Trust at center of redistricting debate

The seemingly mundane task of drawing legislative election district lines is generating unrest and concern in some quarters. Traditionally a task assigned to legislators, the trend in recent times has been to delegate this to a private citizen commission.

In 2009, the Democrat-controlled Dutchess Legislature passed a law to delegate redistricting power to a five-member group, a move that in December of last year the current Republican-controlled body repealed. This was then vetoed by the county executive, who sided with Republican legislators in their reasoning that legislators should be drawing the lines, but felt the 25-member body needed to shrink to 15. In January the Legislature overrode the veto, restoring redistricting authority to legislators.

The 2009 commission was to be composed of five members appointed by legislative party leaders for which party affiliation was to be the sole eligibility criteria. I objected to this as I thought other attributes were just as important, including regional representation, gender, race, academic qualifications and input from the public. My concern is that the 2009 law did not remove the gerrymandering possibility, but merely took it away from legislators and gave it to politically designated appointees. I have argued that this wrongly shielded possible power-hungry legislators from voter accountability.

Our repeal does not mean that redistricting will occur in a vacuum or behind closed doors. Quite the contrary, plans are in place to appoint an advisory board to include citizens, academics and former legislators, including representatives from all quarters of the county to help guide legislators in our work.

Legislators are also giving serious thought to the merits of a smaller legislative body and this committee can assist us in balancing the economics with the level of representation that our towns and people require. In the end, however, the final vote of a map belongs with duly-elected legislators, not with unaccountable appointees.

Legislators do not delegate our budget-approval or policy-making authority to citizens, even though there are many accountants and other professionals better suited for these roles. We do seek their counsel, but the fact remains people elected us — despite our many shortcomings — to represent them.

If we are trustworthy enough to adopt a $400 million budget that spends their tax money, we are certainly trustworthy enough to see that the people who we represent — and I emphasize all people, including those of opposing political affiliation — will be provided for with adequate representation in the years to come.

This trust issue is what is at the core of the redistricting debate. In the sad state of affairs that has come to dominate modern politics, somehow people have lost faith in elected officials to do the right thing. But if we can’t trust the legislators we elect by popular vote to shun self-serving egoism, how can we trust unaccountable political appointees?

The redistricting debate is really asymptomatic of a prevailing mistrust for government. Somehow we must restore faith in the essential goodness of human nature, and in public servants as agents of altruism. I sincerely hope that the redistricting process that takes place this year will accomplish that.

Michael Kelsey represents Amenia, Washington, Stanford, Pleasant Valley and Millbrook in the Dutchess County Legislature. Write him at KelseyESQ@yahoo.com.