Still Against Proposition 11 and So-called Re-Districting "Reform"

Early in the process this year, I came out against Proposition 11. However, a lot has happened since that point in time. With two weeks to go before the election, I thought I would re-examine my thoughts on the issue.

Proposition 11 in a nutshell would change the way that California draws its districts every ten years for setting the geographic boundaries of the state's 120 legislative and four Board of Equalization districts. Under current law, that task falls to the state legislature. If Proposition 11 passes, it would give that power to a new 14-member commission. That commission must include five Democrats, five Republicans, and four from neither party.

Notably this would not include congressional districts.

The measure has pretty broad support across party lines with a variety of past and current elected officials, a number of both Democratic and Republican club organizations, and a number of interest groups on both sides.

Some of the groups supporting it are: Common Cause, AARP, Los Angeles Chamber, League of Women Voters, ACLU of Southern California, California Police Chiefs Association, among many others.

Prominent officials include Governor Schwarzenegger, Former Controller Steve Westly, Former Governor Gray Davis, Former Congressman Leon Panetta, Former Senate Republican Leader Jim Brulte, Former Speaker Robert Hertzberg, Davis' Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, among a number of others.

And the editorial boards of many of California's biggest newspapers: Los Angeles Times, San facisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, San Diego Union Tribune, Orange County Register, Fresno Bee, and the Stockton Record, again among others. Again you have liberal editorial boards and conservative ones.

With all of this said, I am still against this bill. As I thought through it last night, I realized, that as much as I have a reformist agenda in many ways, I do not have one with regards to voting reforms. Moreover, I think past voting reforms have created more harm than good.

Start with term limits. I think they have been an absolute disaster for California. They did not solve the problem of governance, it simply set loose a bunch of amateur legislators to control the 7th largest economy in the world. And as soon as those legislators actually learn the legislative process and how to write laws, they move on to the next branch of government.

That reform does two things, it vests power in elected and more permanent elements such as lobbyists and staffers. And it encourages promotion into ranks of government where the individuals have surpassed their skill. The result is that we get a rotating basis in the constitutional offices and it is far from clear that California is well-served by this.

I am also against the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. There have only been a few times in history when an individual ever had a chance to run and win a third term. Ironically it happened more with the Republicans than the Democrats. Nevertheless, I think it is a horrible law because it effectively makes for a powerless, lame duck President which means there is a true executive only a short portion of time every eight years.

For both term limits and the 22nd Amendment, I believe the voters should have the right to vote for who they want. If they want to elect their representatives for life--let them. If the American People want to elect a President four times as they did with FDR, why stop them? I am really not concerned that America given the competitive system and the checks and balances we have will devolve into a tyranny based on allowing the public to select their leadership of their choosing. It is not as though these types of "reforms" have solved the problems.

I am against campaign finance reform. I see no evidence that the McCain-Feingold bill has slowed down the influence of money. I see no evidence that PACs exert less influence now than they did prior to that legislation. The same is true in California with Proposition 34. All that bill has done is make parties stronger with their ability to finance legislative campaigns.

It is ironic that Republicans now are decrying the death of campaign finance reform and public financing due to Barrack Obama raising $180 million last month. It was President Bush who set that in motion last year by raising around $200 million. Moreover, Barrack Obama actually raised most of this money from small donations. His average donation was $86. That's astounding. He has gotten over 3 million individual contributions. We want to encourage that kind of broad-based support, not discourage it.

It is in fact the death of public financing. And while public financing sounds like a good idea, it would be doomed as well unless we somehow passed a constitutional amendment that vested all power in the public financing system. And even then, I suspect monied interests would find loopholes.

What I would favor is instead what I favor for most things--full disclosure and transparency. And actually enforcing that fulll disclosure and transparency with real teeth.

Along those lines I think the initiative system is a particularly bad way to enact legislation. There are few laws, even ones that I have voted for, that were passed through initiative that actually worked well. So not only do I think that reform was a poor one, it is too easy for monied interests to get laws on the ballot and too difficult for the average citizen. Plus laws are complex and unless they are well-written they will devolve into unintended consequences.

And that is what I fear with Proposition 11. We seem to have a number of these supposed bipartisan panels selected various processes, and none of them appear to work particularly well.

Proposition 11 is a fairly complicated system and it is not altogether clear that this process would end up producing something that is better than what currently exists. Republicans seem to want it because they believe that the legislature is disproportionately Democratic compared to the state. I looked at the breakdown of the average Democratic vote statewide since 1996 and compared it to the legislative breakdown over the same period, and it is definitely stronger in the latter than the former, but not by as much as people might think.

Reformists such as Common Cause want to see competitive elections believing that they offer better representation. What is interesting is that you can argue the opposite is true as well. Let us say you have a roughly evenly split district. At any given time a large percentage of the population is going have someone representing them who does not fundamentally represent their values. Now let us suppose you have a district that is 70 to 80 percent of one party or another. That party will win 99% of time and more of those residents will have their views represented in the legislature. Which is a better system?

You want to argue that it breeds lack of accountability? Tell that to Carole Migden who lost her seat in the primary to Mark Leno. All that has happened is that you simply shift the place where accountability will occur.

You want to say it is rare for there to be a contested primary, that's fine, but realize that over 90% of incumbents in even marginally competitive seats win. Huge incumbency advantage. I am far from convinced that you are going to see a lot of incumbents go down in a system like this.

Bottom line is that both reformists and Republicans are going to be disappointed when the new system ends up being just like the old system.

I am tired of playing with the machinery of voting, believing somehow we can legislate our way into better governance. We cannot. Let us remove term limits, let us remove campaign finance reform, and all the voters to decide who should be in office. Real change will occur when citizens step up and say no more. And they do this from time to time. In 1994, the voters in the US tired of arrogant and corrupt Democratic leadership voted them out in record numbers.

In 2006, they reserved that election and voted the Democrats back in. This year, right now it appears, you will see large majorities for the Democrats in both houses of congress and probably a Democratic President. In 2004, that didn't even look possible.

Do not underestimate the voters. It does take big problems, but in the end the voters seem to handle those major changes just fine. We have had the current system in California for a long time, what in my opinion has made things worse is term limits and campaign finance. I am not about to put more restrictions on the current process.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

November Update: Republicans Fuel Aghazarian's Senate Campaign Against Wolk

Republican Party Gives Big Money to Aghazarian

The Sacramento Bee's Capitol Alert reported yesterday that the California Republican Party poured roughly $345,000 into Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian's state Senate campaign last week. Aghazarian is running for the seat of termed-out Sen. Mike Machado and is opposed by Assemblywoman Lois Wolk who represents Yolo and Solano Counties.

That means that the Republican party has already dumped over one million dollars into this race. However as the Capitol Alert points out, that may have more to do with the lack of competitive State Senate Races than anything else.

The same article reported the party donated $595,000 to former Assemblyman Tony Strickland. Strickland is running against former Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson down in the Santa Barbara-Ventura area in a campaign to succeed termed-out Sen. Tom McClintock (who is now running for Congress against Charlie Brown).

"The races are the only two of the 20 Senate seats up for election in November where competition is expected."

The Capitol Alert goes on to argue this is an uphill battle for Republicans. The most recent voter registration statistics show that Democrats hold a 47 to 31.5 advantage. Four years ago, Gary Podesta, a former Stockton Mayor, challenged Machado. He spent nearly $10 million to unseat him.

However, that was almost a different district. In October of 2004, Democrats held a 10-point registration advantage over Republicans, now they hold a 15.5 point advantage.

"Allan Hoffenblum, the publisher of the California Target Book, which analyzes political races in the state, said the Aghazarian donation was to send a message to GOP donors.

"It is a statement by the GOP leadership that they are going to take that race seriously," Hoffenblum said.

In the early money race, Aghazarian has a significant financial advantage, with more than quadruple the cash-on-hand of Wolk.

As of mid-May, Aghazarian had $530,000 in the bank, with $44,000 in debts. Since then, he has received another $105,000 from three local GOP county committees as well as the big recent check from the state party. That brings his rough total to $936,000.

Wolk had $176,000 in her treasury as of mid-May, with $20,000 in debts.

The Democratic Party, however, is expected to have plenty to spend to contest both seats in the fall. The California Democratic Party reported more than $7.9 million in the bank as of May, a $3.8 million advantage over the Republican Party, which reported $4.18 million."

Hoffenblum went on to say that no Democrat in California will lose for lack of money.

SIEU May Back Redistricting Measure on November's Ballot

Meanwhile, the lack of competitive races will further fuel a push for redistricting.

The big news on that front might be that SEIU, one of the largest unions in the state, may buck the Democratic Party and back Proposition 11, the redistricting measure on the November Ballot.

Anthony York at Capitol Weekly reports SEIU is considering backing Proposition 11, the redistricting measure on the November ballot:

"The fact that SEIU finds itself divided, and possibly at odds with Democratic Party leadership over redistricting is the latest illustration of an internal belief that the union, which represents nearly 2 million people nationwide, is powerful enough to take its own stand, regardless of what other political or labor leaders may think."

"We're large enough to take risks," says [Courtni] Pugh. "We're going to do what's best for working people, and for our membership."

York writes:

"If SEIU does wind up backing Proposition 11, it would be in the face of opposition from Democratic Party leadership in Washington and Sacramento, and from some other state labor groups...

But under the direction of President Andy Stern, SEIU has sought to assert itself as a national political force, orchestrating a divorce from the country’s largest labor organization, the AFL-CIO, and affirming its political independence."

York also points out that during the last election cycle, the union won 11 of the 12 Democratic legislative primaries it participated in.

That includes here in the 8th Assembly District, where union-backed Mariko Yamada was able to pull off what was widely considered a monumental upset primarily due to an influx of independent expenditure money from unions and union support on the ground.

From a political perspective however, this potential move by SEIU makes little sense--threatening to alienate allies and weaken their overall political clout.

It would seem like electing Barack Obama should be the biggest focus from the union--and that is clearly the case.

"Pugh says SEIU members from California will be farmed out across the Western states, developing ground campaigns and focused on boosting Latino turnout nationwide to help boost Obama’s prospects."

Nevertheless, if SEIU carries through on this threat on Proposition 11, it will carry with it some interesting ramifications. In our opinion, that would be a huge strategic blunder for a union that has been mired with internal turmoil and has shwon itself to be an effective organizer on the political front.

In mid-June, the Vanguard wrote more extensively on the redistricting issue. The core belief is that it likely will not have the positive impact that its backers believe.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Redistricting is the focus again

We usually do not venture far outside of Yolo County and local Assembly and Senate races here, but this is an issue that will affect us all. The Governor has once again placed his own redistricting proposal before the voters. Back in 2005, his plan failed along with his other packages. Now he will try again.

The proposal is designed to change redistricting of state legislative districts (not congressional ones probably for constitutional reasons) from the Legislature to a 14-member commission.

The governor has already raised $2.4 million for the initiative.

Last weekend, the measure was opposed by the CA State Democratic Party but supported and in fact written by California Common Cause.

Maybe the change is a good idea, maybe not. We start by looking at motivations. California has had strong majorities of Democrats in both houses during the Governor's tenure. Does anyone think that the Governor would have been so eager for reform if the tables were reversed? I would guess not.

Second point. Democrats actually built those large majorities in the 1990s. The 1990s legislative boundaries were drawn by the court who took over the process during political disputes. So even if an impartial body (and by all accounts this would be somewhat impartial five Dems, five Reps, and four independents (whatever that means), redrew the boundaries, it seems likely that Democrats would retain control.

What is interesting is the role of Common Cause in all of this. I understand people think they want more competitive districts. But we saw what a competitive race in the Assembly brought--massive amounts of money and independent expenditures by the special interests. This fall we will see the same in the 5th Senate District. It will be the battle of big money.

How will this advance the cause of reform groups like Common Cause to have more big money raises again? Does that process tend to lead to more competitive elections and thus more moderate politicians? Not necessarily. It does increase the power of the special interests. So it is kind of a "pick your poison" moment for Common Cause.

I remember when politicians in the 1990s thought term limits would solve their problems. Now I suspect that most at least who are familiar with Sacramento are opposed to term limits. However, the recent term limit reform was more of a power grab more than anything else . Now they think that redistricting is the answer.

The problem for state Republicans is that California is a state that since the early 1990s has leaned heavily Democratic. If you take out the aberrant 1994 which was the most heavily anti-Democratic year in memory, since 1992, the only Republican to win a major statewide race is Arnold who let's just say, had things going for him that were quite unusual. Since 1994, Democrats have won the Presidential vote three times, they have handily won the Senate vote, and they have won most of the major constitutional offices. They have obtained, increased, and maintained large legislative majorities starting in 1996 when they surprised many by retaking the Assembly.

Somehow Republicans keep expecting that if they just change the rules enough, such as by having term limits, or now by neutralizing legislative role in redistricting, that they can regain the advantage.

The bottom line here is that this measure may or may not pass. I will likely oppose it. But it probably will not have the positive impact that its backers believe.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting