Will Olver's political longevity help him hold tight as the state redraws districts?
U.S. Rep. John D. Olver, D-Amherst.The Boston Globe today takes a close look at 1st Congressional District Rep. John Olver, D-Amherst, and considers the threat to his seat posed by Massachusetts' loss in House representation due to the results of the 2010 census.
The Globe reports that many see Olver — who hasn't yet lost an elections — as the odd man out, both because of his age (he's 74) and the comparatively slow growth of his Western Mass. district.
State Sen. Stan Rosenberg, D-Amherst, said in a recent interview that there are many considerations that are weighed by the Special Joint Committee on Redistricting, for which he serves as Senate chair. Among those are tradition (where the lines have traditionally been drawn), the legal precedents set by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (which protects the political enfranchisement of minority populations), communities of interest (how similar the needs of communities in a district are) and political clout.
Clout might serve as Olver's saving grace. As someone with a penchant for the minutiae of policy, he's served in unglamorous but powerful positions, including the House Committee on Appropriations. The Globe also notes that he's spent more continuous time in office than any other member of the delegation.
"My observation over the years has been, if it complies with all the others rules of redistricting, they redistrict out the most junior members," said Arthur Wolf, a law professor at Western New England College and director of the school's Institute for Legislative and Governmental Affairs. "That's happened all over the place."
Rosenberg says that political clout does not outweigh the other considerations — and that a map that doesn't comply with, say, the Voting Rights Act, is a lot more likely to be challenged in court than one that protects an incumbent.
"It's not like [clout] gets 50 points and everything else gets five points each," he said. Still, he noted that the Massachusetts House delegation's outsized influence should not be ignored. He said:
In the case of Massachusetts, we have 10 members of Congress right now, nine men and one woman, and we're going to have nine. Well, five of the current 10 are in significant positions because of their seniority, and where they've risen in the hierarchy of the Congress. So they have disproportionate clout for Massachusetts, well beyond the five votes that they are and well beyond the ten votes that the whole delegation comprises, just because of the positions they are in. Listen to an excerpt »
WNEC's Wolf notes that despite a lot of legal requirements and some really difficult math, redistricting is ultimately a "political judgment."
"Sometimes there is a genuine choice, because [the committee's proposal] doesn't violate any rules," he said.
What do you think? Should Western Mass. retain two seats based on the seniority of its House representatives? Or because it represents two distinct communities of interest? Or has the time come to consolidate the districts? Join the conversation in the comments.