I've got nothing against white males. After all, I am one. But when it comes to a panel pretending to represent the state, these are some very disconcerting numbers:
The deadline for Californians to apply for a first-of-its-kind citizens commission to draw districts for legislative elections ended Tuesday night with the field of applicants tilting heavily toward white men. Of the nearly 31,000 applications received, whites submitted 70 percent, far higher than their 41 percent share of California's population. (SacBee)
Latinos were the most heavily under-represented, with only about 11.5% in the pool despite their 37% share of the state's population.
During the Prop 11 campaign, minority organizations across the state opposed this nonsense, saying that this exact situation would occur. And sure enough, here we are. I hope everybody remembers this day when the ballot proposition to use a similar pattern to redistrict Congress comes up. Well, I'll do my best to remind, anyway.
Despite these bad numbers, there were still 31,000 applicants. So, we should expect to see a decently representative first cut as the auditor's office does the work to balance things out. But if you applied, and you are a Latino female? Well, expect a call.
In the end, my best guess of how this works is that we'll get a map that is perhaps a bit more "blockish", but still producing similar numbers of similarly partisan Republicans and Democrats. At heart, Prop 11 misses the simple truth that we have self-sorted over the past 50 years. There's no way to draw a competitive seat in SF or in far Northeastern California. Just isn't, no matter how dedicated these people are.
So, maybe we'll get a map, maybe we'll just go back to the judges. Either way, not a whole lot changes, and the state is pout $5 million or so. Sounds like a great plan guys, can't we emulate this everywhere!
URGENT ALERT! California's election districts may be drawn by a group
that is 73% white and 69% male! How will the interests of California's
diverse population be fairly represented?
This possibility could become fact, unless we encourage a diverse
group of people to apply for the Citizens Redistricting Commission
before the February 16th deadline. Click here or visit
http://www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov to apply today.
Every ten years, the state's electoral districts are redrawn following
the census. Drawing these district boundaries determines the make-up
of the legislature and influences every policy issue our state faces.
For the first time ever, this will be done by a group of citizens just
like you.
We need you to help ensure that this Redistricting Commission is
sensitive to the nuances of California's diverse communities. We need
you to stand-up for women, children, elderly, disabled, veterans,
people of color, and the LGBT community. We need you to help steer
California's legislative and policy agenda by taking part in the
redistricting process. We need you and your like-minded friends and
family members to apply to become a Citizens Redistricting
Commissioner!
The deadline to apply for the Citizens Redistricting Commission is
Tuesday, February 16th. Even if you are unable to serve on the
Citizens Redistricting Commission, you can help by forwarding this
email to your like-minded friends and family members and asking them
to apply.
Help steer California's legislative and policy agenda by ensuring we
draw districts that represent California's interests, not the
interests of a select few.
UPDATE: I should point out that those who serve as an elected, staff, appointee on the local level are able to serve on the commission. Those who have served, or their immediate family has served, on a statewide and congressional level are eligible in it has been 10 years prior to sending in the application. But, if you are on a county central committee, yeah, you still aren't eligible.
As I said then, many of us political junkies will be excluded. If you are on a central committee, have worked for a politician, or are directly related to somebody who has worked for a politician, you are excluded. That's what makes the push to get progressives on the commission all the more important, and all the more challenging.
We'll need to look to people who aren't normally joiners, not on any state or local committees, but who are willing to give up a lot of time to help progressives get elected. We need to ensure that progressives are well-represented and that the committee isn't wholly occupied by those who would simply do their best to push everybody to the squishy middle.
There are 5 seats for Democrats and Republicans, and 4 for others. We need to get some really solid progressives in those five Democratic seats, 5 people who are willing to go toe to toe with whomever Republicans get up there. They need to recognize the value of not only more Democrats, but also of better Democrats.
But those 4 other seats are where the game is really won or lost. We need as many as possible of those seats filled by progressives. Whether they are Greens, P&F, or a DTS, we simply need to know that they have an eye on creating a map that works for Californians. A map that reflects the diversity of the state and produces results that reflect the political reality of the state: conservatives and the right-wing Republicans are on the run. We shouldn't give any gifts via a map.
(I wrote about this last week, but moving beyond partisanship, this is important. I would argue that we should be looking for progressives to fill those non-partisan seats, and maybe even a centrist Republican for those seats. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Drawing our legislative districts used to be the job of elected officials, but now it's up to YOU. That's because of a voter-approved measure last year that called for the creation of a new Citizens Redistricting Commission. Last Thursday, the State Auditor launched a new website for the effort: http://WeDrawTheLines.ca.gov.
It's absolutely critical that pro-LGBT citizens apply for the commission to ensure that the new boundaries are drawn to empower our community--not gerrymandered to divide us.
Over the weekend at the CDP E-Board meeting, the PR folks hired by the State Auditor to gin up interest did a presentation about the application process for the Redistricting Commission. The presentation made me think a few things.
1) Sucks to be an activist. If you serve or have recently served on your local or state central committees for any party, you are ineligible. If you've run for a partisan nomination, you are ineligible. If you have worked for a politician, you are ineligible. If your spouse, child or parent has run for election or worked for a politician, you are ineligible. Which leads me to my next point.
2) We need to encourage people who aren't regular participants in the partisan process, but do share progressive values and will fight for progressive legislators to apply. You can get more information about the application process here. They even give you a full timeline of the system, because it's actually kind of crazy. It is a fairly big committment. The process will likely last around a year from start to finish. Commissioners will be paid only a per diem and a travel allowance, so nobody's getting rich off of this. However, it is a pretty powerful little body, if they are actually to get some lines drawn.
3) We should particularly encourage progressive DTS, Greens and members of other progressive parties that are eligible to apply. The seats are broken down as 5 for Dems and Reps, and 4 "others". Ideally, as many as possible of those "others" will be left-leaning others that would be interested in a progressive legislature.
4) I was reminded what a piece of crap Prop 11 was. It specifically enumerates the two main parties as Democrats and Republicans. If a major third party develops, well, I guess we'll have to redo this POS.
5) In the end, we are likely to end up with lines drawn by the judges because that this panel will work are kind of slim. It requires a lot of agreement amongst the commissioners and disqualifies everybody who understands this stuff. The map then will then deal with the specter of a test at the ballot.
6) Seeing just how messy this 14-member panel will be makes me shudder to think about the con-con selection process.
Since that time, Dave's Redistricting Application has become available for the state on the Swing State Project. The Application is an invaluable tool in doing these maps. It has helped me greatly in trying to come up with a new, better version of a plan for the state. I have also taken reader comments from my last diary into consideration in drawing this new plan for California. The comments have helped me greatly in terms of refining the districts here. As several readers rightfully noted, several of the districts I drew last time were not Democratic enough to assure that they would be virtually guaranteed to elect Democrats, and parts of the previous map were too gerrymandered. Here's my new version ...
Taking into account some suggestions and comments, I made some changes to my previous attempt at redistricting California. I conceded an additional 2 seats to the GOP, which concomitantly makes a number of other seats more strongly Democratic. The additional 2 safe GOP seats are CA-4 and CA-48. Here's what version 2 looks like, overall:
I decided to try my hand at redistricting California's Congressional districts for 2010-2012, using Dave's Redistricting App. After playing around with it a bit, here's what the map I came up with looks like overall:
Here's the 2008 Obama/McCain vote in California, on the precinct level:
Here is my first attempt at redistricting California for 2010. I gave myself an extra challenge of keeping the representatives' residences in their respective districts save of course McClintock, and assuming Garamendi wins CA-10.
For the demographics, I noticed that even in obviously heavy Hispanic areas, the "Hispanic" percentage was ridiculously low, while the "Other" category was more representative of the Hispanic population, so for "Hispanic" I will use the "Hispanic" and "other" numbers.
Later on I will attempt redistricting the State Senate and Assembly. I know there is a panel that will draw the state legislative districts, but I still intend to give a shot at these maps.
(Some intersting information. As we move into the post Prop11 world, the redistricting process is a big unknown. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
(Cross-posted on the Swing State Project and Daily Kos)
Disclosure: I do not live in California, although I would if I could (my heart is always somewhere along the northern coast of the state) ...
I had three main goals in mind when thinking about redistricting California:
1.) Make the new map less gerrymandered than the current one, keeping more communities together in the same district.
2.) Increase the number of Hispanic-majority districts in the state, while preserving all the current Hispanic-represented seats.
3.) Increase Democratic representation in the state delegation.
All three goals above are met by the proposed map. Incumbent protection was a lesser goal. Nevertheless, at least for Democratic Representatives, this goal was also met by this proposal.
Under the proposed plan, 44 districts are made to be Democratic, 7 to be Republican, and 2 to be swing districts (one of which, CA-4, would have certainly gone Democratic in the 2006 and 2008 Congressional elections if the proposed plan was in place, and the other, CA-48, could quite conceivably go Democratic in the near
future).
Bottom line: if these lines had been in effect during the 2008 elections, Democrats would have likely won 45 of the 53 districts
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.
• Arnold has hired his chiropractor, his dentist and now his nanny to various state boards. Good thing this guy is nothing like George Bush or we would expect these people to be unqualified!
• The Supreme Court has now stepped into the battle between the Navy and environmentalists, ruling that the Navy can engage in sonar exercises off the California coast that may endanger dolphins, whales and sea lions. Why courts are arbitrating this case instead of the science is one of the neat little quirks of our system. But sure, why should the Navy be inconvenienced by moving a few miles off the coast? Not in the public interest, you see.
• Mountain House, California, particularly Prosperity Street in Mountain House, offers a cautionary tale about how screwed the housing market is:
This town, 59 feet above sea level, is the most underwater community in America.
This week, a real estate office in Tracy, Calif., near Mountain House, was advertising foreclosure sales.
Because of plunging home values, almost 90 percent of homeowners here owe more on their mortgages than their houses are worth, according to figures released Monday. That is the highest percentage in the country. The average homeowner in Mountain House is "underwater," as it is known, by $122,000.
That is really worse than anyone's projections. This is going to be a brutal downturn, and the recently upgraded homeowner relief looks to be insufficient.
• DiFi, who may be made chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is striking hard at the most important, festering problem at the soul of our society today - scalped tickets for the inauguration. But I'm sure that if we were committing torture or illegally wiretapping on Americans or indefinitely detaining prisoners without charges, she'd be all over that, too.
• Gary Miller has been caught with some pretty shady campaign practices again. Well, I take that back, this goes beyond shady:
apparently Congressman Miller paid his "bigger development construction company" a series of 5 payments which equaled $47,360. All this came from his re-election campaign, and when this is taken into perspective, it amounts to his largest campaign expenditure, 22% of the $218,368 that he raised.(LiberalOC)
• Dan Weintraub, hero of High Broderism. I love this line: "Will (redistricting) change the world? No." The better question is "Will it change anything?" I love how these guys never look at the actual registration statistics, with all these seats that have changed between 6-8% in party affiliation, when they intone that legislators pick their voters. Do they pick who changes their registration, who dies and who moves, too?
• Finally, CREDO Mobile is trying to whip legislators to remove John Dingell from the chair of the House Energy Committee and replace him with Henry Waxman. Which is great, and they personalize the message so that each person receiving their email gets the name of their Congressman on it. Only, my Congressman is Henry Waxman. And so my message said "Will you tell Henry Waxman to vote for Henry Waxman for Energy Committee chair?"
The past few days have seen another spate of "OMG, Republican incumbents are in trouble!" stories in the traditional media. Aside from them not understanding and internalizing the theory of coattails, this problem is particularly acute among the California media, where gerrymandering is just supposed to lock up Congressional and legislative seats airtight, except when, you know, it doesn't. Peculiar to this rendering of the world is the idea that nobody ever moves, dies, or reaches the age of 18 in any particular district, and thus voter registration statistics are completely static. But of course this is not true, and once the Democratic Party started putting resources into registering new and lapsed voters, why look what happened:
One of the major reasons for these competitive contests has been the narrowing gap in registered voters between the parties. While Republicans still enjoy a substantial advantage over Democrats in all three districts, their leads have shrunk significantly.
Four years ago, Republicans led Democrats among registered voters by margins of 17 percent in the Orange County-based 46th, 15 percent in the San Diego-area 50th and 11 percent in the Riverside County-based 45th. By this year's registration deadline of Oct. 20, those leads had shrunk by 6 percent in the 50th, 5 percent in the 46th and 6 percent in the 45th.
There are still the conventional wisdom-besotted punditocracy that simply can't conceive of these major shifts in the electorate (it's not like anything has happened the past eight years that would lead people to desert the Republican Party in droves, right?), who believe that incumbents just win and that's the end of it. But just ask one of those incumbents what he fears on Tuesday:
HUNTINGTON BEACH - Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach/Long Beach said Friday he's concerned that Republicans will be discouraged by a possible Democratic landslide at the polls, affecting his re-election bid.
"If (Republican nominee John) McCain does not do well, and Republicans stay home, my lead could evaporate," the nine-term incumbent of the 46th Congressional District said.
Huntington Beach Mayor Debbie Cook, the Democratic challenger, said the race is a "statistical dead heat," and agreed that a solid turnout for change - from the economic problems facing the country - could be the difference in Tuesday's hotly contested race.
"All the uncertainty that's going on now is helping," she said, adding that incumbents who have been "part of the system for the past 20 years" could be vulnerable.
This is all the more reason why Democrats and progressives need to remember Jim Corman and get as many voters to the polls as possible. And Don't Stop At The Top, of course.
And if the scenario is bright in the Congressional races, the Assembly looks even brighter. Why, even Dan Walters has figured this one out.
Voters may not realize that they could dramatically alter that balance, but interest groups that are pouring millions of dollars into legislative and ballot measure campaigns certainly get it.
Democrats could pick up one seat in the Senate and are so certain of gaining three to five seats in the Assembly that they've diverted resources into several marginal districts, taking advantage of Obamania-inspired voter registration gains, to shoot for the six added seats that would give them a two-thirds majority. That margin is required for the budget and tax increases and could happen as the Capitol wrestles with a rapidly deteriorating economy and a fast-growing budget deficit.
We know about those top-line seats: AD-80, AD-78, AD-15, AD-10, AD-26. But it's Linda Jones' race in AD-36 that has captured my attention. She represents the ultimate swing vote as the potential 54th Democrat in the State Assembly, the vote that would give us a 2/3 majority, which in California is a governing majority. And Linda Jones happens to be really great, campaiging on a message of green jobs in the waning days of the race.
As part of her campaign to create a stronger economy for the region, Democratic Assembly Candidate Linda Jones (36th District) today announced her "High Desert Region Green Jobs Initiative" - using 'green jobs' to increase opportunities for unemployed and underemployed adults in the High Desert communities. Lt. Governor John Garamendi, a longtime advocate for environmental protection and renewable energy, offered his full support of the plan, calling it a "giant leap forward" for the region's economy.
"Investing in the 'green economy' is a win-win because it will create jobs and increase our clean energy efficiency," said Linda Jones. "The High Desert Region Green Jobs Initiative will create outreach, educational, and training programs to recruit, develop, and sustain a green industry that will create jobs, increase our clean energy efficiency, and grow our economy for the region."
There's a website, High Desert Green Jobs, that details the initiative. It's fantastic that someone in a swing district trying to become the first Democratic member of the Assembly from this region in 34 years is offering such a bold agenda.
This district had an eight-point GOP lean just two years ago. Now the registration gap is GONE. 400 votes separate Democrats and Republicans. Don't give me that redistricting stuff, nothing's stopping this progressive wave. I'm excited for Linda Jones and so is her community.
There's just one day to go. You need to Stay for Change because you can have a major impact right here in California. I'm going to give predictions on everything in the morning. But right now, I'm psyched.
If he were still at the Hotline this would be more specific, but unlike so many of the California punditocracy, he knows what a wave election means.
California: As unpopular as Bush supposedly has been in California, he only lost the state by 11 points in both 2000 and 2004. So what happens with McCain in '08? I think Obama's margin in this state will tell us a lot about Democratic enthusiasm among the base. Anything above 15 points for Obama probably means he will have some coattails down the ballot. And frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if some two to four GOP incumbents go down, shocking folks in Washington (Reps. Mary Bono-Mack? David Dreier?) No one is safe in this Blue state.
As we know, the latest Field Poll had Obama up by 22. And that big a spread is going to cause some disruption.
I hear that Dana Rohrabacher dropped a last-minute mailer to Republicans, imploring them to turn out. The latest registration numbers show that Dan Lungren is in serious, serious trouble. This is not going to be a normal election year in California. And it's going to put the lie to the primary rationale for redistricting that Arnold Schwarzenegger is peddling to reporters.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the Kremlin in Russia sees more turnover than the statehouse in Sacramento, as he made the case for Proposition 11 Thursday in a conference call.
"We have to make our politicians responsive to the people, not to the party," Schwarzenegger said, joined by state AARP president Jeannine English and national AARP CEO Bill Novelli.
Well, the Kremlin is going to see some shakeups this year. I don't know if people are going to make the connection between all that turnover and the inherent fallacy that re-gerrymandering would allow for more competition, but maybe some of that late money flowing to No on Prop. 11 can make that case. Because the facts are that the Yacht Party is on the verge of being wiped out, at the state and federal level. And no redistricting had anything to do with it.
For years, some Very Serious People have been complaining about how there aren't enough competitive races. And so, the Republicans thought, yeah, we'd like more competitive districts because we're getting our butts kicked in the ones we helped draw after the 2000 census. The goo-goo groups (good government) saw a chance to get some additional street cred and, more importantly, additional leverage.
I've got plenty of respect for the League of Women Voters and Common Cause, but they have the most power when there are a bunch of moderates in the legislature. I know, they would never think that they are, in fact, an interest group in their own right, but, folks they are. They are a special interest just like any other. They do what maximizes their own interests.
Arnold then saw an opportunity in Prop 11, he could also expand his own power and gravitas. Arnold was able to cobble a semi-respectable coalition for the proposition including a few more Republicans and a few poorly informed Democrats. (Bob Hertzberg? Really, dude? You drew the damn maps that they are so upset about.) They then got all the Very Serious People aboard with a somewhat specious argument that Prop 11 would bring in more moderates and make elections more competitive.
The problem with all of this? We didn't actually need any of this for competive elections. They are here, up close in person in 2008. I suppose the trouble is that the Very Serious People weren't expecting all these Republican seats to become competitive. You see, they wanted the Democratic seats to become competitive too (or in the case of some, the Democratic seats only). But, like it or not, competition is here:
Democrats will have a rare opportunity in next week's general election to capture a few seats in the state Legislature, which would help them inch toward a two-thirds majority, a vote threshold needed to approve a state budget or a tax measure.
State legislative seats switching hands between parties is extremely rare in California - it hasn't happened since the legislative district lines were redrawn in the beginning of the decade. Democrats are hoping to buck that trend with increased Democratic voter registration fueled by the popularity of presidential hopeful Barack Obama. (SF Chron 10/28/08)
Never mind that Matthew Yi chose to acknowledge only three seats Democrats can take from Republicans, ignoring AD-26, AD-15 notably. The long and short of it is that these competitive races undermine the entire argument for Prop 11, that only a different mapping system can provide competitive elections. Nope, not true, and Prop 11 couldn't even do anything to actually create any competitive districts.
Prop 11 is a phony solution in search of a phony problem. Vote No, we don't need to give Republicans additional power to satisfy these Very Serious People.
Just in case you weren't quite sure on Prop 11, the Republican Voters First redistricting measure, you can be now. This measure is a right-wing initiative to help the GOP in whatever quixotic way that they think it can. The proof? How about a fundraiser with a right-wing Lt. Gov. from Texas?
At least a couple years ago, maybe longer, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst hosted California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for a cozy fundraiser at an Austin hotel. The California ceo had done, or was going to do, the same for Dewhurst in the Golden State.
Well, Arnold's going to be back Thursday and you're invited.
In case you wanted the embossed invitation, you can find it here. BUt you'll need to do the embossing.
Just for the record, Dewhurst is no post-partisan. As a long-time Texan, I can assure you that this guy is pretty darn right-wing. But, Arnold really isn't that far from him, and loves the cash for his ridiculous waste of time redistricting measure. That's our Arnold, putting Republicans first.
I generally like George Skelton. I mean, he's very Broder-esque, but he's fairly reasonable. But he so badly misses the mark on his column on Prop 11, and smears current legislators in the process. I mean, that's a little like shooting fish in a barrel isn't it? Just a bit too easy, especially when you stretch the truth.
After a little bit of name-calling, "Orwellian campaign" and all that, Skelton "cuts to the chase"
Let's cut to the chase:
* If you believe that legislators should be held accountable at election time and face more than token opposition, Prop. 11 is a must. If you're thinking that Sacramento requires some reforming to become more responsive to California's needs, here's an excellent place to start.
* Conversely, if you believe that Sacramento is cruising along just fine and doesn't need much tinkering, vote against Prop. 11. But then you'd probably have been living in a coma. (LAT 10/9/08)
Except Skelton doesn't mention that he could sit on his ivory tower there without ever coming up with a way to actually make any more than a handful of districts competitive. It's the ridiculous lie that the proponents of Prop 11 are using. Californians have self-sorted to such a degree that any district that would be competitive would look like ridiculous and meld people who have no similarities together.
If you are going to cut to the chase, shouldn't the chase be something that the measure actually accomplishes?
Oh, and the measure gives Republicans far more power than they've earned at the ballot box. That's reason enough to reject it. No on 11.
The SacBee is reporting that Paul Singer, the funder behind the Dirty Tricks to change the way California allocates its electoral votes, is back. This time he's funding Prop 11. Just in case you needed more evidence that this is just another Dirty Trick:
Remember Paul Singer? He was the mystery GOP donor who funneled $175,000 through a newly formed organization in Missouri last year to the failed ballot measure to scrap the winner-take-all Electoral College system in California.
* * *
Well, Singer has returned to the state's campaign filings, donating $25,000 this weekend to pass Proposition 11, the redistricting measure on the November ballot spearheaded by good government groups like California Common Cause and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.(SacBee 10/7/08)
In other Prop 11 news, La Opinion, the Spanish language newspaper of record, has come out strongly against the Republican Voters First Initiative. (English version here, Spanish here). Among other problems, they find it doesn't protect fair representation for Latinos.
Proposition 11 does not guarantee diversity nor does it depoliticize the process, as proponents contend. The initiative reflects justified frustration with the current system in Sacramento. While the measure hopes to improve upon current practice, it fails to provide enough safeguards.
The problem is that the initiative could have a negative impact on fair political representation for Latinos. This is reason enough to reject Proposition 11.
These redistricting measures are always tight, but in our long history with these things, they seem to slip at the last minute. We'll see how this one comes along in the last 4 weeks.
With a kind hat tip to Shane at CapitolAlert, we have some new data from SurveyUSA on a few of the propositions. Keep in mind that I'm not in love with the data from SurveyUSA, and proposition numbers can be particularly volitile. So, here they are.
For the good news, we see Prop 8 trailing, and Prop 2 leading. That 62 point lead for Prop 2 is actually quite staggering. It's rare to see such agreement on any issue, let alone one that has been blocked by big farming interests for so long. Other polls have showed 8 trailing more substantially, but this again confirms what we've been seeing.
On the not so good side, we have Prop 4. While we've beaten this twice before, it's been close both times. And there's nothing in this version that is any better than Props 73 or 85. One hope is that the turnout model that S-USA used for this poll has under counted youth voters. And that may be true for many of these polla, but a lot of work will (and $) will need to go to Prop 4 if we are to beat this once again.
Finally, Prop 11. Oh Prop 11, does anybody have a clue what you are? Not so much, as almost 50% of voters are undecided. I'd expect there to be a bunch of voting-day decisions on this one as many voters just don't have the time to analyze these things.
By the way, NO ON 11! It's fake reform opposed by minority organizations and labor that simply gives too much to Republicans that haven't earned it at the ballot box. Just in case you haven't heard that enough around here...
While most of the Calitics editorial board is conventioning in Denver this week I'm holding down the fort back here in California. I love the Mile High City, but with the onset of Monterey's summer I don't think I'm going to miss much.
Which gives me time to focus on one of the ongoing arguments over this fall's ballot, specifically over Proposition 11 - redistricting reform. Over at the California Progress Report Frank Russo has been hosting a running debate on the topic, with Democratic redistricting expert Bill Cavala taking on all challengers in his effort to explain why Prop 11 is a bad idea.
Cavala defends himself well and certainly doesn't need my help, but today's pro-Prop 11 article from the president of the CA branch of the AARP is so full of flaws that I felt compelled to add my two cents.
Jeannine English's article repeats the two most common errors of Prop 11 advocates: 1) making the assumption that legislative-controlled redistricting is at the core of our state's problems, and 2) that redistricting reform will produce a less partisan legislature and therefore solve our state's problems. Both are completely false. It is a reform in search of a problem. From English's article:
The question California voters should ask themselves this November is this: "is the status quo in Sacramento working for me?" Considering the state's ongoing budget problems, lack of health care reform despite years of debate, regular cuts to social services, and a host of other issues that are not being properly addressed in the state, the answer from all but political insiders will likely be "no, the status quo is not working for me."...
So now its time for voters to get it done. Prop. 11, written over two years by voting rights attorneys and experts in consultation with Californians of all ideological persuasions, will create fair redistricting in California so incumbents are not guaranteed their reelection but actually have to work for their votes. With Prop 11's passage, legislators will have to work better together to solve the problems Californian's care about, instead of staying in their partisan corners.
This is a slick move to cast Prop 11 as a solution to the state's problems, but it ignores some important truths. The reason Sacramento is broken is because a far-right Republican minority bent on destroying public services has repeatedly exploited the 2/3 rule to prevent the state from putting its fiscal house in order. Those two problems - a wingnut Republican caucus and the 2/3 rule - are without a doubt the major obstacles to a state government that works.
Redistricting reform solves neither of these problems. Instead it stems from the misguided belief that what California has is too much partisanship - a stance that lets the Republicans off the hook and hides from voters the real work Democrats have done to compromise and fix the budget.
It also errs in assuming that it's even possible to make competitive districts in California. There's no way to make San Francisco or south Orange County anything but a safe seat for one party or the other without gerrymandering on a far more egregious scale than anything currently done.
That being said, is there a significant downside to Democrats from Prop 11, even if it's a pointless reform? After all, Washington State has used a similar independent process to draw districts since 1983 and today Dems have 2/3 majorities in both houses of the state legislature.
In fact downsides do exist. The "independent commission" is not an accurate representation of the state's political demography. Republicans and Democrats would have the same number of seats on the commission, despite the fact that Democrats have over a million more registered voters in California. Prop 11 gives Republicans an artificial advantage that they have not earned and do not deserve.
Bill Cavala has argued convincingly that a redistricting commission could wind up shifting enough seats to the Republicans to move Democrats from having a realistic shot at 2/3 majorities to having to defend their majority. And he quite rightly points out that the current "moderates" in the Republican Party have consistently voted in lockstep with the wingnuts, suggesting how out of touch Prop 11's proponents are.
The most frustrating aspect of Prop 11 may be how much time and energy it is diverting from the real issues facing California. Why aren't the so-called "good government" groups making a stronger push to get rid of the 2/3 rule? We can see its damaging effect on the state right now with a budget crisis dragging on with no end in sight. If groups like the AARP really want to fix a broken California, they should direct their resources to fixing that issue.
Drawing our legislative districts used to be the job of elected officials, but now it's up to YOU. That's because of a voter-approved measure last year that called for the creation of a new Citizens Redistricting Commission. Last Thursday, the State Auditor launched a new website for the effort: 
