Democrats Need Not Fear Prop 11 on Redistricting - In Fact, Many Are Supporting It

By Joanne McKray

August 14, 2008

Bill Cavala, who has been employed in the Assembly Speaker's office of member services for over 30 years, doesn't like the redistricting reform initiative Prop 11, entitled California Voters First. Neither does out-going Senate President pro-tem Don Perata. Republican Ted Costa is presently campaigning against Prop 11 labeling it a "Democratic power-grab".

The fact is that some Democrats and some Republicans hate the measure, whereas some Democrats and some Republicans, such as Tony Quinn, the subject of Cavala's article, think it's great. Among the boosters of Prop 11 are Democrats Steve Wesley, Gray Davis, former Speakers of the Assembly Robert Hertzberg and Fred Keeley, and the mayors of Berkeley, San Leandro, and Hayward. Also supporting it are the California Democratic Council, the national Democratic Leadership Council formerly headed by Bill Clinton (which brands California as one of the "dirty dozen" states whose low voter turnout is related to excessive gerrymandering), and at least 13 Democratic clubs.

How can we account for these intra-party splits? The concluding line of a recent SF Chronicle article by John Diaz, " Nothing to fear but democracy itself ," offers a clue: "Democracy and change can be scary. But they are scariest to those in power who derive their power from suppressing change by any means necessary."

Bill Cavala has been close to power for three decades. As he frequently reminds us in his article , when previous redistricting efforts took place, he was there.

Most recently he was there in 2001, when African-American Watts was split into three State Senate districts and three Congressional districts. (Subsequently, when a water pipeline broke, the residents seeking help were shunted among their various representatives, each of whom referred them to another of their representatives, and nothing happened.)

Cavala was there when Long Beach's black community was split into three Senate districts. He saw San Diego's Latino Barrio Logan district divided into three Senate districts, and LA's Asian-American San Gabriel Valley community into four. As with Watts, the result in each case was that the minority community as denied a unified voice.

Previously Cavala was there in 1991 when the courts kept the Latino communities in San Fernando, Pacoima, and Van Nuys together with Latinos in Sylmar and North Hollywood, and then in 2001, when the legislative leaders split them apart successfully diluting the Latino vote.

Are the Democrats prejudiced against minorities? No, Cavala is correct when he states that that is certainly not the case, citing the fact that Democrats have just elected their seventh minority Assembly speaker in the last 25 years.

The problem, rather, is that incumbent protection - more accurately protection of incumbents who are cooperative with party leaders - comes first.

Cavala is also correct that the state courts have come down on the side of legislative privilege when the Legislature's redistricting maps have been challenged by minority groups. The mandates of the federal Voting Rights Act, which ensure fair minority representation, have not been given due judicial notice. This is why Proposition 11 places observance of the VRA as a high priority redistricting requirement, second only to observance of the US Constitution, in the California Constitution. Presently the VRA is not mentioned there, which may help account for the fact that it has been freely ignored by legislative line-drawers.

Cavala's basic premise, however, that Prop 11 is a Republican plot to take power from the Democrats, is totally incorrect. Instead California Voters First is a measure designed to eliminate the inherent conflict of interest when legislators draw their own districts, and to create greater accountability for elected officials. Good government groups such as the League of Women Voters and Common Cause favor it because it's - good government.

Does allowing voters to choose their representatives, rather than having representatives choose their voters, mean a Republican takeover? NO WAY.

Demographic realities have created Democratic majorities in the state Assembly and Congressional delegation for 47 out of the past 50 years, and in the state Senate for the last 50. Due to declining registration Republicans might well have lost seats in this past decade, had it not been for incumbent-protection gerrymandering done in 2001. Instead Republicans have been able to maintain 40% of the Assembly and 37% of the Senate seats despite the fact that Republican registration has decreased from 35% to a little over 32%. (Democrats can dream about the difference that having Republican representation match Republican registration might be making in present budget negotiations.)

Could a 14-person Independent Citizens Commission vote for an anti-Democratic plan? NO WAY.

Adopting a redistricting plan would take nine votes. To quote a Democratic staff member who has drawn lines in the past, "To believe that a commission would adopt a plan that would end Democratic majorities necessarily demands that you also believe that three out of five Democratic members would be GOP moles or such morons that they wouldn't understand what was happening."

In other words, as a faithful Democrat you're not risking anything by voting for Proposition 11 and coming down on the side of representative democracy. A number of faithful Republicans who believe in open, honest, and accountable government will be joining you.