Cavala: Latest Bogus Effort to Defend Schwarzenegger Redistricting Scheme

By Bill Cavala

August 19, 2008

"In 2001, Legislators held their perfunctory public hearings, and then withdrew behind closed doors, where the actual maps were drawn out of the public eye, by special consultants, who were paid huge sums of money". Roy Ulrich, a 'Progressive Democrat'

As the lead consultant for the Assembly on redistricting in 2001, let me say that I would have appreciated "huge sums of money" for that thankless job. Instead I received additional hours of work, acrimony from Members, and no extra money.

The "perfunctory hearings" held by the Legislature involved no fewer than a dozen, each lasting hours in some of California's "garden spots" (Oxnard, San Bernardino). I attended all of the Assembly's hearings and read all of the transcripts of those hearings and the hearings of the State Senate. I don't remember seeing Mr. Ulrich or any other “progressive democrat” there to testify.

The "actual maps" we drew "behind closed doors" were, as any witness could tell you, simply extensions of the maps drawn by Supreme Court Master, Paul McKaskle in 1991 with three differences: they were adjusted for population growth, they contained far fewer split cities, and - where possible - they moved Democratic registration up at the expense of Republican registration.

Progressive Democrat Ulrich praises this Republican Court, saying it did a "better job" for Democrats than did the Legislature. Does Mr. Ulrich recall 1994, when the Republicans took control of the Assembly under the Court-drawn plan? I do. I saw half my staff colleagues fired by the GOP regime.

Fortunately, Pete Wilson overreached with his anti-immigration actions and awakened a generation of Latino voters. With their help, we held a seat in the Valley (by 54 votes) and added three in Los Angeles to retake the House. Better candidates and better campaigns added to that margin in 1998 and 2000. The court's redistricting plan did not help.

Arguments for Prop 11 that are based on the notion that our Supreme Court is a progressive entity that would help Democrats in redistricting are absurd. This Court was appointed in the wake of the defeat of three Democratic Judges by a Republican Party angered by that Court's refusal to allow a redistricting "re do" by initiative.

And fallacious arguments that Democrats would somehow do better under a Commission or Court-drawn plan than one drawn by an elected Democratic Majority must assume an audience of dullards. Could Mr. Ulrich show us a legal redistricting plan that provides Democrats with a 2/3rds majority? Of course not. (But I could show him a legal plan that reduces Democrats to minority status).

Ulrich correctly notes that a half dozen big money contributors to Democratic causes have joined their big money Republican colleagues and Republican Governor Schwarzenegger in support of the Prop 11 redistricting scheme. He conveniently ignores the fact that the California Democratic Party, the vast majority of Democrats in the Legislature and in our Congressional Delegation, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi OPPOSE
Prop 11.

Finally, in addition to his bogus public arguments, Ulrich adds his private grievance: that a candidate he favored in a primary lost to incumbent Jane Harman.

If the Legislature draws lines in 2011, Ulrich warns, his candidate's "residence may be drawn out of the district". As a veteran of five efforts to redraw lines by the Legislature I can state categorically that it is more likely an incumbent's home will be "drawn out" of a district (because of population adjustments, federal voting rights act requirements, efforts to keep city population one district, geographic variables) than any possible challenger. It's why the LAW allows incumbents to satisfy our 30 day residency requirement by registering to vote anywhere.

If U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein chooses to run for Governor in 2010, then the GOP could well be shut out of the redistricting process in 2011. That's the real issue with Prop 11 - avoiding Democratic decisions in the next decade. Democrats who support this Chamber of Commerce initiative, Prop 11, can be called many things, but "progressive" should not be one of them