Yes on 77, redistricting

Argus, The
October 28, 2005

PROPOSITION 77, it is agreed, may not be the perfect way to redistrict political boundaries, but the way we do handle redistricting now stinks. 

Proposition 77 — the "Redistricting Initiative Constitutional Amendment" — would take responsibility for redrawing state Senate, Assembly congressional and Board of Equalization districts away from the Legislature and it give it to three retired judges. 

If 77 passes, two Democrats and two Republicans in the Legislature would select 12 names from a list of 24 retired judges prepared by the state Judicial Council. The three judges would hold public hearings and consider legislative comments. 

The expectation is districts would be created with population differences of less than 1 percent and state Senate districts composed of two adjacent Assembly districts. Proponents also hope there would be minimal splitting of counties and cities into multiple districts. 

The redistricting would go into effect immediately but would be put to voters in the next general election. If rejected, the process would start over with a new set of judges. 

By putting it in play after the election, halfway between the decennial census, the state's 3 million new residents since the 2000 census will be ignored, especially in fast-growing Latino and Asian communities. This could be a flaw in 77. 

If the three-judge panel doesn't finish redistricting by the June 2006 election, the new lines won't take effect until 2008. If a plan is finished by June 2006 it will take effect then, but voters won't consider it until November. If it's rejected, the officials elected in June and November under the rejected plan still would serve full terms. A new panel would start the process over again. 

Proposition 77 is supported by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, 2003 gubernatorial recall proponent Ted Costa, the California Republican Party, Common Cause and CalPIRG (public interest research group). Nearly $5 million has been contributed to the campaign. 

Opponents are the League of Women Voters, Greenlining Institute, California Democratic Party, former Fair Political Practices Commission chairman Daniel Lowenstein and labor unions. More than $2.5 million is being spent in opposition. 

Our current system of redistricting has resulted in a mixed up bipartisan gerrymander of "safe" districts where incumbents are protected from competition. Surreal is the only way to describe some districts that have arms extending everywhere to grab pockets of same-minded voters. But the reality is this system needs to be fixed now. We recommend a yes vote.