Prop. 77 could create quirks - But a vote on district maps is still a better way, backers say

Jim Sanders
The Sacramento Bee
October 24, 2005

It's an oddity of Proposition 77: Voters could elect lawmakers to represent districts they simultaneously are rejecting. 

The redistricting measure, to overhaul how California creates political districts, calls for any new boundaries drawn by a three-member panel of retired judges to take effect immediately, then be placed before voters for ratification. 

California would become the first state, if Proposition 77 passes, to require a public vote on district maps, said Tim Storey of the National Conference of State Legislatures. 

Supporters say the provision would give voters the ultimate veto power, determining the fate of all new boundaries statewide with one yes-or-no ballot question. 

"It's the final check and balance," said Ted Costa, who launched Proposition 77. "We think it's a deterrent. No one would try to gerrymander the system if they knew it had to go to a vote of the people." 

Opponents counter that most Californians know little about where the state's 177 district lines should be drawn but, if their vote is desired, it should come before they select new lawmakers for districts they don't want. 

"We recognize that having the people vote sounds popular," said Trudy Schafer, a spokeswoman for the League of Women Voters of California, which opposes Proposition 77. "But if you think about how it would work, it sounds like it would be very confusing and cumbersome." 

The thrust of Proposition 77 is to give a three-member panel of retired judges, rather than legislators, the right to draw boundaries for the state's 120 legislative, 53 congressional and four Board of Equalization districts. 

The measure comes one year after California's general election ended with not one of the 153 seats up for election switching party hands. 

But Proposition 77's fine print calling for a public vote could lead to some unusual scenarios if new maps were rejected: 

* New lawmakers would serve their full term, under the initiative, even if their districts were rejected on the day of their election. 

* Legislators would have no assurance, or even be given priority, that their home would be included in the boundaries of a district drawn to succeed one rejected by voters. Proposition 77 bans consideration of impacts on incumbents or political parties in drawing lines. 

* If voters killed one plan after another, new maps potentially could be created every two years, resulting in a costly, frustrating cycle - unless the state Supreme Court intervened. 

Paul Hefner, a spokesman for a No on 77 committee, said voters in Riverside aren't likely to know how Eureka's boundaries should be drawn. 

More importantly, he said, it makes little sense to implement maps before ratifying them. 

"That's really backward," Hefner said. 

Proponents counter that rejecting new maps would not disrupt the Capitol. Legislators would continue serving the voters who placed them into office until other districts are created. 

Costa said California's current once-a-decade redistricting process can produce similar situations in which a legislator temporarily serves voters who won't be constituents in future elections. 

California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres said that neither he nor Republican leaders would hesitate to mount campaigns opposing any redistricting map they felt was unfair. 

"We'd have to, not for partisanship reasons, but for constitutional and voting-rights reasons," he said. 

Schafer, of the League of Women Voters, said the playing field in an election over redistricting maps might not be even, because opponents would be much more likely to spend heavily. 

"I think there's a good possibility that it would be easy to defeat the maps," she said. "If you had a gripe about lines in a small part of the state, you could introduce enough uncertainty in the voters that they'd vote no." 

Jaime Regalado, director of the nonpartisan Pat Brown Institute of Public Affairs, said few voters would spend long hours poring over detailed street maps before casting ballots on new districts. 

"What they'd have to choose from are the sound bites, and those always appeal to emotion," Regalado said. 

Tim Hodson, director of the Center for California Studies at California State University, Sacramento, said that if a three-judge panel is sure to produce fair and impartial maps, public votes should not be necessary. "If it will work, why does it need this added burden of a vote that would open the door to political mischief?" Hodson said. 

Costa, who created Proposition 77, said that mandating a public vote on new maps and giving the Legislature a role in selecting the three-judge panel lessens the chance of a successful legal challenge regarding the transference of power from legislators to judges. 

Costa said the public-vote provision has polled well with focus groups. 

"The more we talk about a vote of the people, the better it is for us," he said. 

Steve Blackledge of the California Public Interest Research Group, which supports Proposition 77, said public votes on district maps will spark discussion of how lines were drawn and what communities of interest were protected. 

"That's ultimately a healthy discussion and a healthy debate to have statewide," he said. 

Steve Poizner, chairman of Redistrict California, said boundaries drawn by independent judges are more likely to be popular with voters, not the target of frequent challenges. 

Judges drew districts in the 1990s that were far more competitive than those that exist now, he said. 

Voters need not memorize every boundary to form an opinion on new maps, Poizner said. 

"I think voters will know if the districts are rigged or fair," he said. "It takes voters three seconds to figure out the current districts are totally rigged." 

Added Poizner: "Right now, the people have no say whatsoever. Legislators have all the say. And look at what's happened."