[LWVNM Action] Preliminary summary of the redistricting process

[Richard Mason]

*Waiting for the Governor's Action on the NM House & Senate Maps*




*Fair Districts For New Mexico (FDNM) Summary of the Redistricting SessionA
Tale of Two Chambers   updated 12/28/21*

Below was the request of FDNM to the Legislature concerning the special
session on redistricting:

A.    Select the Citizen Redistricting Committee (CRC) maps which best
balance:
        compliance with the Voting Rights Act; freedom from partisan
gerrymandering; protection of
        communities of interest; adherence to governmental boundaries
including Tribal boundaries; and no
        favoring incumbents.

B.     If the Legislature amends the maps sent to them by the CRC they
should provide detailed

         explanation of why they amended the maps. This should any changes
made to maps since the

         maps could not legally be amended. (We were told by the Senate
leadership to file an IPRA request. To paraphrase journalist Gwyneth
Doland, - *that’s a hard no.*

C.     During the Special Session on Redistricting all legislative meetings
should follow the

          letter and spirit of the Open Meetings Act. The public’s business
should be conducted in

          full public view. The actions of the public bodies should be
taken openly and all

          deliberations made open to the public.



*Note: Throughout the cycle from the New Mexico First Task Force in 2020,
the passing of the Redistricting Act in 2021, the appointments to the CRC
and throughout the CRC process, Fair Districts for New Mexico advocated for
and supported the inclusion of Native American voices. CRC Senate Concept
maps A-1 and C-1 both included Native American consensus. We are pleased
that the New Mexico House and Senate final maps include Native American
consensus. Any criticism of the process should not be construed as
criticism of that inclusion.*




*Here is where the redistricting stands at the end of the session – updated
12/28/21 Please note Fair Districts for New Mexico is interested in a fair
and transparent process and does not support or oppose any specific map*

*HOUSE*

The House initiated the NM House and PEC maps.  The House filed all CRC
maps for both the House and Public Education Commission.
* HB8* was based on CRC House map E-1, but incorporated Native American
consensus that had not been reached before the CRC adjourned. HB 8 has
passed both chambers and is on the Governor’s desk. CRC Map E-1 was
evaluated by Princeton Gerrymander Project and Dr. Cottrell at the
University of Georgia and found to be free of partisan bias. Since the CRC
was barred by law from looking at partisan data and past election results,
Research & Polling and the CRC attorneys did review the CRC map E-1 for
compliance with the Voting Rights Act.  They determined it did comply.
*HB9* for the Public Education Commission is based on CRC Concept E-1  passed
both chambers with minor changes explained by the sponsor. It has been
signed by the Governor.
*The House passed SB1* – Congressional Redistricting that came over from
the Senate. It has been signed by the Governor.
*The House passed SB2* – The Senate map that came over from the Senate. It
was agreed that each chamber would respect the other chamber’s map.

*Fair Districts for NM is pleased with *

*the respect given to the CRC maps in the House and for the transparency in
the redistricting process. *


*SENATE *The Senate was charged with initiating the legislation for New
Mexico Senate and Congressional maps*. *We are displeased that the Senate
did not file CRC maps for either the NM Senate or Congress. At a minimum*, *the
public had a right to see these introduced.

*   SB1 – *Congressional map was written behind closed doors and had to be
revised after resistance from the public, including some of the Pueblos. It
passed both the Senate and House and has been signed by the Governor. It
most closely resembles CRC Concept map H, but the Senate did not explain
what they changed.
*SB2* – Senate District map was also written behind closed doors in the
Democratic caucus and in our analysis was mainly devised for incumbency
protection. In fact, at hearings many legislators said as much. It was
stated that SB2 was based upon CRC Concept C-1 and the sponsors bragged it
contained 68% of CRC Concept C-1. (In most schools that is a “D”.) The
Senate noted that SB2 contained Native American consensus. That is true,
but they failed to mention that both CRC maps A-1 and C-1 had included
Native American consensus.
In the Senate Judiciary Committee a substitute for SB2 was proposed that
eliminated the last incumbent pairing, but in the process altered Native
American consensus. Luckily it was overturned with a Senate floor
substitute. *SB2 has passed both chambers and is on the desk of the
Governor.*


*   In summary, Fair Districts disapproves of the lack of transparency in
the Senate process for the Congressional and Senate District maps. In
addition, Senate Judiciary cut off remote public input at its hearing on
the substitute for SB2. Also, Senate Rules did not allow remote public
comment **during its hearing on HB8 – House districts. Perhaps they were
concerned that people might point out the contrast on the transparency in
the House process and the lack of transparency in the Senate process.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.swcp.com/pipermail/action/attachments/20211229/244e50cc/attachment.htm>