Over at the San Berndardino Sun, they have what passes for an article on the redistricting situation. It starts with one premise, other states saw electoral upheavel, and maybe California was the exception with a Democratic surge, but there should have been some seats changing hands. And that’s all the fault of gerrymandering.
“Other parts of the country have experienced electoral upheavals, and we have not,” said Derek Cressman, the Western states operations director for good-government group Common Cause. “Here in California, our Legislature has an approval rating of either 10 percent or 13 percent, depending on which poll you look at, and yet on (Election Day) not a single incumbent in the California state Legislature was unseated.”
Cressman and other political observers say there’s a clear reason California’s congressional and legislative seats seem nearly immune from political swings: gerrymandering, a problem that could disappear in 2012.(SB Sun_
Except, there is one big problem here. The good government groups and the media’s infatuation with the concept of redistricting reform and “gerrymandering” won’t change the simple fact of California’s shifting demographics. The reason only one legislative seat changed hands? Demographics.
Let’s be honest about this, rather than playing with some sort of grand vision about what Prop 11 will do. First, let’s go back to the ranked criteria of Prop 11:
* Districts shall comply with the US Constitution, including equal population requirements.
* Districts shall comply with the Voting Rights Act.
* Districts shall be geographically contiguous.
* The geographic integrity of any city, county, or city and county, neighborhoods, or communities of interest shall be respected.
* Communities of interest shall not be defined as relations with incumbents, candidates, or parties.
* Districts shall be compact.
* To the extent possible, after the above criteria have been satisfied, districts shall be nested.
Is competitive in there somewhere? Did I miss it? Well, one could argue that excluding connections to parties or candidates means that there will be competitive districts, but the the first interest is that they are geographically tight. And therein lies the rub, and the truth comes out that what some of these players in this movement, Schwarzenegger and the right-leaning Rose Institute really want was more Republicans in the legislature.
But Johnson said voters simultaneously elected Democrats and showed conservative tendencies, approving the Republican-favored Proposition 26, which makes it harder for lawmakers to raise fees.
“I think if we had more competitive districts, there would have been a number of Republican pickups,” Johnson said. “Republicans did better than they usually do, but the districts still protected Democrats.”(SB Sun)
But looking back at reality, voters gave large victories to every statewide Democrat, save one race that is still being processed. More noticeably, they rejected Meg Whitman’s outrageous spending to tell her flat out, her vision might be right for Texas, but California is different. California voters generally lean progressive, but comparing Prop 26 to actual political leanings is expecting too much out of voters that just don’t have the time to figure out what it means. Perhaps they might have voted one way or the other had they spent the time to understand what it really meant, but as it was, all the information that they were getting on 26 came from Chevron and Philip Morris. That is hardly a bellwether of political leanings.
The underlying data just doesn’t support the argument of the Rose Institute’s Doug Johnson, or of Common Cause, or really any of the goo-goos. The 800lb. gorilla that is being completely ignored is that Californians have clearly sorted ourselves. If you draw tight districts, you get districts that are strongly partisan. That’s the deal. David Latterman at Fall Line Analytics has done some great precinct by precinct analysis of the state. And as you can see, this is a very iedologically segregated state. The Progressives dominate the coast (where a majority of the state’s population resides, and it generally gets more conservative as you head east.
The net result will be maybe a few additional tossup seats, maybe up to 5 in the assembly and 3 or 4 in the Senate. Congress would slot somewhere in between there. In the net, the Bay Area and LA are going to keep electing progressive Democrats, and the Central Valley is going to keep electing right-wing Republicans. And on the fringes there, you might make one seat that switches occasionally. But we’ll continue to see incumbency (of candidate, not party) to reign supreme. Name ID holds great power in these races. But Common Cause just spent years of its existence to change the composition of a small handful of seats, seats that, in the current political environment won’t make a huge difference anyway.
Congratulations on your big wins on 20 and 27. I’d like to invite you to celebrate with the world’s smallest cupcake.
I supported Prop 20 and opposed Prop 27. In addition, I didn’t vote for a single Republican. However, the gerrymandering that went on during the last reapportionment was so gross, so incumbent protective, that something had to be done.
This will do very little to help Republicans or harm Democrats. What it will do is add credibility to our democracy. This was not a battle between Republican and Democrats but rather legislators and voters.
We have self segregated. We will continue to have huge majorities in the legislature. We just cleaned up one little foul smelling part of politics.
Why not just be happy because it is and was the right thing to do. 5 seats? 3 seats? 7 seats? It’s better than it was, and we should be so lucky that all California Propositions have that kind of net result.
Sheesh.
while it might look that way at first glance, it’s worth pointing out that those little blue dots up and down the valley are home to a significant plurality of its population, which works out to a majority for democrats when moderates are added in as well.
most of the seats in the valley are held by democrats. whole redistricting isn’t going to affect the foothills or the coastal urban areas for the most part, the capitol region and the san joaquin can vary a lot depending on where the lines are drawn. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 could all lean a lot of different ways depending on who gets lumped in with whom.
while i share your disdain for goo-goo aesthetic fixations and surface reform for change’s sake, the combination of 14 and 20 may have significant impacts on the partisan balance of the central valley, as well as on the sort of democrats that end up getting elected.
If the commission actually pays attention to county and geographic boundaries, then this map shows how little will change. The major population centers along the coast will be solidly blue as they have been for a long time. Many of the large, sparsely populated areas in the center of the state will go to the GOP, as they have for a long time. Assuming the commission does their work according to the law, demographics are more likely to change any of those districts than they are. Fresno County is shifting because the City of Fresno is growing in population density. Urban voters are more likely to be Democratic. The Sierra foothills are changing as more people retire to those more affordable areas–moving from urban Democratic strongholds.
At the same time, some groups, campaigns, and candidates have taken advantage of those shifts to do major work in voter registration. That has had an effect.
There’s no way to stop demographic shifts. And there’s no substitute for the hard work of registering voters.
I truly hope the commission does a good job. I’m honestly sick of being represented by somebody who knows little or nothing about my area. I’m tired of having my county split up as it is–so that people who routinely work together on issues have this patchwork of representation.
If they make a good attempt to solve those issues, then we have a shot at using the population shifts and our own hard work to achieve something. Before we know that, the goo-goos are just blowing hot air. They’re good at that.
that is all.
Prop 20 means that California apportions Congressional districts in a way that favors Republicans, in a state that is clearly Democratic. I see neither fairness nor democracy in that. A commission that weights Republican input 13% over its statewide presence is hardly fair or equitable. The legislature, which reflects the statewide partisan division, is a much more equitable basis for setting policy.
If Prop 11 had set the guidelines, but eliminated the commission, we would be advanced towards democracy.
Once again, Republicans have completely controlled the official narrative on this “reform” of drawing districts. That is, the only acceptable outcome is more Republicans elected. Anything else is “corruption” even though California is an overwhelmingly Democratic state. I mean, really, in an election characterized by a Republican wave and a “get rid of politicians” attitude, an old Democratic re-tread beats the Republican for governor by over a million votes (despite the Republican massively outspending the Democrat) and a Democratic incumbent senator beats the Republican by nearly a million votes. It’s a really, really Democratic state. It’s not about the districts.
We are making a P.I.E. (Progessive Inland Empire) out here in this rough and tumble county. Especially if the lines are geographically contiguous, and the geographic integrity of any city, county, or city and county, neighborhoods, or communities of interest are respected. We can pick up 2 to 3 seats out here. We can win in the High Desert and Mid-Valley. West and East Valley will be more competitive depending on how the lines are drawn. The main problem is that we are too damn spread out and we have too many damn blue dogs. But, Progressives are building a more competitive organization and Democrats, who once felt they were the only ones in the county, are starting to gather around our Dem club structure because of our recruiting efforts. As stated in your post name recognition is the key. Just give us time and we’ll run this bitch!
I generally agree with Brian’s points here. The question then becomes, why didn’t he support Prop 20?
California at this point in its history is a solidly blue state, and districts that are drawn impartially should result in a legislature and congressional delegation that remains solidly blue. In fact, had Democrats not conspired with Dick Army and Karl Rove in the 2001 redistricting process to protect incumbents of both parties, Democrats would surely have picked up Congressional seats in California during the last decade. Those Democrats who opposed Props 11 and 20 fearing a Republican takeover of the state, and those Republicans who supported them for the same reasons, will be sorely disappointed.
Competition was quite intentionally not a criteria included in Prop 11 for drawing districts, despite the rhetoric of some of its supporters and opponents. But it will change the process by which individual incumbents can draw individual challengers (at either the primary or general election level) out of their districts, thereby insulating themselves from meaningful electoral challenge.
While this might result in the 5 or so Assembly seats being more closely matched between the top two parties in the general election that Brian predicts, it could also lead to more meaningful competition at the primary level — especially for Congress. That could make it easier for progressives to hold Democratic pols more accountable. What’s so bad about that?
We should also remember that even “swing” districts balanced evenly between the top two parties are capable of producing quite progressive elected officials. Paul Wellstone represented Minnesota at a time it had a Republican governor, for instance. Some of our statewide candidates in CA might provide another example this time around. So it’s a mistake to assume that progressives won’t do just fine in a non-rigged electoral system.
I’d encourage folks to view the Gerrymandering documentary (see http://www.gerrymanderingmovie… ), which has some intriguing stories about how gerrymandering really works in Democratic primaries (including Barak Obama’s district when he was in the Illinois statehouse). Then, draw your own conclusions about whose ignoring what gorillas.
If we want to live in a progressive democracy, where elected officials are accountable to those they claim to represent, then we really can’t have those same officials rigging their election results by drawing their own districts. That may seem like small potatoes to some, but for us goo goos its a pretty damn important principle that I’m more than happy to celebrate with a cupcake!