Redistricting ‘Reform’ Will Not Create a Party of Republican Moderates in California

Cavala is dead right on this one, but while he dates the change in Republican behavior to 1978, he misses the structural change--namely, the passing of proposition 13 and the change in the vote for tax increases (not decreases) to 2/3rd's vote. What the 2/3rd's vote does is it allows a minority (in the Senate, this time around, 8 out of 15, or 20% of the Senate!, due to the unit rule) to have a veto power over fiscal policy. Republicans like this (just think if 20% of the Senate on the Democratic side could block any fiscal changes). A Republican part which had to win on a majority vote in the Legislature would move towards the center or else they would be completely irrelevant--changing district lines would only embolden them as they would be able to force Democratic legislator's to cave in on their budget extortion (or terrorism, as Perata so bluntly put it). Remember the 90's (car tax cut, energy deregulation)?

Trade redistricting for a change in the 2/3rd's vote on revenue and budget matters and let majority rule come to California. Until then, no changes unless Texas/Florida/etc make equivalent changes.

Cavala, we are still waiting for you to address the issues associated with your article of September 13th, "Tidal Wave of..."

Dan Walters SacBee article over the weekend placed democrat registration proportionally LOWER than what you said earlier. Gosh, who should I believe?

To address the here and now: "Honest" you say? Is it "honest" to proposed a "Term Limit Reform" ballot initiative which will INCREASE time in office, not reduce it, for those currently in office, like Perata and Nunez? Just why does this "initiative" let this most unpopular legislature actually hang around longer than the term limits that are currently in place?

Publius, the odds of getting ALL the states to do what you want simultaneously are in concert with our legislature getting a budget done on time. Ain't gonna happen.

I hear "California leads the way" and "How goes California goes the nation a lot", the mentality behind the left proposed bogus vote on Iraq...

How about California redistricting now? Why "wait" for others?

(We were going to "trade" redistricting for this alleged "term limits" once upon a time. What happened to that one? Perhaps the Gov will come out against Nunez & Perata hanging around now, too).

How about majority rule in the legislature with the proportional electoral votes going porportionally to the candidates? Its only fair!

Then watch the nation follow our lead. Isn't this what you want in the long term?

The Walters piece was amazing in how it tries to drag the Dems down with the Reeps obviously losing plenty this year with their top staff hiring mistakes, financial problems, and Schwarzenegger's trashing of them as extremists who can't win elections.

Take a look at where those who are not Democrats or Republicans vote, and you'll see in poll after poll--from respected pollsters such as Field and PPIC that they are voting for the Democrats rather than Republicans. See whose values they share in polls that go into issues.

Mr. Gould>

The registration number I cited (42.5 Democratic) is taken from the Secretary of State's most recent (Feb '07) posting. I don't know where Walters gets his numbers.

The survey was a statewide poll by Moore Methods.

Publius, the odds of getting ALL the states to do what you want simultaneously are in concert with our legislature getting a budget done on time. Ain't gonna happen.

I hear "California leads the way" and "How goes California goes the nation a lot", the mentality behind the left proposed bogus vote on Iraq...

How about California redistricting now? Why "wait" for others?
************************
We don't need all the states, just 3/4 of the largest 12 states, say (this is how the Constitution was adopted). The reason to "wait" is that the ditizens of California (who are primarily Democratic or Democratic-leading--sort of like the rest of the country :-)) would be disadvantaged by unilateral moves. It is like nuclear disarmament--do you want to do this uilaterally even though most people would agree a world without nuclear arms would be safer?

*****************************

(We were going to "trade" redistricting for this alleged "term limits" once upon a time. What happened to that one? Perhaps the Gov will come out against Nunez & Perata hanging around now, too).
******************************
We? Who's we? Not the citizens of California.

The Gov will not oppose term limits because he needs a functional legislature to get anything done. Nunez in particular has been more than accomadating--Schwartzenegger will never find a Speaker as willing to deal.

*****************************
How about majority rule in the legislature with the proportional electoral votes going porportionally to the candidates? Its only fair!

Everyone has their own views of fairness and when people start talking about that check your wallet. The reason against splitting the electoral votes is, once again, it will disadvantage the majority of the citizens of California for a minority (just like the 2/3rds vote). If nine out of the twelve largest states agree (see above), then maybe. But a much better reform is nationwide majority vote, so that your one vote matters (in 2000 your one vote mattered, but only if you were on the Supreme Court--5-4)

Pop quiz: How many of the 15 GOP Senate holdout gang were elected to Legislative office for the first time to "Mod" seats drawn by judges in 1991?

12

Gosh, thanks for all the attention!

But NO ONE took on the "Term Limit Reform" ballot measure I brought up above. You know, the one that actually KEEPS legislators around an ADDITIONAL term over EXISTING term limits...

Publius, you got me on the "we thing. I did not define it well. I heard on multiple sources, including this website, that it was a possible/probable this "term limits" thing, a popular democrat initiative would only be supported by the Governor if redistricting was supported in return by said democrats. At this typing, the other shoe hasn't dropped on the Governor's "support".

Of course, as I am not "we", you are not speaking as/for, "Not the citizens of California" as used above either as it implies all citizens in the state does it not?

Cripes Publius, you use more asterisks than Barry Bonds has home runs!

Ah, how far from reality the pro-gerrymandering crowd has now wandered.

In 2000, there were five competitive Congressional races in California -- the Dem's won 4 and the Rep's won 1.

In 2001, the Republican and Democratic incumbents worked together to minimize the chance any of them would face serious challenges, and in 2002, there were no close races. In 2004, there were again 0 close Congressional races. And in 2006, there was 1, which resulted from a scandal-plagued incumbent who lost 40% of the votes he received just two years earlier.

Claims that 2001 was only a modest adjustment to the Court-drawn lines of 1991 are too nutty to even respond to, other than simply looking at the maps that reveal the obvious truth of the wholesale redraw of every district to ensure the incumbent's (regardless of party) re-election.

The claim that competition disappeared because Republicans moved into Republican towns and Democrats moved into Democratic towns also falls apart if one looks at the facts: in 2000 there were 5 competitive Congressional elections. In 2002 there were none. No demographic shift can explain that, only the 2001 gerrymander is to blame.

In terms of moderation, look at the legislature where in the late 1990s there was a growing and thriving "bipartisan caucus" of 20-30 members. After the 2001 gerrymander the word went out that anyone talking to the other party would be punished in their party primary (google "Jim Brulte"), and the caucus disappeared.

'Nuff said.

Gould: The astericks were to delineate your comments from my answer
to them. Schwartzenegger will not actively oppose term limits because
he prefers the legislature he has to one which would likely be more
hostile. Perata called his bluff.

Johnson: If competition was truely the concern of those wanting
redistricting "reform", it would be written into the various
proposals. Almost none have it. The legislature of the mid to late
90's gave us electric deregulation (a disaster when the companies
started conspiring together and the Bush-administration FERC ignored
it--remember Cheney blaming it on too many computer servers? Of
course, this was the same administration that blew off warnings of a
terrorist attack and was talking up the missle threat from rogue
nations and the need for a NMD--haven't heard much about that lately,
have we?). In addition, we had a reduction in the car tax (which even
Dan Walters says created a structural hole in the budget), plus the
tax decreases and spending increases based on the dot-com bubble.
Pretty responsible legislature, eh? In actual fact, since term limits
means none of them are going to be around for the consequences, it's
the legislature California deserves.

Congressional races are typically non-competitive everywhere for most
election, not just in California. While they used to be more
competitive before Congressman's votes were recorded (they used to
walk through turnstyles), now things sail along for a decade or so and
then there's a tremendous turnover (1980, 1994, 2006). The Democrats
could easily pick up 3-4 seats in 2008, as big of change as the last
decade. I agree the Democratic leadership made a mistake in
cooperating with the Republicans in the last redistricting, however.
Hopefully the Democrats have learned their lesson, particularly after
the unrelenting screeds from individuals who want the Democrats to
give up power in return for nothing, while ignorning the much more
important power the Republicans have due to the 2/3rd's vote. This is
the trade the Democrats should be working on for redistricting
"reform".

Publius, the asterisk thing was a joke!

But seriously, some of your points I would like to take to task:

--We, you and me, don't know what the Gov will do as you allude above. Unless you are an insider of some regard...The views on the Governor's support or not vis-a-vis term limits has from now until election day, Feb 2008, to manifest itself.

--"Car tax"? That was DMV registration hikes supported by GOV Davis to bail out the spending deficit, spending MORE than taxes take in. Of course counting on the car tax "created a hole in the structural budget". The budget PLANNED on the "car tax" (incresed registration fees) to SPEND on their legislation. The special election of Swarzennegger? A public repudiation of the "car tax" and a legislaure left holding the bag; wanting to spend more than the government takes in. (Your words, "Pretty responsible legislature, eh?" RIGHT ON. But you want them to stay on beyond existing term limits anyway? To somehow "hold them responsible"? (Re-elect them to then later hold them responsible??)There shouldn't be such a learning curve in leadership roles as the public suffers these fools who spend more than they take in.

Tough to be in conflict with yourself...

--Blew off terrorist attack warnings? I refer you to the other/earlier article on 9-11-07 on this website for the "logic" of Bush in for less than a year vs Clinton blowing off 6 years of warnings...

--Sure, not much on the missile defense deal as of late in the media. Why? Perhaps the Bush Administration diplomacy with North Korea (the threat you speak of) is actually WORKING. Or, perhaps a starving North Korea would rather EAT than build missiles. Missiles for food, works for me! If only the Iranians were hungry...

NMD would be useful against Iran, which is a much greater threat than North Korea every would be. Seems to me the North Koreans detonated a nuclear device on Bush's watch.
Israel just hit North Korean nuclear material in Syria (possibly in transit to Iran).
I don't see Bush's policy working.

As for 9/11, Bush and his crew didn't even bother to make an effort to avert it. Clinton's people "shook the tree" when the got reports of a possible millenium attack (this means daily briefings headed by the National Security advisor going over all intel obtained in the last 24 hours, every day). They caught the guy before he could paste LAX. Tenet had to go begging to Rice for attention to the imminent attack--Bush's comment after hearing a briefing on a possible attack was "Ok, so you covered your ass". There was no shaking of the tree (if there had been, would the FBI reports of Arabs taking flight lessons in Arizona been ignored?). I'm not saying the Bush people would have prevented 9/11 if they had done everything right, but the point is they didn't. Clinton could have done more, to be sure, but Bush was in office 9 months. If he had made it a priority things would have happened. Look at how quickly the Iranians dealt once Reagan was elected.

The car tax was lowered in either 2000 or 1998 (can't remember) and was supposed to go back up automatically if revenues dropped. The legislation was clumsily written.

Publius, placing a tick mark on when you want your particular version of history to start is very obviously politically biased.

-So NMD is NOW useful? Verse Iran? Pick one! Perhaps it would be useful against multiple enemies, therefore a bargain defensive weapon. (Didn't here about the NK nuke stuff in Syria. Hope its true. Any references?)

-Clinton people "shook the tree" verses terrorists? Cripes they KILLED AMERICANS on his watch multiple times did they not? And for over SIX YEARS too. (Did you reference the laundry list of Clintons "oppertunities" back on the 9-11-07 article on this site?. It is so long I really don't want to retype it here). Clinton coulda, shoulda done "more", but he did not.

-I wonder just what, if anything, Clinton told Bush about terrorists during their passdown in the oval office in early 2001. Just perhaps he didn't say anything so Bush had his own learning curve (which I am not happy about) for the next 9 months up to 9-11. (Six years of "shaking the tree" and 9 months in office with no SIX YEAR learning curve? You compare).

-Clinton didn't catch the guy who was gonna paste LAX. It was an alert border guard on the Canadian border who didn't like the way the car the terrorist was in was sweating profusely when asked simple/routine questions.

-FBI reports were unseen in the Bush White House unlike those files "discovered" in the Clinton White House (their political enemies). (Just who hired Craig Livingstone in Clinton's White House anyway? Remember all that?). Regardless, the same Ms. Granier of 9-11 commission fame is the one who SET UP the WALL so the intell services could NOT share information. Example: FBI couldn't tell CIA who was taking flying lessons.

-The Iranians were loosing the PR war over the hostages after holding them for over 400 days. Reagans inauguration was a logical time to release them to put it all on Carter, the one who let their former Shah in for medical treatment and got the Iranian mullah mad at us in the first place. Regan would have been right in attacking Iran for this, so would have Carter but the latter choose to let them get away with it. (Carter is arguably responsible for the Iran we have to deal with today).

-Don't know if what you say about the car tax is true. But after the recall election, I sure wouldn't be out their saying it needs to come back if I was in the legislature!

Publius, seriously, I do appreciate our dialog.

The "nuke device" the North Koreans detonated is actually questionable in if it really worked (high or low order detonation) or not...

Regardless, it's fuel and technology was made/perfected in the NK's nuclear power plant, the one that they said would not be used for weapons development in exchange for American food stuffs, oil, etc.

And all negotiated by Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State. (Remember her dancing with Kim Jong Il?)

So just like the Terrorist six year work up to 9-11 on Clinton's watch, the NK's promised Bill no nukes, but lied and did it anyway.

How could Bush be responsible for things that Clinton did/did not do? Is he supposed to be clarvoyant?

A question: Should Bush or the next President, Hillary Clinton, let Iran do exactly what North Korea did with nukes? What should she do?

Sorry, forgot to place in the earlier blog.

Some good comments. One of the other myths is that both sides have "extremists" and are thus equally culpable and in need of "balanced" districts.

The L.A. Times is absolutely committed to this kind of redistricting in order to help Republicans. But unless some kind of "formula" is developed to gerrymander blue districts for the sake of "balance," the net result will be that rural districts will stay largely intact, and thus will always return right wingers to office.

And what if we get statistical formulas to ensure "balance?" That is indeed what will happen-- and papers like the Times will trumpet this as some kind of fairness.

This redistricting scheme is based upon such phoney premises that it's truly infuriating. The LAT will not rest until large blue population centers are watered down to benefit Republicans. That's what's REALLY going on here.

Post a comment