Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

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

Our latest headlines

Attorney General Brown Announces Largest Predatory Lending Settlement in History: $8.68 Billion in Home Loans and Foreclosures Relief Nationally—Up to $3.5 Billion to Californians—From Countrywide Financial Corporation
Hannah-Beth Jackson Has the Goods on Tony Strickland in Pivotal California Senate Seat Race
Proposition 5: We Need to Fix the Drug Court System
Turning a Red California District Blue: Is the Third Time a Charm for Ferial Masry and the Sixth Seat for Democrats to Gain Two-Thirds in the Assembly?
The Heller Gun Decision Week 14 – The U.S. Senate Holds H.R. 6842 and California Holds SB 327
Cavala: Competitive Legislative Seats Do Not Produce “Moderate” Lawmakers
In California’s 5th Senate District Race Democrat Wolk Should Win

About Us

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.

Books

Revenge in Attack on Legislative Redistricting?

towashington 089.gif By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

Leon Panetta is the lead “Democrat” in yet another group of reformers bent on changing California’s political institutions. His first target is legislative redistricting.

The major charge against the Legislature performing this traditional role is that it involves incumbent Members in a “conflict of interest”. To quote the Governor, it allows politicians to choose their voters instead of vice-versa. A nice turn of phrase. But mostly a false one.

Not counting a stint as an intern, I have been involved as a staffer on six different legislative redistricting efforts (how time flies when you’re having a good time). I think this qualifies me as an expert – or at least as experienced.

Because redistricting is ultimately a piece of legislation, votes from incumbents are necessary. But typically all that is required to obtain those votes is to begin the new district with the shell of the old one (that elected that incumbent in the first instance).
In 2001, that “shell” was the seat drawn by the California Supreme Court. Virtually all the seats drawn in 2001 were simply versions of the Court-drawn districts adjusted for population growth.

When major changes are – for whatever reason – made in the architecture of the seat that first elected an incumbent, obtaining the vote of that incumbent becomes problematic.
That is the real effect of incumbency on redistricting.

Fanciful notions of customizing seats for members ignore the legal requirements of equal population, respecting city and county boundaries, contiguity, the federal voting rights act and communities of interest – which include geographical features like connecting highways. All of these requirements, if not met, will serve as the basis for litigation in this the most litigious of areas. Precious little freedom is left for incumbents to tinker.

And this fact has always grated on incumbents. They give way to the exigencies that limit their ability to tinker, but not happily. If their ‘old’ seat isn’t maintained within the new one in the plan, their vote becomes problematic. (Three Santa Clara Assemblymembers voted against the 2001 plan for this reason).

In 1981, the Supreme Court imposed the Legislature’s version of Congressional Districts for the 1982 election after a successful Republican-sponsored referendum had initially voided that plan. Late in 1982 the Legislature passed another Congressional plan signed by Governor Brown just prior to the ascension of Republican Governor Deukmejian – who would have vetoed it.

On the final night of the special session considering redistricting, the state legislators from Monterey/Santa Cruz announced they would not vote for the plan without last minute changes designed to placate the incumbent Congressman from their area – Leon Panetta. Failure to obtain their votes meant the plan would fail passage. So Panetta was temporarily accommodated – even though the changes wrought in his district threw the entire plan out of kilter from an equal population standpoint. Subsequently Secretary of State March Fong changed the plan back to it’s pre-Panetta tinkering, claiming a “technical” drafting error. Panetta was understandably upset.

Could the “reform” efforts he now leads have been affected by this history?

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 March 31, 2008

Comments

Take one look at the shape of our districts and all of your arguments fall flat. Look at the 50th and 52 congressional Districts! Look at them all! With all their hooks and loops and fingerlets, don't tell me that these are compact, following the lines of communities. There are outcroppings made just to include an incumbent's home. One picture is worth all of your words. Mr. Panetta did just what most of incumbents do, when they can. They gerrymander. The people have to take that power away from them, once and for all.

Posted by: Jeanne Brown at March 31, 2008 11:39 PM

Posted by: Jeanne Brown at March 31, 2008 11:43 PM

Get Email Updates

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

Stat tracker