THE ‘UNIT RULE’, OUTLAWED IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY 50 YEARS AGO, RESURFACES AS A TOOL TO SUPPRESS MODERATES IN THE G.O.P.

Another create, more contemporary example of unit rule being used by Democrats would be on the infrastructure bond vote in the Assembly. Speaker Fabian Nunez made it clear that all Democrats were expected to vote as a unit for the bonds. Assemblyman Juan Arambula of the Central Valley broke the rule. He was moved to a smaller office and removed from a committee chairmanship.

Juan simply denied the Speaker a favor and had some favors that had been given to him temporarily withdrawn.

Hardly an example of the 'unit rule' which requires acquiesence in the majority view irregardless.

Such a rule, if applied to the Assembly as a whole in its' Rules, would solve the Budget problem today!

In both cases, any power party leaders have over individual members is because the members in question have chosen to cede their personal judgement. Watching the budget fiasco is reminding me of why I supported the Open Primary.

Cavala fails to mention it, but compounding the problem with the districts is the fact that under any redistricting schme, there is always going to be 1/3rd of the districts which will be anti-government, anti-tax, anti social welfare. This means that people are for these things need 1/3rd of the districts to be for these things, as a counter-weight in budget negotiations. Democrats have enough districts to do that now, but under a commission, they will get rolled with regularity, as they will lack the number of seats necessary to block a budget with draconian cuts for the needy.

Bill: regretting that 2001 bipartisan gerrymander agreement now?

In community-oriented districts (like those of the 1990s), the national Democratic wave of 2006 would have been virtually certain to swing at least 2 Senate districts to the Dem's, and Perata would not need any Republican votes for the budget.

But the Sacramento powers-that-be chose bipartisan incumbent protection over California's communities and people, and Republican seats were nicely insulated against the 2006 national wave, leaving Republicans with budget leverage in the Senate.

Ah, karma.

Nice try, but the Democratic sweep of last year would probably not have elected enough Senators to give them 2/3rds even if you assume that the redistricting commission could have done the job in an evenhanded manner which is a big assumption.

To get a rough idea of how the parties would have done under a different system, all you have to do is total up the number of votes cast for the nominees of each party and then compare the percentage of votes received with the current breakdown by the nominees of each party.

i regretted the bipartisan redistricting of 2001 then. (But i had a nice guy as Speaker)

I always thought you didn't have it in you.

I also believe you had a governor who didn't want too much trouble.

One more before we go?

Bill - I appreciate the straightforward answer. I didn't know that.

Tom - that analysis simply does not work. With all of the very low turnout (generally drawn with the Voting Rights Act in mind) districts in Democratic hands, Democrats do not need as many votes statewide as Republicans would need to win the same number of seats.

(Note that this is not a complaint, nor a change of gerrymandering, rather simply a statement of one result of the Voting Rights Act.)

Doug,

That lower minority turnout is precisely what swings a lot of districts to Republicans in marginal areas and for the more partisan among us is one of the reasons to have opposed 77 with the idea being that even if the lines were drawn in a fair manner, if they are drawn in line with partisan registration and one side has higher propensity voters, that side has an edge going in. Not my problem with the idea, but still worth mentioning.

But I also think your analysis is pure PR. First you are talking about the state Senate where only half the seats are up in a given year. You are also talking about a state where the Governor could have done more to win seats for his party in a year he was winning overwhelmingly if he thought he could really make a difference across the board. There would have been just as much of a chance of Republicans gaining control of one house of the legislature as there would have been of Democrats getting to 2/3rd's.

Tom,

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, but the numbers aren't there.

The Senate Dem's are just 2 seats from a 2/3 majority. Republicans are 6 seats from a simple majority. The odds are much higher that Senate Dem's take 2/3 than Republicans take control (and 2006 would have proven that true).

In the Assembly, Republicans are 9 seats from a majority, Democrats are 6 seats from 2/3. It's a more even shot (1994 proved that), but the Dem's still havae better odds of getting to 2/3 than Rep's have of winning a majority.

The obvious problem would be if more currently safe Dem seats became competitive in a "fair" redistricting than safe Rep seats, which is a fair concern theoretically, but the Rose Institute study found equal numbers of each party's "safe" seats could get tossed into the competitive range -- the Dem's numerical superiority in districts held is offset by the Voting Rights Act protections for safe Dem seats in heavily minority areas.

It may have been the safe bet for Dem's to make in 2001 (but giving the new 53rd Congressional seat to the minority party was a high price to pay), but 2006 showed it was the wrong bet strategically for the party -- and it was wrong for the voters.

But of course David Dreier, John Doolitte and Ken Calvert all thank the Dem's for the deal -- each has a much safer seat now than in 2000, and McNeney's seat is much harder for him to hold thanks to the 2001 deal too (Stockton's Dem neighborhoods were taken out of McNerney's district and put into Costa's district to enable Cordoza to beat Costa in the primary).

Post a comment