Redistrict reformers miss mark
By Dan Walters - dwalters@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
12:00 am PDT Monday, March 10, 2008
It's a given, or should be, that California's method of redrawing
legislative and congressional districts after a decennial census is
not only an affront to democracy. It has the real-world effect of
rendering the state Legislature even more dysfunctional than it
otherwise would be.
Over the past four decades, we've had two fair-minded redistricting
plans adopted by the state Supreme Court after Democratic lawmakers
and Republican governors deadlocked (1973 and 1991), one gerrymander
designed by Democrats to solidify control of the Legislature and the
largest-in-the-nation congressional delegation (1982), and one
bipartisan gerrymander to freeze the numerical status quo in both
arenas (2001).
Steve Westly, the former Democratic state controller, captured the
situation the other day as he joined with Republican Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger to tout a redistricting reform initiative for the
November ballot.
"In the last election cycle, 80 Assembly seats, 20 Senate seats, not
one changed hands," Westly said. "The elections were foregone
conclusions. You had a better chance of losing a seat as a member of
the Supreme Soviet in Russia in the 1960s than you do in the
California state legislative elections today."
If successful, the Schwarzenegger-Westly drive, in conjunction with a
coalition of political reform organizations, would ****ft redistricting
of 120 legislative districts and four Board of Equalization districts
from the Legislature to a 14-member commission that supposedly would
be free of overt political or partisan motives. Redrawing
congressional districts would remain with lawmakers.
It's not the first time anyone has tried to reform redistricting,
certainly. Countless reforms have been proposed over the years,
including several that reached the ballot - the last being
Schwarzenegger's own measure in 2005. But all were defeated after
massive opposition campaigns by politicians and interest groups that
preferred the status quo. It's fairly easy to campaign against a
redistricting reform measure by ****traying it as some sort of partisan
or special interest power grab.
Over the last couple of years, Democratic legislative leaders pledged
to write a reform themselves, pairing it with a measure to ease
legislative term limits. When push came to shove, however, they could
not - or would not - buck their own party's major interest groups,
such as unions and Democratic congressional members.
Conceptually, Schwarzenegger, Westly and their allies should be
praised for taking on a difficult, if much needed, civic reform. A
case could be made that their reform would be better than the erosive
status quo. But the measure, which is now being circulated for
signatures, is seriously flawed and could have major adverse
consequences.
Leaving congressional seats in the hands of state lawmakers is one
flaw. With term limits still in place, legislators would be sorely
tempted to manufacture congressional districts for themselves. That
could mean stripping Republicans of as many as a half-dozen districts
to satisfy Democrats' career ambitions, as well as bolstering
Democratic control of Congress. If gerrymandering is bad public
policy, it's just as bad at the congressional level as it is in the
Legislature.
The semi-random manner in which the 14-member commission is to be
chosen is another disaster waiting to happen. We could easily wind up
with a commission that's incapable of grasping a very complex and
technical process and thus be easily swayed by outside experts working
for parties or political factions.
We had two fair redistricting rounds under the state Supreme Court, so
we know what works well. We should be emulating what happened in 1973
and 1991 rather than reinventing a complicated wheel with unknown
consequences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
