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.

Redistricting effort stirs local worries

'One person, one vote' standard must drive redistricting of Wyo Legislature

Local plans reflect different definitions of 'community of interest' concept

If "Not in My Back Yard” is the battle-cry of people who occasionally venture into the realm of public land planning, then “Leave Us Alone” or “Keep Our County Whole” are the battle cries heard most often when people consider redistricting the Wyoming Legislature.

Elected officials in Natrona and Albany counties already have submitted plans that would enable them to place all or nearly all their residents in state Senate and House districts lying wholly within their county lines.

Legislators and other public officials in the Big Horn Basin took the idea a step further July 12, when they told the Legislature’s Joint Interim Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee that they can keep their “unique” basin whole – so long as the committee follows their draft plan that would pick off nearly 800 Fremont County residents, who live in the Shoshoni and Lysite voting districts (also known as precincts).

The process of reconfiguring the boundaries of legislative districts is known as “reapportionment” or “redistricting.” The Legislature must redraw legislative district lines in the first budget session following completion of the decennial U.S. Census. Under the constitutional 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 growth in some areas of the state and decline in others since the 2000 Census mean legislative district boundaries must change to reflect those shifts. Determining exactly how to change the lines is a political process that in the U.S. traditionally has been used by the party in control of the legislature to solidify the ability of its members to get elected both to Congress and the state Legislature.

But in Wyoming, there is only one Congressional district for the entire state, so there’s no opportunity to gerrymander districts. And in the Legislature, the Republican Party’s huge majorities in both the state House and Senate mean shifting district lines largely will affect GOP members.

The Interim Corporations committee adopted seven principles to guide its redistricting efforts. The key principle, known as the “range of deviation,” aims to abide by the principle of “one person, one vote” by keeping the difference in population of the highest population district in the state and the lowest population district within 10 percent. Other principles include following county boundaries as much as possible, keeping the majority of a county’s population in one district, recognition of significant geographic features, compactness, and combining “communities of interest.”

Many people have seized on the term “community of interest” to justify placing lines here rather than there. Since it started its series of 10 public meetings around the state to hear local concerns and plans for redistricting, the committee has been presented numerous interpretations of the concept.

Some who testified to the committee see “communities of interest” in economic terms. Others see it as rural versus urban, or as achieving balance between intra- and inter-party political interests. Although some local residents may feel strongly about these criteria, none of them are likely to stand up in a court case.

County clerks will draft a plan

When the committee met in Lander on July 13, Fremont County Clerk Julie Freese told the committee that the state’s county clerks will meet in August to draft their own proposal. The clerks hope to minimize the splitting of voting precincts. Freese said those splits can lead to confusion at the polls. A voter could be given a ballot that lists elections the voter cannot legally vote in.

With more splitting of precincts, she said, it becomes more likely a voter will get the wrong ballot “and that is called fraud.”

Challenge the deviation standard?

Big Horn Basin legislators also argued that the committee should consider exempting the Basin from the 10 percent deviation standard because they know more people will move there soon. They said an expected boom in tertiary oil production based upon CO2 injection and development of a new irrigation project will swell the Basin’s population, and that will take care of any problems with districts with too-few residents.

With its endorsement of a 90-member Legislature with 30 seats in the Senate, the committee forced some basic arithmetic: divide the 2010 Census population of Wyoming by 30 to find the ideal population for a Senate district: 18,788 people. With 60 seats in the House, the ideal population for a House district is 9,394. No district can exceed those numbers or fall below them by more than 5 percent. The most populous Senate district cannot have more than 19,727 people residing in it. The least populous House district cannot include fewer than 8,924 people.

The ESPC supports the deviation standard and opposes any exceptions. We will work to ensure that all Wyoming citizens have equal representation.

Members of the committee warned that a lawsuit will assuredly be filed if the standard, established through substantial court precedent, is ignored. The committee voted in April to support the deviation standard. Sen. Cale Case, one of the co-chairmen of the joint committee, warned against exceptions when the committee met in Powell. If the committee granted an exception to the deviation standard in the Big Horn Basin, people in other areas of Wyoming will expect similar treatment, he said.

The ESPC will stand strongly for the “one person, one vote” principle during the redistricting process. We want to make sure that your vote counts as much as your neighbor’s.

Plans posted on LSO website

The Legislative Service Office is making an excellent effort to provide information about redistricting. Proposed plans will be made available on the site if they are sponsored by a legislator. Four plans had been posted by Saturday afternoon (July 16) for Albany, Laramie, Natrona and Teton counties. State Rep. Hans Hunt has roughed out a statewide plan that also is available.

Anti-GLBT bill goes to conference committeee

Legislature agrees to disclosure on independent expenditures in Wyoming elections
Wyoming voters will have to live with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that allows corporations to spend freely from their treasuries in independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates for election, but these corporations will have to meet some basic disclosure rules under a law given final approval late Tuesday.

T he U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission leaves voters and potential candidates with the prospect of corporate interests pouring money into state and national elections. It doesn’t matter if you believe that the right to free speech was meant for people who breathe and bleed. The corporations are free to buy the biggest megaphone and to purchase the most speech through independent expenditures in elections that affect their corporate interests.

Nevertheless, the state still has the authority to force disclosure of who finances that megaphone and who buys the time. In its decision in January 2010, eight members of the high court supported the idea that organizations financing independent expenditures can be required to disclose where they get their money.

Senate File 3 – Campaign finance – organizations brings Wyoming campaign finance law into compliance with the Citizens United decision by expressly allowing corporations, unions and other organizations to make “independent expenditures” directly from their corporate funds. These expenditures can be made for or against candidates or ballot measures.

Under current Wyoming law, only candidates, political parties, candidate campaign committees, and political action committees (PACs) can spend money in elections. The ESPC believes corporate speech interests have been served by the ability to form a corporate PAC. These are quite different from the corporation spending allowed by the Citizens United decision because a PAC’s money comes from identifiable and publicly reported officers, directors and shareholders of the corporation.

The 2010 Supreme Court decision means that corporations can dip into their vast treasuries, which can include money earned elsewhere on the globe, far from Wyoming. They can use these funds to make campaign expenditures independent of individual candidates’ campaigns. The independent campaigns are prohibited from coordinating their effort with any candidate committee or party.

Because SF 3 originally required only a “paid for” line on advertising that could easily be used to disguise the actual parties behind an independent expenditure campaign, the ESPC pushed for greater disclosure. The Senate approved an amendment that would have required these campaigns to print the names of their top three donors or read those names when the advertising was provided via television, radio or internet.

House members, feeling pressure from the Wyoming Broadcasters Association, stripped that amendment and instead imposed a disclosure requirement similar to those imposed on PACs and individual candidate campaign committees. The amendment requires the independent expenditure campaign to register with the Secretary of State and to report contributions in excess of $1,000 and expenditures exceeding $500.

The Senate accepted the House amendments Tuesday and adopted the amended bill on concurrence 16-13. Some no votes likely represented some senators’ opposition to the idea of opening state and local elections to direct influence from corporations.

Here’s the roll call on concurrence:
Ayes: Senator(s) Anderson, Bebout, Burns, Case, Christensen, Coe, Cooper, Driskill, Geis, Hicks, Hines, Jennings, Landen, Nutting, Schiffer and Scott.
Nays: Senator(s) Barnard, Dockstader, Esquibel, F., Hastert, Johnson, Martin, Meier, Nicholas P, Perkins, Peterson, Ross, Rothfuss and Von Flatern.
Excused: Senator(s) Emerich

Is it possible HB 74 – Validity of marriage could fail passage?

The Wyoming House Tuesday voted 7-50 to oppose concurring with Senate changes to House Bill 74 –Validity of marriage. Supporters of the bill, which will enable Wyoming to void same-sex marriages made in other states and countries, objected to a Senate amendment that declares the state will recognize civil unions made in other states. Opponents likewise voted against concurrence, hoping ultimately to defeat the bill by demonstrating that there’s no final agreement on it.

A conference committee will now be appointed to attempt to work out the amended changes to the bill. Each chamber will appoint three members to serve on the committee. Rules require that each chamber appoint one member to the conference committee who opposed passage of the bill.

The House appointed two stalwart supporters of the bill, Rep. Amy Edmonds (R-HD12, Cheyenne) and Rep. Kendall Kroeker (R-HD35, Casper), and an opponent, Rep. Jim Roscoe (D-HD22, Wilson) to the conference committee. The Senate is expected to appoint its members to the conference committee Wednesday.

The ESPC’s stand
In any form, HB 74 will discriminate against same-sex couples who have made valid marriage contracts in other states and countries. The ESPC believes such discrimination is contrary to the general philosophy of the Equality State that “all members of the human race are equal.” We urge everyone to contact their legislators and ask them to vote against any proposed conference committee compromises on HB 74.

Interim studies on the agenda

Several House and Senate standing committees met jointly at noon Tuesday to consider possible topics for study during the interim period between the end of the general session and the 2012 budget session. The legislature’s Management Council will meet next week to review and make a final determination on which topics it will authorize for study.
The Joint Corporations, Elections, and Political Subdivisions Committee will study reapportionment – the re-drawing of House and Senate district boundaries to keep those districts as nearly equal in population as possible.

Committee Co-Chairmen Sen. Cale Case and Rep. Pete Illoway announced their plans for a “two-track” process that calls for holding 10 or 11 information-gathering meetings around the state, beginning sometime in April after the committee has new population numbers from the 2010 Census.

All committee members will not be expected to attend all those meetings. But the committee also plans three or four two-day meetings at which it will discuss the reapportionment on one day, then deal with other committee interim topics on the second day.

Rep. John Patton (R-HD29, Sheridan) asked the committee to avoid imposing constraints on the public discussion of the redistricting options. He said that suggestions from the chairmen that the Legislature retain the same number of House and Senate seats (60 and 30 respectively), continue to “nest” two House districts within each Senate district, and to presume that districts will be single-member districts are inappropriate constraints on public discussion.
“It makes it convenient for us,” he said. “Let them (the public) speak first.”

Illoway told Patton and the committee that while a decision to end “nesting” is possible, physical constraints, such as the size of the House and Senate chambers, must be recognized. “It’s very difficult to put more people in this Capitol,” he said. (That's a photo of the Senate chambers above.)

Appointments
New Gov. Matt Mead released his list of proposed appointments to state boards and commissions Tuesday. The Senate has five days to approve or reject Gov. Mead’s chosen appointees.

Participate
Citizens can register their opinions on specific legislation by using the “Online Hotline” or the telephone Hotline – 1-866-966-8683 or, in Cheyenne, 777-8683.

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.