The weekend, the “Citizens Redistricting Commission” announced they decided to skip the publication of a second draft of redistricting maps.
One Commissioner, Cynthia Dai, told the media, “We were running up against the clock. There’s a certain amount of time it takes to produce a map.”
As columnist Dan Walters argues, that decision looks like “Take the process behind semi-closed doors as it nears a deadline for final maps.”
The first round of maps drew sharp criticism from a variety of special interest groups, who charged that it sidestepped federal Voting Rights Act requirements and “did not increase the number of Latino-majority districts even though that ethnic group represents the bulk of population growth.”
It also drew fire in places like Yolo County, that complained that its political power was being stripped as it was divided into separate districts.
The Republican “adviser,” read lobbyist, Tony Quinn charged, “The process is not transparent at all right now. The public can’t provide input if it doesn’t see the maps.”
The truth is that the reality is setting in for Republicans on this issue. They are in the minority in the State of California. They have not controlled the legislature since 1995-1996, and even then it was by a perilous vote in the Assembly and not in the Senate.
They have won just one major statewide office in the last 15 years and that was Arnold Schwarzenegger, who few Republicans would seem to want to claim.
In the 1990s, the Republicans thought term limits was the answer to break up the Democratic control of at least the legislative branch in Sacramento. But all that managed to do is put inexperienced legislators in Sacramento and rotate them into constitutional offices.
So, flash forward to the redistricting commission the Republicans, along with some reform-minded good government types, put forward as a means to increase competitiveness in elections, despite looking at the map of California that showed pretty distinct political boundaries with liberal urban areas, and conservative rural areas along with the valley.
Writes Dan Walters, “The potential Achilles’ heel of this commission has always been the ability of amateurs to master the legal, demographic and ultimately political dissonances of such a huge, complex state and produce maps that are not only legal and fair but meet the smell test.”
That is precisely the problem here and why this endeavor was always a fool’s errand that mucked up the process without really solving the problems of the state.
Writes Mr. Walters, “If it fails, it probably would fall to the state Supreme Court to pick up the pieces and do the job itself, which it has done twice in the last four decades. That wouldn’t be a bad outcome, since the court did so after the 1970 and 1990 censuses with dispatch and demonstrable fairness.”
I completely agree. At least the court would keep key constituencies together, as they have in the past.
There are, in fact, two key motivations driving these reforms. First, the good government people. Second, the Republicans.
The Republicans believe that somehow the legislative partisan breakdown is not created by the fact that they have moved so far to the right that they have left the typical California voter behind. That poll after poll shows not a small gap but a chasm between where the Republican party is and the typical California voter.
The good government types are a worse problem because they mean well. But, unfortunately, they are attacking the wrong problem.
So, issues like blanket primaries, term limits and redistricting do not get at the fundamental problem in Sacramento, which is that the government was created in such a way that it was impossible to function.
Given the map of California shows areas where there are lots of Republicans (rural and in parts of the valley) and areas where there are lots of Democrats (urban), it is not difficult to figure out that you will produce extremes. That leads to the polarization of the parties.
No longer is it in anyone’s interest to compromise. Compromise shows weakness to the base and doesn’t win the next election. You win elections now by showing that the party in power is competent. You do that by throwing up roadblocks.
California offers the ultimate award for that behavior because it makes it impossible to pass budgets that do anything but cut government spending – which is great if you are a small government Republican type, but for the other 60 to even 70 percent of the population that prefers less cuts to education and a more balanced mix, you are SOL.
Redistricting was never going to fix that dynamic. All it does it take the process out of the hands of experienced hands and into the hands of inexperienced ones. Worse yet, most of the people are not actually free agents, but appointed by the powers that be in both parties.
The result is what Tony Quinn called on Monday, a “commission..’beset by rebellious consultants and manipulated by partisans’ and its instructions to its staff were resulting in increasingly bizarre districts that reflected the partisan agendas of individual commission members.”
This process is a disaster and will continue to be a disaster. Maybe the courts can get rid of it through some sort of ruling on incompetence and perhaps we should simply agree to have the courts decide it, as they can’t do any worse than the citizens on this body.
I don’t want to put them down, but we have some sort of notion that anyone can do this stuff. I don’t want a citizen doctor, I want a trained medical professional. We need to understand that a lot of things that happen in government are in fact complicated, and should not be left to those who are trying to do what they have never been trained to do.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
DMG: [i]I don’t want to put them down[/i]
Too late.
No, they were simply put in an impossible position and asked to do what they were not trained to do. These things sound far simpler than they truly are.
[quote]The truth is that the reality is setting in for Republicans on this issue. [/quote]
I’m not sure it is fair to blame Republicans on this one as much as the Governator, who was clueless…
Regardless of who’s bright idea it was for this supposedly nonpartisan redistricting commission, the commission has botched the job royally…
Wasn’t Stan Forbes on this commission? Did he raise a stink about the division of Yolo County the way it was hacked up and redistributed? Does anyone know?
Elaine:
It’s not a matter of “blame” – Republicans backed it, Democrats opposed it.
Stan Forbes defended the commission but never got back to me to explain why.
To dmg: Thanks for getting back to me wrt Forbes. I would be interested to know if he stood up for Yolo County or not…
Just for clarification, did all Republicans back the new “nonpartisan” redistricting commission? I never, ever liked the idea of the redistricting commission – it seemed to me nothing more than another layer of complication that would not fix any problems. It turned out worse than I thought – by creating more problems than it solved!
Stan Forbes was probably the one holding the knife as they cut up Yolo County. As I predicted he would be a disaster for us.
The Republicans won LT. Gov and Insurance Commissioner in the last 15 years.
“So, issues like blanket primaries, term limits and redistricting do not get at the fundamental problem in Sacramento, which is that the government was created in such a way that it was impossible to function.”
Let’s be specific, the only problem in Sacramento is the 2/3 rule for passing taxes. As we saw with the budget getting rid of the 2/3 rule for budgets ended the budget impasses of the past. Getting rid of the 2/3 rule for taxes would get rid of the for the structural deficit.
I live in an area that has been reconfigured in various ways over the years. At one time I shared a state senator with Eureka. Right now my congressman is Garamendi, and my neighbors across the street (literally) are represented by Lundgren. There is no perfect way to draw these districts that makes everyone happy. I don’t see, overall, how these districts are worse than what has been done before by professionals working for the legislature. I do think this process is more open and less likely to be corrupted. Just look at what was done in 2000 if you want examples of why the legislature should not draw its own districts.
I may be in the minority (and certainly am here in this group), but I have very little problem with the process thus far. I emphasize “thus far” because the vagaries of the time line deadlines may change that. Let me explain why.
First, it is easy to criticize the Commission for their individual and collective lack of specific skills and experience in this specific task. However, what group of individuals would be better prepared/qualified? The Legislature? Anyone who gives that answer has to have lost their sanity.
The Commission has brought both skills and experience to its process in the form of both Staff and consultants. Given that this process happens only once every 10 years, it really isn’t a field where there are going to be a wealth of experts to choose from.
Did they make “mistakes” in the first round maps? Of course they did. However, the amount of Public input they got in the early stages was abysmally light. Bottom-line, this process is following a well-traveled road in our political process. The citizenry abdicates its participatory role early on, and then complains vociferously about specific issues when they see the first draft output.
Have any of the posters here made the effort to give the Commission their suggestions in Public Comment? Chances are the answer is “no” and we have a really informed/engaged group here. Imagine what it is like in the citizenry in general.
How many here have watched any of the Commission’s webcasts?
Bottom-line, the Commission’s process is as open and transparent as we the citizens want to make it. Every one of their daily sessions begins with Public Comment. Several Yolo County residents have chosen to speak in Public Comment. Based on what I have seen and heard, I believe the Commission has heard Yolo County’s message loud and clear. We will probably have two Assembly districts with the City of West Sac in with Sacramento because they share a Community of Interest along the waterfront with Sac, with all the rest of Yolo County intact in a district with most of Solano County. Based in “nesting” Yolo County will probably have two Seante districts as well, with the West Sac Assembly didtrict nesting with the other Sacramento Assembly district and the Yolo/Solano Assembly district nesting with either 1) the North Bay Assembly district or 2) the Stockton district or 3) the South Sacramento/Elk Grove district.
Right now the Commission’s visioning discussions I have watched on the webcasts have all of Yolo whole in one Congressional district.
If there is one area that I’m slightly critical of the Commission is their strict adherance to a less than 1% population deviation from the Assembly and Senate targets. However, if they were to loosen that standard at this point they could make the process even more difficult. I hope they do actually loosen the standard a bit in the final maps.
Toad: Which Republican won LT. Governor? I know they won Insurance and Sec.
Bustamante was LT Gov when he ran and lost against Poizner for Insurance Commissioner. You are correct. But to say that Insurance Commissioner is not a major office is wrong.
I agree with Matt. I think Dan Walters was being premature (and alarmist). Have you looked at the latest version? Perhaps I am missing something, but I don’t see Yolo County being carved up and the breaks look reasonable. See http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/
Dividing some parts of Yolo County is GOOD for Yolo County’s political power. It is not a negative. The only people in Yolo County who are whining about Davis and Woodland not being entirely in the same districts are people like Don Saylor and his friends who want a person like Don Saylor or Mariko Yamada or another Yolo County resident to win higher office.
The reality is that having a unified county with a rep who lives in Yolo County does not give our county any special benefits. Arguably, it does just the opposite. It has allowed those reps to ignore places like Davis, because this town is overwhelmingly made up of liberal Democrats who are base voters.
By contrast, when we get new representation in the Assembly and in the US House, Davis will play a very important role in the primary votes. Every potential Democrat who wants one of those seats will have to appeal to Davis voters and will have to retain the support of Davis voters after the general election, because Davis Democrats will not be taken for granted, the way they are now (at least in the Assembly).
As to the personal attacks launched here against Stan Forbes, they are utter nonsense. I think Forbes made a political error by implying that Davis is nothing more than a suburb of Sacramento. It is not. Davis, because of the university, to some extent because of the commercial core and to some extent because of the R&D and tech companies located here, has its own industrial engine separate from the City and County of Sacramento. That said, Davis is at the same time a part of the Sacramento region, a part of the larger Sacramento community, and we have a large number of residents employed in Sacramento for whom Davis really is just a suburb.
I challenge anyone to point to any objective, material loss for Davis which will come about due to not having Mariko Yamada as our member of the Assembly or not having Mike Thompson (who in my opinion has done a good job representing Davis, despite the fact that we are so far from the heart of his district) as our member of Congress.
Honestly, I with Rich Rifkin. The objection to “breaking up Yolo County” was more about the political hegemony of the City of Davis in the district than about power for Yolo County. Many local electeds in other towns in the district — sometimes publicly and sometimes privately — preferred the first map because they felt that someone from their own town might have at least a fighting chance of holding office some day. It was not a Democrat versus Republican thing, since Davis would have been in a Democratic district either way.
I am also not sure that Davis’ hegemony in the district is good for the citizens of Davis. I think that partisan political ambitions frequently hurt the cause of grass-roots politics. Special interest money will invariably play a larger role when the partisan political stakes are raised.
I should add that I am happy that Lois Wolk will get to serve her last term, even though I did not agree with her position on redevelopment.
Perhaps monopoly would be a better term than hegemony.
I don’t see this as a Davis strength. Particularly in the Assembly, Davis won because there was no one other than Christopher Cabaldon, who frankly should have won last time had it not been for EdFund’s ridiculous campaign. Cities like Woodland, Fairfield and Vacaville have had few Democratic prospects. Davis is too small to have any kind of hegemony, it’s a power vaccuum and when Cabaldon failed, Yamada moved into the power vaccuum.
“The reality is that having a unified county with a rep who lives in Yolo County does not give our county any special benefits. Arguably, it does just the opposite. It has allowed those reps to ignore places like Davis, because this town is overwhelmingly made up of liberal Democrats who are base voters. “
That’s just untrue. For example, the school district needed to have an all-mail ballot, and Mariko Yamada provided them a way to do it. That would not have likely happened if our Assemblymember was based in Sacramento. There are countless examples of that precise advantage.
[quote]That’s just untrue. For example, the school district needed to have an all-mail ballot, and Mariko Yamada provided them a way to do it. That would not have likely happened if our Assemblymember was based in Sacramento. There are countless examples of that precise advantage.[/quote]I think this is faulty logic, David, and also an insult to Mariko. Mariko has always been strong on constituent services, and she would have done exactly the same thing for any school district she represents.
[i]”For example, the school district needed to have an all-mail ballot, and Mariko Yamada provided them a way to do it.”[/i]
What did Mariko do for Palo Alto, when that district had an all-mail ballot a year before the one in Davis ([url]http://www.supportpaloaltoschools2010.org/mail-in-ballot/[/url])? Was Mariko moonlighting as a special representative of the people of Palo Alto? How about when Monterey had its all-mail election ([url]http://www.montereycountyelections.us/Election Result.htm[/url])? Was that a reflection of bringing home the bacon?
The City of Burbank has has all-mail elections since 2005. Are you crediting Mariko for those? And if you are, how is her (stealth) work on behalf of the people of Burbank, years before she won her seat in the Assembly, a special benefit to the people of Davis?
I should add that Modesto, Santa Barbara and Seal Beach also have mail-only elections, all without the help of Ms. Yamada. In fact, when those cities started conducting all-mail ballots, I was the only person in Davis pushing for all-mail elections. Freddie Oakley, who changed her views 180 degrees, called my position “elistist” back when this was “just my issue,” not hers.
That may be true, but Yolo County did not get that without the help of Yamada.
[i]”That may be true, but Yolo County did not get that without the help of Yamada.”[/i]
You are conflating and confusing two separate issues. AB 1228 had nothing to do with letting the DJUSD conduct an all-mail ballot.
Also, unless my memory is wrong, I think the Governator vetoed Yamada’s bill, which would have made Yolo County and one other county test cases for all-mail ballots in statewide elections and also in assembly and state senate contests. I don’t remember the veto being overturned.
So as it happens, the one big thing you credit Yamada doing for Davis because Davis is her home town, she did not do and her effort to do something else ultimately failed.
Separate years, he signed it the second time.
[i]”Separate years, he signed it the second time.”[/i]
Okay, I looked it up. It turns out I was wrong and you were almost right. The second effort at this bill–AB 413 of 2011 ([url]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_413_bill_20110524_amended_sen_v96.html[/url])–passed and was signed by Gov. Brown, not Schwarzenegger.
The second version–which did nothing for the all-mail ballot held by the schools–applies only to Yolo County. It also only applies to very rare sorts of elections:
SECTION 1. Section 4001 is added to the Elections Code, to read:
4001. (a) Notwithstanding Section 4000 or any other law, as a pilot program, elections in Yolo County may be conducted wholly by mail if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The governing body of the city, county, or district, by resolution, authorizes the all-mailed ballot election and notifies the Secretary of State of its intent to conduct an all-mailed ballot election at least 88 days prior to the date of the election.
(2) The election does not occur on the same date as a statewide primary or general election or any other election conducted in an overlapping jurisdiction that is not consolidated and conducted wholly by mail pursuant to this section.
(3) The election is not a special election to fill a vacancy in a state office, the Legislature, or Congress.
(4) (A) At least one ballot dropoff location is provided per city and is open during business hours to receive voted ballots beginning 28 days before the date of the election and until 8 p.m. on the day of the election. …
[quote]We will probably have two Assembly districts with the City of West Sac in with Sacramento because they share a Community of Interest along the waterfront with Sac, [/quote]
Actually some West Sacramento people I talked to are not happy about being lumped in w Sacramento…