|
|
:: 10.31.2003 ::
Well, this is interesting. I did a Google search the morning for "California signatures redistricting" after hearing part of an NPR report about a guy who's collecting signatures for a voter referendum that would take redistricting powers away from the very people the process tends to benefit - the legislature. Among the sites found was this one, a document put out in 2001 by the California State Assembly Republican Caucus on "redistricting issues."The Burton example highlights the most important reason to avoid gerrymandering - politicians using the redistricting power to thwart the will of the voters. An unfair gerrymander undermines the electoral system, breeds distrust among the voting public, and poisons relations between the political parties. Over the next few years, California will spend millions of dollars overhauling its election equipment and procedures in the wake of the 2000 presidential election. A gerrymander will render that reform futile. Political outcomes will be assured far ahead of time without any input from the voters at all.
There are also practical reasons to avoid gerrymandering. Dividing cities, counties, and communities of interest breeds confusion among voters and makes it difficult for legislators to effectively represent local interests. Keeping communities of interest united within the same district respects the geographic and political integrity of California. Using common-sense criteria also limits the ability of map drawers to play games with the political process.
Redistricting is the most political act undertaken by the Legislature. It is a highly partisan exercise that requires many months of negotiation between Republicans and Democrats, the Legislature and the Governor. It can advance, or end, political careers. [emphasis added] The above could as easily have been written by Texas Democrats in the wake of the recent redistricting debacle. The CA Republicans make an interesting suggestion later in the document: The third option is a lawsuit. Democrats may attempt to split minority communities in order to strengthen their own fortunes. Doing so may be a violation of the Voting Rights Act, which requires the Legislature to respect minority communities of interest. Furthermore, the new plans must respect current majority-minority districts. If minorities lose voting strength due to the new redistricting plans, a situation called "retrogression," a court can overturn the Legislature's plan. Republicans may also have cause to sue if Democrats fail to respect the California Constitution's requirement for districts to respect the "geographical integrity" of cities, counties, and other communities of interest. Switch "Democrat" and "Republican," and replace "California" with "Texas" and you've got a decent strategy for the Texas Democrats.
I almost laughed aloud when I read this last part: If the Democrat-dominated legislature conducts redistricting in its traditional way - limiting participation, holding last-minute hearings, striking backroom deals - they will have to deal with the legal and public relations difficulties that would cause. Bringing redistricting out into the open exposes and opens up the proposed maps for comment and criticism. This is a goal the Assembly Republican Caucus should strive for. Wow, the irony of it all.
:: Deb 10:11 AM :: permalink ::
[0] comments ::
::  
|
