AP: California leaders to seek redistricting change despite 77 defeat

[question everything]

Wednesday, November 9, 2005

California leaders to seek redistricting change despite 77 defeat

By: STEVE LAWRENCE - Associated Press

LOS ANGELES -- Despite voters' rejection of Proposition 77, the Legislature's top leaders are promising to try to get a new plan on the ballot as early as next June that would strip lawmakers of the powerful job of drawing legislative and congressional districts.

"I'm more than open to a redistricting effort which takes the power to draw boundaries from the Legislature and gives it to a truly independent group," Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, said Wednesday.

(snip)

Proposition 77, one of four initiatives on Tuesday's special election ballot that Schwarzenegger campaigned for, lost by more than 1.2 million votes. It would have turned redistricting duties over to a panel of retired judges and required them to try to draw new districts in time for next June's primary, a timetable election officials said would be almost impossible to meet.

(snip)

In its current form, it would create a seven-member commission to draw new districts after each census, starting in 2010. The governor, the Legislature's top four leaders, the California Judicial Council and University of California president would each appoint one commission member.

(snip)

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/11/10/news/state/12_40_1611_9_05.txt

-- Associated Press Writer Don Thompson in Sacramento contributed to this story.

[Rowdyboy]

1. Huh?

Sometimes the inticacies of legislative policymaking completely escape me. What the hell is Nunez supporting but the same thing he just finished campaigning against?

[liberalpragmatist]

2. Well, there was plenty of support for redistricting reform

But the ballot initiative was quite flawed in that it gave the power to 3 appointed judges and was designed to take effect immediately. Personally, I don't think it was as flawed as some of the Democratic critiques painted it, but it still wasn't a great proposal.

I'm all for this, btw. We NEED redistricting reform. If the Republicans aren't going to do it, Democrats need to.

[JWS]

4. 3, 7, same friggin difference. An independent group's an independent group

a friggin baby would do a better job than the legislature right here... it's a joke!

I guess in all technicalities though, 7 memebrs appointed by each of those guys would be more practical than the 77 initiative. Hope we actually get a redistricting initiative passed next time!

[Warren DeMontague]

6. Maybe when it isn't such a thinly veiled GOP power grab.. and maybe

when we have big REPUBLICAN states, like Texas, do it on the exact same terms.

Not one minute sooner, as far as I'm concerned.

[LynneSin]

8. EXACTLY!!!

We want redistricting reform across the country because I think in the long run it would give the power of the house back to the democrats even if regions are drawn in a fair manner.

And I believe that the California Democrats want the redistricting but if it's done through Arnold's plan then it would have somehow came out in favor of the republicans.

But if the plan can be done in a fair, non-partisan manner, maybe we can minimalize the number of seats lost AND California can lead the way to redistricting reform across the country.

If we redistricted in a fair, non-partisan manner we would easily pick up seats in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Texas.

[JWS]

10. The thing is, 77 was nonpartisan, but it it didn't get bipartisan support

I'm glad the Dems aren't hesitating for a moment to come out wiht a new one. I could understand that 77 had it's flaws, and they're bringing out a new one shortly after the election itotally makes up for their not supporting the original. That one, I guarantee, will hhave support from arnold and will probably pass following the bipartisan support it will receive.

[LynneSin]

13. The whole country needs this legislation

The only way we'll ever get rid of these extremist neo-conservative members in the house is to create congressional districts that are competitive.

Think about it, if you were a god-fearing, 'woman's place is in the home' neo-conservative republican representative in one of the 90% districts that have no competative elections then you can vote as nutty as you'd like. Who cares if 40% of the people are totally pissed off at you because 40% doesn't get you booted from your seat.

Plus minorities are horribly represented in congress because many of their congressional districts are gerrymandered into white suburban neighborhoods.

If California is redistricted fairly we would probably lose a few seats in the process. But if California started a nationwide trend where all states followed suit and changed their redistricting practices then in the long run democrats would pick up seats and congressional races would be a challenge.

[JWS]

15. Actually

I believe we're in the minority of states that don't have an independent committee drawing lines. Of course, it doesn't stop there if we want fair elections. We'd probably need a PR system put in place -like that of Germany's coalition party system. Our political stability would be ten times that of germany's because the executive would be independent of the legislature(as it is in our country), and we'd have descriptive and proportional representation through the districts with more than one rep in each. A bigger house -might cost more for staff and such, but something like that would gratly increase voter particpation and idealogical representations would be far more represented than it is today.

We still have so far to go until our elections really represent us, but redistricting really is a start...

[Warren DeMontague]

19. We do it nationally or we don't do it at all.

I fail to believe that it's a *crisis* situation when you have lines being drawn by the legislature in the most powerful DEMOCRAT-Controlled State in the Union, yet no one seems to blow a gasket, again, that it's done that way in Texas as well. It may be the right thing to do, but then it's the right thing to do for everyone- and in THIS case, I'm sure it was being pushed by Arnold & Co. because it offered the opportunity to put Republicans in charge of drawing lines. I still say it was a poorly planned power grab.

Of course, I like my representation in Sacramento and DC- maybe you feel differently.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Lets let Texas start the trend. nt

[liberalpragmatist]

3. Why a ballot initiative?

It's more likely to die there. Why can't the legislature just pass it?

[question everything]

5. That's a great question

that I asked when I first moved to California. Why have an expensive legislative body, that is supposed to be a great debating body, where laws and rules can researched and debated and compromised - if laws are being enacted by ballot measures, based on yesterday's headlines?

When I lived in California, I voted NO on most of the initiatives based on this thinking. Look even at Prop. 13 - how many initiatives were approved since then, to tweak it?

Had I still be living there, I would have voted YES on 77. Some of the districts really look like amoeba.

I don't see why any district should not be square-shaped, except when bordering by an ocean, a mountain range or a river.

[flpoljunkie]

7. The salient words are "a truly independent group." Arnold's was not.

I think Arnie wanted a handpicked panel of three judges--by him, I would imagine. This is a setup only a Rethug would love.

[jackbourassa]

9. How about a Citizens Council?

Instead of having "independant" appointees making these decisions, why not have a council of citizens - chosen independantly of Sacremento make these decisions.

These people can be elected directly by the people or be chosen like a jury system - representative of the population as a whole.

This proposal, offered by Nunez, seems no different than Arnold's proposal.

[flpoljunkie]

12. Dem proposal different from Arnold's 3 retired judges panel he'd pick

Democratic proposal:

In its current form, it would create a seven-member commission to draw new districts after each census, starting in 2010. The governor, the Legislature's top four leaders, the California Judicial Council and University of California president would each appoint one commission member.

[cally]

16. Right now, this would mean at least 4 Dems on the

commission. This is not a great idea.

The problem with the Prop. 77 proposal is that it had some language which protected rural districts. The Repubs would have picked up seats. I think Dems would pick up seats in a fairer redistricting. California's current districts were designed to protect incumbents. I want a better system so we can have more competitive seats.

[seabeyond]

11. i understand redestricting for calif is a good idea, as long

as it is independent. the independent i do not trust. i understand there is a problem though. i just live in texas and the redistricting was anything but fair. even the repugs hang their head in shame and cant meet my eyes when i talk what the repugs in texas did

[ReadTomPaine]

14. I wouldn't touch this until AS and Bush are long gone.

California is too ripe a plum for the GOP, this has to be done when the slate is a deep, clear blue.

[Ignacio Upton]

17. Don't do it until Texas and Florida do it

We should not put ourselves at an unfair disadvantage. I am in favor of non-partisan redistricting, but it should be done simoultaneously in all of the larges electoral state, blue and red alike.

[AtomicKitten]

18. Republicans don't believe in democracy.

They believe in imposing their will on the people in any way they can, even using their own activist judges.