Redistricting review panel could keep council in line

Foon Rhee
The Sacramento Bee
January 16, 2011

A lot of attention is going to the citizens commission that will draw California's new legislative and congressional districts this year. But a redistricting closer to home could use a makeover as well.

On Tuesday, the Sacramento City Council is to start talking about its process to draw eight new districts that will be used for elections for the next decade.

While residents and interest groups will get their say in public hearings and by submitting suggestions online, council members themselves will decide the final district lines.

That's an open invitation for political mischief and too much of a temptation to come up with districts that protect incumbents -- not necessarily districts that lead to fair representation.

Unfortunately, it's too late this year for an independent panel to do the job and have its work be legally binding. That would require a time-consuming and contentious change to the city charter.

But it's not too late for the council to appoint a citizens committee or a panel of experts to review proposals and recommend a plan. That would put more pressure on council members to approve fair and sensible districts. If they stray too far, everyone will know -- and they can be held accountable.

The new districts ought to keep neighborhoods together and put those with common interests in the same district. It makes no sense, for instance, that downtown is divided between three different districts. Downtown and midtown, which share common issues and concerns, should be in the same district. And each district should have nearly the same number of people so that every resident has an equal voice.

Sacramento's redistricting procedure badly needs reform because if it's anything like last time, the results won't be very pretty. A decade ago, the council largely ignored outside suggestions and approved a map that made sure no incumbent was moved out of his or her district.

The map divided too many neighborhoods, however, and put dramatically different populations in the districts. The plan built in a disparity of about 6,400 residents, or 13 percent, between the least populous, District 1 (parts of downtown and Natomas), and the most populous, District 8 (centered on Meadowview).

Because of those flawed districts, the past five council elections made a farce of the core democratic principle of one person, one vote.

With uneven population growth, the problem has worsened over the past decade. District 1, by far the most populous with about 101,000 residents, has nearly twice the number of residents of four other districts, according to the city's latest population estimates.

Significant changes needed

Because the population imbalance heading into this redistricting is far larger than last time, the task at hand will be tougher. The city staff report to the council says there will need to be "significant changes" to existing district boundaries.

"It's the big number in Natomas we have to deal with," says Assistant City Manager Cassandra Jennings, co-chairwoman of the city staff committee working on redistricting.

Sandy Sheedy, the councilwoman in neighboring District 2, expects that her district could be redrawn significantly, adding parts of Natomas and possibly shedding other parts.

"I love my district. I don't want to lose any of it," she says. But Sheedy, who faces re-election in 2012 if she doesn't run for mayor, says she's willing to go along for the greater good.

The final census numbers are expected in April, and the council has until October (though county election officials are asking for action by September) to approve new districts, which would be first used in the June 2012 election.

To comply with the city charter, along with state and federal law, the districts are supposed to be as nearly equal in population as possible while still considering factors such as neighborhood boundaries, common interests, geography, topography, compactness, and "proper political and legislative concerns."

Unless the council directs otherwise, the redistricting process will mirror the one 10 years ago that officials called the most open ever. There were public workshops and free computer disks so the public could draw districts on their own computers; 13 residents or groups submitted full plans.

Jennings says the process worked well and would be tweaked only to keep up with technology that makes it easier to submit plans online. The city just put up a Web page: www.cityofsacramento.org/ redistricting.

City officials did explore other approaches to redistricting. The city staff report says there could be a citizens advisory committee, but that it would likely require more money and time. The council is to set aside $160,000 on Tuesday for the redistricting process.

Sheedy, who in August 2001 voted for the current districts, says giving residents the tools to draw their own maps is the equivalent of a citizens committee.

But Steve Cohn, one of two dissenters the last time, says it wouldn't be a bad idea for a more formal advisory panel. He voted against the current maps because they split too many neighborhoods. Good planning -- not good politics -- should determine the boundaries, he says.

"That's asking a lot," says Cohn, who was re-elected in District 3 last year. "In the end, it does come down to five votes on the council."

That's precisely the problem.

And it's why California voters, by approving Proposition 11 in 2008 and Proposition 20 in November, took redistricting power away from the Legislature -- the politicians -- and gave it to the new citizens commission.

The League of Women Voters says it strongly supports the use of independent panels to draw election districts on the local level as well. A few California cities, San Diego and San Francisco, have commissions draw their council districts. In Modesto, there's an advisory committee that recommends a plan to the City Council, which has the final say.

Mayor wants experts involved

In the long term, Mayor Kevin Johnson supports letting Sacramento voters decide on a charter change to create an independent redistricting commission. This year, he wants a small group of independent experts to give a plan to the council -- one that might carry more weight than those from interest groups because of their knowledge and their political neutrality.

"Redistricting is one of the most important decisions we make as a council," Johnson said in a statement. "I'm excited to review ideas put forth by different groups this year. I'd especially love to see a group of citizens with redistricting expertise and true independence come together and submit a proposal."

This isn't to say that politics should be completely divorced from redistricting. It can't be, nor should it. Some good can come from political pressure: In the 1991 remapping, Meadowview was separated from the Pocket, strengthening the clout of minority voters in south Sacramento and leading to the election of a black representative in District 8.

But when politics plays too big a role, other important principles fall by the wayside. While a citizen committee is not a panacea -- and the selection of its members could be politicized -- it makes it more likely that districts are fair and make sense.

Jo Ann Yee, who was heavily involved in the last two Sacramento redistrictings, supports an independent panel, as long as the appointees are truly nonpolitical. "That would be really helpful. It's the only way to do it," says Yee, who now lives in North Natomas and is an assistant executive director of the California School Boards Association.

A decade ago, she and other activists in the Pocket pushed plans that created compact districts and divided fewer neighborhoods. While she gives the city credit for its inclusive process, she says it was mostly "lip service to community involvement" because the council never seriously considered alternatives to its own plan.

This time, she has no plans to get involved, largely because she no longer believes that the council wants to overcome politics and follow the criteria for fair districts.

"I just have no confidence that they do," she says.

Giving the public a bigger role in the process would not only lead to fairer districts. It could lessen the cynicism that gnaws away at our democracy.