A proposed California initiative, which is only in the beginning stages of petition-gathering, would repeal the 2008 initiative that sets up a Citizens Redistricting Commission. See this story. The purpose of the Citizens Redistricting Commission is to draw to boundaries for state legislative districts. If this new proposed initiative were to qualify for the November 2010 ballot, and if it passed, then the Commission would be eliminated before it had ever carried out its function. Thanks to ElectionLawBlog for the link.
The scheme is obviously by Donkeys trying to stop the CRC from having any real competition for the Donkey incumbents in the CA legislature — especially if the top 2 primary is approved in June, 2010
— 6 months and counting until a hopeful DOOM of the party hacks.
P.R. and A.V. — NO primaries are needed — NO gerrymander commissions are needed.
Way too difficult for armies of party hack MORONS to understand.
Opposition to Proposition 11 that created the redistricting commission was primarily by the unions with Professor Lowenstein acting as the front man. The union interest would be that they can not bribe the commissioners, plus under redistricting plans passed by the legislature, more elections would be decided in the primary where the unions are more influential.
Lowenstein apparently has been a lawyer so long that it has been ingrained in him to use technically accurate, but misleading, arguments on behalf of his clients.
Some examples:
“(c) Voters should always have the final voice. Under current law, voters can be denied the right to pass a referendum against unfair Congressional district gerrymanders. A referendum means that we, the voters, have a right to say ‘no’ to the Legislature, say ‘no’ to a statute with which we disagree. Under current law, protections to ensure a transparent, open process can be changed against the will of the people. This initiative reform ensures that voters will always have the right to challenge any redistricting plan (including the Congressional plan) and that no government officials can deny the public the light to participate in the process.”
Proposition 11 left congressional redistricting in the hands of the legislature, and under the California Constitution, urgency statutes are not subject to the referendum. So the legislature could simply pass congressional districting declare it an urgent matter, and not be subject to referendum. This appears to have happened following the 1980s redistricting which was overturned in a referendum, but then the legislature re-enacted another redistricting plan.
Proposition 11 explicitly provides that the redistricting plans drawn by the commission for the legislative districts and state board of election districts are subject to the referendum process. So Lowenstein is arguing that the power of legislative redistricting should be taken out of the hands of the commission in order to ensure that a referendum on congressional redistricting can be heard.
If Lowenstein were sincere in his concern, he would either back the initiative that would turn congressional redistricting over to the commission, or would make a change to the Constitution to increase the supermajority needed to pass an urgency statute from 2/3 to 4/5.
“(d) One-person-one-vote should mean something. But under current law, some people can count 10% more than others. Under current law, one district could have almost a million more people than another. That is not fair representation, it is the opposite. Historically, severely under-populated districts were called ‘Rotten Boroughs.’ This practice must be stopped. This reform will ensure that all districts are precisely the same size and that every person counts equally.”
There are only 4 state board of equalization districts in California, so each has over 9 million people, and if they varied by 10%, it would be almost a million people, which many court decisions have suggested complies with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. But “rotten boroughs” refers to constituencies in England such as Old Sarum which had an electorate of 11 and two MPs, not districts with so little as 10% variation.
And it might not actually be possible to legally create SBOE districts with so much variation. The redistricting board is required to produce districts with “reasonable” population equality and to the extent practicable to nest 10 senate districts within each SBOE district. If there were a 10% variation in population in the SBOE districts, then there would be a 10% variation between the senate districts in one part of the state and another. Such a systematic variation might well violate equal protection standards. It could be difficult for the commission to get a majority vote for so much variation, and it may not be possible to get a court to agree that it was reasonable nor not practicable to do a better job.
The equal within one person rule is actually preferred by gerrymanderers. Courts were asked to rule on redistricting plans, and couldn’t simply write that the “plan stinks”, but had to cite some objective standard, so they would pick out minor discrepancy in population to base a decision on. The gerrymanderers could then make an adjustment to get within 1 person of strict equality, and claim that they were respectful of the courts concerns, meanwhile ripping apart some small town in the interest of strict equality.
If Professor Lowenstein were really concerned about “reasonable equality” he would simply propose a change that would set some objective standard. The problem is not who is drawing the boundaries, but the standards set for them. In fact, Lowenstein could propose a standard to the commission before they start drawing maps.
“(e) Unaccountable appointed officials cannot be trusted to serve the interests of our communities. The last time unelected officials drew districts, they split twice as many cities as maps drawn by people who were accountable to the voters. This fracturing of cities diminishes the power of local communities. This reform strengthens protections against splitting counties and cities. We need reform to keep our communities and neighborhoods together so everyone has representation.”
In 1991 Governor Wilson vetoed the redistricting plans drawn by the legislature, which dumped into the Supreme Court’s lap. The Supreme Court appointed 3 special masters to draw a plan (the masters were retired judges). So the “unelected officials” were the special masters appointed by the supreme court. The maps were drawn using census tracts. While many census tracts do roughly conform to city boundaries it is often an imperfect match, especially when city boundaries change due to annexations. So while it appears that that the special masters did try to follow city boundaries, they ended up slicing up cities.
This really had nothing to do with the fact that an unelected (and therefore unaccountable) Supreme Court had appointed the special masters, but rather the approach that they had taken to produce a map quickly before the primary. If the legislature did a better job in 2000, it was only because election officials had complained about the slivers cut out of cities by following census tract boundaries.
Since 1990, computer map drawing technology has advanced greatly so it is quite easy and practicable to follow city boundaries precisely. Any plan that split cities as the 1990s plan did would be in violation of Proposition 11. The Lowenstein proposal would like result in splitting of more cities simply because it requires strict population equality.
“(f) Sacramento has become a full time game of Musical Chairs – where incumbent term-limited politicians serve out their maximum term in one office and then run for another office where they are a shoo in. This must stop! Current law gives State Assembly members the home field advantage in running for the State Senate and gives State Senators the same advantage when running for the State Assembly. This is because current law mandates that in virtually all situations each State Senator represents 100% of two Assembly seats; each Assembly member represents 50% of a Senate district. Sacramento politicians already have access to millions of dollars from lobbyists and special interest groups. Stacking districts to further disadvantage ordinary people (homeowner groups, small business, environmental and community activist groups) who don’t have access to the special interest contributions that flow to Sacramento incumbents is outrageous. This reform ends this practice.”
Current practice is to nest 2 assembly districts in one senate district, and Proposition 11 sets that as a requirement to the extent practicable. So if an Assembly member moves to the Senate, he will already represent 50% of the constituents. BTW, have there been many senators who have run for the senate?
But because there are exactly twice as many assembly seats as there are senate seats, and they would be required to have exactly 1/2 the population, and conform to city boundaries as much as possible, it is quite likely that they would end up naturally nested. Or perhaps you might have a situation where one assembly district is 100% in a senate district while another is 80% in the senate district and a third is 20% in. This still will give two assemblymen a home field advantage.
The only reason that they might would be if the two houses independently drew their own plans. In Texas that is the practices. Since the redistricting bills must pass the opposite house, the two chambers meet simultaneously to consider the other house’s plan. Clerks are stationed in the doors of the two chambers at opposite ends of the capitol, and then passage of the two bills is simultaneously gaveled. So perhaps the Assembly would pass a plan that would protect the current assembly members and the senate would protect the current senate members, but I hardly think that either would be looking out for the interests of “ordinary people”.
If nesting were a real concern you would simply make the number of members in the house relatively prime.
“(g) ‘Jim crow’ districts are a throwback to an awful bygone era. Districting by race, by class, by lifestyle or by wealth is unacceptable. Yet the same proponents who backed the current failing law have also proposed mandating that all districts be segregated according to ‘similar living standards’ and that districts include only people with ‘similar work opportunities.’ Californians understand these code words. The days of ‘country club members only’ districts or of ‘poor people only’ districts are over. This reform ensures these districts remain a thing of the past. All Californians will be treated equally.”
I’m sorry. I am unable to translate this.
#2 (g) — translation — do NOT PACK too many black Donkeys into too few gerrymander districts — i.e. spread them around to get more safe seat Donkey districts — with black and white Donkey winners.
Is Prof. L one of those super-EVIL gerrymander MONSTERS– the type of MONSTERS who helped Hitler make his concentration camps in WW II ???
Attn — ALL Profs and non-Profs (including the MORON appointed party hack Supremes) — gerrymanders = minority rule.
Half the votes in half the gerrymander districts = about 25 percent ANTI-Democracy minority rule
= a party hack OLIGARCHY — tending to be a party hack MONARCHY — depending on the top party hacks involved — Guv veto boss tyrant, upper house boss tyrant, lower house boss tyrant.
The U.S.A. is currently as *democratic* as a rock on the Moon — with ONLY the voter initiative petitions in some States preventing total party hack stuff.
P.R. and A.V. NOW.