[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Thoughts from the California Redistricting Commission Meeting

by: Alibguy

Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 08:30:29 AM PDT


(The meetings are happening across the state, you can get more information at http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov - promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Cross posted on my blog http://racesandredistricting.b...

Redistricting is one of my biggest passions and California's redistricting situation is no exception. I have published three maps for California's Congressional redistricting and the most recent one is here: http://racesandredistricting.b... On May 20th, I decided to share my thoughts with them because the commission would be holding a public comment meeting in Santa Rosa. Although California is keeping all 53 of its congressional districts, slow population growth increases the likelihood that the Bay Area will lose a district. Some proposals say that Marin County should be combined with San Francisco and as a Marinite, I like San Francisco but we do not belong in the same district. We belong with Sonoma County instead.

As I drove north to Santa Rosa, I looked at the traffic on the highway. This further highlighted my argument that Marin County and Sonoma County were communities of interest in the way they shared commuting issues. San Francisco did not have these same issues. I was not surprised to hear three people mention the traffic in their public comments about how the similar traffic issues connect Marin County and Sonoma together.  

Alibguy :: Thoughts from the California Redistricting Commission Meeting
We arrived smoothly and I became speaker #23 by being the 23rd person in line. While waiting on line, I talked to three women. They were all from Napa and one of them wanted to connect Napa and Sonoma together. Another though wanted Napa to be in a more agricultural district with Central Valley counties. She drew a map with Napa, Yolo, Glenn, Colusa and Lake Counties. It was handrawn so I said, "You should try Dave's Redistricting App (DRA). It gives you the correct population numbers and demographics." They said they would check it and I hope they like DRA as much as I do. They later introduced me to a few Republican activists from Napa who were very nice. I did not mention that I am a Democrat. A few minutes later, I told a Mendocino presenter about my recent redistricting plan. I told her about my proposal for the 1st district. She liked that I included Lake County, liked that I added Trinity but I am not too sure if she liked that I added Yolo County. I quickly explained that my 1st district was composed of tourist areas and university areas. Yolo County is a university town with UC Davis while Humboldt County has Humboldt State. Also, the liberals in Yolo County probably agree on more issues with North Coast liberals than conservative rural voters in the Central Valley or more moderate Democrats in Solano County.

When I arrived, there was a small line of people waiting for ticket numbers but as 6:00 drew closer, more people arrived and all the seats were filled by 6:00. At 6:00, the commission member presiding was Vincent P. Barabba, a registered Republican from Capitola. He has connections to Marin County though by serving on the now closed Hamilton Air Force Base.

As the speakers began, I believed there would be similar perspectives on Marin and Sonoma County staying united. The first speakers though were from Mendocino arguing for placing as much of Sonoma County as possible with Mendocino County. The Mendocino County speaker I spoke to advocated for not placing Redding and Mendocino County in the same district. She and one of her friends said that it takes around 3 hours on a day with no traffic to drive to Eureka from Redding. "We have nothing in common with Redding," they said. I agree because the Redding area and the Central Valley have an agriculture based economy while Mendocino/Humboldt Counties are based less around agriculture. Another Mendocino County speaker was a member of the Pomo tribe and wanted all the Pomo Lands in the same district. Not many people consider Native American tribal lands while redistricting in California (they do though in Arizona with the Navajo and the Hopi) so I was really glad the Pomo tribe member shared her concerns.

Also, a presenter stated that she wanted Sonoma and Napa to be combined into the same districts because she wanted the wine country to stay united. The Napa County Board of Supervisors wanted Napa to stay united too. I agree with keeping Napa united but it is possible the commission will place American Canyon in the same district as Vallejo because they are similar communities. Another speaker suggested that Napa should be combined with Central Valley counties such as Glenn and Colusa. The next speaker though advocated for not combining Central Valley counties north of Yolo with Napa County because the agricultural interests are different. Napa grows mostly wine while Colusa and Glenn grow other crops such as almonds.

When my number 23 was called, I felt a bit worried because many of the previous speakers advocated for uniting Sonoma County with Mendocino or Napa Counties. I was worried my comment would go over the two minute limit but I stood and began to read. I talked about how Marin and Sonoma are two counties with mostly upscale suburban communities and San Francisco is an urban area not even connected by land to Marin County. As I stopped, I turned around to see applause. My suggestion that these two "upscale suburban communities" should be combined was even quoted in the paper:
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/a...

As the meeting progressed, more and more Marin speakers appeared, advocating for uniting Marin and Sonoma. I realized that many of the Marinites were stuck in the traffic that I faced while driving to Santa Rosa. A few of them mentioned it in their comments. I heard other great arguments from the speakers for uniting Marin and Sonoma Counties. A firefighter discussed how the routes he drove to fight fires showed how Marin and Sonoma were connected. A Marin County resident stated how Marinites care about grass fires, not graffiti and that Marinites care about the Mt. Tamalpais Watershed, not Hetch Hetchy. A speaker from San Anselmo in Marin County who helped repair the damage of a flood that decimated local businesses said, "We would be more forceful if we joined forces with Sonoma County, a similar county." Another speaker asked the commission, "How many redwoods are in San Francisco?" Marin County has a reputation for its redwood forests and hiking trails on Mt. Tamalpais while San Francisco does not have much hiking. A speaker who lived in both Marin and San Francisco made a great argument by saying, "San Francisco has universities and public transportation. When I lived in San Francisco, I saw Marin as "the country." It reminded me of my Grandma's Farm outside of Boston." Also, I was not the only young person at the meeting. An eighth grader from Sonoma said she supported uniting Marin and Sonoma Counties. Susan Adams, one of Marin's County Supervisors also gave a strong argument for uniting Marin and Sonoma Counties. Judy House, a former city council member of San Anselmo gave a summary of the crowd's feeling by saying, "There is an overriding sense that Marin would like to be with Sonoma."

Overall, I really enjoyed going to the commission meeting. Although a few people supported combining Sonoma with Mendocino or Napa County, the crowd clearly favored combining Marin and Sonoma Counties. I hope that the commission sees the connections between Marin and Sonoma Counties and decides to draw a district similar to the current 6th district which combines Marin and Sonoma Counties. We belong together and if we are combined, we can work together to solve common problems.  

Poll
Should Marin and Sonoma County be combined?
Yes
No

Results

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

funny (0.00 / 0)
"Mendocino/Humboldt Counties are based less around agriculture"

Interesting (6.50 / 2)
Too bad San Mateo County doesn't even merit a visit by the commission...

But I think the real solution is a larger legislature.  Trying to group assembly districts of close to half a million people into "common interests" and "geographical compactness" -- and state senate districts of close to a million people similarly -- seems to be a fool's errand.  You'll inevitably have significant diversity.


Unicameral (4.50 / 2)
I think the real answer is to combine the Senate and the Assembly into ONE Legislature
Let them keep all existing seats

And I do (as a San Francisco resident) think that SF districts should flow into San Mateo county rather than Marin
As a San Franciscan, I shop at Serramonte and Westlake shopping centers
Sometimes Hillsdale and Palo Alto IKEA
I LOVE downtown San Mateo

Rarely, do I or my family venture accross the Golden gate bridge
We visit San Jose and Oakland more than we do Marin

Seperate San Francisco from Marin, Legislatively


[ Parent ]
nah, keep the bicameral system (5.00 / 2)
but turn the state senate into a proportionally elected chamber, and triple the size of the assembly so the districts are smaller, cheaper to run in, and correlate better with communities of interest.

[ Parent ]
Increase the size of the senate, too (0.00 / 0)
So some smaller parties get some representation...  At 40 senators, I think it ends up something like 25-15.

[ Parent ]
I'd go farther (0.00 / 0)
In a Bicameral system I'd have one Senator per county and yes triple the size of the senate, it might need a newer building though for one or both to contain them.

[ Parent ]
This would be 58 Senators then. n/t (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
can't be done (8.00 / 1)
(one senator per county) - the supreme court has held that upper houses in bicameral state legislatures must respect one man one vote, and so distributing them by county isn't allowed.


[ Parent ]
What about by initiative then? (0.00 / 0)
We have 40 now and 58 counties, that's hardy 1 man, 1 vote. As in put It in the State Constitution, Then It will be legal, period.

[ Parent ]
continued (0.00 / 0)
That should read 40 senators, so increase the Senators to 58 and the Assembly from 80 to 116. The proportion is the same and it adds representatives to the Legislature.

[ Parent ]
legislature still needs change (4.00 / 1)
I like the one senator per county - county govt should have a say in state govt. Almost like county ambassadors. It would make california a federal system which is needed because our diversity.  

I think the assembly should be enlarged. The economist and california crackup had some good recommendations. in a proportional vote, it would be more like local votes where 3 to 5 people win seats from a district (there by ending the winner take all and the wingnut system we have now).  But you'd probably have to increase the assembly to 150 or 200. If people say its to expensive, cut their pay and per diem.

Another proposal i heard with the unicameral is that it would be one legislature but the assembly makes up the district body but the "senate" is the leadership of the legislature closer to a parliamentary system.

Is there a good website that discusses california govt system reform? I'd be curious to see what other ideas are out there.


[ Parent ]
Feedback (0.00 / 0)
I like the one senator per county - county govt should have a say in state govt. Almost like county ambassadors. It would make california a federal system which is needed because our diversity.
 

As noted, this is not Constitutional.  That said, the range in county populations in California is huge.  Los Angeles county is 9,818,605 in the 2010 census.  Alpine is 1175.  Is the opinion of a single person in Alpine County worth that of 8000 Los Angelinos?

But you'd probably have to increase the assembly to 150 or 200. If people say its to expensive, cut their pay and per diem.

I admit I find complaints about the cost of the legislature to be funny -- in terms of the state budget it is an extremely small part.  The maximum current salary and per diem for the legislature is $16,384,320 -- assuming it is in session for 365 days.  That's 0.017% of the state budget.  Increase the size of the legislature to 1000 legislators, and the maximum cost of a 365 day session would be 0.14% of the state budget.


[ Parent ]
Pop (4.00 / 1)
[quote]As noted, this is not Constitutional.  That said, the range in county populations in California is huge.  Los Angeles county is 9,818,605 in the 2010 census.  Alpine is 1175.  Is the opinion of a single person in Alpine County worth that of 8000 Los Angelinos? [/quote]

Yeah I believe its Simms that said its illegal but somehow the Federal Senate gets away with it. I think this is a judicial decision that can be challenged.

I understand the population disparity argument but the point (contrary to Simms) is that the local govts don't get much say. Their voters are split among several counties.  The population disparity is acceptable at the federal level - but I think it should be represented in california because urban, suburban, and rural issues are very different.  

As it stands now we have two problems
1) despite the seats number being different the senate and assembly are elected the same way so whats the point on two houses? it doesn't make different issues come up - it just creates more access points for special interests.

2) local govt has little access to our overly centralized state govt. so, like with prisons, Sacremento either pushes problems down or takes resources from local govt with little to prevent them

If the senate is set up to represent county govts and the assembly to represent voters you have a balance of issues (prop 13 probably would hav been implemented better or headed off early)



[ Parent ]
The US Senate is defined IN the Constitution (0.00 / 0)
The US Senate is fine by the courts because the Constitution specifically defines it and how it works. Constitution says nothing about state senates, and so one man, one vote applies. It's doubtful the courts would overturn that ruling.

[ Parent ]
legislature costs (0.00 / 0)
I agree the costs are over blown.  but I think from the public's perspective it'll be a hard case to expand the legislature. people will say its too broken with 120 so adding more will make it worse.  which is true because the American legislative system IS about gridlock not like the Westminster system like the Uk where if you look at it the only check is if the public complains and people resign.  Its a weird part of US history why people felt that states needed checks and balances at the state level when fed could check any parliament-like system (after the civil war atleast)

on another note - conservatives idea of fixing the legislature is to make it part-time.  Not sure where that is being seen as a solution except to minimize the amount of legislation that gets dreamed, keep some legislators at home with their constituents instead of sacramento lobbyists.  

Not sure part-time makes sense but i have always wondered why in the Info age we still require legislatures to sit together. A lot of voting and discussions can be done by teleconferences can't they?


[ Parent ]
Still too big (0.00 / 0)
You are still at 642,310 people per state senate district, and 321,155 people per state assembly district.  

I'd argue you need smaller districts if you want a legislation that is responsive to the constituents.  When the legislators go to the people, in the current district sizes, they need to raise large amounts of money to communicate via broadcasts.  (At your numbers, that would still be an issue.)  Smaller district sizes may make the legislature large, but when the legislators have a reasonable chance of being known personally by the constituents, it will be a better representation of the peoples' interests.


[ Parent ]
Loving the Inland Empire Prelims (0.00 / 0)
:)

Me too... (0.00 / 0)
It adds a competitive congressional district in the western Inland Valley, and I dont think Gary Miller could run in it and win. It makes Mike Morrell go away because Pasadena and other Democratic Party friendly cities would clobber his hinney if he ran for re-election for State Assembly, however he might run for the State Senate district when Bob Dutton goes away.

And I would rather see Chris Norby beat Bob Huff in 2012. Because I like Norby's independent thinking.  


[ Parent ]
Hmmm... (0.00 / 0)
I know it probably sounds a little square, but I'm not native to the area, although I reside in Santa Rosa.

Before voting, I'd like to take a few local,comparative road trips, at various times in the given areas, and see which solution I find most efficient.


Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox