Aug 5, 2014
The judges are unanimous in supporting both redistricting reform and action against climate change. And we appreciate this creative idea that addresses the two broad challenges at once. The author did a very good job of presenting it in a clear, concise, and appealing manner and is realistic about the challenges it faces and timeframe it would likely take to have a realistic opportunity for implementation. Nevertheless, we don't feel it will necessarily be easier to accomplish either issue by combining their success together. The proposal faces such significant feasibility challenges that we cannot advance it to the semi-finalist round. We do encourage you to rework your proposal and submit it to a future contest. If so, these are the three areas we think would need to be addressed: 1. The political obstacles to getting support for the party in control of any body to cede control of the redistricting process appear at first blush to be insurmountable. Are there examples of states or localities that have implemented this type of redistricting or strategies the author would suggest that would enable this idea to overcome opposition? 2. The proposal does a good job of laying out the case as to why more progressive-leaning politicians (who object to Citizens United) might support minority redistricting. A similar case needs to be made for why politicians on the right would embrace this proposal. 3. Finally, I'd like to see much more evidence of cause and effect. How would empowering minority power redistricting enable passage of robust climate legislation that resulted in emission reductions? Evidence could include public opinion research, case studies of where this redistricting has taken place and the impact it has had, or analysis of how minority redistricting might result in more competitive races and, ultimately, more legislators that support action on climate.