A look back at redistricting

The Bakersfield Californian
May 9, 2010

Reading Arthur Johnson's Sunday Forum article of April 25, "Redistricting in a simpler time," was like walking down political memory lane.

I remember those 1965 redistricting hearings somewhat differently than Johnson, however. There's no question that he was a well-respected member of that redistricting committee. He was on the side of the heavily Democrat-weighted committee and I was the chief of staff for Republican Assemblyman Charles J. Conrad of the 57th District, situated in the San Fernando Valley. Conrad was the Assembly minority leader and vice chair of the Elections and Reapportionment Committee.

A California Supreme Court ruling at around that time set the stage for a devastating turn of events. The Democrat-controlled state Senate and Assembly, bolstered by the court's decision, produced a reapportionment committee report that helped create a Legislature that was more political and less bipartisan.

Prior to that court ruling, no state senator would represent more than one county. Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego and San Francisco, for example, would have only one state senator. It further ruled that no senator would represent more than three counties.

For example, Alpine, Inyo, and Mono were represented by a single senator. This system gave the state a very good check and balance of government.

In the Assembly, the power was with the larger counties and in the Senate the power was with the smaller counties. When it came to issues that pertained to water, population, highways, agricultural and other controversial issues, both houses of the Legislature had to discuss and debate the issues on the merits that were of benefit to the entire state and simply not that of the larger populated counties (which is the case today).

Another issue that presented itself during those reapportioning hearings was that almost every member of each legislative house wanted a committee report that analyzed his or her ability to be re-elected. That, in my opinion, was when gerrymandering got its start in the remapping of the California Legislature. What with population growth over a 10-year period, those legislative district lines have to be changed.

Having sat through many of those meetings, viewing population shifts, knowing the committee had to protect the incumbents, and the decisions being made by the Democratic majority of the committee, it was obvious that the state Legislature was in for a direction that was not in the best interest of all of California.

I agree with Johnson that California had "good government" under those old conditions, and yes, the legislators were honorable and dedicated to the people of California.

Unfortunately, under the 10-year redistricting, the Legislature passed a bill that was very pro-party and special-interest guided.

Hopefully, with this new citizens committee approach we can return to districts more reflective of the people of all California and put "save the incumbent" considerations aside.

This new committee was designed to exclude individuals with an ax to grind: No member may have been a campaign consultant, held public office or been active in a political party.

While this structure is a good thing, I am concerned that these committee members will rely entirely on the paid staff to guide, assist and make decisions. There are no prerequisites or restrictions for these staffers.

Nearly 31,000 applicants submitted their names for this new commission to reapportion the state legislative and Board of Equalization districts. The state auditor's office will receive these applications and review their recommendations and personal essays.

From those 31,000 applicants the auditor's office will narrow the field down to 120 of those they feel are the most qualified. That field will consist of 40 Democrats, 40 Republicans and 40 who are either independent or registered to other political parties. Then, auditor's office officials will interview those semifinalists and narrow down the list to 60 -- 20 from each above subset.

In October, the auditor's office is to hand over the list to the four state legislative leaders (Senate president pro tem, Senate minority leader, Assembly speaker and Assembly minority leader).

By Nov. 15, that panel will eliminate two names from each of the three subsets.

Then, from the remaining applicants, the state auditor will randomly draw the first eight members of the commission. Finally, the auditor will choose three Democrats, three Republicans and two from other parties or non-parties for a total of 16 committee members.

Now, this initiative and its designed nonpartisan makeup has discouraged the liberals and unions in California.

They have been circulating their own initiative which, if it qualifies for the November ballot, would overturn the nonpartisan citizens committee.

The state attorney general's title for this initiative is "Eliminates state commission on redistricting. Consolidates authority for redistricting with elected representatives."

The Democratic leadership in Sacramento laid out this initiative in principle. The object is to continue to control both houses of the Legislature, thus perpetuating Democrats' ability to continue forward with their liberal legislative agenda.

This is my opinion. What say you?

Longtime political consultant Stan Harper of Bakersfield is president of Computer Contact Services Inc. / tempSERV.

Reading Arthur Johnson's Sunday Forum article of April 25, "Redistricting in a simpler time," was like walking down political memory lane.

I remember those 1965 redistricting hearings somewhat differently than Johnson, however. There's no question that he was a well-respected member of that redistricting committee. He was on the side of the heavily Democrat-weighted committee and I was the chief of staff for Republican Assemblyman Charles J. Conrad of the 57th District, situated in the San Fernando Valley. Conrad was the Assembly minority leader and vice chair of the Elections and Reapportionment Committee.

A California Supreme Court ruling at around that time set the stage for a devastating turn of events. The Democrat-controlled state Senate and Assembly, bolstered by the court's decision, produced a reapportionment committee report that helped create a Legislature that was more political and less bipartisan.

Prior to that court ruling, no state senator would represent more than one county. Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego and San Francisco, for example, would have only one state senator. It further ruled that no senator would represent more than three counties.

For example, Alpine, Inyo, and Mono were represented by a single senator. This system gave the state a very good check and balance of government.

In the Assembly, the power was with the larger counties and in the Senate the power was with the smaller counties. When it came to issues that pertained to water, population, highways, agricultural and other controversial issues, both houses of the Legislature had to discuss and debate the issues on the merits that were of benefit to the entire state and simply not that of the larger populated counties (which is the case today).

Another issue that presented itself during those reapportioning hearings was that almost every member of each legislative house wanted a committee report that analyzed his or her ability to be re-elected. That, in my opinion, was when gerrymandering got its start in the remapping of the California Legislature. What with population growth over a 10-year period, those legislative district lines have to be changed.

Having sat through many of those meetings, viewing population shifts, knowing the committee had to protect the incumbents, and the decisions being made by the Democratic majority of the committee, it was obvious that the state Legislature was in for a direction that was not in the best interest of all of California.

I agree with Johnson that California had "good government" under those old conditions, and yes, the legislators were honorable and dedicated to the people of California.

Unfortunately, under the 10-year redistricting, the Legislature passed a bill that was very pro-party and special-interest guided.

Hopefully, with this new citizens committee approach we can return to districts more reflective of the people of all California and put "save the incumbent" considerations aside.

This new committee was designed to exclude individuals with an ax to grind: No member may have been a campaign consultant, held public office or been active in a political party.

While this structure is a good thing, I am concerned that these committee members will rely entirely on the paid staff to guide, assist and make decisions. There are no prerequisites or restrictions for these staffers.

Nearly 31,000 applicants submitted their names for this new commission to reapportion the state legislative and Board of Equalization districts. The state auditor's office will receive these applications and review their recommendations and personal essays.

From those 31,000 applicants the auditor's office will narrow the field down to 120 of those they feel are the most qualified. That field will consist of 40 Democrats, 40 Republicans and 40 who are either independent or registered to other political parties. Then, auditor's office officials will interview those semifinalists and narrow down the list to 60 -- 20 from each above subset.

In October, the auditor's office is to hand over the list to the four state legislative leaders (Senate president pro tem, Senate minority leader, Assembly speaker and Assembly minority leader).

By Nov. 15, that panel will eliminate two names from each of the three subsets.

Then, from the remaining applicants, the state auditor will randomly draw the first eight members of the commission. Finally, the auditor will choose three Democrats, three Republicans and two from other parties or non-parties for a total of 16 committee members.

Now, this initiative and its designed nonpartisan makeup has discouraged the liberals and unions in California.

They have been circulating their own initiative which, if it qualifies for the November ballot, would overturn the nonpartisan citizens committee.

The state attorney general's title for this initiative is "Eliminates state commission on redistricting. Consolidates authority for redistricting with elected representatives."

The Democratic leadership in Sacramento laid out this initiative in principle. The object is to continue to control both houses of the Legislature, thus perpetuating Democrats' ability to continue forward with their liberal legislative agenda.

This is my opinion. What say you?

Longtime political consultant Stan Harper of Bakersfield is president of Computer Contact Services Inc. / tempSERV.