Over the weekend at the CDP E-Board meeting, the PR folks hired by the State Auditor to gin up interest did a presentation about the application process for the Redistricting Commission. The presentation made me think a few things.
1) Sucks to be an activist. If you serve or have recently served on your local or state central committees for any party, you are ineligible. If you’ve run for a partisan nomination, you are ineligible. If you have worked for a politician, you are ineligible. If your spouse, child or parent has run for election or worked for a politician, you are ineligible. Which leads me to my next point.
2) We need to encourage people who aren’t regular participants in the partisan process, but do share progressive values and will fight for progressive legislators to apply. You can get more information about the application process here. They even give you a full timeline of the system, because it’s actually kind of crazy. It is a fairly big committment. The process will likely last around a year from start to finish. Commissioners will be paid only a per diem and a travel allowance, so nobody’s getting rich off of this. However, it is a pretty powerful little body, if they are actually to get some lines drawn.
3) We should particularly encourage progressive DTS, Greens and members of other progressive parties that are eligible to apply. The seats are broken down as 5 for Dems and Reps, and 4 “others”. Ideally, as many as possible of those “others” will be left-leaning others that would be interested in a progressive legislature.
4) I was reminded what a piece of crap Prop 11 was. It specifically enumerates the two main parties as Democrats and Republicans. If a major third party develops, well, I guess we’ll have to redo this POS.
5) In the end, we are likely to end up with lines drawn by the judges because that this panel will work are kind of slim. It requires a lot of agreement amongst the commissioners and disqualifies everybody who understands this stuff. The map then will then deal with the specter of a test at the ballot.
6) Seeing just how messy this 14-member panel will be makes me shudder to think about the con-con selection process.
You could have a board of angels draw those lines, but they will still not be perfect. Ideally, you would have social scientists drawing the lines based on a sense of shared community, because you would want your representative to feel responsible to the whole district and not just a part of it. Of course, one person, one vote means you will inevitably end up with many districts that just have to encompass multiple areas that wouldn’t be ideal. This is the biggest argument for why we need to abandon our majoritarian district election system in favor of a proportionally representative democracy. No matter which way you slice it, nobody can draw districts that make sense.
There are more arguments why we need PR in California, such as the fact that we have a huge population here that does not identify with either of the two dominant parties. But the district lines argument is one of the best arguments I know of. And I live in the 11th Congressional district, and although I personally like my representative, you cannot explain to me how any of the district lines make any sense.
whining will not get progressives anywhere.
The big threat is that a bunch of unsophisticated people get on the commission. They hire a private redistricting firm and legal experts — which given the constraints will almost certainly be Rep leaning — who will, without the commission even knowing it, tilt the playing field for Reps and against progressives.
If you can apply (and Brian is right — would be pretty much full time for a year — retired or un or under-employed would be able to do it — $300/day per diem) you absolutely should — we need many credible people applying. This is because leg leaders (top Dem and Rep in Assm and Sen) each get to strike a few people (like on jury selection).
I’m planning to apply, if you can you should too (read the material on the website).
If you want to get a sense of the politics look at the public comments from the various interest groups here:
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/redistri…
A more general website on how the process came to be is here:
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/redistri…
Finally, the proponent of prop 11 has even filed and had approved by the AG for circulation a proposition to include members of Cong (don’t know if he’s going to drop another few million on this again — although this one Pelosi and co. would fight tooth and nail).
http://www.sos.ca.gov/election…
for a citizen’s ability to participate in a critical governmental function to depend on whether some member of their family have ever been a candidate for office or served on a party committee? If it were up to me, somebody would challenge that in court.
Of course, if it were up to me, there would also be a constitutional challenge to every proposition imposing a supermajority, which did not pass by the same supermajority it purports to impose. For instance, Prop 13.
I do not understand how it can be constitutional for a smaller group of citizens at one election to take away the rights of a larger group of citizens at all subsequent elections. Nor for my rights to vary based on whether my parent or child ever ran for office.