Posted on 07/14/2011 2:22:00 PM PDT by americanophile
The ideal of a citizens’ commission is good. We should not have politicians picking their voters. Voters should pick their politicians and perhaps the districts lines in which they run. But ideals often prove impractical. In the case of the Citizens Redistricting Commission, impractical would be an upgrade.
When I testified in front of the Commission in March of this year, I warned them of the voters’ cynicism – the sense of many that their vote doesn't count because district lines are rigged and the system, i.e. gerrymandering, is unfair. I asked them not to hire a line-drawing firm that did not have the experience required and noted that what experience it had was too partisan.
After the Commission discarded my advice and that of many others, I publicly decried the Commission’s process for hiring Q2 in an article entitled Caesar’s Wife and the Redistricting Commissions. From the original no bid contract attempt to hire them, to the dumbing down of the Commission’s so-called qualification standards, to disqualifying their competition, The Rose Institute, on bogus grounds, to not disqualifying Q2 – the Commission’s hiring of Q2 was beyond suspect.
Many, like me, believed that Q2’s limited experience drawing lines (just 19 districts drawn, covering 2 separate jurisdictions) meant that they were not up to the job. But how bad could it be? They only had to draw 177 districts in the largest state in the Union amongst the stare of partisanship and the glare of the Internet/Cable Age? How bad? Worse than I could possibly imagine.
(Excerpt) Read more at flashreport.org ...
Americans should make a strategic retreat from the state. It is gone past hope.
They failed to see the writing on the wall.
LOL!
I would be interested to hear his other examples, which he claims are worse as well as his alternatives.
Right now the new plan ios a big improvment over the old lines.
I would be interested to hear his other examples, which he claims are worse as well as his alternatives.
Right now the new plan is a big improvment over the old lines.
Draw horizontal lines from the Eastern edge to the Western edge all the way from North to South each containing equal populations.
No fuss, no politics, no worry.
As a resident of one of the (formerly Republican) Ventura County districts, I strongly disagree. It looks like a new kind of Democrat gerrymandering to me.
http://foxandhoundsdaily.com/blog/tony-quinn/9196-congratulations-speaker-perez-%E2%80%93-but-watch-out-for-that-referendum
No reconfigured system will be perfect, and I agree that trading Simi Valley for Malibu would make sense. But before we shoot this proposed reconfiguration, and it is just that, proposed, not final, consider these Congressional districts on the old map:
North - 7, 10, 11, 18
South - 23, 24, 27, 46
I am not real happy with my district (previous 7), but it is better than it was.
For those unhappy I would like to see the lines that cause issues.
I hate gerrymandering, regardless of which party does it.
I think the rule should be that existing county/city lines MUST be used, except when it’s necessary to subdivide a city. Those subdivisions must be entirely within the city limits and must follow major roads. You should be able to accurately describe the boundaries in one sentence.
It would look something like this: District 1 is County X plus the City of Y north of Road A. District 2 is the city of Y south of Road A. District 3 is Counties D, E, and F.
AND, it should require a 2/3 majority to change it.
(b) The population of all congressional districts of a particular type shall be reasonably equal. After following this criterion, the Legislature shall adjust the boundary lines according to the criteria set forth and prioritized in paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) of subdivision (d) of Section 2. The Legislature shall issue, with its final map, a report that explains the basis on which it made its decisions in achieving compliance with these criteria and shall include definitions of the terms and standards used in drawing its final map.
...
(d) The commission shall establish single-member districts for the Senate, Assembly, and State Board of Equalization pursuant to a mapping process using the following criteria as set forth in the following order of priority:
(1) Districts shall comply with the United States Constitution. Senate, Assembly, and State Board of Equalization districts shall have reasonably equal population with other districts for the same office, except where deviation is required to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act or allowable by law.
(2) Districts shall comply with the federal Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C.Sec. 1971 and following).
(3) Districts shall be geographically contiguous.
(4) The geographic integrity of any city, county, city and county, neighborhood, or community of interest shall be respected to the extent possible without violating the requirements of any of the preceding subdivisions. Communities of interest shall not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.
(5) To the extent practicable, and where this does not conflict with the criteria above, districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness such that nearby areas of population are not bypassed for more distant population.
(6) To the extent practicable, and where this does not conflict with the criteria above, each Senate district shall be comprised of two whole, complete, and adjacent Assembly districts, and each Board of Equalization district shall be comprised of 10 whole, complete, and adjacent Senate districts.
(e) The place of residence of any incumbent or political candidate shall not be considered in the creation of a map. Districts shall not be drawn for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against an incumbent, political candidate, or political party.
...
(3) The Supreme Court shall give priority to ruling on a petition for a writ of mandate or a writ of prohibition filed pursuant to paragraph (2). If the court determines that a final certified map violates this Constitution, the United States Constitution, or any federal or state statute, the court shall fashion the relief that it deems appropriate.
So, if Del Baccaro submits a map that breaks fewer city and county lines than the one the commission approves, he should easily win in court, no? Too bad they define "community of interest" by what it isn't rather than what it is. I'm guessing "neighborhood" is similarly fuzzy.
I shouldn't be surprised the Left found a way to game the citizen's redistricting commissions at every level.
The preliminary maps have been posted for several weeks: we draw the lines.
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.