In Depth on Measure Eliminates Citizens Redistricting Commission
Pros & Cons - In Depth
BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSITION
In the past, district boundaries for members of the state Legislature, Board of Equalization (BOE) and U.S. House of Representatives were determined in bills approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. There were several occasions in recent times when the Legislature and the Governor were unable to agree on redistricting plans, and the California Supreme Court performed the redistricting instead, using special masters.
In November 2008, voters passed Proposition 11, which transferred to a newly-created Citizens Redistricting Commission the responsibility for redistricting for the State Legislature and BOE beginning with the redistricting conducted after the 2010 census. Established anew every ten years, the Commission consists of 14 registered voters—five Democrats, five Republicans, and four others—chosen according to specific rules from among those who apply for a position on the Commission.
When the Commission adjusts district boundaries, it must meet various requirements under federal and state law, such as creating reasonably equal districts and not favoring or discriminating against political parties, incumbents, or candidates. In addition, the Commission is required, to the extent possible, to adopt district boundaries that:
- Maintain the geographic integrity of any city, county, neighborhood, and “community of interest” in a single district. (The Commission is responsible for defining “communities of interest” for its redistricting activities.)
- Are geographically compact.
- Place two Assembly districts together within one Senate district and ten Senate districts within one BOE district (“nesting”).
Proposition 11 did not change responsibility for the redistricting process for congressional seats. Therefore, redistricting plans for these offices are still included in bills that are approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. The proposition did, however, make changes to the requirements that the Legislature must meet in adjusting congressional districts. The Legislature—like the Commission—now must attempt to adopt geographically compact districts and maintain geographic integrity of localities, neighborhoods, and communities of interest, as defined by the Legislature. Proposition 11, however, does not prohibit the Legislature from favoring or discriminating against political parties, incumbents, or candidates in its congressional redistricting.
Certain of the drafters and proponents of Proposition 11 would, of course, have preferred to also place the congressional redistricting within the responsibility of the Commission. However, from a practical point of view, there was a strong argument that for the Commission’s very first redistricting implementation, it would be better not to give it too great of a work load. Additionally, there was extremely strong opposition to inclusion of the congressional offices from California’s Democratic congressional delegation and the Democratic congressional leadership. In order to avoid a well-financed opposition to Proposition 11, a compromise was reached to leave the congressional redistricting out of the Commission’s purview, but to require the state Legislature to follow certain criteria when they adjust these districts.
CONFLICT WITH PROPOSITION 20
See also Proposition 20 on this ballot, which would add Congressional redistricting to the Citizens Redistricting Commission in its entirety, as well as making certain other changes to the operations of the Commission. If both propositions are approved by the voters, the one with fewer votes would be eliminated.
- Prop 27 will bring redistricting back to representatives elected by the people and who are thus accountable to the people.
- It will save the taxpayers millions of dollars by limiting the costs of redistricting.
- We should not spend money drawing lines for politicians while the state is in crisis.
- Prop 27 is not about saving money or empowering voters—it’s about politicians wanting to keep their power.
- Prop 27 would gut the significant reform passed by the voters in 2008.
- Prop 27 will return us to the days of backroom deals that protect politicians and hurt the voters.
Yes on 27 • www.yesprop27.org
Proposition 27 is supported by, among others, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives; Haim Saban; Congressman Howard Berman; Congresswomen Judy Chu; former Speaker of the Assembly Karen Bass; and Edith Wasserman. It is also supported by the Democratic State Central Committee; Zenith Insurance Company; the California State Association of Electrical Workers; the California State Pipe Trades Council; and the IBEW Educational Committee.
The Argument In Favor is signed by Daniel H. Lowenstein, Founding Chairman, California Fair Political Practices Commission; and Hank Lacayo, President, Congress of California Seniors. The Rebuttal to the Argument Against is signed by Mark Murray, Executive Director, Californians Against Waste; and Daniel H. Lowenstein, Founding Chairman, California Fair Political Practices Commission.
Major Financial Contributors: (from www.cal-access.sos.ca.gov as of 9-3-2010) Haim Saban - $2,000,000 (loan); Judy Chu Campaign Committee 2010 - $510,000; Working for Working Americans - $500,000; the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, - $250,000; Democratic State Central Committee of California - $250,000; Peter Angelos - $100,000; Charles Calderon - $100,000; Mike Eng - $100,000; Louise Gund - $100,000; George Soros - $100,000; Edith Wasserman - $100,000; Zenith Insurance Company - $100,000.
Yes on 20, No on 27—Hold Politicians Accountable • www.noprop27.org
Proposition 27 is opposed by, among others, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger; Lee Baca, Los Angeles County Sheriff; Bonnie Dumanis, San Diego County District Attorney; and Charles T. Munger, Jr. It is also opposed by the League of Women Voters of California; AARP; the National Federation of Independent Business/California; California NAACP; California Chamber of Commerce; California Common Cause; Bay Area Council; California Police Chiefs Association; the Asian Pacific American Public Affairs Association; and the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
The Argument Against is signed by Janis R. Hirohama, President, League of Women Voters of California; David Pacheco, California President, AARP; and Gary Toebben, President, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. The Rebuttal to the Argument in Favor is signed by Kathay Feng, Executive Director, California Common Cause; Ruben Guerra, President, Latin Business Association; and Joel Fox, President, Small Business Action Committee.
Major Financial Contributors (to the combined Yes on Prop 20, No on Prop 27 campaign): (from www.cal-access.sos.ca.gov as of 9-3-2010) Charles T. Munger, Jr. - $3,698,544; Charlotte A. Lowell - $508,434; San Tomo, Inc. - $25,000; Small Business Action Committee - $20,000.
Official Material and Overviews:
- Official Voter Information Guide • voterguide.sos.ca.gov
- Cal-Access Campaign Finance: Prop 27 • cal-access.sos.ca.gov
- Ballotpedia: 2010 Proposition 27 • ballotpedia.com
Policy Reports and Analysis:
- Rose Report, "Misleading California’s Voters: The Financial Accountability In Redistricting Act", March 24, 2010. http://rosereport.org/20100324/misleading-california%E2%80%99s-voters-th...

Print or Create PDF
RSS Feeds
Mobile or Single Column




ShareThis