California Redistricting Reform: Arguments Against Prop 11 Don’t Hold Water to This Progressive Democrat

Proposition 11 has 2 giant loop-holes in it---and more!

Giant loop-hole #1 allows the Legislature to change the make up of the so-called Citizens Redistricting Commission in future years. Thus allowing the Legislature’s skilled gerrymanders to dominate the process in the future just like they do now. (see Government Code, Chapter 3.2. 8251. (c, 2,3,4)

Giant loop-hole #2 is that this so-called Citizens Redistricting Commission can craft new districts anyway they want, just by calling them Communities of interests. (see Article XXI, Sec. 2. (d4)

That’s right, by using the “communities of interests” criteria, they can run districts hundreds of miles across the state. And, because there is no definition for community of interest, the commission is allowed to define it anyway it want.

So, that’s the way it is, “politics”. The drafters of this initiative hid their loop-holes so well that Governor Arnold Swartzenegger was not aware of them last time I talked to his staff.

Even worse than these giant loop-holes is the selection process. It invites every partisan political machine in the state including giant corporate lobbyist and labor unions to recruit potential members of the commission---ringers. The list of ringers will certainly include the best gerrymanders California’s political machines have to offer. Naturally, Democrats will call it a Republican power grab and Republicans will call it a sceme to take redistricting powers out of the legislature and give it to liberal non-profits controlled by giant public employee unions.
Last, we must all ask ourselves. “why isn’t Congress included?” The drafters are very candid about this. They simply admit they want Nancy Polosi to be able to Gerrymander Congressional Districts next time around.

For these reasons, I cannot support Prop11.

Edward J. (Ted) Costa, fairdistrictsnow.com

Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles (PDLA) VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY to OPPOSE PROP 11 at our August meeting. The endorsement committee, of which I am co-chair, voted UNANIMOUSLY to OPPOSE PROP 11.

So, while Roy Ulrich may be one of the hundreds on the mailing list, he has never been a voting member OR attended a single monthly meeting of PDLA. Therefore, we would question his self-identification with our organization.

From what I've learned, his position is primarily as a member of Common Cause, the organization paid $40,000 by the governor's PAC that is supporting this measure. So, why did he choose to conceal his true allegiance?

I suspect it is for the same reason that he has tried to mislead voters into believing that this is some sort of real reform...which it is not.(thank you, Ted, for your helpful addition above)

Roy's personal attack on my analysis does require rebuttal, particularly because of the vitriolic nature in which it was written.

To note: I did not "attack" our auditor general. I did try calling her office for more information about her, however, and was told that only her attorney would speak to the media. Seemed unusual that the state would be paying an attorney to act as a spokesperson for a political appointee. Her appointment by Davis is immaterial. She IS a political appointee.

To note: 6 of the 7 Supreme Court justices WERE put into office by REPUBLICAN governors.

To note: I did list only a portion of the many contributors that are on the committee filings as well as those somewhat obscured by other committee names filed under the first. Anyone who wishes to spend a huge amount of time compiling exactly who these people are is welcome to do it. I chose only a few for illustration purposes and provided the LINKS to the Secretary of State's website for further investigation (see my original piece for this).

Roy has pulled out the sprinkling of Democrats from the overwhelmingly REPUBLICAN LIST of big name contributors and attempted to obscure the main point....that this IS A REPUBLICAN EFFORT which is no less a threat to our state than what Tom DeLay did to Texas in their redistricting.

To note: Commissioners are paid $300 per meeting (not per day)+ expenses, BUT there is a parallel NEW BUREAUCRACY that is to be formed with unlimited funding (again, see original article). This is in addition to the existing state legislature's redistricting staff that will continue to function.

Roy seems overly concerned with Michael Berman's contract to redistrict last time around (Michael is Howard's brother). I'm certainly not going to justify anything he did, but in the interest to CLARITY, he should have said that this measure does NOT cover congressional redistricting at this time, only the assembly, state senate and board of equalization offices. And the idea that a new state bureaucracy would cost LESS than $1.3 million is preposterous. It has been noted that congressional redistricting would be affected later by the changes in the state legislature that happen as a result of Prop 11.

Lastly, anyone who thinks Prop 11 is "fair" needs to spend some serious time studying the actual text and exploring the Secretary of State's website for the committees supporting this. Hundreds of thousands from the various corporations and business interests are NOT pouring in because they have an overwhelming desire to support our democracy. They're doing what they always do. Buying the vote. It's all about MONEY and fooling enough of the people to get this passed.###

(I was out of the country when Roy posted this...resulting in the delay in response)

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.