►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
So
in
the
upcoming
redistricting
cycle,
more
states
will
rely
on
commissions
to
draw
their
maps
than
at
any
other
time
in
american
history.
This
isn't
a
surprise
to
us
at
ncsl
when
we
track
and
introduce
legislation.
Commission
bills
are
the
most
common
type
of
redistricting
policy
introduced
each
year
in
legislatures
and
while
all
the
panelists
today
come
from
states
with
commissions
of
some
variety,
their
form
and
function
vary
significantly.
A
This
panel
is
going
to
be
more
conversational
than
a
presentation,
and
I
have
several
questions
prepared,
but
please
use
the
q
a
function
and
ask
questions
of
your
own.
We
want
to
address
the
questions
that
are
most
pertinent
to
you,
and
I
will
add
that
a
couple
of
additional
points
first,
is
that
speaker
bedkey
will
have
to
leave
us
about
halfway
through
the
session.
A
So
if
you
have
any
questions
for
him,
please
get
those
in
as
early
as
you
possibly
can
and
if
you'll
notice
julia
is
not
on
the
list
of
presenters
for
this
session.
Amanda
king,
who
was
originally
scheduled
to
be
with
us,
had
to
drop
it
recently
because
of
a
family
emergency.
So
her
family
is
in
our
thoughts
and
prayers
right
now,
but
we're
very
grateful
to
have
her
colleague
julia
with
us.
So
thank
you,
julia
for
stopping
at
last
minute
notice.
A
With
that
I'm
going
to
move
into
the
first
question
and
I'll
direct
it
first
to
you,
speaker,
becky,
and
then
we
can
go
over
to
julia.
Idaho.
Didn't
always
have
a
commission
who
made
the
decision
to
switch
from
the
legislature
to
a
commission,
drawing
the
lines
and
why.
B
Let
me
unmute
the
citizens
of
the
you
know.
Ultimately,
the
citizens
of
idaho
chose
to
do
a
redistricting
commission,
but
in
and
so
our
our
it
is
in
our
constitution.
Now
and
let
me
so,
let
me
describe
a
little
bit
of
how
it
got
there,
then,
in
order
to
get
in
the
constitution
in
idaho,
there
has
to
be
a
joint
resolution
brought
in
the
legislature.
B
It
needs
to
pass
both
bodies
by
a
two-thirds
majority,
and
then
it
is
placed
on
the
next
general
fund,
our
general
I've
been
working
budgets,
not
the
general
fund,
the
next
general
election
ballot
and
and
then,
if
it
passes
by
a
simple
majority
in
the
general
election,
then
the
constitution
is
amended
and
and
that's
how
we
got
the
redistricting
commission.
B
But
you
can
see
that
the
legislature,
the
then
legislature
wanted
to
wash
their
hands
of
this
issue
and
in
order
to
get
the
two-thirds
majority
in
in
in
both
houses,
it
took
a
unique
set
of
circumstances.
I'm
not
speaking
in
favor
of
a
commission,
I'm
just
describing
what
is
what
has
happened.
It
has
its
pluses,
it
has
its
minuses,
but
so
what
we
have
you
know
so
the
then
speaker
and
the
then
president
of
the
senate
were
from
the
same
legislative
district
they're
from
the
same
county
and
that
close
working
relationship.
B
They
were
very
popular
amongst
their
peers
and
and
they
knew
how
to
use
a
bully
pulpit,
and
so
they
were
able
to
paint
all
of
the
good
things
that
can
happen
when
you
in
in
a
in
idaho.
I
don't,
I
don't
think
it's
a
big
secret
is
idaho,
has
been
a
republican,
dominated
state
and
is
now,
although
you
know
the
mixes
change
every
every
two
years,
but
for
the
most
part
that
has
been
the
past,
and
that
seems
to
be
the
trajectory
in
the
future
and
so
for
them
to.
B
You
know
forward
a
proposal
that
allows
for
a
six-member
commission
that
is
populated
by
three
d's
and
three
r's
would
seem
to
be
a
little
anomalous
and
and-
and
I
don't
think
I
could-
I
do
not
think
that
that
could
happen
in
in
in
idaho
politics
right
at
the
moment.
Frankly,
so
that's
how
it
came
to
pass
in
idaho.
B
It
was
a
unique,
unique
wrinkle
in
time
and
and-
and
I
haven't
seen
the
chance
that
to
from
the
legislature's
perspective,
to
reverse
that
I
I
don't
think
it
would.
B
I
think
that
the
citizens
feel
like
this
is
a
a
much
better
way,
and
certainly
everything
that
can
fit
on
a
bumper
sticker
would
say
that
this
is
a
is
a
more
fair
way,
a
better
way,
a
less
partisan
way
to
do
it,
and-
and-
and
so
I
don't
think-
I
don't
see
the
citizens
of
idaho
reverse,
but
some
of
the
partisan
voices
in
the
legislature
think
that
the
the
then
legislature
gave
away
the
farm
by
allowing
it
to
to
be
a
tie.
B
The
you
know
a
famous
or
a
familiar
refrain
in
the
in
in
the
capital
every
ten
years
is.
This
is
not
soccer.
We
don't
play
for
a
tie
and
see
when
you
and
when
you
play
for
a
tie
and
and
then
it
goes
to
the
courts
and
then
you
and
then
you
get.
B
Every
time
we've
redistricted
it's
gone
to
the
courts
and
each
time
there's
been
less
and
less
flexibility
given
to
those
commissioners,
and
so
one
commissioner,
famously
quipped
at
the
end
of
last
cycle-
is
that
we
could
have
you
know
you
could
have
a
a
trained
monkey,
I
think
was
the
quote:
do
the
same
thing,
because
she
she
felt
like
her
hands
were
tied
with
what
the
the
courts
had
given
them
and
and
then
this
became
just
an
exercise
in
an
analog
equation.
A
Great,
thank
you
speaker.
Becky,
julia
colorado
is
obviously
a
little
bit
different,
because
colorado
used
to
have
a
different
commission
and
now
has
something
new
for
this
cycle.
But
if
you
just
want
to
talk
about
the
history-
and
I
mean
how
it
got
formed
in
the
70s,
the
first
commission
is
interesting,
but
more
about
the
commissions.
Now
that
are
actually
in
effect.
C
Sure
so
our
we
have
a
congressional
and
a
legislative
redistricting
commission
and
those
are
new
in
2018.
They
passed
by
as
a
constitutional
amendment
in
2018..
Colorado
has
a
citizen
initiative
process
and
these
measures
actually
started
out
as
citizen
initiatives.
C
They
did
the
the
process
of
title
review
and
and
what
not
to
go
the
citizen
route
and
I
think
the
proponents
there
saw
that
they
had
enough
legislative
support,
that
they
could
avoid
the
sort
of
cost
and
hassle
of
collecting
signatures
to
get
on
the
ballot,
and
so
they
presented
the
measure
as
a
legislative.
The
measures
as
a
legislative
proposal
instead,
so
those
were,
they
ended
up
passing
unanimously
in
the
legislature
and
were
referred
to
the
voters,
and
I
think
I
think,
in
the
2018
election
it
was
slightly.
C
They
each
got
slightly
over
60
of
the
vote,
so
they
they
passed
fairly
overwhelmingly
by
constitutional
amendment
standards.
C
Previously
we
had
what
was
called
the
reapportionment
commission,
which
I
believe
was
a
typo
in
the
initial
constitutional
proposal
that
never
got
fixed,
because
obviously
it
was
a
redistricting
commission,
not
a
reapportionment
commission,
but
that
handled
legislative
redistricting.
It
was
adopted
in
1974,
and
that
was
really
a
campaign
led
by
the
league
of
women
voters
for
what
I've
heard.
C
C
If
you
had
a
majority
of
the
appointments
on
the
commission,
you
would
get
the
maps
you
wanted
and
so
what's
changed.
Sort
of
with
these
new
commissions
is
a
they're
going
to
be
made
up
of
democrats,
republicans
and
unaffiliated
voters.
Each
commission
will
have
12
numbers
and
it'll
be
four
four
and
four
b.
C
The
appointment
process
is
fairly
convoluted
and
there's
a
lot
of
random
draw,
so
it's
sort
of
harder
to
control
who
is
going
to
be
on
the
commissions
we're
working
on
that
right
now,
so
we
don't
have
commissioners
yet,
but
we
will
by
march,
and
then
there
are
some
additional,
like
checks
and
balances
worked
into
these
commissions.
A
built-in
court
review
a
staff
process
for
drawing
maps
that
sort
of
thing
and
obviously
congressional
redistricting
was
done
by
the
legislature
previously.
C
So
the
fact
that
we
have
congressional
redistricting
done
by
a
commission
is
entirely
new
this
session,
and
I
thought
it
was
interesting
that
speaker
becky
said
that
the
legislature
sort
of
washed
his
hands
of
the
issue,
because
you
sort
of
got
the
sense
that
that
was
what
was
happening
here.
C
I
wrote
the
blue
book
our
ballot
analysis
on
these
measures
when
they
were
on
the
ballot,
and
I
think
the
exact
language
we
used
was
that
there
had
been
court
involvement
in
each
of
the
past
four
congressional
redistricting
cycles,
and
what
that
really
means
is
that
the
legislature
did
not
successfully
adopt
its
own
maps
in
all.
But
one
of
those
and
the
the
third
one
was
sort
of
it.
C
It
still
involved
the
courts
because
there
was
like
a
special
magistrate
or
something
that
they
appointed
and
basically
came
in
and
like
banged
heads
together
in
the
legislature
until
they
passed
the
map.
So
there
was
sort
of
a
feeling
that
the
legislature
was
not
very
successful
at
drawing
the
congressional
maps,
and
I
think
that
gave
them
some
desire
to
not
be
doing
it
anymore.
C
A
And
I
will
say,
as
someone
who
grew
up
back
east
and
west
virginia
a
state
that
does
not
have
a
lot
of
ballot
measures
at
all.
When
I
moved
out
to
colorado
to
work
at
ncsl,
and
I
saw
I
had
like
10
things,
I
had
to
vote
on
that.
I
that
and
the
language
of
the
measures
was
somewhat
convoluted.
I
was
very
appreciative
of
the
fact
that
there
were
good,
non-partisan
staffers
in
the
colorado
legislature,
translating
them
into
common
sense
that
I
even
I
could
get
so.
C
A
A
colorado
voter
who
wonders
why
I
have
to
vote
on
11
different
ballot
measures.
Thank
you
for
that
and
ned.
So
you're
at
ohio's,
the
sorry,
the
ohio
state
university
and
you
have
a
brand
new
system
in
the
state
for
this
cycle.
Can
you
just
give
us
a
brief
gist
of
what's
going
on
there,
because
it's
a
little
bit
different
than
what
speaker
benky
has
in
idaho
and
what
julia
has
in
colorado?.
D
Yes,
thank
you
ben,
and
I
apologize
if
I'm
a
little
rusty
on
the
on
the
details.
I've
been
focused
on
on
other
aspects
of
election
law
over
the
last
well
months
and
looking
forward
to
to
getting
into
back
into
the
redistricting
issues,
but
ohio
has
had
several
decades
of
of
you
know
significant
fighting
or
wrestling
over
the
districting
process
and
the
problem
of
gerrymandering.
I
think
it's
fair
to
say
that
districting
became
very
contentious
in
ohio.
D
You
know
both
in
the
1990s
and
then
after
the
2000s
with
you
know,
significant
public
perception
that
there
was
you
know,
partisan,
gerrymandering
occurring
to
a
degree
that
was
not
in
the
in
the
public
interest
there.
There
was
again
without
getting
into
all
the
details.
D
You
know
in
the
back
in
the
1990s,
there
was
sort
of
an
effort
at
some
bipartisan
compromise,
with
some
republican
leaders
of
the
process
trying
to
put
on
the
table
what
they
thought
might
be
a
fair
way
to
handle
the
problem,
and
actually
the
democrats
walked
away
from
a
deal
now.
D
They
might
describe
it
a
little
differently,
but
I
say
that
because
I'm
trying
to
analyze
this
from
a
non-partisan,
scholarly
perspective
and
even
though
republicans
have
been
in
control
of
the
map-making
process
by
virtue
of
political
power,
you
know
politics
is
messy
and-
and
it's
been
hard
for
the
state
of
ohio
to
get
to
a
bipartisan
system
that
works
for
everybody
in
a
non-partisan
or
bipartisan
way.
But,
as
you
said,
we're
moving
into
a
new
regime.
D
That's
untested
and
it'll
be
really
interesting,
both
for
our
state
and
maybe
helpful
for
the
country
to
see
whether
this
effort
has
been
successful
again
without
going
into
all
of
the
procedural
details
to
how
we
got
to
where
we
are
because
we
are
an
initiative
state,
but
the
legislature
can
sometimes
supersede
the
initiative
of
efforts,
and
you
know
we
both
got
congressional
districting
and
state
redistricting.
D
But
basically
the
idea
was
to
move
to
a
commission
model,
but
not
the
citizen
commission
model
that
california
had
used
or
arizona
had
used
or
other
states
had
used.
The
the
sense
was
the
political
leadership
in
ohio
of
both
parties
wanted
to
keep
the
redistricting
process.
You
know
close
to
the
to
the
general
assembly
and
and
to
the
political
leadership
and
not
just
turn
it
over
to
to
citizens
and
and
and
yet
how
do
you
do
that
without
gridlock?
D
If
you
have
again,
if
you
have
a
a
a
six
member
commission,
three
ds
three
r's
in
ohio
that
would
just
end
up
in
stalemate
and
so
there's
a
kind
of
super
majority
provision
put
into
it
in
the
in
that
you
have
to
get
a
map,
you
kind
of
have
again
there's
complicated
details
of
it.
D
But
so
one
question
is
whether
the
commission's
going
to
be
successful
in
redistricting
or
it's
going
to
go
to
the
courts
because
of
a
failure
to
adopt
a
proposal
that
works
from
the
commission's,
and
so
I
think,
that's
an
open,
open
question.
If
I
can
just
say
as
the
last
point
on
this
and
maybe
we'll
talk
about
other
aspects
of
this
later,
you
know
my
own
view
is
that
the
kind
of
pathology
of
gerrymandering,
as
you
know,
political
competition,
is
essential
in
a
free
society.
D
But
gerrymandering
is
an
aspect
of
political
competition
where
the
competition
gets
out
of
hand,
and
that
has
gotten
worse
and
worse
and
worse
cycle.
The
cycle,
true
in
ohio,
true
around
the
country
and
although
some
of
the
ugliness
of
american
politics
that
we
see
this
week
is
not
specifically
about
redistricting.
D
My
own
view
is
that
the
ugliness
of
of
a
political
greed
in
our
political
system
is
a
product
of
the
mentality
of
gerrymandering
and
the
effort
to
secure
unfair
advantage
through
the
redistricting
process,
and
I
think
commissions
are
the
best
way
that
we've
come
up
with
as
a
country
to
try
to
tamp
down
on
that
political
greed
and
to
get
an
unfair
advantage
over
the
opposition
in
the
redistricting
cycle.
You
know,
human
beings
are
not
perfect.
None
of
us
are
angels
right.
The
federalist
paper
said
if
humans
were
angels,
we
wouldn't
need
government.
D
So
so
the
big
challenge
here
is:
how
can
we
as
humans
control
our
own
appetite
for
for
power,
and
this
will
always
be
an
ongoing
challenge
commissions
help?
Because,
because
we
need
both
virtue
and
honor
and
morality
and
we
need
good
rules
and
institutions-
and
so
governance
is
a
complicated
dynamic
of
rules,
institutions
and
honor
and
virtue
character
and
again
we're
seeing
in
american
politics,
you
know
a
lack
of
sufficient
character
to
protect
our
system.
D
Unfortunately,
so
I'm
hopeful
that
you
know
we
meet
the
moment
of
our
society
going
forward
and
redistricting
it
for
this
new
cycle
will
be
a
component
for
it
and
I
think
commissions
will
be
an
important
tool
to
help
us
as
a
society
and
as
ben,
as
you
say,
the
extent
to
which
this
is
new
in
a
lot
of
places.
D
You
know
this
is
going
to
be
a
key
component
of
the
ongoing
american
experiment
of
self-government.
Let's
see
how
we
do.
A
That
great,
I
I
I
saw
steve
hervetki
and
julia-
smiling
at
some
points
during
your
what
your
discussion,
so
I'm
sure
they
would
like
to
respond
and
speaker
becky.
A
Since
you
have
a
limited
time,
I'm
going
to
go
straight
back
to
you
and
I'll,
give
you
the
opportunity
to
respond
to
what
ned
said,
but
I
also
had
a
question
for
you
as
well,
which
is
you
mentioned
in
your
initial
remarks-
that
idaho
has
the
even
split
between
d's
and
r's,
despite
the
fact
that
you
are
very
correct
to
point
out,
I'm
responsible
for
tracking
how
many
d's
in
ours
there
are
legislations
around
the
country.
A
Idaho,
is
a
very
strongly
republican
state
at
the
legislative
level
and
at
all
levels
of
government,
and
so
are
there
aspects
of
your
commission
that
that
you
like,
and
that
you
think
work
well
and
are
there
aspects
of
your
commission
that
create
problems
and
that
you
know
if,
if
you
got
to
go
back
to
1994
and
you
were
rewriting
the
constitutional
amendment,
you
would
change.
B
B
Sorry
I
apologize
for
that,
but
I
I
mean
it
made
me
smile.
I
mean
I
in
fact
I
even
wrote
I'm
a
collector
of
of
of
phrases
and
I
like
to
I
like
the
phrase
political
greed.
I,
like
the
phrase
sufficient
character
to
to
protect
our
system.
I,
like
the
phrase
political
competition
is
necessary,
is
a
necessary
component
in
a
free
society.
B
I,
like
those
phrases-
and
I
will
attribute
them
to
you
ned
for
the
first
couple
of
times
and
then
I'm
going
to
just
let
everybody
think
I
thought
of
them,
but
so
if
I
could
go
back,
I
think
that
future.
B
I
don't
know
if
I
would
I
I
guess.
If
I
go
back
to
then
I'd
have
to
do
something,
but
I,
but
I
think
that
a
a
larger
commission,
one
that
has
a
tiebreaker
ability
is,
is
essential
or
you
let
the
courts
decide
I
mean,
and
so
so
these
inherent
conflicts
that
that
described.
You
know
those
are
not
going
to
go
away.
B
The
venue
for
deciding
them
will
change,
but
the
underlying
con
conflict
will
not
change,
and
so
in
fact,
this
year
you
know,
I
rarely
carry
legislation,
you
know
as
the
speaker
and
in
our
custom
culture,
legislative
customer
culture.
B
I
just
don't
do
that,
but
but
this
year
last
last
session,
I
I
I
carried
legislation
that
was
another
constitutional
amendment
that
changed
idaho's
constitution
because
in
it
said
the
the
then
constitution
said
that
the
that
the
legislature
that
you
could
have
as
as
few
as
30
districts
and
as
many
as
35
and
yet
we
since
94
we'd,
always
had
35
districts
and
then,
as
I
described
early,
how
the
court
has
come
in
and
entered
into
each
of
the
each
of
the
cycles
since
94.
B
When
this
passed,
then
there
became
so
an
idaho
is
a
fast-growing
state.
You
know
and
fast
for
idaho
I
mean
we
are
one
of
the
fastest
growing
states
here
and
and
we're
going
through,
the
growing
pains
associated
with
that
and
one
of
the.
And
so
if
your
constitution
says
you
can
have
as
few
as
30
but
and
as
many
as
35.
B
Then
there
are
plans-
and
you
know,
and
legislators
and
others
think
that
they're
better,
that
we're
all
better
served
with
more
representation
rather
than
less,
and
so
people
wanted
to
keep
the
35
that
we
had
yet
the
constitution
said
you
could
have
as
few
as
30.
and
the
courts
have
been
in
the
middle
of
every
plan.
So
far,
you
can
see
that
if
you
of
all
of
the
restrictions
that
the
courts
put
on
their
the
commission
each
time
plus
their
original
restrictions,
then
it
became.
B
You
know
it
was
easier
to
touch
the
bases
with
a
with
fewer,
with
a
plan
that
had
fewer
districts
than
a
plan
that
had
more
districts,
and
so
it
became
juxtaposed
to
one
another.
The
people
don't
want
to
give
up
representation,
but
we
had
a
situation
that
would
have
led
to
we
were
I
we
were
concerned,
and
I
like
say
I
was
concerned
enough
to
take
take
the
issue.
B
Statewide
is
to
peg
the
number
in
the
constitution
at
35
and
not
let
and
take
that
option
away
from
the
courts
is
that
it
had
to
be
35
and
in
the
and
it
passed
and
pete
the
that
message
in
the
nutshell
that
I
just
gave
you
resonated
statewide
enough
for
that
to
pass
easily
on
the
ballot
it
was
60,
plus
percent,
and
so
there,
but
again
political
greed
is
not
going
to
go
away.
Political
competition
is
not
going
to
go
away.
B
It
would
be
nice
if
we
had
a
way
to
break
a
tie,
but
I,
but
we
don't
and-
and
I
don't
think
that
I
would
have
been
successful
in
pitching
a
particularly
this
year-
everything
was
so
hyper
partisan.
It
seemed
and
pitching
an
idea
that
would
have
you
know
broke
a
tie.
B
Maybe
you
know
was
was
an
uphill
battle,
but
I
think
everybody
on
the
playground
knows
we
don't
play
for
ties,
and-
and
so
I
think
that
at
some
point
there
will
be
an
idaho
and
ability
to
break
a
tie.
But
that's
one
thing
that
we
had
to
fine-tune,
because
no
one
saw
this
coming
is
that
you
had
a
range
of
of
of
numbers.
You
know
districts
and
to
comply
with
the
court
order,
then
it's
better
to
have
larger
districts
and
smaller
districts
and
therefore
fewer
districts
rather
than
more
districts.
B
And
so
we
had
this
collision
coming
in
in
a
fast-growing
state
that
put
us
exactly
there,
and
so
we
did
change
the
constitution
this
year
because
we
were
able
to
make
the
case
that
we'd
be
better
served
with
more
districts
rather
than
fewer
but
the.
But
that
made,
but
that's
going
to
complicate
the
lives
of
the
of
the
of
the
commissioners.
I
can
tell
you
that.
A
Got
it?
Thank
you,
speaker
bedkey.
We
only
have
you
for
five
more
minutes,
so
I'm
going
to
stick
with
you
for
another
question
and
then
I
will
ned
and
julia
will
come
back.
A
I
do
oh
great
I
had
I
had
a
note
that
was
115-ish,
oh
perfect.
Well
then,
in
that
case,
ned
I'm
going
to
go
to
you.
A
So
when
you're
thinking
about
how
a
commission
is
structured,
obviously
speaker
bedkey
has
made
the
point
that
commissions
without
tie
breaking
functions
can
have
difficulties,
resolving
conflicts,
and
the
last
thing
you
want
as
a
commission
is
for
the
to
go
to
the
courts
every
single
time,
because
then
your
commission
isn't
working
so
are
there
other
problems
like
that
that
you,
as
someone
who
has
studied
redistricting
commissions,
thinks
would
be
important
for
the
people
crafting
these
proposals
to
think
about
and
making
them
function
better,
and
now
that
we
have
more
commissions,
we
have
more
models
to
pull
from.
A
D
Yeah
no,
this
is
tricky.
I
guess
the
from
a
big
pictures
perspective.
I
think
there's
two
main
ingredients
to
commission
design
to
think
about.
You
know
one
is
just
basic
partisanship
of
the
electorate
and
the
political
system,
and
obviously
we
tend
to
think
of
american
politics
as
two-party:
political
competition,
ds
and
ours.
You
know
red
team,
blue
team
and,
and
so
in
in
ohio
culturally,
for
example,
has
been
a
state
with
very
strong
sense
of
two-party
competition
to
the
point
where
sometimes
the
third
parties
minor
parties,
think
it's
a
duopoly,
that's
kind
of
unfair.
D
So,
but
you
know
the
two
major
parties
in
ohio
don't
see
it
that
way.
They
think,
let's,
let's
that
that
two-party
system
is
good
and
so
to
structure
that
basic
two-party
competition
into
the
design
of
the
system
is,
is
the
way
to
go
and
then
so
the
the
the
goal
would
be
fair
representation
of
the
two
parties
and
some
tie
breaking
mechanism
or
some,
as
I
said,
a
super
majority
requirement
to
break
a
tie.
You
know
the
libertarians
and
the
green
parties
would
say
hey
what
about
us.
D
Do
we
get
a
seat
at
the
table
in
the
commission
and
that
you
know
so
that's
a
question.
I
think
the
whole
concept
of
citizenship,
commission
design
is
to
say
you
know,
let's
try
to
get
out
of
the
party
competition
structure
in
building
the
district
lines,
and
then
the
parties
can
work
within
whatever
the
commission
does.
But
we
don't
want
to
build
partisanship
into
the
design
of
the
commission,
and
then
you
start
to
look
at
the
concept
of
representation
on
a
citizen's
commission
with
factors
other
than
parties.
D
D
That's
always
been
traditional
because
we
we
elect
on
the
basis
of
geography
but,
as
you
all
know,
that
the
concept
of
political
identity
has
kind
of
taken
over
in
the
last
50
years.
Thinking
that
the
geographic
representation
is
not
the
only
kind
of
representation
that
might
be
valuable
in
a
political
system
and
whether
it's
specifically
thought
of
in
terms
of
racial
identity
or
other
ethnic
identity.
Or
you
know,
if
you
look
abroad
to
europe
that
had
political
structures
built
around
economic
identities,
you
know
workers
count.
D
You
know
you
your
status
of
what
you
know
your
economic
identity
could
be
built
structurally
into
a
political
system.
That's
not
how
we've
done
this
in
america,
but
so
that's
a
challenge.
I
mean,
if
you're,
going
to
really
put
everything
on
the
table
in
terms
of
designing
your
units
of
political
representation.
D
You
know
why
stop
with
geography
and
race
or
ethnicity.
You
know
I
I
talked
to
my
students
about
you
know,
given
that
so
much
of
politics
is
about
intergenerational
conflict.
Should
we
spend
money
on
schools?
Should
we
spend
money
on
pensions?
D
Why
should
maybe
we
should
we
should
district
if
you
will
based
on
age
cohorts,
so
everybody
born
in
you
know,
1961,
like
my
year,
would
get
a
seat
in
the
legislature.
Everybody
born
in
1962
gets
a
different
seat
now,
obviously,
that's
a
theoretical
idea
not
going
to
happen,
but
you
know,
if
you
think
about
why
you're
creating
a
commission
to
to
create
your
structures
of
representation.
D
What
your,
what
the
goals
of
the
commission
are,
can
be
quite
difficult
and
quite
tricky,
and
and
and
the
the
fear
in
ohio
was
that
what
was
going
to
run
out
of
control?
In
other
words,
if
you,
because
who
we're
going
to
be
these
citizens,
I
mean
we're
all
you
know,
should
we
should
we?
D
You
know
pick
x
number
of
citizens
randomly
like
jury
duty
and
regardless
of
their
knowledge
of
politics,
regardless
of
the
you
know,
should
we
just
you
know
and
let
them
district
well,
that
does
you
know
and
have
locked
in
their
districts
for
10
years.
D
What,
if
the
jury
pool,
doesn't
reflect
demographically
the
population
as
a
whole,
like
a
random
sample,
isn't
always
going
to
be
representative
right.
So
so
I
mean
I
don't
want
to
go
on
too
long,
but
I
think
I
think,
designing
a
commission
gets
to
some
very
challenging
questions
about.
What's
the
purpose
of
political
representation
to
begin
with,.
A
Sure
sure
and
julia
since
your
non-partisan
staff
will
skip
you
on
the
recommendations
section
of
this,
but
I
have
a.
I
have
a
question
lined
up
for
you
that
I
want
to
come
back
to
in
a
moment.
A
There
is
a
quick
question
that
we
have
from
the
audience
from
representative
mike
fortner,
former
representative
republican
from
illinois,
who
I
had
the
pleasure
of
meeting
at
ncsl's
last
in-person
redistricting
seminar
in
columbus,
so
ned
right
in
your
backyard
and
he
asks.
Does
the
panel
have
any
thoughts
about
a
commission
drawing
a
plan
and
then
submitting
it
to
the
legislature
for
an
up
or
down
vote
similar
to
the
way
iowa
gets
plans
from
its
legislative
bureau.
A
I'm
going
to
take
the
liberty
of
amending
mike's
question
to
add
that
the
new
virginia
commission
that
was
referred
by
the
legislature
to
the
public
and
just
approved
by
voters
in
this
last
election
has
a
similar
structure
built
into
it.
The
the
it's
a
commission
rather
than
the
legislative,
nonpartisan
staff
drawing
maps,
but
they're
referred
to
the
legislature
for
up
or
down
votes
speaker
bedkey
is.
A
Are
there
advantages
to
that
kind
of
structure
when
the
legislature
still
has
some
sort
of
role,
I
suppose
a
veto
that
are
superior
to
the
completely
wholly
independent
commissions?
B
I
think
that
that's
a
that's,
probably
as
good
a
way
to
break
a
tie
as
any,
and
then
that
will
reflect
the
and
that
will
reflect,
I
guess,
the
the
makeup
of
the
state,
as
currently
constituted
by
these
geographical
boundaries,
that
ned
was
referencing
earlier.
I
I
think
there
needs
to
be.
B
There
needs
to
be
winners
and
there
needs
to
be
losers,
and
I
think
that
if
you
have
a
3-3
commission,
you
know-
and
we
call
them
a
citizens
commission,
but
these
are
some
of
the
most
you
know
and-
and
we
and
we
hide
behind
that
term,
but
but
the
citizen
commissioners
that
are
chosen
in
idaho
are
among
some
of
the
most
assu
citizens
that
these
are
not
just
the
first
six
names
in
the
phone
book
and,
of
course
the
you
know,
the
you
know
the
the
kids
don't
even
know
what
a
phone
book
is.
B
So
that's
that's
my
point
here
is
these
become
in
a
in
a
3-3
commission.
B
These
people
become,
and
because
they're
appointed
in
idaho
by
the
speaker,
the
senate
president
and
the
and
the
chairman
of
of
the
party,
then
they
these
people
are,
I
mean
they
are
astute,
they're,
bulldogs
and
they
are
and
and
one
of
them
has
to
blink
or
that
or
they
don't
get
a
plan
out,
and
so
I
I
think
we
we
can
do
better
than
that
and
and
so
to
those
out
there
that
are
contemplating
this.
You
know
mr
fortner's
idea
like
iowa
does
is
a
good
idea.
B
We've
looked
at
that,
but
again
that
would
take
a
con.
You
know
a
constitutional
change
here
to
do
that,
so
we're
kind
of
painted
into
a
corner,
but
the
way
we're
doing
it.
If
you
think
that
that
is
a
way
to
get
out
of
the
conflict,
it
just
moves
the
conflict
out
of
well,
I
guess
it
moves
the
hand,
the
conflict
out
of
the
hands
of
the
of
the
partisan
legislature,
but
conflict
you
still
have
and
you
need
to
have
a
and
conflict
I
think,
should
be
broken
by
you
know.
B
B
If
you're
gonna,
if
you're
gonna,
get
to
a
plan,
you've
got
to
have
a
way
to
a
plan
and
you
and
that's
why
we
have
votes
all
the
time
and
there
are
winners
and
losers
in
that
process,
and
we
try
to
shield
ourselves
from
that
by
coming
up
with
a
redistricting
clan
that
all
of
these
statesmen
scholars
would
have
come
up
with,
and
any
student
of
history
knows
that
that
was
a
fleeting
utopian
idea
that
was
never
captured
in
a
bottle
and
certainly
not
replicated
lately.
A
Sure,
thank
you
speaker,
redkey
ned,
you've
studied
commissions.
Do
you
have
any
thoughts
about
what
former
representative
fortner
is
asking,
and
I
want
to
throw
in
another
element
for
you
as
a
law
professor,
to
think
about
as
well,
which
is
in
the
arizona,
independent
redistricting
commission
case
that
was
decided
by
the
u.s
supreme
court.
A
That
was
a
5-4
opinion
and
there
are
three
justices
currently
on
the
court
who
were
not
on
the
court
at
that
time,
and
so
we
have
a
completely
new
lineup
at
the
u.s
supreme
court,
and
that
was
a
very
close
case
and
chief
justice
roberts
wrote
a
pretty
blistering
dissent,
criticizing
the
majority's
reasoning
about
why
independent
commissions
were
constitutional
under
the
under
the
elections,
clause
of
the
u.s
constitution,
and
so
my
my
question
to
you
is
not
only
the
direct
point
that
representative
porter
is
making,
but
also,
if
is
there
a
constitutional
advantage
to
the
people,
creating
these
commissions
to
keeping
a
legislative
role.
A
D
D
The
only
contrary
signal-
I
guess
and-
and
you
may
have
talked
about
this
at
an
earlier
session-
is
in
the
in
the
show
common
cause
case
out
in
north
carolina-
that
chief
justice
roberts
wrote
to
say
that
the
issue
of
partisan
gerrymandering
was
non-justiciable.
D
You
know
he
had
a
line
in
there
about
the
possibility
of
of
the
initiative
process,
providing
an
alternative
solution
to
federal
court.
Judicial
review
as
a
way
of
you
know,
policing
some
of
the
limits
of
of
of
gerrymandering,
which
a
lot
of
people
kind
of
looked
at
and
scratched
their
heads
on,
because
they
thought
well
wait
a
second.
Why
is
he
saying
in
rucho?
D
A
an
initiative
created
com
commission,
for
example,
would
be
okay
when
he
was
so
strong
in
dissent
in
in
the
arizona
case
I
mean
it,
was
he
changing
his
mind
or
did
he
believe
in
starry
decisis?
You
know,
frankly,
some
of
that's
been
eclipsed
now
that
it
that
it's
not
just
hit.
You
know
it's
just
not
you
know.
There's
there's
been
enough
transformation
of
the
court
now
that
you'd
have
to
ask
you
know
exactly
where
the
balance
of
power
on
the
us
supreme
court
is
on
that
issue.
D
Justice
roberts
is
no
longer
the
swing
vote
anymore,
but
so
I
do
think
you
know.
For
that
reason,
if
not
others,
it
would
probably
be
better
if
state
legislatures
took
it
upon
themselves
to
figure
out
what
do
they
want
by
way
of
redistricting
fairness,
as
they
can
come
to
understand
that
concept
and
to
go
back?
D
In
other
words,
create
the
commission
give
it
some
distance
from
the
legislature
to
put
out
the
map,
rely
on
expertise,
rely
on
computers
whatever
and
then
propose
that
to
the
legislature
and
if
the
legislature's
ideally
doing
a
good
job,
and
if
the
commission
was
genuinely
fair
and
trying
its
best,
the
legislature
would
say.
Okay,
we
can
accept
that
we
don't
need
to
squeeze
more
orange
juice
out
of
this
orange
for
our
partisan
advantage.
D
We
think
we
created
this
commission
to
kind
of
help
us
and
give
some
distance
from
ourselves
to
see
what
they
come
up
with
and
as
long
as
they
come
up
with
something
pretty
good.
Let's
accept
that
because
this
is
the
notion
of
self-restraint.
D
Sometimes
the
best
thing
that
you
can
do
is
just
not
doing
something,
and
so,
even
if
you
have
power,
maybe
you
shouldn't
actually
exercise
that
power
in
a
particular
context,
so
the
legislature
can
say
you
know
what
we
control
this
in
the
end,
and
if
the
commission
goes
awry,
we
can
rein
it
in
if,
if
they
do
something,
that's
really
un
unacceptable.
We
can
revise
it,
but
let
them
take
a
stab
at
it.
First,
because
if
we
take,
if
we
do
it
ourselves,
we're
likely
to
have
our
own
self-interest
take
over
immediately.
D
But
if
we
let
a
commission,
do
it
with
a
little
bit
removed
from
our
self-interest.
You
know,
maybe
it's
not
so
bad,
and
maybe
we
don't
have
to
act
out
of
self-interest
to
overrule
it,
so
that
I
so
it's
not
an
either
or
right.
I
mean
you
can
get
some
advantage
of
independence
without
complete
independence,
sure
sure
sure.
A
Thank
you.
I
just
want
to
say
for
the
audience.
This
has
been
an
absolutely
crazy
week
for
all
three
of
our
presenters.
They
have
been
incredibly
busy
with
other
things.
I
know
speaker
bedkey
is,
as
the
leader
of
his
chamber
is
preparing
for
the
next
legislative
session.
Ned
foley
has
been
on
the
hamster
wheel
non-stop
with
the
electoral
college
vote,
because
he
is
a
he's
one
of
the
nation's
prominent
electoral
college
experts.
Redistricting
is
just
one
of
many
hats.
A
He
wears
and
then
julia
jackson
has
been
very
busy
with
the
preliminary
steps
set
up
by
the
colorado
constitution
in
setting
up
colorado's
upcoming
commission,
and
so
we're
very
grateful
for
that.
They
were
able
to
give
us
any
of
their
time
at
all,
and
I
know
that
speaker
betty
we're
coming
up
on
the
end
of
your
time.
A
So
I'm
going
to
direct
this
question
to
you
first,
and
that
can
be
your
conclusion
as
well
as
any
concluding
thoughts
you
have
for
the
audience
please,
but
this
is
another
question
from
the
audience.
So
the
question
is
from
is
by
m.n.
I
don't
know.
If
that's,
those
are
your
initials
or
if
you're
from
minnesota,
but
mn
asks
how
do
you
anticipate
or
recommend
that
commissions
engage
with
the
community
as
they
go
through
the
process
of
redistricting,
and
does
this
community
engagement
help?
A
He
asks
that
or
he
or
she
asks
about
mitigating
the
risk
of
max
ending
up
in
court,
but
I
think,
there's
also
a
question
that
we
get
sometimes
at
ncsl,
which
is
if
you're
in
a
commission
state
you're
a
legislator.
How
do
you
interact
with
that
body
and
express
your
interest
as
the
body
that
is
being
redistricted
in
a
way
that
is
respectful
of
the
constitutional
parameters
around
contact
but
still
gets
the
point
across.
B
Well
here
there
are,
you
know
there
are
community
forums
where
people
can
come
and
talk
and
of
course,
if
a
legislator
shows
up
at
that,
I
think
everybody
you
know
leans
forward
in
their
chair
was
to
listen,
and
you
know,
as
is
to
feign
interest
and
just
but
I
that's
a
good.
B
That's
a
good
question,
because
if
it's,
if
it's
in
a
controversial
area,
you're
going
to
get
50
percent
of
the
input
is
going
to
be
on
one
side
of
the
issue
and
50
of
the
of
the
input's
going
to
be
on
the
other
and
and
then
the
commissioner
is
going
to
be
left
up
to
doing
what
he
or
she
thinks
is
right.
And
so
I
you
know,
I'm
not.
I'm
certainly
not
advocating
that
there
shouldn't
be
a
public.
B
B
I
think
that
the
best
mechanism
that
you
have
right
now
that
is
representative
of
the
of
your
state,
with
all
of
its
problems,
all
of
its
issues,
is
the
state
legislature.
B
Now
there's
a
lot
of
nuts
and
bolts
stuff
that
can
be
done
by
a
commission
and
whatnot
and
should
be
frankly,
but
I
think
something
that
comes
back
to
be
approved
by
both.
You
know
both
bodies
of
the
of
the
legislature
in
every
state,
except
for
nebraska
we,
but
I
I
think
that
that's
the
ultimately
that's
a
better
way
and-
and
you
will
sometimes
when
it's
the
courts.
No,
you
know
you,
no
one
is
happy
and
we
have
experienced
that.
I
guess
to
a
point.
B
We
end
up
learning
to
live
with
it,
but
I
I
think
if
I
were
crafting
something
after
you
know
94
I
didn't
I
was
not
engaged
deep
enough
to
to,
and
you
know
now
fast
forward,
20
years
in
the
legislature,
12
or
you
know,
10
is
the
speaker.
B
I
have
some
different
perspective
and
so
partisanship
is
part
of
our
future.
It's
always
been
part
of
our
past,
and
so
a
and
and
so
to
tamp
down
a
partisanship
in
a
in
a
outside
way
is
is,
it
is
not
going
to
work,
and
so
I
think
that
the
legislature
is
the
best
menu
for
breaking
ties
and
for
ultimately
approving
a
map.
That's
that's
not
what
we
have
here
and
but
it
in
my,
in
my
opinion
again,
I've
been
in
the
legislature.
I've
been.
B
This
will
be
the
third
time
that
I
am
redistricted.
If
that's
a
verb
and-
and
I
I
think
that
as
I've
described
is
a
is
a
better
way
and
I-
and
I
think
that
that's
might
be-
if
I
could
put
words
in
that's
mouth,
I
think
that
that's
kind
of
what
he
said
last
trip
too.
A
Yeah
well,
speaker
becky.
If
you
don't
have
anything
else
that
you
would
like
to
say
we're
thankful
for
your
time
and
we'll
let
you
go
to
your
next
appointments
and
thank
you
for
being
here.
B
Yes,
can
you
hear
the
the
bull
horns
in
the
background?
No
we've
got
a
little
demonstration
going
on
there.
It's
I'm
not
going
to
go
address
them,
but
I
it
there
are
plenty
of
things
happening
in
the
capital
today.
So.
A
Okay,
well
well
best
of
luck
with
that,
and
and
we
look
forward
to
having
you
at
another
event,
this
has
been
a
lot
of
fun.
Thank
you,
speaker,.
A
Okay,
I
think
the
same
question
to
you:
julia
if
the
as
someone
who
works
on
a
commission-
and
you
are
the
public
information
officer
for
the
colorado
redistricting
commissions,
what
are
the
the
ways
in
which
the
public
in
general
and
also
the
legislators
who
you
worked
for
before
you
were
shifting
over
to
the
commission?
What
are
the
ways
in
which
they
can
interact
with
the
commissioners
to
express
their
interests,
which
is
a
core
function
of
how
these
commissions
are
structured?
A
It's
receiving
public
input
while
being
respectful
of
the
boundaries
that
were
put
into
place
in
the
constitution
to
keep
them
somewhat
shielded
from
outside
influence.
C
Yeah
we
have
a
lot
of
specific
requirements
for
public
engagement,
including
that
each
commission
conduct
at
least
three
public
hearings
in
each
con
existing
congressional
district,
which
is
that
we
have
seven
in
colorado
and
then
a
further
requirement.
If
you
think
about
colorado's
geography,
you
know,
we've
got
some
big
mountains
in
the
middle.
You
might
have
heard,
and
one
of
our
current
congressional
districts
actually
sort
of
swings
around
the
mountains
and
over
to
the
east.
C
So
one
of
the
hearings
has
to
be
on
the
western
slope,
so
we
can't
put
all
our
hearings
for
that
district.
On
the
east
side
of
the
mountains.
We
have
to
make
sure
the
west
is
covered
too.
So
those
are
our
specific
public
hearing
requirements
and
that's
similar
to
what
they
had
for
the
reapportionment
commission
in
2011.
But
it's
a
very
different
world
in
terms
of
conducting
public
hearings
than
it
was
in
2011,
and
I
think
that's
still
something
we're
trying
to
figure
out
like
if
we're
holding
public
hearings
in
july.
C
Can
we
do
that?
We
don't
really
know.
Can
we
let
hundreds
of
people
into
a
room?
Can
we
like
get
access
to
public
spaces?
Our
capital
is
closed
to
the
public
right
now,
it's
really
hard
to
say
exactly
how
things
will
work.
There
are
some
provisions
in
the
constitution
to
allow
remote
participation.
I
suspect
we'll
be
taking
advantage
of
that.
We
just
did
a
a
selection
meeting
today
that
we
did
over
webex
and
allowed
members
of
the
public
to
sort
of
watch
as
attendees
sort
of
similar
to
this
structure.
C
So
I
anticipate
there
will
be
more
of
that.
We're
planning
on
having
some
web
forms
where
people
can
submit
comments.
The
reapportionment
commission
had
legislators
on
it.
So
I
think
that
the
legislators
in
the
past
saw
that
as
sort
of
their
direct
means
of
communicating
with
the
commissioners,
you
know
they
could
just
go
to
their
colleagues
and
and
express
their
concerns,
and
I
it'll
be
interesting
to
see
if
we
get
a
lot
of
legislators
showing
up
at
public
hearings
to
testify
or
if
they
have
some
back
channel
means.
C
There
are
I'm
going
to
pull
up
my
my
text
here,
because
there
are
some
specific
requirements
about
communicating
with
commissioners,
and
I
don't
want
to
make
you
sit
here.
While
I
read
things
so,
I
will
just
say
that
our
constitution
also
has
some
specific
requirements
about
how
members
of
the
commission
can
communicate
with
the
public
outside
of
the
public
hearing.
A
Right,
perfect-
and
I
will
add
just
for
those
of
you
who
don't
remember
a
few
minutes
ago,
julia
literally
wrote
the
blue
book
on
how
this
commission
works.
So
if
there's
anyone
who
understands
the
colorado
commissions
it's
her,
and
I
will
make
the
the
point
as
well
that
you've
added
and
I'm
going
to
presume
that
julia
you
and
you
ned-
would
both
agree
with
this.
A
As
with
speaker
betke,
if
you're
creating
these
structures,
these
commissions,
having
a
little
bit
of
flexibility
in
their
procedures,
is
generally
good,
because
I
don't
think
anyone
could
have
anticipated
in
the
middle
of
the
decade
that
there
would
be
pandemic
concerns
related
to
public
meetings
and
so
julia.
A
As
you
correctly
point
out,
you
could,
if
you
had
public
meetings
now,
you
could
hold
them
outside,
but
julia
and
I
are
in
the
same
city
and
I've
got
snow
on
the
ground
in
my
yard,
and
it's
not
warm
and
I
don't
think
anyone
would
want
to
stand
outside
very
long.
Nor
would
any
commissioners
want
to
sit
outside
very
well
and
to
get
any
of
that
public
input,
especially
when
we're
on
the
planes.
If
you
went
up
to
like
vail
or
breckenridge
or
aston,
people
would
be
getting
frostbite
trying
to
submit
their
public
comments.
A
Maybe
back
in
louisiana,
where
you
used
to
live.
That's
something
that
you
could
do
in
january
and
february.
But
that's
not
a
practical
solution
for
all
the
states
so
having
a
little
bit
of
dexterity
and
how
procedures
are
engaged
in
could
be
really
valuable
to
these
commissioners
and
to
the
staffers
who
were
tasked
with
executing.
C
Yeah
we're
already
seeing
that
if
I
could
just
jump
in
a
little
more
there
having
having
these
measures
be
entirely
in
the
constitution,
there
are
some
definitely
some
areas
where
the
constitution
is
a
little
like
too
specific
to
for
our
purposes,
and
we
are
already
wishing
for
some
flexibility
and
then
there
are
other
cases
where
it
isn't
specific
enough.
C
To
give
you
two
examples:
one
specific
deadline,
that's
in
the
constitution,
is
that
we
had
to
have
all
our
applications
submitted
by
november
10th
and
if
you
think
about
what
was
going
on
in
november,
the
presidential
election
was
the
third.
Our
deadline
was
the
10th.
There,
basically
wasn't
any
oxygen
in
the
political
space
to
try
and
promote
these
commissions
and
get
commission
applications.
It
was
extremely
challenging
and
on
the
other
hand,
we
had.
We
have
language
in
the
constitution,
saying
that
all
commissioners
have
to
have
voted
in
the
last
two
general
elections.
C
So
if
the
deadline
is
november,
10th
are
the
last
two
general
elections,
2020
and
2018.
Are
they
2018
and
2016.?
It
kind
of
depends
on
when
you
apply.
We
didn't
think
that
was
very
a
very
fair
standard.
Legally,
so
we
decided
that
we
would
use
2016
and
2018
across
the
board,
but
you
know
maybe
that
could
have
been
more
specifically
laid
out.
It's
it's
hard
to
get
everything
in
the
constitution.
A
Right
absolutely
ned
same
question
to
you:
yeah.
D
So
I
do
think
flexibility
is
good.
I
mean
we
talk
about
states
being
laboratories
of
democracy,
and
so
we
can-
and
you
all
at
ncsl
know
this
best
by
just
comparing
different
states
you
each
state
can
learn
from
each
other.
So
you
know,
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
take
flexibility,
as
far
as
I
might
now
suggest,
but
but
you
know
the
election
law,
scholars
and
political
scientists
even
before
the
events
of
this
week.
D
Thinking
how
broken
our
political
systems
seem
to
be
are
are
trying
to
brainstorm
like
what
solutions
and
I'm
not
up
to
speed
on
all
of
them.
But
there's
a
a
book
by
a
scholar
named
lee
drutman
who
is
exploring
the
idea,
for
example,
that
maybe
we
should
get
away
from
single
member
districts
and
go
to
multi-member
districts
combined
with
ranked
choice,
voting
and
that's
all
a
little
kind
of
fancy
and
complicated
now
for
congressional
districts.
You'd
have
to
change
the
law,
because
congress
requires
single
member
districts.
D
You
know,
and
it
may
be,
that
states
in
their
constitution
or
laws
have
similar
requirements,
but
but
where
there
is
some
flexibility
you
know
again
to
deal
with
some
of
these
challenges
about
what's
fair
representation,
you
know
what
what
should
a
commission
do?
You
know
I
would
at
least
be
interested
in
the
idea
of
as
we're
given
the
innovativeness
of
just
having
commissions
in
general
and
the
trend
in
that
direction.
You
know,
should
we
be,
you
know,
pushing
the
envelope
a
little
bit
and
saying
hey.
D
Maybe
some
of
these
commissions
in
some
states
should
be
thinking
not
just
about
single
member
districts
anymore,
but
are
we?
Could
we
better
represent
citizens
in
legislatures?
By
having
you
know,
multi-member
districts,
you
know
with
something
like
ranch
choice
voting
attached
to
it.
Is
that
a
is
that
better?
You
know
that
may
not
be
feasible
in
this
cycle
in
most
states,
but
as
as
as
people
work
through
the
issues
that
confront
us.
D
This
cycle,
you
know,
maybe
keep
a
little
notepad
of
what
might
work
good,
because,
obviously
you
know
we
want
our
experiment
in
democracy
to
last,
not
just
this
cycle,
but
in
perpetuity
and
and
and
and
changes
that
we
can't
do
this
time.
You
know
somebody
who's
looked
at
this
now,
for
you
know,
as
I
said
you
know,
ohio
has
been
struggling
this
for
for
several
cycles,
and
so
we're
not
going
to
be
perfect
this
time.
But
if
we
improve
great,
maybe
we
can
we
can
improve
for
the
future
next
time
too.
D
One
final
thought,
if
I
might-
I
don't
know
if
you
talked
about
this
in
an
earlier
panel,
but
given
the
changing
composition
of
the
courts,
in
addition
to
the
possibility
of
that
arizona
case
being
overruled,
you
know
there's
some
possibility
that
the
basic
bedrock
principle
of
one
versus
person,
one
vote
from
reynolds
versus
sims,
not
necessarily
be
overruled
but
diluted.
You
know
significantly
in
terms
of
just
how
strict
compliance
with
one
person
one
vote
might
be.
D
You
know
the
evan
well
case
out
of
texas
was
something
of
a
signal
in
this
direction,
and
that
was
before
you
know
a
lot
of
new
justices
and
I'm
reminded
you
know
when
julia
was
talking
about
the
challenges
of
colorado
and
crossing
the
mountains.
D
They
wanted
to
deviate
from
one
person,
one
vote,
given
some
the
natural
geography
of
colorado
and
the
supreme
court
said
no,
even
if
every
county
in
colorado
is
willing
to
deviate
from
population
equality,
we're
not
going
to
let
them
my
sense
is.
The
current
court
would
definitely
not
decide
that
case.
That
way
again,
but
precedent
is
precedent,
but
I
I
think
you
know,
as
maps
get
put
to
litigation
this
year
again,
depending
on
how
aggressive
state
legislatures
are,
hopefully
commissions
won't,
be.
D
You
may
see
not
only
the
rucho
decision
being
hands
off
in
terms
of
that
claim,
but
you
may
see
the
federal
courts
being
even
more
hands-off
with
respect
to
the
basic
one-person
one-vote
doctrine
which
will
open
up
more.
You
know,
capacity
for
legislatures
to
do
mischief,
but
maybe
capacity
for
commissions
and
legislatures
to
be
more
experimental
in
ways
that
might
not
be
mischievous,
but
might
actually
you
know
be
interesting.
D
You
know
ways
to
promote
fair
representation,
so
I
I
think
we
are
in
the
this.
This
cycle
will
be
very
different
from
previous
cycles.
I
think
for
lots
and
lots
of
reasons.
So
you
know
we're
at
a
pivot
point
in
american
history
in
our
po,
and
I
think
this
redistricting
cycle
is
going
to
affect
is
going
to
reflect
that
one
way
or
another.
I
just
don't
know
exactly.
D
C
D
I
don't
you
know,
I
think
the
commission
is
new
enough.
I
mean
the
anecdotal
evidence,
I
think
is
less
yes,
I
mean,
on
balance,
there's
less
partisanship
in
commission
maps
than
in
legislative
maps.
I
don't
have
the
exact
data
in
front
of
me,
but
I
feel
pretty
confident
that
that's
a
basic
proposition
now
ben's
back,
that's
good
yeah.
A
Sorry
about
that
folks,
thank
you
for
covering
for
me.
I
was
wondering
why
no
one
was
listening
to
what
I
was
saying
and
then
I
realized
that
I
wasn't
there.
So
yeah
we've
been
having
a
little
bit
of
inner
internet
issues
in
my
neighborhood
recently.
So
thank
you.
A
I'm
not
sure
what
you
all
said
in
my
absence,
but
I
think
that
since
we
only
have
one
more
minute
left,
I'm
gonna
go
to
richard's
question,
which
is
a
only
asks
for
a
one-word
answer
and
then
just
give
any
final
thoughts
you
have
about
commissions
and
where
we're
headed
and
what
you
could
say
to
legislators
now
that
you
have
them
in
your
audience.
A
So
his
question
is,
if
you
could
explain
in
one
word,
why
commissions
are
so
in
vogue
right
now
and
I'll
start
with
you,
ned.
D
I
I
think,
because
of
the
disease
right,
the
commissions
are
seen
as
the
best
response
at
the
moment
that
we've
been
able
to
come
up
with
with
the
to
correct
the
disease
of
gerrymandering,
I
mean,
I
think
every
commission
has
been
that
I've
studied.
You
know
what
has
been
proposed
as
a
response
to
the
fear
that
legislatures
can't
be
trusted
with
it
themselves
and
that
trust
has
been
born
out
of
the
fear
that
legislatures,
if
given
the
opportunity,
will
will
will
abuse
the
power
in
the
form
of
gerrymandering.
C
Thank
you,
julia
yeah.
I
don't
think
I
can
answer
that
in
one
word
either,
but
I
I
was
struck
with
also
when
ned
was
talking
at
the
beginning
about
political
greed,
because
I
think
to
get
where
colorado
is.
I
think
both
sides
have
to
be
afraid
that
they
might
not
win
like.
I
think
the
way
you
get
to
a
compromise
is
you
have
two
political
parties
who
are
not
certain
of
the
outcome
and
that
makes
makes
them
more
likely
to
get
a
unanimous
vote
out
of
the
legislature
to
try
something
different.
A
Yeah
fantastic!
Well:
if
anyone
in
the
audience
has
questions,
I
I'm
more
than
confident
that
ned
and
julia
would
be
willing
to
answer
them
for
you.
You
can
refer
those
through
us
at
ncsl,
our
general
elections,
inboxes
elections
dash
info
at
ncsl.org
and
I'll
be
happy
to
connect
you
with
any
of
our
speakers
today.
A
This
is
the
last
substantive
session
of
this
redistricting
seminar.
A
It's
been
three
long
days
and
we
thank
everyone
for
sticking
with
us
through
this
originally,
when
we
had
been
planning
these
a
few
years
ago,
we
thought
that
we
would
be
in
washington
dc
right
now
having
our
last
hurrah
and
instead
we're
doing
it
virtually,
but
we
all
adapt
and
change,
and
we
just
thank
you
for
being
willing
to
try
something
new
with
us,
because
the
virtual
meetings
on
a
platform
like
this
are
new
to
ncsl
and
we're
glad
that
you
all
thought
this
was
a
valuable
use
of
your
time
to
to
come
on
and
hear
from
our
experts.
A
A
We
will
have
a
concluding
thoughts
on
the
seminar
from
wendy
underhill,
the
executive,
the
director
of
our
program,
but
with
that
I
will
just
say
thank
you
to
you
julia
and
to
you
ned,
for
coming
on
today
and
julia
best
of
luck
with
the
commission
work
moving
forward,
and
hopefully,
when
this
is
this
is
over.
A
We,
your
fellow
colleagues
and
we
at
ncsl,
can
meet
downtown
for
a
coffee
here
in
denver
and
then
ned
best
of
luck
with
you
as
well
and
and
your
work
it's
going
to
be
a
busy
year
for
you.
I
can
imagine-
and
I
hopefully
next
time
I
get
to
make
it
out
to
columbus
I'll
swing
by,
but
with
that
have
a
good
weekend.
Everyone
please
stay
safe
and
take
care.