Thoughts On Solutions to Hyper-Partisanship in Government

The ever increasing partisanship in politics has a couple of very negative effects on governance. First, it poisons political discourse and creates an uncivil atmosphere, and secondly, it results in an inability to act.

There are many reasons for today's severe partisanship. Some of them are from intentional devices and others are from flaws in our system of government. I have a partisan view of things, but I have often wondered about ways to reduce the shrillness and negative tone that accompanies today's partisan atmosphere. Normal partisanship is necessary for healthy debate but hyper-partisanship only destroys our ability to solve our problems.

I'd like to speculate on some ideas that can address some of the problems of those hyper-partisanship effects... at least on the state level. Some of them are just changes in how we do things, and some would require Constitutional amendments. But just for the sake of discussion, let's take a look.

1) Make the Secretary of State position similar to a Judicial Appointment.

I have often thought that some of the voting and election issues wouldn't be issues at all if the Secretary of State was not a product of partisan elections. Mary Kiffmeyer, a previous SOS, was not a favorite of Democrats and Mark Ritchie, the current SOS, takes his shots from Republicans. Every action taken by the SOS, regardless of how benign, is viewed with partisan suspicion. Close elections are still legitimate elections, especially with Minnesota's superior election method. Yet, it is natural for the losing party in a close contest to look to a party affiliated Secretary of State, as the scapegoat.

But what if the SOS was not beholden to party politics and simply appointed for a 10-year term? I mention 10 years because of the redistricting cycle. (More on that later). The position could be appointed for one 10-year term by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. After that, he or she would do their job without party affiliation and work strictly for the state of Minnesota.

2) Court Appointments Would Come From Within the Judiciary.

Instead of the governor appointing judges, they would come from a non-partisan judicial commission that uses a point system to rate judges at all levels. Since attorneys and other judges are most capable of understanding the application of the law, they should be able to best rate judicial appointments for competency. I often cringe when I hear about a decision from a high court that allows the judges to be listed by which governor appointed them. There is an implication that politics plays a role—which of course it shouldn't.

With governor appointments, there is always a cross current of political cronyism that pervades the selection process. If the judiciary is indeed a separate but equal
branch of government, then why isn't it completely self contained?

3) Redistricting Goes Through SOS and a Judicial Commission.

If you have an independent SOS office and a more separated judiciary, then utilize them to do the 10-year redistricting. Even though we only change the districts every 10 years, the maps that result have great effects on the entire decade. That is why the fight for redistricting becomes such a partisan, expensive, and laborious process each time. If you have the governor and Legislature from the same party, you get very partisan lines being drawn. If the governor and Legislature are from opposite parties, then you have no action at all as each side blocks the other legislatively. It ends up in the courts but with a long drawn out legal process where the political parties render their opinions.

So why not make it a judicial responsibility from the beginning? An independent judiciary would draw the lines fairly and in ways that make the most sense for the citizens and not for "safe" districts.

Although these three initiatives are not a complete answer to partisan politics, I believe they would make some strategic inroads. We need to take some of this process and remove it from the back and forth of political games. It often seems impossible for our governing bodies to find common ground to promote positive solutions. We have to move away from a place where inertia is the goal and political war the means.  These three initiatives would remove at least a few of the contentious methods of how we select our governing bodies.

 Is it the answer? No. Is it worth examining? Most definitely yes.

-Dave Mindeman, mnpACT!