« Indiana Law/Environment - Lawmakers to address environment | Main | Indiana Law - DeLaneys band together »

Sunday, January 09, 2005

Law - Schwarzenegger Proposes Overhaul of Redistricting

Use of the search box reveals that many Indiana Law Blog entries have reported on redistricting. Two particularly appropriate as background to this entry today on California Governor Schwarzenegger's proposal to overhaul his state's redistricting process are this one from Feb. 21, 2004, titled "Elections With No Meaning," and this one from May 23, 2004 titled "Indianapolis Star editorializes against gerrymandering."

Also, this from the end of a Sept. 19th, 2004 ILB entry (unfortunately the Star links now lead only to its pay-for-view archive).

"Drawing the political lines: How gerrymandering affects election results" is the focus of a dual-author opinion piece today in the Star's opinion section. Too complex to summarize, but certainly worth a read, "Craig Ladwig of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation and Rob Richie and Steven Hill of the Center for Voting and Democracy examine this lack of competition [that is the result of gerrymandering] and what can be done about it." Their answer appears to be "not much." This has also been the answer from earlier ILB entries, including this one from May 23, 2004.
Governor Schwarzenegger does not agree that not much can be done, as shown by his annual State of the State address last week. Here are some quotes from a story published Jan. 6, 2005 in the NY Times:
In his annual State of the State address on Wednesday night, the governor called on the Democratic-controlled Legislature to enact a fundamental overhaul that would include that most sacred of political cows, the way Congressional and legislative districts are drawn.

Mr. Schwarzenegger proposed turning over the drawing of the state's political map to a panel of retired judges, taking it out of the hands of lawmakers who for decades have used the redistricting process in a cozy bipartisan deal to choose their voters and cement their incumbency. He threatened to take the issue directly to the voters if the Legislature does not act on the plan in a special session he called for.

Mr. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, noted that of the 153 seats in the California Congressional delegation and Legislature that were on the ballot in November, not one changed party hands.

"What kind of a democracy is that?" he asked in his address. "The current system is rigged to benefit the interests of those in office and not those who put them there," he said. "We must reform it." * * *

Mr. Schwarzenegger will find few allies in the Legislature or in the Congressional delegation for his plan to redraw the state's political map. After the 2000 census, Democrats and Republicans joined hands to draw districts in a way that would protect incumbents. Republicans went along out of fear that if they resisted, the Democratic majority would produce an even worse plan. It was much the same picture on the national level. Parties in power in each state employed sophisticated computer models to ensure continued control of their legislative delegations and statehouse contingents. The result was virtual assurance of re-election for incumbents, or at least control of the seat by the same party.

According to The Cook Political Report, 151 Congressional seats were considered competitive after the redistricting that followed the 1990 census. After the 2000 redistricting, only 45 seats were considered competitive. In 2004, only 13 changed party hands and only 7 incumbents lost.

An analysis piece in the LA Times, dated Jan. 5, 2005 (before the speech), contain much interesting background. And here are two editorials from today's California papers.

The Santa Cruz Sentinel writes:

In theory, we’re in favor of the way it’s done now, with elected officials deciding how to draw the boundaries. But in practice, the system doesn’t work, and we no longer think office-holders should have the power to establish district lines. They have fouled up the process beyond belief, and they should be stripped of all authority.

The problem with what they’ve done is that they’ve turned virtually all state Senate and Assembly districts into "safe" districts. Today’s map features districts that are either heavily Republican or heavily Democratic.

What that has done is driven away something that California needs badly: moderate voices. With safe districts throughout the state, the main contest for candidates is in the primary — and that encourages Republicans to move to the right and Democrats to move to the left.

It discourages what Santa Cruz had until recently — representation by a middle-of-the-road Republican, former state Sen. Bruce McPherson. Without these moderating voices, elected officials from the far right and the far left argue over everything — and so far have not come up with a plan to get California back to fiscal health.

Beyond the issue of moderation, the blatantly political redistricting has caused communities to be split. Right here in Santa Cruz County, we no longer are represented by one state senator. The county is divided — with senators who are largely responsible to voters outside of the county. The lack of our own district is truly an outrage.

There’s a lot to do to reform the state. But we agree with Schwarzenegger that the first thing that needs to change is a map of legislative districts that will reflect the true California and not the selfish needs of hack politicians who manipulated the entire state for their own good.

The Sacramento Bee warns:
A lobbying firm representing traditionally Democratic causes and a political consultant with ties to a Democratic congressman are seeking to qualify a handful of ballot initiatives that exempt members of Congress if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proceeds with a special election to force the redrawing of political districts years ahead of schedule.

Jim Gonzalez and Associates, the Sacramento lobbying firm that submitted the four proposed initiatives to the state attorney general's office for consideration, and John Thiella, a consultant to the firm on the initiative proposals, say they are not working on behalf of specific clients but rather floating proposals that might attract support in the event of a special election to consider midcensus redistricting. * * *

The governor has argued that the current set of districts goes so far to protect the incumbents who agreed to it that it creates a polarized, entrenched system in which elections are decided in primaries, and partisan interest groups who provide campaign money hold too much sway.

The Schwarzenegger administration has denied partisan motives, but many California Democrats don't like the idea of a midcensus redistricting because they fear the goal is to shift congressional seats to Republicans, as was the case in Texas' midcensus redistricting, orchestrated by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Thiella echoed those thoughts. "We want to make sure any plan adopted is not a White House plan to bring a right-wing Texas-style reapportionment to California," he said. "The only way to make sure that's not the case is to have other initiatives available to voters so they can make a choice."

Of California's congressional delegation, 33 seats are Democrat-held, with one now vacant with the death of Rep. Robert Matsui, and 20 are Republican-held.

Meanwhile, some members of the state's Republican congressional delegation also oppose the idea.

They too could become vulnerable if ex-judges drew new districts that pitted them against a same-party incumbent in a primary, or against a stronger Democratic incumbent in a general election. Rep. John Doolittle, R-Roseville, has said his party might lose as many as four seats in such a situation.

Finally, of course, California's ballot-initiative type-system is not available in Indiana. Any change in Indiana would have to come from the General Assembly. To repeat again from what I said at the end of my May 23, 2004 ILB entry:
Something the Star does not point out in its editorial today is the difficulty of any change. As Vieth v. Jubelirer indicates, the courts are highly unlikely to act against political gerrymandering. This leaves the legistature as the only other alternative. But why would members or candidates with safe seats, such as the 88 out of 100 referenced by the Star, push for a diifferent system?

The Star says: "[V]oters can demand that they be given true choices on Election Day by insisting that legislators put an end to gerrymandering. Fair districts not only prompt more competition and higher turnout but also better government. Incumbents who actually have to work to win votes before Election Day are far more likely to listen and respond to constituents." But the Star does not explain how to get from here to there. The voters' ballots are their weapons, but carefully drawn districts have already made blunted any real possibility of putting the voters back in control of elections.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 9, 2005 10:20 AM
Posted to General Law Related