Bipartisan Policy Center. Overview Reviews. The policy-oriented nature of certain projects yields a lot of educational value for interns. A welcoming environment that offers an incredible chance to enter the policy environment in Washington D. See All. The policy areas we focus on span public health and prevention; coverage, payment, and delivery of health services and long-term care; biomedical research; and innovative technologies. Our recommendations are geared towards the public and private sectors to improve the health and health care of all Americans and their communities.
We examine trends and advance ideas for reform in areas from election administration, campaigning, and voting to the inner workings of our government. Housing matters — a lot. The shelter that a home provides is, of course, a basic necessity of life. But the home is much more: it is the very platform from which we engage our neighbors and the wider community.
Stable, affordable housing can lead to significant social benefits like better health and improved academic performance by children. Amendment 1 would improve the process by transferring map-drawing responsibility to a member bipartisan commission consisting of eight lawmakers and eight citizens. If its maps are approved by a bipartisan supermajority, they would then go to the statehouse in Richmond for approval.
Should the commission fail to complete maps with such broad support, the Virginia Supreme Court would step in to draw the lines. And importantly, Amendment 1 wouldn't operate in isolation. A new state law has established map-drawing rules aimed at keeping communities together and curbing both racial and partisan gerrymandering — abuses that have long plagued Virginia.
Other guardrail measures, such as guidelines for selecting commissioners and rules for the state's high court to follow in case of a deadlock, could also be established next year should Amendment 1 win approval now. In tandem with the right guiding legislation, Amendment 1 would be an important improvement. Instead of a single party controlling the mapmaking, districts would be set either through bipartisan compromise or by the courts.
In either case, as our research has found, the boundaries will almost certainly be much fairer. Bipartisan commissions and courts may not produce maps as good as those of independent commissions. But, on the whole, they do not produce racially or politically gerrymandered ones, either. Despite the better process promised by Amendment 1, however, some reformers are critical. They say the ballot measure doesn't go far enough in taking lawmakers out of the picture. This desire for a fully independent panel is understandable.
But it is worth remembering that the alternative to adopting the proposal on the ballot in November is neither independent nor stronger reform. It is the status quo, driven by legislators, meaning the long road to redistricting reform would need to start anew. This matters because — unlike California, Michigan and other states that have adopted more robust reforms — Virginia does not have a citizen-led process for putting measures on the ballot while sidestepping the Legislature.
Any proposal for more independent redistricting reform would have to be approved in Richmond — not just once, but in two successive legislative sessions, before going to the voters for approval. Put simply, there is no assurance that today's pro-reform legislative majority will be there in future.
Moreover, legislators across the country have proven very reluctant to cede power to a robust and fully independent commission. Indeed, both last year and this year, Democrats and Republicans in the Virginia General Assembly rejected proposals that would have produced greater independence in the redistricting process. In contrast, adopting Amendment 1 would help change the political landscape in ways favorable to future reform efforts.
It would establish a new status quo, where redistricting outside the statehouse is normalized and an unchecked process driven by lawmakers is no longer possible. This is a much more favorable starting point for establishing fully independent redistricting, because legislators would not be protecting a status quo that gives them a monopoly on map-drawing.
0コメント