Common Cause Blog :: We are teaming up with Gov. Schwarzenegger to fix a "broken system"

We are teaming up with Gov. Schwarzenegger to fix a "broken system"

By Chellie Pingree
Posted on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 01:34:02 PM EST

I want to let you know that this afternoon we are going to join forces with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to put an end to California's failed system for drawing Congressional and state Legislative boundaries. Together we are going to call on California legislators to support a joint plan to establish an independent redistricting panel of nonpartisan judges and to create fair criteria that will lead to more electoral competition and more accountability to the voters.

According to Governor Schwarzenegger California voters have little ability to hold their elected officials accountable:

Here is a telling statistic: 153 of California's congressional and legislative seats were up in the last election, and not one, I repeat, not one, changed parties. What kind of democracy is that?

We can't agree more with the Governor. The current system is democracy turned on its head. We can't have fair districts when elected officials choose the voters that they want to represent. It's supposed to work the other way around, where voters choose those they want to represent them. The results in California, where elected officials are virtually assured of re-election, show that the system is broken. We need to put the power to draw political lines into the hands of truly independent commissions. And not just in California, but all across the country in states like Florida and in Texas. We need to put the power of the vote back in the hands of the voter.

For us, the partnership with Gov. Schwarzenegger and the California reform effort is just a start. It marks the beginning of our national campaign to take the redistricting process out of the hands of state legislators and to entrust independent commissions with the task. Right now there are at least a dozen states where redistricting legislation and ballot initiatives are in play or have come under consideration. We are going to aggressively push for reform not just in California, but also in Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Texas.

For the sake of our democracy, it is imperative we strive to create legislative and congressional districts that are representative of the population and districting plans that result in more competitive congressional and legislative elections. So, I hope you will join us and support our effort in the coming months as we push for independent commissions and other steps necessary to ensure that the redistricting process isn't a political game.

Meanwhile, please share with us your thoughts, feedback, and suggestions on our blog concerning our efforts to fix this broken system. We want to hear from you. We will be reading your questions, comments, and suggestions. Your feedback will enable us to better focus our advocacy efforts on redistricting this year and beyond.

Thank you again for all you do for Common Cause.

Tags: Redistricting (all tags)

We are teaming up with Gov. Schwarzenegger to fix a "broken system" :: 95 Comments

Good luck

...working with Gov. Arnold and the G.O.P. on anything. Their word is worthless; they will betray any promise to buttress their own power. If you want to fight unfair redistricting practices, you're going to have to take on the entire Republican party.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 03:42:13 PM EST

Re: Good luck

i agree. I would not be interested in Arnold's idea of redistricting. You can bet he means more Republicans elected

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:09:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why are you doing this?

Working with Republicans at this stage on anything is idiotic. Doing it in California, where our control of the legislature has preserved one of the last remaining bastions of sanity in this country, borders on the insane. Surely there are higher priorites and better things for you to be focusing on.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:22:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are you doing this?

We have been pushing for redistriciting reform for many years. I understand the trepidition lot of you are feeling on this. However, given what has happened in Texas and in Florida, it is pretty increasingly apparent that the current system just doesn't work. And if we can get our guidelines passed in California, it will give us that much politial ammunition to force proper redistricting in places like DeLay's Texas.

by Murshed Zaheed on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:25:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well...

if you can keep Arnold and the GOP from turning California's redistricting into another texas, then good for you. However, I think you're woefully underestimating the political climate of the country.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 05:43:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are you doing this?

I am sorry, but I think Common Cause is making a BIG mistake siding with Gov Arnold.

I DON"T trust him and his party at ALL! If you are going to be involved, then PLEASE do not be so naive as to believe that they are doing this for the common good! BIG money, influence & power are at stake here.

My sister lives in CA and has been an attorney in that state for over 20 years. She is very ethical and cares about the clients she takes on. Please read the following and decide for yourself just how "noble" Gove Schwarzenegger's motives are.

"I fear that my professional future is in serious jeopardy. Gov. Schwartzenegger seems to be drunk with power and is raising money by the boatfuls to call a special election in November for the purposes of re-districting California and to ask the voters to weigh in on a number of other, business-friendly proposals. The pharmaceutical industry has committed $10 million to putting three initiatives on the ballot, one of which proposes to cap all contingency fees at 20% - after costs are deducted. At 20%, it will be very, very difficult for lawyers to make a living - overhead expenses in our type of practice is generally about 40-50% of gross income and I don't think that includes "case costs"- the money invested in cases that you hope to recover if you are successful.

The practical effect of this can best be demonstrated by an example. If you are injured by a negligent driver and your attorney spends $25,000 in costs on your case, then tries it and wins $100,000, he would be paid $15,000 ([$100,000 - $25,000] x 20%) or about 60% of what he invested in your case. In order to put all personal injury lawyers out of business for good, the insurance industry would just have to push virtually all cases to trial, substantially increasing the cost to lawyers, something it's been doing far more in the past decade anyway. Even if it loses the case, it will have accomplished its goal. It is a brilliant strategy and one, I fear in this climate, likely to succeed.

I've seen the strategy and it is devastating. In Florida, the voters overwhelmingly passed draconian limits on attorneys' fees in med mal cases, even though the plaintiffs' bar spent several millions of dollars countering the movement. It took seeing only one commercial to understand why they were successful. Picture a sympathetic black woman sitting in a wheelchair. She was hurt by a negligent doctor, she says, and a jury awarded her $1 million for her injuries, but her lawyer took more than half. "If this law had been passed, my lawyer still would have gotten $150,000," she says looking into the camera. "That seems like a lot of money to me for one case."

Bingo. Most people, especially those in red states, would think that $150,000 IS a lot of money for one case and don't lawyers have dozens of cases? If they get more than $500,000 for each one, no wonder they are rich. They are taking advantage of the people they say they want to help. They should still be able to live well if they are earning just $150,000 per case.

Of course, what they don't think about is the fact that million dollar cases are not the norm, they are still pretty unusual, especially in states with limits on damages in certain kinds of cases. What they don't consider is the fact that the lawyer probably had more than $100,000 of his own money invested into the case, which he would have lost if the jury did not find in favor of the client. That last month, the lawyer lost a similar case in trial; that insurance companies are forcing more and more cases to trial where these same people, now sitting as jurors, are disinclined to be sympathetic to his client's cause.

I'm just sick at heart. I've seen this and lived with it in my med mal cases for my entire career. I'm turning down cases today that involve the death of children or retired persons, unless the case is very simple,
straight-forward and will involve just one expert, so I can hope to keep my pre-trial costs below $25,000.

These are what we call 250 cases because the most you can recover is $250,000 since there are no economic damages associated with the death. (One of the things MICRA did was abolish the "collateral source" rule in which a jury is not told whether medical bills were paid by insurance or not. So jurors are told that virtually all or most of the medical bills in these cases were, in fact, paid for by insurance or Medicare or Medicaid. As a result, they generally do not award those as damages.)"

PLEASE consider yourselves as WATCHDOGS in this process instead of partners!

by adrienne on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:28:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are you doing this?

I wouldn't trust Schwarzenegger and don't find "common cause" with him on anything.

The idea of "independent commisions" looks good on paper, particularly because of the metaphysical pathos of "state legislator": guy in dark pinstriped suits with cigars.

In reality, what they do is open to public inspection and therefore public accountability. To whom is an independent commission accountable?

Further, wealthy Republicans have more discretionary time with which they can pack such boards, which would become unbalanced.

Finally, stay the heck out of Massachusetts. If you want to bring about redistricting reform, I suggest you get Schwarzenegger to apply leverage to his Republican buddies to do something first about Texas. The degree to which he agrees is the degree to which his motives for pursuing this reform are transparent.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 06:27:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are you doing this?

"If you want to bring about redistricting reform, I suggest you get Schwarzenegger to apply leverage to his Republican buddies to do something first about Texas."

That is a great suggestion and we are going to plan our strategy right around that idea. If CA redistricting takes place under our guidelines, we will have that much political ammunition when we go into Texas and demand the TX legislators adopt the model from California.

Another note - we are reading lot of comments on how this redistricting effort is similar to one DeLay improvised in Texas. They are completely different.

by Murshed Zaheed on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 06:30:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why are you doing this?

Murshed,

I simply cannot believe what you guys are doing. Common Cause must be not just dangerously naive but downright fools to engage in anything with Schwarzenegger or the Republican Party on a topic like this.

I don't intend anything offensive here but your comment:
"If CA redistricting takes place under our guidelines, we will have that much political ammunition when we go into Texas and demand the TX legislators adopt the model from California."
borders on the infantile.

This displays an egregious lack of knowledge about how the Republican party works and how completely lacking in power groups like you are in today's political climate.

Let me predict exactly what is going to happen.

A well-intention public interest organization thinks it will gain leverage with an ultra right-wing Governor and his party in TX (LOL!) (a Governor who consistently hides the most dangerous policies of his using the cloak of being a so-called social liberal or by running false or misleading ads to snooker citizens again and again) by partnering with him.
The plan reduces the Democratic majority in CA and is pushed through as a referendum on unsuspecting people who don't know 1/10th of the details of the plan to know what they are voting for. Telegenic photos and smiles from the Governor with Common Cause providing political cover helps the plan pass.
The GOP gains more power nationally and even more power to subvert national and state laws to take the country back several decades.
Common Cause pretends that they could not have known how this would transpire and petitions Schwarzenegger to "keep his end of the bargain" (forgetting that Schwarzenegger has a poor history of telling the truth or keeping any promises).
Common Cause pretends that they can somehow influence the completely corrupt Texas GOP-controlled legislature which keeps getting voted back into power by people who are willing to display their "moral values" again and again by voting for corrupt criminals.

Anyway, this is a blooming joke. This displays a wilful ignorance of the political climate we are in and the complete untrustworthiness of Schwarzenegger. What a way to destroy your legacy!

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:39:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good luck

Ditto

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good luck

I believe the issue is proportional representation. Redistricting is an appartion and is a product of concentrated wealth and power. A solution to incumbency, whereby one should see a greater number of Independent, Green, Libertarian, etc. successful candidacies would be public financing of public office. Redistricting, only to produce another Democrat/Republican office, is repugnant. Moreover, my wife and I are public school teachers in California. The person, who currently occupies the Governor's mansion in California, reneged on his agreement with the teachers of California and their students. He has encouraged Corporate interests to insinuate themselves into public policy. This Governor is terminally misguided on significant issues. His positions often reflect total submission to the Corporate elite and must be repudiated. This Governor does not "merit" trust.

by c1ferrari on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 06:21:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hold Ahhhnold accountable

Is this just one more step to Nazi spawn in the White House? Swartzenegger speaks of accountability, hold him accountable. Why was he present for the energy meetings? Has CA recovered their losses from Enron? The recall of Gray Davis was a carefully planned devious tool of the GOP to take CA. How can Democrats stand by and allow this Nazi to use and tarnish the Kennedy name. Reform is needed but not through swine like Ahhhnold. Only a fool would trust him.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 10:13:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Austin Texas has no focused representation

Due to redistricting in Texas, the Republicans effectively rigged elections. Austin, one of the more liberal cities in Texas now has NO representation. Politicians should not be allowed to set political boundaries.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 03:46:26 PM EST

Re: Austin Texas has no focused representation

And that is the exact problem. Think about this ... if we get some kind of redistricting reform legislation passed that is solid under CC guidelines, it will give us that much more political cover when we DEMAND for the same kind of reform in places like Texas and in California.

by Murshed Zaheed on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Austin Texas has no focused representation

You can demand all you want in Texas, but it won't get you anywhere. Don't you know that?

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 01:09:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Austin Texas has no focused representation

That's exactly the point. Politicians have shown time and again, in state after state, that they will either work to gain partisan advantage or collude to develop safe uncompetitive seats. This system is broken. It has to be fixed.

by Jon Goldin Dubois on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:43:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Redistricting

Are you nuts? Where was Common Cause when deLay took over Texas? Work with Schwarzenneger? NEVER!

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 03:51:25 PM EST

You guys didn't read the press release by the FCTR

FTCR: Questions About Schwarzenegger's Common Cause with Common Cause
2/17/2005 9:02:00 AM

To: National and State Desk

Contact: Jamie Court of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, 310-392-0522 ext. 327

SANTA MONICA, Calif., Feb. 17 U.S. Newswire -- Governor Schwarzenegger, under increased scrutiny in California for illegal campaign fundraising and broken campaign promises, will try to shore up his image today at the offices of DC-based Common Cause.

The nonpartisan Foundation For Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) raised the following questions regarding Common Cause's expected announcement today of support for a "compromise" model proposal on redistricting - a plan very different from the redistricting ballot initiative planned for 2005 by Schwarzenegger in California.

-- Does Common Cause oppose the redistricting ballot initiatives on file with the California Secretary of State to be circulated for the November 2005 special election? Staffers informed FTCR that Common Cause opposes the ballot initiatives on file. There is no time to collect signatures for a "compromise" plan in 2005.

-- Will Schwarzenegger wait until 2006 to submit the Common Cause compromise plan or go ahead in 2005 with a plan Common Cause opposes?

-- Is Common Cause opposed to Arnold Schwarzenegger's practice of raising contributions in excess of $22,300 for committees sponsoring his special election ballot measures -- practices being challenged for violating state campaign finance laws?

-- If Schwarzenegger does not agree to redistricting only once per decade and Common Cause does not agree to mid-decade redistricting, how can there be a compromise?

The redistricting initiatives and others supported by Schwarzenegger for a special November 2005 election are being used by Schwarzenegger to evade state campaign finance laws limiting how much money a political figure can raise for initiative campaigns, a tactic Common Cause opposes. (See http://arnoldwatch.org/blogs/blogs_000563.php3 )

"Governor Schwarzenegger, who ran on a platform of sweeping money out of politics, is the poster child for cash register politics by raising more money in a year than any California politician or $80,000 per day," said FTCR president Jamie Court. "The California public should understand any redistricting proposal they will vote on this year is not one that has the approval of Common Cause or any other campaign finance reform group. Schwarzenegger should not be allowed to pull a bait and switch by winning Common Cause's endorsement for a model plan and substituting a ballot initiative on redistricting opposed by every public interest group in the state and nation."

FTCR is California's leading non-partisan consumer advocacy organization. For more information visit the website: http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 03:54:59 PM EST

As long as you include Florida, too

I got worried when I saw Chellie hanging there with Arnold. But I see that you're also working on redistricting reform in Texas and Florida, too. Now that's what I call bi-partisanship. Trouble is, you've got to win them all -- not just for the Rs in California! You go, Common Cause!

Barbara Burt, Common Cause Election Reform Team Leader

by Barb Burt on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 03:57:06 PM EST

unilateral disarmorment

Why should we unilaterally disarm, in the face of Republican power grabs? First they grab more seats in Texas, then they come up with this gambit to grab more seats in Cal. I'll support it in Cal., where I live, when Governor Perry puts a similar system into place in TX.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 03:58:51 PM EST

Redistricting

Of course I'm all for it, because I am an example of one who was gerrymandered into a safe GOP district in Washington State when the districts were re-drawn in 2000. As my state senator and both state representatives are Republicans, I am guaranteed to have no vote in local or regional state politics for another five years.

While giving the Guv a chance to make the effort, don't trust him entirely.

If retired judges can help terminate the total power grab by either of the parties (Dems have done the same thing when they were in power, folks), let them ride the trail of tears shed by whole communities (such as Austin, TX) who effectively have no representation.

by godwirb on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:03:28 PM EST

Teaming with Schwarzenegger

I am disappointed with Common Cause if you think you can trust Arnold. He 'talks the talk', but never 'walks the walk'. He's almost worse than the Republican Party itself (hard for even me to think there's anything worse than the Republican Party these days) because he is ambitious for his own needs, not the Countries. I've met him personally and know that I don't trust his words by personal experience. His kids go to the wealthiest private schools, yet he hasn't lifted a finger to help the public school system. It's all about 'image' and hype.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:03:33 PM EST

Redistricting

I have thought a LOT about this one.

Here are my ideas:

Require all districts to be drawn in nearly-rectangular shapes without spokes or arms or wildly irregular shapes. Where there are sides of the nearly-rectangular shape that meet with diagonally-oriented neighborhoods and populations of voter-bases, it is allowable to have a diagonally-shaped side. This will prevent some of the really weird shapes that I have seen of district maps that are clearly NOT drawn to represent the population.
When choosing which populations to choose from, use demographic information and not political affiliation to choose the districts. While these may line up naturally where the majority may be white Republicans, it would be important to make sure that areas such as Silicon Valley would be divided up so that the farmers get their own representation separate from the programmers. The same goes in cities where there is "this side of the tracks" and "that side of the tracks."
Put several plans for redistricting within their county up to the voters to choose the one that fits for them.

by Joseph Dowdy on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:05:21 PM EST

Calif.vs.Gov.

How dissapointing that you would back OUR Gov. move to redistrict........ you've lost your mind. I'm with those above who in so many words said I'll back this plan when hell freezes over! Can't figure why support of the GOP taking control is what you support. NO thank you!

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:05:55 PM EST

I Can't Believe My Eyes

What? Work with who? Your ears must still be ringing from the last election. The "Terminator", the "Governator", the "Stick-his-foot-in-his-mouth-anator". If Common Cause pursues this glad-handing assignment I can no longer accept its agenda or merits. It has lost both in even suggesting to walk in lock-step with one of his proposals.

The only people to benefit from the so called "voter representation" drive will be Republicans who are frustrated at their inability to wrestle the State Legislature from Democrats. Its a ruse.

by dspizan on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:10:29 PM EST

Re-districting

I heartily commend Common Cause for trying to get impartial redistricting in California! (But see CAUTION below...) I am a long-time very committed Democrat, but our electoral district system here in CA is a big contributor to our very dysfunctional political system here.
Putting the job in the hands of a TRULY NONPARTISAN group seems like the way to go.
CAUTION! Did you see, however, Dan Walters' Feb 7 column about the measure? He cites "the devil in the details": a passage in the measure that seeks (the following is part of the text of the McCarthy measure:) "a level of competitiveness that would result in a difference of no more then seven percentage points between the numberof voters in each district who sare registered with the two largest political parties in the state."
THE FIX IS ALREADY IN! This passage must be removed, Chellie, othwise it is a flawed system and I do not support it.
Dave Henderson
Sonoma CA

by Dave Henderson on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:12:53 PM EST

Re: Re-districting

Dave, you make a good point here, in fact it's one that we have successfully argued. We are strong supporters of making districts more competitive, but the seven point competitiveness spread couldn't work, and it won't be in the bill.

by Jon Goldin Dubois on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:48:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Re-districting

It may not be in the bill, but when the bill fails, it may be in the one that goes to initiative referendum. And then the public embrace of Arnold will backfire, because it will mislead voters into thinking Common Cause is supporting whatever Arnold supports on this subject.

Sure, you can have another press conference and try to explain the minutiae. Good luck getting that on TV. Arnold will just spends millions on ads, pretending to be Mr. Good Government, whose ideas are "endorsed by Common Cause"!

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 03:19:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Redistricting

I am very leery of ANYTHING Republicans propose. I first heard of Aunauld's desire to redistrict after Barbara Boxer stood up for those who were dis-enfranchise during this past presidential election; he would like to redistrict so Boxer wont' be re-elected. I am very concerned about California turning into a red state. Don't forget the damaging affects that the Texas (illegal) redistricting caused. I do not trust the "Governator" to do what is best for "Caleefornia", he hasn't so far!

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:14:34 PM EST

Re: Redistricting

I don't think CA is going to turn into a red state in any time soon. I heard through the grape vine (no pun intended here) is that under the CC guidelines, Dems will actually gain 4 seats in the House.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:30:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You've lost my support

This is insane. You've lost my support.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:15:37 PM EST

Teaming up (alias goosestepping along) with Arnold

How disappointing to read such a delusional plan. For the past 5 years the Republicans have done everything to thwart honest representation and honest elections. Common Cause should be more savvy. Dancing with the devil is a no-no. Things will definitely not go as you think they will and it will end up with your stamp of approval. What a scam. Back out while you still can!!!

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:18:20 PM EST

Election Reform

All I can say is Good Luck! When you get around to tackling the bigger problem, getting rid of the Electoral College, I'll be in there with both feet.
I don't believe our Governor anymore ... he's just like Bush ... Sadly that's what I have come to believe.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:19:20 PM EST

Re: Election Reform

We're working on a way to get rid of the Electoral College - hope to be telling you about it soon. But stick with us on redistricting reform - we won't be fooled by the Governor - he can help make this reform happen.

by Ed Davis on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:30:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Election Reform

Redistrict Texas and Florida first! See how far you'll get with Tom Delay and Jeb.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:28:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ahnold

You really must be kidding. Ahnold is building an overwhelming track record of lies and betrayal on nearly every matter public policy he campaigned on. (See Arianna Huffington's most recent column - http://www.salon.com/opinion/huffington/2005/02/17 /eisner/index.html.) He is a liar and a stooge for rightwing interests. You will profoundly rue the day you make common cause with him. Who will appoint this independent panel, you ask? Why Ahnold will, with generous assistance from Karl Rove. I am astounded that the leadership of Common Cause could be gulled so easily.

by cvanwey on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:20:58 PM EST

Common Cause

has lost its Common Sense

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:26:13 PM EST

a suggestion on a different idea for redistricting

First of all, I don't think redistricting is the place to start on voting reform. I think the place to start (ignoring DC which should have been fixed before Mexico fixed their equivalent problem) is in state political parties by making them nominate candidates by popular vote among the membership. The current system, for example, in CT or in Iowa is absurd and it violates the fundamental principle of one person, one vote.

As for redistricting, though, who cares about Arnold Schwarzenegger? In order to be non-partisan, you sometimes have to work with the bad guy. That'; what democracy is about. But I think I have a better idea than an independent commission. Pick the new redistricting map the same way you pick politicans: vote on it. By making the people choose the redistricting maps, you'll avoid atrocities like you see in Texas where one district is just sig-sawed over. There is one caveat. You have to require that the map be shown on the ballot, not just by a name. If it's a name, it's too easy for party machines to tell their voters to vote for number 23, but if voters have to see the redistricting plans they're approving, that changes things, especially if you include conditions against malapportionment in the eligibility requirements.

by Scott Caplan on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:27:12 PM EST

Re: a suggestion on a different idea for redistric

I disagree with Scott Caplan on voting on district maps. People will vote for a map that puts them in districts they like. If you create a map in which all Democrats are put in Democratic districts and all Republicans are put in Republican districts, the map will win. The result will be no different than the safe districts we get now.

I do agree with Scott that redistricting is not even the main issue. I would go farther than Scott by eliminating primaries in favor of a preferential voting system (e.g., instant runoff or Condorcet). Even more important than that, though, is the problem of bribing candidates -- oops, I mean contributing to campaigns. We need public financing such as Arizona's Clean Money.

Of course redistricting reform is popular among people like Schwarzenegger who are members of their state's minority party. Let us help the majority of voters by getting representatives who represent the voters that elected them rather than the big money contributors.

See, for example,
http://www.fairelections.us/
http://www.caclean.org/

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:58:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A better way

I would only support a redistricting compromise on a national level. One state should not give up power unilaterally. Include in the California plan a provision that it takes effect only if similar laws are enacted by states representing 3/4 of the US population and by four of the five largest states by population.

I do not trust "independent" commissions. Who chooses the commissions? Political interference in the process is too easy. I thus would support a compromise based on such commissions only on an interim basis. A better long-term solution would take redistricting out of the hands of humans entrirely.

Software can be developed to draw districts that meet specified criteria such as compactness of districts and avoiding splitting communities. Such software must be open source and portable, so anyone can see exactly what criteria have been coded. Census and map data used by the program would also be made available, so anyone can run the program on any computer and verify that they get the same boundaries as those that are officially certified.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:35:38 PM EST

guidelines for redistricting

It seems to me that having clearcut guidelines that are inviolable are essential for fair, nonpartisan redistricting to occur. I have been involved with establishing working guidelines through the League of Women Voters for county redistricting, as requested by our county commissioners. However, when it came to applying the guidelines, the commissioners allowed all kinds of exceptions, so as to make their actual existence almost silly.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:40:36 PM EST

Bad Move

You guys lost your mind. I am thinking about canceling my contributions to your organization. Sorry.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:40:50 PM EST

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Be very wary of striking any deal with Arnold Schwarzenegger. If you do, be prepared to be betrayed. His actions as governor have not only revealed an antagonism toward progressive ideas, but his record of honoring promisies is abysmal.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:41:44 PM EST

What were you thinking, Chellie?

Remember Texas? How the legislature there forced a gerymandered redistricting plan that gave power to the Republicans? What makes you think this won't happen again? Schwarzenegger is as big a liar and nearly as right wing as the rest of the Repubs, and you are saying you want to work with him?

by Browsercat on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:43:26 PM EST

Re: What were you thinking, Chellie?

Common Cause has worked with many politicans from across the spectrum over the years. That's how you get reforms done. We're not stupid, we won't be fooled by the Governor -- this is all out in the open - read the proposal, watch what happens in the legislature. This is not a Texas/Delay thing - this is reform, changing the system not to favor the Dems or Repubs, but to favor the voters.

by Ed Davis on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:27:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What were you thinking, Chellie?

This sounds like, "In through the left and out through the right". Have you been drinking the cool-aid.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:51:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Redistricting...

You really believe this will be non partisan. Arnold has broken every promise since he stole the office. You can redistrict all you want, but... unless you fix the voting system you will have touch-screen voting riddled with fraud. A vote for Democrat will become a vote for Republican. I know in 06 Kevin Shelley said we must have paper trail but mark my words, Arnold will find a way not to fund for replacements of the voting machines. He already managed to remove Shelley and replace him with a Republican. California will become the next Florida/Ohio...mark my words. Arnold's main goal is to benefit himself and his investements. He has raised more money than Gray Davis and all his donors are big Enron style corporations that want to deregulate once again the energy. He already lied to the Teachers Union and will not give them the money he promised. He lied about tearing up the "Credit Card" and wants to borrow more money. Arnold is a fraud and you are being played by him. That is what this Administration is all about. Big corporations and self interest. Shame on you for falling for his rhetoric and promises. Hold him accountable for what he already has not done that he said he would do. Forget about redistricting, its a sham. Focus on the money he promised he would get from Bush. How about the money stollen from Enron, get on FERC's back about that money, scream bloody murder for what Enron did to create the California energy crisis. Don't let them get away with that, if you do, there will be more of it and will deserve it for letting them get away with it. Forget about going on Faux I mean Fox, and the other right wing nut shows, let them argue amongst themselves. Their viewers are not educated enough to make sound dicisions, they are just there for entertainment like Jerry Springer shows. They are the most uninformative news agencies. This is just more "Gannonizing" of the media. Arnold does best is to threaten that he will go to the people if the legislature won't do what he wants. He's nothing more than Advertisment. Look at his web sites....All Arnold... the Terminator...he's not about California...he's about himself and his career.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:44:16 PM EST

Teaming up with Schwarzenegger???

You must be joking.

Arnold is the most untructworthy politician in office today - he out-Bushes Bush.

He has lied on every single promise he has made to get his way or push Bush's agenda.

Whether or not the districting system is broken, THIS is not the time to fix it because he wants to redistrict NOW, just like they did in Texas.

You cannot trust a proven liar and manipulator like Schwarzenegger. You can't trust most Republicans. The ONLY effect this will have is to further undermine what's left of the democracy in this country.

Admittedly, the legislature did a terrible job with the redistricting, but it is at least somewhat representative, and artificially creating "competitive" districts will just give the Republican Party an unfair advantage and one that betrays the party demographics of this great state.

Don't get sucked into another broken deal like Gil Cedillo, the environmentalists, the teachers and even the police and prison guards - Schwarzenegger betrayed them all with lies and broken promises, and he'll do it here where he stands to benefit the most just like always does.

Tell Schwarzenegger the time for districting reform is between the census and the new district plans, not right after the districts have been drawn. And tell him to go break promises with his private backers like he does with the public.

Better yet, JUST SAY NO!

by mhrichter on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:45:31 PM EST

Re: Teaming up with Schwarzenegger???

From my understanding this is completely different from the redistricting that was done in Texas under DeLay's eyes. We are recommending a set of structural reforms to the very method of redistricting which we are going to aggressively push to be implemented in Florida and in Texas.

by Murshed Zaheed on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:49:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Teaming up with Schwarzenegger???

Do it in Texas and Florida first. And exactly how do you think you will get it pass Jeb and Tom Delay. You got a plan? Get real. Those two fascist will laugh you out of their state.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:40:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Action for Elections

You have got to be kidding? What on earth do you think Arnold has in mind? If you focused on Texas first, there might be more credibility in your effort. You aren't getting my support or money for this one. How disappointing that you link your efforts to an agenda supporting California's governor. He pulled the wool over the eyes of his state's citizens, now he is going national. No, Arnold. No to you.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:48:31 PM EST

The Arnold Sell Out

Sadley I cannot agree at all with working for the Gov. (I have not seen any working 'with' in any effort he has had)--including the "get more Federal Money thing in process," I have not seen who is accompanying him but Sen. Feinnstein is working for her husbands Iraq contracts not the citizens of California.

It won't mean much financially for Common Cause but since they are now "Arnold Lobbyest," in my view, I cannot support them any longer.

Come on Common stick to the program, go after the power play that will take 'boards' in California and turn them into 'one-person-in-charge-of-all-without-public-oversi ght' bureaus! Thats more important almost than the 'texas' style, 'who are you kidding that the judges will be independent' power play.

Common cause you sold us supporters out on this one.

by Citizen Bill on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:48:59 PM EST

Are you crazy?

If you go forward with any cooperation with Govenator Arnuld, I will henceforth cease to support your organization. He is part of the Republican Establishment and is doing NOTHING for the people.

I quit AARP when they support the Prescription Drug Benefit bacause I could see this as a gift to the drug companies.

So, this is what you want to do. Then, good bye and you've sold your soul to the Republican Establishment.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:51:56 PM EST

what do you have to say

about this report by DEMOS?
http://www.demos-usa.org/generatePub.cfm?pubID=453

"A new report by Demos and the Center for Governmental Studies that shows that current (2005)legislation and proposed initiatives on redistricting in California all fail to sufficiently address the needs of the public, and suggests clear guidelines for much fairer redistricting. The report responds to the California State Legislature and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who are considering sweeping changes to the way California draws electoral district boundaries with its consideration of several new proposals that would give redistricting authority to an "Independent Redistricting Commission," and take it away from partisan legislative control."

i understand the principle of wanting redistricting reform. but unless the actual plan works properly it isnt worth it.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:56:16 PM EST

Re: what do you have to say

I just want to clear up what seems to be a misconception out there. Common Cause is supporting a drastically amended version of the bill, not the original version of the bill the Governor supported. The new bill includes nearly every recommendation included in the CGS/Demos report and adds in some of the best policy from other states. I'd encourage everyone to take a look at the bill: http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQI wG&b=368187 It establishes a truly independent commission. It has strong and fair criteria. It's good policy. It's the right thing for California. it's the right thing for Texas. It's the right thing for Florida.

by Jon Goldin Dubois on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:38:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what do you have to say

Again, What chance do you think you have of getting it through in Texas and Florida? Why don't you start in a red state where the problems are worse and where we would most definatly pick up seats rather than starting in a big blue state where we could loose seats. Why!

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:58:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

great idea (from massachusetts)

I think this is a great idea. Incumbents in my state are virtually guaranteed a seat. I know this is a democratic state, but why do I bother voting if there's no one running against who I'm voting for?
Tackle redistricting. I don't know how we can tackle the party system where the DNC and RNP basically decide who's going to hold a certain seat.
Thanks!

by jobrien on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:03:37 PM EST

Re: great idea (from massachusetts)

I meant to say, "Why am I voting?"

by jobrien on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:04:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clean Money

I have decided not to renew my financial support for Common Cause. The money will go to California Clean Money instead.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:04:53 PM EST

Re: Clean Money

Sorry you're withdrawing support from us, but glad it's going to Clean Money. We hope to be working with them and others to fix the other part of the democracy problem in CA and other states -- incumbents draw the district lines AND they have all the money for campaigns. -- Ed Davis, Common Cause

by Ed Davis on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:23:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Teaming up!?!

You've gotta be kidding! I'm sorry, but the Terminator is not for any democratic process I want! I'm used to a representative democracy; he has made every effort to undo the basis of what this country's governing has been since we began. I cannot believe you have teamed up with the nearest thing we've seen in California to a want-to-be dictator. Where did "Common Cause" disappear to!?! There's gotta be a better way!

Judy in Richmond, CA

by Judith Weatherly on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:06:12 PM EST

Re: Teaming up!?!

Judy - Unfortunately, the political history in California on redistricting is not a good example of 'representative democracy' -- long before the Gov entered the scene. I don't agree with much of what he's doing on other issues, but I know California does not have a real democracy -- it's seats in Congress and the legislature are decided behind closed doors by the very people running in those seats. When's the last time you had a competitive congressional or legislative race? -- Ed Davis, Common Cause

by Ed Davis on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:21:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Teaming up!?!

Drawing districts that maximize the number of competitive seats is just as artifical as drawing districts that minimize them. In the name of ending manipulation of the system to produce desired results, you would manipulate the system to produce your own desired results.

Eliminating safer seats will have several natural consequences. One will be another decrease in average length of service in a legislature that is already completely crippled by term limits, which have forced an effective transfer of power to the permanent government of lobbyists, and away from legislators. You would be better off to fight for term limits reform than handing redistricting to an unelected panel of "neutrals" (hah!).

Another consequence will be an extravaganza for political consultants. Candidates will have to raise tons more money to compete in districts drawn to maximize general election competitiveness. Guess where they will come from, and whose interests it will represent? You would be better off to fight for free access to public airwaves for candidates.

Another consequence will be a predictable setback for liberal and conservative voices, in favor of a muddled middle. If there are NO seats that are safe by party, ALL candidates must fight for crossover votes. Why is that a good thing? If a competition-maximized system existed in California for the last 20 years, half or more of the progressive legislation that the state now takes for granted, especially regarding civil rights for gay and lesbian people, would never have existed in the first place. The only way legislators felt comfortable to move forward on many of those issues was knowing that they had a supportive district back home.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 09:08:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Teaming up with Schwarzenegger

I was born in Vienna, Austria 83 Years ago...I think it is a BAD IDEA, to team up with this guy, wose father was a registered Nazi and he himself has a dubiuos past, not admitting of beeing part of the Hitler Youth!!!!!!I was kicked out by Hitler and my family ended up in the Holocaust,
murdered........
This is my comment! I am not severing ties to Com
mon Cause...use your head next time!

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:06:50 PM EST

Redistriciting

While I completely agree that redistriciting needs to be done by either non-politicos or a balanced panel of ex-judges, etc... I am quite fearful of your willingness to work so eagerly with Gov. Schwarzenegger. He is a publicity hound. His word is meaningless and he gives it (his word) to anyone he believes he can manipulate. If you work with him, get all of his promises, opinions, and justifications on paper, with his signature affixed. If he refuses to sign and offers his word-- do not agree to anything!! I would hate to see Common Cause denigrated because of their involvement with something that turns out to truly be a hard right turn, and it be done with Common Cause's consent and label.

by Venicia on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:12:57 PM EST

Teaming up with Schwarzeneggger

Watch your step, CC!! This guy recently had a little "cozy-up" with DeLay in Texas. You know that this was discussed, along with ways to distort its supposed intentions. He is using you to try and repair his image, but will screw you (and everyone else) as soon as he has it signed on the dotted line.

by Annabanana on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:21:18 PM EST

teaming up with Schwarzenegger

With allies like Schwarzenegger, you really don't need foes. Nothing he has done since becoming governor has been free of the taint of corrupt politics--his fund-raising is obscene, his choice of "enemies" (in governor speak, that's "spcial interests") equally so, having targeted (to date) nurses, state workers, teachers, and union members. He makes no effort to work with the legislature; his idea of bi-partisanship is that he should tell the democrats what to do and they should do it. When they don't, he calls them "obstructionists." In fact, name calling seems to be his primary political strategy. His so-called popularity must be a function of his movie star past and can only be maintained with that segment of the population that has no access to state government news coverage--or ignores the access it does have. Your decision here is a boner right up there with the AARP's support for the Republican-sponsored drug benefit legislation. I think you need to go back to the thinking room on this one.

Lyn Lofland

by lofland on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:28:11 PM EST

I have no faith in guys anymore...

I have no faith in guys anymore...

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:47:38 PM EST

Common Cause / Redistricting

Arnold absolutely CANNOT be trusted. Like George W., Arnold speaks in Orwellian terms--meaning just the opposite of what he says. In other words, he is a liar and a manipulator, and he cares not one wit for anyone but himself. He's doing whatever he does to move up the politcal ladder and he will use whoever, and whatever organization or business, will give him a leg up. I am convinced his redistricting plan, as presented, will be an ill wind that blows Californians no good. I DO NOT AT ALL SUPPORT COMMON CAUSE'S MOVEMENT TOWARD THE GOVERNOR'S PRESENT PLAN AND I URGE C.C. TO CHANGE ITS POSITION IMMEDIATELY.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:55:59 PM EST

Redistricting

Only election funding reform will solve the problem on non-competitive elections. When all candidates have equal amounts of money with which to campaign the playing field will be level, regardless of the shape of districts.

The SF Chronicle published an article to this effect recently with examples to support this argument.

Common Cause is ill-advised to support the Governor in this mistaken policy which will not achieve the goal of fair elections.

David J Morris

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 06:05:23 PM EST

Good Proposal, Terrible Implementation

While I have discussed Common Cause's proposal for a better redistricting process (which is desperately needed) with a couple of progressive experts in the field who believe it is a good one, I cannot believe (and neither can those experts) that you would procede to introduce it in this fashion.

When your allies believe that someone is as ultimately untrustworthy and power-hungry as your allies believe Schwarzenegger is, why would you choose to "team up" with him? You say your plan is fundamentally different than his, but when push comes to shove, what do you think is going to be put forward or implemented - your plan or his? How likely do you think it is that he will combine the aura of legitimacy given by Common Cause with his considerable ability to create media attention in order to pursue his own agenda? And if that is what comes to pass, do you think Common Cause has the power to slug it out toe to toe with this guy and win?

And why are you surprizing all your members with this obviously controversial move? If it's because you know how controversial it would be, shouldn't that have given you some pause? Many thanks for doing a thankless job, Ed Davis, but if your organization has to use your blog to defend/explain yourself to your own members, then you probably made a mistake.

I'm not necessarily opposed to an "unlikely allies" model of creating political change, but the risks are great, particularly in the current atmosphere and with your chosen ally. There is an unfortunate precedent in very recent memory for the political calculation you seem to be making, and that is AARP going behing the backs of its members and its allies in the Democratic party to forge a deal with the Republicans on a Medicare prescription drug bill. And tell us, who came out on top of that in the end? (Bush, Republicans and the pharmaceutical companies win, seniors and taxpayers lose.)

You've put yourself in a difficult position, Common Cause, and if this gamble doesn't work out you might have screwed yourself and your members, and possibly even what is left of democracy in this country. Was there no other way to do this? And without telling us again about your plan and how it is different from his, can you explain the political calculation you are making and how you think you can and will make this work in your favor? I think THAT'S what most people are upset about, not the particulars of your plan....

by Gordon on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 06:57:01 PM EST

California redistricting

Are you guys stupid? Can't you tell what Arnold has in mind? give me a break!

I signed up to post here for one reason only to tell you what a dumb idea this is. Why start this with California? What's next New York?

Please go after the problem state (yes state) which is TEXAS. Then we'll talk.

by tedneros on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 08:26:08 PM EST

Appalling Mistake on Redistricting

As a longtime friend and supporter of Common Cause, I am appalled at your embrace of the Schwarzenegger redistricting machine. You are being used! Have you people lost your minds? (And don't bother answering that, "Oh, we understand your concerns." You don't, or you wouldn't have smeared the organization with this cynical link-up.) Oh, well -- Common Cause was a great idea while it lasted. Now you've made it a farce.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 08:51:45 PM EST

You got to be kidding!

Anyone who trusts Arnold has got to be crazy. This man counts George Bush, Karl Rove, and Tom Delay as friends. He is the 'special interest' governor. I'm sorry, I have to say that I'll be working against you, every step of the way, with both time and money. All support of your organization will now be re-directed to fight Arnold. He once starred in a movie "True Lies", that seems to be his style in politics now and you have been duped.

by n6vfp on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:52:24 PM EST

Re: You got to be kidding!

I agree they must be kidding or they are now being funded by www.MegaGOPCorp.gov/Nazi.

Leave California alone! Just because someone has never held public office doesn't mean they're non-partisan. What are you thinking? If you want to end the partisan agenda of redistricting find another way. I've read some very good alternate suggestions in the posts to this initiative.

Can't you see this is another shell game? Get the dumb Democrats to look at the feel good title with some seemingly strong regulatory outline while we jerk the rug right out from under them. Once we find out the regulations didn't work it's too late they can paint California and New York RED.

Don't spend billions designing a pen that works in zero gravity when you could have used a pencil instead.

by Sceptical on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:07:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Redistricting

Before Common Cause decides to form an alliance with the Nazi in Sacramento, you should all read "don't think of an elephant!" by George Lakoff.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:33:43 PM EST

Redistricting

There are so many problems with our government, it is corrupt to the core. It is unlikely that we are going to change anything without having a revolution BUT! redistricting is a good place to start. The Governor and the Republican party are part of the problem the democrats are the other part! We need to get back to Basics, constituencies should be simple, divided along geograpic lines or just squares on a grid. It should be very simple for a mapping company to do it without special commissions. Then we can work on taking the money out of ALL campaigns. Finally we should have elections on a special day such as Martin Luther King day, I suspect Dr King would be very happy with that. Bill Brady

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 12:03:43 AM EST

You hairbrained twat--as the terminator might say

Please remove all my connections with Common Cause. As a progressive I am sorry to see yet another bastion against the right wing fall. The Democrats turned over and played dead when the Republicans stole the last two Presidential elections. So now we have to start a new progressive party to take their place unless Dean does some good in the next few monts. And sure, getting fair nationwide redistricting standards and processess to remove all partisanship from redistricting throughout the country, especially in federakl elections should long ago have been required by the courts. But the last thing anyone with any progressive awareness would support is any movement to selectively redistrict the states where the right wing might be able to pick up House seats while they gerrymander other states like Texas where they can create extra right wing seats by hook and crook.

There is a lot Common Cause should be doing to assure fair elections and stop the right wing cheating. Redistricting California for a Republican increase just so that fascist governor might give you a fantasy of a role in the hay is not one of them.

So please remove me from your lists of all kinds!

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 12:43:43 AM EST

I am not anonymous you hairbrained twat

I signed my user name as edromar2 on my last post telling you just what I think of your hare-brained scheme!

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 12:46:25 AM EST

John W. Gardner is a Hero of mine!

He would be never be so naive as to fall for Arnold's ploy!

I helped his daughter edit his papers and publish them. He was a giant. It is so sad to see that dwarfs have taken over his organization, tarnishing his life's work!

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 12:51:07 AM EST

you are fools

I can not beleive, Chellie, that I supported you when you ran for Senate in Maine. I thought you had political sense.

You have none whatsoever.

California will be the last place this redistricfting happens.You are participating in destroying any chance of the Democrats ever have of taking back the House and rescuing this government from the creeping authoritarianism that is the present Republican party.

You are suffering from the PROGRESSIVE"S FALLACY.
The entirely misguided idea that if you have a "good process" that you will have a good outcome. Villains like the present Republicans will use it for their own purposes.

Republicans eat fools like you for breakfast and then go on to eat the rest of the country for lunch and dinner.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 01:27:20 AM EST

Please Rethink this Tactic

Chellie: I think you can see that teaming up with someone as untrustworthy as Arnold is only going to destroy your organization. While redistricting reform is a laudable goal, we must have partners we can trust and believe. Unfortunately, Republicans in the last four years have proven they cannot be trusted; even the moderate, "liberal" ones. Find a Democratic governor to work with on this issue and let Arnold do his thing, but to coopt Common Cause into a Republican scheme is not wise. I joined the blog just so I could make this statement. If you persist, I'll cancel my membership. Thank you.

Harolynne Bobis Amaliada, Greece

by hbobis on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 02:53:54 AM EST

Redistricting in California

Do you want to remake California in the image of Texas and Florida? The GOP is already rigging the elections with their machines and list to purge voters and now a Republican Secretary of State. Arnold has one goal and that is to eliminate democracy and the Dems in California. Why are you working with him?

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 03:28:52 AM EST

Re: Redistricting in California

That hadn't dawned on me. A Republican Secretary of State. Now that's scary. Common Cause, you better wake up.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 10:57:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

go further and better

Why do both chambers of the California Legislature have 80 members each based on territorial representation? One chamber is enough;the second is a waste of money. The other chamber should be based on ideology.
Territory chamber: each member should be elected by IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) in his/her district. IRV will ensure that each district's representative was elected by the majority in the district. San Francisco uses IRV.
Ideology chamber: Proportional Representation will distribute the 80 seats in proportion to the votes each party or candidate wins. All California will be one election district; gerrymandering will be impossible. All political parties will be equal; no "third"
parties that are discriminated against. If Arnold doesn't get it, tell him to look at his native Austria.
Almost all democracies outside the US use forms of IRV and PR (Proportional Representation). The US is far behind the times in the use of better and more democratic methods of representation. Someone has to bring the US into the 21st century from the 18th, and it might as well be California's Terminator of the old, phony undemocratic past.
(See fairvote.org)

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 04:23:01 AM EST

Right Idea, Wrong State and Partner

Chellie, I support any reasonable redistricting plan that ensures fairer districts and elections. BUT teaming up with Gov. Gropenfuhrer and wanting to implement this plan first in California are not the right way to go about this. For starters, Gov. Gropenfuhrer is the 2nd biggest phony, liar, backstabber, and scoundrel in recent memory next to King George III Wrong-Way Bush. I trust that guy even less than I can toss him or Bush. Never expect Gov. Gropenfuhrer to make a promise and keep it unless it benefits him or Big Business greatly. And if you want to see his dismal track record (so far) on keeping promises to make California a better place, check out Arianna Huffington's Feb. 16th blog entry "Arnold and Eisner: Pathological Peas in a Pod" at:

http://www.ariannaonline.com/blog/index.php

Chellie, if your redistricting plan is supposed to be that good and non-partisan, then why don't you sponsor and try to pass a similar plan in Texas, Florida, Georgia, or some other red state that really needs it first? First show me that your plan will kick out the Republicans in Texas who gained seats through a partisan redistricting plan. Then I'll be willing to consider supporting a similar plan in California.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 08:25:24 AM EST

redistricting with Arnold

The GOP must be squealing with delight. You guys are out of your minds if you think Arnold & Co. are going to work in good faith. I'm outta here.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 11:09:35 AM EST

In bed with the Governator

Chellie, you have lost your mind.

This is by far the worst idea possible. You do not "team up" with a celebrity bully governor who is a proven shill for powerful interests.

You have chosen to associate our organization with a reactionary reverse-robin hood who postures with a sickening brand of fake populism ... bad idea. If you like his proposal then you should back it independently.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 11:25:09 AM EST

Redistricing

Reforming our electoral process is imperative. If Florida 2000 + the Supreme Court + the Texas redistricting chaos + electronic and paperless voting + the partisan Mr. Blackwell of Ohio + + + isn't a wake-up call to American democrats (yes small 'd' democrats) then we're already in sorry shape.

Reforming the redistricing process is NOT about trusting Gov Schwarzenegger or not. It IS about not letting Tom DeLay and his cohorts everywhere hijack redistricting for short-term political gain.

Here in Massachusetts - the home of gerrymandering (Gov Elbridge Gerry plus salamander, the shape of an election district in 1812, for those who don't know) - the process is still alive and well. A petty autocrat named Thomas Finneran (D), Speaker of the Massachusetts House redistricted state house seats in 2002, I think it was to reward and punish legislators according to whether or not they would eat out of his hand. Such shenanigans are poisonous to democracy. Indeed Finneran recently resigned his house seat to forestall further investigation.

Working within states to take redistricting out of the hands of politicians is necessary. (Same should happen with state election officials - think Katherine Harris FL 2000 and Kenneth Blackwell OH 2004.)

This is not about Scwarzenegger or DeLay or Finneran or....It's about making the process fair and transparent and honest. It's about promoting healthy competition for political power and making legislators answerable to their constituents.

How can Common Cause members reasonably be opposed?

by Colleen on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 01:37:32 PM EST

Re: Redistricing

Colleen thanks so much for the post. Please make sure to post this in the top thread as well. Thanks again.

by Murshed Zaheed on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 02:13:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Redistricing

Thanks. But how do I do that? Or you can do it for me.

by Colleen on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 02:34:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Redistricing

You can post it by clicking right here.

Also, you can just go to the main blog page and then scroll down the latest post and click on the comment section to post.

by Murshed Zaheed on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 02:41:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Things are a bit different

One should notice that there are hidden considerations in every discussion. Once getting awared to them your attitude usually changes and becomes more positively balanced. Please find the hidden consideration in your point of view. The common one is lack of understanding of the drivers that make people think differently then us.

by Anonymous Citizen on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 11:26:35 AM EST

Schwarzenegger's Plot, er, Plan endorsed by CC

In announcing her support for Schwarzenegger's redistricting proposal Chellie Pingree included the following comment and question:

Here is a telling statistic: 153 of California's congressional and legislative seats were up in the last election, and not one, I repeat, not one, changed parties. What kind of democracy is that?

Well, as a Californian I would suggest one might need a bit more information to decide that question. One surely needs much more information on the politics of the state to decide whether an organization like Common Cause should whole-heartedly endorse not only the plan but unavoidably the man. This proposition is one of four Schwarzenegger wants to package together in a special election (these four will be the only items on the ballot at least so far.)

Two points here:

First, insofar as he takes the reform seriously as something that might actually pass, Schwarzenegger's aim is to increase the number of Republican safe seats in California.

Under his version of reform, elected representatives would be replaced, but not by a panel of "nonpartisan" judges. As I understand it the proposal calls for a panel of retired judges appointed by the governor from a pool of all the available ex-judges, almost all of them first appointed by Republican governors. This is an important detail.

Second, the real purpose of Schwarzenegger's proposing any initiatives at all at this time is to get around campaign finance laws. And here is Common Cause helping him out.

California has rules about how early candidates can start raising and spending money. As long as Schwarzenegger travels around the country collecting money and endorsements for his four initiatives, he is officially and legally not campaiging for his own re-election.

The favorable national publicity and reputation-building is all just "incidental".

Is it CC's role to help him get away with this strategy to short-circuit campaign finance reform?

Schwarzenegger is an old hand at this now. He used publicity from his Prop 49 campaign the spring of 2003 to leverage the recall system in the fall of 2003. Although Prop 49 program of afterschool care, clever wording prevents implementation unless there was a sudden state budget surplus. This was obvious to anyone who read the proposal carefully, but for Schwarzenegger Prop 49 served its purpose just fine. Now he says he doesn't believe in tying a governor's hands with such proposals mandating how to spend a surplus.

But quite apart from the way it is used by Arnold Schwarzenegger, what is the meaning of no change in party in 153 state and Congressional districts?

The voting population in California is in fact divided about half and half just like the legislature. Most of the districts here have a good deal of geographical coherence, though some smaller cities like mine have been shifted from one district to another - something I not happy about, but is tied to growth in larger cities nearby. The ratio of Senate to Assembly seats is two to one and the last redictricting added coherence by nesting two Assembly seats in each Senate District. I am not aware of any of the extremes seen in some other states. Even a strip along the coast on closer examination makes sense since these areas are divided off from other areas by the coast range a few miles inland. We have more to worry about from the gerrymander of county supervisor districts and those are officially nonpartisan.

If, however, changes in party are a real criterion for democracy, one should surely consider changes in party for all the elected state-wide offices as well. While the state remained divided both in voter registration and in seats held in the legislature, Democrats consistently gained state offices starting in 1998 when Gray Davis became only the third Democratic governor in the state's entire history. He was re-elected in 2002. That's when Republicans changed strategies and adopted Schwarzenegger as their best bet.

Republicans like ex-Governor Pete Wilson and his crew were out, but anxious to get back in. Despite a lot of claims about Schwarzenegger being independent and bringing a new reforming perspective to California politics, in fact many of Schwarzenegger's advisors used to work for Pete Wilson and his financial support comes from the same pockets.

Republicans now are demanding $70 million be spent on a special election timed to start the gubenatorial campaign that would consider just Schwarzenegger's package of four propositions (privatizing public pension funds and linking teacher pay to his version of "merit" and something called a `budget cap" which sounds nice but so far has not been spelled out.) Hmm...didn't we just spend millions on another special election to pass bipartisan Prop 56 and Prop 57 which were supposed to be the cure for the budget?

Common Cause's endorsement certainly gives Schwarzenegger good national press, but people should really think this proposition through a lot more before committing dollars and effort on its behalf. Also consider the effects of tying the cause of redistricting to Schwarzenegger's personal political fate. Some of the almost intractable economic problems that brought Gray Davis into sudden disrepute are doing damage now to Schwarzenegger as well.

by ccskeptic on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 10:34:26 AM EST

redistricting

Fuck you this isn't Texas. We don't need a special ballot for redistricting JUST BEFORE SWARTZENEGGER runs again.

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Mar 23, 2005 at 10:07:35 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.

We are teaming up with Gov. Schwarzenegger to fix a "broken system"

By Chellie PingreePosted on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 01:34:02 PM EST

By Chellie Pingree
Posted on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 01:34:02 PM EST