Dec 31
Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics from Rolly
2007 at 1:44 am | posted by Rep. Craig Frank 36 comments
Utah State Republican Party Chairman Stan Lockhart responded yesterday morning (12/30/07) in the Tribune to last week’s little blurb by Paul Rolly (Gerrymandering Protects Legislators from the Consequences of Their Actions, 12/23/07).
In his commentary, Stan points out some of the dilluted and misleading statistics Mr. Rolly used to try to flush out the perceived gerrymandering , which allegedly took place during the 2001 redistricting process. A process, which according to Paul, disadvantaged a number of Democrats from overtaking their political counterparts during their bids in subsequent General Elections or never give them the opportunity to run in the first place.
Here’s a couple of other ideas to chew on regarding the results of “unfair” redistricting practices (supplied by someone other than me):
December 31st, 2007 at 8:16 am
Dang good analysis!
December 31st, 2007 at 8:36 am
Thanks Monica, I thought you’d like it!
December 31st, 2007 at 10:01 am
For the 4 federal races in the 2006 election Democrats got 43% of the vote. This is a much better indicator of electoral strength than the legislative races where Republicans have rigged things so badly that in many districts they regularly run unopposed.
Why don’t you or Lockhart even attempt to defend the clearly screwed up political boundaries Republicans forced on the rest of us in 2001? You obviously tried to rig the process in favor of your party with the absurd lines that were drawn as described in the Rolly column. You can dispute his numbers all you want but a simple look at the map proves Rolly was right.
Most Republicans are good people as Lockhart argued in his piece but your gerrymandering in 2001 was the work of a people willing to corrupt our democracy for their own political benefit. Good people do rotten things sometimes as you guys so often show us.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:15 am
[...] UPDATE: Rep. Craig Frank and Stan Lockhart are pretending to prove Rolly wrong. They attempt to mess with numbers to show that the silly district boundaries Republicans stuck us with in 2001 aren’t benefitting their party. Their argument is that because Republicans run unopposed in so many districts we can’t argue that there are enough Democratic voters in Utah who are being hurt by the corruption they perpetrated on our state after the last census. [...]
December 31st, 2007 at 10:23 am
Jeremy,
Republicans ran unopposed mainly in Utah County and other strong Republican areas. Gerrymandering had nothing to do with this. No amount of anti-gerrymandering would make those areas less Republican and therefore more attractive to Democrats. You would still have one-party races in those areas, with or without gerrymandering.
FWIW, I think the Democrats’ decision not to run candidates in those districts makes perfect sense, but that doesn’t justify their fuzzy math when calculating appropriate apportionment.
Why should federal races determine the make up of the state legislature? Why not base the legislative allocation on the results of the presidential election? You’re assuming that people can’t vote one way at the federal level and another way at the state level.
And why use 2006 as the benchmark? Why not use other years such as 2004 and 2002? Is it because Democrats did not do as well in those years?
If Democrats really did get 43% of votes in legislative races and only had about 25% of the seats, then Rolly would have a point. Bottom line is that they didn’t.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:49 am
Paul Rolly = Chief Disinformation Officer of the Democratic Party
December 31st, 2007 at 11:22 am
Monica,
You still don’t have an answer for why we needed the screwy district lines that conveniently benefit only your party. The turnout numbers can be fudged one way or the other but the fact remains that Republicans corrupted our system for their own political gain in the 2001 redistricting. One only need look at the map to see how obvious the gerrymandering really is. The Wall Street Journal saw it and described it as one of the most blatant examples of gerrymandering ever. Defending this as being anything other than an obvious power grab is just silly.
Monica = Defender of Corruption in the Republican party
December 31st, 2007 at 11:45 am
What about that blurb from the Wall Street Journal that called Utah’s 2001 plan one of the worst on record when it comes to blatant power grabs? And that’s from a newspaper with a conservative bent.
Even Sen. Bob Bennett called it the worst example of gerrymandering he’d ever seen.
How can you call it a “perceived” gerrymandering that “allegedly” took place in 2001? Stop trying to play the liberal media bias card. You gerrymandered. Dems do the same thing in states where they have a majority.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:56 am
I went to many of those redistricting meetings and I’m here to tell you they were a sham! The main reason they gave us for gerrymandering the districts was because rural and urban needs/issues were in fact one in the same. WHAT? One and the same? Nothing could be further from the truth and anyone with an objective, non-partisan mindset will tell you the same. The Republican machine in Utah is interested in only one thing – holding onto power so that they can continue to TRY and set national precedents (vouchers). I hope they get what they deserve in the next election!
December 31st, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Jeremy = Defender of Disinformation in the Salt Lake Tribune
Explain how the numbers as presented in Rep. Frank’s blog are “fudged”. Saying something is fudged doesn’t make it fudged. You have to back it up.
The Wall Street Journal was referring to Utah’s congressional boundaries, not the legislative boundaries. Their editorial had a map of the CONGRESSIONAL district boundaries.
The issue here, per Rolly’s column, is gerrymandering of LEGISLATIVE districts, not congressional districts.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I’m from Tooele. How is it fair that the county and city are split among various and wide ranging districts? How can my Senator or Rep. represent me and other citizens of the county and city to the best of their ability when they also have to represent other citizens in different cities and counties? Nephi and Tooele might have different interests that do not necessarily agree, how can those interest be properly represented?
Gerrymandering might not have helped the GOP as much as Rolly claims but the subversion of democracy still exists. Quite frankly such politicking should be left to the Russia, Pakistan, and other so called democracies.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:29 pm
And still don’t even attempt to explain the insane district lines Republicans drew. Sorry Monica but you don’t have any answers…just bitterness at anyone calling Republicans out on this clear example of corrupt political opportunism.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Regardless of how you feel about Rolly’s numbers, the denial of the 2001 gerrymander, and your perceived “what harm does it do” attitude toward redistricting in general is at best absurd and at worst a poor understanding of electoral dynamics from a “Rep.”
What you’ve written here is no analysis at all, but rather one of the most misleading characterizations of Utah’s redistricting history I have ever come across.
Let’s take a look first at the Wall Street Journal article mentioned above (disregarding the foolish notion that there are two different types of redistricitng asserted by the commenter above — there aren’t). From the article: “The state’s GOP legislature carved up his urban Salt Lake City district and mixed city neighborhoods with 14 rural counties. The GOP plan moved 684,000 people from one district to another, while competing plans moved fewer than one-tenth as many. Democrats won 41% of the vote in House races in Utah last year, but next year they’ll struggle to get even one of the state’s three House seats.” What was their source? Voting data, and the actual district maps compared with 2000 census data. Are we to disregard the comparison made here, based on actual data, in order to prop up your assertion that the gerrymander was only “perceived”? Seems like quite a stretch. Lies, damn lies indeed Mr. Frank. But even if Rolly’s numbers are wrong, your claims here are a far cry an accurate portrayal of events, in what appears to be an attempt to make noble the efforts of Republicans in 2001.
You argue further that even if we so foolish accept that the gerrymander happened despite your claims otherwise, it was not harmful in the least. This statement further expands on what I can only assume is a complete lack of understanding of the political ramifications of redistricting, and it’s effect on voters. As an example, consider a primary election. Primaries produce (by nature) very polarized candidates. Such candidates are responsive only to the leadership of the state party, not their particular district. Gerrymandering exacerbates this situation in two ways. First, it essentially eliminates general elections from the process. Even if primaries produce extreme candidates, the prospect of a general election would (in theory) have a moderating effect in the absence of gerrymandering. But now, the primary winner becomes the Legislator/Congressperson. And that representative must only satisfy the median voter within his or her party, rather than the median voter of the district. A remedial understanding of gerrymandering strategy is to place your party’s candidates in districts with a safe margin of victory (+ 60%), while putting your opponent in a district “packed” with super-majority support (+75%). So, in both kinds of districts, there is no need to respond to the minority party. In these districts, representatives need only satisfy the median voter of their own majority bloc.
If you take a look at the district maps post “perceived gerrymander” you will see that it is not simply perception, but a reality, and a strategy the national Republican party has admitted as a key plan for 2002. Except in Utah, you say, where it was done for more noble and a-political reasons?
Ludicrous.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:15 pm
It may also be useful for readers looking for a better understanding than what you provide here to simply look at the map:
http://se16.utahsenate.org/perl/spage/distmapa.pl
December 31st, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Statistics aside, to say that the districts weren’t gerrymandered would be a lie, a damn lie at that. As Jeremy said, the maps tell the story. Could you explain these maps, 9, 30, 45?
December 31st, 2007 at 1:37 pm
The constitutional requirements for congressional redistricting are that districts must be (1) compact; (2) contiguous; and (3) equal in population. Utah’s redistricting meets these requirements, which is why it was not challenged in court. Note that there is no requirement that the majority political party in charge of the redistricting go out of its way to advantage its political opponents.
In states where Democrats control the process, they draw lines to benefit the Democratic Party; in states where Republicans control, they draw lines to benefit the Republican Party. Within the limitations imposed by the Supreme Court (see above), thus hath it always been.
I’m fascinated with the complaints that the 2001 lines spoiled the 1991 lines, which were protested just as vociferously and in exactly the same terms then.
g
December 31st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I’ve noticed that none of you are willing to defend Rolly’s stats and methodology. It’s encouraging that you’re not willing to defend one of your own when he’s wrong. At least that’s a start.
To claim, as Rolly does, that Democrats should have 43% (or 42%, or 41%, the number changes everytime he brings up this issue) of the Legislature is, using your words, ludicrous, fooolish, a lie, a damn lie, corrupt, oportunistic, absurd, insane, silly, etc.
Before we start the name calling, we should at least deal with reliable data instead of Rolly’s data. And if there is gerrymandering, we should quantify it without overstating it.
December 31st, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I didn’t know gerrymandering was quantifiable, isn’t it something that either happened or didn’t. If you disagree with his stats and methodology, then explain the shapes of the legislative districts.
December 31st, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Follow the URL associated with this post for more information about the votes versus seats disparity in the State of Utah.
I also encourage those interested in gerrymander-proof alternatives to winner-take-all electoral systems — which are already being used in most of the world’s democracies — to visit the web sites of FairVote: The Center for Voting and Democracy as well as the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform in British Columbia.
December 31st, 2007 at 5:29 pm
What I think we have here is a question that deserves an answer. Despite the fact that re-districting happened 6/7 years ago and is nonetheless a dead-issue, this matter bears exploration.
The Democrats who have posted on this thread believe they have been screwed out of legislative seats due to the re-apportionment issue.
I feel that is not the case. Afterall, the Democrats have a member of congress that represents a securely Republican voting block.
Furthermore, the current Governor/Lt.Governor candidates were elected, statewide (without jurisdictional limits/borders) by a margin of 57% to 39%.
In the same thought-process as I have seen here, would this mean that Scott Matheson should be the 39% Governor and Karen Hale be the 39% Lt. Governor? or should we all just agree that because Scott and Karen are good people, that they should have a role to play in current state government?
The answer is simple: Jon Huntsman, Jr. won the governorship and Gary R. Herbert won the Lt. Governorship.
Any questions?
December 31st, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Craig
You’re missing the point of this entire post and discussion. Rolly has been using (abusing) statistics to “show” that gerrymandering took place. Rep. Frank is calling him out on this.
Shapes are even more subjective than statistics. A “bad” shape is one you don’t like
December 31st, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Monica
My point is that disagreeing with Rolly’s numbers isn’t proving that gerrymandering didn’t take place. As far as shapes go (stealing from jesse’s comment on jeremy’s blog) it can’t be too hard to split the map into population districts using squares and rectangles. That would be the easiest way to set the districts, what lead the map so far away from simple shapes.
Simply put, political affiliation shouldn’t be a factor when drawing legislative boundries. It leads to legislative bodies that are safer (relatively) and thus feel less accountability to the people of their districts. We saw it happen with the voucher law and subsequent vote.
January 1st, 2008 at 1:32 am
To say gerrymandering didn’t take place at a significant level takes either alot of hubris or deceit. I’ll use the example of Tooele County as an example. Tooele had traditionally been represented by a Democratic State Senator, Ron Allen, George Mantes, Karl Swan, etc. During the last reapportionment, Tooele was subdivided into four different districts. I who live on the north end of town am now represented out of Tremonton. My sister, who lives on the other side of town, is represented out of Nephi in a district that extends down to HANKSVILLE!!
The gerrymandering job done by the Utah legislure in 2001 was embarrassingly bad and blatant. Also blatant was the efforts to get rid of Jim Matheson. Who would have thought that he’d still get elected in such a Republican district.
Trying to defend what Republicans did during the last reapportionment is nothing more than the same partisanship being shown to defend it.
January 1st, 2008 at 9:24 am
Obi
Like Craig, your side has been caught red-handed cooking the books. Did Gerrymandering occur? Probably. I’ve never denied that, but not to the extent that your side (Rolly) claims. Of the 75 House seats and 29 Senate seats, the gerrymandering probably impacts the overall R-D split by four or five seats, which is far less than what Rolly argues.
You guys keep bringing up Tooele and a handful of seats in east SLCo. Rolly claims that Democrats should be getting 41% to 43% (depending on the day) of legislative seats, or about another 12 to 14 seats in the Legislature.
January 1st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Rep. Frank, you said, “perceived gerrymandering” and “allegedly” . Are you trying to state that the gerrymandering of Utah’s House, Senate, and Congressional districts didn’t happen?
Whose the damn liar Rep. Frank?
Look Rep. Frank, why don’t you act like a true representative of the people and sponsor a bill for an independent redistricting committee. This action would prove that you believe voters should choose legislators instead of legislators picking voters.
Happy New Year!
January 1st, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Rob:
Happy New Year to you, too!
Wow. I come back to my dumb blog after having had to work(my real job you know?!) for the past couple days and look what happens.
The interesting thing about all this is that I just took a couple of articles out of the Trib and mixed it with a couple thoughts from an associate of mine and tied that to a quote by Mark Twain and…BAMMMM!!!
Anybody ready for a different topic???
January 1st, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Rob Miller: “Look Rep. Frank, why don’t you act like a true representative of the people and sponsor a bill for an independent redistricting committee.”
Rep. Frank: “Anybody ready for a different topic???”
How typically Republican!
January 1st, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Monica, listen to yourself. You seem to say, “yes Republicans cooked the books, just not as much as Rolly claimed.” Wow, what an admission. “Rolly was right, he just overstated his case.”
What the Republican legislature did in the last reapportionment was an act of tyranny. It disinfranchised a whole county in the State of Utah. A large and growing county in this state has one representative and zero senators. This is the result of Republican tyranny plain and simple. It is a symptom of a greater problem, it is a problem of Utahns voting blindly for bad legislators on the basis of party affiliation. And Utah County seems to be the chief enabler of this phenomenom. How guys like Dougall, Stephenson, and Bramble can get re-elected so easily is truly terrifying if you think Utah worthy of redemption.
BTW, I haven’t made up my mind on Rep. Frank. But my past political involvement remembers the honorable service of guys like LeRay McAllister, Howard Nielsen and others who acted in ways that could be considered statesmanlike. Utah’s current crop doesn’t bear much resemblance.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Since gerrymandering did not happen,according to the Repubs, then Rep. Frank must be in favor of an independent redistricting committee to map out the new districts in 2011.
Great! Finally the people will decide.
(I’m kidding, since when did the Republican Legislature ever care about what the people wanted?)
January 5th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Anybody ready for a different topic???
Wow, here is a different topic, I would support stapling the 10 commandment to Craig’s forehead so he can learn to follow the 9th.
January 6th, 2008 at 5:11 am
Wow, CF. You’ve built yourself a fan base. Staple to the forehead? Wow.
Rep. Frank isn’t making a case in favor of gerrymandering. He is calling baloney on Mr. Rolly, who used “diluted and misleading” information.
To those who have worked themselves into a frenzy over this post, I’d recommend a different approach. Don’t like whacked out districts that slice communities apart? Join the club. Creating precisely equal numbered districts is much more difficult than you might imagine. Don’t love compromise to attain a consensus? No one does. But if you’re going to be effective you need to work with people, not just lob hand grenades at malformed caricatures of real people. Two more years until the next census, and redistricting will follow. Keep paying attention and keep participating in a way that is functional, like Craig did back in the day. More effective that way.
Kudos to Craig Frank for posting those stats and hosting an open discussion.
January 7th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Silly, angry, dysfunctional, democrats. They have a point, but they don’t know what to do with it.
January 7th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Frank did not “host” an open discussion by posting what he has here. What he has done is take a column he disagrees with and used it as an opportunity to completely misconstrue (ney, completely deny?) a gerrymander effort that has created a disconnect in representation.
You may call it “open,” I call it simply dishonest, and ill-informed.
January 7th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
[...] http://underthedome.org/?p=323 [...]
January 9th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Well, this is a pretty open discussion. And it’s on the site he built, maintains and funds. Seems like he hosted it to me.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:06 am
He also seems to have touched a nerve.
But it’s not that he called BS on a MSM reporter’s baloney. That’s what bloggers are supposed to do.
It’s that he used the words “alleged” and “perceived” when he talked about gerrymandering.
But gerrymandering wasn’t Rep. Frank’s main point, here. Neither was it Stan Lockhart’s point in the op-ed piece (http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_7837756).