• California Citizens Redistricting Commission,  Elton Gallegly

    CA-26: Republican Referendum on Congressional Maps Over?

    Flap’s old Congressional District CA-24 and the new one CA-26

    It looks likely.

    Republicans backing a voter referendum to overturn California’s new congressional maps are on the verge of dropping the effort, sources say.

    One reason is a lack of enthusiasm among California’s GOP congressional delegation. One of the newest but most-prominent members of that delegation — Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield — reportedly led those arguing that it wasn’t worth fighting the new maps.

    At a recent meeting of the National Republican Campaign Committee, several strategists argued that the statewide referendum wasn’t a good use of campaign resources. And some noted that the congressional maps, drawn by a voter-approved independent commission, are more favorable to Republicans than they would have been under a Democrat-controlled gerrymander.

    The effort to put the new congressional maps in front of voters was submitted last month and had been cleared for signature gathering, although no committee had been created to raise funds, according to the secretary of state’s office.

    There was no formal announcement that the ballot referendum campaign for the congressional districts was abandoned. However, in such cases groups typically elect to cease signature gathering, causing the measure to fail once the deadline is passed. The referendum’s sponsor, Julie Vandermost, and its attorney did not return phone calls seeking comment.

    At the recent GOP convention in Los Angeles, there were closed-door discussions about the initiative’s failure to gain traction.

    Plain and simple, the supporters of the referendum (whoever they might be i.e. Gallegly, Dreier, Lungren, Miller, Royce, Bilbray) would have to pony up around $2 million or so to qualify the referendum.

    Even if they could do so, and nobody has shown the interest, the California Supreme Court is no slam dunk to draw Congressional Districts that are any more favorable to the GOP, especially all of the delegation.

    The referendum is a colossal waste of campaign resources. Money that the California Republican Party does NOT have.

    So, back over to my Congressman Elton Gallegly who will now decide to either run and run hard in CA-26 or not.

  • California Citizens Redistricting Commission,  California Republican Party

    California Congressional Districts NOT All Bad for Republican Party

    Flap’s old Congressional District CA-24 and the new one CA-26

    I have to agree with Republican political operative and consultant Rob Stutzman.

    What will it take to win these competitive seats? We will have to do the hard work of becoming a more competitive party. We have to expand our message to Latinos and field candidates who can compete in marginal districts. These new maps will finally force to the surface Republican candidates in California who can compete and win in swing districts.

    Since 1992, Republican voter registration has fallen by 8 percent. Recently released Field Poll data make the point even clearer. At the same time, our party message is not resonating with younger voters as the GOP is a graying electorate. More than half of current California Republican voters are over the age of 50, up from 40 percent in 1992.

    Republican registration in the Latino community has nearly stagnated since 1992, growing only one percent at a time when the state’s Hispanic voters doubled during that time from 10 percent to 22 percent.

    In a state that has dipped to only 31 percent GOP registration, providing more opportunities to be competitive is a positive development. We have been slowly withering to a darker shade of blue here, but shedding the gerrymander of the past decade gives us the chance to adapt and learn to win again.

    The California Congressional redistricting is probably as fair as you are going to achieve vis a vis population and federal voting rights demographics.

    I understand that, although a referendum has been approved for signature circulation to overturn the California Citizen Redistricting Commission’s Congressional District plan that no actual signatures are being solicited.

    Yes, there will be few long time GOP Congressmen who will be forced either into retirement or to run in districts where there will actually be a contested race.

    Isn’t that why we have elections?

    California Republicans will be far better to accept the California Citizen Redistricting Commission’s and use any money raised for the referendum in party building activities.

  • California,  California Citizens Redistricting Commission

    California Citizen’s Redistricting Commission Approves New Congressional and Legislative Districts


    Flap’s old Congressional District CA-24 and the new one CA-26

    The new Congressional and California Legislative Districts have been approved by the California Citizen’s Redistricting Commission this morning.

    A citizens panel gave final approval Monday to new boundaries for California’s state and congressional legislative districts, setting the stage for possible challenges to the plan in the courtroom and on the ballot.

    The maps adopted Monday by the Citizens Redistricting Commission will be used during the next decade in elections for 120 seats in the state Legislature, 53 congressional seats and four seats on the state Board of Equalization.

    “Given the conflicting requirements, I think we did a very good job,” said Commission Chairman Vincent Barabba, a Republican businessman from Santa Cruz County who is a former director of the U.S. Census Bureau.

    The 14-person panel was created after voters approved Proposition 11 in November 2008 to take the job of redistricting away from legislators, who drew the boundaries in a way that helped make sure incumbents were reelected.

    Some Republican members of Congress have complained about how the districts were drawn and hinted that the new districts could be subject to a court challenge.

    California Republican Party spokesman Mark Standriff said it is “less likely” the state party will go to court, and a decision on whether to put a referendum on the ballot to challenge the plan will probably be made this week.

    By and large, the Citizen’s Commission followed the law and their plan is probably about as fair as one can expect in politics. Sure, some POLS will be upset, but having been exposed to the last decade of blatant gerrymandering, this is a vast improvement.

    But, stay tuned, since there is liable to be some challenges either by referendum or by lawsuit.

    You can view your new California Congressional and Legislative districts here with an interactive map.

  • California,  California Citizens Redistricting Commission,  Flap's California Morning Collection,  Jack O'Connell

    Flap’s California Morning Collection: August 15, 2011

    California’s Capitol

    Watch out Californians, the California Legislature is back in session this morning after a month’s long summer hiatus.

    The Legislature returns from a month-long summer recess this week with hundreds of bills, many of them highly controversial, still awaiting action before the Sept. 9 adjournment.

    The recess itself was unusual, since in recent years the Legislature has remained in session through the summer due to budget stalemates. This year, with a budget – albeit a very shaky one – in place, the Capitol’s denizens can concentrate on bills.

    That means renewing traditional end-of-session follies. Hundreds of lobbyists will battle over high- dollar issues, and legislators will cash in with fundraising events – an average of at least five every working day.

    Fittingly, perhaps, the Legislature’s return coincides with the supposedly final vote of the new Citizens Redistricting Commission on legislative and congressional maps for the 2012 elections and beyond.

    New maps mean some incumbents will be fighting for their political lives next year while others will be maneuvering to ascend the political food chain, thus making late-session campaign fundraising even more frantic than usual.

    Late-session bills tend to be controversial and/or involve taking money from someone and giving it to someone else, which is fertile ground for political fundraising.

    Plus, an added bonus today, with the above referenced California Citizen’s Redistricting Commission approving final legislative and congressional maps. The meeting starts at 9 AM.

    OK, on to the links…..

    For Some, Redistricting is Splitsville

    Even with testimony from the public and formal guidelines written into law, California’s first-ever citizens redistricting effort has found no easy answers to the question, “What is a community?”

    And so, in the statewide maps being certified Monday morning, some will see their communities split between political districts. Others will be lumped together with communities with which they think they have nothing in common.

    The complexity and controversy of shaping political maps based, when possible, on community boundaries has been a dominant theme of the dozens of meetings and decisions made by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

    On Monday morning’s edition of The California Report, we take a look at how some of those decisions have left some grumbling in different parts of the state, while commissioners believe the new maps reflect a thoughtful and careful deference to the needs of the public.

    Mike Ward: Redistricting Panel Broke Law

    A member of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission believes that the commission broke the law, failed to uphold an open and transparent decision-making process and used political motives in drawing California’s new state and federal legislative districts, according to an exclusive, in-depth interview with CalWatchDog.com.

    “This commission simply traded the partisan, backroom gerrymandering by the Legislature for partisan, backroom gerrymandering by average citizens,” Commissioner Mike Ward said in an interview with CalWatchDog.com on Sunday night. “This commission became the Citizens Smoke-Filled Room, where average citizen commissioners engaged in dinner-table deals and partisan gerrymandering — the very problems that this commission was supposed to prevent.”

    Ward, who was the lone member of the commission to oppose all of the commission’s proposed maps at its July 29 meeting, will outline his opposition in a detailed statement to be delivered at the commission’s press conference later today. An advance copy of the commissioner’s remarks was obtained exclusively by CalWatchDog.com and is reprinted below.

    Life after politics for O’Connell

    Former state superintendent of public instruction and longtime Ventura County lawmaker Jack O’Connell seems to be settling into life after politics. I visited him yesterday in his Sacramento office at School Innovations & Advocacy, the national education consulting firm where he serves as “chief education officer.”

    Interesting for Jack saying he didn’t miss the zoo. For someone who taught continuation high school, for what less than two years, before sitting at a card table in a gerrymandered Democratic districts to win the first of many political jobs, he should not be so dismissive. Wouldn’t you think?

    Have a wonderful morning!

  • California Citizens Redistricting Commission

    California Redistricting Via an Interactive Map: See Your New Legislative and Congressional Districts

    This is my California State Senate District

    Check out the Sacramento Bee’s new interactive map to see your new California legislative and congressional districts.

    I know the maps will not be final until the California Citizen’s Redistricting Commission finally adopts them in a little less than two weeks. But the poop is that the maps are not going to change.

  • Amazon Tax,  California,  California Citizens Redistricting Commission,  Flap's California Morning Collection,  Internet Sales Taxes,  Tea Party

    Flap’s California Morning Collection: August 3, 2011

    A morning collection of links and comments about my home, California.

    For Central Coast Democrats, a prize and a problem

    Democrats on California’s Central Coast were handed a rare prize last week when the Citizens Redistricting Commission created a Senate district with no incumbent and a 12-percentage point Democratic voter registration edge.

    The race is already on to see who gets to claim the prize of becoming the party’s candidate, and it could be run on a track that is crowded, uncertain and potentially dangerous.

    Three contestants have either reached or are approaching the starting line:

    – Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara, a former assemblywoman who lost a Senate race in 2008 by fewer than 900 votes in a district that was much less friendly to a Democrat. She says she’s “seriously considering” becoming a candidate. “I’m very much leaning in that direction.”

    – Jason Hodge of Oxnard, a Ventura County firefighter and an elected commissioner of the Oxnard Harbor District. Hodge has been planning a run for the Legislature for months, has formed a campaign committee and begun raising money. He says he’s definitely running and has “a full expectation to raise $1 million for this primary.”

    – Pedro Nava of Santa Barbara, a former assemblyman and onetime member of the California Coastal Commission. He says he hasn’t made up his mind, but muses that the Senate district “almost looks like someone drew it for me.” Nava says that by Labor Day, “Everybody should have a sense of what’s real and what’s possible.”

    None says he or she would shy away from a primary race in which there are multiple Democratic candidates.

    Tea Party picks up steam, demands further cuts

    National Tea Party leaders in California were thrilled about one by-product of the political bloodbath over raising the federal debt ceiling: The fight showed that after two years of rabble-rousing from outside the Capitol, the Tea Party has real power to shape the debate in Washington.

    Their challenge now that President Obama has signed the debt limit law: Can the Tea Party transform its government-shrinking mantra into long-term power, or will it be a one-hit wonder?

    They’re not stopping to think about it. This month, Tea Partiers will storm town hall meetings of Republican and Democratic members of Congress and demand even more cuts. It’s the same strategy Tea Party groups used two years ago to protest – and ultimately water down – the health care reform law when they burst on the national scene.

    “You’re going to see a lot of heat at those meetings,” said Mark Meckler, a Grass Valley (Nevada County) resident and co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, a national organization that called House Speaker John Boehner’s plan to lift the ceiling “an embarrassment.”

    Tea Partiers say the debt deal didn’t cut enough federal spending, was crafted behind closed doors, and assigned responsibility for further cuts to a small, joint committee of Congress.

    That heat will be stoked further on Aug. 27 in Napa, when thousands of supporters and at least two GOP presidential candidates are expected to attend a rally to start a Tea Party Express bus trip across the country. It will end in Tampa, where the group will co-host a Republican presidential debate with CNN.

    Two years ago, the idea of the Tea Party co-hosting a debate with the self-proclaimed “most trusted name in news” was unimaginable.

    Dan Walters: Remapping of California districts still on a rocky road

    So the state’s new redistricting commission, after countless hours of hearings, discussions and mind-numbing exercises in specific line-drawing, has produced its almost-final maps of 177 legislative, congressional and Board of Equalization districts.

    What now?

    Partisan and independent analysts have cranked up their computers, and their scenarios generally agree that the proposed districts, which need one more commission vote this month, would result in a Democratic gain of congressional seats and give Democrats a strong chance to claim two-thirds majorities in both legislative houses.

    Whether those conclusions become reality, however, would depend on what happens in “swing” districts – those potentially winnable by either party – in the 2012 and 2014 election cycles. And their dynamics would be affected by the new and untested “top two” primary system.

    It’s “would” rather than “will” because it’s uncertain whether the Citizens Redistricting Commission’s maps will actually go into effect, since they are subject to attack by those – Republicans, mostly – who believe they got the shaft.

    Critics could challenge the maps by referendum – collecting signatures to put them on the 2012 ballot – and if a referendum qualifies, the state Supreme Court would adopt temporary maps for the 2012 elections.

    It could simply decree that the commission’s maps be used for 2012 while voters decide their permanent fate.

    That’s what the court, headed by Chief Justice Rose Bird, decided when a Republican referendum challenged the 1981 maps adopted by a Democratic Legislature and then-Gov. Jerry Brown – a ruling that fueled a drive to oust Bird in the 1986 election.

    Or the Supreme Court could draw its own maps, as it did to break redistricting stalemates after the 1970 and 1990 censuses.

    Attorney general, FPPC asked to investigate identity theft ads

    The state attorney general and California’s campaign watchdog agency have been asked to investigate a new labor-backed group telling voters that signing initiative petitions increases risk of identity fraud.

    Carl DeMaio, a San Diego councilman supporting an effort to qualify a local pension reform measure, filed a complaint over the weekend with the Fair Political Practices Commission alleging that Californians Against Identity Theft is running afoul of state disclosure laws and “knowingly using false information to alarm voters and stifle the constitutionally protected rights of individuals” in the radio spots and website it launched last week.

    In a separate letter, DeMaio asked state Attorney General Kamala Harris to investigate the ad and other activities he said are “undermining the initiative process” for San Diego voters.

    As The Bee reported Friday, the organization behind the ads has received funding from the California Building and Construction Trades Council. The secretary-treasurer of the group, a retired attorney who formerly represented the union, declined to identify other contributors Friday. He said Californians Against Identity Theft, which has not filed a campaign committee, has been incorporated as a 501(c)4 nonprofit.

    Californians Against Identity Theft’s 60-second radio ad, which is airing on stations in Sacramento and Southern California, urges listeners not to sign initiative petitions.Organizers say the effort is intended to educate the public about a need for more regulation of the initiative system, particularly the paid-signature gathering industry. But the ad came under fire Friday from good government and consumer advocates who said its claims were largely unsubstantiated and the timing sparked questions about whether the real goal of the campaign is to derail efforts to qualify measures circulating for local or statewide elections.

    Attorneys for a statewide proposal to overturn a new online sales tax collection law have also taken aim at the effort, asking radio stations to stop airing the ad amid concerns that it is “filled with false and misleading statements.” The “Amazon Tax” referendum is one of several high-profile measures currently collecting petition signatures to qualify for the 2012 ballot.

    Enjoy your morning!

  • California Citizens Redistricting Commission,  Flap's California Morning Collection

    Flap’s California Morning Collection: August 1, 2011

    A morning collection of links and comments about my home, California.

    As everyone, especially the POLS and their consultants in Sacramento wait for the final Legislative and Congressional Maps, the California Legislature continues its summer recess. Later today I will post the tentative maps for Ventura County’s new State Assembly and State Senate districts which are both less GOP dominated. I had the latest Ventura County Congressional District map here.

    On to the links…..

    Redistricting: The Line Dancing Ends

    There are two, and only two, options left at this point for the political districts in which Californians will reside for the next decade: the current maps from the state’s citizens redistricting panel or as-yet-to-exist maps drawn by judges.

    And that second option — judicial intervention — only will happen if opponents prevail in court, the voters step in, or a subset of the 14 commissioners change their vote on August 15.

    On Friday morning, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission ended months of debate, discussion, and drawing with conditional approval of district lines for the Legislature, Congress, and the state Board of Equalization.

    In 17 days, the commission will reconvene to formally certify the maps, the final step of the process laid out by voter-approved initiatives in 2008 and 2010.

    “The commission is confident that these maps will prevail will against any and all legal challenges,” said commissioner Connie Galambos Malloy. “We also believe that the new districts will be upheld in the court of public opinion.”

    Those two tests are, of course, huge. Already, political and interest group forces are mulling over challenges to the independently drawn maps — the first redistricting process in California history to be conducted largely in public with statewide hearings and thousands of citizen suggestions.

    You’ve got a few different options for viewing the maps. The commission’s own web-based map system allows you to see your own state and congressional district by typing in an address; it also uses Google’s satellite maps to allow you to zoom in to see how the lines cross streets, bridges, and beaches.

    For political junkies, there are two very good sites that offer partisan, ethnic, and incumbent information: the Democratic consulting firm of Redistricting Partners and the GOP firm Meridian Pacific. These are the guys most reporters have turned to for help in understanding the political implications, given that the commission did not use incumbent and political party information.

    There’s also the website of the Rose Institute at Claremont McKenna College, whose map allows you to toggle between draft maps, the existing political maps (drawn in 2001), and the maps submitted by several interest groups.

    Calif. poised to OK political donations via text

    Donors with fat checkbooks have long been the A-listers in political campaigns.

    But the 2012 election cycle may extend membership in that gilded group to small donors – and their cell phones.

    California is poised to become the first state to allow residents to donate to a state or local political campaign on their cell phones, an idea that election officials say could bring millions of voters of all economic levels into the campaign donor club.

    The state’s Fair Political Practices Commission, which enforces political campaign laws, is backing the idea, which is on track to be approved by October and could be in force by the 2012 elections.

    “Sounds like a good idea to me,” said Gov. Jerry Brown, adding his support to the proposal.

    The plan would make donating any amount to a state or local campaign as easy as texting a donation to a disaster relief fund or a charity, said FPPC Chair Ann Ravel.

    “The goal is democratizing the campaign process – making sure that people at every level are more involved in politics,” Ravel said.

    FPPC Executive Director Roman Porter agrees: “If we can get more people to engage in political campaigns – even if they’re giving just $5 – they’re more likely to want to learn about what’s happening with their candidate. And they’re more likely to go out and vote.”

    Get your 4G enabled phones, ready – along with your e-Starbucks card!


    Dan Walters: New report disparages legislative term limits

    A new report by the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies typifies the genre, saying that the term limit ballot measure adopted by voters in 1990 “has failed to achieve its original purposes, and has triggered additional problems as well.”

    The report found that term limits has brought more men and women with local government experience to the Capitol, that most of them pursue their political careers elsewhere after being “termed-out,” and that legislators are more dependent on lobbyists and staff than they used to be.

    The report presents what one might term the intellectual case against term limits and clearly touts a pending ballot measure that would exchange the current limits, six years in the Assembly and eight in the Senate, for a single 12-year limit on all legislative service.

    That would not be an unreasonable modification, but if term limits are as terrible as their critics contend, why not ask voters to scrap them altogether? Because voters still like term limits, seeing them as a bulwark against self-dealing professional politicians.

    Indeed, given the chance, voters probably would de-professionalize the Capitol even more. A recent USC/Los Angeles Times poll found that two-thirds would favor reducing the Legislature to a part-time body.

    The question, however, remains: Have term limits improved or damaged the Legislature’s effectiveness? And it’s truly impossible to answer definitively because other concurrent factors, such as gerrymandered legislative districts, have played roles.

    Enjoy your morning!

  • California Citizens Redistricting Commission,  California Republican Party,  Elton Gallegly

    California Citizen’s Redistricting Commission Releases Final Ventura County Congressional District Map



    Well, almost final.

    The commission just voted out the new state lines on a 12-2 vote (with two Republicans voting no) and placed them on the Agenda for an official August 15th final vote.  Until then feel free to whine, complain, cuss and gripe to commissioners about their failures.  They can hear you, but they’re probably done listening.

    On August 15th the only option is an up-or-down vote on the maps.  You cannot have your city reunited, get your Assembly Member back.  The plans are final and the only option now would be for the commission to vote the plans down and send them directly to the courts.

    The game now transitions from the 14 members of the commission to the 67 members of Congress and the Legislature that have been drawn out of their seats, nested with other incumbents, or generally screwed over by the citizen process.  A preliminary look at the data on the Redistricting Partners site will show some fun potential pairings and political drama.  The site is now updated with maps (showing partisanship and incumbents), summary data for all districts in just a few pages, and extremely detailed datasheets from PDI for the  Assembly, State Senate and Congressional districts.

    Looking at the Congressional map, it is certain that my GOP Representative Elton Gallegy will either have to move (his home and electoral base in Simi Valley is out of the District), retire, or just run (there is no requirement that you must live in the Congressional District you represent), or run against GOP Rep. Buck McKeon who will represent Simi Valley. Gallegy has options.

    However, the new CA-26 which is what presumably this Congressional District is called is less Republican and more Hispanic in nature.

    Here are the details:

    I will review the possible political scenarios next week after the final adoption of the maps.

    I will also go over the California Assembly and State Senate Districts.

    From my preliminary analysis of the statewide and Ventura County maps, they appear actually fair for the GOP. I, now, doubt that the California Republican Party will support a referendum on the Commission’s work.

    But, then again, you never know and someone is bound to be really upset. But, this time it looks like the incumbent California Democrats.

  • Amazon Tax,  California,  California Citizens Redistricting Commission

    Flap’s California Morning Collection: July 25, 2011

    A morning collection of links and comments about my home, California.

    However we vote, Amazon loses

    A Times-USC poll last week showed a close contest. After registered voters were read some arguments on both sides, the so-called Amazon tax was supported by 46% and opposed by 49%.

    Looking inside the numbers, two factors stood out, neither shocking.

    A majority of Democrats (52%) favored collecting the tax online; the majority of Republicans (59%) opposed it. Independents were almost evenly split.

    There was a generational divide: The younger the voters, the more opposed they were to online tax collections. The older, the more supportive. Specifically, 55% of people under 50 were opposed, 52% of the over-50 crowd supported it.

    The conflicting political dynamic is this: The best bet is there’ll be a low turnout for the election. A low turnout normally benefits Republicans. Score one for Amazon. But younger people usually don’t bother to show up; older voters do. Score that for Wal-Mart.

    Regardless of the outcome on election day, Amazon looks like a loser. First, it’s going to spend tens of millions — and probably scores of millions if it persists in fighting this tax issue in states all over the country.

    More important for Amazon, its corporate brand will be smeared from one end of the state to the other. Get used to “tax cheat.”

    Ask Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Mercury Insurance Group and Valero oil whether they’d again try to enrich themselves in California voting booths.

    But at least this new ballot brawl should benefit one sector of the California economy.

    Dan Walters: Higher California fees are the epitome of fairness

    The fire fee is conceptually similar to a new requirement that local redevelopment agencies must share their revenue to remain in business. Those agencies have been skimming about $5 billion a year off the top of the property tax pool before funds are distributed among schools and local governments.

    The state must make up about $2 billion of that diversion to schools. So in effect, all state taxpayers have been subsidizing local redevelopment projects.

    And then there are those college fees. One commentator went so far as to claim that when Republicans refused to go along with Brown’s pitch for additional tax revenue, they were indirectly imposing a tax on college students.

    Balderdash.

    A fee is a fee, not a tax. Taxes are involuntary but fees pay for specific non-mandatory services, such as college educations.

    Roughly a third of California’s adults have four-year college degrees, so they have enjoyed low-cost educations at the expense of everyone else.

    One could argue, with great validity, that everyone has a stake in having a well-educated workforce, but even with the fee increases, college in California is still highly subsidized and still a very good deal.

    California State University fees will still be among the lowest in the nation vis-à-vis comparable institutions, according to data from the California Postsecondary Education Commission. University of California fees will be about average. And our community college fees are still rock-bottom.

    Fair is fair, and the new fees that are causing such angst are very fair.

    Will ballot measures test vested pension rights?

    A local ballot measure in San Jose and a statewide initiative, both only proposals at this point, would attempt to cut the cost of public pensions promised current workers, believed by many to be “vested rights” protected by court decisions.

    The watchdog Little Hoover Commission, warning in February that soaring pension costs could “crush” government, said cuts to new hires would not yield enough savings and recommended legislation allowing pension cuts for current workers.

    A key point: The commission and the proposed ballot measures would not cut pension amounts already earned by current workers through years of service. The cuts (in benefits or employer contributions) only apply to pensions earned after the change.

    The Little Hoover Commission said the courts have held that public employees have a vested right under contract law to the pension benefits offered on their first day on the job, even if it takes five years of work to qualify for them.

    But the commission said the rulings, which differ from private-sector pensions that can be cut for future work, have provided openings to modify benefits for current workers that must be clarified.

    “Government agencies cannot generate the needed large-scale savings by reducing benefits only for new hires,” said the commission. “It will take years if not decades to turn over the workforce, and the government is hardly in hiring mode today.”

    The backers of the proposed ballot measures are already hearing from defenders of the vested rights of current workers.

    A paper on vested rights issued by the California Public Employees Retirement System this month suggests the giant system, which covers half the non-federal government workers in the state, would go to court to protect the rights of its members.

    Independent commission finishes drawing new districts

    California’s fiest-ever independent redistricting commission finished drawing 177 new congressional, legislative and Board of Equalization maps late Sunday after a rare conflict over racial issues.

    The new maps, which will be released to the public on Friday, are expected to generate a flurry of lawsuits and at least one referendum drive, all of which would, if successful, shift redistricting to the courts for final resolution before the 2012 elections.

    Created by two ballot measures, the commission is doing a job that in the past had been done either by the Legislature or the courts. Overall, its districts – if finally adopted – are expected to give the state’s dominant Democratic Party opportunities to gain two-thirds majorities in the Legislature and increase its control of the state’s congressional delegation.

    The 14-member commission – five Republicans, five Democrats and four independents – spent the entire weekend on final district-by-district reviews, making dozens of mostly minor changes that sometimes involved just a few people.

    Enjoy your morning!

  • California Citizens Redistricting Commission,  Gabino Aguirre

    Graphic of the Day: Dr. Gabino Aguirre’s Redistricting Conflicts of Interest

    Go over to Cal Watchdog and read John Hrabe’s excellent pieces about Dr. Gabino Aguirre, the Chairman of the California Citizen’s Redistricting Commission.

    Gabino Aguirre’s Secret Political Past

    The California Citizens Redistricting Commission, the 14-member independent panel of average citizens, was created to end partisan gerrymandering and draw political boundaries in an open process,  without the influence of special interests.

    An investigation by CalWatchDog.com reveals that at least one commissioner, Dr. Gabino T. Aguirre, has made multiple political campaign contributions to Democratic candidates — contributions that were previously undisclosed to the Commission; a long history of political activism in support of Latino causes; and an extensive web of connections to a special interest group that has submitted its own redistricting proposals to the commission.

    Did Gabino Aguirre Flout Code of Conduct?

    New evidence obtained by CalWatchDog.com raises new questions about whether Dr. Gabino Aguirre, a member of California’s Citizens Redistricting Commission, violated the commission’s code of conduct and possibly state law by failing to disclose his association with a redistricting special interest group. The Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy (CAUSE), a politically active community-based organization, has submitted its own redistricting proposals to the commission and mobilized its staff members and volunteers to testify before the commission.

    The Commission’s Code of Conduct, which is “considered binding on any person serving the California Citizens Redistricting Commission in any capacity,” sets forth restrictions on the behavior of commissioners. Among the code of conduct’s mandates, commissioners shall:

    * “Speak the truth with no intent to deceive or mislead by technicalities or omissions”;

    * “Disclose actual or perceived conflicts of interest to the Commission”;

    * “Disclose information that belongs in the public domain freely and completely”

    That second requirement, the disclosure of a perceived conflict of interest, appears to be a much higher standard of disclosure than the state regulations, which CalWatchDog.com initially cited in its first investigative report on July 15. State law requires all redistricting commissioners to complete a supplemental application, in which applicants must: “Describe the professional, social, political, volunteer, and community activities in which you have engaged that you believe are relevant to serving as a commissioner, as discussed in Regulation 60847.”

    Rob Wilcox, a spokesman for the commission, failed to respond to two emails and a phone call requesting clarification about the policy.

    My feeling is that the California Citizen’s Redistricting Commission is already a failure and they have not submitted final maps yet.

    Let the California Supreme Court do the redistricting and mothball this commission and law.