You got that right. on both points.. burrrp! :)
Posted on 06/28/2005 9:36:29 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO -- Senate Democrats plan to announce today their own reform plan for redistricting, which would retain their political control of the process of drawing legislative and congressional district boundaries.
According to a copy of the proposal obtained by the Daily News, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to transfer the Legislature's redistricting power to a nonpartisan panel of retired judges would be scrapped.
That authority would instead be given to a commission of seven political appointees, four of whom would be chosen by legislative leaders.
Republican leaders said the administration was unlikely to accept the plan but acknowledged it could be a first step toward a compromise.
"Certainly, discussions are a positive thing and there might be a possibility for compromise," said Senate Minority Leader Dick Ackerman, R-Irvine. "But if you look at the language in the bill compared to what we saw before, I think it makes it worse in terms of something we would sign off on and the governor would sign off on."
Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, who authored Senate Constitutional Amendment 3, is scheduled to unveil the proposal today. Common Cause, a national group based in Washington, D.C., which previously endorsed Schwarzenegger's redistricting plan, and the League of Women Voters are expected to lend their support to the bill -- at least in principle, sources said.
Instead of nonpartisan judges, the redistricting commission would be appointed by the governor, the Senate president pro tem, the Assembly speaker, the minority leaders of both legislative houses, the California Judicial Council and the president of the University of California.
The Schwarzenegger administration was still reviewing the proposal. But Press Secretary Margita Thompson said it could be a positive development, although she noted that the governor is unlikely to support anything that chips away at the edges and does not constitute wholesale reform.
"When the governor looks at the proposal, it's with an eye toward finding a long-term solution to the state's structural problems," she said. "Certainly, there has been a flurry of activity that would have been absent had there not been a special election."
The measure also includes minor constitutional changes affecting the state budget. Specifically, members of the Assembly and Senate would be prohibited from adjourning for their summer recess prior to their houses passing a spending plan.
At least one of the three Republicans that Lowenthal was counting on for support -- Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield -- decided to pull his name from SCA 3 after reviewing the changes late Monday.
Lowenthal did not return phone calls. In an interview last week he said the Democratic leadership wanted SCA 3 to provide greater accountability to the Legislature.
That authority would instead be given to a commission of seven political appointees, four of whom would be chosen by legislative leaders.
I can't think of a more important issue (re-districting)
for CA Freepers - unless it's hamburger reminiscing.
You got that right. on both points.. burrrp! :)
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to transfer the Legislature's redistricting power to a nonpartisan panel of retired judges would be scrapped"
Compromise is a weakness, a frailty, and a lack of conviction.
The only nonpartisan judges are dead and buried. If not immediately, then within a few years this proposal would reap the same dismal effects as every other redistricting effort politicians have forged. The most inherent flaw in the plan put forth by Governor Schwarzenegger is that any nominations made by the governor must be confirmed by the legislature. To assure legislative approval he would be forced to COMPROMISE and nominate retired judges that meet the approval of his political opponents. If, and this is very possible in California, the next governor is a Democrat, the legislature and governor will have absolute control California, and the shaping of our Congressional delegation to Washington DC. The inherent flaw is the reason our present Republican Congressional members are so hesitant to endorse the plan. They see the writing on the wall. The citizens of California had better start seeing the writing on the wall too.
Another danger few seem to care about is in the formation of the panel itself. It adds another government expense at a time we need to be reducing the size and cost of state government. Why is anyone, aside from those favoring more government, endorsing a plan that would create another layer of government?
There are viable alternatives to every situation if we rely on history. There are some aspects of government that work almost flawlessly because they cannot be easily altered or tampered with. Among these, our state constitution established a firm process by which the citizens could recall Governor Grey Davis. No amount of interference by Governor Davis, the Secretary of State, the legislature, nor the courts could stop that process. Our federal constitution establishes firm dates for federal elections and how the seats within the House of Representative will be allocated among the many states. The allocation of Congressional seats is actually in the hands of the people. It is dependent upon which states people choose for themselves to reside in. If you are over thirty, you have witnessed firsthand the steady shift of Congressional seats to the South and Southwest as people move their families to states of their choosing. We need a redistricting process in the state that mandates the free will of the citizens of California, not politics and politicians.
A short while back I contacted California State Senator Tom McClintock with a redistricting proposal that would eliminate politicians from the process entirely. Senator McClintock asked that I keep up the good work, and this forum presents an opportunity to do just that. The proposal follows.
The northern most border of California is the 42 parallel. It is a constant that does not change. Use this northern most boundary and the 41st parallel as the starting point to establishing all state and Congressional districts. Using census figures begin counting the required population from west to east and draw the district boundary north to south. If enough population is not present between the two parallels, the count would continue with the 41st and 40 parallels, counting east to west to keep the district continuous, until the required population was achieved. This process would continue until the final district are established at the southern most border. The governed population would ultimately control how districts are drawn by where they choose to live.
I know California is a lot more conservative than the legislature and Congressional delegation represent. The current system of redistricting, and the proposals put forth by the governor and legislature leave the process of drawing redistricting lines in the hands of a very few people, and will always reflect the values of those few people. We can do better. We can have better. We must do better, and forever stop the cycle that allows a few people to force their values upon the many. There is no compromise.
Excellent post!
Good Gravy!!! Arnold is a muscle bound wimp first class. I am going to be sick to my stomach...
In your heart you know that if this compromise is reached, somehow, the initiative to be voted on in November which conflicts with "the deal" will be discarded regardless of the outcome of the vote.
Oh well, many on the California Topic saw nothing wrong with disgarding the upcomming Republican gubernatorial primary since it might possibly protect the citizen of a foreign country from a review by US citizens.
And that is exactly the kind of practice I want put to rest... FOREVER!
I just sent the proposal to a local radio personality with national recognition in hopes he will discuss it.
About all I can do at this time is ask people just like you to spread the suggestion. If it has merit, it will stand on its own. We must take the state back from small groups of citizens if we are stay The REPUBLIC of California.
Regarding the Dems proposal, this was an insightful assessment from Dan Weintraubs California Insider blog:
Under the current rules, at least there is a check and balance between the Legislature and the governor.Under the Senate Democrat proposal, an amended version of SCA 3, the lines would be drawn by a 7-member commission, with four of the seven members appointed by the legislative leadership. In other words, a majority of the members of the panel would be beholden to the same people who draw the lines now. But there would be no governor to check their work. Only one appointee would be made by the governor. The remaining two would come from the Judicial Council and the president of the University of California.
The proposal's criteria are also thinner than offered in the Costa measure endorsed by Schwarzenegger. There's no requirement to nest two Assembly districts into each Senate district, which is a huge factor in reducing the game-playing. And there's no ban on using political data, voter history and incumbent addresses in the process. Costa bans them all.
K(area)1/2 > perimeter
where K would be somewhere around 6. (Note: for a square, k=4)
Such would allow large districts and small as well as encourage politically contiguous districts, but it would not allow convoluted boundaries by which to cheat excessively.
That's where both the Earl Warren Court and you are dead wrong! That "Cows Don't Vote" decision has destroyed the prior balance in representation between metro-sexual and rural-sexual areas for the last 50 years!!!
It has lead to the current "rural cleansing" and the ruination of rural property rights and taxation with hideously poor representation!!! My county has only one voice in the state senate, which it's forced to share with 13 other counties! LA county has 13 voices in the state senate and dominates the other house (the Assembly) as well!!!
Please rethink you opinion of what Carry Okie said, will ya please? That decision needs revisiting, desperately!!!
It's first year high school algebra.
The Supreme Court ruling that ended districts drawn on area alone, as our state Senate seats once were, would prohibit your plan because it makes no use of population. Any plan must incorporate population data.
Which proves you don't understand the proposal one iota. The districts would have equal populations; they could not have convoluted boundaries. That's all the formula accomplishes, Reynolds v. Sims notwithstanding.
You will also note my proposal would absolutely leave rural areas intact as it permits no leeway in deciding where one district would begin or end.
It does not. Thin slices would extend through the Bay Area, LA, and San Diego that would cut up rural areas.
Also, using current census figures, the only place in the entire sate that might have districts going the breadth of the state could be along the border with Mexico,
I doubt that mightily. There isn't that much population in across the State in the far North, or in the bands between Monterey and Santa Barbara.
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.