Posted on 11/26/2008 10:26:40 AM PST by goldstategop
But it was the unheralded passage of another initiative that may make the most history and crimp Democrat hopes for a prolonged era of dominance.
Proposition 11, which passed with the narrowest of margins (50.8 percent), could mark the most serious challenge to the political class by voters since the foiled term limit movement of the 1990s. It strikes at the core pillar of power: incumbency guaranteed through gerrymandered districts. Californians took away from their legislature the power to draw its own districts--a key element of nearly uninterrupted Democratic control since 1970. The task will now be handled by an eight-member commission chosen much like a jury, whose members cannot come from the political class.
Incumbent legislators have lost perhaps their best tool for avoiding competitive elections, long a disgraceful ritual in Sacramento and other state capitals following the once-a-decade census. The legislature still gets to draw districts for U.S. House seats, but here too it must adhere to rules that bind the new commission--namely keeping counties and cities whole as much as possible. Gerrymandered districts will now be more vulnerable to legal challenges.
The initiative passed narrowly, but undoubtedly attracted considerable non-Republican support in a state where registered Democrats exceed Republicans 44 percent to 31 percent and where Barack Obama won 61 percent of the vote. The California Democratic party opposed the measure, as did teachers and other government employee unions that have the most to lose in a fair redistricting of the state. A range of good government types from across the political spectrum joined the Yes on 11 campaign. These included groups as diverse as the AARP, the League of Women Voters and the Chamber of Commerce.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
California's model is novel and could well appeal to voters in other states. The eight-member commission will consist of three Democrats, three Republicans and two independents. Most voters can apply to be on the commission, but anyone linked to elected officials, parties, lobbyists or political consultants is excluded, as are major donors. Independent auditors choose 20 applicants from each of the three groups. State leaders from both parties are allowed to strike up to eight people total from each group, similar to jury selection, and auditors then choose randomly the final eight commission members from those who remain.
Californians have taken redistricting out of the hands of self-interested politicians and given it to an independent citizen body. Instead of drawing districts to protect the party in power and give maximum advantage to incumbents, districts will now be drawn to represent communities of interests and voters. Hopefully, this will lead to fair and competitive elections. Its the dawn of a new era in American politics in the country's most populous state.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
It’ll never work; makes too much sense . . . or the courts will overturn it.
I am concerned the GOP will LOSE seats with this. The GOP held on to many seats this year with huge GOP registration advantages, just by the skin of their teeth.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
So they draw up new districts ~ and the Democrats win all of them. What then?
I have always thought that the states should be districted by computer calculating an even number of people per district area. More districts in urban areas, fewer and larger ones in rural areas. But, even and without regard to neighborhoods and race.
But, that reduces power so it will never happen.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
If the voters want it it’s one thing....
If California Democrats don’t want it it’s gone!....
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Chosen much like a liberal jury? I seen nothing here that hints at real changes, this just takes effor away from the politicians and palms it off on a group of 8 partisans, so that the politicals will have more time for graft and fraud and power acquisition.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
One state (maybe Iowa) has a requirement that all districts should have a minimal border length, so the districts are pretty much square instead of long districts following highways to connect two cities together like one state had.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I’ve always favored a system such as this: (state) House of Reps determined by proportions-population, (state) Senate= 1 Senator per County. Simply, non gerrymandered (except some vulnerable on the House of Representatives side), and makes sense.
We California Republicans look forward to a bit more representation in Sacramento.... Eleven is good, I think.
How about this one: All congressional districts run the entire width of California. Their north/south distance is chosen to equalize the population in each. I wonder how that would work out and who would be elected.
Another option is to default to county lines, and then divide the more populous counties, and join the less populous counties.
The only reason they have huge GOP registration advantages is because the Democrats gerrymandered the Republicans into little GOP reservations.
A large registration advantage in one district can very well mean a SMALL registration DISADVANTAGE in TWO OTHER districts. If I’m a R, I really want as many 80% D districts as I can create, because every vote over 50%+1 is “WASTED”.
Of course the primary measure is population, but the gerrymander limit ought to be the ratio of boundary length to area - perhaps with a special rule for an urban district completely enclosed by a rural area.
Will 2010 elections be in districts drawn this way?
And: Kudos to Californians!
I looked it up myself (why didn’t I do that first?) and the 2012 elections will be the first under this method.
Redistricting will next occur in 2011 after the 2010 census and take about a year.
The PRESENT lines were drawn by unapologetic Democrat campaign hacks with the very public intent to maximize Dem seats and minimize GOP seats. There was no secret about it. Had 11 not passed this would have continued. The Gerrymandered districts in our state are as bad as they could get. If they could be drawn worse, they would have done so.
Under Prop 11, we MIGHT not get a fair shake, but at least it's supposed to be fair on its face. I don't see how anyone could think of this as anything less than an improvement. I for one think it will be a HUGE improvement.
Which would you prefer a firing squad or a drive down a dangerous winding road in an old car with bad breaks? I'll take the risky choice over certain disaster every time.
This reforms passage was the only bright spot on the ballot...and by a razor margin.
I was praying that this Prop would pass as I live in one of the most visciously gerrymandered districts in CA, the so-called “Ribbon of Shame.” All the district races are about as competitve as the ones in the USSR.
That's my prediction. The new law gives priority to "communities of interest" over geographical compactness, among other things. Every leftist group will organize to have their interests protected and to deconstruct conservative enclaves.
Now we need that for the rest of the states.
"The amendment lists by priority the criteria on which any plan must be based and requires the commission to issue a report showing how the criteria have been satisfied. Highest are population equality and fair representation of minority groups, as required by the U.S. Constitution and federal law, with contiguous territory also an absolute requirement for all districts; lowest is incumbency protection; and respect for the borders of counties and local subdivisions, compactness, recognition of communities of interest, and administrative efficiency, are arrayed in between."
Note the statement about " fair representation of minority groups" which would probably allow strung out creative gerrymandering for that special interest.
KarlInOhio, maybe your idea is best.
One state (maybe Iowa) has a requirement that all districts should have a minimal border length, so the districts are pretty much square instead of long districts following highways to connect two cities together like one state had.
I like an idea like yours. Or maybe more squared sections of the state, with more squares being one district in sparse deserts, and maybe squares that are over cities being themselves divided into equal squares. Geometry over gerrymanders.
Gee....we had that in the People’s Republic of New Jersey when the RINO’s controlled all three branches. We had an equal number of RINO’s and DIM’s and a tie breaker who was a professor from Princeton. The result was that I and my near neighbors got moved from a RINO’s district to that of a true liberal, A-A Democrat, Donald Payne, who is in such a safe ditrciot that he invariably runs unopposed. Essentially, the results of the Commission’s work is that once elected, if our pols do nothing to seriously piss anyone off, they are in office until they drop dead. Better luck in Cloud Cuckoo Land on the Left Coast.
Yes, and remember also that redistricting was a ballot measure in the 2004? special election. The issue has finally drawn the attention it deserves.
Did you mean that as in “vicious” or “viscuous”? Either one, apparently, works well.
“...such a safe ditrciot that he invariably runs unopposed”
ditrciot=district
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
btt
I would much rather see the districts reduced in size. Any rule on gerrymandering will be gamed as soon as the rule is made known. By reducing the size of the districts, it becomes more difficult to arrange them so that one party is assured an advantage over the other.
It has some other desirable effects. It dilutes the power of each representative. It reduces the cost and time commitment of campaigning. This makes it possible for more people to campaign because they can afford to do it. It reduces the lock incumbents generally hold on elected office.
It increases accountablity. Florida representative Robert Wexler may never walk the streets of Delray Beach, primarily because he lives in Maryland and uses his Florida address to scam government cheese and cheat on his taxes. Perhaps the voters in Delray Beach would be stupid enough to reelect him, but they would have to notice that the representatives of neighboring districts actually live in the towns and really do shop at the local stores. itmakes it that much more difficult to be a fraud when your neighbors can find you in the dairy aisle and tell you what they really think of you.
Smaller districts can be won by actual campaigning, instead of clever media campaigns. You don’t have to spend a pile of money to address the Rotarians, and your opponent can go there and give a talk, too. This takes the media out of the equation. News bias becomes very obvious when the witnesses directly observe that the story does not match the event. This is why newspapers all across the country will think small districts are a bad idea.
Smaller districts mean more representatives. That makes it more difficult for them to agree on things and pass new laws. I say that’s a good thing. Much of what legislators do is media grandstanding. We have millions of laws already. How many more do we actually need?
It also reduces the power of special interest groups. One of our favorites, the N.E.A., can promise perhaps 10,000 votes. In a smaller district, their population is also reduced. They might promise 1,000 votes, but a politician can look them in the eye and answer, “So what? I can make a speech at the parish of Saint Anthony and get 1,000 votes, and all their kids go to Catholic school.”
The Prop. 8 victory overshadowed this.
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.