|
2008
Gerrymandering The Vote: How A “Dirty
Dozen” States Suppress As Many As 9 Million Voters
Democratic Leadership Council
June 2008
Editorial: Perata's Power Play
San Francisco Chronicle
June 30, 2008
Democrats Fear Redistricting Measure Would
Curb Their Power In State
San Francisco Chronicle
June 27, 2008
Election-Map Initiative Helps Voters, State
Progress
Sacramento Bee
June 27, 2008
Politics And California Redistricting
CaliforniaProgressReport.com
June 27, 2008
Millions On Line In Ballot Drives
Sacramento Bee
June 24, 2008
Democratic Leaders Accused Of Pressuring
Supporters Of Redistricting Measure
Contra Costa Times Sacramento Bureau
June 21, 2008
California Is Branded Among A 'Dirty
Dozen' On Gerrymandering
Los Angeles Times
June 19, 2008
Redistricting In California: Control or
Democracy?
CaliorniaProgressReport.com
June 19, 2008
Changing Method Of Redistricting Makes
Ballot
San Francisco Chronicle
June 18, 2008
Government Reformer Down On Redistricting
Initiative
PolitickerCA.com
June 18, 2008
Redistricting Initiative Makes California
Ballot
San Jose Mercury News
June 17, 2008
Democratic Party Takes Stands On Ballot
Measures
CaliforninaMajorityReport.com
June 17, 2008
Cavala: Republicans Kill Reform Bill That
Hurts GOP Chances While Democrats Support 'Reform' That Hurts Their Chances
CaliforniaProgressReport.com
June 9, 2008
Speaking With The New Speaker
Los Angeles Times
June 2, 2008
Two Plans Created To Reform Districts
Modesto Bee
May 19, 2008
New Speaker Should Focus On Public
Interest
Los Angeles Daily News
May 13, 2008
Why Schwarzenegger's Redistricting Plan
Won't Work
California Majority Report.com
May 13, 2008
Tony Quinn: Redistricting Reform OK, But
It's Only A Start
Sacramento Bee
May 11, 2008
Governor May Face Donor Fatigue
Contra Costa Times
May 11, 2008
California Redistricting Plan Faces Hurdles
Capitol Weekly
May 7, 2008
Dan Walters: Competing Proposals For Remap
Sacramento Bee
May 7, 2008
Initiative On Redistricting Closer To
Ballot
San Francisco Chronicle
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Nunez Pushes Ethics Plan As Rival Petitions
Are Filed
Sacramento Bee
May 7, 2008
To Get Leadership Reform, We First Need
Redistricting
Los Angeles Daily News
May 1, 2008
Good Intentions Could Harm Redistricting
Ballot Measure
Los Angeles Times
April 28, 2008
Redistricting On Track To Qualify,
Consultant Says
New America Foundation.com
April 23, 2008
Why Are GOP Contributors Putting Big Money
Into Redistricting Reform?
California Progress Report.com
April 19, 2008
Gov's
Giving To Remap Measure Tops $1 million
Sacramento Bee Capital Alert
April 21, 2008
‘Due
Process’ Democrats Have Their Heads Buried in the California Sand
California Progress Report.com
April 20, 2008
Opinion: Seeing The Light
Los Angeles Daily News
April 19, 2008
California
Voters FIRST Presents A Balanced And Bipartisan Effort For Redistricting
Reform
California Progress Report.com
April 17, 2008
Schwarzenegger's
Redistricting Plan Comes Under Fire
Contra Costa Times
April 17, 2008
Group Says Plan Will Put A Stop To
Gerrymandering
The Simi Valley Acron
April 4, 2008
The Need For Redistricting Reform From
This California Democrat’s Perspective
California Progress Report.com
April 4, 2008
Labor Says No To
Schwarzenegger/Republican/Common Cause Redistricting Measure
The California Majority Report.com
April 02, 2008
Revenge In Attack On Legislative
Redistricting?
California Progress Report.com
March 31, 2008
Weintraub: Governor Gets Another Shot At
Redistricting Reform
Sacramento Bee
March 30, 2008
Editorial: Can't Legislature Do Better Than
Bills On Dogs, Donkeys?
The Fresno Bee
March 30, 2008
Walters: Voters Irate At Budget Posturing
Sacramento Bee
March 28, 2008
New Foundation To Campaign For More Efficient
California Government
Sacramento Bee
March 27, 2008
Editorial: California Voters Should Support
Redistricting Ballot Measure
Fresno Bee
March 24, 2008
Editorial: Redraw the Map
Los Angeles Daily News
March 22, 2008
Walters: Court Ruling Offers Hope to
Dysfunctional California Politics
Sacramento Bee
March 19, 2008
Supreme Court to Hear Major Redistricting
Case
The Thicket at State Legislatures (ncsl.com)
March 18, 2008
Editorial: Let Citizens Redraw the Map
The Torrance Daily Breeze
March 17, 2008
Walters: Redistrict Reformers Miss Mark
Sacramento Bee
March 10, 2008
Let Citizens
Redraw Map
San Gabriel Valley Tribune
March 9, 2008
Governor Proposes Redistricting Ballot
Measure
North County Times
March 8, 2008
Redistricting Initiative Has Strong
Republican Backing
San Jose Mercury News
March 6, 2008
Governor Gathers Signatures to Qualify
Redistricting Measure
San Jose Mercury News
March 4, 2008
Manipulative Lawmakers Playing To The Crowd
Fresno Bee
February 14, 2008
State Voters Need To Do What Lawmakers
Won't
Los Angeles Daily News
February 14, 2008
Editorial: What We Need In Sacramento,
Redistricting, Not Retaliation
San Jose Mercury News
February 14, 2008
Redistricting Reform, Not Longer Terms, Is
The Answer
California Republic.org
February 12, 2008
The Buzz: A Hardball Tactic Could Ricochet
Sacramento Bee
February 11, 2008
Wake Up, Sacramento Media! Wake Up! Wake
Up! Wake Up!
San Diego Union Tribune
February 8, 2008
Editorial: Passive Aggressive Lawmakers
Just Play to the Crowd
Fresno Bee
February 8, 2008
Nunez Takes Blame For Prop. 93 Loss
Los Angeles Daily News
February 7, 2008
Weingand: Voters Got A Whiff and Said 'No'
Sacramento Bee
February 7, 2008
Lawmakers Believe In Term Limits But
Oppose The Measure
North County Times
February 4, 2008
Good For Us
Los Angeles Times
February 4, 2008
Commentary: A Conversation with Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger
Sacramento Bee
January 20, 2008
Walters: Two Party Structure Under Fire
Sacramento Bee
January 18, 2008
Walters: Governor's Brownian Flip-Flops
Sacramento Bee
January 16, 2008
Editorial: Corruption of a Good Idea
San Francisco Chronicle
January 15, 2008
Governor Supports Term Limit Measure
Sacramento Bee
January 15, 2008
A Deceptive Prop. 93
San Francisco Chronicle
January 10, 2008
Use Prop. 93 To Say 'No"
dailybreeze.com
January 3, 2008
more
|
 |
California Redistricting
Reform:
Replacing retired judges with.... Well, it's all very complicated.
By Bob Bauer
More Soft Money Hard Law.com
October 25, 2007
To wish the political process to function as in their dreams is no
dishonor to the dreamers. There is trouble only in confusing
the dreaming and waking states, and when the waking state is found
short on the desired and dreamy qualities, proposing to legislate
fantasy into reality. This is the sure road to laws that,
establishing goals both unwise and impossible to achieve, betray, by
a stunning complexity, the hopelessness and confusion of their
mission.
California reformers dream of driving
politicians out of the redistricting process. Such is their
"negative" goal; their "positive" one is to
fashion truly representative government, clean and finely tuned to
the interests of "voters" who are in firm control of it.
The first order of business, more complicated than dreaming of this
result, has been to devise a mechanism for transferring the
responsibility for line-drawing from politicians to those with only
the voters'—the public’s—interest at heart.
This first order of business is a tall
order. The last round of California redistricting reforms
proposed to put retired judges in command. Judges, it was
imagined, are sufficiently apolitical by trade, analytical by
training, and scrupulously impartial in temperament that they could
avoid partisan temptation or habits and do what was right. Few
were convinced. Many were put off by the fact that, packaged
as a proposal for neutral redistricting with His or Her Honors at
the helm, there were partisan interests at work, with partisan goals
in sight, in putting the proposal together.
Now a new proposal, Voters FIRST, is
headed for the California ballot, and the mechanism for selecting a
neutral line-drawing agency has changed. The objective is the same:
neutrality, protection from "politics." Accepting
that this is not easily achieved—it is a dream—the proposal puts
forward a highly engineered process. Any registered voter
could apply; not all, however, are eligible. Lobbyists are
disqualified, as are former candidates, party officials or
consultants, contributors of $2,000 or more to candidates, blood
relations of state or federal officeholders, and this disability
attaches to any such positions or actions occurring within 10 years
of the date that the redistricting commission slots are to be
filled.
This is only the beginning. The
State Auditor removes the ineligible, then proceeds to choose a
review panel of three certified independent auditors, two of whom
have different major party affiliations and the third of whom has
none at all. The Panel members must select from the eligible
pool 60 candidates for the Commission, chosen "on the basis of
relevant analytical skills, ability to be impartial and appreciation
for California’s diverse demographics and geography."
The 60 would be distributed among three "subpools," each
one balanced between major parties and independence.
Savor it: three auditors,
reviewing who-knows-how-many applications, will decide on the
"relevant analytical skills," and will judge on this
record who has the "ability to be impartial" supplemented
by an "appreciation" of California's "diverse
demographics." One can only hope that these essay reviews
are superior, more searching and deliberative, than those conducted
by the College Board.
Once the 60 finalists have been
selected, legislative leaders in both major parties will have "voir
dire" privileges and can strike a determined number, spread
among the subpools, until the list has been pruned to 36. Then
a random drawing would be used to pick eight Commissioners, and
these eight would be empowered to choose the remaining six needed to
make up the 14 member Commission: all 14 would reflect the
required distribution among partisan and nonpartisan affiliation.
When the eight chosen randomly pick the remaining six, however,
there surfaces again the requirement that these six be chosen
"on relevant analytical skills and ability to be
impartial."
So we have a system constructed out of a
mish-mash of considerations and guidelines and limitations:
open access (any registered voter can apply); ineligibility
criteria; balancing requirements; resort to random selection; an
allowance for partisan complaint (the striking privileges granted to
the legislative leadership); and a measure of delegated authority
(to the auditors, and then to the first eight commissioners drawn
randomly who are empowered to select the remaining six). Very
political really, in one sense, with a little bit of something for
everyone. The public is invited to take comfort that where
criteria are applied positively to come up with the best candidates,
special care will be exercised to assure that those who are
"impartial" and "analytical" are favored.
Is this better, more transparent and
democratic, than the system by which elected officials draw the
lines? Critics of redistricting practiced by legislators brood
about "back room deals." Of course, in that case, we
all know that there is back room dealing, and we know who, on what
basis and with what measure of accountability, is doing the dealing.
Under Voters FIRST, it is not clear what to make of the procedure,
except that it is very complicated and its complexity is justified,
to those offering the justification, by the wish to navigate around
different political interests and influences. It is less
transparent, really, and in operation, it might be expected to be as
much arbitrary in its appointments and random in its effect as
it would be "impartial" and "analytical."
Its primary claim on the voters'
attention is that it tries so hard not to be "political,"
advertising that intention. Voters would be well advised
to look behind the advertising and try to make sense, if possible,
of the fine print.
Bob Bauer
|
