Cavala: Former Republican Caucus Staffer Masquerades as Civil Rights Champion in Bogus California Redistricting Argument

By Bill Cavala

July 27, 2008

His name is Tony Quinn. He is the former policy director of the Assembly Republican Caucus. In the early 1980's he was the Republican lead staffer on redistricting. He kibitzed during the court-drawn redistricting of 1990. He's carped about the bipartisan plan drawn by the Legislature in 2001. He is an editor of the "Target Book" - which touts legislative races.

Quinn dislikes the lack of competitiveness in the 2001 plan. Naturally, since without competitive races there is a smaller market for the product that makes him money.

Motive aside, Quinn is the author of a deceptive opinion piece in today's LA Times. He makes an effort to rebut the stated concern of minority civil rights experts that the Schwarzenegger redistricting scheme will harm minority rights.

Quinn credits court-drawn lines with all the gains made by minority groups since 1970. Gains made under legislative lines are credited to campaign success, not lines.

Should we really take the arguments of a Republican on the issue of minority rights seriously? Has Quinn or any of his Republican friends ever - ever - acted to nominate or elect a minority legislative candidate?

I was there in the 1980 redistricting - opposed by Quinn and the GOP - when Phillip Burton created two new minority Congressional Districts with the aid of Elections Chairs Richard Alatorre (Hispanic) and Maxine Waters (African American) under the direction of Speaker Willie Brown.

I was there when Justices of the California Supreme Court (including its only minority member) were defeated by a Republican effort motivated by GOP anger over the Court’s decision not to allow a vote on a Republican gerrymander initiative.

I was there for the election of Willard Murray (African American) over the Republican candidate (Anglo) in 1988.

I was there when Joe Remcho won the argument with the California Supreme Court over the requirements of the Voting Rights Act during the Court-drawn redistricting of 1991 - a decision that led directly to the Hispanic gains later that decade - and opposed by the attorneys who argued for Pete Wilson's alternative.

I was there in 2001 when weeks of work led to agreement among the African-American, Asian and Latino caucus on a redistricting plan. Quinn argues that there is 'no evidence this pattern would change if an independent commission drew the lines'. The evidence is clear in the lack of skill an apolitical staff would bring to the table under the Scheme's criteria.

Quinn notes that the Hispanic "population" of Los Angeles increased by a million people during the 1980's without a corresponding increase in representation. He ignores the fact that many of these "people" were ineligible to register because of citizenship issues - and that those who were eligible, like others in their age cohort, simply didn't choose to vote. (The event that motivated Hispanics was clearly the Republican initiative of 1994 that cut off all services to non-citizens - a notable civil 'rights' effort)

Finally Quinn unearths the canard about Rep. Howard Berman's district being gerrymandered to favor someone Jewish over someone Hispanic. A disgruntled incumbent Assemblyman sued over this seat and the one he subsequently ran (and lost) for in San Diego - basically arguing that the law required a seat he could win. He lost in court - which said that the Legislative plan was eminently fair to Hispanics.

To see Republicans like Quinn argue with a straight face that their scheme champions minority rights more than a Democratic Assembly which just elected its 7th straight minority Speaker over a 25 year period is laughable. Little wonder that legitimate spokespersons for civil rights favor elected Democrats over a commission where Democrats are limited to a minority position and where decisions will likely be made by a body dominated by Anglos.