Peter Schorsch
Thursday was a another wild one in the Legislature, and particularly for the Senate, who seemed for a moment to have adopted a “not one damn” comma approach to their tweaks to the congressional “base map” drawn by staff earlier this month.
Just hours before, a story by Mary Ellen Klas again stoked the fires of senatorial map-making malpractice.
The article detailed new depositions and court documents related to the shadow redistricting process undertaken by the chamber, complete with inappropriate communications between outside consultants and Senate staff, submitted by “members of the public” who were actually ringers in the tank for the majority, and even staged testimony – “Dick, why do I have to be the confused guy?“
But in a day filled with subtle intercameral shade-throwing, one comment stood out to me.
Senate President Andy Gardiner was somewhat contrite Friday when responding to the revelations in Friday’s Herald, but he did manage to get in this dig:
“The Court’s most recent definition of legislative intent was not in place at the time Amendments 5 and 6 were approved … or when President Gaetz and Speaker Weatherford developed the process by which the House and Senate would draw new legislative maps in 2012.”
You catch that?
Yes, President Gardiner went ahead and roped House Speaker Will Weatherford into the years-long legal morass, even though the House maps are the sole proposal out of three that have not faced legal challenges from voters-rights groups.
Now, I’m not saying Weatherford is the “shining knight” Marc Caputo recently called him on Twitter, or that his mind was completely clear of electoral concern like some kind of zen Amerigo Vespucci.
Any time politicians are drawing boundaries, politics will be baked into the lines.
But the plain fact is: Weatherford took his medicine like a man and took a political hit for the sake of complying with the Fair Districts amendments.
The Senate did not. In doing so they risked — in fact, are still risking — large GOP majorities in both chambers should the Republican catastrophe of court-drawn maps come to pass because of the litigation their maps has caused.
Democrats picked up eight House seats after the 2011 redistricting and several more Republicans either switched seats or sat out in 2012: Think Chris Dorworth and Eric Eisnaugle, for instance.
That is what a leader is willing to do. Granted, the 120-member House with its more inexperienced members has a tradition of more powerful leadership at the top, but the fact remains Weatherford bit the bullet and did what needed to be done to avoid wasting taxpayer money and bringing national criticism down upon the state Legislature.
I’m not the only who thinks so. Take veteran Democratic strategist — and one-man cottage industry of interview production — Steve Schale.
“I think, to his credit, Will did make an effort to send a signal that the House was going to do things on the up and up,” Schale said.
Again, after allowing for the possibility of some political concern among those in House Republican circles at the time — “Gambling in the Casablanca? I’m shocked!” — Schale nevertheless gave credit where it is due.
“I think he made a decision early on, rightfully, that he just didn’t want to deal with the fallout of going to court,” said Schale, who like Weatherford once was a legislative staff member in Tallahassee.
So to imply the House under Weatherford was playing the same brand of dirty pool as Senate mapmakers, were there were last-minute changes that raised eyebrows? That’s just voodoo cartography.
