www.SomeMythicalNonPoliticalCreatureThatWill DevoteAYearToApportionmentDrawsTheLines.ca.gov

There is no such thing as a perfect district (2.00 / 1)

You could have a board of angels draw those lines, but they will still not be perfect.  Ideally, you would have social scientists drawing the lines based on a sense of shared community, because you would want your representative to feel responsible to the whole district and not just a part of it. Of course, one person, one vote means you will inevitably end up with many districts that just have to encompass multiple areas that wouldn't be ideal. This is the biggest argument for why we need to abandon our majoritarian district election system in favor of a proportionally representative democracy. No matter which way you slice it, nobody can draw districts that make sense.

There are more arguments why we need PR in California, such as the fact that we have a huge population here that does not identify with either of the two dominant parties. But the district lines argument is one of the best arguments I know of. And I live in the 11th Congressional district, and although I personally like my representative, you cannot explain to me how any of the district lines make any sense.

---

by: largo @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 17:03:08 PM CST

But some can come reasonably close (0.00 / 0)

If I really "cannot explain to [you] how any of the district lines make any sense," that says more about you than the district lines. I've only spent time looking at the northern california lines, but at least those do make sense. Additionally, given that individual progressives have gone and drawn lines with an explanation for each and every line, the statement "nobody can draw districts that make sense" is false, unless your definition of sense is odd.

Back to the original post, could calitics put up a post again when the enrollment window opens? I know some people only look at this site irregularly so it might get additional attention then, also, it will remind anyone considering signing up that they now can.

---

by: sebsmith @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 18:59:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, we will (5.00 / 1)

It opens on December 15th. We'll be sure to post on it several times during the window.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG, but my opinions are entirely my own.

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:09:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Are you sure? (0.00 / 0)

I haven't seen a set of lines that would make legal criteria released publicly by anyone yet.  Even when the tried to pass Prop.  77, the yes campaign gave examples of districts they said would be competitive and in the process broke several laws in doing so.  It's a very hard process with all of the legal technicalities involved.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 21:39:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

courts give legislatures and commissions broad discretion (0.00 / 0)

in how they draw lines.  The fight is not about drawing the perfect district (or near perfect), the fight is about who will win and lose in the next election.

---

by: redistrict @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 00:43:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

the main criteria in prop 11 are (0.00 / 0)

reasonably equal population, contiguity, voting rights and as much as possible don't break up county, city, neighborhood and communities of interests.  

See the California constitution Article 21, sec. 2 (d), (e), (f) here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.con...

Competitiveness is NOT one of the criteria.

These criteria allow for a lot of discretion, which is why courts don't second guess legislatures and commissions.

Brian may be right that the commission will deadlock sending it to the CA Supreme Court (overwhelmingly Rep), but there's also a good chance that partisan staff could nudge some naive commissioners (and the requirements excluding people with political experience means they will generally be naive) in an even more partisan direction than the courts would be willing to go.  Republicans may have been pushing the prop -- not so it would fail and go to the courts -- but so they're stable of "experts" would dominate the process.

---

by: redistrict @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 00:54:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The definition of "sense" (0.00 / 0)

I realize that constitutionally you can draw lines based on political considerations. You just can't use race as the major factor. But this is not what I'm talking about.

Ask yourself the most fundamental question. What should a representative represent? I would answer that they need to represent a cohesive community, one that the representative is a member of and knows very well. After all, in our pretend world of American democracy, the representative's constituents are the people who live in the district. But if you have a district like Congressional District 11, which encompasses urban areas like Pleasanton and rural areas like Tracy and Lodi, it just doesn't make sense. If my congressman is from Pleasanton, he may be intimately familiar with the tri-valley, but he knows nothing about the rural areas. In fact, the interests of people in the tri-valley may be opposite to the interests in the rural area just over Altamont pass.

So while you can justify lines in many ways, they SHOULD be justified by the purpose of representative democracy--That communities are represented. This is very hard to do since you have to draw equally proportionate districts due to one-person, one-vote. Inevitably, some communities are just too small to get their own representative so they are combined with others. Some communities are even sliced in half. This doesn't make sense and is not true to the purposes of representative democracy.

The fact is, we didn't go far enough when "one person one vote" was decided. The fact is, when you have a two-party democracy like ours, people in one district who are registered Democrats or registered Republicans will have a vote that is weighted differently than someone in another district, because the number of Republicans and Democrats in those districts will not be proportional. That means one-person = half a vote or sometimes 1/3 a vote. If you are lucky, like in District 11, 1 person does tend to equal one vote because Republicans and Democrats basically divide the district equally.

American democracy is based on the principle that people will vote for the best person to represent them. Unfortunately, the reality is that candidates are associated with parties, and people associate themselves with parties more than they do the person. Even independents will tend to vote either Republican or Democrat. Further, the notion that there is a "best" person to represent a district is ludicrous. There is no "best" in politics. You want everyone's point of view to be represented. Let the legislature battle out who will win majorities to sign bills into law--don't make the largely uninformed people fulfill that role. If we got rid of party affiliations and just had candidates list their platform and all their main political points, American democracy would work much more efficiently. But that probably would go against freedom of association.

So yes, I don't see sense in the lines, because I don't see how they comport with the purpose of representative democracy. I understand that the lines aren't just drawn randomly, but the criteria don't necessarily comport with the purpose of representative democracy.

---

by: largo @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 17:52:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's not good, but it's here and (0.00 / 0)

whining will not get progressives anywhere.  

The big threat is that a bunch of unsophisticated people get on the commission.  They hire a private redistricting firm and legal experts -- which given the constraints will almost certainly be Rep leaning -- who will, without the commission even knowing it, tilt the playing field for Reps and against progressives.  

If you can apply (and Brian is right -- would be pretty much full time for a year -- retired or un or under-employed would be able to do it -- $300/day per diem) you absolutely should -- we need many credible people applying.  This is because leg leaders (top Dem and Rep in Assm and Sen) each get to strike a few people (like on jury selection).  

I'm planning to apply, if you can you should too (read the material on the website).

If you want to get a sense of the politics look at the public comments from the various interest groups here:
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/redistri...

A more general website on how the process came to be is here:
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/redistri...

Finally, the proponent of prop 11 has even filed and had approved by the AG for circulation a proposition to include members of Cong (don't know if he's going to drop another few million on this again -- although this one Pelosi and co. would fight tooth and nail).
http://www.sos.ca.gov/election...

---

by: redistrict @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 18:10:16 PM CST

I can think of a lot of people.... (0.00 / 0)

I can think of many bright and well-informed people who would qualify. I believe all the members of my city council are eligible, as well as some of my county supervisors. Many trial lawyers and people involved in the League of Women Voters and organizations such as the Sierra Club. I expect that most Grand Jury members could qualify, as would the majority of political science professors. (And retired versions of all of the above.)

Yes, activists are excluded. But as long as ALL activists are excluded, who cares? I have no expectation that "a bunch of unsophisticated people" will get on the commission. Some people who are very politically astute have never ventured into partisan activism.

---

by: gjones @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 16:56:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How can it even be constitutional (0.00 / 0)

for a citizen's ability to participate in a critical governmental function to depend on whether some member of their family have ever been a candidate for office or served on a party committee?  If it were up to me, somebody would challenge that in court.  

Of course, if it were up to me, there would also be a constitutional challenge to every proposition imposing a supermajority, which did not pass by the same supermajority it purports to impose.  For instance, Prop 13.

I do not understand how it can be constitutional for a smaller group of citizens at one election to take away the rights of a larger group of citizens at all subsequent elections.  Nor for my rights to vary based on whether my parent or child ever ran for office.

---

by: DavidT @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 18:19:54 PM CST