I just was polled by an independent market research firm on behalf of a potential November 2010 ballot initiative and thought y’all might be interested in this.  The poller first established basic screening questions (I voted in 2008, I don’t approve of Schwarzenegger or the state legislature, I’m “somewhat familiar” with Proposition 11).  Then: the initiative would amend the 2008 Prop 11 to grant authority to establish redistricting Congressional districts to a Redistricting Commission rather than the state legislature.  Geographic integrity of cities/towns must be respected.  The commission must respect communities of Interest: neighboring populations with common social and economic interests.”  Italics reflect my notes, not just my faulty memory.

I was then read a number of reasons to vote for and against the initiative and asked to rate them as convincing or not.  Most for and against reasons were mirror images of each other; however, two stood out.

“The initiative is being put forth by one wealthy Republican.”

“The initiative will hurt minority members of Congress.”

Thoughts and comments, y’all?

I will be discussing this and other state ballot propositions as part of an on-air progressive voter guide on KRXA 540 AM this morning at 8. For a complete endorsement guide see the Calitics endorsements and the Courage Campaign Progressive Voter Guide

Prop 11 is a solution in search of a problem – and a bad solution at that. At a time when our state’s budget crisis ought to remind us that the real problem is the ridiculous 2/3 rule, Broderist columnists like the LA Times’ George Skelton are trying to put in one last pitch for Prop 11.

In doing so all they accomplish is highlighting the absurdity of their proposal and their cynical approach to politics – assuming that California voters are animated by blind rage and a desire to smash a broken government instead of thinking intelligently about how to fix it.

The interesting thing is that Skelton doesn’t even attempt his usual efforts to argue why Prop 11 is needed. The “competitive elections” argument has been proved false by the six or seven competitive races in the Assembly, most of them in districts drawn to favor Republicans. Nor does Skelton attempt to say Prop 11 will solve the budget deficit. He merely assumes it to be a good idea.

Skelton lists “good government” organizations like Common Cause and LWV to suggest that Prop 11 isn’t a Republican power grab – never mind the fact that Arnold and other right-wingers are dumping money into it. Nowhere does he explain the real purpose here: to keep Democrats away from a 2/3 majority in the Legislature.

He also gets the details wrong, claiming:

Under the proposal, any frequent voter could apply to be a redistricting commissioner — as long as the person had no political connections. Prop. 11 drafters really wanted to ensure that commissioners had no partisan agendas.

But as Brian pointed out last night a drafting error excludes frequent voters. This vaunted “independent commission” will include infrequent and uninformed voters – which is fitting given that this proposal speaks primarily to such an audience.

More below.

It’s Skelton’s description of the makeup of the commission that is so damning, however:

Three randomly selected state auditors would select the 60 most qualified applicants, divided into equal subgroups of Democrats, Republicans and “others.” The four legislative leaders could strike six each. That would leave 36. The auditors would randomly select eight commissioners: three Democrats, three Republicans, two “others.” And those eight would select the final six, two from each subgroup.

The commission’s final makeup would be five Democrats, five Republicans, four “others.” Approving a redistricting plan would require a supermajority vote: nine, including three Democrats, three Republicans and three “other.”

That right there is your proof that Prop 11 is designed to give Republicans an artificial advantage that they haven’t earned with the voters. Republicans do not deserve equal representation on such a commission. They do not have equal representation among California voters. As of September 2008 Democrats had 43.9% of registered voters and Republicans had 32.3%. Those numbers have fluctuated a bit over the last few years but the overall trend has been remarkably stable – in 1999 the numbers were 46.3% Dem and 35% Rep.

So why is Prop 11 giving Republicans equal power on this commission? If anything it looks gerrymandered to increase their power and their representation.

Further, while I’m all for citizen democracy, I’m not convinced that redistricting should be left to the masses – especially in order to protect minority voting rights. Skelton makes much of a Center for Governmental Studies report claiming that minority voting rights won’t be hurt by this. Of course, most actual groups of color are opposing Prop 11, but their voices apparently don’t count here, they don’t seem to know what’s best for them:

Minority communities wouldn’t be any worse off than they have been with their Democratic pals drawing the lines. They’d probably be better off. Everybody would, except those politicians currently allowed to abuse the power.

Skelton has no basis to make this claim and gets dangerously close to assuming that “minority communities” are basically dumb herds that blindly follow Democrats. Has he ever stopped to consider some rather legitimate reasons WHY they back Democrats, like the persistent racism emanating from the Republican Party?

In any case, voting rights are no light matter in California, which still has four counties subject to the federal Voting Rights Act and to the state’s own voting rights laws. Politicians may be horrible and evil people but they do know these laws better than a citizen commission. If these communities of color prefer to let the smart people draw the lines, perhaps they might be speaking from experience and ought to be listened to?

Nah. When the media is in full throated moderate mode, no amount of common sense or authentic voices will deter them from their latest idiotic proposal to “fix” California, proposals that often wind up benefiting Republicans. Funny how that happens.

Here is the historical trend for statewide registration numbers for the two incumbent parties (Source here):



Notice the downward trend in Republican registration over the last 25 years?  Me too.  Why could that be?  Why ever could that be?

Here’s part of the reason:



That is, of course, from the website of the Sacramento County Republican Party.

And today’s Republican Party fun:



That is from the October newsletter of the Chaffey Community Republican Women, Federated, apparently reproduced from a bunch of email forwards that are going around in conservative circles.

This is the Republican Party, that through its own actions, has marginalized itself in California, losing registered voters and legislative seats.  

But Proposition 11 gives the Republicans equal weight with the Democrats in drawing legislative districts, power that the Republicans themselves have decided they don’t want, because (as we see above) the Republicans themselves, with all of the advantages they had as an incumbent party, have chosen to become extremists, out of step with mainstream Californians.  

If the Republicans want more power in the State (other than the extortionist veto right they have over our fiscal health, thanks to gerrymandered budget and tax requirements), they should reform themselves.  It is not the responsibility of all of the rest of us to give the “party of personal responsibility” a helping hand just because they’ve chosen to make themselves profoundly unappetizing to the voters of California.

I should note that I would favor actual reforms that allow for actual competition for voters — public financing, multi-representative districts, and instant runoff voting would all be interesting and might create actual competition, not just between the two incumbent parties and their power brokers, but against the two incumbent parties and their power brokers.  But Proposition 11 is fake reform.  It is designed to set up districts that are “competitive” between the two incumbent parties, where one of those parties simply hasn’t earned that right.  

I will be on KRXA 540 AM at 8 this morning to discuss this and other California politics issues

In today’s column lambasting state politicians for the budget crisis George Skelton makes a rather startling and, to me, clearly inaccurate claim. After bashing Arnold and the legislature’s leaders for not calling an immediate special session to deal with the budget deficit he uses the situation to argue for Prop 11:

Predictably, the Capitol’s record 85-day tardiness in producing a state budget is not an issue in any competitive legislative race this fall.

That’s because — despite the national political drama, and rock-bottom public approval rating of the Legislature — there are very few competitive legislative races. Blame the Legislature’s gerrymandering of districts to make them safe for incumbents and their parties. No incumbent is in a tight race. No lawmaker is being held accountable for legislative fiscal irresponsibility.

It’s an argument for Proposition 11, a ballot measure sponsored by good government groups that would take redistricting away from the Legislature and hand it to an independent commission.

That is simply not true. California is FULL of competitive legislative races this fall. Look at the assembly, where as David Dayen explained yesterday there are competitive seats all over the place. You’ve got Alyson Huber in AD-10, Joan Buchanan in AD-15, John Eisenhut in AD-26, Fran Florez in AD-30, Ferial Masry in AD-37, Marty Block in AD-78, and Manuel Perez in AD-80 all with a very good chance of winning seats currently held by Republicans or in a competitive race with Republicans.

Linda Jones in AD-36 is running a competitive race and in AD-38 and AD-63 a polls show a tie between Republicans and Democrats in voter preferences. The race for SD-19 is competitive between Hannah-Beth Jackson and Tony Strickland. Here on the Central Coast Abel Maldonado feels the need to blanket the airwaves with TV and radio ads even though he faces independent and underfunded challenger Jim Fitzgerald. Ginny Mayer and Gary Pritchard are likely seeing a boost in their own fortunes in Orange County senate races.

I don’t know how George Skelton can claim that there are no competitive legislative races this year. It is an untrue statement and he’s doing his readers a disservice by saying there aren’t any. He’s so fixated on Prop 11, a pointless reform in search of a problem, that he is blind to the political earthquake that’s about to take place.

Skelton is also wrong that the budget isn’t an issue in these races. True, it does not seem to dominate the campaigns, but it is instead enfolded into a broader public unease with Republicans when it comes to the economy. California’s economy badly needs stimulus and increased government spending, not slash-and-burn like Republicans propose. Barack Obama at last night’s debate dramatically undercut Republican demands for across the board spending cuts, pointing out that’s not what you do in a severe recession, and Californians are smart enough to connect that to our own Republican caucus.

California voters understand full well what is responsible for the budget crisis. Skelton wants us to believe it’s because all legislators regardless of party are either incompetent or scared to face the truth. Never mind the fact that it is foolish to hold a special session while you’re trying to sell revenue anticipation notes – Californians are demonstrating that they clearly understand this is the Republicans’ fault.

By forcing a three month budget delay and demanding spending cuts at the worst possible time, Republicans have shown to Californians that they are irresponsible and not to be trusted with power over California’s basic services and with its tax revenue.

Prop. 11 is a sideshow. It’s time for California’s media to pay attention to the main event – numerous competitive elections across the state that will put 2/3 in our grasp. Something is happening here, but you don’t know what it is, do you Mr. Skelton?!

While most of the Calitics editorial board is conventioning in Denver this week I’m holding down the fort back here in California. I love the Mile High City, but with the onset of Monterey’s summer I don’t think I’m going to miss much.

Which gives me time to focus on one of the ongoing arguments over this fall’s ballot, specifically over Proposition 11 – redistricting reform. Over at the California Progress Report Frank Russo has been hosting a running debate on the topic, with Democratic redistricting expert Bill Cavala taking on all challengers in his effort to explain why Prop 11 is a bad idea.

Cavala defends himself well and certainly doesn’t need my help, but today’s pro-Prop 11 article from the president of the CA branch of the AARP is so full of flaws that I felt compelled to add my two cents.

Jeannine English’s article repeats the two most common errors of Prop 11 advocates: 1) making the assumption that legislative-controlled redistricting is at the core of our state’s problems, and 2) that redistricting reform will produce a less partisan legislature and therefore solve our state’s problems. Both are completely false. It is a reform in search of a problem. From English’s article:

The question California voters should ask themselves this November is this: “is the status quo in Sacramento working for me?” Considering the state’s ongoing budget problems, lack of health care reform despite years of debate, regular cuts to social services, and a host of other issues that are not being properly addressed in the state, the answer from all but political insiders will likely be “no, the status quo is not working for me.”…

So now its time for voters to get it done. Prop. 11, written over two years by voting rights attorneys and experts in consultation with Californians of all ideological persuasions, will create fair redistricting in California so incumbents are not guaranteed their reelection but actually have to work for their votes. With Prop 11’s passage, legislators will have to work better together to solve the problems Californian’s care about, instead of staying in their partisan corners.

This is a slick move to cast Prop 11 as a solution to the state’s problems, but it ignores some important truths. The reason Sacramento is broken is because a far-right Republican minority bent on destroying public services has repeatedly exploited the 2/3 rule to prevent the state from putting its fiscal house in order. Those two problems – a wingnut Republican caucus and the 2/3 rule – are without a doubt the major obstacles to a state government that works.

Redistricting reform solves neither of these problems. Instead it stems from the misguided belief that what California has is too much partisanship – a stance that lets the Republicans off the hook and hides from voters the real work Democrats have done to compromise and fix the budget.

It also errs in assuming that it’s even possible to make competitive districts in California. There’s no way to make San Francisco or south Orange County anything but a safe seat for one party or the other without gerrymandering on a far more egregious scale than anything currently done.

That being said, is there a significant downside to Democrats from Prop 11, even if it’s a pointless reform? After all, Washington State has used a similar independent process to draw districts since 1983 and today Dems have 2/3 majorities in both houses of the state legislature.

In fact downsides do exist. The “independent commission” is not an accurate representation of the state’s political demography. Republicans and Democrats would have the same number of seats on the commission, despite the fact that Democrats have over a million more registered voters in California. Prop 11 gives Republicans an artificial advantage that they have not earned and do not deserve.

Bill Cavala has argued convincingly that a redistricting commission could wind up shifting enough seats to the Republicans to move Democrats from having a realistic shot at 2/3 majorities to having to defend their majority. And he quite rightly points out that the current “moderates” in the Republican Party have consistently voted in lockstep with the wingnuts, suggesting how out of touch Prop 11’s proponents are.

The most frustrating aspect of Prop 11 may be how much time and energy it is diverting from the real issues facing California. Why aren’t the so-called “good government” groups making a stronger push to get rid of the 2/3 rule? We can see its damaging effect on the state right now with a budget crisis dragging on with no end in sight. If groups like the AARP really want to fix a broken California, they should direct their resources to fixing that issue.