No North Jersey Casinos if Redistrict Amend passed

We are witnessing an historic development in American politics, the demonstration project of which is happening right here in New Jersey.  A syndicate of urban political bosses from one party are trying to change a state constitution to rig the redistricting process so that the party of those bosses and their political machines control New Jersey politics in perpetuity.   

Yes, employing front men like Senate President Steve Sweeney, Assembly Speaker Vinnie Prieto, and idiot Assemblyman John McKeon, the bosses are attempting to establish a "thousand-year map" that will ensure their hegemony over a captive population who will pay ever higher taxes and face ever stricter regulation -- from the amount of water used to flush in the morning to the words exchanged with their spouses before they go to bed at night.    

And to do this they have set out -- with malice and evil intention -- to confuse voters in an election year when they know the least experienced and most easily manipulated voters will be turning out.  These are the same critters who argued that same-sex marriage was too complicated to allow the people a vote on it, and now they send a bizarre process like redistricting to the people?  Just read how the question is written and then ask yourself if it provides the necessary information to make an informed vote?

Do you approve requiring the commission to establish districts that are competitive and fairly represent voter preferences? This amendment would also require preserving communities of interest within the same district.

How?  What does that mean?  The above is an intention, not a law.  And the so-called "interpretive statement" isn't much help either:

This amendment would prohibit creating a plan in which more than half of the districts favor either major political party compared to the average district. It also would require at least 25 percent of the districts to be competitive. The amendment would also require communities of interest within districts to be preserved. 

This amendment would require districts to comply with federal law and be comprised of contiguous territory. This amendment requires the districts to follow the limit on dividing municipalities already set forth in the Constitution.

Again, how? What is the "average district" they are being compared to? What does "competitive" mean?  Define "communities of interest"?

These people actually use language that is LESS honest than what the Nazis used.  Compared to the convoluted bullshit above, this April 10, 1938 referendum offered voters by Adolf and company was a masterpiece of civic clarity:

"Do you agree with the reunification of Austria with the German Reich that was enacted on 13 March 1938, and do you vote for the party of our leader Adolf Hitler?"

That's pretty darn straightforward when compared with the swill Sweeney, Prieto, and McKeon are serving.  I guess that makes them LESS honest than Nazis. Ouch.

The good news is... Republicans can stop this!

Here is how.  Senate Democrats need all their votes to pass an expansion of casino gambling to North Jersey.  South Jersey Democrats cannot vote for it and survive.  Sweeney will need Republican votes.

No Republican should agree to vote to expand casino gambling to North Jersey if SCR-188 or ACR-4 is posted for a vote.  Sweeney cannot be trusted to keep his word (he's flipped on same-sex marriage, on guns, on unions, he'll lie to anyone) so Republicans will have to withhold their votes on the expansion of casino gambling until after August.  Then they can offer them.

The alternative will be to make Sweeney use the votes of Senators Whelan and VanDrew to pass the expansion of casino gambling and thereby turn them into meat.  That's cool too...  It's time to play hard, Republican legislators.  Because the Democrats want to make you an endangered species.

Conservatives' testimony shakes up Dems

At the two hearing yesterday in which the public got to comment on the attempt by Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-Norcross) to rig the next redistricting to produce a one-party state, one thing became certain -- nobody supports SCR 188 or ACR 4 except the politicians in the Democrat caucus and their masters who run the Democrat machines that select them for approval by the voters. 

It actually restored your faith in humanity to have liberals admit that this was Sweeney's version of Old Adolf's Enabling Act.  As Garden State Families President Greg Quinlan said in his testimony, "Germany didn't become a dictatorship using guns, it became one using laws."

What was the Enabling Act?  First, remember that these things never sound like what they are.  Its full title was "A Law to Remedy the Distress of the People" and the proponents (the Sweeneys of their day) had already taken measures to limit the number of opposing legislators casting a vote by banning some members of the legislative body from voting because they were accused of engaging in a form of "hate speech".  Other members of the opposition were kept away through the use of threats and bullying.  Remember that these guys burned down houses of worship too.   

The Enabling Act amended the Weimar Constitution to allow the executive branch to enact legislation without the benefit of it having to go through the legislative process.  Sort of like what Old Barack is doing on guns.  The idea is the same as the one behind SCR 188 and ACR 4 -- get rid of the opposition so that you can pretty much do whatever you want.

Patrick Murray did a very fine job of explaining -- very scientifically -- that the bills would produce one-party domination.  He was supported by additional testimony that added layer upon layer to this narrative.  John Tomicki, the dean of social conservative lobbyists in Trenton, told the honorables that they "were better than this" and urged them to do the right thing.  Of course, he was speaking to a number of sociopaths, so if it got through is questionable. 

The Democrat chairing the Assembly committee hearing on ACR 4, in particular, didn't appear able to fully contain his anger.  He also seemed confused as to whether or not the Governor needed to "sign" this legislation to amend the state constitution.  It does beg the question:  Should a knucklehead like that be chairing a committee?  How much staff is required to wipe this guy's butt? 

Bill & Barbara Eames, representing the Tea Party movement, testified on the effect gerrymandering has on voter hope and voter turnout.   What everyone who cries about low voter turnout doesn't seem to get is that voters CORRECTLY understand that in MOST cases their vote means NOTHING.  Why?  Well here, we'll let the non-partisan reform group RepresentUS answer that:

The problem with SCR 188 and ACR 4 is that it will INCREASE the number of instances when voting is MEANINGLESS.  It is a VOTER SUPPRESSION ACT in addition to being an ENABLING ACT for the corrupt power brokers who run the state's political machines.

The testimony that seemed to shake up Democrats the most came from Jim Simonetti, a police chief who said he got fed up with the political process and decided to run for office this year to do something about it.  Simonetti is a candidate for Warren County Sheriff and has already secured the backing of Warren County Freeholder Ed Smith, one of the top conservatives in the state.

Simonetti reminded the Democrats that in suppressing the Republican Party, they were suppressing the "tough on crime party".  Here are some excerpts of his testimony:

"I'm just a layman talking, but there is a perception out there that the Republican Party is tougher on crime than the Democrats.  Maybe that is the case or maybe it isn't, but the perception comes from things like Megan's Law -- passed when the Republicans ran the Legislature -- and Jessica's Law, whose passage was delayed for years in New Jersey by the Democrat leadership.  Our state, which had led with Megan's Law, ended up being almost the last place in America to pass Jessica's Law.  It should be an easy issue to understand, protecting children from violent sexual predators.

The death penalty was scrapped under a Democrat administration, by a Democrat legislature.  Last year the Democrats in the Assembly passed legislation that, had it not been corrected in the Senate, would have prevented employers from knowing the criminal backgrounds of prospective employees.  This is dangerous legislation.  Employers have been victims of home invasions because they didn't realize who they were dealing with.  People have the right to know."

The Democrats started to turn green thinking about the campaign mail coming out of this.  Stay tuned.

Is Sweeney man-enough for real reform?

Will Senate President Steve Sweeney drop his pussy attempt to rig every legislative election that follows the next round of redistricting... or is he man-enough to put real reform on the ballot and take on all comers in a fair fight?

The odds don't look too good.  After all, he's an Ironworker Union boss and they are known for their bullying.  Members of his union -- of his own District Council when he was President -- are on trial for an arson attack against a house of worship that wouldn't play ball.  Yeah, a church!  What's next, mugging nuns?

Now Sweeney wants to use the same scumbag tactics to bully the Legislature into enshrining "one party democracy" in the state Constitution.  Hey, this aint "On the Waterfront" and you aint Johnny Friendly (no, that would be Georgie Norcross), though you try to play the part:

What with the all-powerful executive and the legislating courts, democracy in New Jersey is pretty thin already.  And now you want to kill it forever by making it a one-party state.

Come on Sweeney, fight fair.  Don't rig the ring.  If it's reform you are looking for, how about real reform?  Adopt redistricting the way they do it in Iowa.  Here's an overview:

Iowa conducts redistricting unlike any other state.  The Iowa system does not put the task in the hands of a commission, but rather non-partisan legislative staff develop maps for the Iowa House and Senate, as well as U.S. House districts, without any political or election data (including the addresses of incumbents).  A five-person advisory commission is also formed.  This is different from all other states.  The redistricting plans from the non-partisan legislative staff are then presented to the Iowa Legislature for a straight 'Up' or 'Down' vote; if the Legislature rejects the redistricting plans, the process starts over.  (Eventually, the Iowa Supreme Court will enter the process if the Legislature fails to adopt a plan three times.)

Here are some excerpts from a great Boston Globe story on Iowa's redistricting process: 

In a locked windowless chamber across the street from the Iowa State House, three bureaucrats sequester themselves for 45 days every decade after census data is released. Their top-secret task: the “redistricting” of the state’s legislative and congressional boundaries.

But here, unlike in most other states, every care is taken to ensure the process is not political.

The mapmakers are not allowed to consider previous election results, voter registration, or even the addresses of incumbent members of Congress. No politician — not the governor, the House speaker, or Senate majority leader — is allowed to weigh in, or get a sneak preview.

Instead of drawing lines that favor a single political party, the Iowa mapmakers abide by nonpartisan metrics that all sides agree are fair — a seemingly revolutionary concept in the high-stakes decennial rite of redistricting.

Most other states blatantly allow politics to be infused into the process, leaving the impression — and sometimes the reality — that the election system is being rigged.

...Iowa, with its impartial way of drawing congressional districts, the results are viewed as a model of equity — and a model for the nation...

Moreover, Iowa’s system has led to some of the nation’s most competitive races. In a country where the vast majority of members of Congress coast to reelection, Iowa’s races are perennial tossups.

“This puts the voter as the primary consideration,” said Ed Cook, the agency’s unassuming legal counsel who leads a mapmaking team that also includes two geographers. “The basic concept is if it’s a blind process, the result will be fair.”

...This is done by making population size the primary metric when determining a district’s boundaries, followed by the goal of compact, contiguous districts that respect county lines.

“Having a more competitive district encourages somebody to really try to represent not just the ideology of his or her party but to represent the people of the district,” said Iowa’s governor, Terry Branstad.

You can read the entire article here: 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2013/12/08/iowa-redistricting-takes-partisanship-out-mapmaking/efehCnJvNtLMIAFSQ8gp7I/story.html

Sweeney is hoping to push through his "vote rig" amendment tomorrow, during a "lame duck" session of the Legislature.  Lame duck is when they push through all the lame dick legislation that wouldn't get through any other time.  So if you want to comment on having representative democracy stripped out of the state constitution, tomorrow would be the time to do it.  There will be two hearings on "vote rig".

Thursday, January 7, 2016

10 AM

Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation

Committee Room 7, 2nd floor

State House Annex

SCR 188

Legislative Reapportionment Commission

Thursday, January 7, 2016

11 AM

Assembly Judiciary

Committee Room 12, 4th floor

State House Annex

ACR 4

Legislative Reapportionment Commission

Don't let the Democrats "vote rig" redistricting

Led by Senate President Steve Sweeney (D-Norcross) the Democrats have proposed a constitutional amendment that will create legislative districts designed on purpose to elect members of a certain party, using a formula that will permanently elect more Democrats than Republicans.  Wow.  It isn't bad enough that in our so-called "democracy" we only get two choices (often bad and worse), now they are taking that away from most of us.  If we happen to live in all but a handful of districts we will be left with just one choice... only Democrat or only Republican.

Sweeney and the Democrats are proposing a model called "one party democracy" which, when you think about it, isn't really democracy at all.  It's an oligarchy that allows the bosses of political machines to do away with competitive elections in the vast majority of districts -- assigning them instead to one party or the other.

How is that fair?  Last time we checked, most New Jersey voters refused to belong to a political party.  If the bosses were going to be fair, then half of the legislative districts should be "swing" districts, belonging to no party.

But the idea of this seat or that "belonging" to some political party and the cretins who run it is revolting.  The process of choosing our elected representatives is the only thing that allows us to boast that we "live in a democracy!"  Hell, it's the reason we puff out our chests and chant "USA, USA" as we send sons and, increasingly, daughters to kill those who will not become "democratic" (of course, the elections we set up there have a dozen or more choices, while we -- back in the motherland -- are stuck at a 19th Century... two).

Sweeney and the bosses like to point to election results.  The idea that -- when given just two choices -- so many are forced to vote one way or the other.  What they ignore (and know only too well) is that they have made it so money controls the outcomes of elections and that they operate the conduits (political machines) to get the money from the bribe giver (sorry, "access" seeker) to the candidate or incumbent.  Third parties and independents are too idealistic to even understand what is taking place.  They don't stand a chance and won't until they can organize themselves along the lines of a criminal enterprise.  Only then will they be able to compete in the "democratic" process.

On Thursday, a committee dominated by those who would benefit from "one party democracy" will be meeting in Trenton to go through the motions of listening to "the people" who vote for them.  They are not to be confused with "the people" who actually put them in office by limiting the choices voters are given.  We urge you to attend and testify.  Let them know that you are on to them.  Nothing wipes the smile off a con's face faster.

Thursday, January 7, 2016

10 AM

Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation

Committee Room 7, 2nd floor

State House Annex

SCR 188

Legislative Reapportionment Commission