Senate Redistricting Hearing: Comments On The Comments

Filed in Delaware, Featured by on October 19, 2021

I’m annoyed.  I’m annoyed at some of tonight’s speakers, including those from the ACLU and the League Of Women Voters.  Even though…we are members of the Delaware Chapter of the ACLU.

Virtually all of tonight’s hearing focused on a few districts in Sussex County.  Three speakers complained that the beachfront community of Slaughter Beach was being moved from District 18 (Wilson) to District 16 (Bonini).  The problem is that the speakers disagreed on where Slaughter Beach should be located. Two of them argued that it should be put back into SD 18. The other speaker argued that, because it’s a beachfront community, and would be the only beachfront community not in a Sussex County district, it should be added to SD 6.  Fair enough. And, if I were to make any change, that would seem to be the one that makes the most sense. Why? Because SD 18 also goes into Kent County, more in Kent County this time than previously.  Not to mention, SD 18 has no coastal area whatsoever.  Having said that, I can totally understand why nobody, nobody residing in Slaughter Beach would ever want to be in Colin Bonini’s district.

I’ve become annoyed after hearing the so-called open government groups testify.  The League Of Women Voters’ speaker said that they, or more accurately, their ‘non-partisan working group’ had introduced their maps today. Uh, a little late, don’tchathink?  I’ve grown tired of hearing about so-called ‘edge redistricting’. Especially when the speaker from the ACLU did not specify who he was calling out, but argued that incumbents’ addresses should not be considered.  Bullshit.  Not only is it not practical, but, and this may come as a shock to you and the ACLU, many voters like their incumbents and would like to vote for them.  Whether these ‘good government’ groups believe it or not, you cannot separate the political from the process.  For all their talk about ‘independent commissions’, many states that have adopted them have found themselves in gridlock when an even number of participants from both major parties are involved.  Not to mention, the D’s control the process. Why the F should they unilaterally surrender that power in a blue state?

I’m (putting on my body armor) annoyed at complaints from some in the Sussex LGBTQ community who testified that their power is ‘diluted’ under the new maps.  This, despite the fact that a huge, perhaps, decisive, LGBTQ community resides in the newly-drawn 6th SD.  Different speakers argued that the district should be expanded to take in other blocks of LGBTQ residents who are not currently in the district, specifically in what would become the SW boundary of the district.  I disagree.  The 6th is compact and keeps like-minded communities together.  One guy who posts drivel here basically said (and I’m paraphrasing and exaggerating) that pretty much every LGBTQ supporter in Sussex should be drawn into the 6th. One speaker said that an LGBTQ supporter she knows drives into Lewes for groceries, so she should be included.   I think that the community has been empowered by the drawing of that district, and I think that having pockets of LGBTQ voters in other districts is a plus, not a minus. Except, unless–some of those making the arguments wanted to run in the 6th. Say-y-y, waitaminnit (checks notes), 3 of the four speakers who raised the issue are–former candidates.  Coincidence, I’m sure.

I, uh, think I’ll head away from the keyboard for awhile.  I will await the figurative slings and arrows headed my way.

About the Author ()

Comments (28)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. SussexWatcher says:

    Who were the ex-candidates?

  2. Claire Snyder-Hall says:

    I was one of the speakers from a “good government” group. Our coalition has been working on redistricting all year with very little response from redistricting leaders. Plus the census data was delayed and we only recently received it.

    My main point was that the timeline for this process has been cut unnecessarily short. There is no reason it has to be done by 11/8. We were given only 3 business days to analyze the proposed maps. People in the community have been submitting maps for weeks, but until we got a chance to see the proposed maps, there was nothing to respond to.

    The speakers at the meeting last night were clearly well organized. They had specific arguments to make about Slaughter Beach and SD6. What about the rest of the districts? People have not had time to respond, which is why we need more time. I am sure plenty of other folks in other districts would have issues with the way the lines are drawn as well.

    I am a full-time paid staff member of Common Cause who has access to a team of experts and a communications apparatus. I cannot tell you how much time it took to formulate a response to the maps, and it was only partial. How is an everyday voter supposed to have time to weigh in?

    Redistricting matters. It matters for people’s material lives, and we will have to live with the outcome for ten years. The process is too important to rush, and certainly incumbents staying in office should not be the primary concern — or any concern in my opinion.

    • That’s true, which is why I didn’t list her with the others. She didn’t speak to SD 6.

      However, Claire, I respectfully disagree with your argument that the voting should be delayed. I know for a fact that there are insurgent candidacies prepared to go public once the lines are finalized. Accordingly, I believe that delaying the voting only helps incumbents and disadvantages challengers.

      Also, The absence of commentary on certain districts doesn’t necessarily mean that people haven’t had time to look at them. It COULD mean that they have no problems with the newly-drawn lines.

      BTW, the Senate released their maps a week ago Monday. The House didn’t do so until Thursday night. Not optimal, I agree. But neither were the circumstances.

  3. TheBigHam says:

    Not to mention…Dave McBride refiled his reelect committee, but this time in Sussex? I believe that he lives in the 6th.

  4. Sussex Worker says:

    Pettyjohn is actually going to resign. There will be a special election to fill his seat. Ruth Briggs-King is likely to run in that special election..and then again in the new district next year. That means that if she wins the special, there will then be another special election for her House seat.

    • That would be the height of stupidity and a waste of taxpayers’ money. The Special Election would (I believe) be held in the current district, and then you would have a second election in the newly-drawn district in November.

      Not to mention, if RBK wins the Senate seat, you could have a special election in HER current district, and a subsequent November election in the new House district.

      • Sussex Worker says:

        That is what I said. That is what is going to happen. He will be accepting a job that takes him out of politics. It is just a matter of when he will resign and when the Special Election will be, not IF

    • DJT Toadstool says:

      Eric Bodenweiser should claim the seat which is rightfully his.

  5. SussexWatcher says:

    Am I reading the committee org forms rightly that Mitch is running for SD6?

  6. Well, this won’t come around again for another decade. But, kids, you MIGHT want to wait until after redistricting to file your campaign committees.

    Here are those who have filed legislative campaign committees so far:

    Sherm Porter-RD 4-Oops. He filed for the district that is leaving his neighborhood. Try again.

    Terrell Williams-RD 9-Kevin Hensley’s district.

    John Bucchioni and Mitch Crane-both for SD 6

    Kelly Williams Maresca-RD 26-she’s challenging Madinah? Memo to self: Time for another contribution. BTW, it looks like Maresca runs a resume-writing business. (Trivia Time–The following lyric is from what Broadway musical?: “Who am I anyway, am I my resume?” Hint-Sondheim didn’t write it.)

    Rebecca Cotto-RD 6. Primarying Deb Heffernan.

    Ruth Briggs King-SD 19. As previously reported.

  7. Alby says:

    Not sure anyone needs another reason to distrust Mitch, but he gave a hefty $2,150 to Kathy McGuiness’ campaign.

    • Kevin Ohlandt says:

      Yes he did and he supported her like she was the savior of Delaware. Where is he on McG now? Does he still support her?