissioners. This process is now moving forward with a special primary election scheduled for Nov. 16 and a special general election for Jan.18.

Although these special elections are moving forward, the Fremont County Commission has appealed the federal district court decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes of having it overturned.

A court-ordered apportionment always results in single-member districts, and existing state law currently provides no other options. However, a number of Fremont County officials have been advocating for changes in state laws to allow “hybrid” districting where some county commissioners could be elected from single-member districts and some elected at-large.

Put simply, it appears the officials are looking for the next best thing to the old at-large system: a new system that gives the tribes “their” district and then virtually guarantees that a Native American candidate won’t have a chance anywhere else.

The ESPC commends the members of the Corporations Committee for heeding warnings from the tribal plaintiffs’ attorney that the Fremont County Commissioners saw the proposed county districting bill as helpful to their appeal. The committee added language delaying the use of hybrid districting until January 1, 2012, but then approved the bill (the committee vote is provided below).

The committee’s bill will be offered for consideration in the 2011 Legislature. If passed, it would apply to all counties, not just Fremont County. However, since Fremont County currently is the only one with county commissioner districts, it’s difficult to view the bill in any light other than providing the county a means to once again manipulate voting power.

Legislative redistricting looms

The Corporations committee members also heard an update on preparation for legislative redistricting, which will take place in the 2012 legislative session. Final census figures will be received next spring, and depending on whether they reflect the downturn in the state’s economy that took place in 2009, significant changes in districts may be in store.

Because legislative redistricting takes place only every ten years and therefore the institutional memory is limited, the ESPC presented background information on the original legislative apportionment in 1992 and the first reapportionment in 2002.

The ESPC’s preference is to maintain the single-member district system as the one most easily understood by voters and also providing them with the highest level of accountability.

Committee vote on the hybrid county districting bill:

For: Senators Cale Case (R-S25, Lander, committee co-chair), Charles Scott (R-S30, Casper), Stan Cooper (R-S14, Kemmerer); Representatives Kermit Brown (R-H14, Laramie), Pete Illoway (R-H42, Cheyenne, committee co-chair), Tom Lubnau (R-H31, Gillette), Dave Miller (R-H55, Riverton), Tim Stubson (R-H56, Casper), Dan Zwonitzer (R-H43, Cheyenne)

Against: Senators John Hastert (D-S13, Green River), Wayne Johnson (R-S6, Cheyenne); retiring Representatives Ross Diercks (D-H2, Lusk), Mary Hales (D-H36, Casper)

Wyoming needs complete lobbyist reporting

Public deserves more information about influence

By Dan Neal

Politics and public policy-making often come down to money and who has it to spend on candidates or on lobbyists that can help a interest group get what it wants.

In Wyoming, candidates for public office must report the contributions they receive and the expenditures they make. But lobbyists don't have to report many of their expenditures nor details about their funding resources. With Wyoming's lax lobbyist disclosure law, it's as if lobbyists simply appear in the Capitol without anyone spending any money to get them there.

On May 12, the Equality State Policy Center asked the Joint Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee to require professional lobbyists working in Wyoming as well as the companies and people who hire them to make public how much money they spend to influence state legislators and other policy-makers.

The request, by the way, implies no improper behavior. Lobbying done well with integrity fills a necessary role in a democracy.

Here’s the basic argument the ESPC made to the Joint Corporations Committee when it met earlier this month in Lander:

Why is reporting necessary?

• It demonstrates the importance of the work the Legislature does. A full accounting of lobbyist spending will show the general public how invested various interests are in the decisions made by the Legislature.

• Since individual state legislators do not have paid staff, lobbyists in Wyoming fulfill a particularly important role of providing citizen legislators with information. It is the presence of lobbyists that makes a difference. The public deserves to know what it takes to post a presence when the Legislature meets – in Cheyenne or during the interim.

• It is an important part of bringing the process of making state policy fully into the sunshine. People deserve to know what the oil industry, the coal companies, the railroads, and nonprofit organizations spend to influence their representatives and government officials.

• About 350 lobbyists registered in 2010. Existing law required only a very few to file reports, mostly to report receptions held for legislators. Many who file anyway report zero expenditures.

What is needed:

• People paid to lobby, including attorneys, should be required to report what they were paid and they should report their expenses.

• Employers of lobbyists should report how much they paid lobbyists and how much they spent on other activities intended to influence legislators, other officials, and the public to support or oppose legislation. (Current law requires reporting by the employers of lobbyists.)

• The law should cover both legislative and administrative lobbying.

• Lobbyists should file quarterly. (This provides a timely accounting.)

• Lobbyists should list clients, and how much each pays.

• They should list what bills and governmental actions were lobbied and for which client.

• Lobbyist reports should be subject to some form of enforcement mechanism.

The ESPC asked the Joint Corporations Committee that the reporting ultimately be made available in a searchable database available electronically via the Secretary of State’s website.

The committee showed considerable interest in the idea. Several, including Co-Chairman Cale Case, R-SD25, Lander and Rep. Kermit Brown, R-HD14, Laramie, asked pointed questions about lobbying by public interests, such as the University of Wyoming and other agencies.

The ESPC supports broad disclosure by all interests lobbying the Legislature. Even if they’re simply providing information at a committee meeting, state agencies and other public agencies certainly could be directed to report the cost of doing so.

When Sen. Case asked if the committee should entertain a motion to draft a bill, Sen. Charles Scott, R-SD30, Casper, objected, noting that the topic was not “noticed” on the committee agenda.

Instead, Sen. John Hastert, D-SD-13, Green River, made a request for the Legislative Service Office to research lobbyist disclosure in neighboring states and tell the committee how Wyoming’s disclosure requirements compare.

The topic is likely to appear on the agenda of the joint committee’s Sept. 28 - 29 in Casper.

A side note: Sen. Scott expressed considerable interest in determining who supports the ESPC and similar groups, saying he finds it difficult to determine who exactly they represent. He indicated he prefers disclosure legislation that would enable him to know the names of individuals who contribute to the ESPC and similar groups.

The ESPC does not provide that information, though people who do contribute funds to the ESPC certainly can make their support public. Still, the U.S. Constitution protects the right of people to associate freely. The ESPC told the committee that the right to maintain the privacy of contributor and membership lists was affirmed in a 1958 U.S. Supreme Court case, State of Alabama v. the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

But what the ESPC is, certainly is not a secret. The ESPC told the committee that the organizations that belong to its coalition are listed on the internet, along with brief biographies of the ESPC board officers and ESPC staff.

Sen. Scott asked the Legislative Service Office to research the law regarding protection of membership lists.