Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

About Us

Frank D. Russo

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Sponsors

Governor Poizner’s Interest in Redistricting Not the Same as Governor Schwarzenegger

towashington 089.gif

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

Insurance Commissioner Poizner has adroitly chosen Prop 93 – the proposed modification in California’s “term limit” restriction – as his bridge to the conservative wing of the Republican Party. By supplying money to the ‘no’ side, Poizner pleases conservatives without hurting himself with voters (who could care less about term limits).

He should now think seriously about opposing the Schwarzenegger redistricting proposal – it would remove redistricting from the Legislative process and give it to a good government commission.

Conservative lawmakers would then not need a Republican Governor to protect them in the process, or whose veto would send the decision to a Republican Court.

In 1989, conservative Republican lawmakers actively recruited moderate Pete Wilson to leave the U.S. Senate and to run for Governor. They didn’t like Wilson’s ideology, but they needed to win because of the 1991 redistricting.

The plan worked. Wilson was elected. He opposed all plans proposed by the Democrats. He submitted a plan himself to the Court, but the Court finally drew its own plan – and the Republicans took over the State Assembly three years later.

Redistricting unified the G.O.P. behind Pete Wilson, an otherwise controversial Republican.

Poizner could achieve the same benefit in 2010, unless redistricting is handed over to a commission. The proposed Commission would remove the Governor from the process, removing at the same time the hammer it provides the Governor vis-à-vis the Legislature.

Not surprising that Schwarzenegger – whose time perspective extends only to 2010 – would give up the authority of his successor for his own, short term benefit.

If Poizner had half a brain, he’d be saying the proposal was backward. That a Commission should redistrict Congress, but that current process should be retained for the Legislature.

Bill Cavala was Deputy Director of the Assembly Speaker’s Office of Member Services where he worked for over 30 years.

He attended undergraduate and graduate school in the 1960’s and received a doctorate in political science at UC Berkeley. He taught political science at UC Berkeley during the 1970's while he worked part-time for the State Assembly.

Cavala left teaching at UC Berkeley and went to work for Assembly Speaker Willie Brown in 1981 until his tenure as Speaker ended in 1995, and he has worked for his five successors as Speaker up to and including Speaker Fabian Nunez.

Mr. Cavala manages election campaigns for Democratic candidates.

Posted on December 10, 2007

Comments

This is a little too Machiavellian even for Cavala. It took a 50-year event (1994) to turn the Assembly over to the Republicans. As Cavala has pointed out in other writings, the 2001 plan basically just took the 1991 plan and adjusted for population change. Redistriciting doesn't offer anything, really, to the Republicans (except maybe in Congress), unless they really believe it has an effect, the way they believed there were WMD in Iraq, tax cuts for the wealthy would improve the lot of the middle class, etc.

What the Republicans should do in this state is create a new political party. They can call it the "Sanity Party", to distinguish it from what exists now. In moderate districts, candidates of this party would have a real chance.

Posted by: publius at December 10, 2007 12:51 PM

Er, actually, Poizner was the main backer of Schwarzenegger's redistricting reform initiative in 2005.

The one that was a lot less competently done than this one. The one that led Perata and Nunez to promise it would be done through the Legislature.

Posted by: Bill Bradley at December 10, 2007 01:39 PM

Publius wrote "the 2001 plan basically just took the 1991 plan and adjusted for population change."

As anyone who has actually looked at a map knows, that's an absurd comment:

To compare the 1990s maps versus 2001, just look here:

http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/rose/redistricting/hall_of_shame.php

Posted by: Douglas Johnson at December 10, 2007 03:44 PM

I looked at the "hall of shame" (an interesting example of "value-free" social science--you can tell it from the name!). Anyone who thinks a redistricting plan can be evaluated district by district should not be let near the redistricting process--they are an idealogue, not a dispassionate observer.

I'm not going to rebut each particular district but I did look at AD7--parts of Sonoma county were dropped off and it was moved eastwards towards the Sierra. But of course, Northern California lost population wrt the rest of the state, so some Sacramento district was going to have to give up some population.

Posted by: publius at December 10, 2007 04:24 PM

Is "value free" supposed to be a good thing? Now I'm beginning to understand your support for incumbent-protection, community-splitting gerrymandering.

AD 24. Enough said.

Posted by: Doug Johnson at December 10, 2007 05:04 PM


Is this Doug Johnson the same as the one who speaks on behalf of the Republican Rose Institute?

No more an ordinary citizen than myself.

Posted by: william cavala at December 14, 2007 08:56 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Get email updates!

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.



© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.

RSS

Stat tracker