Florida has perhaps witnessed more controversy than any other state in America on the issue of redistricting, the process of redrawing the boundaries of legislative districts due to population changes (see Lucy Morgan, “Redistricting squabbles a sign of fights to come,” St. Petersburg Times, June 22, 2002). An editorial from the Naples Daily News from July 2002 reads as follows:
We wondered who Florida lawmakers were listening to when they carved the state into new U.S. House districts.
Actually, we did know. They were listening to friends in high political places — Florida’s big cities and Washington. We were asking rhetorically, because we knew lawmakers were not listening to Southwest Florida constituents who wanted to stick together.
Outside of Tallahassee’s inner circles, it crossed few minds that another faction catching the ear of map-drawers was comprised of lobbyists — paid a total of $100,000 by incumbent U.S. House members with an incentive to protect their turf.
Some of the need for on-site eyes and ears came from Florida lawmakers trying to carve out political strongholds for — who else? — themselves.
It’s a sickening postscript to a sickening experience for Southwest Floridians, who saw a hefty chunk of eastern Collier County cast adrift to a congressional district dominated by Miami-Dade.
“It’s symptomatic with what’s wrong with too much money in politics,” comments a spokesman for the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.
Well put.
(See Editorial: Florida redistricting – Others had a hand in mess, Naples Daily News, July 24, 2002)
An article from May 2002 in the same paper discusses the Florida Supreme Court “wash[ing] its hands of the Legislature’s plan to redraw Florida’s 40 Senate districts and 120 House seats,” describing opposition from county commissioners claiming that “the plan was illegal because it places voters with dissimilar interests in far-flung districts that meander across the state,” and “the ruling did not address issues of racial equity” (see Michael Peltier, “Florida Supreme Court approves redistricting map,” Naples Daily News, May 4, 2002).
In Florida, the Republicans – party of incumbent Gov. Jeb Bush – essentially control the process of redrawing congressional districts. An article from the Naples Daily News in April 2002 reads:
Democrats and some public interest groups are trying to persuade the courts the Legislature did not consider communities of interest and the new lines were drawn to ensure the election of Republicans to the new House districts in South Florida and central Florida.
They point to the two new districts, numbered 24 and 25.
House District 24 includes parts of Brevard, Orange, Seminole, and Volusia counties and has 156,292 Republicans, 126,976 Democrats and 64,391 independents.
The second new House seat, District 25, contains parts of Collier and Miami-Dade counties and 60 residents in Monroe County. It has 100,847 Republicans, 81,809 Democrats and 49,954 independents. (See Ron Word, “Congressional redistricting plans favors Republicans,” Naples Daily News, Apr. 28, 2002).
Several other pieces from the Florida press over the past year have examined the consequences for ordinary people of splitting politically homogenous blue-collar neighborhoods and other communities into new districts that include affluent, distant areas of Miami (see Cathy Zollo, “Redistricting: New districts split Collier neighborhoods,” Naples Daily News, July 14, 2002). On polling day, BHHRG encountered several areas where two precincts had been combined to be serviced by a single polling station, and in every case the newly added precinct was a tiny fraction the size of the old one, in one case including only ten voters. Although the gerrymandering process does appear to have benefited both sides, the Republicans seem to have reaped more rewards, and many of the strangely-shaped new congressional districts are located where a Republican is the incumbent, such as the district of Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in southwest Miami.
BHHRG discovered a few districts in and around Miami where candidates for the US Congress were running unopposed or virtually unopposed, and a few people chalked this up to overwhelming support for the Republicans among the Cubans. The most notable examples were Cuban-American Republican Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (21st Dist.), who ran without opposition even from a write-in candidate, and Ileana Ros-Lehtninen (18th Dist.), who was opposed by elderly Democrat Ray Chote. BHHRG was told that Mr. Chote’s candidacy was intended to be “token,” and in fact this could well be believed. A few days before the election, BHHRG encountered Mr. Chote handing out campaign flyers at the Bill McBride rally. The glossy printed flyers read: “Genral [sic] Election Tuesday November 5, 2002. What to help? Call me, RAY CHOTE (305) 743-4727.” Upon calling the number, BHHRG learned that it was not in service. Several Miamians BHHRG talked to said they had heard that a Democrat was running against Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen, but had no idea who it was.
The cuba factor
It is still widely believed that support for the Republican Party in south Florida is largely attributable to Cuban-Americans staunchly opposed to the Communist regime in Cuba. However, as BHHRG learned, this perception may be outdated. Many apparently believe that Cuban-American support for the US embargo against the island state is a relic of the past that is perhaps out of touch with many younger Cuban-Americans born and reared in America.
In the newly created 25th District, two Cuban-Americans were running against each other: Republican Mario Diaz-Balart (brother of Lincoln) and Democrat Annie Betancourt. An article from the pre-election issue of the Miami New Times analyzes the race in terms of the grassroots appeal of the two candidates, suggesting Betancourt’s support may have been much higher than official polls indicated (see Kirk Nielsen, “How to campaign in the new House District 25? There’s always Cuba,” Miami New Times, Oct. 31-Nov. 6, 2002, p. 16). “Opinion polls show that while a diminishing majority of ex exilio supports the embargo, a growing majority also considers it a failed policy… The federal government does not enforce its ban on travel to Cuba… and Cuban Americans send millions of dollars annually to relatives on the island.” The article quotes Ileana Ros-Lehtinen commenting derogatorily about Betancourt by saying, “There is certainly money to be made in holding these positions in favor of Castro” because companies were “eager to do business in Cuba.” Yet Diaz-Balart attracted roughly 8 times the money that Betancourt did for his campaign (c. $800,000 to Betancourt’s $115,000). Ros-Lehtinen attracted about $1.5 million.
In fact, as BHHRG learned, anti-Castro politics may be even more profitable. Since 1980, most immigrants from Cuba have been working-class, a far cry from the wealthy landowners who came to America immediately after the Cuban Revolution in 1959. Because the US Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 automatically grants asylum to any Cuban who lands in Florida, the legislation has helped Cuba become a source of cheap labour for Miami and south Florida. According to Argiris Malapanis, head of the Miami chapter of the Socialist Workers Party (which ran write-in candidates for governor and Congress in 2002), “the class composition of Cuban-Americans has changed,” and “a majority favours normalization of trade relations with Cuba.” The Cuban Adjustment Act confers preferential treatment on all Cuban immigrants, making normalization of relations between the US and Cuba a non-lucrative option for many local enterprises. Politically, says Malapanis, the Act is unpopular, as evidenced by the fact that the Cuban government was able to mobilize a movement to reunite Elian Gonzalez – who arrived on American shores largely because of the Act – with his father, and won majority support for the initiative in America.
The Cuban-American Republicans continue to brand Cuba as a totalitarian prison-state, but – according to Mr. Malapanis – anyone can leave Cuba as long as they can get a visa. As more and more people realize this, the ultra-right’s earlier ability to mobilize support for the embargo has been limited, and the right has continued to suffer political blows in the region. The downing of two planes by the Cuban government in 1995, which prompted the US government to escalate tension in relations, was an example of one such blow. Cuba had warned the US for two years that the flights were violating its airspace, and that if they continued Cuba would have to act to defend its sovereignty. The incident caused the Cuban-American National Foundation to lose a lot of credibility with the newer Cuban immigrants. In short, the Cuba factor is increasingly becoming a myth with regard to political demographics and right-wing Cuban-Americans still in office in Miami.
Bush v. Mcbride
Before lawyer Bill McBride became the Democratic Party’s nominee for governor of Florida, the favoured candidate was former US Attorney General, Janet Reno. BHHRG was told by some Miami residents that many Reno supporters – particularly African-Americans – were disappointed or angered by their candidate’s quick abdication after the botched September 10th primaries resulted in McBride coming out the winner (see Rebecca Wakefield, “Does it matter to black voters which wealthy, middle-age white guy is Florida’s next governor?” Miami New Times, Oct. 31-Nov. 6, 2002, p.17). Ms. Reno ultimately fell in with the Party’s dictate and endorsed Mr. McBride.
Although largely unpublicized, there was a third gubernatorial candidate on the ballot, Robert Kunst, a registered Democrat and Miami representative of the Voter March organization. Of the 8 candidates running for governor, all were “write-in” candidates, apart from Kunst, Bush, and McBride. Mr. Kunst, the first independent on the ballot since 1920, told BHHRG he had decided to run against Bill McBride – whom he referred to as “McBush” – because the Democratic candidate did not represent an authentic opposition. McBride’s law firm, Holland & Knight (5th largest in the United States with some 1,400 attorneys), had donated $100,000 to Gov. Bush’s campaign and also lobbied on behalf of DBT Online (later ChoicePoint) to win the contract from the Florida legislature to conduct the “voter purge” for $4 million. Kunst – who campaigned in favour of a paper ballot – said he had been on the same platform with McBride numerous times before the Democratic primary, and yet he had never heard McBride talk about anything but education. Now, suddenly McBride was coming out with all sorts of attacks. The Republicans, he said, had “boosted McBride on purpose,” making McBride into a convenient “dummy” candidate because they did not want one of “Clinton’s people” (i.e., Reno) in Florida. Meanwhile, McBride boosted the Bush campaign with an announcement that he planned to raise taxes – seldom a vote-grabber for any political candidate. When Kunst asked Gov. Bush at a public appearance why he refused to debate the independent candidate, Gov. Bush replied: “The die is cast.” In other words, McBride’s nomination stitched up the election for the GOP.
Although BHHRG saw a few McBride supporters harangue Kunst on the street for being a “spoiler” of the Democratic nominee’s campaign, Kunst clearly did not enjoy significant funding and told BHHRG he was “sleeping in his car.” A McBride rally on the evening of November 1st succeeded in attracting only about 500 supporters, even with an appearance by former President Bill Clinton, which seemed to vindicate Kunst’s claim that “no one is listening” to the Democrat candidate. It must also be noted, regarding Kunst’s suggestion that he was the object of a conspiracy to shut him out of the public eye, that although Mr. Kunst was an independent candidate whose name was on the ballot and who ultimately won 1% of all votes cast in Florida, his name did not appear in the state-by-state results on CNN on election night. Other third-party and independent candidates around the country were routinely listed, even if they received less than 1%.
Gov. Bush’s tenure in Florida has been characterized in the economic sphere primarily by a drive to privatize state services, a trend that began six years ago when the Republicans took control of the state legislature. This policy proved a boon for the Bush campaign. As The Miami Herald reported, the company that received a $69-million contract with the Department of Business and Professional Regulations donated $45,000 to the state Republican Party. Likewise, the company that won a $365-million contract for law enforcement communications donated $100,000, and the firm that secured a $275-million contract with the Agency for Health Care Administration gave $285,000. Gov. Bush gave his pro-business policy an added twist, however. While companies in America often donate to both major political parties, Gov. Bush threatened lobbyists with “retaliation” if they or their clients donated to the Democratic Party as well as to the Republicans. According to The Washington Post, donations to the Republican Party in Florida increased almost 300%, while Democratic contributions remained flat, since 1996 (see Editorial: Floridians are paying as Republicans profit, Palm Beach Post, Nov. 1, 2002).
Although a majority of major newspapers in Florida endorsed Gov. Bush, BHHRG listened to an interesting call-in programme on Miami’s National Public Radio (NPR) station in which a member of the editorial board of one of the major newspapers was asked whether the paper’s endorsement of Gov. Bush was the result of a majority vote, as was the norm, or whether a decision of the editor-in-chief had overridden the democratic majority on the board. The editor replied that this was “privileged” information, but that indeed it was possible for editors-in-chief to exercise such power, as had happened with one other Miami paper in a well-publicized case. Perhaps Gov. Bush’s tactic of threatening lobbyists and businesses was used against the press as well.
|
