Proposition 77: Does SIZE Really Matter?

Proposition 77 is an Initiative Constituional Amendment slated for the November 2005 Special Election.

Proponents: Edward J. (Ted) Costa, Dr. Arthur Laffer, Major General Sidney S. Novaresi (USAF) Ret., Jimmie Johnson (916) 482-6175

Amends state Constitution’s process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts. Requires three-member panel of retired judges, selected by legislative leaders, to adopt new redistricting plan if measure passes and again after each national census. Panel must consider legislative, public proposals/comments and hold public hearings. Redistricting plan becomes effective immediately when adopted by judges’ panel and filed with Secretary of State. If voters subsequently reject redistricting plan, process repeats. Specifies time for judicial review of adopted redistricting plan; if plan fails to conform to requirements, court may order new plan. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would have the following major fiscal impact: One-time state redistricting costs, probably totaling a few million dollars. Comparable savings for each redistricting effort after 2010 (once every ten years).

The graphic above (HT: The Interociter) illustrates one of the many examples of inequitable and ridiculous California voter apportionment maps currently in place. Proposition 77 with its three judge panel aims to make reapportionment of legilslative and congressional districts less partisan and more equitable.

However, the California Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, last Friday sued to remove the measure from the November ballot.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed suit Friday to remove Proposition 77, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s redistricting initiative, from the Nov. 8 special election ballot.

He said the text of the initiative on petitions circulated for voter signatures was rewritten after he had approved a summary of the measure.

Under state law, initiative proponents can make non-substantive edits to their measures — such as correcting typos — any time before the summary process is completed. That process usually takes about 45 days.

Substantive changes, such as adding or deleting words or provisions, can be made only within the first 15 days after the initiative is submitted for review, Lockyer’s office said. After that, initiative proponents who want to make substantive changes must start over and submit a new measure for review.

Now a new piece, Size matters in remapping state legislative boundaries It’s not a district’s shape but how many people it has by Heather Barbour of the New America Foundation examines whether it is the SIZE of the legislative rather than the shape that should be considered. (Note: although Prop. 77 includes congressional districts, the size of those districts could not be changed unless there was an amendment to the U.S. Constitution).

If we really want to do something about our electile dysfunction, we’re going to have to do a lot more than pop a redistricting pill.

Thanks in large part to Dr. Schwarzenegger, Californians will be voting on a prescription for redistricting reform this November. But while a more neutral drawing of legislative district boundaries may lessen the symptoms of California’s political disorder, it won’t cure the disease. The real problem in California politics is the size of legislative districts — as measured by population, not their shape.

In 1879, when Californians set the 120-seat ceiling on our state Legislature, just under a million people lived here. That’s the same number of people living in just one of our state Senate districts today. California’s state senators now serve more people than do the governors of Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.

California’s Assembly districts are also abnormally large. Our lower- house districts dwarf those of other states by a long shot. Second-ranked Texas, for example, has big oil, big cattle and big hats, but their lower- house districts are pint-sized compared with ours. You could fit three of their puny provinces in one of our approximately 423,000-person Assembly legispheres.

Of course, there has been some discussion of dividing California into two states, but Southern California would have a problem with water, now, wouldn’t they?

Apparently everything isn’t bigger in Texas.

To understand what it means for California voters, consider this: In 1883, a California Assembly member answered to about 10,000 people. Now, it takes 42 people to equal the political power a single voter had in 1883. Put another way, if a single vote was worth a dollar then, it would be worth only 2.4 cents now. No wonder more than a third of California’s nonvoters think voting doesn’t make a difference in elections.

One representative for half a million or more people is simply not acceptable. Campaigns in large districts are incredibly costly, which invites corruption and limits potential candidates to an elite few. They also force citizens with conflicting needs to compete for a single vote in the Legislature, which means that all but the most powerful voices lose out completely.

Large districts are hard on legislators and even harder on constituents. Keeping up with mail, casework, phone calls, speeches and meetings, in addition to complex policy issues and bill drafting, keeps legislators working hours that would likely violate every labor law in the country. And even then they must cut corners. How many of us have contacted a legislator and — if we got response at all — received a form letter not really addressing our concerns, months after the fact? Is this what the great American experiment promised?

And having more legislators is going to improve constituent, customer service?

Hummmmmm, perhaps.

Unfortunately, there’s no simple solution to our problem. If we cut districts to the scale our forefathers enjoyed, we’d have more than 3,000 legislators. That’s simply not realistic. But increasing the number of seats by even a moderate amount would change California politics considerably.

A state Legislature with 80 more representatives — a total of 150 Assembly members and 50 senators — would improve accountability and better reflect California’s diverse political and cultural climate. With smaller districts, San Francisco might even add a Republican to its delegation.

OK, maybe not. But the Green Party might have a chance.

Political Correctness for the San Francisco leftie crowd rears its head here.

But, a 150 seat member California Assembly gerrymandered in a partsian manner does the voter little good.

A switch to smaller legislative districts might also mean more seats for women and ethnic minorities, without having to sacrifice other groups. This could help ease tensions over demographic change, growth and the distribution of political power in the state. And California would benefit from having new voices and fresh perspectives in the Legislature.

Reducing the size of over-populated districts is a much more effective way to achieve the goals of redistricting reform proponents. Any discussion of redistricting will be incomplete if this issue is not on the table. We have already allowed our state to grow from 1 million people to nearly 37 million without change. How much bigger do we have to get?

So, to answer that age-old question: Yes, size matters. And if Californians are serious about curing what ails their beleaguered political process, they’ll reduce the size of legislative districts, not just reshape them.

An interesting argument which falls flat without redistricting boundary reform. Also, a harder sell to the voters than Prop.77 type measures – it increases the amount and cost of government.

Nice try but no cigar.

Cross-posted to The Bear Flag League Special Election Page