Redistricting, politics and children-what's at stake

This article in the newsletter, Stateline, reveals the high stakes in November statehouse elections-

"The outcome on Election Day will be particularly important because the legislatures will draw new congressional and state district lines in 2011. If one party or the other controls that process, members can draw maps that help their electoral chances — both at the state level and in the U.S. House of Representatives — for the next decade." and...

"Another factor that will weigh on the outcome is term limits. As Stateline has reported, term limits are forcing at least 380 state lawmakers to retire this year. "

A related tidbit--- GQ Magazine placed veteran political operative Haley Barbour, now Alabama Governor and Chairman of the Republican Governors Association, at the top of its Monthly Power List/Pre-Election Edition --

"Thanks to Barbour's aggressive leadership, the GOP will likely come out of the midterms with 29 seats, an especially valuable advantage as states use this year's census figures to redraw their electoral maps. "It's going to be his night," says a Republican staffer working on the midterms.

Predictably, a "red" sweep holds long-term consequences for public policies that serve the needs of children. Regarding state education policies, the conservative, market-based ideology of the Republican party would likely mean new laws that facilitate more public charter schools, require performance pay, expand private-sector access to educational services, school management and teacher certification, and, of course, have them all revolve around standardized testing. Spice it up with the libertarian, anti-government influence of today's Tea Party Republicans (and independents so inclined), free-market ideas like school vouchers and loose regulation of school options could gain strong foothold in some states. It's become clear, too, that many Democrats, to stay in office or who are themselves similarly conservative, (helped along by President Obama in the case of public education) are leaning more toward a market-based ideology.

On the federal level, the reauthorization of ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act; otherwise known as No Child Left Behind; the policy and funding framework for federal education dollars) is still gathering dust because of the focus on health care and financial reforms. It would likewise be affected if a "red" sweep washes over Congress, as many predict. It could go in a variety of directions--ESEA/NCLB shelved because of political gridlock, strategically rewritten to emphasize market-based reforms, reworked to diminish the role of the federal government in making education policy, stealthily funded or NOT funded in ways to match prevailing ideology, or...??? So, too, the Race to the Top grant competition, funded with stimulus dollars, will play some role in future political deal-making, although it has helped spur market-based reforms, like performance pay.

In healthcare policy, the talk by Republicans and Tea Party followers about rolling back this year's controversial health care legislation will likely mean the goal of covering all children will fall away, pre-existing conditions (in children?) may surface again as a way to hold down costs for healthcare companies, removal of the individual mandate that's necessary to balance costs of the healthy and not-so-healthy and thus deny the goal of universal coverage (not too long ago, the individual mandate was promoted by those who now oppose it)...plus...???

Redistricting and resulting elections can have even bigger consequences........To wit the growing influence on public policy by the Supreme Court, led by the youthful Chief Justice John Roberts, whose arguably conservative majority lean heavily toward free markets and less government.

It's not hard to imagine then that the combination of a "red" sweep, redistricting, the Tea Party effect, and a little help from the Roberts Court, would lead our public education system to become heavily privatized and our health care system to remain heavily privatized. (And, parenthetically, taxpayers will be paying more for both because of the inefficiencies that exist in more fragmented systems with strong for-profit components.)

It's also important to bring in the reality of running for political office these days. There is tremendous cash flowing into political campaigns by those who would benefit from expanding privatization of public schools and maintaining or expanding privatized health care. (Here, too, the Roberts Court has widened the door.) Not to mention the outsize role of wealthy foundations in funding market-based education reforms and influencing public policies that implant those reforms.

There is a counterpoint in this redistricting issue that IS worth noting. Stateline also reports on the growing movement to create independent redistricting commissions to remove a lot of the partisan politics from the process (both parties are guilty; consequences to public policy depend on who is in power at the time of redistricting). They report that a dozen states already have them. Iowa and Arizona are considered models. This November, Florida voters will be asked to approve a redistricting process that imposes rules and standards on the politicians who draw legislative and congressional district lines. But the push-and-pull still goes on. Until the Florida Supreme Court threw it out, there would have been a rival referendum created by Florida legislators meant to neuter the "Fair Districts" constitutional amendments. In 2006, California, the power of redistricting state legislative district lines was placed in the hands of an independent commission, now is up for repeal this November through Proposition 27. Ironically, though, there's a competing measure, Proposition 20, that will add congressional districts to the commission's responsibilities. And, in model Arizona, their commission-created map has been tangled up in lawsuits for years. So, while it's important to keep an eye on this movement, especially since it's often grassroots, the political forces that work against it are powerful and well-funded and the movement is not at a large enough scale to affect what is immediately ahead.

By definition democracy is messy, and the natural rivalry between public good (effective government) and private pursuit (the market) will always go on. There had always been a workable balance of the two, but now it's increasingly clear that elected officials have diminishing capacity to maintain that balance, work together toward long-term solutions and move the country forward. With increasing income inequality here and our weakening economic position in the world,  this kind of politics is unsettling, or to be frank, scary. With the Supreme Court's recent Citizens United ruling, unprecedented amounts of money are pouring into campaigns to protect legislative and congressional boundaries. While in some cases this money is rooted in ideology (private pursuit vs. public good, in basic terms), most of it is about consolidation of power. And the stronger power seems to be the one that wants to tip the balance strongly toward private pursuit over public good. Two of the most important institutions that affect the daily lives of our children---public education and our healthcare system---are being acutely affected by this power struggle. If the results are ultimately less than beneficial for our children, it's uncertain whether---this time---we'll be able to put the genie back in the bottle again.

My hopes --- That redistricting reform is approved in Florida and expanded in California. That it grows to a critical mass across the nation. That voters thoughtfully choose candidates who will seek common ground, work together toward solutions and move the country forward and reject power-seeking and paralyzing ideology. It's the only way we'll maintain the healthy balance between private pursuit and effective government that's needed for a healthy democracy and healthy economy. Let's keep the genie in the bottle.