It is my intention occasionally to offer thoughts about some of the propositions on which Californians will be asked to vote this November and provide a forum for discussion of the issues. Today I take up Proposition 77, the redistricting initiative.
The California Constitution calls upon the California Legislature to redraw the boundaries for the districts used to elect public officials with each decennial population census. With modern geographic data bases and analytical tools, it is possible to draw those boundaries in such a way that one can be highly confident about the electoral outcome. The map at the right shows the current boundaries that are in place for the San Francisco Bay area for purposes of electing representatives to the California State Senate. Some have suggested that the primary justification for such odd shapes is to guarantee the re-election of the incumbents who drew up those boundaries in 2001.
If that was the intention, it was certainly successful.
Supporters of Proposition 77 point out that of the 153 congressional and state legislative races on the California ballot in November 2004, not a single seat changed parties. It’s interesting to compare that statistic with the results of the latest Field poll, which found only a 27% approval rate for the California State Legislature among California voters. Professor Peter Gordon opines:
When the re-election of California legislature incumbents hits 100% while the approval ratings of the same people hovers between 20% and 30%, disenfranchisement by high-tech redistricting is suspect.
Another consequence of guaranteed safe districts has been the polarization of California politics. Since the winner in the primary of the party for which that district was designed is guaranteed to win the general election, and since the voters in the primaries tend to be farther from the center of their own party than voters in the general election, the result is that the elected representatives tend to be either significantly more liberal or significantly more conservative than the typical voter of their district.
Proposition 77 would have the Legislature select a panel of 3 retired judges who could receive input from the Legislature and the public and then propose district boundaries. Their proposal would have to respect certain limitations, such as population differences across districts cannot exceed 1 percent, Senate districts would have to be comprised of two adjacent Assembly districts, and the plan must minimize the splitting of counties and cities into multiple districts. The panel’s recommendations would determine the boundaries for one election cycle, but would have to be approved by a popular vote in order to remain in effect beyond that cycle.
What are the arguments against this idea? Fair Vote observes:
Merely handing over the drawing of district lines to a panel of retired judges will not produce competitive districts. Recent studies of the impact of independent redistricting commissions in Arizona, Iowa and elsewhere show that these commissions have had minimal success in increasing competition in these states.
Hence a theme of opponents of the measure is that it would just be a waste of money. Doubtless it’s out of a desire to save taxpayer money that two California Congressmen (a Democrat and a Republican) are seeking to raise money to help fund the campaign against Prop 77, rather than because they’re afraid that in fact it actually might have some effects.
Schwarzenegger’s plan takes advantage of the geographic phenomenon that voters in urban centers vote heavily Democratic. In contrast, outlying suburban and rural areas lean Republican….By requiring judges to draw a redistricting map that emphasizes compact districts incorporating entire cities, the criteria in Prop 77 literally corrals Democrats into urban districts. These districts could be as much as 80% Democratic.
Though the League of Women Voters seems to share this fear, I, like Daniel Weintraub (hat tip: Lone Wacko) am unconvinced. Let me point out that if one’s objective is to “corral” voters into any particular category you might care to specify, I guarantee that I can do so far more effectively if you let me draw the boundaries according to the rather loose rules of the game that seem to apply for the map reproduced above than I can if I’m forced to adhere to any specified set of principles. I think it would be rather hard for the process laid out in the initiative to result in the kind of outcome that Cal Politic fears, whereas such shenanigans are guaranteed under the current system. If you’re out to corral people, what you do, as in the present system, is use one set of boundaries for Assembly districts and a different set of boundaries for Senate districts, rather than go with the simple idea that two adjacent Assembly districts constitute one Senate district.
I’m guessing that the real passion for the opposition to Prop 77 comes not from those who are persuaded by the inherent fairness or appropriateness of the present boundaries, but rather from those who are basically pleased with the practical outcome despite what surely must be for most people a distaste for the inharmonious process from which that outcome was rendered. Because I don’t find myself among the 27% of Californians who are pleased with the performance of our state legislature, I’m open to the suggestion that the redistricting process could be substantially improved. I intend to vote “yes” on Proposition 77.