Common Cause Fronts California G.O.P. Power Play - Redistricting Reform, Isn’t…

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

“Gerrymandering in the State of California means that certain cities, counties, and groups bound by common interests end up with diluted or nonexistent voice in Sacramento”. – Common Cause Board Member

Sounds pretty horrible.

But is it true? Will the Governor’s proposed redistricting reform remedy this evil?

No. And No. The standards in the proposed ‘reform’ are identical to the standards that line drawers must adhere to under current law. City boundaries and County boundaries must be respected. Groups bounded by common interests – usually minority groups with a history of past political discrimination – are also protected by law.

Are ALL cities kept whole in this process? No. Some cities are too large for a single district and must be split (Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego among others). Are all Counties kept intact in a single district? In those parts of California where that is feasible and desirable – in scantly populated Superior California, for example, the answer is Yes. In urban areas the City, not the County is usually the unit most important for purposes of representation, so County lines (in Los Angeles County, for example) are sacrificed to keep City Boundaries intact and/or to protect minority populations that have historically faced discrimination.

As the Federal Courts have held – repeatedly – a redistricting plan must be judged as a whole.

And as a whole, the plan drawn by the Legislature in 2001 meets the Constitutional criteria of protecting “cities, counties, and groups bound by common interests”.

It is an old campaign trick to pick out an occasional exception to the rule and attempt to persuade voters that the exception “is the rule”.

But when a Common Cause Board Member and long time League of Woman Voters activist lets her reputation be used in this fashion, it is shocking.

“It would eliminate back room deals”, the good government lady writes. Having been in that “back room”, I can guarantee you that every conversation I had for a year was potentially subject to deposition. None of those conversations were held without the presence of an Attorney whose job it was to keep myself and any one I spoke with in close adherence to the law and to the Constitution. Dozens of public hearings were held before and after the plans were proposed. I had to attend them. All of them were transcribed and I had to read every transcript – and to modify plans in the light of public testimony. The plans were available on line – as was the database used to draw them. All available to the public through the University of California at no cost. Software to manipulate the data was available for about $500.