Letter from Steve Bickerstaff to ICRC Members



Professor Steve Bickerstaff, UT Law School and author of Proposition 3, sent a letter to the members of the ICRC providing some suggestions on . . . “how the commission might begin its organization.”

The important takeaways:
Rotation of the commission chair position: This would foster a “positive relationship [among members of the commission] by reducing internal power struggles and centralization of power.”
Interviewing applicants for the remaining positions on the commission: California officials used interviews in selecting their members. Bickerstaff asks the commission to consider whether interviews are desirable.
Diversity on the commission: Bickerstaff states that “Complying with the requirements of Proposition 3 is absolutely necessary, but the way in which the requirements are met is your task. However, it is apparent that, given the importance of the Voting Rights Act, one or more African-Americans should be added to the panel. . . . In California, the six additional commission members were selected as a slate rather than individually. The Austin commission has this option. Although diversity is important and required for the makeup of the commission, it is important to not lose sight of the overriding objective of having a commission that has the necessary analytical skills and impartiality to produce a districting plan that fully complies with the law and is fair to all Austinites.”

Reading the entire letter is beneficial and recommended. It is here: http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=190228



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whither the Republican Party?

Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes write in The Atlantic magazine: So we arrive at a syllogism: (1) The GOP has become the party of Trumpism. (2) Trumpism is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. (3) The Republican Party is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. A syllogism is, according to dictionary.com: 1. Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore, all B is C.”. 2. deductive reasoning. 3. an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument. Which definition applies here?   First, has the GOP become the party of Trump? Has he taken control of the party appa...
Read more

Choices for the Final Four (ICRC Commissions, that is)

Image
With four commission positions remaining to be filled, whom should the commissioners select? The commissioners should choose an African American male from TCCC precinct 1. Since the greatest concentrations of African Americans are located in TCCC precinct 1 (see this map ), choosing an African American from this geographic area would provide the greatest voice to the area with the highest concentration of African Americans in the city and the area that would most likely be included in a council district that would possess a plurality of African Americans. The choice should Nathaniel Bradford because of his connections to the community. An Anglo male and an Anglo female should be chosen from TCCC precinct 2. One, if not both, should be chosen from those voter precincts slightly east and west of MOPAC that featured high voter turnout in the 2012 mayoral election (see this map ). The male and female from those voting precincts who the ARP considered the most qualified are He...
Read more

In Defense of a Theory

I’m a big fan of political scientist Seth Masket, but what he wrote in defense of the theory of presidential nominations expounded in The Party Decides intrigues me. First, he notes that his initial defense caused some blowback: Last week at Mischiefs of Faction , I wrote about the book The Party Decides and the extent to which the 2016 is causing trouble for it. I argued that the Republican race isn't providing a very clean test of the theory, while the Democratic race is. This invited substantial pushback from Jonathan Chait , Justin Grimmer , and others, suggesting that I was either protecting the theory from actual testing, or that the theory itself was untestable. So I'd like to clarify a bit and suggest just what evidence we've gathered this year. Then, he goes on to explain more fully: Now, in my recent post, I focused on what I see as the central claim of the book: The party generally gets what it wants. That is, when party elites have selected a...
Read more