Redistricting, Pelosi Style

 By PHIL HOSKINS

The redrawing of district lines for state and national representation is one of the most time honored opportunities for political mischief. In 2002 we saw Tom Delay use his power to redraw congressional district lines in Texas providing the Republicans not only with the advantage in House elections in that state but also thereby giving his party the balance of power in the house of Representatives.

Not to be outdone, the Democrats under Speaker Pelosi are resisting efforts in California to alter the process for drawing district lines. Governor Schwarzenegger lost a voter initiative effort in 2006 to take the district drawing power away from the legislature and hand it to a panel of retired state judges. But the issue remains alive and compelling in the Golden State with the Democratic majority there considering several options, all of which would result in eliminating the state legislature’s power to redraw its own districts.

Reportedly Pelosi is afraid doing so would threaten the tenuous Democratic edge in the U.S. House of Representatives because there would be fewer “safe” seats after an impartial redistricting. This, coming from the “most ethical Congress,” puts a strain on the meaning of “ethical.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has, except for cases brought under the voting Rights Act, given state legislatures a wide berth with regard to this issue. Gerrymandering, even when it results in districts that look like bad abstract art or a child’s scribbling have been approved by the Court. Even redistricting more often than after the decennial census, as in Texas, which redistricted after only two years when the state legislature changed party hands.

Absent an act of Congress, which is about as likely as a sunrise in the western sky, it will remain an issue for state by state regulation. Responding to national party pressure, California Democrats have withdrawn their agreement to change the way lines are drawn for Congressional districts, fearing as does Madam Speaker, that doing so would threaten their majority in the House. They have therefore, agreed only to redraw state district lines and coupled that with the demand to loosen term limits.

For most people this is an issue way down the list of those things one worries about, especially when there is so much that looms on our horizon both personally and politically. Yet a closer examination points to the fact that making redistricting a non-partisan matter could yield major changes in the national and state political landscape.

When a legislature draws district lines it has political goals in mind: (1) make seats safe for all in one’s own party and (2) make them especially safe for those who are good fund raisers, and (3) in states such as California with term limits, they seek to provide a pathway for members to go from one legislative branch to the other safely. In short, it is all about denying voters any real choices in elections.

The result is virtually no turnover of seats because there are few districts really “in play” where the balance of party affiliation is close enough to make elections matter. So the same faces return year after year, seldom facing a real challenge in elections, and the accumulation of power and opportunities for its abuse build and build. We could enact all the campaign finance reforms ever considered and without changes in the way district lines are drawn there would be little change.

Five states have taken the process away from their legislature and two have modified systems. It is time for all states and Congress itself to reform this system. Districts should be drawn to closely resemble naturally cohesive geographical areas. Politics should be taken out of the redrawing so that it could flourish in the elections with more districts having elections that matter and true competition being made possible.

There is room for debate about which non-partisan system is best, but I say there is no question of the need to change it.

Partisan politics has nearly killed the American dream and it will take a strong effort on the part of those who see the need to reform this process to make any headway. Without these changes, we are at the mercy of the party hacks who control who we can vote for before there is even a campaign. Madam Speaker, live up to your pledge and let California set itself free of the iron grip of partisan politics.

(Phil Hoskins is a Hollywood attorney who founded “Take Back West Hollywood.”)

13 Responses to "Redistricting, Pelosi Style"

  1. Marple  March 2, 2007 at 10:47 am

    I agree redistricting is needed here in California. However, a three judge panel was not what I was willing to vote for. Too easy for another form of corruption. And as far as a complicated computer program to do it, well when they fix the “glitches” in the voting machines and make them work “honestly” then maybe we can talk. Until then, better the evil you know…

    I also agree that it should be nationalized, which is not going to happen in what is left of my life span.

  2. Doubtom  March 1, 2007 at 8:06 am

    Whatever Pelosi does will have the benefit of being thoroughly analyzed scrutinized and authorized by the various jewish lobbies whose main concern is what’s good for Israel. Remember she sees an “unbreakable bond” between our two nations, so any redistricting will have to satisfy the requirement of keeping the right number of districts and their Representatives firmly in the Israeli corner.

  3. steve  March 2, 2007 at 3:24 am

    Please. The Democrats here in CAL did nothing to change the balance of power last time around. They should done what the Repugs do. That is one reason we are in the messes we are.

    This is another Repug power play, plain and simple. These appointed judges will be partisan picks and there will be more Republican partisans. Last time we were too fair, and this is what we have to show for it. We ought re-draw the districts in light of what Texas did. That would be fair.

    If you win the state legislature, you get to set up the districts within Federal guidelines. Until the day there is an Amendmant to the U.S. Constitution the divides political districts mostly by zip codes, I say we keep Arnold’s slimey hands off of them!

  4. Ardie  March 2, 2007 at 10:06 pm

    Let’s get those batteries recharged for our historical thinking helmets. Pelosi’s style is nowhere near Hot Tub Tom’s brutal style. You are comparing a lady fart with the farts of Le Pétomane, the French professional farter.

  5. Paul Cawthorne  February 28, 2007 at 3:30 pm

    The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans when redistricting is in play. For example, take a look at the district that newly-elected Maryland Senator Ben Cardin represented in the House. It looks like the holdings of the medieval Habsburg dynasty. What a chore it must be for those running for election in such districts to hit the right neighborhoods when campaigning. This procedure may be partisanly smart, but it is democratically stupid.

  6. Sandy Price  February 28, 2007 at 3:34 pm

    Very good Phil. These redistricting problems were one of the reasons I moved out of Los Angeles County. I found it much better up in San Luis Obispo County where the population was spread out and much easier to campaign for our choices. This is a very important problem all over California; thanks for the article.

  7. Bat  February 28, 2007 at 4:12 pm

    And after we balance the districts in the states, let’s get rid of the Electoral College. One Person, One Vote might truly give their voices back to the people.

  8. Velma Hampson  February 28, 2007 at 4:47 pm

    I live in the CA 11th district. We were redistricted (?) to form a safe republican district for Richard Pombo in 2000. Now that we in this formerly safe republican district have voted in a democratic congressman (Jerry McNerney), I, living on the conservative edge of the district, am in no great hurry to be be redistricted back to the republican party.

    We can leave districting alone until 2010 as has been our custom for many decades. Just because DeLay could redistrict out of sequence with the traditional time doesn’t mean that we have to follow suit.

  9. mnjerry  February 28, 2007 at 4:58 pm

    Anything other than a simple common rectangular geometric shape and population representation should not be Constitutional, imho.

    There should be a universally used computer application created to render just such a result.

  10. LindaJ  February 28, 2007 at 6:04 pm

    No point to redistrict CA fairly & TX unfairly. This must be fixed federally to be really fixed. A proper method exists & was used in CO some time ago by one James Kent who created a “human geography” map of the state to utilize for redistricting.

  11. JR  February 28, 2007 at 7:41 pm

    No matter what the purists want or say there must be safe districts if for no other reason that you cannot expect an intelligent, ethitical candidate to give up a position or business entity in the private sector to put his life, his family and his fortune on the line every two years. In order to have good decent persons in elected government there must be some security for a few. To expect otherwise is asinine.

  12. Gerald Sutliff  March 1, 2007 at 12:54 am

    The problem, IMHO, is the “one vote takes all” approach to elections. The one party benefits to creating a gerrymandered district would be greatly reduced if the districts were increased is population size and proportional results provided for. Thereby a Republican district might send two Rs to Congress and one Demo. The D voters wouldn’t become too discouraged to vote. Ditto for a heavily D district. Also true third parties might have a chance to develop.

    Would not it be great to see one D and 2 Rs working together to obtain “flood control appropriation” for their home distirct?

    A proportional system could see a 75 to 80 per cent turn out plus the “extremists” would be forced towards the middle by the dynamics.

    Think about it.

  13. california rick  March 2, 2007 at 2:51 pm

    Isn’t redistricting one of the prizes of political victory? Every party gets their fair share of redrawing the lines. As Velma pointed out, Pombo (corrupt politician, fatass, and an environmentalists nightmare) lost to McNeerny in a REPUBLICAN district. The system SEEMS to be working.

Comments are closed.