Posted on 02/19/2005 3:23:05 PM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO (AP) - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to turn over the drawing of legislative and congressional districts to a panel of retired judges could threaten some incumbents, but it won't necessarily produce a lot more competitive seats.
If it does manage to increase the number of districts that either major party can win, it almost certainly will boost campaign spending by, and the political influence of, special interests the Republican governor frequently criticizes, according to research by experts in drawing district lines.
Schwarzenegger has proposed creating more competitive districts as part of his package of plans to overhaul state government and politics, which is expected to be on a statewide special election ballot this fall. Too often, he said, "there is no competition and therefore there is no inspiration for (legislators) to perform well."
Actually, a dozen of the 153 congressional and legislative races in California last year would be considered competitive by most standards, with the top two candidates finishing within about 10 percentage points of each other.
Despite Schwarzenegger's desire for more tight races, the increasing division of California - and the nation - into heavily Republican and Democratic areas makes the drawing of a lot of competitive districts difficult, some experts said.
That's particularly true if those doing the drawing follow standards that require them to put together districts that are as compact as possible, follow city and county boundaries and maintain "communities of interest."
Schwarzenegger's plan includes those requirements and one barring the retired judges from considering the effect on incumbents or political party registration figures and voting patterns.
Currently, it also includes conflicting language requiring as many districts as possible with no more than a 7-percentage-point gap between Democratic and Republican voters.
Assembly Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who is carrying the legislation for Schwarzenegger, says he plans to drop that 7-percentage-point standard and instead allow panelists to consult voter registration figures to see if there was some "little movement" of lines that would create more competition.
Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Atlanta's Emory University who has studied voting trends in congressional races, said the increasing division of the country into Republican and Democratic areas and the financial advantages for incumbents are the two main reasons for lack of competitiveness.
"The larger point is that over time we've seen these trends in California and in the whole country of increasing partisan polarization that has nothing to do with redistricting," he said. "That's more striking in California than in most parts of the country."
That's demonstrated by county-by-county results of presidential elections, Abramowitz said.
In 1976, when Republican Gerald Ford beat Democrat Jimmy Carter in California, only two counties with 8 percent of the state's voters had a margin of more than 20 percentage points between the winner and loser.
But in 2004, when Democrat John Kerry beat Republican President Bush in California, the gap was more than 20 points in 36 counties with 64 percent of voters.
Kerry won in 22 mostly coastal counties, including Los Angeles County and the San Francisco area. Bush took Orange, San Diego, Ventura and 33 other mostly inland counties.
The gap was extremely close only in Sacramento County and lightly populated Mono County on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada, where Kerry edged Bush by fractions of a percentage point.
Abramowitz's research also has found a growing consistency between how people vote for president and for Congress.
Shifting redistricting duties from the Legislature to a panel of ex-judges won't do much to promote competitiveness if the track record in other states is any indication, Abramowitz added.
Following the 2000 census, eight states used nonpartisan commissions or judges to redraw their congressional districts. In 2002, only seven of the 75 races in those states were decided by less than 10 percentage points, Abramowitz said. Not one of the 65 incumbents running lost.
Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, agreed with Abramowitz in part but said retired judges are more likely to draw more competitive districts than the Legislature would.
To do so, however, they'll will have to ignore the goal of producing compact districts in some cases and come up with districts that "look ugly," he added.
Stern's organization and another think tank, Demos, issued a report recently saying that neither Schwarzenegger's proposal nor other redistricting plans would do enough to create competitive seats.
"Competitiveness needs to be a much higher priority," said Jeannie Wilkinson, California governance project manager for the Center for Governmental Studies. "I'd slate it above compactness" and following city and county boundaries.
Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, said 10 percent to 20 percent of the state's legislative and congressional districts could be made competitive, but Schwarzenegger's plan works against that by limiting use of voting data.
The state's current districts are a compromise by lawmakers to maintain the 2001 partisan lineups in the Legislature and give Democrats the new congressional seat the state was awarded because of population growth in the 1990s.
Republicans won three legislative seats in 2002 that were designed for Democrats, but made no gains in 2004.
Democrats now hold 48 of 80 Assembly seats, 25 of 40 Senate seats and 32 of 53 congressional seats with a vacancy in a heavily Democratic Sacramento district.
Any increase in competitive districts would trigger an increase in campaign spending, Stern said.
McCarthy and Rob Stutzman, Schwarzenegger's communication's director, noted that Republicans managed to briefly gain a slim majority in the Assembly after the state Supreme Court took over redistricting following the 1990 census.
"We saw the Assembly swing (to Republicans in 1994) because it was competitive and the results were able to reflect the tenor and mood of the people of California," Stutzman said. "In the real world, we know that this (proposal) will work well."
But Abramowitz said 1994 was a "very unusual" election year and that the level of competitiveness, at least in congressional elections, has dropped since then.
"I'm not saying there would not be some examples of districts that are now drawn to protect a particular incumbent that could become competitive," he said. "But I don't think overall it's going to result in a demonstrative change in partisan balance or in competitiveness of districts."
The "safest thing" to say about Schwarzenegger's plan is that it probably would threaten some incumbents by giving them unfamiliar or more competitive territory to defend or forcing them to run against another lawmaker, Cain said.
A total of 17 incumbents lost in the elections held after court-appointed panels drew new districts in the 1970s and 1990s. Twelve of those incumbents lost in the primary.
Democrats and some Republicans fear losses of seats under Schwarzenegger's plan, which would require redrawing of districts for the 2006 elections. But Cain said a big shift is unlikely.
"I think on average there would be some slight gains by Republicans," he said. "But you can't turn a majority Democratic state into a majority Republican legislature without some serious gerrymandering."
---
On the Net: www.ss.ca.gov, www.governor.ca.gov, www.senate.ca.gov and www.assembly.ca.gov
No doubt written by an AP writer who doesn't want to see the governor succeed. If he can make a dent in the liberal stronghold, more power to him.
All show, no go. That is what Arnold's '06 slogan should be!
The Only thing this article convinced me of is I need to know who the crooks are who are described as "experts", yet must remain unidentified.
In the language of the clueless and the incompetent (or the criminal) saying there is nothing insidious with Gerrymandering, or that it is good for you, I ain't buying!
So what happened then?
I think they mean, 'according to consultants who make their money by selling redistricting plans to both sides.'
Arnold talked about returning it to a p.t., but as with anything good he says it's just a lot of hot air. The guy bloviates so much hot air he could solve the states energy crisis if he wanted to!
A look at Schwarzenegger's redistricting plan
The Associated Press
http://www.bakersfield.com/state_wire/story/5300194p-5332204c.html
WHAT IT WOULD DO: Take responsibility for drawing districts for the Legislature, California's delegation to the House of Representatives and the state Board of Equalization away from the Legislature and give it to a panel of five retired judges.
WHEN IT WOULD TAKE EFFECT: For 2006 elections, assuming Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger follows through on his pledge to call a special election later this year to enact his plan and voters approve it.
HOW WOULD PANEL MEMBERS BE PICKED: By lot from a pool of 25 retired judges. No more than two of the ex-judges could be from the same political party. It would take a vote of at least four panel members to approve new districts.
WHAT CRITERIA WOULD THEY USE TO DRAW DISTRICTS: Districts would have to be compact and nearly equal in population. The panel also would have to try to follow city and county boundaries and preserve "communities of interest." Other provisions would require the panel to draft as many competitive districts as possible in which the gap between Democratic and Republican voters was no more than 7 percentage points, but at the same time the legislation would bar panel members from considering voting history or party registration to reach that goal. The measure's legislative author, Assembly Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, said he plans to drop the 7-percentage-point standard and replace it with language that would allow the ex-judges, after trying to make districts as compact as possible, to consult voter registration figures to make minor changes that would promote competition.
PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS: Voters rejected similar attempts to take redistricting away from the Legislature in 1982, 1984 and 1990.
---
On the Net: Read the proposal, ACAX1 3, at www.assembly.ca.gov
So this is very different than Costa's measure, huh? I don't think Costa's considers party registration at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.