Getting districts right is a first step toward reform

By Daniel Curtin

October 5, 2008

On Nov. 4, tens of millions of Americans will once again participate in the most important collective action in recorded history, a 225-year experiment in participatory democracy. By casting their ballots at the culmination of an extensive, multimedia campaign discussing the important issues of the day, a majority of voters will invest the moral authority of the will of the people in the newly elected leaders of our country and our state.

Well, not exactly. In California our legislative elections were already decided on June 3 in a barely noticed primary election with a turnout of less than 30 percent of voters. There will be 48 Democrats and 32 Republicans in our state Assembly and 25 Democrats and 15 Republicans in the state Senate, give or take two or three in either house.

In November, when political interest and excitement among the voters reaches its zenith, when people can vote for the best candidate regardless of party labels, when turnout is the largest and the voice of the people will have the most impact on the political direction of our state, it will barely matter; virtually all of the legislative races in California are settled.

November voters will essentially be disenfranchised because California districts are "gerrymandered," drawn by legislators to protect incumbents and maintain existing party balance. You can't blame them; it comes naturally. The process was first noted in an 1812 political cartoon in the Boston Gazette and named after Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry for approving a district shaped like a salamander to protect an incumbent, in that case a Jeffersonian Democrat.

It brings to mind Jessica Rabbit, the voluptuously drawn character from the movie classic "Who Framed Roger Rabbit." Defending her naughty image, she said, "I'm not bad; I'm just drawn that way."

But gerrymandered districts are bad and do more than disenfranchise voters. They drive election results to the extremes of both parties and stifle the voice of centrist voters.

A guaranteed outcome in November that protects the incumbent party means the winning legislator has actually been chosen in the primary. Primary voters, substantially lower in number, are highly motivated and more devoted to their party ideology. They elect the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans.

Moderate voters, the 20 percent with no party affiliation, and those who belong to a party but are more attracted to the merits of a candidate rather than their political affiliation, are either left out of the primary election or have no choice in the general election.

As a result, moderate, centrist politicians have become an endangered species. But the center is often where political solutions to tough problems can be found and where a large proportion of the voters actually reside. This year's budget deadlock, the longest in California history, is a stark example of why redistricting reform is necessary. Passing a complex budget with a two-thirds majority vote requires thoughtful compromise. But the vast majority of our state legislators are elected from safe, partisan districts, with little chance an opponent from the opposite party could actually defeat them. With no threat from the opposite party there is little incentive to compromise with them.

Even worse, there is a strong incentive not to find common ground. The real threat to an incumbent in a safe district is a primary election challenge from an opponent in the same party. An individual legislator who decides to compromise will have to fight for his or her political life in the next election, but the attack will come from a more partisan member of their own party, not the opposition party. Toeing the party line is the safer course.

Proposition 11, on the November ballot, will ban incumbency protection as a criterion in the drawing of legislative district boundaries. More importantly, it will put the entire redistricting process in the hands of a bipartisan citizens committee.

Districts would no longer be drawn into contorted shapes to benefit one party or candidate over another. By making more districts competitive in November when most voters cast their ballots, it will bring California politics closer to the center and more responsive to the voice of the voters. It will also make compromise a safer choice for politicians, not a political death sentence.

If voters pass Proposition 11, politicians, even if well-intended, will no longer be able to draw districts that in their eyes look like Jessica Rabbit but in reality are just another salamander.

HOW PROPOSITION 11 WOULD WORK

A transfer of power

Proposition 11 takes the power to draw political boundaries away from the Legislature and gives it to an independent commission of California citizens.

Some exclusions

Almost any registered voter could apply to sit on the commission. Those excluded would be lobbyists, former legislators and candidates and their immediate families, and people who have contributed $2,000 or more to a politician.

Narrowing the field

The state auditor would screen the applications and then choose 60 finalists, including 20 Democrats, 20 Republicans and 20 who were members of neither party.

From this pool the four legislative leaders could each strike six people they considered unqualified or biased, leaving 36 people in the pool.

An element of chance

The auditor would then randomly pick names until a panel of eight was assembled, including three Democrats, three Republicans and two members of neither party.

The final 14

Those eight would then select six more members, with the final panel including five Democrats, five Republicans and four others.

This 14-member panel would draw boundaries for legislative and Board of Equalization districts. The lines would have to abide by the federal Voting Rights Act and minimize the splitting of cities and counties, maintain "communities of interest," remain as compact as possible, and, when possible, place two full Assembly districts within the boundaries of each Senate district. The lines could not favor or discriminate against incumbents, candidates or political parties.

REDISTRICTING IS A CRITICAL PART OF REFORM

California's government should be leading the nation in enacting policies that help Californians prosper in a fiercely competitive global marketplace. Instead, we are in crisis.

Now, more than ever, we need state government that can make sound decisions on big issues. Partisanship and ideological intransigence have created stalemates and gridlock. While we need budget process reform, we also need to change the political system to encourage and reward elected leaders for solving problems instead of exacerbating them. Why is it, that in the middle of this budget crisis, legislators appear to have been more worried about breaking ranks with their caucuses than about the consequences of failing to produce a responsible budget?

The passage of Proposition 11 would be a major first step toward improving the political system. Ending the conflict of interest inherent in California's redistricting process and replacing it with one that is open, inclusive and adheres to clear rules that respond to voters, rather than incumbents, is a critical part of systemic reform. I believe strongly that incumbents should have the chance to continue serving their constituencies if that's what their constituents want -- but the ultimate decision must rest with the voters.

Proposition 11 alone isn't enough to fix state government. No single reform could be. But it is an essential first step in sending an important signal to the political establishment that enough is enough. We can help transform a system mired in political paralysis. If we pass Proposition 11, perhaps we can convince our elected leaders that governing is more important than winning.

Leon E. Panetta, a former Democratic congressman from Monterey and chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, is a co-chair of California Forward (caforward.org), a bipartisan reform effort seeking long-term changes to the state's political and fiscal systems.

NEW SYSTEM WOULD PROTECT RIGHTS OF MINORITIES

As a co-author of Proposition 11, the goal of drafting this reform measure was to change a redistricting system that has historically marginalized the voices of Californians and largely silenced those of this state's Latino, Asian and African American communities. Currently, legislators draw their own districts and are free to prioritize their own re-election over the needs of the communities and neighborhoods in which we live.

Passing Proposition 11 will instead help ensure that our communities, including ethnic communities, can no longer be broken up on district maps simply to benefit elected officials' re-election prospects. In the 2001 redistricting , for example, the predominantly Asian-American San Gabriel Valley was split into four separate Senate districts, and Watts in Los Angeles was split into three Senate districts. Proposition 11 would help these communities stay together to have a unified voice in Sacramento. The protections afforded by the Voting Rights Act have long suffered under adverse U.S. Supreme Court rulings -- Proposition 11 helps hold the line so that we don't lose important, hard-fought protections for minority communities.

At every stage of the redistricting process -- from the selection of a diverse, independent commission, to constitutional requirements that ensure that the federal Voting Rights Act is prioritized when district maps are drawn, to meaningful public participation in open and transparent hearings -- Proposition 11 democratizes the redistricting process for all Californians.

If we want to see progress in California, we need to vote Yes on Proposition 11.

Steven J. Reyes of Los Angeles is a lawyer and co-author of Proposition 11.

PROP. 11 FAILS TEST OF PROVIDING EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

Nothing is more fundamental to democracy than providing every citizen an equal opportunity to participate in our electoral process. Unfortunately, Proposition 11 fails this crucial test.

First, Proposition 11 gives the power to draw most political districts to a new 14-member commission. Commissioners would be chosen through a Byzantine multilevel process likely to bewilder most of us.

It's highly unlikely we would get a commission that would reflect the diversity of our state. Who gets left out? We wouldn't know until the 12-step bureaucratic, political and random appointment process played itself out.

Commissioners could all come from just one part of the state, or just one ethnic group, with no knowledge about the needs and concerns of other communities.

Proposition 11 also changes the rules that govern redistricting . It requires the commission to make districts "compact" and to try to "nest" two Assembly seats within each Senate district. These new rules would artificially limit the commission's ability to draw districts fairly.

Proposition 11 will split the job of drawing districts in two. The commission will oversee districts for the state Legislature. The Legislature, meanwhile, will continue to draw the lines governing Congress.

Aside from the obvious inefficiency, having two entities means concerned citizens will have to monitor and participate in two different processes occurring simultaneously.

While we know the shortcomings of the current system all too well, we cannot support Proposition 11, which risks giving our community little or no representation when crucial decisions are made.

Arturo Vargas National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials

PARTISANSHIP WILL STILL THRIVE AFTER REDISTRICTING

People like to say that the 2001 redistricting is to blame for the partisanship we see in the Legislature today. By drawing safe districts that protected incumbents, legislators reduced pressure on themselves to moderate their views and to compromise. A safe district means no significant challenge from the other party at general election time. The only remaining pressure comes at primary elections, which push Democrats to the left and Republicans to the right. The end result is partisanship.

The only problem with this story: The Legislature was just as partisan before the 2001 redistricting . In " Redistricting and Legislative Partisanship," a report recently published by Public Policy Institute of California, I looked at four different measures of roll-call voting in the Legislature. On every measure, the gap between Democrats and Republicans was as large before the redistricting as it has been since.

If it wasn't the redistricting , then what has made legislators so partisan? The answer isn't all that clear, but among the possibilities are the voters themselves. Those who identify with either party are more polarized now, which makes each party's primary electorate more ideologically pure no matter how competitive the district might be. Legislators also face pressures from interest groups and party leaders that may push them away from their district's position on at least some issues.

If the goal is to increase bipartisanship in Sacramento, we should look to alternatives other than redistricting . The districts did not create the status quo, so they can't be expected to change it.

The full report and a summary are available at www.ppic.org.

Eric McGhee is a researcher for the Public Policy Institute of California

SOURCES

* To read Proposition 11, go to the Secretary of State's Web site at sos.ca.gov, click on voter information guide and then Proposition 11.

* Statewide database for redistricting information at the University of California: http://swdb.berkeley.edu

* Web site for supporters: http://yesprop11.org/

* Web site for opponents: http://www.noonprop11.org/

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

Do you think political boundaries should be drawn by the Legislature or an independent commission?

ONLINE FORUM

The Bee's Daniel Weintraub moderates "The Conversation," where you can discuss this week's issue.

sacbee.com/conversation

Edition: METRO FINAL
Section: CALIFORNIA FORUM
Page: E1
Record Number: SAC_0405245943
Copyright 2008 The Sacramento Bee