US House Redistricting: Maine

[JohnnyLongtorso]

So they passed the 2/3rds requirement for next time (when the Democrats will probably have control of the legislature again) but don't have to follow it this time?

Yes, and necessarily by a 2/3 margin as it is a constitutional amendment resolution.  In otherwords, the first part of what you wrote above (and the implied prohibition on redistricting between 2011 and 2021) couldn't have gone through without Democratic support in each chamber.  There were no roll calls but the divisions on final passage were 132-7 in the House (so 11 Representatives absent or excused with 1 vacancy) and 34-0 in the Senate (so 1 Senator absent or excused).

I tried to point that out to Janet Mills, the Vice Chair of the Maine Democratic Party (also the previous Attorney General and the attorney who represented the Democrats in the lawsuit), whom I have had a sporadic e-mail correspondence with going back to when the lawsuit was first announced.  She questioned me about the deadlines in House Amendment "A", thinking I might have written it, and I replied that I was surprised the wasn't more concerned about the "Beginning in 2021" part.  A couple days later, she posted me a link to House Amendment "B" and when I asked if she had anything to do with it she said that she had mentioned to my State Representative (a Republican) in the hallway (presumably of the State House) "that the earlier floor amendment was not consistent with the timeline in the underlying bill."  The next week, a couple weeks ago, after the bill had been finally passed in the House and just needed appropriations committee (for the potential referendum costs, presumably, as the moveup in redistricting isn't until 2021) and final Senate approval, I forwarded her a copy of an e-mail I had sent to my two Legislators and my Republican cyberfriend I mentioned earlier in this thread who now works in the Governor's office that had my proposed amendment to the resolution attached.  In that e-mail to Janet Mills, I wrote the following, with italics added here (not in the e-mail) for emphasis:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I haven't heard back from her since then.

Yeesh, that's pathetic.

[Kevinstat]

I don't understand the process.

Hardly anyone in Maine does either.

Did the two chambers engross different versions of LD 494 in April, and then came along in June and pass different versions?

If you meant, "did the two chambers engross (concorring with each other) one version of LD 494 in April, and then came along in June and pass a different version?," than the answer is yes.  The House reconsidered the resolution's passage to be engrossed in June, passed House amendment "B" (in "non-concurence" with the Senate even though the Senate's last action had been in concurence with the House at the time), the Senate receded and concurred so the bill was engrossed again, and then both chambers gave the resolution final passage (the Senate after the bill went on the "Special Appropriations Table" that my State Representative who is on Appropriations told me the bill was later "exempted" from).

Are there ever record votes in the legislature, even for proposed constitutional amendments?

There are often roll calls.  I think at least a division is necessary for a constitutional resolution.  If you go to LD 494's status summary page and click on "Bill Text and Other Docs" and then replace the '1456' in the resulting URL with '0', some more menu items in that .asp page will appear.  You go from this to this.  The "House Docket" and "Senate Docket" "pages" show the division tallies.

There is always the issue whether a state constitution may bind action by a legislature with regard to congressional districts.  This is under current litigation in Florida.  The Supreme Court precedents are where a constitution provided a role for the governor (through the veto power) or the people (through the referendum) in the legislative process.

What are the (U.S. I assume you mean) Supreme Court precedents in those cases?

What are the Supreme Judicial Court guidelines for congressional districts?

Yeah that's kind of jibberish.  I think what it means is, if the districts need changing when the apportionment commission or whoever is reviewing them as provided for by statute (or now perhaps the Maine Constitution), ... if the districts need redrawing, redraw them.  I'm not joking here.

How is the fewest lines crossed provision interpreted?

I assume you're referring to, in the statutory (and proposed constitutional) provisions for congressional redistricting,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

or for county commissioner redistricting,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That language is probably based on the Maine Constitution, Article IV, Part First, Section 2 (governing State House redistricting; "carried over" to Maine Senate redistricting in Article IV, Part Second, Section 2), which is worded the same way as what I quoted from the county commissioner redistricting provisions except that the word "shall" appears instead of the word "must" (in past perenial constitutional resolutions to reduce the size of the Legislature, the people drafting the resolution have replaced the "shall"s with "must"s, but I didn't do that in drafting suggested language for LD 494 (again, I didn't draft either of the floor amendments to the resolution).

For legislative redistricting at least, that provision basically treated like a guideline I think, like standard order balancing of regard for political subdivision lines with population equality, yada yada, yada, but is not really interpreted verbatum.  To be honest I've never thought much about that requirement as an arguably tight provision, and I consider myself to be pretty with it regarding the potential consequences of how legislation is worded.  The sentences following that about not having what Lewis Trondheim would call "additional county splits" (or rather "additional municipal splits") for municipalities having more than enough population than a whole district drew my notice much more when I first looked at the various provisions and that seems to be mostly followed for Legislative redistricting.  I say "mostly followed" because Old Town had too many people for one district in 1990 but most of the city was in with the Penobscot Indian Island Reservation, but most of the part of that reservation where people live is in Old Town according to the Department of Transportation and DeLorme's The Maine Atlas and Gazeteer (that's practically an authoritative source in Maine).  There are two overlapping types of "minor civil divisions" in Maine when you get into the boonies.  Redistricting generally uses the Census Bureau's county subdivisions but the fact that there is another kind, with a lot of townships ending in "West of the Easterly Line of the State" (WELS) can make things a little murky.

The "maximum number of whole districts" requirement has been in place since beginning with the 1983 redistricting (before that the constitutional provisions were too strict to be followed without seeming to violate OMOV), while the "don't split municipal remainders" rule was added after the 1983 redistricting.  Auburn and Portland had at least 2 "partial" House districts (exactly 2 in Auburn's case I know) from 1984 until 1994.

[Kevinstat]

So they passed the 2/3rds requirement for next time (when the Democrats will probably have control of the legislature again) but don't have to follow it this time?

Yes, and necessarily by a 2/3 margin as it is a constitutional amendment resolution.  In otherwords, the first part of what you wrote above (and the implied prohibition on redistricting between 2011 and 2021) couldn't have gone through without Democratic support in each chamber.  There were no roll calls but the divisions on final passage were 132-7 in the House (so 11 Representatives absent or excused with 1 vacancy) and 34-0 in the Senate (so 1 Senator absent or excused).

I tried to point that out to Janet Mills, the Vice Chair of the Maine Democratic Party (also the previous Attorney General and the attorney who represented the Democrats in the lawsuit), whom I have had a sporadic e-mail correspondence with going back to when the lawsuit was first announced.  She questioned me about the deadlines in House Amendment "A", thinking I might have written it, and I replied that I was surprised the wasn't more concerned about the "Beginning in 2021" part.  A couple days later, she posted me a link to House Amendment "B" and when I asked if she had anything to do with it she said that she had mentioned to my State Representative (a Republican) in the hallway (presumably of the State House) "that the earlier floor amendment was not consistent with the timeline in the underlying bill."  The next week, a couple weeks ago, after the bill had been finally passed in the House and just needed appropriations committee (for the potential referendum costs, presumably, as the moveup in redistricting isn't until 2021) and final Senate approval, I forwarded her a copy of an e-mail I had sent to my two Legislators and my Republican cyberfriend I mentioned earlier in this thread who now works in the Governor's office that had my proposed amendment to the resolution attached.  In that e-mail to Janet Mills, I wrote the following, with italics added here (not in the e-mail) for emphasis:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I haven't heard back from her since then.

Yeesh, that's pathetic.

What specifically, may I ask?  Not that I disagrre, but I'm not sure who or what of what I recounted there that you are calling pathetic.  Am I included?  It's okay if I am.  I tried my best to create a positive outcome, that's all I can say.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

No, it's the sheer level of naivete and incompetence that the Democrats in the legislature are showing by letting the Republicans roll over them.

[jimrtex]

There is always the issue whether a state constitution may bind action by a legislature with regard to congressional districts.  This is under current litigation in Florida.  The Supreme Court precedents are where a constitution provided a role for the governor (through the veto power) or the people (through the referendum) in the legislative process.

What are the (U.S. I assume you mean) Supreme Court precedents in those cases?

Davis v Hildebrandt 241 US 565 (1916) was a case from Ohio where the referendum power was used to overturn a redistricting law.  It is slightly ambiguous, because Congress in 1911 had passed legislation that indicated that the referendum was properly part of the redistricting process (ie a referendum could be seen as part of the manner legislated by Congress, rather than part of the "legislature").

Hawke v. Smith , 253 U.S. 221 (1920) is somewhat related in that it was the (attempted) use of the referendum to ratify a constitutional amendment.  It is helpful to understand the delineation between "State", "State legislature", and "State legislative process" in the US Constitution.  State legislative process is not used in the US Constitution, but in some cases the US Constitution has been interpreted as meaning that when "legislature" implies "passing legislation".   When a legislature ratifies a constitutional amendment it is not "legislating" and the Constitution also provides an alternative body, which Congress may choose for ratification.

Smiley v Holm 285 U.S. 355 (1932) was a case from Minnesota where a governor vetoed a redistricting plan, and the legislature then passed a resolution saying that it was in force.

In both Davis v Hildebrant and Smiley v Holm, the state constitutions had added elements in in the law-making process beyond the legislature proper.  Presumably, this would also include all the constitutional provisions that control the legislative process.  For example, in Texas, the congressional redistricting law was passed in the special session.  Only matters put on the agenda by the governor may be considered in special session.  So had the governor not added congressional redistricting to the call, any legislation on the matter would be void.

Where it gets interesting is whether a state constitution may provide special process rules for redistricting legislation (eg requiring a 2/3 vote; or restricting legislation to one year per decade; and the content of that legislation (eg minimal town splitting and racial considerations).

Note that "prescribing the manner of congressional elections" does not necessarily mean that the legislature (or legislative process) must draw the lines, but could mean that the legislature prescribes a separate body draw the lines.  But does this mean that the California Constitution may prescribe that delegation?

I had thought Growe v Emison, 507 U.S. 25 (1993) might apply, because there was a gubernatorial veto there, but the legislature had passed a bill that the state court had already provisionally imposed.  The case is mainly about the role of federal and state courts and legislature in redistricting, and would be useful in understanding why the federal district court in Maine provided an opportunity for the Maine supreme court to act.  Conceivably, someone could make a claim in state court that the ending in "3" statute is unconstitutional because it has resulted in unconstitutional congressional districts, and that the state court should remedy this by changing the schedule in the law.  The federal court might stand by while the Maine courts interpreted Maine statutes, so long as the overall deadline is met.

[Kevinstat]

All commission members named except for the designed-to-be-neutral member.

I may have posted this earlier, but here is the joint order establishing this commission.  It's modeled after the Apportionment Commission for legislative redistricting (and congressional and county commissioner redistricting beginning in 2021 under the proposed amendment) established in the Maine Constitution, Article IV, Part Third, Section 1-A.

[jimrtex]

All commission members named except for the designed-to-be-neutral member.

I may have posted this earlier, but here is the joint order establishing this commission.  It's modeled after the Apportionment Commission for legislative redistricting (and congressional and county commissioner redistricting beginning in 2021 under the proposed amendment) established in the Maine Constitution, Article IV, Part Third, Section 1-A.

What is a "Joint Order"?  What is an HP?  (vs an HB)?  Does the legislature have the authority to call itself into special session, or does that require the governor?

[Kevinstat]

All commission members named except for the designed-to-be-neutral member.

I may have posted this earlier, but here is the joint order establishing this commission.  It's modeled after the Apportionment Commission for legislative redistricting (and congressional and county commissioner redistricting beginning in 2021 under the proposed amendment) established in the Maine Constitution, Article IV, Part Third, Section 1-A.

What is a "Joint Order"?  What is an HP?  (vs an HB)?  Does the legislature have the authority to call itself into special session, or does that require the governor?

See the Glossary (pages 117 through 145) of (and I'm showing how I accessed it here so you'll know where it comes from) Maine State Legislature -> PUBLICATIONS -> Legislators' Handbook (PDF), which is the 15th edition from October 2008, the most recent version I've seen (although it wouldn't surprise me if there's a new one).  For an older glossary (from the 118th Legislature which lasted from December 1996 to December 1998) in .htm format go to Maine State Legislature -> PUBLICATIONS -> Path of Legislation -> Glossary.  The link at the bottom of that older glossary to the Table of Contents to the Maine Legislators' Handbook yields "We're sorry, but the page you requested cannot be found".  I was about to recommend the older one which I thought was much easier to reference but if you set Acrobat reader to "show side-by-side pages with continuous scrolling" than the more recent PDF version becomes fairly convenient.

HP, which is not in either glossary, stands for House Paper, and HPs (the 's' at the end is just added be me; it may not be correct Maine legislative lingo) along with SPs (Senate Papers) can be LDs (Legislative Documents, which propose public laws, private and special laws, resolves and constitutional resolutions; see the glossary), joint orders (see the glossary), joint resolutions (largely sentiments or "memorializing" (urging) somebody or some body like Congress to do something) and possibly other stuff.  Single chamber orders, resolutions (which are infrequent; the last one proposed was an HR in 2007, and that one was killed) and sentiments have their own paper types.

I'll have to get to research your question about special sessions later.  You can check out the Maine Constitution

[jimrtex]

So in this case they the legislature didn't have time to change the law, but the Joint Order is creating the commission to prepare (possible) legislation that the legislature may enact when they come back into session?

See articles IV.1, V.8, and V.13 in constitution.  So it can  be either.

A curiosity of IV.1 is that would imply that a 3rd political party could block the legislature from meeting in special session ("majority of each party")

[Kevinstat]

A curiosity of IV.1 is that would imply that a 3rd political party could block the legislature from meeting in special session ("majority of each party")

Interesting.  I hadn't thought about that.  I'd read that section before but hadn't remembered it and I had to get going somewhere but wanted to post what I had written earlier today.  The Independent in the Legislature right now used to be a member of the Green Independent Party* and may have been the de facto Green candidate in his district in 2010 (as well as perhaps the de facto Republican candidate as the Republicans didn't replace their withdrawn candidate in July when they could have; not that they had any chance in that district).  I don't know why he left the party but I based on what I know about him I could see him rejoining it.  The way the law reads now (and which won't likely be changed unless and until the Democrats have a trifecta or a legislative supermajority) the Greens shouldn't have any trouble keeping ballot access for the near future at least.

*The Independent in the Maine Green Party's name is there because their candidate for Governor in 1998 (also in 2006 and Cobb's VP runningmate in 2004) used that designation when the party had lost official ballot status by Nader's <5% showing in 1996 but were suing to get it back; the law then required 5% for Governor or President in the last general election, with the Greens emphasizing the "or" and the state (which seems to me to match the likely intent of the law) assuming that it meant whichever of those two offices was up for election in the last general election; the state prevailed).

[Kevinstat]

So in this case they the legislature didn't have time to change the law, ...

Well, I think the Legislature could have passed a joint order (with a simple majority vote in each chamber) after the oral ruling authorizing the State and Local Government committee (Maine's main committees are joint committees) to report out a bill to reapportion the state and could probably have even spelled out the plan, and that the plan would be enacted notwithstanding Maine's 2/3 rule, in the joint order, and the Republican majority of that committee could probably have reported out the bill in one or two meetings and had the bill signed before the session adjourned, and if no people's veto was initiated by 5 p.m. on the first business day on or after the fifth day after the session adjourned, the three-judge panel would probably have dropped jurisdiction in the case (otherwise they would presumbably drop jurisdiction if and when the requesite number of signatures for the people's veto were determined not to have been collected by 5 p.m. on the first business day on or after the 90th day after the session adjourned).  See IV-3.17 of the Maine Constitution.

For perhaps a better idea of what is being done in Maine in response to the court order, watch the first 18 1/2 minutes of the Redistricting/Good Will-Hinkley episode of the Maine Public Broadcasting Network's Maine Watch program.

... but the Joint Order is creating the commission to prepare (possible) legislation that the legislature may enact when they come back into session?

It's pretty clear that there will be a special session, and legislation will almost certainly be proposed.  Whether or not legislation is passed, and whether the legislation is passed with a 2/3 majority or not, is not clear.  The Democratic Vice Chair on the Maine Watch segment tried to pin the Republican Senate Majority Leader, who will be on the commission, about that, and the latter seemed to succeed in making friendly overtures without pinning down her own party.  On June 17, the Portland Press Herald reported that a special election in Cape Elizabeth to replace the State Representative who had been elected to the Senate in a special election in May, which the town councillors had requested be held on November 8, 2011 to coincide with a statewide election (there's always something on the ballot), had been scheduled instead for August 16 on the grounds that, as Cape Elizabeth's Town Manager relayed, "As the Maine Legislature will apparently be having a brief special session in September to resolve congressional reapportionment, Governor LePage believes it is inappropriate to wait until November for the special election.  His office today contacted us to discuss the need to move forward with an election as soon as possible."  Everything I've read or heard since then seems to back up that there will be a special session and that it will probably be in September.

[jimrtex]

I was wondering about where the 2/3 rule came from.  I don't think there can be any presumption that any part of the current procedure is valid.   If the legislature passes a bill and the governor signs it, are the Maine courts going to overturn it?

So Mills was not only the Maine AG, she is vice chair of the Democratic Party, and was the lawyer whose arguments the federal court ridiculed?

I think the folks on the panel need to be reminded that it was their State's governor who is the eponym for gerrymandering.

What is the reason that Androscoggin is in the 2nd?

[Verily]

What is the reason that Androscoggin is in the 2nd?

Consolidating the Francophone/French ancestry voters in the 2nd. Lewiston-Auburn has a long-established French population, much higher than its relatively southerly and border-distant location would suggest. IIRC, Androscoggin is one of the few counties in the country that is plurality French in ancestry.

Edit: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oQZ_n2oOa9o/TYFV9ACpS9I/AAAAAAAAVTg/TIRyT2QpYXw/s1600/map%2Bof%2Bancestry.gif

Plurality French-Canadian, specifically. I think it's mostly industrial workers who immigrated from Quebec over the past century in Lewiston as opposed to descendants of colonial French residents up in Aroostook, but the community of interest is still there.

[Kevinstat]

I was wondering about where the 2/3 rule came from.  I don't think there can be any presumption that any part of the current procedure is valid.   If the legislature passes a bill and the governor signs it, are the Maine courts going to overturn it?

If the legislature passes and the Governor signs a bill without a 2/3 majority (presumably it would be a Republican bill) and doesn't even reference the 2/3 rule (either to get rid of it or to "notwithstand" it, like the Democrats feinted at doing in 2003 but if they'd done that the State House plan would probably have gone to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court which hadn't gone well for them in 1993), the Democrats would probably challenge it in state court, not necessarily because they would expect to win (although it wouldn't surprise me if they did expect that) but to try to use the trial to win in the court of public opinion.  It seemed to me at the time that that was part of what they were doing in their intervention in the federal lawsuit, which may be partly why the three-judge court was so harsh in their rebuttals of the various claims the Democrats made.  I haven't heard anyone other than you, jimrtex, mention how unimpressed the judges revealed themselves to be with the Democrats' arguments, so it may be that the Democrats would feel they woul have nothing to lose by suing (other than money and blaim for the state having to spend more money - also not something I've heard mentioned regarding the federal case, like how the plaintiff's attorneys fees the state will most likely end up paying might have been less if not for the Democrats' intervention, what with the state defendents agreeing with the plaintiffs on the essential point).

The Republicans might look silly for giving the Democrats a not totally ridiculous avenue for challenge by not simply adding a notwithstanding clause (which wouldn't need to be something that was interted into any statutes (the Democrats withdrawn 2003 move wouldn't have), and I don't see the problem with notwithstanding a statute that didn't need to be nothwishtood when that otherwise potentially confusing notwithstanding clause isn't goint into the statutes and only applies to the staturory change iteslf).

So Mills was not only the Maine AG, she is vice chair of the Democratic Party, and was the lawyer whose arguments the federal court ridiculed?

Yes.  She was also a State Representative from 2002 to 2008 (she was reelected in 2008 while simultaneously campaiging for her caucus's nomination for AG, but declined to take the oath of office after winning that nomination as the would apparently have prevented her from serving as AG), District Attorney for Androscoggin, Franklin and Oxford counties from I'm not sure when to 1994 or early 1995 and ran for Congress in ME-02 in 1994 when Olympia Snowe ran for the Senate, finishing third in a seven-candidate Democratic primary to Baldacci and Libby Mitchell's husband Jim, who had Bangor listed as his residence in that primary even though Libby was running (sucessfully, it turned out) for reelection to the State House in Vassalboro which was and still is in ME-01 (although I could see it being moved to ME-02 this year).  Jim Mitchell has also been Kennebec County's Judge of Probate (an elected position in Maine, unlike regular judges and justices) since like forever although there might have been a gap around his 1994 campaign for Congress that I'm not aware of.  I've heard he was actually the favorite in that primary by most pundits.  Baldacci was one of the most fiscally conservative Democrats in the Maine Senate back then.

I think the folks on the panel need to be reminded that it was their State's governor who is the eponym for gerrymandering.

And votes from the District of Maine (mostly Democratic-Republican in it's later pre-statehood years I've read) could possibly have played a key roll in Elbridge Gerry (a Democratic-Republican) being elected Governor of normally-Federalist Massachusetts in one or both of his sucessful races in 1810 and 1811.

[Kevinstat]

What is the reason that Androscoggin is in the 2nd?

Consolidating the Francophone/French ancestry voters in the 2nd. Lewiston-Auburn has a long-established French population, much higher than its relatively southerly and border-distant location would suggest. IIRC, Androscoggin is one of the few counties in the country that is plurality French in ancestry.

Edit: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oQZ_n2oOa9o/TYFV9ACpS9I/AAAAAAAAVTg/TIRyT2QpYXw/s1600/map%2Bof%2Bancestry.gif

Plurality French-Canadian, specifically. I think it's mostly industrial workers who immigrated from Quebec over the past century in Lewiston as opposed to descendants of colonial French residents up in Aroostook, but the community of interest is still there.

There were Franco-American (probably predominently Québécois like Lewiston) communities in the first district as well though.  Biddeford, Sanford, Waterville (which was only moved into the second district in 2003).  These southern Maine communities don't seem as Franco now but back in the early 60s when Maine lost its third district they would have been.  Of course a district streching from York County to the St. John Valley and including the Lewiston area and Waterville would have been very ugly, and you might have had proably have to split multiple counties to get the district to stretch all the way and do things like take advantage of the Aroostook-Somerset county boundary where few if any people live.  The Aroostook-Piscataquis county boundary which seems almost as remote was taken advantage of in a State Senate district combing Piscataquis County with much of the St. John Valley from 1968 until 1972 (Maine didn't use redrawn Senate districts following Reynolds v. Sims until 1968, and the population variances in the 1968-1972 districts wouldn't pass muster nowadays (they just had to be between 27,000 and 33,000 in population, with no set size of the Senate)).

The main reason I think that Lewiston is in the second district is that the Republicans, who controlled the Legislature and the Governorship at the time and had just retaken every big prize except for Ed Muskie's Senate seat (which wouln't be up until 1964) in 1960 thought that by keeping York and Cumberland counties in a separate district from Androscoggin County (and Oxford County may leaned Democratic by Maine standards back then), and adding them respectively to the midcoast and eastern Maine, which included the St. John Valley but also heavily Republican southern Aroostook County and probably fairly Republican Presque Isle-Caribou area, they would most likely hold both districts.  I'm pretty sure there wasn't a 2/3 rule anywhere on the books back then or any history of bipartisanship (except that the small but more cohesive Democratic caucus might have occasionally have in a position of power between rival factions of Republicans in the Legislature, I've read there was a major divide between the Republicans in the 1959-60 Legislature when the Governor (who died late in 1959) was a Democrat and the Democrats actually had enough seats in both the House and the Senate to sustain a veto), and even if there had been a 2/3 the Republicans had regained supermajority status in both chambers in the 1960 elections.

For a totally wild experience scroll down this table of partisan tallies in the Legislature from 1911 to the present (it doesn't start in the best place as base on what I've read the tallies in the 1900s (the decade) were similar to those in the later 1910s and 1920s), although I don't think the Democrats had gooseeggs in the Senate back then (they had at at least one point in the late 19th Century).  Maine didn't like Barry Goldwater very much.  And we had a "big box" where voters could check one box to vote for all of one party's candidates from ? (before that may have been back when the parties printed their own ballots) through 1970.  Before 1960 we elected all offices besides the President and Vice President in September, so the Presidential coattails effect wasn't as great, nor was the effect of others' coattails on the Presidential race (Ike's percentage margin in 1956, when the Democrats reelected Governor Muskie and took a congressional seat, was second only to Calvin Coolidge's IIRC).

Anyway, the 1961 congressional redistricting plan worked for the Republicans in the first election in 1962 (although just barely in the second district, which may have caused the Repulibcan incumbent to decide to end his carreer in a glorious campaign against Ed Muskie for the Senate in 1964 rather than risk losing to the Democratic challenger that nearly upset him in 1962), but by 1967 (after the 1966 election) both seats were in Democratic hands.  Republicans held both seats again from 1975 until 1991 but by then it was clear that both seats could be won by either party.  Now (unlike in 1961) it seems to be in the Republicans' best interest to maximize the partisan differential between the two districts as their chances of winning both of them under any lines are probably less than them losing both, but we'll have to see what they do or if the tradition since 1983 of bipartisan or Supreme Judicial Court redistricting is kept (from Senate Majority Leader Debra Plowman's comments on the MPBN program I think it's unlikely the Republicans will allow the decision to go to the courts, but they might be willing to give a bit to get Democratic support to blunt bad PR over a partisan redistricting).

[Kevinstat]

Maine Democratic activist and blogger Gerald Weinand has been following the redistricting process on his site Dirigo Blue (Redistricting tag).  He's started a redistricting contest that finally got me to learn to save maps with Dave's Redistricting App (I hadn't realized how easy it is).

My proposed entry (in the "Official Congressional Districts" category) moves Unity UT (Unity Township), Albion, China, Vassalboro and Rome from ME-01 to ME-02, while moving Oakland and Wayne from ME-02 to ME-01.  ME-01 would have 3 more people than ME-02.

Also, the Governor has called a special session for September 27 to consider a congressional redistricting plan.

[Kevinstat]

Here's a map of my entry showing almost all of the boundary area:



I didn't want to lose detail by zooming out to the next level.  There aren't any surprises on either end I promise!

And here's a map of the towns I have moving from one district to the other in my proposed plan:

[jimrtex]

Here's a map of my entry showing almost all of the boundary area:



I didn't want to lose detail by zooming out to the next level.  There aren't any surprises on either end I promise!

And here's a map of the towns I have moving from one district to the other in my proposed plan:

So the negative would that you are infringing on Waterville, while the traditional divide in  Kennebec is between Waterville and Augusta?  Was Waterville in the southern district at one time?

Any problems with splitting Kennebec in 5 pieces?  And what is the reason for keeping the 3 towns SW of Gardiner with the norther district?  Ties to Lewiston?

[JohnnyLongtorso]

My solution is just to move Sidney from ME-01 to ME-02. That makes the population roughly equal (127/-126). Why make things complicated?

[Kevinstat]

So the negative would that you are infringing on Waterville

That is true.  Oakland is in the same High School area (I say that rather than school districts as there have been a lot of mergers in the last few years that haven't resulted in High Schools being closed, although that has also started to happen) as Belgrade and Sidney (and Rome, but Rome's smaller than Oakland).  My plan also reunites the Lawrence High School area (Albion, Benton, Clinton and Fairfield) and the Maranacook High School area (Manchester, Mount Vernon, Readfield and Wayne, although a lot of kids from Fayette which I've left in ME-02 and which hasn't had a set high school go to Maranacook, or at least did until recently (I'm not sure if Fayette joined in with the new Jay-Livermore Falls middle and high school merger)).  That wasn't what I was specifically going for when I came up with this plan, although I did eye Wayne as a town to move "the other way" in exploring possible "close to least change" plans and I think my desire to reunite the Maranacook area had something to do with that.
 

Was Waterville in the southern district at one time?

Yes, from the 1962 elections until the 2004 elections.  The part of Kennebec County that was in the second district from the 1994 though 2002 elections only shares Wayne (which my plan moves back to the first district) with the part of Kennebec County that's now in the second district.

Any problems with splitting Kennebec in 5 pieces?

Wow, I hadn't thought of that, at least not that way (I knew that there were four distinct portions of Kennebec County in the second district under my plan).  The county is split into 4 pieces now (ME-01 portion, Oakland to Clinton portion of ME-02, Wayne+Fayette, and Monmouth Litchfield).

And what is the reason for keeping the 3 towns SW of Gardiner with the norther district?  Ties to Lewiston?

That's just one town, Litchfield, actually (which has three census block groups).  And yes, I have heard (or rather read) of the State Senator from Litchfield in 2003 talk about how he thought his town had ties to Lewiston (it had been in a district with Lisbon, Livermore Falls, Turner, etc.) when he said that he wished Litchfield wasn't boing moved unto the Gardiner-Winthrop area Senate District (he still voted for the plan as he thought it was fair; he didn't run for reelection and soon after moved out of state I've heard).  A less open to interpretation reason is that Litchfield is in the same High School area as Sabattus and Wales in Androscoggin County.

I've submitted my entry in the contest, but I haven't stopped crunching numbers (as if that would ever happen ).  I was starting to settle on that plan as "my plan," but your comments have helped convince me to press on with an eye toward finding something better.  (If I'm moving towns around but think I already have my plan than I'm less likely to find something that contradicts that).

[Kevinstat]

My solution is just to move Sidney from ME-01 to ME-02. That makes the population roughly equal (127/-126). Why make things complicated?

Moving just Vassalboro yields a closer result (-5/6, or -5.5/5.5 if you're me or -5/5 if you're Lewis Trondheim (he considers the fractional average district population rounded either up or down to be ideal district populations; I use the pure, not necessarily integer average populations per district; not that I favor chopping people into halves or other fractions, mind you).  Moving Sidney, Unity UT (Unity Township) and (in Knox County) Isle au Haut from ME-01 to ME-02 yeilds 10.5/-10.5 .  Most of the residents of Unity Township probably live on route 139 or dead end roads off of it and would have to go through Benton or Unity (both in ME-02) to get anywhere else.  And Isle au Haut is connected by public ferry only to Stonington in Hancock County.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

My solution is just to move Sidney from ME-01 to ME-02. That makes the population roughly equal (127/-126). Why make things complicated?

Moving just Vassalboro yields a closer result (-5/6, or -5.5/5.5 if you're me or -5/5 if you're Lewis Trondheim (he considers the fractional average district population rounded either up or down to be ideal district populations; I use the pure, not necessarily integer average populations per district; not that I favor chopping people into halves or other fractions, mind you).  Moving Sidney, Unity UT (Unity Township) and (in Knox County) Isle au Haut from ME-01 to ME-02 yeilds 10.5/-10.5 .  Most of the residents of Unity Township probably live on route 139 or dead end roads off of it and would have to go through Benton or Unity (both in ME-02) to get anywhere else.  And Isle au Haut is connected by public ferry only to Stonington in Hancock County.

Even better. I figured since Kennebec County was the only one split in the current map, it would be best to maintain that, so I didn't try moving anything around elsewhere.

[Kevinstat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source

[Kevinstat]

And the proposals are out.

Coverage (with maps shown or with links to maps provided) at:

The Bangor Daily News online

The Portland Press Herald online (the links on that article show clearer maps)

As Maine Goes (conservative Maine political web site)

Dirigo Blue (liberal/Democratic Maine political web site)

[Kevinstat]

My entry won in the "Official Congressional Districts" category of the Dirige Blue Congressional Redistricting Contest, but the way.  I've won a polo shirt or any item of equal or lesser value at that web site's store.