[EL] CA Republicans Plan Referendum Against Redistricting Plans

[Douglas Johnson]

While the threat of referendum was part of Republican leverage in 2001, it
was not the biggest piece of leverage. There were a lot of factors in play
back then, most of which would not have been factors this time around if the
legislature was still in charge. And Representative Pelosi was merely leader
of the California Democratic delegation (and thus able to blow off the DNC
and Party leadership hopes for more seats from CA), not Minority Leader.

 

And remember that Jerry Brown would probably be much more effective in
redistricting than Davis was, both because Brown is closer to the
Legislature than Davis was, and because Brown's been around the
redistricting block before. Brown was Governor during the infamous
"contribution to modern art" 1981 redistricting and the successful 1982
referendum and quick redrawing of the lines.

 

The dynamics that need to be analyzed to decide whether Republicans are
better off with the Commission or the Legislature are very, very
complicated. But in balance I would estimate the Commission plans en toto
are better than the Legislature's would have been for the Republicans,
however disappointed Republicans are by the result.

 

And the communities and voter of California, however disappointed and
mistreated many are by the final plans, are certainly better off than under
a legislative-driven plan, regardless of whether it ended up being partisan
or bipartisan.

 

- Doug

 

Douglas Johnson

Fellow

Rose Institute of State and Local Government

m 310-200-2058

o 909-621-8159

douglas.johnson at cmc.edu

 

 

 

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Eric
McGhee
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:34 PM
To: 'Vladimir Kogan'; Justin Levitt
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] CA Republicans Plan Referendum Against Redistricting Plans

 

I think these are very good points.  The difference, it seems to me, comes
down to one's perception of the odds of certain outcomes.  Would the
Republicans have been able to use the referendum threat the way they did in
2001?  Will the courts be able (under the new law) to draw districts with a
substantially different partisan effect from the ones the commission has
already drawn?  My take on the first is "probably yes," and my take on the
second is "probably no," in which case the commission format has had a
downside for Republicans even if the process was likely to end up in the
courts.  If you disagree with either assessment, then the Republicans are
probably better off with a commission.  

 

 

Eric McGhee  |  Research Fellow  |  PPIC  |  415-291-4439

 

Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the Public Policy Institute of
California.

 

From: Vladimir Kogan [mailto:vkogan at ucsd.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 1:37 PM
To: Justin Levitt; Eric McGhee
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: RE: [EL] CA Republicans Plan Referendum Against Redistricting Plans

 

I'll add two more points on this:

 

1.       Eric is absolutely right in pointing that the partisan impact of
the California plan could be explained by many factors other than overt
partisanship on the part of the of the commissioners. The fact that
supposedly "nonpartisan" redistricting criteria like compactness, reducing
city/county splits, etc. - all now written into the California state
constitution - have clear and predictable implications for the partisan
balance of power has been amply documented by Michael McDonald, Jonathan
Rodden at Stanford, and certainly many others on this list. So simply
showing that Republicans get screwed under these maps is not sufficient to
establish that the commission improperly used political considerations in
its deliberations.

 

2.       Justin Levitt is also right that the new commission system is more
favorable to Republicans than the status quo prior to Proposition 11. Under
the old system, Republicans (or any other minority party/outside group) had
two ways to exercise an ex post veto: (1) referendum; (2) court challenge.
Both of these are still in place after Prop 11. But now, the Republicans
have also gained a potential ex ante veto (enough Republican seats on the
commission to block the adoption of any set of maps). Indeed, by specifying
that each set of maps is subject to referendum, Proposition 11 no longer
allows the Democrats to pick off a few Republican votes and pass the
redistricting plan as an "urgency" measure, thus taking a referendum
challenge off the table. This is precisely what happened in response to the
Republican referendum challenge after the 1980 round of redistricting. In
fact, had the new maps been adopted by the legislature by the same vote
margin that they were approved by the commission, a referendum would not
have been possible under the pre-Prop 11 regime. 

 

 

A cynical (and probably realistic) reading of Proposition 11 is that it's
main purpose was to ensure that any redistricting plan eventually ended up
before the state Supreme Court. Either due to a deadlocked commission, a
legal challenge, or a referendum. With Republican appointees having a large
majority on the court, and the Republican-appointed chief justice apparently
already shopping around for special masters
(http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleFriendlyCA.jsp?id=1202501533652) that
was certainly a smart strategy for Republicans.

 

Vlad

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110816/486c56b8/attachment.html>