If Statehouse proceedings had been televised in 2003, the Republican Party would probably still have gerrymandered Colorado's congressional districts to its advantage. But more citizens could have had a front-row seat.
That would have been a good thing, and it illustrates the wisdom in House Speaker Andrew Romanoff's proposal to televise House deliberations.
"The idea is to bring the House of Representatives to living rooms," Romanoff told The Denver Post last month. "A lot of folks have no idea what we do here, and we would make better decisions if they did."
Romanoff, a Denver Democrat, said live television coverage "might improve the decorum of the chamber." His optimism is refreshing, if not altogether convincing.
As he noted, 34 states already have their own version of C-SPAN, which televises Congress. Colorado's Sunshine Law requires that the formation of public policy be done in public. Televised proceedings (which would be available in indexed form on the internet) are a significant improvement over the audio-only internet "streaming" of Statehouse debates.
Beginning in January 2008, Romanoff says, the House may come into your home. The state Senate, meanwhile, hasn't mustered equal enthusiasm. Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald reportedly is concerned about a potential conflict of interest. Comcast is donating in-kind services to televise House proceedings.
Fitz-Gerald wonders if that's appropriate, given that Comcast has an interest in some legislation. That potential conflict seems manageable.
Meanwhile, some wonder if the presence of TV cameras would transform lawmakers into (even bigger) hams. It might. But it would boost the transparency, and that's the critical factor.
Consider the waning days of the session in 2002, when the GOP railroaded a gerrymandered congressional district plan through the Legislature. The Legislature is supposed to redraw the districts once a decade, after each census. Because lawmakers couldn't agree on a plan, a court picked a plan that gave the Republicans solid majorities in four districts, the Democrats dominion over two districts, and one district fairly even-Steven.
So the Republicans imposed a new map in which the GOP had the advantage in five of seven districts. Similar strong-armed gerrymander plans were imposed in Georgia and Texas. Ultimately, the Colorado scheme failed when challenged in court.
But if cameras had been in the House then, citizens could have watched as former Rep. Tom Plant, a Nederland Democrat, tried to explain why he wouldn't vote on the redistricting bill. The chair interrupted, informing Plant that his point was moot. As Plant objected, the chair silenced Plant, literally, by turning off his microphone.
Boulder Rep. Alice Madden tried to make the same point and was similarly gagged. So was Boulder Rep. Jack Pommer and others. It was a nauseating spectacle — an illustration of how partisan zeal can trump democratic ideals. The newspapers covered it. But reading the stories was nothing like watching the actual train wreck.
Such machinations are offensive no matter which party is responsible. In the future, when partisans launch a similar stunt, perhaps they will stop to consider that people are (or could be) watching. In politics, that kind of scrutiny can be positively transformative.
Posts
