creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Deb Saunders
Debra J. Saunders
14 Feb 2012
Obama Imposes Will in Contraception Compromise

From San Francisco, where I live, the controversy over the White House decision to require church-affiliated … Read More.

12 Feb 2012
To Make Women Safe, We Treat Them Like Children

The domestic-violence case against San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi did not start with a call from wife … Read More.

8 Feb 2012
Shaky Grounds for Prop. 8 Ruling

Two of three judges on a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Tuesday found Proposition 8 unconstitutional.… Read More.

Return to Redistricting Sanity

Share Comment

As reform measures go, Proposition 11 — the redistricting reform measure — is hardly a transformational law likely to supercharge activists (of any political stripe) eager to make Sacramento more effective and more accountable to the public. Proposition 11 is too complicated and too tame. Alas, it is the only measure on the November ballot that can improve the political climate in California.

See how low the mighty have fallen. If Proposition 11 does not pass, it will signal yet another victory for entrenched state lawmakers, as it will bolster the system in place since the last redistricting in 2001, when, as is their habit, state politicians passed a bill that allowed them to carve out their legislative districts and cherry-pick voters most likely to re-elect incumbents or replacements from the same party.

Unless voters put an end to the status quo and push for change after the 2010 census, Californians will be stuck with a setup that enables politicians to pick their voters, when democracy is supposed to be a system that allows voters to pick their politicians. Bob Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies and California's guru of good government practices, helped draft Proposition 11, which would establish an independent 14-member commission to draw legislative district boundaries. Stern noted that since the last redistricting plan passed in 2001, there have been more than 450 district elections in California. In all that time, only one seat has changed parties.

Think of all the political upheaval in California this decade. Yet the only party switch in the state Assembly, state Senate and California delegation in the House of Representatives occurred in 2006 when Republican Richard Pombo of Tracy lost his congressional seat to Democrat Jerry McNerney. "It shows how good they are," Stern observed — referring not to how good state pols are at governing, but how effective they are at safeguarding their precious fiefdoms.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but here it is: The people who wrote Proposition 11 knew that if they included congressional districts in the measure, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could amass millions to bury their humble effort, so they didn't dare include congressional districts in the measure.

Proposition 11 would set up a independent panel to carve out districts only for California's 80 state Assembly seats, 40 state Senate seats and the five-member Board of Equalization.

The mechanisms for selecting the panel seem about as convoluted as the weaning out process of a reality TV series. According to the secretary of state's summary of the constitutional initiative, government auditors select 60 registered voters from an applicant pool. Then legislative leaders select five Dems, five Repubs and four voters from neither major party. Three Democratic commissioners, three Republicans and three Neithers must approve the new boundaries.

Me? I'd rather see a panel of retired judges draw the lines — as they so aptly did after the 1990 census, when GOP Gov. Pete Wilson vetoed a Democratic gerrymander plan and threw the hot potato to the white-haired robes. Stern notes that retired judges also did a fine job in the 1970s when the California Supreme Court appointed a panel of three to draw districts. Be it noted, minority groups fared quite well with retired judges, but in this politically-correct environment, reformers dare not put redistricting in the hands of a group that is largely old, largely white and largely male.

Hence, the convoluted 14-voter panel. Said Stern: "It's complicated, but it's fair and also it's not partisan." And: "The odds are against it because it's very difficult to pass something that's this processed oriented. It does take a lot of understanding to vote yes on this."

Better to concentrate on this basic argument that the Legislature cannot be trusted.

In the ballot argument against Proposition 11, opponents argue that this 14-member panel is unelected and hence unrepresentative. "If the party representatives don't go along, nothing gets done," warn the forces who are fronting for party biggies.

Hmmm. Nothing gets done? Sort of reminds me of this year's too-late, too-gimmicky, too-pricey — and worst of all, utterly unbalanced — state budget, in a way that will only make next year's budgeting even worse.

It's simple. The current districts tilt too far to the left or too far to the right. As a result, California elects very liberal Democrats and very conservative Republicans. Bad districts produce too few moderates. Bad districts produce legislators who have little incentive to compromise. Bad districts produce bad budgets. You like bad budgets, vote against Proposition 11.

E-mail Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com. To find out more about Debra J. Saunders, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Ma'am; if the object is democracy, then giving money and property interests the right to influence elections, and government directly is contrary to the object.  If the object is democracy then the Senate is undemocratic -with a state like California having great numbers on equal footing with a state like Alaska with only a handful of people. If the object is democracy the house is contrary to democracy, and to the constitution which says one representative for every thirty thousand. If it was a loophole it should be  closed because when  the house limited its number for its ease it wrecked the power of the people. ...Why is there a Senate? We see in the example of  Stevens of Alaska, that where people are not a significant part of the democracy, that it is an invitation to corruption. ....Just as the house, in limiting their number increased their power as individuals, it also made it harder for the people to influence their government. If thirty thousand people elected a representative there would be some push on him to vote in their interest. He could not avoid answering to the people. As it stands, with one representative for 600, 000, the power of representative is great and the ability of individual  people to influence government is small. It is leadership to division; and your example of redistricting is a perfect example. People seek safe districts. What does a safe district mean? Only that 45% can count on being denied their rights to self government in any district. Ask why we are divided!The  sheep are divided from the goats before the election and from there, division is entrenched. You have to hand it to the far right and left, because the weakness of the people is the strength of the special interests. The only threat to a representative in a safe district comes from within their own party which inevitably pushes the right right and the left left through primary challenges. How are the people served when moderate right candidates who are trying to serve their districts, and the country, are pressured and challenged from the fringe of their own party? Who cares? Since they asked for it, and the system they used against the people can be used against them as well. When are we going to ask that the system of government follow the constitution? We do not have the government we consented to, and they have changed the contitution without amendment.......Democracy is the object.  The senate is undemocratic. The process of redistricting is undemocratic, designed to deny democracy to vast numbers. Limiting the number of representatives is undemocratic, and corrupting. Allowing political parties is undemocratic because it makes a Federal case out of every local need in America.  Who elects  the parties? No one! Yet, we must move the parties to move the representatives, and once in power the representatives can feed  their parties or follow their parties, and select their own districts, again, to deny a sizable minority their representation. Two parties divide us as we are not divided in fact. Worse, they do not unite us as we need unity. We see that they feed division, and must know why! It mights seem illogical, but to deny the representative personal power, and to deny the party power is the key to making the house and the people powerful. If 90% of a small number send a representative to Washington, he can stand or sit on any issue, confident that his people are represented according to their interest. His confidence, and his certainty is increased. Whether he gets for his people what they seek is immaterial, and moot because now, a whole country is denied its needs. Who does get what they want from government? If the people are locked into a wrestling match some one can walk off with both their  wallets. Our government is about the denial of democracy so that people outside of government and events can rule us.  WE would not be divided, and could not be divided if government were there to resolve our differnce, and it would be better for them to fall out with bloody carnage than for us to be fatally weakend.  We are suffering the worst aspects of anarchy and tyranny. We do not have democracy. ..Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sun Oct 5, 2008 7:10 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Debra J. Saunders
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 15 Feb 2012

5 May 2009 News Biz: Unbiased and Out of Business

4 Oct 2011 San Francisco Supes Take Unnecessary Flier on Bird Safety

21 Feb 2010 Governator to Governess?