Good question. Commission deadlock is a risk (as is
legislative deadlock in a traditional bill-style redistricting system). But a
commission deadlock that puts the process under the State Supreme Court's
jurisdiction is still an enormous improvement over having the legislature and
governor in charge. Even if the Commission deadlocks, the Commission's public
process will have generated reams of public input and scores of community and
district maps that the Court can use in its deliberations. This is
definitely a new environment for California redistricting. What I am willing
to wager is that -- however it turns out -- the new process will be an
improvement for the voters and communities of the state over the past work of
the legislature.
On the Arizona question, I'll have more to say in
the future, but it is clear that those who would say that the Arizona
commission failed to create competitive districts were incorrect. And, as you
know, the California Commission's charge is to draw districts that respect
cities, counties, and communities of interest.
The competitiveness requirement is not in the
California criteria, but the Commission's (or Court's) plan is all but
guaranteed to be an improvement in competitiveness over the status quo (as you and I
each separately concluded). It certainly can't get any less competitive than
what the legislature drew in 2001 -- or over what the legislature drew in
1981/82, as California's then & new Governor remembers
well.
- Doug
Douglas Johnson
Fellow
Rose Institute of State and Local
Government
Claremont McKenna
College
o 909-621-8159
m 310-200-2058
douglas.johnson@cmc.edu
www.RoseReport.org
-----Original Message-----
From:
bruce@cain.berkeley.edu [mailto:bruce@cain.berkeley.edu]
Sent: Monday,
November 08, 2010 12:16 PM
To: Douglas Johnson
Cc: 'James Fischer';
'James Lacy'; jon.roland@constitution.org; JBoppjr@aol.com;
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] California redistricting
commission
Doug
The biggest problem the new commission will face is
reconciling the
VRA/community of interest mandate in prop 20/state
mandate for minimizing
city/county splits with the public expectation (fed
by the CA Forward
people) of multiple competititve seats. As you
know, the AZ commission
struggled--some would say unsuccesffully-- with this
problem.
Another interesting question is what are the odds of
the
commission deadlocking, given that votes will have
to come from three
blocs of members, and the whole matter will go to
court masters...adding
the Congress has raised the stakes
substantially.
Care to venture a prediction on
that?
Bruce
On Mon, 8 Nov 2010, Douglas Johnson
wrote:
>
> I realize this isn't the most serious of
threads, and I've enjoyed the
> banter, but just in case anyone's still
following it, the Commission's work
> will be overseen by the voters (the
redistricting plans are subject to
> referendum) and by the courts (the commission
must comply with the Federal
> Voting Rights
Act).
>
>
>
> In California, as in Florida, the question of
how active the courts will be
> in overseeing the implementation of state
redistricting criteria is an open
> question.
>
>
>
> - Doug
>
>
>
> Douglas Johnson
>
> Fellow
>
> Rose Institute of State and Local
Government
>
> Claremont McKenna
College
>
> o 909-621-8159
>
> m 310-200-2058
>
>
douglas.johnson@cmc.edu
>
> www.RoseReport.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
> [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu]
On Behalf Of James Fischer
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 11:18
AM
> To: James Lacy;
jon.roland@constitution.org
> Cc: JBoppjr@aol.com;
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] California redistricting
commission
>
>
>
> Quis custodiet ipsos
custodes?
>
>
>
> From:
election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
> [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu]
On Behalf Of James Lacy
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 8:51
AM
> To:
jon.roland@constitution.org
> Cc: JBoppjr@aol.com;
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] California redistricting
commission
>
>
>
> Then what we will need is an additional set of
computers to program and run
> the computers. The first set of commuters
will need randomly selected
> programmers to oversee the randomly selected
programers who program the
> first set of computers so that the work of
randomly selected panels
> overseeing the randomly elected panels is as
random as possible.
>
> James V. Lacy
>
> Confidentiality
applies
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2010, at 7:22 AM, Jon Roland
<jon.roland@constitution.org> wrote:
>
> On
11/08/2010 08:58 AM, JBoppjr@aol.com wrote:
>
> It will be
interesting to see how Jon's promotion of random
> selection
works out when the Calif redistricting comm is
> randomly
selected. I wonder what are the efforts leading up
to
> that to try
to manipulate the process.
>
> I got a
report, as yet unconfirmed, that the framers of
that
> reform got
the idea from reading my stuff. Of course, if any
> process can
be manipulated it will be. It had better be
> supervised
by a grand jury for execution of the selection.
>
> Randomly
selected panels need to supervise the selection
of
> other
randomly selected panels. It is too important not to
have
> a lot of
independent people watching.
>
> That still
leaves the question of how computer mapping
software
> is used in
drawing the maps. If they do it right they will
not
> attempt to
do things like protect incumbents. Better to have
> little if
any human input into the drawing. Let the computer
do
>
it.
>
> -- Jon
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Constitution
Society
http://constitution.org
>
> 2900 W Anderson Ln
C-200-322
Austin, TX 78757
>
>
512/299-5001
jon.roland@constitution.org
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
_______________________________________________
>
election-law mailing list
>
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
>
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
>
>
>