A classy redistricting process

Al Mccombs
Chino Hills Champion
October 8, 2011

Is it possible to put together a group of people from both political parties who are willing to put aside differences, follow ethical standards and produce a result that seeks to benefit, as much as possible, all concerned? Citizens who were sick of the way the legislature dealt the cards last time, passed state constitutional Proposition 11 in 2008 to change the method of redistricting for elected officials for the coming decade.

The basic goal was to divide districts into equal proportions of population.

For the most part, communities of interest have been maintained. Of course, some traditional political and geographic relationships have been broken up.

A special commission was mandated by Prop. 11, with instructions to keep politics out of it. The 14-member Citizen's Redistricting Commission has completed its work, the boundaries are official, yet the plan is still under attack, mainly by Hispanic leaders, who say that it violates their "communities of interest." However, there seems to be little complaint in the redistricting which has affected Chino Valley, where the two cities are now split apart in congressional and state senate districts like the assembly district was before.

The change for Chino recognizes its commonality with Pomona, Montclair and Ontario and their growing Latino populations. Some benefit is realized in the fact that the common interests of Chino Valley will have two legislative and congressional representatives, of opposite political parties, to represent them.

Only the state supreme court can overturn any of the work of the commission.

The deadline for appeals was September 29.

When I heard the work of the commission described by its local chairman, Peter Yao, former mayor of Claremont, and Jeanne Raya, Glendora insurance executive, I was impressed by the fairness built into the process, and carried out accordingly. Redistricting will never please everyone.

Activists representing the growing Hispanic electorate feel that its interests are not represented by the new district boundaries, both in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. But ethnic considerations do not qualify for a challenge any more than political registration does, unless they violate the federal Voting Rights Act. Five mostly rural counties across the middle of the state have been continuously monitored for these. Any successful suit would require the state high court to find such a violation.

The redistricting rules set by voters require that existing district lines be ignored. This resulted in more than one incumbent now facing election in a single district. This happened to Congressmen Joe Baca of San Bernardino, who plans to run in the new 35th district, against local resident Gloria Negrete Mcleod.

I would be surprised if the state supreme court upsets the commission's work except for an obvious federal Voting Rights Act violation. If it did so, it would threaten any future honest, non-partisan attempt to carry out the purposes of redistricting.

The commission was made up of dedicated citizens whose hard work was strictly a contribution of public service.

Given a slim $3.5 million budget, their only compensation was $300 a day per diem, to cover personal costs encountered in almost eight months on the road throughout the state for hearings, consultations and deliberations.

One-third of the budget went to expenses of the staff of 15, one-third for legal assistance and one-third for recording and broadcast, including televising for the public and transcribing the proceedings for a website. All meetings had to be open to the public.

So who were these people? From 3,000 applications, 60 were selected by the State Bureau of Audit for submission to the legislature. Here they were narrowed to 36, from which eight were chosen by lottery.

Three of the survivors were to be from each party, plus two from neither. These eight then chose six more from the pool, ending with a balance of five from each party and four from neither.

Their task was to divide the state into assembly districts of 465,000 people each, senate districts into 930,000 people, four State Board of Equalization districts and (under subsequent Prop. 20) congressional districts of 905,000 people. Total population, not voter registration, was to be used.

The commission spent the first month in training, then held 60 open meetings throughout the state, 34 that were public at which 3,000 spoke, and the rest business meetings. It received 20,000 emails.

In the first round, preliminary proposals for boundaries were posted. The second round included responses and adjustments after a civil rights analysis. The final report was given August 15. The appeal period to the court concluded September 29.

Drawing boundaries north of the Bay Area was tough because of the rural nature of the state and the fact that there are no good east-west highways to connect communities of interest, so districts had to set up in a north-south form.

An important criteria for the selection process was that commission members be chosen for relevant analytical skills, the ability to be impartial, and a demonstrated appreciation for California's diverse demographics and geography.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if our legislature could be selected by a similar formula.