Florida Amendments 5 & 6 are a Powerful Dose of What's Needed

There is a tremendous amount of media and interest group attention surrounding two of the proposed Florida constitutional amendments that will be on the November ballot. Both Amendment 4 and Amendment 8 have been heavily publicized and debated by competing interests that are seeking to sway voters one way or the other – and for good reason – they are both monumental proposals with the ability to directly impact the everyday life of voters. However, I believe that in the big picture, Amendments 5 & 6, known collectively as the Florida Fair Districting Initiative, have the ability to be an even bigger game changer in terms of their long-term effect.

Both Amendments seek to end the age-old practice of gerrymandering, a tactic in which the controlling political party creatively redefines the boundaries of legislative districts in order to increase the likelihood of keeping their party in power. In my opinion, of all the obstacles to a healthy democracy, gerrymandering is among the greatest. Gerrymandering reduces public impact in the selection of public officials by allowing politicians to choose their voters rather than voters choosing them.

Every 10 years, Florida lawmakers redraw legislative lines for the supposed purpose of reflecting the data of the most recent census. However, the districts ultimately reflect little more than which political party held the majority at the time of redistricting. Lines are drawn not according to neighborhoods or even towns and counties, but simply where the voters of their party reside. The end result is not to have a group of connected citizens with common interests and related concerns voting for a representative to reflect their will, but rather a loose confederacy of patch-quilt districts that divide such communities for the sake of consolidating and preserving legislative power.

The relatively minor disparity between the parties in terms of numbers makes it impossible for either party to win every district, so they concede pockets of opposition in order to ensure enough of them will fall reliably in their favor. This compounds the problem because it leads to representation being all but pre-determined in a majority of districts, even if it is for the non-controlling party. As a result, too many of the races are forgone conclusions by the time the primary is over. This discourages voter participation and equally as disappointing, it disuades many potential candidates from contemplating a run. Who would want to go through the intense scrutiny of running for public office – the personal, professional and financial sacrifices – if 70 percent of the people in their district of residence are registered with the other party?

That is exactly the case in many districts, including those in the Manatee area. District 67 and 68 split the bulk of the county and both are reliably Republican. District 55 is so utterly manufactured to be Democratic that it is laughable to suppose that a representative could be representative of the many distinct communities it zig zags through from St. Pete to Sarasota. District 70 is primarily in Venice, but reaches tiny slivers as far north as Bee Ridge Road in Sarasota and Englewood in the south. Voters in Manatee County alone have no less than four state house districts sharing strategic portions of "representation."

This invites the practice of "district shopping," where well-financed, party-favored candidates run in communities they know little or nothing about, just because it reliably votes in favor of their preferred party. When popular Republican Nancy Detert termed out in District 70, current incumbent Doug Holder campaigned for the seat with the Palm Beach plates still on his Jaguar. This further undermines the sense of "representation" that is required for our democracy to function.

Along with ludicrous campaign finance laws, this serves to make sure that political machines atop both parties have the final say on what happens in Tallahassee, rather than the voters who write their paychecks. By nature, political machines are anti-democracy. Their very purpose is to consolidate and protect power while minimizing outside (public) debate and influence. Amendment 5 would ensure that "Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries." Amendment 6 would do the same for the drawing of congressional districts.

If you believe in democracy and a government that is representative of the people and communities it serves, there is no downside to these amendments. In fact, the legislature's own Amendment 7, which was stricken from the ballot by the Florida Supreme Court and sought to deliberately confuse the voters into preserving this toxic perk, provides more evidence of their necessity than perhaps any other argument. Voters do not often get the chance to right the fundamental wrongs of our system, but on November 2 Amendments 5 and 6 will give us the chance to do just that. For the sake of democracy, I hope we take it.