Redistricting effort was really gerrymandering
On Jan. 3, a friend and I attended the Kabuki theater put on by the self-styled 'Reagan Republicans' (Corporatist/big government) faction of the Republican Party in downtown Coeur d'Alene. They were proposing a redistricting of the county which would significantly decrease the number of both precincts and polling places in the county. This procedural consolidation of power they billed as a means to "save money" on ballots and poll workers. Never mind that ballot costs are responsibly left to the individual precincts anyway, and that poll workers generally work on a volunteer basis.
Transparently, the entailment of such a resolution would have rural precincts presently under conservative Committeemen absorbed into more populous urban-suburban precincts, and would, by way of preponderance of more liberal sentiment in the latter areas, depose the Conservatives and turn control of the new mega-precincts over to liberal Committeemen. This, by definition, is gerrymandering; and, as such, a direct means to taxation without representation.
Even the RRs themselves acknowledge it, as some boycotted the meeting in protest of Conservatives' resistance on the grounds that those fighting for representation had no moral right there unto. Apparently, liberty-minded people deserve no representation, local or otherwise.
Taking a page out of Alinsky's Rules For Radicals, the RRs determined to engage in a brazen act of class warfare, insisting that the meeting be scheduled as best to preclude significant turnout from the middle class (those most impacted) by holding the meeting at 2:00 p.m. on a Tuesday. As conservative Committeeman Brad Salie said, "This isn't a public meeting, like it's supposed to be. It's a meeting by politicians for politicians."
True to subversive tactic, the Hegelian Dialectic was followed to a tee: Since the first redistricted map was so vocally opposed, a second and third were drafted as a shows of "compromise." They created the problem, awaited reaction, then settled on the 'compromise' of their choosing. "Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis" - the patented tactic of all Marxian-inspired politics. Really, there was no compromise.
Though the Conservatives responded by lobbying for an increase of precincts to accommodate the recent 30 percent population increase, that option was rejected outright and without justification. The RR's 'compromise' was to absorb one conservative precinct into a new mega-precinct, with no concession on their part whatsoever. They got what they wanted. They marginalized a whole precinct of Conservatives and the people got nothing in return. Zilch.
When those talking of 'saving money' on ballot face costs make you lose a day's pay, gas money, and blood pressure medication, just to watch them mass print stacks of large multicolored and thoroughly gerrymandered precinct maps savings isn't the real agenda. And plainly, if you believe a Liberal power grab will result in fiscal conservatism I know a Nigerian Prince who has an urgent business proposition for you.
Daniel Brannan is a Coeur d'Alene resident.