The Sacramento Bee and other media outlets are reporting this morning that Republicans have announced that they will support a signature drive to overturn the newly-drawn Senate Districts, prior to their taking effect.
“I think when voters see some of these crazy lines, they’re going to question what the commission was thinking,” he added.
Republicans such as Party Chair Tom Del Beccaro are particularly concerned that the Democrats could gain two Senate seats which would give the party a two-thirds supermajority that could raise taxes.
“I think the Democrats have concluded that,” Mr. Del Beccaro told reporters yesterday. “If the Democrats are crowing about it, I’m certainly concerned about it.”
The irony is thick here. First, Republicans saw this process as a way to remove the drawing of district boundaries from legislative influence. However, now they apparently want it in the hands of judges despite the fact that the citizen’s group had support from all three partisan groups – Democrat, Republicans and Independents.
Last week a Sacramento Bee editorial called this “carping” that this process is “a failed experiment at permitting citizens to redraw legislative boundaries,” and “buyer’s remorse.”
They wrote, “Republicans ought to thank the commission for a job reasonably well done, and be happy that the lines commissioners have drawn were not far worse for the once-Grand Old Party of California.”
As we have written, there seems to be a certain level of denial among Republicans about where they stand with California voters, this despite the fact that, other than the Governor Schwarzenegger regime, Republicans have been shut out of most major offices in California since 1994. And in most cases, it is not even a close call.
The Bee echoed our argument from last week, “Any losses have nothing to do with the commission and everything to do with demographics and voter registration. This is a party that has been losing market share for years. A mere 31 percent of California registered voters call themselves Republicans.”
When you are dealing with numbers like that, you cannot win.
The Bee even was able to defend, with some credibility, the shortcomings of some of the districts.
For instance, the commission gave San Joaquin County, home of Stockton, its own Senate District. But that meant that other districts became distorted, such as one that now stretches from Rancho Cordova to Death Valley along the eastern edge of the state.
However, they defended it, “But given that so much of California’s population growth over the last decade has occurred in the south and along the coast, it is inevitable that some distant rural areas will have to be married with Sacramento’s suburbs.”
Indeed, there is nothing particularly unique about it. Recall the old state Senate District that Maurice Johannesson held in the 1990s. It extended from the Oregon Border to include Yolo County and Solano County up unto Benicia. In fact, that map had three districts in northern California, each of which extended from the Oregon Border south toward the Bay Area or Sacramento.
Or, recall our current Congressional District, which extends from the Oregon Border south to Santa Rosa and then veers across to capture Napa, parts of Solano and Yolo County.
Population density practically dictates that.
The Bee called this process “far preferable to the old system in which legislative leaders and their operatives picked their voters.”
Perhaps so.
To the Republican whiners, the Bee said, “Instead of griping about the lines, Republicans should focus on recruiting candidates who appeal to that fast-growing segment of the population. While they’re at it, they should find candidates who can attract moderates’ votes.”
Probably good advice.
What did Republicans expect? A few years ago I literally watched Republicans in denial about the demographics of California, believing that the current district boundaries give Democrats the illusion of a majority in California that is disproportionate to their actual numbers.
The problem with that is that the rough breakdown in the legislature mirrors the statewide votes fairly closely. The numbers they were looking at that particular year were a little closer than that, because Governor Schwarzenegger had handily won reelection. But he was basically alone in that regard.
As of February, there were 7,569,581 registered Democrats in California and just 5,307,411 Republicans – a Democratic advantage of more than 2.25 million.
In addition to that, the Citizens Commission process requires majority support from each of the three groups – Democrats, Republicans and Independents. If anything, Democrats are underrepresentated on that group compared to their proportion in the population.
The problem that the Citizens Commission had to deal with, however, is the reality of partisan demographics in this state.
This is reality and the Republicans, for whatever reason, seem out of touch with their own electoral reality. Even in Republican strongholds, registration of Republicans dropped. In Orange County, Republicans fell from 49.4 percent in 2001 to 43 percent this year, as Democrats held steady and Independents substantially increased.
Harold Meyerson in an August 3 op-ed in the LA Times wrote, “The Republicans’ problem in California isn’t the districts. It’s that their message and candidates appeal to fewer and fewer Californians.”
According to Mr. Meyerson’s analysis, turnout will be key to what actually happens. He illustrates his point in the newly-created Ventura County congressional district. In 2008, in a high turnout election, President Obama carried that district by a 16% percent margin. In the lower turnout election of 2010, even though Jerry Brown won the state handily, Republican Meg Whitman beat Jerry Brown in those precincts by a slim 1%.
Writes Mr. Meyerson, “Indeed, while California Republicans appear almost certain to lose seats in Congress and the Legislature next year, they may prevail in some of the new swing districts if many of the Obama surge voters of 2008 – disproportionately young and minority – respond to the dysfunctional economy by staying home. California looks to be no country for Republicans, but the recession may help them win a close one here and there.”
The bottom line is, the Republicans are trying to change the rules of the game in order to change the outcome. The problem is not the rules of the game, it is the playing field. It is not a level playing field and any honest drawing of the district boundaries is likely to give the Democrats anywhere from a 60% to a 67% advantage.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
There IS something corrupt with the process. It was not “color-blind”… at the end of the day, it was oriented towards a “balance” (whatever that means) between “red” and “blue”… the trend in CA is more voters identifying themselves as ‘third-party’, non-partisan, and/or ‘decline to state’… remember the “golden rule”… those with the “gold” make the rules…
[quote]The irony is thick here. First, Republicans saw this process as a way to remove the drawing of district boundaries from legislative influence. However, now they apparently want it in the hands of judges despite the fact that the citizen’s group had support from all three partisan groups – Democrat, Republicans and Independents.[/quote]
The irony is thick here. When the Dems go after Prop 8 (the will of the people by a majority vote) calling it unfair, it is “justified”. But when Reps complain about the redistricting process as unfair, it is called “whining”.
[quote]As we have written, there seems to be a certain level of denial among Republicans about where they stand with California voters, this despite the fact that, other than the Governor Schwarzenegger regime, Republicans have been shut out of most major offices in California since 1994. And in most cases, it is not even a close call.[/quote]
Yes, CA is far to the left of most states… and out of step with most of the country.
The right-wing is reaping what it has sown in California for the last twenty years . This may well be a preview of 2012 office races nationwide ! California usually leads most of the country , so maybe the “Bible Belt” is out of step .
[i] and out of step with most of the country.[/i]
You can keep saying that, but it isn’t true.
ERM: [i]Yes, CA is far to the left of most states…[/i]
I have to agree. On a conventional map of the U.S., only Alaska and Hawaii are further to the left of California. đ
[quote]I have to agree. On a conventional map of the U.S., only Alaska and Hawaii are further to the left of California. :-)[/quote]
LOL And the more conservative part of CA (San Diego) is less “left” than the more liberal part (San Francisco)!
[quote]ERM: and out of step with most of the country.
Don Shor: You can keep saying that, but it isn’t true.[/quote]
Don, you have to get out of this state more. I wish I could reproduce the second map in wikipedia: CA sticks out like a sore thumb.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states
Absolutely out of step. Along with Hawaiâi, Oregon, Washington, and about 15 or so other states.
[i]”While they’re at it, they should find candidates who can attract moderates’ votes.”
[/i]
Yep.
It does indeed appear that the Democrats will soon have complete control of California government.
What will this lead to?
Will we follow Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York and other shining examples of successful Democrat dominated governments?
One prediction I can make is that instead of blaming the California Republicans for their continuing failures, local Democrats will start blaming the national Republicans and the “Bible Belt”.
J.R.
Democrats have run CA into the ground and it’s only going to get worse. Taxes are going to go through the roof, businesses will be further inhibited because of Democrat regulation and the giveaways will skyrocket. As David pointed out in an earlier article, when the Democrats take over super majority they had better produce or they won’t be in control for long. Well we know they won’t perform so maybe this is all good because it might finally bring CA to its senses.
Elaine said . . .
“The irony is thick here. When the Dems go after Prop 8 (the will of the people by a majority vote) calling it unfair, it is ‘justified’. But when Reps complain about the redistricting process as unfair, it is called ‘whining’.”
Reasonable point Elaine. The way I would differentiate between those two situations if I were a Judge hearing arguments on each one is that in the Prop 8 situation the key issue is one of “tyranny of the majority” and I would try and determine if the will of the people by a majority vote was a variation on [i]Loving vs. Virginia[/i]. In the redistricting situation there isn’t any form of tyranny being applied by a majority, unless you consider the [i]Voters Rights Act[/i] to fit in that category. In the end the redistricting is a zero sum game, and slicing a smaller pie into slices that are the same size as they were 10 years ago (bigger slices when you consider population growth) is simply going to yield fewer slices.
[i]”While they’re at it, they should find candidates who can attract moderates’ votes.”[/i]
For instance, if a Republican were to take a more moderate stance on immigration in California, he/she might get elected to statewide office and could be a contender for president, just like G.W. Bush, and now Rick Perry, both with moderate positions on immigration from Texas.
[quote]One prediction I can make is that instead of blaming the California Republicans for their continuing failures, local Democrats will start blaming the national Republicans and the “Bible Belt”.[/quote]
One thing is for sure – Democrats won’t blame themselves!
Somewhat tangential to the topic, but interesting story:
[quote]Surveyâs surprising finding: tea party less popular than atheists and Muslims
By Rachel Rose Hartman | The Ticket
In an op-ed article in the New York Times, Robert D. Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, and David E. Campbell, a political scientist at Notre Dame, say they have collected data indicating that the tea party is “less popular than much maligned groups like ‘atheists’ and ‘Muslims.'”
But Campbell says the tea party was really an afterthought in their research.
“We didn’t go into this study to look at the tea party,” Campbell said in an interview with The Ticket.
….
Early tea partiers were described as “nonpartisan political neophytes,” Campbell and Putnam write, but their findings showed that tea partiers were “highly partisan Republicans” who were more likely than others to have contacted government officials.
“They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do,” they went on.
In addition to being socially conservative, the study found a close tie between religion and the tea party, whose supporters seek out “deeply religious” elected officials.
“This helps to explain why candidates like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry are just as much about the public presentation of themselves as religious people as fiscal conservatives,” Campbell told The Ticket.
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/survey-surprising-finding-tea-party-less-popular-atheists-160220531.html[/url]
[/quote]
To wdf1: Consider the source…
To ERM: Harvard? Notre Dame? What is your concern about those sources?
ERM
Consider the source ? Yes , and also consider the merits of an idea independent of source. To reject an idea solely based on it’s source is just as ideologically bound as accepting an idea without duly considering it just because it comes from a trusted source.
[quote]To ERM: Harvard? Notre Dame? What is your concern about those sources?[/quote]
NYT is not known to be a bastion of honesty. Article was based on op-ed piece in NYT…
ERM: [i]NYT is not known to be a bastion of honesty. Article was based on op-ed piece in NYT…[/i]
To use a favorite theme of yours, there is plenty of blame to go around on this kind of issue. In this case, however, you probably need to seek to specifically discredit the original authors rather than the original venue (NYT). Putnam & Campbell published a book last year on a topic related to this issue:
[url]http://www.amazon.com/American-Grace-Religion-Divides-Unites/dp/1416566716/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313686252&sr=8-1[/url]
A conclusion of the book is that younger voters are generally turned off by the trend of connecting conservative politics to religion. Certainly time will tell if this has merit, especially in the current election, in which many Republican candidates are falling over themselves to establish their religious credentials. But it’s an observation that should be of interest to many.
For me the source is the Harvard/Notre Dame study. The NYT is only the channel through which you/I became aware of the study (unless you already knew about it through other means.
[quote]To use a favorite theme of yours, there is plenty of blame to go around on this kind of issue.[/quote]
Absolutely!
To Matt Williams: I don’t trust Harvard either! Just google “Harvard – faulty research”, and a whole host of articles about lousy research at Harvard comes up. Call me a cynic! đ Don’t know about Notre Dame…
[i]”I don’t trust Harvard either.”
[/i]
Wow. That’s a rather broad brush to paint a school with thousands of faculty. That’s like saying “I don’t trust UC Davis.”
[i]”Don’t know about Notre Dame.”
[/i]
Yeah.
Just curious. Who do you trust?
Notre Dame just hired my friend. Our loss.
ERM: [i] I don’t trust Harvard either!…. Call me a cynic! :-)[/i]
And don’t trust your neighbor, your relatives, maybe even your own family members, yourself, etc…
This is seriously overboard. We’re all human, and we’re all fallible. I understand that some Harvard faculty have also done excellent work. I have also read some good material from the New York Times. Elaine, I think you’ve made some questionable comments in your history on this blog. Should that discredit every single contribution you’ve made? (Yes, I confess to not being perfect, either)
Rather than take some sort of broad ad hominem attack on the source of the argument because you’re not comfortable with who they happen to be for whatever reason, you can present a critical response to the logic, context, or methodology.