Re: [EL] California redistricting commission

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