SubscribeCalifornia's Proposition 77
In 1978 California had one of the most influential ballot initiatives: Proposition 13, which rolled back property taxes and sparked the use of ballot initiatives across the country. Since then California hasn't looked back. Each election the voters give an up or down to pretty substantial laws. 2005 is no exception. The widely unpopular Governor Schwarzenegger, in an attempt to bypass the state legislature, has called a special election in an attempt to push his legislative agenda into law.
One of these initiatives is Proposition 77, which is an attempt to take redistricting legislative districts out of the hands of the state legislature and put it in the hands of a three person panel of retired judges.
That's right, the ugly process of reapportioning candidates' legislative districts would go to a supposedly non-partisan panel of judges. On the surface, this seems like a good thing. Redistricting after each census is by and far one of the most important legislative battles to legislators and the political parties. Everybody has a huge stake in the process and fights tooth and nail to get a favorable outcome. It makes sense to take the process away from the very people that have such vested interests and give it to another body not so entrenched in its outcome. Despite the fact that Democrats control the entire California and most statewide elected offices, I would be very receptive to a non-partisan panel reapportioning seats because it's really the most fair and just thing to do.
Democrats are of course scared that it will be a Republican power grab to gain clout in the state legislature and congressional delegation. If Arizona, which went to a similar system in recent years, is any test case, their districts only became marginally more competitive, according to the Arizona Republic. They say it's because the non-partisan committee needed to keep communities together as districts and therefore not much changes came. So -- not much is lost and the process is far less shady. After reading this assessment of Arizona I was about to vote for the proposition.
Then I read the actual law.
The process by which the panel of three judges is selected is insane. I'd like to explain how this process is done, because I feel it will really change some minds about this proposition.
The process starts with the California Judicial Council, whose duty is to administer California's justice system. The body of the Judicial Council is inherently a political body in itself since it's made up mostly of political appointments, appointments from political appointees, and two office holders. These 27 people come up with a list of 24 retired judges to possibly serve as the judges that do the redistricting.
The list of judges is to be made up of equal numbers of judges from the two major political parties, not to exceed 12 each. Theoretically there could be some Independents in there. From this list the Senate pro Tempore, Speaker of the Assembly, Senate Minority Leader, and Assembly Minority Leaders would each pick three of the judges from the opposite party that they can stomach. The 12 judges from the list are then given to the Chief Clerk of the Assembly who will draw the names randomly until there is at least one member from each of the major political parties on the three-judge panel.
This obviously leaves the control to either the Republicans or the Democrats. It's just a complete toss-up each ten years. In the end, nothing is achieved because one political party will most likely still control the process of redistricting California's districts.
What is worse is that the legislation calls for redistricting next year instead of at the next census in 2010. There is no reason for this other than a motivation on the part of Republicans to attempt to gain some footing in the Legislature. As if we didn't see this happen in recent history in Texas. If this were a good-faith initiative on the part of Republicans, they'd be happy with enacting legislation and waiting for the next census. Sell power grab attempts somewhere else.
The last, and admittedly extraneous thing that I'd like to point out about this system is that the judges on the redistricting panel are called "Special Masters". I'm really one for keeping Orwellian language out of legislation and this is about as Orwellian as it gets. They might as well call the redistricting committee the Ministry of Elections and refer to it as "Minilec".
It's for these reasons that I voted NO on Proposition 77.
A Better Redistricting Plan
Rather than rant without offering a better solution as I usually do, I offer this plan for a redistricting commission.
A better way of creating a more open and equitable redistricting system would be to create a redistricting commission in the same way that the Federal Elections Commission is structured. On the FEC there are three Democrats and three Republicans. When commissioners vote on measures, a tie is considered failing. It therefore forces cooperation between the two parties. If California, or any state, is to create an equitable redistricting system, this is the method that would work best. The Federal Election Commission takes into account the realization that there are vested interests on both sides and forces compromise between the two sides. But what do I know? I'm just an elementary school teacher.
