California Takes Another Swing at Redistricting Reform
From an Orange County Editorial
Here are the basics from the governor’s statement: “The proposal creates a Citizens Redistricting Commission to develop an open and fair process for redrawing our political district lines. The commission would be composed of 11 independent and politically balanced members who reflect our state’s diversity and who are free from conflicts of interest.“Four members would be from each of the state’s two largest political parties. The remaining three seats would be held for decline-to-state voters or voters with other political affiliations. … A panel of 10 county clerks would establish a pool of eligible candidates. Legislative leaders would be able to remove two candidates from the pool. Finally, the Fair Political Practices Commission would conduct a random draw from the pool to determine the commission membership.” The plan could be appealed to the Supreme Court.
The proposal might need some fine-tuning, but it is a good starting point for a necessary reform. The basic principle is sound: Legislative districts should not be gerrymandered to assure that both parties avoid a competition of ideas before each election.
I agree and support a redistricting process that maximizes competition rather than the other way around. To me it is healthy to have vibrant local discussions about the direction of the country and each party and for moderates to have a reasonable chance against ideologues. It would be nice if the new Congress addresses this as well. This may be one of the core process adjustments that in the long term allows the Congress to move back into balance and cooperation.
9 Responses to “California Takes Another Swing at Redistricting Reform”
The really good thing is what happens if it works and is seen to be a good thing. Then it becomes a role model.
A long shot, because it’s a complicated issue but certainly worth hoping for …
I’d be curious what the Congress can do about it. Traditionally, the states are responsible for establishing their districts (this may be constitutionally required for all I know).
I generally favor these efforts though I doubt they will (or should) go anywhere until both parties signal that they are willing to pursue the efforts on a broader basis. It is good that republicans want to change how things are districted in CA, I am sure they hold similar views about how districting should be handled in TX, GA and FL.
At least the way CA (and NY) pursues districting (i.e. primarily incumbent protection with party identification a lesser concern) the State has the advantage of having leaders in both parties so when control of Congress changes they have both sides covered. Compare that to TX where they put partisanship above incumbency and now they have little representation among the leadership of the Dems.
http://www.house.gov/tanner/legislation_redistricting.htm
Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act (HR 2642)
Someone in Congress is thinking about this.
“maximizes competition rather than the other way around. To me it is healthy to have vibrant local discussions about the direction of the country and each party and for moderates to have a reasonable chance against ideologues”
I disagree. I would hope that the real determining factor has nothing to do with partisanship, or distribution at all. I would hope that it has to do with common interests anything else just perpetuates the given system.
The problem with gerrymandering to me isn’t that it makes funny communities that favor certain legislators, it’s that it creates things that aren’t communities except in the sense of who’d they probably vote for.
Now, the $100,000 question is what makes a common interest.
I doubt that any commission would be able to do a very good job because it will be too poltically incorrect to discuss voting patterns. Any U.S. Congression District that is 40% black or greater is a lock for the Democrats. The same can probably be said about any district that is 50% minority.
I think the best idea is to draw line of real regional interest using natural borders where ever possible and then let the voting take its natural course.
Of course, in the long run differing demographic group birthrates and immigration will overwhelm any competativeness that can be created by moving district boundries around and the US will get to enjoy being a one party state. California will be a very good example of this since population growth in California is virtually all caused by Hispanic birthrates and immigration.
Thanks for the cite on that legislation. FWIW, I found this law review note that suggests that congress does have the power.
Well, if it creates a smaller neo-con ratio in congress, then I’m all for it. If not then I am against it. Moderate politics at its best.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The most gerrymandered states in the country according to partisan votes for House members v. partisan breakdown of House seats are OH, MI and FL. All skew to the GOP. Michigan voted 54-46 in favor of Democratic House members, yet our delegation is 9-6 for the GOP. Why? Because the GOP controlled the legislature and Governorship in 2000 and redrew the lines this way.
In some states, however, the districts are so staunchly partisan that the minority party doesn’t even bother to field candidates. In Massachusetts, Democrats won 10 of 10 seats. But Republicans only garned 11% of all votes! That’s because they only fielded candidates in two of the races.
Krous,
How can you believe that having a single dominate party is god for moderate politics. Is DC or Mass. moderate in their politics?
Having only one party rewards the party activist and punishes those who are less active.
Has California beneifted from the last eight years of almost total Democratic Party dominance?