Can you say “conflict of interest?”

The Voters Not Politicians Campaign, the one to put an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to end gerrymandering, completed the signature gathering process last November (and did so two months early with an extra 110,000 signatures). I’ve been volunteering with this campaign. The process is now before the Board of State Canvassers.

This Board is made up two GOP and two Dems with a GOP holding the chair. Their task is to say yes, there were enough legal signatures and the proposal should be put on the ballot. That’s it. But for months the chair has not put this proposal on the agenda for the weekly meeting. The Board isn’t challenging the signatures. It simply isn’t acting.

The Campaign took the Board to the Michigan Court of Appeals. While before the court the board chair kept saying we have to wait for the court to rule. So the court ruled on Thursday, telling the board to get their collective butts in gear. Do your job.

This morning Zoe Clark and Rick Pluta and their It’s Just Politics program on Michigan Radio took up the story.

The GOP and Michigan Chamber of Commerce has formed a campaign committee to oppose the proposal (of course they have, an end to gerrymandering would take their toys away). I think the committee is named Citizens to Protect the Constitution or some such misdirecting nonsense. On Friday this committee declared they will take the case to the Michigan Supremes. In the meantime the Board is again saying well, we have to wait until the court challenge is over.

The Michigan Supremes are elected by citizens. There are seven members of the court, currently five nominated by the GOP (even though they appeared on the ballot as “non-partisan”) and two Dems. Two of the GOP justices are up for re-election.

The same Michigan Chamber of Commerce that is funding the challenge to our proposal is also funding the campaigns of the two GOP justices, who won’t officially be nominated until August. To get that nomination they have to please conservative delegates to the nominating convention, which means not approving the proposal.

Can you say “conflict of interest?” How about “partisan court?”

The Chamber of Commerce has already come up with a reason for the court to not approve the proposal: “It’s too complicated!” Well, it has to be to guarantee that politicians and justices can’t overturn the proposal once approved.