California
redistricting proposition fair, beneficial
Sean Cocca
If you only vote yes on one proposition today, make sure it is Proposition 77,
the redistricting initiative. This may be the most important initiative on the
ballot in terms of the actual and symbolic message it can send to the legislators
of California.
Proposition 77 will change the redistricting process for the state legislature,
the state board of education and the California members of the U.S. House of
Representatives.
The way redistricting works right now is every 10 years, after the census information
has been collected, the legislators engage in a process known as gerrymandering.
The legislators manipulate the established districts to group together a majority
of their own constituents based on the census data in order to ensure the incumbents
remain in power.
This process is completely evident in our last statewide election where 133 congressional
districts were up for grabs, but no incumbent lost his or her seat.
How does that constitute democracy? What chance do we have when the legislators
can rearrange their district every 10 years to best suit their needs, not ours?
The passing of this proposition will send them a message. It will be louder and
bolder than any message ever sent to Sacramento. This proposition seeks to restore
the democracy these politicians have stolen from the voters. They have taken
away our voice, and this proposition will give it back.
Do not believe the commercials you see on TV. A lot of people have paid millions
of dollars to maintain the status quo here in California because it directly
benefits them.
One such person is California State Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez. He
has spoken openly about his opposition to Proposition 77. He has even contributed
to the anti-77 commercials being shown.
You know the ones I’m talking about. The three old white judges who can’t
decide how to slice up California to form better districts. The commercial makes
these judges seem incompetent, which is exactly how the anti-77 groups want people
to see them.
They want the average, uninformed voter to believe we will lose our right to
reject the potential redistricting plan. They want us to believe this process
will cost us millions. They want us to believe these judges will be unaccountable
to anyone because they are not elected.
They basically want us to believe lies. Everything being said in these commercials
is either a lie or a gross distortion of the truth.
There are many requirements for the members of the three judge panel that would
redistrict California. One set of criteria is the judges must not have held any
political office. They must not have changed their party affiliation since their
judicial appointment. Finally, they must not have received any income over the
past year from specified political sources.
The Judicial Council randomly selects from all the qualified volunteers and forms
a 24-person pool of judges. The two large political parties must have equal representation
in this pool. The legislators then go through a complicated process of selecting,
voting on, and appointing a panel of three judges to develop a redistricting
plan for California.
Once the panel is approved, they will begin redistricting California. In developing
this, the panel must hold public hearings to receive input from both the public
and the legislature. The panel must unanimously approve this plan.
It will then be placed on the next general election ballot for voters to decide.
If the plan passes, it will be used until the next census is completed and redistricting
is required again. If it doesn’t pass, a new panel will be selected through
the same process and they will prepare a new plan for the next general election.
So here are the facts: The judicial volunteers for the panel are subject to strict
requirements to ensure nonpartisan participants; the two largest parties must
have equal representation on the panel to ensure fairness; and the plan developed
by the panel must be approved by the voters before it is implemented.
Another important tidbit these political commercials fail to mention is this
redistricting plan would cost about half as much
as it currently does when the politicians do it themselves. In 2001, legislators
spent about $3 million to
redistrict California.
This proposition limits that amount to half – about $1.5 million. There
would also be a one-time cost of about $1 million to redistrict California immediately
following the election.
But these are paltry sums in the grand scope of the California budget. If the
cost of democracy is around $2.5 million, I will gladly pay it. Democracy deserves
better than what we are currently giving it.
Vote yes on Proposition 77. Democracy belongs to the people, not the politicians.
Sean Cocca is a senior journalism major.
|
