In 2007, Senator Creigh Deeds introduced a constitutional amendment to bring non-partisan redistricting to Virginia just like he had in 2006 (died in committee), 2005 (died in committee), 2004 (died in committee), and 2003 (guess where it died!). However, to the shock of most political observers (including myself), it passed through committee and then went on to pass the full Senate by a 22-18 vote. The bill went on to die without as much as a recorded vote in the House... but the political environment has changed. My question is- Does Senator Deeds' bill have enough votes to pass through the Senate again?
A total of 16 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted for Senator Deeds' bill in 2006 (all 16 Democrats are still in office). The Republicans were: Harry Blevins, Ken Cuccinelli, Russ Potts, Ken Stolle, John Watkins, and Marty Williams. Of the 6, Russ Potts retired and Marty Williams was knocked off in a primary, leaving 4 Republicans that I assume will vote the same way in 2008. Russ Potts was replaced by Jill Holtzman Vogel (-1 vote) and Marty Williams was succeeded by John Miller (no change).
Of the 17 Republicans and 1 Democrat who voted against the bill: Jeannemarie Devolites Davis was destroyed by Chap Petersen (+1 vote), Benny Lambert was knocked off in a primary by Donald McEachin (+1 vote), Jay O'Brien was defeated by George Barker (+1 vote), and Nick Rerras was defeated by Ralph Northam (+1 vote).
So by my rough math- Senator Deeds' non-partisan redistricting bill should have 25 votes just to start with in the Senate. Not to mention that the Republicans are now in the minority- giving them an incredible incentive to vote for the measure. The only question is whether Democrats- who are now in the majority- will stay on board with Creigh's bill.
You can find the 2008 bill that Senator Deeds' introduced here.
Have to admit I'm not as worried about it passing the Senate as I am the House.
Bipartisan redistricting is when both parties -- no matter who is in the majority -- participate in the redistricting process. This can vary enormously in its implementation. It may consist of a committee that is, by design, split 50/50 between the legislators between the two major parties, with the governor, AG, or a judge acting as the tiebreaker. It may be a citizen panel, appointed by the two major parties in equal or not-quite-equal (majority party has a one-vote advantage) portions. But the idea is that each party is represented, rather than the majority party shutting out the minority party.
Nonpartisan redistricting is when partisan politics is removed from the process entirely. This is when a group of experts (geographers, demographers, statisticians, sociologists, etc.) conduct the redistricting based on standards of fairness clearly established by the legislator or by their charter.
I dislike bipartisan redistricting intensely. Though it's clearly superior to partisan redistricting, what it really works out to is an incumbent protection plan. Bipartisan redistricting is two lions and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner; the lamb (voters) is gonna be outvoted. I understand that we'd be very lucky to have bipartisan redistricting rather than our current arrangement, but I think that we can do better.
A criticism often made of nonpartisan redistricting is that it's impossible, because there's no such thing as a politically impartial person. This is bullshit. Somehow we have a politically impartial state board of elections, and the SBE functions in an utterly fair manner, despite that they have routinely have to bushwhack their way through the political thicket. There is absolutely no reason why the state board of elections couldn't have their mission expanded to include redistricting. Anybody who tells you that nonpartisan redistricting is impossible is simply frightened of it.