POLITICAL REFORM
Making Elections Count
Voters no longer choose their politicians; instead, politicians choose
their voters when they draw the district lines. I have been leading the
fight to take the politics out of redistricting.
Redistricting has become a tool used by legislative leaders to ensure that elections are never competitive. As you know, the constitution requires that political boundaries are redrawn every 10 years to reflect population shifts. In recent years, politicians of both parties have become increasingly blatant about drawing these lines to ensure that there are as few genuinely competitive districts as possible. As a result, 95 percent of us live in districts where our vote essentially does not count because those who drew the lines have already decided which party will win. Though gerrymandering has been a growing problem for centuries, new technology has made it increasingly effective. Let me explain how this works. Say there are two adjacent legislative districts, both of which typically divide their vote evenly between the Democratic and Republican parties. When the next redistricting comes around, the party leadership of both parties will make a deal to swap precincts so that instead of two 50-50 districts, the new map will have one district that is 70 -30 Republican and the other that is 70-30 Democratic. People still walk to the polls on election day, but everyone knows who will win before the first vote is counted.
I have introduced a bill (H.B.1116) which would take the power to draw the map away from the legislature and ban any consideration of political advantage in redrawing the lines. A new, multipartisan commission would be created, which would have to conduct all of its deliberations in public. This bill will eliminate the back-room deals that draw the lines now. Iowa has actually passed reform similar to my proposal. As a result, four out of five of Iowa’s congressional districts are competitive. That is more competitive districts than there are in Pennsylvania, New York and California combined. That state’s legislative races are similarly competitive. The powers that be in both parties oppose my bill because it takes power out of their hands. The only way that reform will ever happen is if there is a public outcry demanding it.
Lobbyist Disclosure
New efforts already are underway pressing for quick passage of
effective lobbyist disclosure and regulation for Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania is currently the only state without a law requiring lobbyists to report how much they spend to influence public policy. I believe that, without expenditure transparency, the public’s trust in the legislature is eroded. The public has the right to know who is trying to influence the state’s legislature. I support a proposal to require any lobbyist or client that the lobbyist represents to report gifts and expenses which total over $2,500 annually to the State Ethics Committee or Department of State where they will be made public.
The state Senate maintains a rule requiring lobbyists to register, but there currently is no mandatory disclosure in the House or executive branch. It is time that we in the House join the Senate and go further, to restore transparency in government. Legislation has also been introduced that would prohibit former members of the General Assembly and key legislative staff officers from lobbying the legislature for at least two years after they leave office. We should end the practice, known as “revolving door lobbying,” because former members of the General Assembly who immediately begin to lobby their former friends and colleagues on behalf of special interests could be perceived as having undue access and influence with legislators. Current state law prohibits legislators and high-ranking staff from lobbying the legislature for one year after they leave office.
The new bill would ensure former lawmakers are out of office for at least one entire two year legislative session before they can lobby former colleagues. I support this bill as an important step toward reducing the appearance of impropriety in the way we do business.
Taking the Money Out of Politics
Campaign finance and lobbyist disclosure reform go hand in hand in restoring public trust.
Pennsylvania is one of five states that does not set limits on individual political contributions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. That means that while you can only give $2,100 to a candidate running for president of the United States, you could give $100,000 or more to a state legislative or gubernatorial candidate. This unlimited giving is a huge problem. I have little doubt, based on what I’ve seen, that interests that give huge contributions have disproportionate influence and access. However, limits on the amount of giving solve only part of the problem. I believe that we need to eliminate money from politics entirely, and that is why I support public financing of campaigns. I spent a good deal of time over the past year studying the legislative process with legislators from all over the country. I met representatives and senators from other states, like Maine for example, which do not allow politicians to accept money from anyone. They receive a certain amount each cycle for their campaigns and some free TV time and can spend no more. And while this does cost the taxpayers some money, they save many times that amount in special interest favors that never become law.
Daylin Opposes Ghost Voting Bill
In January 2005, I bucked my party leadership and voted against allowing members of the House to vote by proxy. Unfortunately, the measure passed and members are now permitted to go on “Capitol leave” and have someone in their leadership vote for them. I have never taken what is euphemistically called “floor leave” and ghost voted. I still believe that what is said during floor debate can make a difference, and I think legislators should be there to hear the debate before they vote on a bill. In other states, there has been a growing trend for more accountability in state government, not less. Lawmakers in New York recently changed their rules to include a new voting procedure requiring members, not staffers or colleagues, to vote personally from voting devices at their desks.
Daylin Fights to Preserve the Right to Vote!
Recently, I voted against H.B. 1318 which was designed to make it more difficult or people to vote, particularly the elderly and minorities. Regrettably, the bill did pass both the House and Senate, but the good news is that it was vetoed by Governor Rendell. I have pledged to vote to sustain that veto. We should be encouraging people to vote, not making it more difficult.
Automatic Calendar
Some states have a procedural mechanism called an “automatic calendar” that guarantees every bill is considered and voted on.
In Pennsylvania, votes are scheduled at the whim of legislative leaders. Voting schedules can be determined by whether they agree with a proposal or even when they like a given legislator.
Implementing an automatic calendar would allow the minority party to have its ideas and policy initiatives considered. Members would be held more accountable for the bills they introduced, and since the proposal would be guaranteed a vote, a calendar may result in better-drafted and reasoned legislation.
Because an automatic calendar forces a vote on all legislation, the General Assembly would deal with real issues at and fewer mundane issues that dominate the floor at times, like naming the official state cookie.
I strongly support a rule change that would institute an automatic calendar in Pennsylvania and bring every issue to a vote.
The Paper Chase
After controversy erupted in Florida over the 2000 presidential election, the Help America Vote Act mandated that old voting machines be upgraded by this year’s upcoming primary to ensure every vote is registered and counted. When some local counties in Pennsylvania replaced outdated lever and punch card voting machines with electronic systems, it was expected to make the election process smoother and more accurate. Unfortunately, poor training of election workers and glitches that incorrectly recorded votes or allowed votes for only one candidate have led to questioning the accuracy of the new system.
That is why I support legislation that would require a voter verified paper record of every vote and a routine random manual audit of 5% of the state’s precincts. Under this proposal, Pennsylvania would join 26 other states which have paper records of ballots cast electronically for the purpose of a recount. Having a paper trail is important since the federal government is requiring all counties to switch to electronic voting machines. The existence of a paper record would settle disputed close elections as well as allegations of fraud or hacking into machines. I will continue working to protect Pennsylvanians’ right to vote, which is a cornerstone of our democracy.
) to hear her message now:
