by Robert in Monterey [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

Leon Panetta is the lead “Democrat” in yet another group of reformers bent on changing California’s political institutions. His first target is legislative redistricting.

The major charge against the Legislature performing this traditional role is that it involves incumbent Members in a “conflict of interest”. To quote the Governor, it allows politicians to choose their voters instead of vice-versa. A nice turn of phrase. But mostly a false one.

Not counting a stint as an intern, I have been involved as a staffer on six different legislative redistricting efforts (how time flies when you’re having a good time). I think this qualifies me as an expert – or at least as experienced.

Because redistricting is ultimately a piece of legislation, votes from incumbents are necessary. But typically all that is required to obtain those votes is to begin the new district with the shell of the old one (that elected that incumbent in the first instance).
In 2001, that “shell” was the seat drawn by the California Supreme Court. Virtually all the seats drawn in 2001 were simply versions of the Court-drawn districts adjusted for population growth.

[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.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

Today’s Contra Costa Times citing unnamed “observers”, fills in the blanks in the Governor’s claim that his redistricting initiative will make Legislative contests more “competitive”.

It could cost the Democrats six seats in the Assembly and two in the Senate, diluting Democratic control of the Legislature.

So why should Democrats support this change?

Republicans have about 34% of the state’s registration. Why not simply allocate them 27 seats (34%) of the Legislative seats. Start the Democrats with 36 seats (their proportionate share) and arrange the remaining 17 seats so the registration is equal to the two-party take (45-34). This would provide the Democrats with a 53 seat upside and only one Republican needed to pass the budget or raise taxes on multi-millionaires.

Republicans would need to win 14 of the 17 to control the Assembly – not an impossible job if they stop recruiting extremists whose views are at odds with the people.

I could accomplish this reform – sufficient competition to make both parties sweat blood – with only a few changes.