<x-flowed>mike,
we do not know what (if anything) the governor will propose. to date,
there have only been hints but nothing to debate.
on the other topic - expertise of groups/ cost of participation: i
disagree. during the
last redistricting there were a number of groups that were not well funded
but managed to acquire the expertise to draw very good plans that i have
no doubt were legal and would have withstood a challenge. i saw plans
from groups who borrowed the software and drew statewide maps that were
not bad at all.
minimizing city and county splits is really not the most difficult
criterion to adhere to.
.
karin mac donald
statewide database
igs/ucb
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Michael McDonald wrote:
Doug Johnson implies that the Gov. has an ideal constitutional amendment in
mind. Do we know what it is? Are the initiatives being filed as a way or
bargaining?
I agree that many of the groups Doug mentions can hire or have the expertise
to craft a statewide map, heck I've worked with some of them, including
Doug. I am skeptical, though, that they will have the expertise AND
resources to draw a statewide map that minimizes county and city splits,
etc. and satisfies the VRA everywhere in the state. Someone will have to
pay for the voting rights analysis and someone will have to pay for you,
Doug, to draw the maps (he's good at it, hire him). California is a big
state, and there is a lot of analysis and map drawing to do, so we're
talking maybe $100,000, if not much more, to construct a map that will pass
constitutional muster - and that's just drawing one map without all of the
other overhead. But I certainly can imagine that interested groups can and
will propose pieces of a map for a commission to consider, which is why I
would want to empower a commission to exercise discretion and to give it the
ability to draw maps.
This gives me a good idea...a constitutional amendment should require that
leading into redistricting, the state of California hire an expert to do a
voting rights analysis and to make their report public so that outside
groups can piggyback on the work of the commission. Since the expert can be
hired as soon as election and census data are available, it makes sense to
let the state hire the expert as soon as possible, rather than to wait for
the convening of a commission. To do this, I would phrase the
constitutional amendment more generally, something like: empower the state
and commission to hire appropriate experts to perform necessary analysis to
set the parameters of federal and state map constitutionality and to make
their reports public in a reasonably timely manner.
I am still not convinced that Costa's version gives this power to the panel
of judges since 1(a) states "...in accordance with the standards and
provisions in this Article." I don't see a provision that gives the judges
the power to draw their own maps. But I'm glad to hear that there are other
proposals on the table, since I think reform (in the right direction, which
is always the catch) would be good for the voters of California.
-----Original Message-----
From: J.M. Wice [mailto:JMWice@tmo.blackberry.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 5:14 PM
To: Michael McDonald; 'election-law'
Subject: Re: California Redistricting Reform
Mike,
My understanding is that you are referring to the Costa initiative --
or one version of it -- Costa has more than one redistricting initiative
in the pipeline. Additionally, there are the following:
Zaremberg initiative filed just a few days ago. It is SA2005RF0016
Submitted for Title and Summary
"Redistricting Reform: The Voter Empowerment Act."
Robert W. Harris has submitted four alternative measures:
SA2005RF0003 through 0006 for title and summary.
All of these are on the Secretary of State's website: www.ss.ca.gov
Jeff Wice
-----Original Message-----
From: "Michael McDonald" <mmcdon@gmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:11:15
To:"'election-law'" <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Subject: California Redistricting Reform
As I read the California redistricting initiative language (see:
http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/htRedistricting.html for a nice
summary), I am concerned that the initiative language sets up a mechanical
procedure for the panel of judges to adopt a map. I dont see any language
in the initiative that empowers the panel of judges to draw maps! Instead,
they are told to accept public submissions. In judging these public
submissions, the key criterion is that city and county boundaries should be
kept whole. Being retired judges, I would assume that they would adopt a
literal reading of the initiative, as I have.
As I envision this process, the two political parties, who are the only
players who can do the voting analysis necessary to provide a map that can
pass VRA muster, will draw partisan maps that minimize county and city
splits, particularly around minority communities that force splits of city
and county boundaries. Whoever can figure out how to simultaneously
maximize both split minimization and partisan advantage wins adoption of
their map.
Here are the two relevant sections:
1(e) The panel of special Masters shall establish and publish a schedule to
receive and consider proposed plans from any member of the Legislature or an
elector.
Nothing further in 1(e), up to and including the unanimous vote to adopt a
final map, mentions the ability of the judges to modify a proposal or draw
their own maps.
And
2(f) District boundaries shall conform to existing geographic boundaries of
a county, city, or city and county to the greatest extent practicable.
Perhaps someone closer to this initiative can illuminate the flaw in my
reading of the language. But, as I read this, I dont think that this will
solve the problem of drawing more competitive districts in California.
AUTOTEXTLIST \s E-mail Signature ==================================
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Brookings Institution, Visiting Fellow
George Mason University, Assistant Professor
Dept of Public and International Affairs
4400 University Drive - 3F4
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
Office: 703-993-4191
Fax: 703-993-1399
mmcdon@gmu.edu
http://elections.gmu.edu/
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile.
</x-flowed>