[EL] CA Republicans Plan Referendum Against Redistricting Plans

[Ray Haynes]

I read the string of emails on the disappointment of Republicans on the redistricting maps, and thought I would add a couple of words.  I was in the discussions (and voted for) the 2001 maps, and also participated in the discussions when Republicans were planning the initiatives to set up the commission.

First, the redistricting of 2001 was a plan concocted between David Drier and Howard Berman.  Berman secured the co-operation of the legislative Democrats, and Drier persuaded the White House to intervene with the Legislative Republicans.  The goal of the program was to maintain the status quo.  Congressional Republicans believed it would help them keep their majorities in Congress (when combined with the Texas redistricting process, which they anticipated would increase their majority).  Legislative Democrats figured they could increase their majorities by focusing their resources on a few seats.  The election of 2002 proved the legislative Democrats wrong, as the election of 2006 proved the Congressional Republicans wrong.

However, as we approached 2006, the move among California Republicans to create the commission gathered steam.  Having seen exactly how personal redistricting is (many of my colleagues spent considerable time with Michael Berman drawing their district lines), I knew that legislators would never let the process proceed without them.  I figured the commission would just be a front for those most interested in the process, and that, given the political structure, Republicans would have little or no input, as they actually did in 2001.  When the Secretary of State picked the staff, and then the staff changed the RFP for the consultants to ensure that a consultant with strong Democrat connections was hired, the die was cast for Republicans to get the short end of the redistricting stick.

There are lots of reasons for Republicans to come out on the wrong end of a redistricting, demographics and politics being the most prominent.  However, it is my belief that this redistricting was predestined to make sure that the outcomes were the least favorable they could be for Republicans.  First, the staff was chosen by a Democrat, second the consultant was very close to Democrats.  The Commission, to anyone familiar with how commissions actually work, was organized to make sure that it was little more than a rubber stamp for the staff and consultants.

That being said, the Republicans got what they deserved.  They cut themselves out of the process with the naive assumption that the Commission would be nonpartisan.  Redistricting is NEVER nonpartisan.  They call it Gerrymandering because, from the very beginning of this country, politicians figured out how to maximize their advantage in the process.  Commissions, appointed by politicians, with staff, appointed by politicians, whose activity is followed closely by politicians, are not going to be free of politics.  Keeping it the Legislature would have given Republicans a fighting chance to win seats (as they did in 2002).  The Commission process gave the Democrats the best of both worlds, very favorable lines, and political deniability.  It is truly unfortunate, but entirely predictable to anyone who has participated in the process.

All this is to say that anyone who thinks that politics will not enter into a redistricting process is truly naive.  Power, money, and jobs are at stake in the process.  Politicians ignore it at their own peril, and they didn't get where they are by ignoring these kind of details.  The problem of the Republicans in a referendum is that Democrats will argue, appropriately, that Republicans created this process, how can they be disappointed with its outcome.  Republicans don't have much of an argument in reply.

Ray Haynes
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110817/312ddc33/attachment.html>