|
|
Town of Strafford Democratic Committee
We are a local grassroots organization in Strafford, NH, working to elect Democrats at all levels of government. We meet on the first Tuesday of the month at 7:00 PM at the Hill Library. Our next meeting will be Monday March 25, 2019 at 7 p.m. at the Hill Library. At this meeting, the Biennial election of committee officers will take place. All committee officers get to vote at the state Democratic Convention next year, as well as providing local leadership. Any Strafford resident who is a registered Democrat may take part in these elections. We welcome your participation!
We are a local grassroots organization in Strafford, NH, working to elect Democrats at all levels of government. We meet on the first Tuesday of the month at 7:00 PM at the Hill Library. Our next meeting will be Monday March 25, 2019 at 7 p.m. at the Hill Library. At this meeting, the Biennial election of committee officers will take place. All committee officers get to vote at the state Democratic Convention next year, as well as providing local leadership. Any Strafford resident who is a registered Democrat may take part in these elections. We welcome your participation!
House Election Law Committee Votes to Create an Independent Redistricting Committee
New political districts are created every ten years that end in the number one which means that the next nationwide redistricting will be done in 2021 following the 2020 US Census. The census collects population, race, ethnicity, age and other demographic data for each state and US Territory. The Founders of our nation set forth the requirement of a census in order to count every living person in the new nation and ensure equal representation in government.
Census data is often used to create political districts that favor one party over another which is known as gerrymandering. This happens because the political party that is in power weighs in on the new census data as it pertains to how Congressional districts will be drawn. The US Senate seats are not based on geographical regions, each US Senator represents their entire state.
Both parties partake in the creation of state and local voting districts that are weighted in their favor. An excellent example of gerrymandering is Executive Council District 2, which stretches in a narrow band across the entire state. It deprives Republican voters there of an equal voice in elections because it is heavily Democratic. However, it allowed Republicans to create solid Republican districts elsewhere, to their overall benefit. Gerrymandering is legalized election fraud.
On Wednesday, February 20, good news came out of the NH house election law committee, when it unanimously voted to support House Bill 706 which aims to create an independent redistricting committee (as opposed to prior committees that were based on the majority party in power at the time of the new census data . Next, it will go to the full house for a vote. If passed, the bill will move to the senate for consideration. Our Chairman Bob Perry's testimony to the committee is in the Chairman's Corner below.
Census data is often used to create political districts that favor one party over another which is known as gerrymandering. This happens because the political party that is in power weighs in on the new census data as it pertains to how Congressional districts will be drawn. The US Senate seats are not based on geographical regions, each US Senator represents their entire state.
Both parties partake in the creation of state and local voting districts that are weighted in their favor. An excellent example of gerrymandering is Executive Council District 2, which stretches in a narrow band across the entire state. It deprives Republican voters there of an equal voice in elections because it is heavily Democratic. However, it allowed Republicans to create solid Republican districts elsewhere, to their overall benefit. Gerrymandering is legalized election fraud.
On Wednesday, February 20, good news came out of the NH house election law committee, when it unanimously voted to support House Bill 706 which aims to create an independent redistricting committee (as opposed to prior committees that were based on the majority party in power at the time of the new census data . Next, it will go to the full house for a vote. If passed, the bill will move to the senate for consideration. Our Chairman Bob Perry's testimony to the committee is in the Chairman's Corner below.
Chairman's Corner
HB 706-FN-A – establishing an independent redistricting commission
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Chairman Cote, and members of the committee:
I speak in support of this bill.
After years of refusing to hear cases involving challenges to redistricting plans, refusing to direct state legislators to abide by their constitutional responsibilities, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1962, for the first time, held that the federal courts have jurisdiction to consider constitutional challenges to state legislative redistricting plans.
Beginning in 1962, SCOTUS has ruled on apportionment cases in four major areas:
1) Cases relating to Population
2) Cases relating to Legislatures vs. Commissions
3) Cases Relating to Race
4) Cases Relating to Partisanship
Gerrymandering is legalized fraud committed upon voters. Members of the majority party believe they have earned the opportunity to skew districts in order to protect incumbents, pick their voters, or exercise other acts of rigging the system for self-benefit. In reality, the majority party has only earned the opportunity to serve their constituents, consistent with federal and state laws.
The situation of gerrymandering has worsened over the years because of the advent and use of algorithms much more sophisticated than the software available in prior redistricting plans, federal or state.
We are now more than 56 years from the court’s earliest intervention. In the meantime, the overt manipulation of apportionment continues throughout most of the country. But public opinion is sharply on the side of fairness. A bi-partisan survey from September, 2017, concludes by a margin of 73 to 14 percent, voters support removing partisan bias from redistricting, even if it means their preferred political party will win fewer seats.
This bill’s robust commission membership screening process is likely to result in a body of members who, to the extent possible in politics, is non-partisan. Its redistricting criteria respond to the issues identified by SCOTUS as having been abused in the past.
In addition, this bill contains:
The nation’s highest court has recently agreed to consider yet another apportionment lawsuit, Rucho v Common Cause. If the court does not deflect from ruling, as it did in Gill v Whitford, a ruling in Rucho could set federal standards for fair redistricting outcomes, and spotlight blatant gerrymandered maps existing in North Carolina and Maryland. In the meantime, however the buck must stop with the states.
I thank members for their attention.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting/redistricting-and-the-supreme-court-the-most-significant-cases.aspx
https://campaignlegal.org/update/results-are-most-americans-want-limits-gerrymandering
Bob Perry – Strafford
https://www.thenation.com/article/now-voters-stop-gerrymandering/
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Chairman Cote, and members of the committee:
I speak in support of this bill.
After years of refusing to hear cases involving challenges to redistricting plans, refusing to direct state legislators to abide by their constitutional responsibilities, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1962, for the first time, held that the federal courts have jurisdiction to consider constitutional challenges to state legislative redistricting plans.
Beginning in 1962, SCOTUS has ruled on apportionment cases in four major areas:
1) Cases relating to Population
2) Cases relating to Legislatures vs. Commissions
3) Cases Relating to Race
4) Cases Relating to Partisanship
Gerrymandering is legalized fraud committed upon voters. Members of the majority party believe they have earned the opportunity to skew districts in order to protect incumbents, pick their voters, or exercise other acts of rigging the system for self-benefit. In reality, the majority party has only earned the opportunity to serve their constituents, consistent with federal and state laws.
The situation of gerrymandering has worsened over the years because of the advent and use of algorithms much more sophisticated than the software available in prior redistricting plans, federal or state.
We are now more than 56 years from the court’s earliest intervention. In the meantime, the overt manipulation of apportionment continues throughout most of the country. But public opinion is sharply on the side of fairness. A bi-partisan survey from September, 2017, concludes by a margin of 73 to 14 percent, voters support removing partisan bias from redistricting, even if it means their preferred political party will win fewer seats.
This bill’s robust commission membership screening process is likely to result in a body of members who, to the extent possible in politics, is non-partisan. Its redistricting criteria respond to the issues identified by SCOTUS as having been abused in the past.
In addition, this bill contains:
- Public notification and information requirements that are lacking in so many important initiatives
- Clear requirements for public disclosure
- A registered voter challenge process
- And a backup plan should the commission fail in its responsibilities.
The nation’s highest court has recently agreed to consider yet another apportionment lawsuit, Rucho v Common Cause. If the court does not deflect from ruling, as it did in Gill v Whitford, a ruling in Rucho could set federal standards for fair redistricting outcomes, and spotlight blatant gerrymandered maps existing in North Carolina and Maryland. In the meantime, however the buck must stop with the states.
I thank members for their attention.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting/redistricting-and-the-supreme-court-the-most-significant-cases.aspx
https://campaignlegal.org/update/results-are-most-americans-want-limits-gerrymandering
Bob Perry – Strafford
https://www.thenation.com/article/now-voters-stop-gerrymandering/
A Word about Gerrymandering: Chairman Bob Perry offers insights on how gerrymandering has hurt Democrats (including right here in Strafford!), and the need for an independent election commission to draw future district lines. Read more.
Working for Open Democracy
Committee Chair Bob Perry takes notes at a Democracy in Action breakout session at the New Hampshire Technical Institute on November 17, 2018. This workshop focused on Using the Power of Social Media to Engage, Educate, and Move to Action. The day of training was sponsored, in part, by the Coalition for Open Democracy in Concord. Bob has been a board member since January 2010. Learn more about the Coalition for Open Democracy.
Committee Chair Bob Perry takes notes at a Democracy in Action breakout session at the New Hampshire Technical Institute on November 17, 2018. This workshop focused on Using the Power of Social Media to Engage, Educate, and Move to Action. The day of training was sponsored, in part, by the Coalition for Open Democracy in Concord. Bob has been a board member since January 2010. Learn more about the Coalition for Open Democracy.
|
Your Vote Counted!
Your Democratic vote in the historic midterm election made a difference! The new Democratic majority in the US House, including our new Congressman Chris Pappas, will work to keep Social Security from being privatized and help hold the line against a current law requiring deep cuts to Medicare programs. Democratic majorities in the New Hampshire House, State Senate, and Executive Council will provide an important check and balance, including protecting access to Medicaid. We can count on them to look out for working families and create jobs. Thanks to everyone who helped during this critical election cycle, including those who braved the weather to stand at the polls on election day to cheer on Team Blue! |
|
|
Good Work, Max
We enjoyed working with our local Field Organizer Max as part of the New Hampshire Democratic Party's Combined Campaign effort in 2018. Here he is with (from left) Shirley Brownell, Chairman Bob Perry, Max, Carol Perry, and Rollande Merz at one of our meetings. Max's enthusiasm - along with many dedicated volunteers - contributed to a record turnout in the midterm election in New Hampshire. Now it's on to 2020! |
A Big Thanks to our Local Democratic Candidates
|
Former State Rep and Committee Chair Bob Perry ran for State Representative. Learn more.
|
|
Retired literacy teacher Ellen Phillips also ran for State Rep (we vote for two). Learn more.
|
|
Attorney Chris Roundy of Nottingham was our candidate for State Senate. Learn more.
|
|
Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. |
|
|
