California's voters will get another chance to reform political boundary drawing

By: Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez

Date: 09/18/2007

Recent hand-wringing over the fate of redistricting reform reminds me of some other premature death declarations: Mark Twain's "the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated" - the backward Beatles "Paul is dead" - Monty Python's plucky plague victim trying his hardest to stay off the cart.

The truth is that redistricting reform is alive and well - and getting better - and with hard work and cooperation, will make the ballot in 2008. Am I disappointed there wasn't enough time in the recently completed session to build sufficient consensus to get my reform plan on the February ballot? Of course. Would I have been geared up to go if the governor had called a special session on redistricting? Absolutely. But those setbacks don't mean it's time to give up.

For almost two years, since voters rejected the governor's special election redistricting proposal, I have been working with other legislative leaders to find the right formula for change to end the current redistricting process with its inherent conflict of interest.

After months of negotiation and compromise, I believe that formula is at hand.

Under my plan, district lines would be drawn by 17 redistricting commissioners. None could be current or recent candidates for the Senate or Assembly, Congress or the Board of Equalization, relatives of candidates for, or high-level employees of, those bodies, registered lobbyists or state political party officers.

Nine commissioners would be chosen in the following manner: A group of 10 sitting and retired judges would nominate 45 proposed members. The governor could then reject up to six nominees before choosing at random from the remaining nominees three Democrats, three Republicans and three individuals who are not affiliated with the major parties. The other eight members of the commission would include four Republicans and four Democrats to be chosen by the legislative leaders in both houses and on both sides of the aisle. The commission members would then draw new district boundaries with information obtained from the 2010 census. The new boundary maps would require final approval by two-thirds of the commissioners.

This proposal honors the key principles that any true redistricting reform proposal must address: it ensures a fair, legal and responsible redistricting plan; it tackles key concerns voters have expressed in rejecting past redistricting initiatives by ensuring that redistricting is only done once per decade after the census has been completed (which thwarts potential power grabs by either of the political parties); it helps ensure that the commission will reflect the state's diversity and that new electoral boundaries will meet the considerations of the Voting Rights Act, communities of interest, and dozens of other specific legal requirements.

In interest of full disclosure, this isn't the first redistricting reform proposal I've made. My previous proposal would have taken redistricting power away from the Legislature and put it in the hands of the respected Little Hoover Commission. The feedback I received on that proposal was generally favorable in terms of honoring my commitment to change the system, but did include concerns about the ultimate independence of the commission. That feedback spurred the innovative compromise proposal now before us. Similarly, the feedback I have been receiving on this plan will help shape and improve the final product voters see on their ballot.

While the deadline has passed for that to be on the Feb. 5 ballot, there are still two other elections in 2008 - the June primary and the November general election. Either of these would still be in plenty of time for redistricting that wouldn't even occur until 2012.

California voters have said "no" nine times to different attempts to change the way legislative and congressional districts are drawn. In 2008 we can finally give them something to say "yes" to. And any grumblings to the contrary are, well, greatly exaggerated.