PROP. 11 WON'T SOLVE CALIFORNIA'S PROBLEM OF PARTISANSHIP

By Anthony E. Chavez

October 21, 2008

Proposition 11, the latest redistricting initiative, is not merely a cure that is worse than the disease. It is an unworkable solution that targets the wrong cause.

Redistricting addresses the federal requirement of equal population for congressional, state Senate, and state Assembly districts. In California, the Legislature redraws district lines every 10 years to adjust for population shifts.

Since 1982, five California initiatives have sought to revamp this process. The major complaint: Incumbents win re-election too often. Incumbent legislators do enjoy high rates of re-election, but redistricting cannot be the cause. If it were, re-election rates for incumbents running statewide -- U.S. senators, governors, lieutenant governors and secretaries of state -- would be lower than for legislators elected by districts. Yet they are not.

True, legislative districts have become less politically balanced in recent decades. Social mobility, not redistricting , caused the shift, however. We live in a highly mobile society, and when we relocate, we tend to cluster in communities with like-minded people.

The 1976 and 2004 presidential elections, each with 50-48 percent margins nationwide, illustrate this demographic shift. In 1976, most California voters lived in toss-up counties (those decided by less than 5 percent). In 2004, two-thirds of voters lived in landslide counties (where victory margins exceeded 20 percent). In less than three decades, Californians have realigned themselves into neighborhoods of similarly minded persons.

Redistricting reformers promise more politically competitive districts. California's population shifts make that impossible. Coastal California supports Democrats; the inland areas back Republicans. To create additional balanced districts, map drawers must ignore almost every traditional redistricting standard, including preserving communities of interest, encouraging compact districts, minimizing city and county boundary splits, and adhering to geographic features. They must violate the Voting Rights Act, too.

More importantly, Proposition 11 would not produce a less-polarized Legislature, another stated goal. Last month, the Public Policy Institute of California reported that redistricting did not increase -- and, therefore, cannot reduce -- legislative partisanship.

Even if California's redistricting system could be better, Proposition 11's redistricting commission would only create new problems. The commission's membership requirements and convoluted selection process would eliminate the most qualified applicants. Moreover, Proposition 11 grants party leaders the power to strike the most capable applicants from other political parties. Another provision -- majority approval of appointments -- would likely lead to commission members accepting only less-sophisticated applicants from opposing parties or deadlocking. In practice, Proposition 11's complicated system would create an underqualified commission heavily dependent upon political consultants.

The commissioners also would not reflect California's diverse population or disparate geography. And they would be unaccountable. Under Proposition 11, the map drawers serve for 10 years with little risk of removal.

More importantly, if the commission deadlocks at any stage or its map fails to pass a Proposition 11-required referendum, authority for redistricting would shift to judges. Thus, Proposition 11's ultimate solution to redistricting looks a lot like an alternative voters handily rejected only three years ago.

Fortunately, Proposition 11 is not likely to fool California's voters. The previous redistricting initiatives lost by average margins of 17 percent. No matter how much proponents tinker with their redistricting schemes, Californians see through their efforts.

Proposition 11 would create a redistricting commission that is unqualified, unrepresentative and unaccountable. Plus, it can do nothing to change the residential patterns of Californians.

Once again voters should reject redistricting "reform."

Edition: Valley Final
Section: Editorial
Page: 10A
Record Number: 1026014
Copyright (c) 2008 San Jose Mercury News