An Opportunity On Gerrymandering

by Chris Bowers, Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 10:02:39 AM EST

Heavily revised from an earlier version--Chris

Yesterday, laddy pointed out some ugly sides to the California redistricting plan that clearly reveal it to be a Right Wing Power Grab. Even though he is absolutely right and the plan that currently is being proposed cannot be tolerated, somewhat suprisingly, it would appear that the main opponents of Arnold's plan to redraw the maps are Republicans:

National Republican Party leaders -- even Schwarzenegger's closest ally in the congressional delegation, U.S. Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas) -- are pressing the governor to exempt Congress from his map-making.

The fear is that tinkering with the California congressional boundaries could jeopardize Republican control of the U.S. House. By some estimates, the state's 20-person GOP congressional delegation opposes the governor's effort 4 to 1.(...)

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman has told the governor's aides that he would like to see California's congressional voting districts untouched until after the 2010 census -- the normal timetable for the decennial redrawing of voting districts -- according to a person close to the Schwarzenegger administration. Tracey Schmitt, an RNC spokeswoman, declined to discuss such a conversation, saying, "We're still in the information-gathering stage."

I have to wonder why Republicans in California are so gutless. Last month, laddy pointed out a couple of provisions in the California bill that are probably intentionally poisonous to Democrats so that they will be unable to support it: (c) Every district shall be contiguous and as compact as practicable. With respect to compactness, to the extent practicable a contiguous area of population shall not be bypassed to incorporate an area of population more distant.

(e) District boundaries shall conform to existing geographic boundaries of a county, city, or city and county, and shall preserve identifiable communities of interest to the greatest extent possible. A redistricting plan shall not cross any common county boundary more than once and shall create the most whole counties and the fewest county fragments possible, except as necessary to comply with the requirements of any other subdivision of this section.

Democrats tend group together in fairly contiguous, densely populated urban areas. Drawing a map that is so focused on contiguous geographic boundaries could result in a map not entirely unlike Pennsylvania's, where two 80-90% Democratic districts are surrounded by a sea of districts that are 50-55% Republicans. In Pennsylvania, this has allowed a state that is lean-Democratic in both voter registration and Presidential voting tendencies to send a 12-7 Republican delegation to Washington for two consecutive cycles. Democrats might even receive more total votes for Congress, but Republicans end up with more congressmen.

I think we need to support non-partisan redistricting, but it does not need to be so heavily based on geography, which inherently supports Republicans and reinforces still rampant de facto segregation. We need to all come out in favor of taking the power to draw maps out of partisan and incumbent hands, but we also need to emphasize reform that serves people, not zip codes and other abstractions. We certainly do not need reform that is simply yet another Right Wing Power Grab.

So, what are Democrats to do? Opposing yet another "reform," no matter bad or blatently pro-Republican a reform it is, will porbably make us look like the party of the status quo. Our two options are porbably to either immediately propose a counter redistricting bill of some sort, or to oppose Arnold's plan. Personally, I would like to see maps taken out of the hands of partisans and incumbents, but with a bad Republican plan already out there and Arnold seizing the "reformer" high ground, any hope for positive change might already be gone.

Tags: House 2006 (all tags)

Comments

24 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Expose it

Expose it for what it is - GOP ambitions run rampant, and instead propose something more like Washington where districts are designed to be mildly competitive.

by raginillinoian 2005-02-08 10:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

redistricting

I agree that we have to be against this because it hurts us, but I have to say that there is some logic to it. It jams all our city voters in the same district, but in a way it makes sense for people in the same city to vote for the same representatives instead of glomming various groups of them with various groups of other people from areas that have no resemblance.

I think everyone hates those snakelike, noncontiguous voting districts.

by alhill 2005-02-08 11:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Multimember districts with STV

California's size makes it the perfect place to experiment with STV, it is inherently competitive, and would make reapportionment merely a matter of reassigning seat numbers to districts. States have the right to determine the terms of their elections, so the federal law may be overturned upon appeal. Respond to Ahnold's 'bold' proposal with one that truly is bold.

by Valatan 2005-02-08 11:16AM | 0 recs

permalink

It would be bold

But it would introduce too much uncertainty for legislators' tastes, I think. If Democrats want to see that happen, they'll have to use the initiative process.

by Drew 2005-02-08 11:29AM | 0 recs

permalink

What is the other side.

There was a thread here a month or two where we debated the pros and cons of this plan. The consensus was that it could go either way and perhaps the dems could come out ahead. Now the consensus has swung but apparently the Repugs oppose it too. Why?

by BBigJ 2005-02-08 11:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Maybe the problem is

that the state legislature is still Dem-controlled, and therefore the Dems can make sure that the proposal they actually vote on is NOT a Right-Wing Power Grab. Or maybe it's just natural resistance to a measure that will threaten incumbents no matter who comes out on top.

The bad news is that if the Governator just puts the proposal on the ballot, it's immune to amendment. And those who oppose it will be accused of resisting reform. Which is why the Dems need to be beating the Reeps to the punch on this issue in every state.

by catastrophile 2005-02-08 01:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What is the other side.

It's the Republican incumbants that are against it. They don't want their own districts cut in half.

The bill overall is probably beneficial to Republicans -- because of Pennsylvania style intrigue and because it will unseat more Democratic incumbants than Republiacans through the simple act of moving boundaries from one side of their home to the other.

by Lystrosaurus 2005-02-08 08:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What is the other side.

That was my first thought too, but it doesn't explain why Mehlman is against it.

by BBigJ 2005-02-08 08:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Not sure I agree

I understand that creating congressional districts that are as compact as possible might not help Democrats get elected to Congress, but that doesn't make them wrong or unfair.

There's nothing fair about gerrymandering, no matter why it's done. It artificially groups people whose interests are far from common and gives them all one Congressional representative. When you allow that to be done to help your side, you can't complain when it's done to help the other side.

The 19 Congressional districts in Pennsylvania voted 10 - 9 for Gore over Bush. So why did three districts that voted for Gore elect Republicans to Congress? Let's answer that question--and not just about Pennsylvania, but about the nation at large--before we start blaming our woes on districting.

by nocloset 2005-02-08 12:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

Gotta call bullshit on Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania could obviously look much better for Democrats, but it's not the Republicans' fault we couldn't put up winning candidates in:

PA-06
Gerlach (R)
Gore 49.1, Bush 48.6

PA-07
Weldon (R)
Gore 50.5, Bush 47.3

PA-08
Fitzpatrick (R)
Gore 51.4, Bush 46.3

PA-15
Dent (R)
Gore 49.1, Bush 48.1

by asf6 2005-02-08 12:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Gotta call bullshit on Pennsylvania

Gotta call Ooops on your post.

You're using 2000 data from before the gerrymander. The appropriate comparison is to look at the results from the 2004 election, after the gerrymander. If Kerry carried more districts than Bush, I'll accept your argument, but I'd be astonished if he did.

by decisivemoment 2005-02-09 09:47AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Gotta call bullshit on Pennsylvania

um...those are the current numbers. check again.

by asf6 2005-02-28 06:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

GOoPers worried about their own jobs

I think that the redistricting, while overall a win for the Ca. GOP, would seriously endanger some of the long term incumbants. The worst (long-time incumbant) GOP reps in California happen to have districts that include a little piece of a large city and wierd bulges that snake out into rural areas. Now that I think about it, it would be worth the redistricting to get rid of them.

Pombo
http://65.114.146.34/gis1/ca/pombo.pdf

Dreier
http://65.114.146.34/gis1/ca/dreier.pdf

Lungren
http://65.114.146.34/gis1/ca/ca_3rd_district.pdf

Rohrabacher
http://65.114.146.34/gis1/ca/rohrabacher.pdf

by quoi 2005-02-08 01:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Electoral District Reform California

There are several thing that the governor could do. Each is non partisan and completely not sexy.

The first to reform the CA State Senate so that its districts represent individual counties. There are a few, very sparesly populated counties which could be merged with another to have only one state senator. But the whole point of the reform is to end the North-South divide by addressing the other bigger one...the East-West. Eastern CA is politically underepresented at the State Level. If you allow the Assembly to be dominated by urban interests and the senate more rural ones...there will be a greater push toward compromise on both bodies.

The second thing is to draw the congressional districts so that you can't cross county lines. Very populous counties like LA can still have multiple congressional districts and they can still be segregated even. But the reason you do this is so that in CA where the county is often more powerful and more responsible for handing out federal money and such....the county becomes relevant again. Dreier pretty much can eschew any county problems because his district keeps moving east slowly as more whites abandon the San Gabriel Valley. Lois Capps, a Democrat...if you ever see a map of her district....she keeps moving away from the inland parts and further up and down the California coast...she has a district which is 200 miles long...but only five miles wide. If you tie her down to one county she immediately becomes more accountable, just like Dreier.

And the article pretty much lays this out...Bush does not want to offend his entrenched, gerrymandedered pals...but politicans on both sides of the aisle who have pretty straightforward districts aren't worried...and neither should most Californians....unless Tom DeLay is one of the retired judges Arnold ends up picking.

by risenmessiah 2005-02-08 01:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Electoral District Reform California

I've been thinking through the current nightmare we have at the federal level and trying to figure out what lessons we should be taking from it (aside from the GOP sucks). I think that one of the most important lessons is that balance is important. Dubya would never be able to get away with all his crap if the Dems had control of even one house (the first two years don't count because it looked like he was actually making an effort towards bipartisanship). So, I'm looking at the nightmare that is the CA budget and I'm wondering if the same problem is happening there (I don't follow state politics enough). My point is that sacrificing the state senate to the GOP might actually be a good thing. We'll still have a commanding control of the assembly and a decent voice from the opposition would keep corruption down. The price to pay is that progressive legislation would have a tougher time passing, but I'm a social moderate anyhow so that doesn't bother me too much.

(btw, Capps is my representative and I've been pretty impressed with her.)

by BBigJ 2005-02-08 03:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Electoral District Reform California

Don't get me wrong...I don't have a huge ax to grind with Capps's positions. You ought to visit nationalatlas.gov and see her district boundaries on a map...

My feeling is that if you look hard at the state of the CA Legislature...it does not appear that the Assembly or Senate have much to distinguish them. If you have term limits, it essentially creates the Legislature (with two pay grades) and then the Governor. The budget is always a mess because it takes 2/3 majority to pass the budget in CA. This is the way it has to be, I believe, if you want bipartisanship.

The other quirk is that the Governor in CA is about as powerful as the Legislature. This also increases the chance for gridlock but in the past allowed for serious cohabitation when Reagan and Bob Marotti would be forced to hammer out a budget together. But in any case, I think California always has tremendous promise to be at the forefront of national trends.

Schwarzenegger, IMHO, thinks he's going to spawn a big Republican wave...but I've felt he's going to wind up like Jesse Ventura in MN. Talking across party lines can get you elected, but eventually you get ripped apart by the two sides.

by risenmessiah 2005-02-08 03:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Electoral District Reform California

I've seen the district map and I agree that it is absurd.

It has always seemed to me that the two houses in the state legislature are redundant.

Another reason the budget is such a mess are the popular vote initiatives. There is a lot of spending that is locked in giving the government little flexibility. To many times we end up voting on amendments to the state constitution that are nothing more that appropriations bills. That is a task that should never be given to a popular vote, and it makes it impossible to adjust the budget down the road.

by BBigJ 2005-02-08 06:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Electoral District Reform California

Yeah...the initiative process is a little "too much democracy". It's patently ridiculous that if you are rich enough you can hire people to give you signatures. Hell if not for Darrell Issa pouring out the dough, there would have been no recall as you probably know. My own personal feeling is that if initiatives require funding they should have to provide it. In other words, if you want Prop 71 you have to either issue bonds or raise taxes. That would not fix the problem completely, but the other solution is to rewrite the California Consitution.

by risenmessiah 2005-02-08 07:39PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Electoral District Reform California

I think there's some serious "one-person-one-vote" problems with this idea. This is basically what states did pre-Baker v. Carr.

by pwj 2005-02-09 07:47AM | 0 recs

permalink

Any Nonpartisan Plan Will Dilute Cal. Gerrymander

If Democrats are clustered together, it's not gerrymandering if they are placed in the same district. The gerrymander comes in when contiguous areas are split into several districts to maximize a party's advantage, in this case Democrats. I don't see how one can complain about Pennsylvania, which as another comment pointed out is as much a case as losing elections as partisan redistricting, while defending California. Is the principle that Democrats are somehow entitled a redistricting edge in all states? Nonpartisan redistricting isn't intended to offset geography, existing political boundaries, and established communities - it's designed to enhance them even if one party is disadvantaged.

by SLinVA 2005-02-08 03:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Any Nonpartisan Plan Will Dilute Cal. Gerryman

Once again, all the posts in this thread on Pennsylvania refer to 2000, before the gerrymander went into effect. We need some 2004 data, quick, so we can see what Kerry's vote distribution was after the gerrymander.

by decisivemoment 2005-02-09 09:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

redistricting

Before coming to any conclusions on what the GOP may or may not do, one needs to examine what Tom Delay did to Texas. Utter partisanship. The Dems have virtually no chance of retaking Texas on the local, state or national level.

by mikefromtexas 2005-02-08 06:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Are you sure?

Based on what do you argue that "Democrats are clumped tightly" while Republicans are not?

by snaktime 2005-02-09 03:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Are you sure?

Look at the results in Democratic versus Republican districts. The Democrats nationally have many fewer seats, but the Democrats actually have more "safe" seats -- that is 60 percent or more of the vote -- than the Republicans. You see a more extreme version of this when you see Kerry and Gore only carrying 600 out of 3,000 counties despite tying Bush in the popular vote. But the Democrats have urban districts that vote 10 percent Republican, while the Republicans have rural districts that still vote 40 percent Democrat. In other words, we are piling up huge majorities where they don't do us any good, and stranding many voters, with the current set of Congressional maps.

by decisivemoment 2005-02-09 09:52AM | 0 recs