|
|
|
Re-Drawing Lines View the document (pdf) In recent years, citizens, the media and political experts have expressed growing concern over redistricting--the process of drawing new district lines to determine which residents will be grouped together when electing representatives. This concern has focused on the steady decline in competitiveness in congressional and legislative districts across the country and the recent efforts of several states to redraw legislative districts mid-decade to gain partisan advantage. In addition, most observers agree that there is a fundamental conflict of interest when state legislators exercise the power to redraw the boundaries of their own districts. The redistricting process, which usually takes place after each decennial census, is by nature politically controversial. Many redistricting plans are met with charges that revised congressional or state legislative districts are too partisan, too friendly to incumbents, uncompetitive and unrepresentative of minority populations. The courts are often pulled into disputes when elected leaders fail to reach consensus or affected electors challenge the constitutionality of redistricting plans. In these instances, the courts ultimately redraw district lines. When elected leaders choose their own constituencies instead of the reverse, it severely limits the power of voters. Although most state legislatures, California included, draw congressional and state legislative districts themselves, alternatives to this method are now being considered by a wide variety of individuals, public officials and public interest groups. In California, a number of current proposals seek to transfer the legislature's power over redistricting to an independent commission. Proponents argue that a commission will eliminate some of the more egregious redistricting problems, thereby increasing representation, competitiveness and partisan fairness. Based on extensive research and discussions with public interest and community organizations throughout California, this report concludes that a properly structured independent commission is desirable, and that it should address five basic public interest goals, including: 1) political equality and minority representation; 2) partisan fairness; 3) traditional redistricting criteria; 4) public confidence; and 5) attention to the level of voter choice and government accountability likely to result from final redistricting plans. Despite the 2005 defeat of Proposition 77, a reform proposal that sought to create an independent redistricting commission, significant evidence indicates that California voters still favor redistricting reform. Opinion research conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California following the November 2005 Special Election found that 76% of voters believe the current way the governor and the legislature conduct redistricting is in need of change. Today, a window of opportunity for redistricting reform remains in California. The governor and state legislative leaders have all publicly committed to passing redistricting reform. Senators Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) and Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) have worked together to move SCA 3, a proposal originally introduced in 2005 before the special election, through the legislature. Ted Costa, one of the key sponsors of Proposition 77, has renewed his efforts with a substantially improved proposal that he may submit for qualification in 2008 if the legislature fails to act. |
