California Prop. 77 (Redistricting):
I know little about redistricting; my intuitive sense is that Prop. 77 -- which would shift California redistricting from the legislature to a special, supposedly less partisan, commission -- is a good idea, but my colleague Dan Lowenstein (who co-chairs the No on 77 campaign) thinks otherwise. I much respect Dan's judgment and his election law expertise, so I thought I'd pass along a white paper that the No on 77 campaign put together on the subject. And here is the Yes on 77 site, which I assume has similar documents on the other side.
I am however uncomfortable on principle with ensconcing into law yet another "two party system" artifact.
Probably because the current system of allowing incumbents to redraw their own districts to ensure their re-election seems intuitively like such a bad idea. It's telling that in an age of partisanship this is often the one issue on which the incumbents of both parties are happy to reach a bipartisan accord.
The voters are also happy. With gerrymandering, the majority of voters are in districts in which they form the majority and get a representative they like. Why, for example, would the conservatives in Orange County want to see their power diminished by bringing in some liberals? Likewise for the liberals in San Francisco?
Sure, the minority in each district is pretty screwed... but add up all the minorities in all the districts and you have... a minority.
I am the Associate Director of the No on 77 committee that produced the White Paper. The Rose Institute is a partisan thinktank that has been pushing for redistricting reform for over 30 years. They are about as disinterested as the ACLU on free speech issues or the NRA on gun control. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with reading the Rose Institute's report, I just caution that you read it in light of where it is coming from. Admittedly, the White Paper is a campaign document, but its arguments are well-documented. Anyone who reads the Rose Institute report should also read the addendum to the White Paper, contained on the last few pages of the document.
As opposed to having a majority of voters be in districts in which they form the minority? I don't know why gerrymandering implies voters will be happier with their representative. I would think if anything it's the reverse, since it's nearly impossible to get rid of an incumbent.
Proposition 77 won't increase competition, but just in case I'm wrong, competition is bad because it will just draw in more special interest money and make the eventual winner a slave to his contributors.
This is the first argument I've ever seen made that the continued re-election of partisan hacks in safe legislative seats is actually GOOD for all of us! It's an ingenious argument, I suppose, but if I were reading it I don't know if I could keep a straight face.
Bad Arguments:
Sorry, but the 23rd district is indeed an abomination, no matter what Michael Barone says. I grew up in the area and I am pretty familiar with it. On the Central Coast, there is no significant dissimilarity between coastal and non-coastal residents. We're not talking Santa Barbara vs. Fresno here. The boundary is absurd. On the face of it, I don't even see a political advantage to these boundaries, but I'm sure there was one of some sort, since that's why they were drawn as such.
As for the "legislature drawing its own districts" argument, yes, technically Congress isn't in the legislature. But it is my understanding that the California legislature drew the 2000 census boundaries to protect each existing Congressional incumbent. Am I mistaken?
The "we'll lose powerful incumbents" argument doesn't hold much water either. California's delegation is already well known as one of the weakest, most fractious, and least internally cooperative in the nation. And, I can't imagine that there won't be a congressional seat centered in San Francisco, so Nancy Pelosi is safe.
Some better arguments:
There really isn't a need for a mid-decade redistricting. The initiative should have made its scheme effective after 2010.
The judge panel scheme is certainly subject to some criticism.
If I were still a California resident, I would vote for this ballot measure.
I agree that 77 looks as important as anything out here this year.
It still looks like a clear "yes" vote to me.
The system needs fixing. If the "no" folks had a better idea, they should have put it on the ballot. The "leave things as they are" idea moves me not a whit.
As a conservative in Orange County, I can assure you that I derive no special "power" from the fact that my Legislator is election-proof. Quite the contrary: if my district were competitive he would need my support; it's not so he doesn't. As to the notion that Orange County conservatives like gerrymandering, I think it's a pretty safe bet that no matter how Prop 77 does statewide next Tuesday, it will pass handily among O.C. voters.
Look in the voter guide. Find the "Pro" argument and the rebuttal to the "Con" argument on the one hand, and the "Con" argument and the rebuttal to the "Pro" argument on the other. For each side of the debate, count the number of words that are in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Add to that count the number of sentences that are entirely in italics. Whichever side has the lowest total deserves your vote.
Worked with all of the current Cal. propositions, as it happens.
stevesturm:
Here's a hypothetical:
Assume 1000 residents of the State of Franklin, which must be divided into 10 districts. The State is 50-50 split between Democrats and Republicans. Mathematically, with enough demographic info and a really sharp pen, I can draw 10 districts such that as many as 9 of those districts being 54.44% of one party, with the last district 90% of the other. If I'm willing to lose a second district (by making it 90% as well), I can raise the ratio of the other 8 to 60-40. Suddenly Franklin goes from 50-50 to 80-20.
Why should the losing party go along with this? Partly because they have little choice - once a majority gains this power, they can extrapolate it permanently by redistricting. Buth there's another reason - those few remaining opposite party members are guaranteed a job for life. That's the experience I've found living for the past 25 years in CA (including living in a district that was so gerrymandered it was declared unconstitutional in the early '80's). FWIW.
As a Republican, I was in favor of the new boundries. But the CO Supreme Ct. threw it out.
But what is interesting is that the current apportionment has 4 safe seats (2 each) and three swing seats. It is very possible that Colorado's delegation may swing from 5-2 in 2004 to 2-5 Rep/Dem in the next election. Almost a majority swing in two elections.
I see this as good. Very good, despite the fact that it would probably be safely 4-3 if the second reapportionment had stood. The one seat picked up by the Democrats the last election was by John Salazar (brother of our new Senator). He is one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress - not surprising given his swing district. Compare him with Diane DeGetts (D-Denver) and Mark Udall (D-Boulder mostly, but also here in Dillon), who are as liberal as any in CA. Ditto for the two Republicans with safe seats.
I see a lot of problem with safe seats. One result is that those on both sides of the isle with safe seats appear to be quite a bit more liberal or conservative (as the case may be) than the general public. More extreme. And that results in a more polorized Congress.
Similarly, because Representatives with safe seats are highly likely to get reelected, there is little reason for them to be very responsive to their constitutants. Not surprisingly, John Salazar is becoming well known for being so by his - because if he isn't, next time he may lose.
Finally, with the number of safe seats nationwide, it is highly unlikely that the Democrats can regain the House in the near future, regardless of what the Republicans do, or don't do. There just aren't enough swing seats at play any more to make this likely (though, it is still statistically possible).
The results of that are that the House Republicans are becoming arrogant, while the House Democrats seem to be becoming irrelevant, not really proposing any real passable legislation or new ideas. I would expect that they would spend more time proposing new ideas and less screaming about how Bush Lied, etc., if they had a realistic expectation that they could get some of their ideas implemented.
As a conservative in Orange County, I can assure you that I derive no special "power" from the fact that my Legislator is election-proof. Quite the contrary: if my district were competitive he would need my support; it's not so he doesn't.
Competitive districts are good because incumbent legislators have to take cognizance of voters of the opposite party. Safe seats allow the majority's legislator to ignore them.
That said, there's only so much that can be done to make competitive districts in CA, because the state is so geographically polarized by party. I, for example, live in the north of Marin County, and though a lot of the population in my own town might be labeled "Reagan Democrat," the county as a whole is very solidly Democratic, and it would take a gerrymandered district with a freeway-wide strip going into suburban Contra Costa (crossing the Richmond Bridge?) to make it otherwise. I wish I had a serious choice of legislator, but it's not gonna happen, absent a mangling of the redistricting process that I'd like even less.
My late grandmother (born in 1895)was of the opinion that it was always better to vote for incumbants since they had already stolen the money needed to make them rich, whereas the the challenger would have to start from scratch. Perhaps it said something about the style of politics in southern Georgia.