.png)
In case you're new here, redistricting is kind of a big deal to me. I talked up Prop 11 to anyone who would listen and I even felt strongly enough to show some civic responsibility and apply for the citizens' redistricting commission.
People deserve to be properly represented and Prop 11 was the first real attempt to give California voters' a voice in their state legislature.
But Prop 11 has not ended the battle for fair representation. Not even close. In December, the Census will deliver numbers to the President and the next month he will deliver the new House numbers (that is, how many reps each state gets). In April 2011 redistricting for the House of Representatives will begin. And Prop 11 left that particular body as susceptible to corruption as ever.
Enter Prop 20.
Prop 20 will bring the same reforms to the House that Prop 11 brought to Sacramento. This is too important to take Election Day off, California! Even if you hate both Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman (and who doesn't?), at least pop in to make Prop 20 law. Your state needs you.
Now. How about Prop 27?
Prop 27 is e*v*i*l in proposition form. It's only goal is to return corruption to Sacramento and keep it in Washington. Prop 27 will erase Prop 11 before it has a chance to do any good and prevent our state's people from having any say in whom they elect to the House. Prop 27 is the supervillain of ballot measures. Kill it before it kills your children. (And let no one say that I did not pull our my rhetorical tricks in trying to shoot 27 in the face.)
To whom does this commission report? Where is the accountability. If I don't like what a politician is doing, there's recourse. If I am opposed to the districts these volunteers draw up, what can I do about it.
ReplyDeleteAnother strange thing about prop 20, this initiative mandates that all California's political districts be segregated by income level — each district to include only people of the same income. That's right all districts be segregated according to income — "similar living standards ... similar work opportunities" — these are the exact words in Prop. 20.
I've come to the conclusion, the voter initiative system is mostly a bad idea. We live in a government designed as a representative system. This is one protection from what most true democracies devolve: socialism.
I think the stated design of most initiatives seem good on the surface but when one takes a moment and looks deeper into how these wannabe laws are written, few actually can stand muster.
I suggest a very close look at any initiative before lending any support.
.
ReplyDeleteYou must be joking. Even if you don't like the proposed system, I don't see how you can compare it to the current system and pretend it might be worse.
Right now, in California, we have no say --- none --- over who represents us. None at all. Zero. I would accept any change.
But the fact is, the commission is actually a pretty solid plan. It's designed to hold communities together, whereas politicians currently purposely split some communities apart and hodgepodge together new ones to their own liking.
Now, it is possible that voter initiatives in general may be more trouble than their worth, but in some situations (and Props 20 and 27 are primo examples), they may be our only recourse against corruption. So if you take away the people's power to enact harebrained ideas, we also take away a helpful check on governmental power.
Of course, if we were properly represented, we could do that by voting for our representation. But right now we don't have that option. Because we don't choose our representation. Our representation chooses us.
Right now, let's fix representation. And then let's see where this maybe constitutional convention takes us. And then let's see if we can save California.
I'm hardly joking. I don't like voting for an initiative when the law is poorly written. I hardly believe the ends justify the means. In most cases, the legislation contained in these initiatives establishes something less or more than they promise. Seriously, how many voters actually take the time to read the initiative in its entirety?
ReplyDeleteAs for Proposition 20, here's what it has to say regarding communities of interest:
"Sec. 3.2 (d)(4) The geographic integrity of any city, county, city and county, local neighborhood, or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes their division to the extent possible without violating the requirements of any of the preceding subdivisions. A community of interest is a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Examples of such shared interests are those common to an urban area, a rural area, an industrial area, or an agricultural area, and those common areas in which the people share similar living standards, use the same transportation facilities, have similar work opportunities, or have access to the same media of communication relevant to the election process. Communities of interest shall not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates."
This sounds a little like "Jim Crow" districting to me. What benefits might there be in such a thing? I can't say.
People complain that we've no recourse because we don't choose our representatives since they are working to choose us. I suggest the true problem has little to do with how the districts are drawn and more to do with people doing something beside giving lip service. Yes, it takes people, far more than just an individual. Still, people is made up by many individuals.
The representation system is not broken. It is far better than setting up a true democracy where most of the participants can't seem to care enough to actually do what it takes.
.
ReplyDeleteThe representative may not be completely broken, but if it was a dozen eggs, you would take them back to the store.
I don't vote for many props because they are poorly written. Probably most of them, frankly. And the unintended consequences of 13 on down should sober us. But this is a case where what we have is so patently bad that any change will be a change for the better.
Voters deserve a choice. Without choice, we don't have voting. Without voting, we don't have any kind of democracy.
.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty though, I am utterly confused by your Jim Crow reference. Those sound like pretty good standards to me.
I am pretty much cutting from my blog to paste it here:
ReplyDeleteProposition 20 would give power over redistricting of California's congressional districts to a panel of 14 randomly selected volunteers. They are required by law to have no experience in government or real-life redistricting. Also, the selection process is something only a tax accountant could love. Seriously. Anonymous tax accountants play a big role in the selection. Proposition 20 mandates that all California political districts be segrerated by income level. Yes, each district is to include only people of the same income as well as employment opportunities and other living standards. The words used in the legislation are "similar living standards . . . similar work opportunities."
Why? What purpose could there be to mandate the separation of people by income level into different districts? Through this scheme, the law would force San Francisco's high-end Nob Hill area (the Mark Hopkins Hotel, the Fairmont Hotel) to be in the same congressional district as the equally high-end Marina district (beautiful homes overlooking the scenic Golden Gate Bridge, vistas of San Francisco Bay) but neither of these neighborhoods could be in the same district as the high-unemployment ghetto of Hunters Point. Why is this so? All of these neighborhoods are currently in the district of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and all three areas contain Pelosi enthusiasts. What good comes from slicing out the primarily African American area of Hunters Point out of Peloxi's district? How does that imrpove life in the ghetto or on Nob Hill or in California. Does it stop our state from going broke? Does it eliminate the California debt?
Districting by race, by class, by lifestyle or by wealth just is not acceptable. Californians should understand these code words. The days of "country club members only" districts or of "poor people only" districts are over aren't they? I thought so.
.
ReplyDeleteIt's still not worse than what we have. Which I know you're not arguing, but what we have is so tremendously awful that even if you don't like the proposed changes, they are still better than the current system.
And I like the redistricting-commission plan a lot. I think it's sensible and workable. And even if it weren't, it would still be better than what we have now.
It's a little out-of-date (though not at all dated), but this.