Posted on 11/02/2005 1:36:02 PM PST by calcowgirl
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Voters in California and Ohio will decide next week whether to strip state politicians of the right to draw their own legislative district lines, the first public tests of a national effort to increase electoral competition and reduce the power of incumbency.
The two ballot initiatives, California's Proposition 77 and Ohio's Issue 4, would transfer the power to set congressional and legislative boundaries to independent panels, robbing state lawmakers of their traditional ability to twist and shape district lines for political advantage.
Similar initiatives are in the works in Florida and Massachusetts, and at least a dozen states have proposals in their state legislatures to create independent or bipartisan panels to handle the highly political process of redrawing districts every decade to reflect changes in population.
While district lines are supposed to be redrawn fairly based on census figures, the parties in charge often have used the process to "gerrymander" districts to their advantage. Increasingly sophisticated computer software has made a science of identifying and grouping voters.
The result, reform proponents say, is a bankrupt election system that safeguards incumbents, protects the party in power and cuts voters out of the democratic process.
"We're experiencing a slow-motion coup d'etat in California and in the rest of this country," said Bill Mundell, chairman of Californians for Fair Redistricting, which proposed the state's ballot initiative.
"The politicians, aided by significant advances in technology, have rewritten the districts in such a way that they have almost no possibility of losing," he said.
Opponents of both measures call them power grabs designed to reverse the results of past elections and both initiatives trail in public opinion polls after becoming swept up in local politics.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican in a Democratic-controlled state, has led the charge for the referendum there with help from Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
SCHWARZENEGGER DRAG EFFECT?
But analysts said Schwarzenegger's declining popularity has helped drag down the measure, one of four reform proposals he is pushing on the November 8 ballot.
In Republican-controlled Ohio, Democratic-leaning groups have led the fight and hope for help from an ethics scandal consuming Republican Gov. Bob Taft. The Ohio proposal is also part of a broader package of election reforms.
"How you feel about changing the process largely depends on how you came out in the last redistricting cycle and how you will come out in the next one," said Tim Storey, a redistricting analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver.
"If it passes in California and Ohio, then it's going to get a great deal of attention in other states," he said. "If they go down it will probably take the air out of things until the next redistricting cycle."
The national push for reform has been fueled by the declining number of competitive state and congressional races, a trend many analysts blame on redistricting. In California, none of the state's 153 congressional and state legislative races resulted in a change of parties in 2004.
Nationally, only five House incumbents lost to challengers in 2004 and more than 80 percent of House races across the country were won by margins of at least 20 percentage points, according to an analysis by FairVote-the Center for Voting and Democracy.
The movement also has been aided by recent events in Texas and Georgia, where the legislatures abandoned the tradition of redrawing lines only once every 10 years.
After Republicans won control of the Texas legislature in 2002, they redrew congressional lines with the help of then-House Republican Leader Tom DeLay and used the new lines to pick up five seats in Congress. Republicans in Georgia also redrew congressional lines after gaining control of the legislature.
"There is a great consensus that the lack of voter choice and competition is a problem," said Robert Richie, executive director of FairVote-the Center for Voting and Democracy. "It is not as easy agreeing on a solution."
A little hard to take anything you say seriously since you feel that your arguments cannot stand on their merit without resorting to petty insults.
I would like to point out what I feel has been overlooked in the discussion. In CA, our state legislators all have term limits. The argument that prop 77 promotes competition is rather weak as term limits provides that already.
All government should have a set of checks and balances. Handing over the process to specially selected, unaccountable, retired judges who will operate behind closed doors is not an improvement. If we don't like what the legislature does, we can vote them out. We won't be able to do that with the judges, and as I pointed out above, the districts they draw can be used without voter approval (in essence, no approval at all).
As Caluvdubya points out, the California legislature has term limits. So the argument that they draw their own districts is pretty weak. I haven't seen it dicussed often, but it has been mentioned in a few articles. Here is one from the SF Chronicle:
While legislators also would face the uncertainty of new districts if Prop. 77 passes, term limits already guarantee that they have to regularly defend new turf if they want to stay in politics. But since a House seat in a safe district remains the closest thing in politics to a lifetime job, Congress members will be fighting hard for the status quo.The claim that "competition" will be increased with Proposition 77 is also unsupportable. Unlike initiatives in other states, California's proposed law does not include any provision to achieve this objective. See: Prop. 77 wording lacking, redistricting experts say
Although Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and supporters of Proposition 77 repeatedly say voters should approve the redistricting initiative next month because it will make congressional and state Legislature races more competitive, there's a word noticeably missing from the proposal's criteria for creating new legislative districts:Competition.
A redistricting initiative on Ohio's November ballot includes specific wording that requires an independent panel to consider competitiveness in drawing new district boundaries. So does a proposed ballot initiative being circulated on petitions in Florida. Existing laws in Arizona and Washington state also have competition requirements.
77 will make some seats more competitive.
It is not going to be competative in large dem areas like L.A. Has anyone actually sat down and tried to draw up better districts based on voter reg? Redistricting will not turn a Dem voter into a Republican voter. LA and SF are the areas that hurt us the most and the only cure is more registered Republicans. IMO
Both the COlumbus Dispatch and the Cleveland Plain Dealer have come out against Issues 2,3,4 and 5. Soros has pledged $30 mm to oust Blackwell, the OH Sec'y of State, and any plans he might have.
Internet voting? OK, can you guarantee who's doing the voting?
Expansion of absentee ballots? If you are too infirm or too lazy to vote, your vote shouldn't count. No "just put your checkmark here, sweety" votes in my state. We have enough dead men voting.
Redistricting according to recommendations of an outside panel, members of which could come from out of state? Sure, when pigs fly.
Taking away one of the principal durites of a Sec'y of State in certifying elections? You first.
Sounds great in theory. How does it work out in practice?
As Caluvdubya points out, the California legislature has term limits. So the argument that they draw their own districts is pretty weak.
But they're also drawing congressional districts, which is much more troublesome.
And again, what I'm asking is how Prop 77 would actually make the situation worse than it currently is?
Define "worse." IMO, replacing the current system with one that is performed by unelected retired judges, behind closed doors and accountable to no one, cannot be an improvement.
I'm not the one saying it'll be worse. It appears that you are (otherwise you wouldn't be arguing against this initiative) - so, by the definition that you'd use, would it make things worse?
No, but you asked: "how Prop 77 would actually make the situation worse".
Hence I asked for your definition.
1. Judges aren't non-partisan.I would support a redistricting proposal. Unfortunately, this version is ill conceived. Energies (and the $12 million the CA GOP donated to this campaign) would have been much more productive had they been applied to ousting leftists from office. A Dem was just elected to the State Assembly (in a COMPETITIVE district) to replace Mike Gordon--a CAGOP candidate campaign was MIA. (another opportunity ignored).2. Only three Judges (vs. 5 or 7) is too much an opportunity for slant (and corruption).
3. The Judicial Council selection process of identifying Judges in the pool is hidden from public scrutiny as it is being performed by pseudo-governmental bodies and institutions not subject to transparency provisions. (The only two legislative representatives on the Judicial Council are also two leftists: Dave Jones and Joe Dunn)
4. The nomination process will be done by the same state legislators (but much fewer of them) that this initiative is supposed to correct.
5. Legislators doing the selections only get to choose candidates from the opposite party.
6. The schedule for implementation is not only aggressive, but probably not feasible (Candidates file papers before the districts are even drawn--see Rose report).
7. The Secretary of State has said the schedule is not doable, as do other experts.
8. By most accounts published, conservatives will lose seats and Republicans will probably lose seats, while minority districts (mostly Dem) will be protected under the Baker v. Carr provisions. Some have predicted that Republicans will lose their majority in the house.
9. Mid-decade redistricting requires use of already outdated census data.
10. Despite requiring voter approval of new districts, the new district maps will first be used without approval, theoretically indefinitely.
11. From what I can determine, legislators don't draw districts today--they hire Consultants to do it for them. Under the new law, Judges will chose from plans presented to them--by Consultants. The same exact people will be drawing districts--it is only a matter of who can sell the judges as to their 'plan' being the best.
12. There is no evidence that districts will be more competitive, as the language of the proposed law contains no provision for considering such (in fact, prohibiting consideration of parties/candidates/encumbants etc.).
That's a bad thing? How?
8. By most accounts published, conservatives will lose seats and Republicans will probably lose seats
How do these published accounts know in advance what district lines the council will draw up?
>>That's a bad thing? How?
If you wanted someone to fairly represent Republicans, would you want Perata and Nunez doing it? I wouldn't.
>>How do these published accounts know in advance what district lines the council will draw up?
They don't, no one does. But one thing for sure is that regardless of the touted "non-partisanship," urban areas and minority groups (the left) will maintain power due to the Baker v. Carr rulings and provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Those will still be requirements, despite Prop 77 changes.
You can cherry-pick each of the above reasons all you want, but collectively I don't see how anyone can conclude that this is good law.
Of course, Republicans get to choose which Democrats they want to name as well. So where's the net loss?
But one thing for sure is that regardless of the touted "non-partisanship," urban areas and minority groups (the left) will maintain power due to the Baker v. Carr rulings and provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Those will still be requirements, despite Prop 77 changes.
Do these two things you mention require actual gerrymandering in favor of minority groups? Or do they simply prohibit gerrymandering against them?
You can cherry-pick each of the above reasons all you want, but collectively I don't see how anyone can conclude that this is good law.
I don't see how any of the other things you mention will actually worsen the situation - by whatever definition of "worsen" you could conceivably come up with.
If the GOP gerrymander in Ohio is dumped, it will cost the GOP at least two seats, and maybe up to four seats.
The GOP has about as many seats as they are going to get, absent a GOP gerrymander. A non partisan plan will put in over time some more moderate Dems to replace less moderate ones. Maybe a moderate Pubbie will slip in somewhere, but I doubt it. There are vast areas of the state where one party or the other simply isn't competitive. The GOP is not competitive anywhere in the Bay area, and in very few places in LA County.
My interpretation is the former.
I don't see how any of the other things you mention will actually worsen the situation - by whatever definition of "worsen" you could conceivably come up with.
You don't consider potentially losing a House majority as "worse"? I guess you and I will just have to disagree.
From the article linked in #17 above:
"According to Ohio Republicans, they could lose six of their 12 seats in Congress."
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.