Posted on 02/20/2005 11:54:35 AM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (AP) - When California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nabbed an endorsement from Common Cause for his plan to redraw political district lines, some Democrats and open-government activists were dismayed.
How could the respected good government group sign on with a governor who's been criticized for his supercharged fund-raising? Why was Common Cause embracing a plan that's picked up little or no backing from other nonprofit groups?
"Common Cause is star-struck and so they're lending the governor their brand," said Jamie Court, president of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a Santa Monica-based consumer group that's among Schwarzenegger's chief critics. "They've given him more credibility than he deserves for a plan that is clearly a power grab."
But like many political relationships, the endorsement was, in part, a marriage of convenience. Schwarzenegger got what amounted to a Good Housekeeping seal of approval for his proposal, and Common Cause got a high-profile advocate for a key issue that can be hard to put in the spotlight - nonpartisan redistricting.
"We are all looking for ways to put the important issues we care about more squarely in the public dialogue, and it doesn't mean that every time we get all the policy we want out of that," said Chellie Pingree, Common Cause's president. "But we go behind the scenes and work in the state legislatures, or at the referendum level, or with our citizen activists, to move the debate when the public is paying attention."
The plan, endorsed by Common Cause at a joint Washington press conference with Schwarzenegger on Thursday, would take the job of drawing congressional and state legislative district boundaries away from lawmakers and give it to a panel of retired judges. The redistricting would happen next year, instead of after the 2010 census, which would be the normal timeline.
Schwarzenegger believes the plan would lead to more competitive districts and to lawmakers who better represent voters. The way district lines are currently drawn in California protects incumbents - of 153 state legislative and congressional seats up for grabs in November, none changed party hands.
Members of both political parties have concerns about the plan. Republicans fear redrawing district lines in Democrat-leaning California could cost the party House seats. Democrats suspect Schwarzenegger's motives because of the example of Texas, where a GOP redistricting plan cost four Democrats their seats in November.
Advocacy groups have different reasons for not signing on to Schwarzenegger's proposal.
Groups including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, and FairVote in Takoma Park, Md., all have problems with the plan. Among them: redistricting should happen only every 10 years and Schwarzenegger's plan doesn't adequately provide for competitive districts with diverse voters.
Common Cause endorsed the plan only after Schwarzenegger and the proposal's author, Assembly Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, agreed to amendments including expanding the panel of retired judges and establishing diversity as a criteria for selecting the judges.
The changes were enough for Common Cause to decide Schwarzenegger's plan was good enough to go with.
"We work toward what's possible and what has the momentum to pass," Pingree said.
It's a decision other groups so far haven't made.
"The tricky thing for groups that have long worked on redistricting is that, in principle, many of the groups agree with the governor's objectives," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. "But the particular plan that he's outlined for how he wants to meet those objectives is problematic for some of those folks."
Common Cause officials said they had no problem joining with Schwarzenegger, even though not everything he does is to their liking. The group's California chapter is even considering submitting a friend of the court brief to support the state's Fair Political Practices Commission, which is being sued by allies of the governor who want him to be able to raise unlimited amounts of money for ballot initiatives.
The apparent contradiction doesn't trouble Pingree.
"We're well-known at times for criticizing and supporting the same person on the same day," she said. "That's who we are."
Common Cause endorsed the plan only after Schwarzenegger and the proposal's author, Assembly Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, agreed to amendments including expanding the panel of retired judges and establishing diversity as a criteria for selecting the judges.
From yesterday's AP article:
Assembly Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who is carrying the legislation for Schwarzenegger, says he plans to drop that 7-percentage-point standard and instead allow panelists to consult voter registration figures to see if there was some "little movement" of lines that would create more competition.
This LA Daily News article says Arnold gave the legislature until March 1 to act, before going forward to put it on the ballot.
Arnold's plan hasn't even been presented with the reported revisions. How can somebody evaluate whether to support it if they keep changing major elements of the legislation? And, according to LegInfo, the language of the bill hasn't changed since its introduction on January 13th. They certainly can't act, until they know what is being proposed.
I wish they'd cut the game playing and take this seriously. There is no reason to put this on the ballot until they come up with a viable, well-thought-out plan. Now, they just seem to be swinging in the wind.
Oh, no need to sweat the details..
I saw the 5 instead of 3 judge number, and diversity must be in effect.. geesh
This is nothing more than Hollywood style Gubamint reform,, all special effects and hype hype hype..
Just jump jump jump on the bandwagon,, If you want to live. ;-)
The Boxes bite back. Because there are people--especially special interest groups--with vested interests in the boxes. The boxes are bad for California. I hope Schwarzenegger does blow them up.
Here's a snip from Berkeley's website. If you follow this link, it has a good discussion on all of the different proposals.
Efforts to enact redistricting reform are currently underway through both legislative and ballot measure channels, including the following:
InitiativesFor updates to this list, go to Active Initiatives provided by the Office of the Attorney General.
California Office of the Attorney General.
Initiative Measures, Active: "Redistricting Reform: The Voter Empowerment Act".
Submitted by Edward J. "Ted" Costa, received Jan. 28, 2005.California Office of the Attorney General.
Initiative Measures, Active: "Fairness and Integrity in Redistricting Act (FAIR)".
Submitted by David A. Gilliard, received Jan. 26, 2005.California Office of the Attorney General.
Initiative Measures, Active: "Redistricting Reform and Voter Empowerment Act".
Submitted by David A. Gilliard, received Jan. 18, 2005.California Office of the Attorney General.
Initiative Measures, Active: "Redistricting Reform: The Voter Empowerment Act".
Submitted by Allan S. Zaremberg, received Jan. 10, 2005.California Office of the Attorney General.
Initiative Measures, Active: "California Fair Voting and Equal Representation Act".
Submitted by Robert W. Harris, received Jan. 5, 2005.Bills in the California Legislature
- Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 (1st Ex. Sess.)
Introduced by Assembly Members Canciamilla and Richman.
February 11, 2005
A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State, by repealing and adding Section 1 of Article XXI thereof, relating to redistricting.- Assembly Constitutional Amendment 3 (1st Ex. Sess.)
Introduced by Assembly Members McCarthy and Runner.
January 13, 2005
A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State, by amending Section 1 of, and adding Sections 2, 3, and 4 to, Article XXI thereof, relating to elections.- Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8
Introduced by Assembly Member Maze.
Dec. 6, 2004
A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State, by amending Section 1 of, and adding Sections 2, 3, and 4 to, Article XXI thereof, relating to elections.- Senate Constitutional Amendment 3
Introduced by Senator Lowenthal.
Dec. 6, 2004
A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State, by repealing and adding Section 1 of Article XXI thereof, relating to redistricting.
>>The boxes are bad for California.
Not all of them. They were blowing up boxes, only to reestablish them under executive control, with little to no cost savings. It was a power grab, nothing more.
It's not just about cost savings. So much of our government is unaccountable to the electorate (like the "independent commissions" Arnold wants to get rid of). The "power grab" is just a mean way of saying that Arnold is going to take the power and responsibility away from unelected political appointees and give it to elected officials who can be held responsible for their decisions.
I suggest you read the CPR again. That is not what was being proposed. There was less accountability to the public under the proposed changes.
Looking at it long term, one must think of the implications of putting that power under the governorship in the event we ever were unlucky enough to have someone like Cruz Bustamante in charge. You may like the result under Arnold, but I guarantee you wouldn't like it under a leftist Governor.
Not so:
http://www.report.cpr.ca.gov/cprrpt/frmfunc/bdscmm.htm
You said boxes were bad. I said not all were bad.
Given that they were looking to change almost 100 boards and commissions, there are probably examples that support both your position regarding accountability, and mine. We probably agree on some. But it is a moot issue since Schwarzenegger abandoned the plan altogether, at least for the time being.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.