Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
SACRAMENTO (AP) — Kathay Feng and Trudy Schafer represent venerable political reform groups that want to take away lawmakers’ power to draw legislative and congressional districts.
But they’re on opposite sides in the debate over Proposition 77, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s attempt to give redistricting duties to a panel of retired judges.
“Although we really do want to see redistricting reform, this one has too many flaws,” said Schafer, program director for the League of Women Voters of California. “Voters need to defeat this, and we need to do the best we can to get something better on the ballot next time.”
Feng, executive director of California Common Cause, concedes that Proposition 77 “isn’t perfect” but said it’s better than the status quo.
“The problems of redistricting lying in the hands of the Legislature are so great, and the forces that would oppose redistricting reform are so entrenched, that we felt it necessary to support Proposition 77 to keep the state and national conversation going,” she said.
The proposition, one of four being promoted by Schwarzenegger on the Nov. 8 special election ballot, is the fourth attempt by Republicans since 1982 to convince California voters to take redistricting powers away from the Legislature, which has been dominated by Democrats for most of the last 47 years.
A fifth measure was knocked off the ballot in 2000 by the state Supreme Court before voters could act. That almost was the fate of Proposition 77, which survived a court challenge before the election and is likely to face more if it passes.
The state Constitution requires the Legislature to redraw districts for legislators, the House of Representatives and the Board of Equalization, a state tax panel, every decade to reflect population changes revealed by a new national census.
The process can decide the fate of individual lawmakers and determine which party dominates the state Senate, Assembly and California’s congressional delegation.
Schwarzenegger has been critical of the system, which virtually ensures that the state’s current balance of political power remains unchanged. In the 2004 election, for example, not one of 153 congressional or state legislative seats on the ballot changed party hands, although Democrats lost three seats in 2002.
Schwarzenegger has said he wants redistricting reform to create greater competition and attract more moderate candidates from both parties.
Proposition 77 would amend the state Constitution to give redistricting duties to a panel of three retired judges who would be selected at random from a pool of at least eight. The eight would be chosen by the four legislative leaders — two Democrats and two Republicans.
The three-judge panel would be required to have at least one Republican and one Democrat. It would attempt to draw new lines in time for the 2006 elections and again at the start of each decade using standards that included compactness and respect for city and county boundaries.
The redistricting plans would have to go on the ballot at the first November election after they were put into use. The boundaries would have to be redrawn if rejected by voters.
An attempt to take redistricting duties away from legislators also is on the ballot Nov. 8 in Ohio, where Democrats are sponsoring the measure and Republicans control the Legislature. Schwarzenegger also supports the Ohio measure, spokesman Darrell Ng said.
Similar efforts are under way in Florida and Massachusetts. The Florida proposal, which is further along, is intended for the ballot next year.
The campaign in California has divided public interest groups and caused splits among Republicans in Congress, some of whom fear the move could backfire.
Some Republicans fear the GOP could lose House seats under the plan, one of the reasons it is opposed by U.S. Rep. John Doolittle, R-Rocklin, said his spokeswoman, Laura Blackann. Doolittle also has said he opposes the goal of shaping districts to attract more moderate lawmakers.
The initiative does have high-profile supporters among California’s House Republicans, most prominently House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Bakersfield, who is organizing a fund-raiser this month to back the measure. Even so, supporters could muster only seven California House Republicans to sign a letter to Schwarzenegger in September endorsing Proposition 77.
Supporters say Proposition 77 would eliminate the conflicts of interest created by legislators drawing their own districts and avoid redistricting plans designed to boost the fortunes of one party or help incumbents on both sides of the aisle.
Democrats say the proposition is an attempt by Republicans to pack Democratic voters into as few districts as possible.
“The reason they are changing the criteria along with who does the redistricting is because they want to shift power from one set of hands to another,” said Paul Hefner, a spokesman for Californians for Fair Representation, an anti-77 committee.
Democrats often cite the example of Texas, where a GOP redistricting plan pushed by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay cost four Democrats their House seats last year. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, has pushed fellow Democrats to raise money against the initiative.
“I am very committed to defeating Proposition 77, and I am raising money to defeat it,” she told reporters earlier this month. “It is, once again, another attempt on the part of the Republicans to do in a roundabout way what they could not do at the polls. ... They see that we have a chance to take back the House, so they have to use extraordinary means.”
But Ted Costa, who started the Proposition 77 campaign, said the measure wouldn’t favor one party over the other.
“If anything, it’s an advantage for Democrats because there are more of them in California,” he said. “What this thing does for Republicans is it puts them within striking distance if the Democrats don’t do what the people want.”
Critics also say the judges wouldn’t reflect California’s diverse population, the plans would weaken minority group representation and that requiring new lines for 2006 would force the former judges to draw districts with outdated population figures and little public input.
Although Common Cause endorsed the measure, it splintered the group’s California branch. Some board members threatened to resign over concerns about the measure’s impact on minorities, limited public input and the possibility of frequent redistricting if voters overturned the judges’ plans.
The requirement for new lines in 2006 also has raised concerns among election officials. Conny McCormack, president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, said it would be “virtually infeasible” to have new districts ready for the June 2006 primary election. Costa, however, said it can be done.
Whatever plan the judges produce almost certainly would create more seats that could be won by either party than under the current system, even though Proposition 77 doesn’t make competitiveness a requirement, said Bruce Cain, head of the Institute for Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. The districts in effect today were drawn by lawmakers to give the two major parties almost the same number of seats they had in 2001.
But Cain said increasing the number of competitive districts in California could mean gains for Democrats next year instead of Republicans because of President Bush’s low poll numbers and other problems facing the GOP.
“It’s looking as though 2006 is a bad year for them,” he said.
<I>Associated Press Writer Erica Werner in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.</I>
But they’re on opposite sides in the debate over Proposition 77, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s attempt to give redistricting duties to a panel of retired judges.
“Although we really do want to see redistricting reform, this one has too many flaws,” said Schafer, program director for the League of Women Voters of California. “Voters need to defeat this, and we need to do the best we can to get something better on the ballot next time.”
Feng, executive director of California Common Cause, concedes that Proposition 77 “isn’t perfect” but said it’s better than the status quo.
“The problems of redistricting lying in the hands of the Legislature are so great, and the forces that would oppose redistricting reform are so entrenched, that we felt it necessary to support Proposition 77 to keep the state and national conversation going,” she said.
The proposition, one of four being promoted by Schwarzenegger on the Nov. 8 special election ballot, is the fourth attempt by Republicans since 1982 to convince California voters to take redistricting powers away from the Legislature, which has been dominated by Democrats for most of the last 47 years.
A fifth measure was knocked off the ballot in 2000 by the state Supreme Court before voters could act. That almost was the fate of Proposition 77, which survived a court challenge before the election and is likely to face more if it passes.
The state Constitution requires the Legislature to redraw districts for legislators, the House of Representatives and the Board of Equalization, a state tax panel, every decade to reflect population changes revealed by a new national census.
The process can decide the fate of individual lawmakers and determine which party dominates the state Senate, Assembly and California’s congressional delegation.
Schwarzenegger has been critical of the system, which virtually ensures that the state’s current balance of political power remains unchanged. In the 2004 election, for example, not one of 153 congressional or state legislative seats on the ballot changed party hands, although Democrats lost three seats in 2002.
Schwarzenegger has said he wants redistricting reform to create greater competition and attract more moderate candidates from both parties.
Proposition 77 would amend the state Constitution to give redistricting duties to a panel of three retired judges who would be selected at random from a pool of at least eight. The eight would be chosen by the four legislative leaders — two Democrats and two Republicans.
The three-judge panel would be required to have at least one Republican and one Democrat. It would attempt to draw new lines in time for the 2006 elections and again at the start of each decade using standards that included compactness and respect for city and county boundaries.
The redistricting plans would have to go on the ballot at the first November election after they were put into use. The boundaries would have to be redrawn if rejected by voters.
An attempt to take redistricting duties away from legislators also is on the ballot Nov. 8 in Ohio, where Democrats are sponsoring the measure and Republicans control the Legislature. Schwarzenegger also supports the Ohio measure, spokesman Darrell Ng said.
Similar efforts are under way in Florida and Massachusetts. The Florida proposal, which is further along, is intended for the ballot next year.
The campaign in California has divided public interest groups and caused splits among Republicans in Congress, some of whom fear the move could backfire.
Some Republicans fear the GOP could lose House seats under the plan, one of the reasons it is opposed by U.S. Rep. John Doolittle, R-Rocklin, said his spokeswoman, Laura Blackann. Doolittle also has said he opposes the goal of shaping districts to attract more moderate lawmakers.
The initiative does have high-profile supporters among California’s House Republicans, most prominently House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Bakersfield, who is organizing a fund-raiser this month to back the measure. Even so, supporters could muster only seven California House Republicans to sign a letter to Schwarzenegger in September endorsing Proposition 77.
Supporters say Proposition 77 would eliminate the conflicts of interest created by legislators drawing their own districts and avoid redistricting plans designed to boost the fortunes of one party or help incumbents on both sides of the aisle.
Democrats say the proposition is an attempt by Republicans to pack Democratic voters into as few districts as possible.
“The reason they are changing the criteria along with who does the redistricting is because they want to shift power from one set of hands to another,” said Paul Hefner, a spokesman for Californians for Fair Representation, an anti-77 committee.
Democrats often cite the example of Texas, where a GOP redistricting plan pushed by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay cost four Democrats their House seats last year. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, has pushed fellow Democrats to raise money against the initiative.
“I am very committed to defeating Proposition 77, and I am raising money to defeat it,” she told reporters earlier this month. “It is, once again, another attempt on the part of the Republicans to do in a roundabout way what they could not do at the polls. ... They see that we have a chance to take back the House, so they have to use extraordinary means.”
But Ted Costa, who started the Proposition 77 campaign, said the measure wouldn’t favor one party over the other.
“If anything, it’s an advantage for Democrats because there are more of them in California,” he said. “What this thing does for Republicans is it puts them within striking distance if the Democrats don’t do what the people want.”
Critics also say the judges wouldn’t reflect California’s diverse population, the plans would weaken minority group representation and that requiring new lines for 2006 would force the former judges to draw districts with outdated population figures and little public input.
Although Common Cause endorsed the measure, it splintered the group’s California branch. Some board members threatened to resign over concerns about the measure’s impact on minorities, limited public input and the possibility of frequent redistricting if voters overturned the judges’ plans.
The requirement for new lines in 2006 also has raised concerns among election officials. Conny McCormack, president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, said it would be “virtually infeasible” to have new districts ready for the June 2006 primary election. Costa, however, said it can be done.
Whatever plan the judges produce almost certainly would create more seats that could be won by either party than under the current system, even though Proposition 77 doesn’t make competitiveness a requirement, said Bruce Cain, head of the Institute for Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. The districts in effect today were drawn by lawmakers to give the two major parties almost the same number of seats they had in 2001.
But Cain said increasing the number of competitive districts in California could mean gains for Democrats next year instead of Republicans because of President Bush’s low poll numbers and other problems facing the GOP.
“It’s looking as though 2006 is a bad year for them,” he said.
<I>Associated Press Writer Erica Werner in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.</I>
