"Sound Bite" Politics: "Don’t Let The Politicians Pick The Voters"...

By Bill Cavala
December 6, 2007


The premise behind this sound bite is that because Republicans tend to vote for Republican candidates and Democrats to vote for Democratic candidates, mapping them into districts in unequal numbers is wrong.

Democrats now control the partisan offices in all of California's major cities. The higher proportion of voters from ethnic minority groups tells part of that story. Culture explains a lot of the remainder. But whatever the reason, it comes down to this: Republicans, in general, don't congregate their residences in the same place as Democrats. California is segregated by political party.

Of course, there are Democrats everywhere and Republicans everywhere. But in most of the state you are either in an area where Republicans are dominant or where Democrats are dominant.

Voters, not politicians, made that choice. The choice of where to live. The result of this is a set of districts dominated by Republicans in the rural and suburban areas of the State - and a set of districts dominated by Democrats in the urban areas of the state, along most of California's coast, and in our cities.

Without ugly lines - or uglier lines - that is how it must be if we are to obey both California's Constitutional requirements (contiguity, respect for local boundaries and
Communities of interest) and Federal requirements (equal population, and the voting rights act).

In the 1980's, the combination of massive growth and smaller districts and the absence of subsequent voting rights act requirements gave more discretion to line drawers. In the 1990's, the Supreme Court found that discretion limited by Federal Court cases. By 2000, the actions of Pete Wilson in moving the Republican Party into a hostile position vis-a-vis the voting relatives of millions of immigrants had eliminated the Republicans as a competitive force in California's urban Counties - with a delaying action being fought in San Diego and Orange.

The redistricting effort in 2001 reflected - accurately - these changes. Because of that it had the support of both the Democrats and the Republicans, ending decades of partisan warfare that characterized the 80's and 90's.

Now that plan is under attack because it did NOT seek partisan advantage in the few remaining places in California where the districts could have been shaped to do so. Republicans want a new shake of the dice because seats that reflect the reality - that they are hopelessly in the minority because of the extreme positions they take on issues - doom them to eternal minority status. You can't raise money if you never control the government.

Reformers want a new shake because they've accepted the G.O.P. definitions of reform. The Media want a new shake because they believe anything done by politicians conceals private benefits.

Republicans are right to want change. They have nothing to lose. Reformers and the media should look more closely at two facts. First, there is nothing that restrains voters from crossing party lines and making districts competitive.
They don't do it because they agree with their party's candidate - or don't have sufficient information to justify a party switch.

Insurance Commissioner Poizner's campaign for Assembly in a "safe" Democratic seat proves this point. Poizer lost - but barely - because he had enough money to make himself heard. Hearing him, voters hesitated to simply vote party.
He lost that race, but not because he was a Republican.

Governor Schwarzenegger also won in a State so "safe" for Democrats the Republicans are spending millions to eliminate the current winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes. Why? Because his celebrity causes voters to pause and not rely simply on party labels to make a decision. Look at the numbers in the Feinstein - Mountjoy contest and the Schwarzenegger - Angelides race. Millions of voters switched between the parties in these two races.

Politicians picking the voters?

The right to redistrict (when forced to by the Census) has traditionally belonged to the political party that has managed to win majorities in the Assembly, in the Senate, and to elect a Governor. That occurred in 1950 (Republicans), 1960, 1980, and 2000 (Democrats). When the parties split control of the government (1970, 1990), the Supreme Court has made the decision.

Parties that win elections also have the right to organize the Legislature and to veto Legislation. Often this power serves the interest of the party in power to remain in power. What's wrong with that?

Abuse of that authority calls down the wrath of the press corps - as it did in 1950 (Republicans) and in 1981 (Democrats). Bad press led to the successful referendum of the Democratic plans in 1982. A self-correcting system.

And we're going to spend millions trying to change this because of a sound bite?

Bill Cavala was Deputy Director of the Assembly Speaker's Office of Member Services where he worked for over 30 years.

He attended undergraduate and graduate school in the 1960's and received a doctorate in political science at UC Berkeley. He taught political science at UC Berkeley during the 1970's while he worked part-time for the State Assembly.

Cavala left teaching at UC Berkeley and went to work for Assembly Speaker Willie Brown in 1981 until his tenure as Speaker ended in 1995, and he has worked for his five successors as Speaker up to and including Speaker Fabian Nunez.

Mr. Cavala manages election campaigns for Democratic candidates.