Posted on 01/04/2006 5:31:16 PM PST by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO (AP) - Two months after voters rejected Proposition 77, supporters of the redistricting measure announced a new initiative campaign Wednesday to take the power to draw legislative and congressional districts away from lawmakers.
"I think there is broad agreement across the political spectrum that our current political system is broken, and that one of the reasons it is broken is that we have politicians drawing their own political boundaries," said Derek Cressman, director of TheRestofUs.org, a political watchdog group.
"Democrats, Republicans, independents - everyone agrees that is an inherently corrupt process and it must be changed."
The new initiative would create an 11-member commission made up of registered voters picked at random by the secretary of state to draw new districts after each national census.
The panel would be composed of four Democrats, four Republicans and three independents or members of minor parties. It could not include anyone who had run for public office, been a political appointee or aide, worked for a political party or been a lobbyist in the previous 10 years.
Proposition 77 would have turned redistricting duties over to a panel of three retired judges and required them to try to draw new districts in time for the 2006 elections instead of waiting for the next census in 2010.
It was scorned by most Democrats as an attempt by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to elect more Republicans to the Legislature and Congress. Voters rejected it during the Nov. 8 special election 59.8 percent to 40.2 percent.
It was the fourth time since 1982 that California voters had refused to take redistricting duties away from the Legislature.
But supporters of the new initiative said their version was drafted to respond to the criticism of Proposition 77 and could pass if it reached the ballot.
"When you look at polls and talk to people on the street, they think the idea of an independent citizens redistricting commission is a good idea," Cressman said.
The initiative's supporters submitted the measure to the attorney general's office Wednesday to draft a title and summary of the proposal. The step is required before it can be circulated to collect the more than 598,000 voter signatures needed to put it on the November ballot.
Ted Costa, the political activist who was the lead author of Proposition 77, said the proposal also would be introduced as a constitutional amendment in the Legislature to give lawmakers a chance to enact it and avoid an initiative fight.
"We're never going to give up on this issue until we see meaningful political reform in the state of California," he said at a press conference across the street from the Capitol.
Democratic lawmakers said they were working on their own plan, which could end up in a constitutional amendment by Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach.
Lowenthal's proposal, modeled after the system used in Arizona, would create a five-member redistricting commission picked from a pool of registered voters nominated by retired judges.
"If we want to re-establish trust in the Legislature, let's give up this control" over how districts are drawn, he said.
The panel would be composed of four Democrats, four Republicans and three independents or members of minor parties. It could not include anyone who had run for public office, been a political appointee or aide, worked for a political party or been a lobbyist in the previous 10 years.
They can't be serious? They're proposing to just draw names at random off the registered voter rolls? This'll never pass, but if it did California redistricting would certainly become more entertaining!
Ping...
I hope the 11 aren't the same nitwits I was on jury duty with ...
For an interesting analysis, go to "stealingourvotes.com"
Each county shall be accorded a number of representatives proportional to their populations.
All representatives shall be elected county wide, based on the plurality of the vote.
Open primaries shall be implemented to qualify candidates for the general election with each registered party guaranteed at least one candidate in the general election.
Adjoining counties may, by mutual agreement, combine their excessive populations, to allow one, additional, representative for the combined counties.
Each county shall be guaranteed one Assemblyman and one Senator.
There shall be no more than 80 Assemblymen and 40 Senators.
This whole pile of crappola revolves around the dubious decision of the Warren Court about the time I finally showed up in CA in 1964, I believe.
The balancing thing that is missing is that both houses shouldn't be subject to proportional representation! The Assembly is fine that way as that's the way it was! The Senate should be the house that gives representational strength to geography, the other element of demography!
The one man one vote concept is wonderful for the Assembly and the re-districting should also be restored back to the way it was when there was nothing wrong with it before the dummies began fiddling with this stuff. This selecting a randumb bunch of crack-pots to do the map is NEVER gonna be respected, either. The Senate should be One County One Vote. The County populace could vote on a State Senator, rather than have the Board of Supervisors select someone like before.
The case needs to be taken back to the SCOTUS as the new Judicial nominee likes this idea of mine!!!
Which is how it is on a national level. Each state gets two regardless of size.
I really like this idea.
I could be convinced that each county should have only one Senator. My proposal has only 7 extra Senators potentially, partially representing about 1/3 of the largest counties. Not a bad imbalance considering the present alternative
I prefer the concept that representation in the assembly should be county wide, by plurality, by proportional population to defuse gerrymandered, minority representation which is leading to the present abuses.
The proportional representation should, arguably, meet the spirit of the Voting Rights Act in a conservative SCOTUS. If Los Angeles County can't elect a racial and cultural minority representative out of the 24 Assembly seats they would be accorded, something is wrong with their minority electorates.
Most supervisorial candidates are so parochial that introduction of partisan consideration would make for a circus. I'd prefer a good old boy to a slick lawyer if the road in front of my residence needs to be repaved. The good old boy would only demand deference and give me a straight answer on the spot. The lawyer would first need a campaign contribution and then talk out of both sides of his mouth. I'd leave more confused than when I entered.
Leave the partisan considerations to the electorate at the state level. God knows that introduction of political parties could REALLY screw up local politics. Local, partisan central committees introducing one more layer between the citizens and their representatives. Partisan primaries for supervisorial candidates. The list goes on.
They aren't already?
Most supervisorial candidates are so parochial that introduction of partisan consideration would make for a circus.
It isn't already?
The good old boy would only demand deference and give me a straight answer on the spot.
The good ol' boys in this county are as partisan as it gets and in it up to their eyeballs.
I think you're in some other state on this one.
Interesting. Your creation?
Minor conflict: there are 58 counties, so with 40 Senators, each county could not have their own.
Unfortunately the US Supremes threw that concept out quite a while back. "Equal representation" in the US Constitution has been interpreted to mean that all statehouses must be drawn proportionally. The US Senate is exempted because its makeup is specifically defined in the Constitution.
You obviously didn't read the bottom line in #8 before replying, sir. Please read that last line if you don't mind and then tell me what you think. Thanks.
I agree with the idea and I too have floated it before.
It's not only been helping foul up this re-districting issue, it's been helping to cripple rural property rights and has absolutely furthered the constant "rural cleansing" because rural interests which are more often geographical have been getting swamped with the mobs of metro-sexual's overly represented interests, i.e. GovernMental EnvironMentalism!!!
Minor flaw in an otherwise perfect plan.
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.