At first blush when the ‘visualizations’ were published on June 1st by the California Redistricting Commission [CRC], Republicans believed they dodged the bullet. Then came the first draft, 10 days later, and panic began to spread. Substantially revised from the visualizations, some experts estimated that three to seven Republican congressional seats could be threatened.
Only 36% of the state’s 53 Congressional seats 19 remain Republican hands. Obama trounced McCain in 2008 with a 61% to 37% showing. Even with Governor Brown’s massive victory in 2010, he earned only 53% vs. 42% for Whitman. In a bad year, Californians will at least give to republicans 37% to 42% of their vote. For Congress, the percentages are actually higher. So why would Republicans ‘lose’ more seats?
Clever gaming and racial gerrymandering is the answer. Democrat activist Secretary of State Debra Bowen and the California State Auditor are responsible. Under the CRC initiative act, Bowen and the Auditor set up procedures to vet several thousand candidates who would eventually make up the 14 person commission. They each took their duties seriously to create a process that would have at the end put only reliable liberals and non conservatives in charge.
Most have never heard of the California State Auditor, Elaine Howle. Nor would they know it is not an independent agency. Instead, the Auditor serves at the pleasure of State Senate President Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker, John Perez. Consequently, the final commissioners are to the left of center. Of the 14 commissioners, the five liberal Democrats are naturally united. Of the so called Decline-To-States, three are to the left of the Democrats. Finally, among the five Republicans, three are marginal. For example, one Republican commissioner claimed he joined the party a little over two years ago [during the Obama boom] because he believed in ‘social justice’.
As Lenin asked in 1905, what is to be done? If the 2nd Draft of July 3 and the Final of August 15 are atrociously anti-Republican/conservative for the State Senate, Assembly or Congressional lines—there is a powerful antidote.
Tony Quinn resident expert and possible genius in things concerning redistricting just wrote on this in Fox and Hounds. Voters can reject any of the plans by Referendum. After all, it was Hiram Johnson republicans who enacted the Referendum in 1911.
The Referendum requires some 800,000 signatures gathered in 90 days. Once the signatures are filed that plan in question is automatically stayed. The California Supreme Court would have ‘original’ jurisdiction. The court would have to appoint a “special master” to redraw the lines. The special master’s lines would be the ones candidates would compete for in the June, 2012 primary. At the same time the CMC’s lines would be voted up or down, at the same primary. If the CMC lines were approved the CMC lines would take effect in June of 2014.
There you have it. If the congressional lines are decidedly anti- republican/conservative, some 36% of the California electorate would be disenfranchised for 10 years. The Republican majority in Congress would be threatened. Fortunately, there is a safety value. Let the voters decide.
My hopes for the CMC final draft are not high. The few conservative voices on the commission have been shouted down by the dominant liberal/left coalition. The CMC’s Executive Director is so partisan he was listed as a ‘friend’ of Obama in Facebook. He accused a conservative commission member of leaking an internal investigation report that absolved that person, when commissioner Maria Blanco, a leftist hoot-owl falsely accused that conservative member.
If commissioners are dragged into the political abyss by Q2’s Karen McDonald in creating an anti-republican/conservative congressional map—their work will quickly be undone. After all, there is a nice sunset provision in the CMC act that automatically abolishes the commission on August 15, and all members and staff will then be out of a job.
Shawn Steel is serves as Republican National Committeeman for California. He is a former Chairman of the California Republican Party.
June 23rd, 2011 at 9:53 am
Excellent piece.
June 23rd, 2011 at 12:39 pm
I participated in the early discussions of non-legislative re-districting reform. Most of the effort was spent arguing over the composition of the commission which I argued against as commissioners are invariably influenced just like legislators. I pushed and lost on the idea that the re-districting criteria be put into the law in such a comprehensive manner that a computer or a monkey could do the job instead of a commission. Rather than fight in advance over what constitutes an ideal district the participants chose to argue over who is the ideal commissioner. This would not work and I stopped attending. Rather than ignore political data the line drawers should have been directed to use such information to maximize the number of competitive districts.
It took the focused leadership of Don Sebastiani last time to succeed in repealing a gerrymander. Shawn Steel is correct that this new commission is not above being held accountable by the voters.
June 23rd, 2011 at 3:09 pm
I am not surprised at the low number of Republican lean districts either given the commission’s lefty make-up. However, the Hispanic leadership groups are up in arms because they feel they did not get the growth in the number of Hispanic plurality / near plurality districts that the California Hispanic population growth earned them. Therein lies a possible Republican solution that the Liberals may back. Let me explain.
I suspect that in the July redraw of districts the Liberal commissioners will support a number of proposed Democrat lean but competitive districts to be shaved of a goodly portion of their Hispanics, Such a decision would leave the losing district more vulnerable to Republican victories because the replacement voters would be overwhelmingly non-Hispanics. These shaved Hispanics would be gerrymandered into neighboring proposed lean Democrat districts making them more Hispanics. The net gainers in these gerrymander scenarios would be Hispanics but Republican candidates would, as I wrote, also gain.
The federal courts have specifically allowed gerrymanders if it was done to help racial or ethnic minoritiers gain proportional representation.
June 26th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
The 1991 maps created by Supreme Court “Special Masters” were fair enough that in a “wave” election (1994) Republicans won a MAJORITY in the State Assembly. That’s not a misprint: 41 Republicans in the Assembly!
The 1973 maps from Special Masters were fair enough that in the Howard Jarvis “wave” election (1978) more thn a dozen “Prop. 13 Babies” were elected, benefitting the GOP with new leaders for two decades.
In short, the Referendum/Interim Map option outlined above by Brother
Steel is built on solid historical ground. He must be a YAFer!