The California Citizens Redistricting Commission will draw the boundaries for state legislative districts, after the 2010 census data is available (unless the voters vote for a ballot measure next month, Proposition 27, that would abolish the Commission). The Commission will have 5 registered Democrats, 5 registered Republicans, and 4 members who are neither. The process by which the membership of the Commission will be chosen is almost finished. At this point there are 60 California voters who are still in contention to be on the Commission. They include two registered members of the Green Party, 18 independents, 20 Republicans, and 20 Democrats.
The two Greens are Teresa Espana of Fresno County, and Stuart Flashman of Alameda County. Thanks to Mike Feinstein for this news.
The EVIL ANTI-Democracy gerrymander math will continue.
Half the votes in half the districts (whoever or whatever is drawing the district lines) is about 25 percent ANTI-Democracy minority rule.
— i.e. how many math MORONS in CA ???
P.R. and App.V. = REAL Reforms — NOT JUNK stuff like the CCRC.
Bravo for the Green Party folks.
Mike Feinstein is – as he should be – relentless for the Green Party…
Doesn’t the AIP (from either faction) have anybody trying to run for the commission?
The AIP did in the beginning, but in the beginning there were thousands of applicants, and the vast majority have been screened out.
About 4500 voters completed the application (many more filed initial applications, but dropped out when the applications required recommendations, and more formal specification of qualifications (basically it began to look more like a job application vs. I’d be interested in doing that). Those who completed their application were 44% Democrats, 39% Republicans, and 17% neither, including 4% (181) from the 4 ballot-qualified minor parties.
The 3 auditors doing the screening reviewed these applications independently, and each selected 200 to 300 that they felt were most qualified. Collectively, they chose 622 persons, with 31 receiving a recommendation from all 3 auditors, 147 from 2 auditors, and 444 from a single auditor.
These 622 included 331 Democrats, 179 Republicans, and 112 neither, including 91 DTS, 8 Greens, 6 Libertarians, 2 AIP, 2 P&F, and 3 others (53% Democratic, 29% Republican, and 18% neither).
Since the objective was to get 3 groups of 40 (D, R, and neither), in the next pass the auditors screened each group separately, with each auditor recommending about 60 in each group. The 314 who were favored by at least one auditor advanced to another screening. This time there were 115 Democrats, 113 Republicans, and 86 neither, including 70 DTS, 6 Greens, 5 Libertarians, 2 AIP, 1 P&F, and 2 others. 15 of the 314 were subsequently found not to have had continuous party registration for the 5 previous years, and 2 did not complete their financial disclosure forms.
The next screening produced the lists of 40 persons in each group who were actually interviewed in person. The 3 auditors recommended 40 in each group. Those candidates with 3 recommendations were tentatively placed in the interview pool, and then each auditor put forward additional candidates that they wished to be considered, and the 3 auditors came to a consensus agreement on those.
25 of those not affiliated with either major party, received a unanimous recommendation, and 28 received one or two recommendations (average 1.61). 15 persons were chosen from these 28 to make up the final 40 who were interviewed, which included 30 DTS, 3 Green, 3 Libertarian, 1 AIP, 1 P&F, and 2 others. 6.2% of applicants from the 4 minor ballot-qualified parties reached the interview stage vs. 5.0% of the DTS, 2.2% of Republicans, and 2.0% of Democrats. The different success ratios between the major parties and those affiliated with neither is a reflection of the disparity in the number of applicants rather than any selection bias other than that required by legal requirements of the selection process.