CA-77: Why shouldn't I vote for redistricting?

[bemildred]

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the person who could be speaker if Democrats take back control, is actively raising money to defeat the California redistricting measure. Of course, in California, if districts were no longer drawn by partisans but by bipartisan panels of some political or judiciary makeup, then Democrats could possibly lose a few seats -- though no one's made a good case to us how they would net a loss. There are some GOP seats they'd likely nab in Southern California that would offset their losses in other parts of the state.

In fact, Pelosi's commitment to defeat the redistricting measure in California is so great that one Democratic operative told us she called its defeat her "top priority." As this operative noted to us, "left unsaid was the fact that winning back the House was not the 'top priority.'"

In Pelosi's defense, if this California redistricting measure took place in a vacuum, we could understand her focus on defeating it. She could easily spin this as an attempt by national Republicans to save their own majority by re-drawing California the same way Rep. Tom DeLay redrew Texas.

But if there was ever an example of "cutting off your nose to spite your face," this is it. As noted above, Ohio has a similar redistricting reform measure on the ballot this November, which if enacted, would likely give Democrats a better chance in a number of districts. Similarly, some Florida Democrats, led by 2004 Senate nominee Betty Castor, are trying to put a redistricting reform measure on that state's ballot next year. Florida is one of the more grotesque examples of gerrymandering in the entire country.

dailykos

[Patchuli]

1. Winning back the House

and restoring sanity is this Democrat's priority!! NO ON 77! We didn't need this election is the bottom line!

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

2. I can think of three reasons to vote 'no'

1. Propositions are a lousy way to make law. Originally designed as a way for the general citizenry to influence the direction of the state, the process has been taken over by corporations. A good example is the recall of Gray Davis -- who had been selected by millions of voters -- and selection of the Gropinator by less than a million voters. Why? Because the corporations didn't like the result of the election.

2. I'm always suspicious when someone says they "only" want to make something "fair." The * administration has used the reason "we only want to make the process fair -- to ensure there is a balance" to justify destroying the forests, drilling in ANWR, polluting the air and water, etc. In the case of Prop. 77, the devil is in the details. Who gets to pick the judges? Why judges? If the judges are retired, did they originally become judges under a Republican administration? What factors would be used to redraw the lines? What is the process to appeal the panel's decisions? When would the lines be redrawn -- now or after the next census?

3. If this is such a great idea, why is it that only Republicans are in favor of it?

[Oerdin]

15. If this is such a great idea...

If this is such a great idea, why is it that only Republicans are in favor of it?

Simple, the incumbants benifet from being able to rig things in their favor and they don't want to lose that advantage.

[Baconfoot]

3. Here are a few more reasons to vote no.

1) By the time this gets implimented, it will be time for the 2010 census. The time table on this proposition doesn't make any sense.

2) Maybe this is a good idea, but what are the alternatives? If I, the voter, am going to have the power to make a redistricting proposal law, then I would like to know what the other options are.

3) This proposition would give the Republicans at least one out of three seats on the committee which would eventually draw up the redistricting scheme. However, there is an even chance that it would give them two out of three seats. Why SHOULD Republicans have a 50/50 chance to get two out of three seats when the state is not majority Republican? If anything the third seat should go to someone who has been an independant for a specified number of years.

[Baconfoot]

4. Point of clarification: Prop 77 requires unanimity.

It is only fair to point out regarding Prop 77 that it requires the randomly selected three retired judges to come to a unanimous decision regarding the redistricting proposal. It is not "majority rule." However, one might think that there will be some pressure to reach such a decision despite disagreement because a) redistricting is mandated b) in the future if a scheme has been rejected by the voters a new scheme MUST be drawn up.

Hence, one might think that the purported greater objectivity which we are supposed to get from the unanimity requirement would not materialize.

I would have less of a worry with a major party-neutral judge (again though why judges?) but those MUST be in short supply. In any case, prop 77 only mandates that there be at least one representative judge from each of the two major parties in California on the three judge panel.

[xxqqqzme]

11. it also requires a new census

2 redraw the districts - who pays for that? How long will that take - that's sporatic employment for a bunch of census takers who pays their wages? Who appoints the 'impartial judges'? How long will all that take? then we get 2 do it all again in 2010!

NO on 77 - we can use that money for other things instead of wasting it on rethug neo-con schemes that banrupt state governments.

[cascadiance]

13. A census should only be done nationally!

If you have only a census done in California, then what's to stop a GOP "migration" here for census time to "pad" their "representation" here. They can move right back to their original state without that state paying a penalty of them being "gone" then, since there is no simultaneous census being taken there at the same time! See how this sort of "fixing" works? THAT is why the census is done nationally all at the same time! You only get counted "once" as a resident of where you are at that time, not in multiple places.

[Oerdin]

22. I've read the entire proposition...

And I do not recall reading anything about the state having its own census. Instead it simply requires the state to use the most recent census data. I suspect this is just another untruth being passed around by the pro-incumbant groups.

[bemildred]

5. I have mixed feelings about 77.

It's the only one I even considered voting for, although
on balance I expect to vote NO. But I thought it was worth
putting this Dkos argument up. I do think a non-political
process for redistricting is a good idea, districts should
be coherent, in some sense.

The two things I dislike about 77 are 1.) the "who chooses the
choosers" question already mentioned above and 2.) districts
can be set for one election without voter approval.

The answer to the "who chooses the choosers" is (unfortunately)
the state party leadership; in other words this is a recipe
for backroom politics with even less public transparency than
the present non-system. BuyBlue has a link to a model statute
that is better.

The other thing has it exactly wrong, no districts should have
legal effect without voter approval. This "one shot anyway you
want it" idea will be exploited immediately.

I also think it could be done mechanically, with a computer, based
on the most recent demographic data, without paying any attention
to voting habits etc.

[cascadiance]

6. bemildred, as I've stated on other threads here...

The stated goal of 77 is presumably to have us have "better representation" and not have those in power solidify their power by drawing district lines in their favor (whether they be Republicans or Democrats). The real goal I think is to change the equation behind the scenes to take away the power that Dems get through greater numbers of Democrats and other progressives in our state.

I think a better way to make our representatives more answerable to us (and in a fashion that is more apt to be helpful to progressives, and Republicans that truely don't want corrupt politicians is to champion "Clean Elections" legislation statewide here in California. It looks like it might get on the ballot here in 2006 in San Diego with all of the corruption we've seen locally down here recently (pension board, mayor, Duke Cunningham, etc.). Getting the "Clean Elections" process to elect those that are more answerable to us than well-heeled special interests I think will do FAR MORE to help weed out the old corrupt politicians than trying to change the redistricting equations.

Vote NO on 77. It can and will be done better before 2010 (when it redistricting SHOULD be done).

We've already had a lot of population movement since the last census, which took place before the dotcom meltdown fully took place. I'm counted as being in the Bay Area, though I'm now in a more "Republican" district in North County of San Diego (Cunnigham's). I suspect there are many people like me in San Diego and in Sacramento (Grass Valley), which are the two main points of migration from the Bay Area from the exodus around 2000-2001 when many left the Bay Area then in the dotcom meltdown aftermath. The districts with our existing census data are probably not that correct. We need more before we can really create accurate districts anyway (2010!)

[bemildred]

7. Clean, publically funded elections is the real answer

to a lot of these issues. A lot of the current rats nest
of campaign finance laws and practices goes away with
clean, publicly funded elections.

[xxqqqzme]

12. go to www.CAclean.org

or [e-mail] - sign the clean money petition

Hoping to get this on the ballot for '06 general election(if steroid boy vetoes AB 583 'The California Clean Money & Fair Election Act) - join the fight!

[roody]

8. why

I don't want 3 old rich white men making this decision. I'll vote no.

[diva77]

9. The cost of mid-term redistricting alone is impractical -- said to cost up

wards of $1 Billion to actually implement (according to some elections officials)...and why has Schwarzenegger given $1.2million toward passage of 77?

[jfern]

18. Whoa that much?

The accounting analysis of Prop 77 had a very low estimate, I think $1.5 million, which would be kind of irrelevant.

[AlGore-08.com]

10. Picture the retired judge is somebody like... oh, I dunno... Scalia

Or Rehnquist (who spent his youth keeping Latinos from voting).

Or Roy Moore, the 10 Commandments guy.

Or Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy, who was a judge before was a Senator.

Just because somebody's a retired judge, it won't guarantee that their motives are nonpolitical.

[Xithras]

14. I actually support the concept, but not the method.

Yes, we have districts in this state that are gerrymandered like there's no tomorrow. Yes, it's a given that the overall effect on our states political structure is negative. Yes, redistricting needs to be taken out of the hands of the state legislature.

The problem is that handing that job to three unelected and unbeholden judges is NOT the way to deal with this. Instead of dealing with a hundred-odd corrupt politicians, Ahnolds method would make it where three corrupt politicians could screw the state for eternity. I like the idea of taking the drawing of districts away from the people elected to those districts, but the job needs to go to someone who is elected.

IMO, this is the way districting should work: A new nonpartisan ELECTED position should be created to review borders every few years. When a change is needed because of population shifts, that person should submit the requested changes to the legislature for a simple up/down vote. If it's voted down, the person should have the option of either redrawing the border to settle any disputes, or to submit it to the people for 2/3rds approval.

Simple and effective. To top it off, if the person gets too partisan, we have the option of throwing him/her out and electing someone else.

[Oerdin]

16. Screw the state for an eternity?

What do you base that claim on? The panel would have 25 judges who've never held or ran for partisan office and who are unanously agreed upon by both parties. Redistricting would still be held after each census just like it has always been done (with the exception of the intitial redistricting conducted immediately in order to make the dirstricts comply with the new law) so the eternity claim seems a bit over blown.

There are better ways to do this, you mentioned one, but I've been waiting decades to see the gerrymandering ended and the incumbants have always protected this golden goose which insures they win reelection no matter how unpopular they are. I'm going to vote yes because it is the only real chance I've seen to end the abuse & gerrymandering which the incumbants use to protect their seats and prevent new blood from gain office.

[Andromeda]

26. What makes you think these judges...

would not be partisan? Just because they may not have run for political office doesn't mean they might not hold strong partisan views.

This gerrymandering you talk about would not end as you presume. It would open the way for more corruption and back-room deals from individuals who do not represent the diversity of our state.

Who would get rid of the bad judges?

These judges would be appointed by Arnold and not elected by the voters. This gives too much power to a select few.

Elected representatives can always be replaced even though some are re-elected even when they don't deserve to be. This is a free country and anybody can run for office if they want to.

Changing boundaries in this way would create more problems than it would solve. There are better ways than prop 77 to improve the current method of redistricting.

[jfern]

17. I'd be interested in seeing a DU poll on this

I can't post polls, can someone else poll it?

[realFedUp]

19. Jackie Goldberg's answer

"Then, of course there is the redrawing of district election lines. No state uses retired judges. In fact almost all of them do it the way we in California currently do it. That is the legislature, with the signature of the Governor, writes a plan every ten years. Both sides have to agree. When they cannot agree, a lawsuit puts it into court, and then an active judge will make the changes necessary to make it fair. Think about retired judges. Currently almost all of them are going to be Anglo males, largely drawn from the men appointed by Governors Wilson and Deukmejian. This does not sound "non-partisan" to me."

[bemildred]

20. I liked that, the way Jackie put it.

In any case, as noted above, this does not really do
anything to loosen the grip that the machine politicians
have on the political process, rather the opposite.
So I will vote NO.

Do you remember the open primaries law we voted in back
in the 90s? It took no time at all for those weasels up
in Sacramento to get together and put a stop to that, with
the help of some judges.

[Cleita]

21. Because they would be redrawn by judges.

We are having more and more of our democracy eroded, or government for the people by the people, with politicians trying to take power out of our hands. Elections are already almost a joke, anyway. Do we have to hand over even more? Why not just have judges decide everything for us? We are turning into the Taliban anyway.

[WCGreen]

23. Just curious.... But why retired judges....

In Ohio, judges are elected and not screened by anyone...

Anyone out of law school for six years qualifies to be a judge...

A good political name, a few rich friends and bingo, you're a judge...

I have seen the political nature of the judicial races up close and personal and quite frankly, I have less faith in retired judges drawing "rational" boundaries for the legislature than the way it is now....

[actappan]

24. 77 is a sham...

Not that we don't need real redistricting reform, but Prop 77 is a sham. It's just another of the Governor's power grabs.

First of all, "retired judges" in California, means primarily people appointed to the bench during the Deukmejian and Wilson administrations. That doesn't seem non-partisan to me.

Secondly, we're talking primarily old white men. In a state with as diverse a population as California, that's a great injustice.

Finally, the plan itself is just flawed. Julia Rosen, my collegue over at The Alliance (BetterCA.com) has a great post on the differences between California's Prop 77, and a real reform initiative like Ohio's Issue 4.

[padia]

25. hand arnie his head

is the most important reason we need to vote no on 73-78 and yes on 79&80. the repugs have got to learn that this is our state and I believe that the best way to teach them is to have a 70% turn out and shoot down their agenda by 30-40 points. That will send a nice message across the country.

[xxqqqzme]

27. It's an amendment 2 the State Constitution!