[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

Was The Last Redistricting Too Clever By Half?

by: davej

Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 13:55:49 PM PST


Dave Johnson, Speak Out California

Following the 2000 census the California Assembly, Senate and Governorship were all controlled by Democrats.  In line with tradition they used their majority power to create new electoral districts designed to maximize the Democratic majority.  They did this by drawing district lines that bunched Democrats and Republicans together in some very oddly shaped districts.

baymap_assembly.gif

davej :: Was The Last Redistricting Too Clever By Half?
Look at district 15, drawn here in brown.  It sends branches up toward Sacramento, an arm toward the East Bay, a stump to the south, etc.  This is what a safe district looks like.  Neighboring district 10 has an equally odd arrangement of offshoots to the east and south and a little hook over there on its left.

In 1990 this drawing of districts to create safe seats backfired.  With safe districts turnover of legislators became rare and lawmakers became less responsive to voters, which made voters angry enough to pass term limits to try to solve the problem.

But that didn't stop the games.  The 2000 census created a new batch of safe districts, and I think this backfired again, only worse.  First, no one foresaw 2008's electoral sweep.  This redistricting created safe Republican districts as well as Democratic districts because they increased the number of Democratic seats by bunching Republicans together into a few districts.  The 2008 sweep could have taken out several more Republicans than it did because of the concentration of Republicans in these districts.  In SD-19 Hannah-Beth Jackson lost her Senate race by less than 900 votes in that "safe" Republican district.  A fair redistricting would have turned Santa Barbara's Senate district over to the Democrats because enough voters there were fed up with the increasingly extremist Republicans running for office.

But the very worst consequence of the 2001 redistricting was that it guaranteed just enough safe Republican seats to enable the remaining extremist minority to block budgets while avoiding the political consequences.  The way their districts are drawn they are going to get reelected no matter what, so they refuse to approve any budget that does not yield to all of the most absolutely extreme right-wing demands.

This November voters passed Proposition 11, which tries to set up a neutral process for drawing legislative districts.  I hope that this process works as intended, creating districts that fairly represent their constituents' interests.  I also hope that this opens up the possibility of truly contested elections in which responsive politicians are asked to stay in office -- and politicians who do not represent their constituents can be replaced.

I want to point out that if Proposition 11's fair redistricting is successful this removes the justification for term limits.  Voters should be allowed to keep representatives as well as remove them.

Click through to Speak Out California

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I thought redistricting required a 2/3 majority? (0.00 / 0)
I was under the impression that, like other important jobs of the legislature, California had required a super-majority for redistricting. This resulted in each person drawing the district they want to represent. From what I understand, if the democrats really had complete control of the process, then we could of had half the current republican seats and 2/3 majorities for all the other things we need them for (like budgets). Am I wrong about this?

yes, you are wrong (0.00 / 0)
redistricting is done by the majority party, no supermajority needed. the 2000 redistricting was a move to avoid a GOP lawsuit.

[ Parent ]
It still bit rocks (0.00 / 0)
I live in Santa Cruz County.  We're split across two senate districts, one of which centered in Palo Alto, and one centered in SLO.  In practice, no one has enough of Santa Cruz in the district to really give a flying fuck about it.  Simitian is not bad (and is at least somewhat accessible to the locals here), but Maldonado?  Forget it.

As near as I can tell, someone had it in for our senator at the time, Fred Keeley, and decided they wanted him, well, raped.  "Fucked" is not strong enough a word to what they did to the guy.  Or to the county, really.


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