Rift over redistricting (in CA)

[question everything]

Los Angeles Daily News

Rift over redistricting

Arnold says he's fighting gerrymandering; critics call it power grab
By David M. Drucker
Sacramento Bureau


SACRAMENTO -- Looking to reshape California in his centrist image, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed overhauling the process governing how political districts are drawn to encourage the election of compromising moderates over extreme partisans.

Schwarzenegger, upsetting Democrats and Republicans alike, has remained characteristically undaunted as he pushes a proposed constitutional amendment that would remove the state Legislature's power to draw boundaries both for its own districts and for California congressional districts and give that authority to a nonpartisan panel of three retired judges.

(snip)

But as a close friend and ally of Schwarzenegger who worked hard for the election of the former movie star, Dreier is sympathetic to the governor's agenda. Dreier believes Schwarzenegger's redistricting plan would yield immediate benefits in the Democrat-controlled state Legislature.

It's the plan's effect on Republicans in the House of Representatives that worries him.

Dreier doesn't have a problem with including House members in Schwarzenegger's plan, but prefers that they be exempt until after the 2010 census is taken. That's when the current lines are scheduled to be redrawn, anyway.

(snip)

David M. Drucker, [phone] [e-mail]

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2683288,00.html#

[ixion]

1. centrist?

I don't think so. :crazy:

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. puke

:puke:

[yellowcanine]

3. Actually this would be a good idea but only if it applied to all states.

So we need an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ensure that congressional districts are drawn in a nonpartisan fashion in every state. Would be a good way to defeat the Tom Delays.

[mountebank]

4. I am all for redistricting - provided it is truly non-partisan

But I don't know why California has to be one of the first to implement it.... Nevertheless, I would cautiously support it, depending on if I thought the panel was truly independent.

Independent redistricting should be a top priority for everyone except the most partisan on both sides (note: I consider extreme partisanship not to be a compliment). If it means Dems lose seats in some places temporarily, I am confident that Democratic ideals can outcompete Republican ideals in the long term to regain them - and then some.

[tom_paine]

7. In Bushevik-speak, "nonpartisan" means 2 Federalist Toadies

and MAYBE one semi-honest judge.

Yah, I sure will buy THAT load of Bushevik Fertilizer, considering how trustworthy and honest the Busheviks and Emperor Ahnold have been...

:puke:

[w4rma]

8. Exactly. I wouldn't trust these "judges" to be any more nonpartisan than I

am. Just more PR from the Repugs.

[AllegroRondo]

5. I believe Iowa has independant redistricting

anyone know more on this?

[mountebank]

6. Apparently the Legislature can reject the recommendations

of the redistricting bureau but rarely does so. Here's a bit I found on the internet:

"In fact, the Democratic-controlled legislature approved a plan in 1991 that left it vulnerable to competition; the Republicans now control both houses of the state legislature and four of five US House seats."

http://www.centrists.org/pages/2004/07/7_buck_trust.html

The question, of course, is: does this accurately reflect Iowa's electorate? Even though Repubs are in control, it seems (from what my Democratic voting Iowan relatives tell me) that state government in Iowa is nearly evenly split, i.e. Repubs have a razor-thin majority. That seems to jibe with what I know about Iowa politics.

[nolabels]

9. Tell that to your Repuke buddies Arnie

Like down in Texas somewhere. I am more than sure that it's gerrymandered, but not blatantly like in Texas. The Dems did a bad thing here California, but it's way, way, way worse in Texas. I am stuck a Repuke zoned district myself but knowing about how Effed up Texas is, I don't feel half bad about it.

Hypocrite Repukes make me sick :puke:

[question everything]

10. I think that any district that is not square shaped

or rectangular, except when bordered by a natural line like a river or a mountain range, is gerrymandered.

[mudderfudder77]

11. I'd have to agree.

Seems to be the only truly fair way.

[TahitiNut]

12. Why don't we redraw STATE boundaries every 50 years?

Wyoming has fewer residents than Washington D.C. Abolish the state of Wyoming and incorporate the territory into the neighboring states!!

Why don't we redraw COUNTY boundaries every 25 years?

Why don't we redraw CITY boundaries and reincorporate them periodically?

Why are Congressional and State Legislative boundaries redrawn within state boundaries but completely irrespective of any other political boundary??

Why can a school district have multiple legislative representatives at both the state and federal levels?

Why can a city or town or county have multiple legislative representatives at both the state and federal levels?

Do Congressional Districts (or State Legislative) have any common demographic or affinity? Do they have separate taxation policies? Do they have separate criminal codes? Do they have a goddamned thing that ensure any common interest or common self-determination?

Redistricting has gotten totally partisan and has not a fucking thing to do with the common community interests or self-determination of the PEOPLE! It's a nationwide abomination.

[question everything]

14. I think that it is mandated in the Constitution that we have to redraw

after the Census. So that each Congressional District has about the same number of constituents. More or less.

The way states in the South and Southwest grew in the past 20 years or so, it does make sense, even though it hurt us when we lost electoral votes.

But you are correct that school or district boundaries should not split cities. This really makes no sense.

[TankLV]

13. It's "DEMOCRATIC!" "D-e-m-o-c-r-a-T-I-C"!

"Democratic" is the adjective you fucking repuke morons at the LA Times!

[question everything]

15. LA Daily News (a Murdoch paper?) n/t