Cavala: A.A.R.P. Backs Schwarzenegger Redistricting Scheme Opposed by California's Democrats (Now Why Would They Do That?)

By Bill Cavala

August 25, 2008

Another shameless set of bogus arguments supporting Prop 11, the Governor's redistricting scheme. This one uthored by the President of the American Association of Retired People. Now why, one would ask, would the AARP support a Republican funded initiative that would remove redistricting authority from a majority-Democratic
legislature?

Good question.

Answer one is what Mario Savio said about the "system" in 1964. To paraphrase, "there comes a time when it's (the system) is so odious that you have to jam the mechanism, break the machine". AARP President Jeannine English begins her argument in a similar vein: If you don't like budget gridlock, the lack of health care reform or the fact that the Legislature hasn't found a cure for cancer, you should support Prop 11 because it will shake up the status quo.

As Savio found out, "jamming the machine" led not to utopia but to eight years of Ronald Reagan. Prop 11 will lead, not to a liberal utopia, but to a legislature controlled by the same obstructionist Republicans that - with only 32 Members - have produced the logjam the AARP now objects to.

But opposing Prop 11 is to "block change" and, presumably, to put those of us who oppose "change" in the reactionary camp opposed to Obama for President. Well, I for one support the "change" that Obama represents - a change from eight years of Republican misgovernance. But does that mean that all "change" is a good thing because it means something different? A Republican Legislature would be a "change" too.

A bad "change".

The AARP has more specific reasons for supporting Prop 11. They argue it would insure "cities and counties are not divided to benefit incumbent legislators". The AARP should know that "Cities and Counties" have NOT been divided to benefit incumbent legislators - they were kept whole by the Legislature's redistricting except where population equality or federal civil rights law or legitimate partisan concerns made it necessary. Prop 11 provides no new guarantees.

The AARP argues that the Governor's Commission will meet openly and that no decisions will be made "behind closed doors". More bogus arguments. The Legislature held dozens of hearings on redistricting - none of which were attended by the AARP, whose interest appears recent. When the Court did redistricting in 1991, they held one hearing. Court Masters that drew district lines did so "in secret" behind "closed doors" and made only one change in the proposed lines because of complaints at the one public hearing. The legislature published its proposed maps prior to its second set of hearings and made dozens of changes in the final maps as a result of public input. The final lines were accompanied by a "detailed narrative about how the districts lines adhered to population equality, city and county boundaries, and the federal voting rights act. This was not considered revolutionary. The fact that Prop 11 includes this same requirement is not a selling point; it is a restatement of current law and practice.

Finally, the AARP argues that Prop 11 will "break the partisan gridlock" in the Capitol. If that means that Prop 11 will make it possible for the Republicans to regain majority control and reduce the Democrats to a minority position, then they are absolutely right.

So if you support increasing the number of coo-coo bird Republican Legislators at the expense of Democrats, then join the AARP and Prop 11's GOP contributors in support of this mindless "change".

But if you're a progressive, then join the California Democratic Party, the vast majority of Elected Democrats in the Legislature, Civil Rights advocates, our Democrats in Congress and Speaker Pelosi in opposition to Prop 11.