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.

Our latest headlines

Want more? Dive into the archives.

About Us

David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)

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

About California Progress Report.

Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).

Books

Proposition 11: Fake Redistricting Reform Brought to you by Governor Schwarzenegger and his Wrong-Wing Republican Gang

By Linda Sutton

Want to live in a Red State? Want to have gridlock on redistricting in addition to the budget? Want to have the Republicans put in charge of "protecting" our coastline?

This is the reality of the so-called "Voters First" proposition being put on the ballot this year by Arnold and his Republican fat cat cronies. The only "voters" who are elevated will be the Republicans who are attempting to circumvent their declining registration statewide by fooling the voters into the idea that Prop 11 is "independent" and "non-partisan." You've got to hand it to them. They come up with such good titles that mean exactly the opposite!!!

Under the guise of "reform," proposition 11 creates a new state bureaucracy with an unlimited budget. This new drain on the state resources would essentially operate as a parallel second set of employees since a redistricting staff already exists in the state legislature. Along with the 14 member Citizens Redistricting Commission (paid $300 per day + expenses to attend a meeting), this new unlimited bureaucracy would include political staffers (civil-service exempt), private contractors, and private attorneys.

If this commission, stacked in the Republicans' favor, does NOT reach agreement, and the rules ensure it will not, redistricting is handed to the California Supreme Court who appoints "special masters" to complete the boundary lines. NOTE that 6 of the 7 justices currently sitting on the court were appointed by Republican governors.

Few people can defend the bizarre configurations of our legislative districts that are currently under the direct control of our politicians. Often neighborhoods are split into "communities of interest," and this is one of the arguments used in favor of this measure that will be on the ballot this November. But, the politicians ARE responsible for what they have done, and they CAN be held accountable by the voters. If Prop 11 passes, all accountability ends.

Proposition 11 sets up a convoluted maze to choose 14 commissioners. The restrictions on selection of applicants are such as to ensure their ignorance of the political process. Excluded are people who have been candidates for office within the last 10 years, or had a family member who was, anyone who has served on a political central committee, anyone who has been on a political staff or been a lobbyist, anyone contributing $2000 or more to a candidate, any staff people to elected officials or their relatives. Thus, the pool of applicants will be severely restricted to those who have the least possible experience dealing with the complex decisions they will be asked to make. Or, maybe not. Interestingly, politicos from the Republican institutes and think tanks are not excluded.

The maze begins with the State Auditor. You say, "Who?" Who, indeed. It's not as though we've ever heard anything about this unelected state official. But now this unknown takes front and center stage and begins the Prop 11 process by choosing three so-called "independent" state auditors to oversee what follows. This is Step #1, in the multiple-step procedure laid out by this proposition.

For the record, the State Auditor is currently Elaine M. Howle. She is a POLITICAL appointee of the governor's, selected from a list of three submitted to him by the state legislature. The State Auditor, however, is "accountable solely to the California Legislature" after appointment.

The next step (#2) proceeds by choosing from a pool of applicants 20 Democrats, 20 Republicans, plus 20 not in either major party. This formula bears NO relationship to the actual political party registration in the state which as of May 19, 2008 is 43.75% Democrat, 32.53% Republican, and 23.72% all others. The losers here are obviously the Democrats who have gained a substantial margin in registration and would now be required to forfeit that plurality.

Moving on to Step #3, the state party leaders (only Dems and Reps now) get veto power. The President pro Tempore of the Senate, the Minority floor leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the Minority Floor Leader may EACH strike up to two applicants from each sub-pool of 20 for a total of eight possible strikes per sub-pool. So, the whittled down lists of possibly only 12 Dems+12 Reps+12 Others now go back to the State Auditor.

In Step #4, The State Auditor is to draw random names from the pool submitted by the previous step, and they become the first 8 on the Citizens Redistricting Commission. There are to be 3 from the largest political party (Dems), 3 from the second largest political party (Reps), and 2 from all others. Again, the LOSER on this cozy little split is the Democrats who AGAIN forfeit their significant voter registration plurality to…guess who??? The REPUBLICANS.

Now to Step #5, and if you've zoned out by now, well, that IS the point. But, please stay for the finale. The 8 from step #4 review the names in the remaining pool from which they had been drawn, supposedly randomly, and now themselves APPOINT 6 more. These are to be evenly split: 2 Dems/2 Reps/2 Others. Each one of these must then be approved by 5 votes of the existing 8 commissioners with a required 2 each from each major party and 1 other. And there you have it, the FOURTEEN who have made it through this convoluted sieve and are now charged, on paper, with redrawing the district lines after each decade's census. And again, the losing party is scheduled to be the Democratic Party that holds the greatest voter registration in the state.

By now you're probably wondering IF those 14 will even have the expertise to know where to begin! But, not to worry. At the end of the text of this ballot measure, glossed over in the ballot summary, we find the fine print detailing all the undisclosed new expenditures of this ill-conceived boondoggle, and you're welcome to read it yourself:

"The commission shall hire commission staff, legal counsel and consultants as needed." These employees shall be EXEMPT from civil service requirements, which means they will be POLITICAL appointees. Civil service would have meant appointment under a general system based on merit ascertained by competitive examination (CA Constitution Article VII). And, listen to this, ONLY ONE of those hired as legal counsel needs to have "extensive experience and expertise in implementation and enforcement of the federal Voting Rights Act."

There are NO LIMITS on number of staff, consultants, or legal counsel. There's also no limit on the funding that the governor submits for this new bureaucracy created through Prop 11 OR for the "statewide outreach program" that is to be set up "to solicit broad public participation" --- public relations events. Be assured, however, that there is planned fiscal oversight, from the GOVERNOR'S Department of Finance!!!

The greatest travesty is the gridlock built into the commission by a requirement of 9 votes to approve final maps. These votes must be evenly split between Democrats/Republicans/ and Others. Can anyone who has watched state government in recent years even imagine agreement? This is where the Republican-appointed State Supreme Court steps in to dictate the final maps.

If Proposition 11 passes, and it WILL if people do not read more than the title and blurb provided by the Secretary of State, there will be a huge faucet of state funds funneled to private consultants and attorneys, overseen by political appointee staff and citizen commissioners paid $300+expenses per meeting, and Republicans will be in charge.

And this is being sold to voters as an improvement??? THIS is reform??? Certainly there will be the well-connected who will profit from this new bureaucracy, but it's not going to be the average taxpayer who will again be stuck with the bill for this privatization of the redistricting process. And the Democrats, who have gained significantly in voter registration, again will be stymied by this seizure of power by the Republican elite.

We now move to the more interesting part -- the financing of this interesting excursion into the redistricting wonderland. WHO would be funding this?

Turns out that anyone who wants to check into the FUNDERS of any of the propositions OR candidates can do so quite easily through our Secretary of State's website. From the main page, click on "political reform" on the top bar, then find the link for part way down that page.

I've done this and you would not believe WHO is there!! How about New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg to the tune of $250,000! And there's Boone Pickens, the Texas oil tycoon, for $100,000. And CEO's and Chairs abound. I wonder if the shareholders of these companies know where the profits go. From Williams Sonoma --W. Howard Lester, $250,000; from Guess--Maurice Marciano $25,000; from Trust Company of the West--Robert Day $100,000; from Charles Schwab--$100,000; from the Gap--Donald Fisher $50,000; from PIMCO--William Powers $100,000; from Netflix founder Reed Hastings $147,307.01; from Rick Caruso, RE Development, $100,000; from the LA Chamber of Commerce, $32,500. Then there is the New Majority California PAC (more on this follows) with $175,000. Here's where you check out the donor list: http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1299492&session=2007&view=received

And that's just from under the first listed committee, California Voters First, #1299492, that is supporting the measure. They report $4,826,382.01 received for only the first 6 months of 2008.

Additional donors, insurance companies, land developers, etc., are tucked away under what is called the New Majority California PAC (a major donor to Voters First) here.

Homebuilder William Lyon kicked in $8,000; the Irvine Company $8000; Bank of America PAC $5600; Heritage Development $8000; Robert Follman of RA Industries $8000; Robert Grimm of Strategic Financial $8000; Stephen Fry of Fry Steel $8000; Yokohl Ranch $8000; Horowitz Management $8000. (David Horowitz, that is, who is also within Voters First with an additional $5000); Marion Knott Montapert $8000 (another multiple donor with an additional $2000 disclosed within Voters First too); William E. Simon $8000; Syd Liebovitch of Rodeo Realty $5000.

But for those research wonks you really want to go for it, please check out the New Majority California PAC EXPENDITURES here.

This is where you find the actual FUNDING of petition gathering by Kimball Petition Management for Voters First (indeed), the Republican Governors Association donations, the contributions to Gov Scharzenegger's committees, various Republican county parties, mailers for Bernard Parks (candidate for LA County supervisor), and $10,000 for KARL ROVE!!!

For those of you who have gotten this far, I have a challenge. Within the California Voters First PAC, Governor Schwarzenegger's Dream Team is listed multiple times for both in-kind and monetary contributions…$280,000 here, $300,000 there…get the idea? Try to figure the total in millions and call his office to ask what each of these contributions represented. I'm curious and have simply run out of time. I also suspect many who were behind Arnold's failed Prop 77 in 2005 are behind this new incarnation.

What I am certain of is that this proposition #11 is as "fair and balanced" as Fox News. This is yet another one of these "by the rich and for the rich" propositions being marketed by the high priced Republican propagandists to harried voters. Democrats living in the Red Zones are particularly vulnerable, since they are hoping this will benefit them. It won't. It also only applies to STATE districts, and NOT to Congressional districts.

Expect the Republicans will be continuously pounding the airwaves with their lies using credible-looking endorsements from credible sounding "good government" organizations and people.

Don't fall for it. Vote NO on PROP 11 and keep the politicians directly accountable for these critical decisions. As bad as some of them have been in the past, this certainly is not a viable alternative. The Republicans are attempting to circumvent their continuous losses in registration over the last Bush years. Don't let them do it. VOTE NO ON PROP 11 and pass this around.////

Linda Sutton is a writer, photographer, and educator based in Los Angeles. She was the press coordinator for Gov. Jimmy Carter in '76 and did political media locally thereafter. Recently, she produced the public access television show "We Say/They Say" with host Marcy Winograd and the "Gore Vidal on Education" Truth Now radio interview. She writes on various progressive blogs and comments way too often. Political photos are on the progressivecaucuscdp.org website; others at lindasuttonphoto.com. She was the co-producer of the 40th AD candidate forums and has produced the "HAiR" and "Body of War" fundraisers for Progressive Democrats of America.

Posted on August 12, 2008

Comments

Partial list of those right wingers and people who appear credible that are supporting Prop 11

Janis R. Hirohama, President, League of Women Voters of California
Kathay Feng, Executive Director, California Common Cause
Gray Davis, Former Governor
ACLU - Southern California
Bay Area Council
Bay Area Leadership Council
California Democratic Council
Anaheim Democratic Club
Bonita Democratic Council
California Log Cabin Republicans
Democrats of Central Orange County
Democrats of North Orange County
Democrats of West Orange County
Lake San Marcos Democratic Club
Mesa Democrats
Newport Bay Area Democratic Club
Pacific Beach Democrats
Robert F. Kennedy Democratic Club
Patrick Henry Democratic Club
Pomona Valley Democratic Club
Bay City Democrats
Tom Bates, Mayor, City of Berkeley
Lee Baca, Sheriff, Los Angeles County
Laurie Capitelli, Councilmember, City of Berkeley
Judith Hess, Leader, Progressive Democrats of America
Dr. Bill Honigman, CA State Coordinator, Progressive Democrats of America
Barbara Inatsugu, Former President, League of Women Voters of California
Andrae Macapiniac, Historian, Democratic Caucus at San Jose State University
Doug McCarron, General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
Robert Melsh, CDP Region 19 Director
Jim Moreno, California Democratic Party, Region 18

Posted by: sean at August 12, 2008 09:09 AM

And here's a partial list of civil rights, senior citizens and progressives opposed to Prop. 11.

National Latino Congreso

Mexican American Political Association

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

William C. Velasquez Institute

Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California

California Democratic Party

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO

Teamsters Joint Council 42

California Labor Federation

Stonewall Democratic Club

California Young Democrats

Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles

Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains

Lake County Stonewall Democratic Club

Posted by: paul at August 12, 2008 10:46 AM

This convoluted essay makes no sense. Why are some Democrats sullying the name of our party by opposing good government reform with such crude attacks? It seems to me that when you are using ad hominem attacks on sweet old ladies from the League of Women Voters (the drafters of Prop 11) you know which side of the good vs evil fence you're straddling...

To begin with, she tries to scare Dems with the fact that the commission will have... wait for it... staff! Of my God, bureaucracy! Wait a second though, wasn't this the same boogieman Republicans used to attack and kill Prop 87, which would have funded billions in alternative energy research through an oil extraction tax? Never mind, she MUST be right, because when the Legislature draws the lines they don't use computers or have any staff, they just throw darts (OK, she wins that one -- the Legislature, both Dem and Rep, don't employ staff so much as hacks whose job is to eliminate all competition and re-elect incumbents. They've done a hell of a job too, in the last elections not a single legislative seat has changed party hands despite Reep unpopularity and the Dem sweep in 2006).

Then she tries to spin that excluding people that would have a clear conflict in drawing district lines -- people who are in elected office, their staff and family members -- into a bad thing! Those in power and interested in maintaining the status quo, she writes, are CLEARLY the only people in the whole state with experience enough to be on the commission! Never mind people from good government organizations, civil rights organizations, ethnic organizations, think tanks, academics, lawyers, demographers, accountants, activists or the millions of civically active citizens out there...

Ah yes, then comes the trope that the commission is unfair because -- gasp! -- it has a balanced commission of 5 Dems, 5 Reps, and 4 Indeps and requires a majority vote of each group to pass a plan. Did I miss something, or is that actually what makes the commission fair? Combined, there are more Republicans and Independents than Democrats in CA: would she want a system whereby those two groups could conspire to pass a plan against the Democrats? By making it so that every group has to agree, Prop 11 pretty much negates the possibility of one group taking unfair political advantage through this process. The point of a commission is to create districts that represent actual communities, not a politician or party's re-election interests.

It saddens me that some prominent Dems and Dem groups, spurred by the staff insiders who draw the lines under the present system and have a self-interest in maintaining this power, have come out against Prop 11. Mostly, this is due to scare tactics that Prop 11 would lead to Rep gains. Are we so demoralized as a party that we don't think our ideals can win in fair competition based on districts that represent real constituencies?? If you look at the national scene, this should be our finest hour -- but thanks to gerrymandering no amount of good campaigning can unseat Republicans in the entrenched districts we've drawn them. What Dems need to realize is that just because we control the Legislature doesn't mean our politicians are going to use the redistricting process to maximize Dem gains -- all they've ever done is used the process to protect themselves (and so indirectly Republicans) from any shred of competition.

Posted by: BlueStater08 at August 12, 2008 01:20 PM

As a Democrat, nothing in this election saddens me more than watching the "party of change" in California put up such falsehoods against Prop. 11.

Seriously, do you think the lawyers at the ACLU, Common Cause and AARP would support something that skews California towards the Republicans or would infring on minority rights?

The only people afraid of Prop. 11 are the politicans and party hacks who stand to lose this enormous power which shouldn't be theirs to begin with in the fist place. And people too caught up in their own bullshit to tell the difference.

Posted by: CalDem77 at August 12, 2008 01:50 PM

Drivel like this is why I have left the Democratic Party. Proposition 11 is in the public interest. Unfortunately, Democratic insiders want to violate their own party's principles for their own benefit. Progress happens only when people come to agreement. Keep the state divided and you're never going to get it. Yes on 11. Yes on progress.

Posted by: Ash Roughani at August 12, 2008 04:16 PM

Common Cause formed their committee on this April 1, 2008. In 3 months to 6/30 they collected $54,220 in contributions. Of this, $40,000 was from the Republican CA Voters First. Transaction dates for $25K and $15K: 4/1 and 4/2. So, as an organization to consider as an independent credible source, this would lead one to another conclusion (at least this one). GO TO:
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1304914&session=2007&view=general

With this money from their predominantly Republican contributors, they paid a usually Democratic consultant $12K to go sell this prop to her Democratic contacts...which is where I first was exposed to the very professional presentation that seemed, on the surface, quite reasonable. I can only assume that some of those who saw it, bought it.

We were pulled up short by one of our long time members who immediately saw it for what it is. Democrats have a strong registration advantage in our state (numbers in article). This CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT would give away that and give Republicans, with rapidly declining registration, equal representation that THEY DO NOT HAVE in the electorate.

I do not defend what has been done in the redistricting in the past. If the Democrats lose this one, it will be because so many Democrats living in the red zones feel left out. But this proposition WILL NOT BENEFIT them. And if they're looking at this as "fair," then they need to reconsider since this has NEVER been the Republican way. Republicans play to WIN. And this they will do if there are enough Dems who drink this kool-aid.

Posted by: LindaSutton at August 13, 2008 06:50 AM

The Democratic supporters of this are attempting to make the Republicans more moderate, however you can't make the Republican Party more moderate without making the Democrats more moderate as well.

There are many on the far left that fear a Democratic Party that is led by elected officials who are moderates.

Posted by: sean at August 13, 2008 10:15 AM

Question: Term limits(passed 20 years ago) have failed to solve our legislative gridlock problem. Why will redistricting reform succeed?

Posted by: Joel at August 16, 2008 09:51 AM

"E Pluribus Unum" or "we the people" Have we forgotten one of the most sacred covenants of our democracy? Who are elected officials are and how they get elected should be determined by the people not the legislators themselves regardless of how many committees it takes or costs to do so as E Pluribus Unum is at stake here. Hopefully everyone who believes in democracy will agree with that regardless of political affiliation. It seems to me that our current legislature is fully aware of the completely inadequate job they are doing. Why else would they oppose prop 11? The only ones who should determine their fate are "we the people" not "they the ineffective” Oh how I'd love to be able to be unproductive, argumentative, ineffective and delusional and still keep my job! If our legislators do great work than they have nothing to fear and prop 11 should not concern them as the cream will rise to the top. If not than prop 11 should serve as their wake up call. The article by Ms. Sutton is so party centric is makes democrats look like they want legislators in "party name only" and that getting anything done and California back on the right tract as secondary. Give the party politics a rest already, that's what got us into this mess to begin with!
Curious that Ms Sutton left out AARP and The league of women voters as two more of those so called “right wing organizations” supporting prop 11. I guess she only wants us to know what she wants us to know not the truth, just like her beloved and ineffective legislature.

Posted by: barry at August 25, 2008 04:26 PM

Critics of Prop 11 need to come up with an alternative to solving the issue of a degraded democracy if they want to have any credibility at all. Or perhaps they think it's OK when just about every seat goes uncontested. And this is equally true of the U.S. House of Representatives when close to 100% of incumbents (excepting those who die or were sent to prison)are returned again and again and again. California is a dysfunctional state and there's a deep current of cynicism and distrust that crosses every ideological and party boundary. Something has to give or even more radical solutions will be proposed in the future.

Posted by: Jack Train at September 7, 2008 04:42 PM

Apparently Linda Sutton sees nothing wrong with a fake democracy in which legislators are appointed by a small inner circle of party politicians, and then presented to the electorate to be rubber-stamped. If she did see something wrong, she and her fellow pols would long ago have introduced a competing redistricting plan without the many errors she insists are included in Prop 11. The threat of not being able to control the outcome of an election must be very unsettling to those who pull strings behind closed doors.

Posted by: Jack Train at September 7, 2008 08:51 PM

Gerrymandering (manipulating district boundaries for electoral advantage) is huge. Fixing gerrymandering would correct the serious advantage that office incumbents give themselves in reelections, the point being to make elections more fair, more representative of voters.

My serious concern with Prop 11's address of this problem is that a NON-partisan panel is needed to objectively handle redistricting. Bi-partisan and non-partisan are NOT the same.

The distribution of this new redistricting panel legally locks in Democratic and Republican seats, discriminating against independents and other parties (Libertarian, Constitution, etc.). Those very-partisan Democratic and Republican seats comprise a solid panel majority.

Gerrymandering is serious among office incumbents and partisan interests. It needs solution with a NON-partisan process that does not answer to incumbents. Prop 11 does not provide that, and I am concerned that it may mask and entrench the problem rather than fix it.

Posted by: Thogek at October 30, 2008 11:02 PM

thanks for the information
www.californiaprogressreport.com

Sohbet Odaları -
Sohbet siteleri -

Posted by: seviyeli sohbet at June 19, 2009 11:15 AM

Get Email Updates

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

Stat tracker