Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CA: Eight GOP congressmen endorse governor's push for 2006 remap
Bakersfield Californian ^ | 3/3/05 | AP - Sacramento

Posted on 03/03/2005 6:01:51 PM PST by NormsRevenge

SACRAMENTO (AP) - Eight of the 20 California Republicans in Congress have endorsed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's push for new legislative and congressional districts for the 2006 elections.

In a letter to the Republican governor, the lawmakers said they agreed that drawing new districts for 2006 was a "necessary reform to restore fair and democratic electoral choice to the voters of California."

Schwarzenegger is backing legislation and an initiative to take the power to draw districts away from the Democrat-dominated Legislature and turn it over to a panel of retired judges, saying it would result in more seats that either party could win.

The governor wants new districts in place for the 2006 elections, although some experts say there's not enough time to do that. Normally, the districts wouldn't be redrawn until after the next federal census in 2010.

Most Republican congressmen have expressed concern that a mid-decade redistricting could cost the GOP seats in the House of Representatives.

The letter was signed by Reps. Bill Thomas of Bakersfield, Daniel Lungren of Gold River, Devin Nunes of Visalia, Elton Gallegly of Simi Valley, Howard McKeon of Santa Clarita, Christopher Cox of Newport Beach, Dana Rohrabacher of Huntington Beach and Darrell Issa of Vista.


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2006; california; endorse; gopcongressman; governor; redistricting; remap

1 posted on 03/03/2005 6:01:51 PM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge; capitan_refugio

Fairly courageous of Gallegly. A new round of redistricting could do some nasty things to his career.


2 posted on 03/03/2005 6:08:29 PM PST by ambrose (....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Did you see that he apparently has now endorsed Costa's measure?


3 posted on 03/03/2005 9:53:05 PM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
Elton (R - Simi Valley) is in a fairly safe seat at the moment, especially after Lois Capps (D - Loonyland) was given the Oxnard/Ventura/Carpinteria coast strip in the last re-districting.

I don't see how those who want to redistrict will get around the California Supreme Court precedent allowing only one re-districting every 10 years. I recall the case from the Jerry Brown era, where the Court overturned a voter-passed initiative because the Burton brothers had beaten them to the punch and passed a very skewed plan in the Legislature.

4 posted on 03/04/2005 12:26:35 AM PST by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: capitan_refugio

That was a Rose Bird-era decision..


5 posted on 03/04/2005 12:47:44 AM PST by ambrose (....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
"That was a Rose Bird-era decision."

Yes, I believe you are correct. I recall that 10 years later I held my nose and voted for Wilson for governor, because I knew he would stymie the Burton's next re-districting plan. In fact, the districts for the 1990's ended up being drawn by a panel of retired judges (IIRC). It seems to me that for the California State Senate and the California Assembly, each Senate district was coterminous with two Assembly districts. (The Senate has 40 seats; the Assembly has 80 seats)

Personally, I am a proponent of proportional representation. Under a version of that system, the parties would post a slate of ranked candiates (for example 80 Assembly candidates), and if the slate received 50% of the total votes cast, they would receive 50% of the available seats. If they took 25% of the votes, they would get 25% of the seats.

The ingenious part then becomes the "districting." Suppose, for example, the Democrats won 40 seats, the Republicans won 30 seats, the Libertarians won 5 seats, the Reform Party won 3 seats, and independents (at-large) took 2 seats. The Democrats would provide the County Clerks/Registrars with the outlines of 40 "representative areas"; the Republicans with 30; the Libertarians with 5; the Reformers with 3. Each voter in each precinct would therefore be represented by representatives from at least four parties and 2 at-large. These representatives would be in competition with one another to provide their constituents with their services.

Got a pothole and the Democrat representative from your area doesn't care, go to the Republican, or Libertarian, or Independent. I'm sure they'll want you vote for their slate next time around!

The long and short of it is, you will never again get stuck in a district without any sort of real representation if the other party controls the seat. There would be no more "safe districts" - so every vote would count toward electing the slate of your choice.

6 posted on 03/04/2005 1:30:25 AM PST by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson