California Redistricting
Debra Saunders comes out in favor of the redistricting proposition on the November ballot.
I could't agree more. Here's a slightly adapted excerpt from a speech on all the propositions that I delivered last weekend:
California is a state with 36 million people, 80 Assembly districts, 40 state Senate districts and 52 Congressional districts. But after last November’s elections, not one congressional or state legislative seat in California – not one out of 153 – changed hands. That’s hardly the sign of a healthy political climate.
Proposition 77 is designed to restore some much-needed competition to California politics. Under the Voter Empowerment Act, independent judges, rather than politicians, would draw election districts and then voters would be able to approve or reject them.
Please don’t misunderstand – usually, I’m not a big fan of allowing unelected judges to do much of anything. But this is an exception – because, right now, California voters are trapped in a status quo where politicians are insulated from any real threat of being voted out of office.
As a result, Governor Schwarzenegger can’t negotiate effectively with the Democrats. If a Democrat represents a gerrymandered district with a partisan registration advantage of 30% -- as some state Democrats do – then the Governor could swing a whopping 20% of that vote, but the Democrat can still win easily. In these circumstances, why would a Democrat ever bother to negotiate with the Governor?
Sad to say, the responsibility for this status quo rests at the feet of Democrats and Republicans alike. Back in 2000, the politicians got together and drew legislative districts with only one principle in mind: Incumbent protection. The system works well for them – it’s all about “job security.” For us, however, it has produced a legislature that is arrogant, unaccountable and out of touch.
As a result, the legislature can pursue every left wing pipe dream without having to worry about accountability or any real world results. That’s how – only five years after Californians passed Proposition 22 [defining marriage as between one man and one woman] with 61% of the vote – legislators still felt free to pass a gay marriage bill.
Even at the end of this legislative year with the special election looming, the Democrats in Sacramento were up to their same old tricks: Planning to raise the state’s minimum wage. Proposing a law that mandates gender equity in the workplace, which would let anyone with a grievance – real or perceived – sue his or her employer. Passing bills to let workers sue their employers over labor or environmental concerns. A bill that would require students to be taught in their native language. And legislation that would create a reparations fund for Mexican-Americans “unfairly” repatriated to Mexico decades ago.
That’s only a taste of the pernicious policies that are being pursued in our name by our so-called “representatives.” They dare to carry on this way only because they think they’re safe – that there’s nothing we can do about it.
Voting for Prop. 77 would, indeed, "do something about it."
I could't agree more. Here's a slightly adapted excerpt from a speech on all the propositions that I delivered last weekend:
California is a state with 36 million people, 80 Assembly districts, 40 state Senate districts and 52 Congressional districts. But after last November’s elections, not one congressional or state legislative seat in California – not one out of 153 – changed hands. That’s hardly the sign of a healthy political climate.
Proposition 77 is designed to restore some much-needed competition to California politics. Under the Voter Empowerment Act, independent judges, rather than politicians, would draw election districts and then voters would be able to approve or reject them.
Please don’t misunderstand – usually, I’m not a big fan of allowing unelected judges to do much of anything. But this is an exception – because, right now, California voters are trapped in a status quo where politicians are insulated from any real threat of being voted out of office.
As a result, Governor Schwarzenegger can’t negotiate effectively with the Democrats. If a Democrat represents a gerrymandered district with a partisan registration advantage of 30% -- as some state Democrats do – then the Governor could swing a whopping 20% of that vote, but the Democrat can still win easily. In these circumstances, why would a Democrat ever bother to negotiate with the Governor?
Sad to say, the responsibility for this status quo rests at the feet of Democrats and Republicans alike. Back in 2000, the politicians got together and drew legislative districts with only one principle in mind: Incumbent protection. The system works well for them – it’s all about “job security.” For us, however, it has produced a legislature that is arrogant, unaccountable and out of touch.
As a result, the legislature can pursue every left wing pipe dream without having to worry about accountability or any real world results. That’s how – only five years after Californians passed Proposition 22 [defining marriage as between one man and one woman] with 61% of the vote – legislators still felt free to pass a gay marriage bill.
Even at the end of this legislative year with the special election looming, the Democrats in Sacramento were up to their same old tricks: Planning to raise the state’s minimum wage. Proposing a law that mandates gender equity in the workplace, which would let anyone with a grievance – real or perceived – sue his or her employer. Passing bills to let workers sue their employers over labor or environmental concerns. A bill that would require students to be taught in their native language. And legislation that would create a reparations fund for Mexican-Americans “unfairly” repatriated to Mexico decades ago.
That’s only a taste of the pernicious policies that are being pursued in our name by our so-called “representatives.” They dare to carry on this way only because they think they’re safe – that there’s nothing we can do about it.
Voting for Prop. 77 would, indeed, "do something about it."
posted by LadybugUSA at 4:47 PM
1 Comments:
Actually, computers with census data input could redraw districts without bias and with as much population balance as one is willing to tolerate jagged district edges. Why this isn't mandatory nationwide, I can't understand. As long as politicians draw the boundaries, we will have deceit and treachery.
Post a Comment
<< Home