Note: The Background, Proposal, and Fiscal Effect sections are taken from the LWVCEF In Depth publication, based in part on the Legislative Analyst’s Office analysis included in the Secretary of State’s official Voter Information Guide.

BACKGROUND

Every ten years, the federal census counts the number of people living in California and each of the other states. The California Constitution requires the state Legislature to redraw the boundary lines of the districts of members of (1) the U.S. House of Representatives, (2) the state Legislature (Assembly and Senate) and (3) the state Board of Equalization (BOE) immediately following each federal census. This process is generally known as “redistricting.” The major purpose of redistricting is to establish districts of each type that are “reasonably” equal in population. Normally, redistricting plans are implemented through legislation passed by the state Legislature and signed by the Governor.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 11 would amend the state Constitution and state law to change the way that boundaries of districts for the U.S. House of Representatives, the state Legislature, and the BOE are redrawn after each federal census, beginning with the 2010 census.

Legislative and BOE Districts

For the Assembly, Senate and BOE districts, the measure transfers responsibility for the redistricting process from the state Legislature to a “Citizens Redistricting Commission.”

Selection of Commission Members. The Commission’s members would be comprised of 14 registered California voters. The selection of Commission members would be coordinated by the State Auditor through a newly created Applicant Review Panel of three independent auditors. The Panel would accept applications from any registered California voter, and then screen the applicants for qualifications and for conflicts of interest. For example, applicants—or an immediate relative—in the past ten years could not have:

1. Been a political candidate for state or federal office.
2. Been a lobbyist.
3. Contributed $2,000 or more in any year to a political candidate.

In addition, applicants could not have changed their political party affiliation in the past five years and must have voted in at least two of the last three general elections.

After the Panel selects 60 recommended applicants, who have been picked based on analytic skill, impartiality, and appreciation of California’s diversity, the majority and minority party leaders of the Assembly and Senate could strike up to 24 applicants from this pool. The State Auditor would then randomly draw eight names. These eight members would appoint the final six members from the remaining pool of applicants. The composition of the 14 members must include five registered members of each of the state’s two largest political parties, plus four members who are not members of either of those parties.

Criteria for District Boundaries. The Commission would be required to adopt district boundaries for members of the state Legislature and BOE that adhere to a number of criteria, including:

• Developing reasonably equal populations in the districts of each type of elected official
• Complying with the federal Voting Rights Act
• Maintaining entire cities, counties, neighborhoods, and communities of interest in single districts to the extent possible (the term “communities of interest” is not defined in the proposition)
• Maintaining geographical compactness of districts
• Disregarding consideration of political parties, incumbents, or political candidates
• To the extent possible, each Senate district will encompass two adjacent Assembly districts and each BOE district will encompass ten adjacent Senate districts.

Approval Process. In developing a redistricting plan, the Commission is required to hold public hearings and allow for public comment on proposed redistricting plans developed by the Commission. The Commission would have to approve a redistricting plan with at least nine affirmative votes, with at least three votes each from members (1) registered with the largest political party, (2) registered with the second largest political party, and (3) representing all other voter registrations. The redistricting plan would also be subject to voter approval under the state’s referendum process. A registered voter could also challenge the constitutionality of a redistricting plan before the state Supreme Court. Once approved, a redistricting plan would be used for the next decade. The process would be repeated every ten years, with a new 14 member commission for each future redistricting.

Funding. Commission members would be compensated at a rate of $300 per day, plus out of pocket expenses. The proposition specifies that the Legislature must provide each decade a three-year appropriation for the Commission totaling the greater of (i) $3 million or (ii) the amount appropriated in the previous redistricting cycle (adjusted for inflation). These funds could be used to establish the application review process, communicate with the public, compensate commissioners, and employ legal and other experts in the field of redistricting.

U.S. House of Representatives Districts

The responsibility for the redistricting process for U.S. House of Representatives districts would remain with the state Legislature, but Proposition 11 imposes certain criteria which the Legislature must apply in redrawing districts for members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Generally, these criteria are the same that must be applied by the Commission in the redistricting process for state elected officials. The proposition also requires that the Legislature provide public access to data and maps used in the redistricting process, and solicit public comment on its proposals.

FISCAL EFFECT

The State Legislature spent about $3 million in 2001 from its own budget (which is limited under the Constitution) to adjust boundaries for all of the specified districts. Under this proposition, the Legislature would continue to incur expenses to perform redistricting for U.S. House of Representatives districts. In addition, this measure authorizes funding (outside of the Legislature’s budget) for redistricting efforts related to legislative and BOE districts to be performed by the Commission. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the minimum amount required for 2010 would be about $4 million (the 2001 amount spent on redistricting adjusted for estimated inflation through 2010). Having two entities—the Legislature and the Commission—perform redistricting could tend to increase overall redistricting expenditures. However, any increase in future redistricting costs probably would not be significant.

LEAGUE POSITIONS AND DISCUSSION

The League of Women Voters of California supports a state redistricting process and standards that promote fair and effective representation in the state legislature and in the House of Representatives with maximum opportunity for public scrutiny. The League supports an independent commission as the preferred redistricting body.

1. The redistricting process, regardless of who has responsibility for redistricting, should include:
   1. specific time lines for the steps leading to adoption of the redistricting plan
   2. public hearings on the plan proposed for adoption
   3. an automatic nonjudicial backup procedure in the event of deadlock
   4. a requirement that any redistricting plan drawn by the legislature be adopted by more than a simple majority vote.
      
      
2. The standards on which a redistricting plan is based, regardless of who has responsibility for redistricting,
   1. should include:
      1)  substantially equal population
      2)  geographic contiguity
      3)  protection from diluting the voting strength of a racial or linguistic minority
   2. should not allow:
      1)  the goal of protecting incumbents
      2)  preferential treatment of one political party
   3. to the extent possible, standards should also include:
      1)  respect for boundaries of cities and counties
      2)  preservation and protection of "communities of interest."
      
      
3. Responsibility for redistricting preferably should be vested in an independent special commission, with membership that includes citizens at large, representatives of public interest groups, and minority group interests.

Discussion

Reform of the redistricting process has been a core issue for the League of Women Voters of California for over 20 years. In recent years, we have participated extensively in a number of efforts to achieve meaningful reform of the process by which Congressional, state legislative, and Board of Equalization district lines are drawn. We believe that the process should take place in an open, transparent manner with wide public input; that lines should be drawn according to strict, ranked criteria; and that the body drawing the lines should be an independent body that is selected according to well established conflict of interest rules and that represents the diversity that is California.

The rebuttal to the supporters’ argument was signed by Henry L. “Hank” Lacayo, State President, Congress of California Seniors; Mike Jimenez, State President, California Correctional Peace Officers Association; and Martin Hittelman, President, California Federation of Teachers.

The rebuttal to the opponents’ argument was signed by Kathay Feng, Executive Director, California Common Cause; Joseph V. Kerr, President, Orange County Professional Firefighters Association; and Gary Toebben, President, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.

RESOURCES

Chris Carson, LWVC Government Director
govt@lwvc.org

Linda Craig, LWVC Advocacy Director
legislation@lwvc.org

Trudy Schafer, LWVC Senior Director for Program
1107 9th Street, Suite 300, Sacramento, 95814
916 442.7215, Fax 916 442.7362, tschafer@lwvc.org

www.yesprop11.org, Yes on Prop 11/Time to Hold Politicians Accountable: California Voters FIRST Initiative

Visit the Redistricting Web pages of sponsoring organizations:

www.lwvc.org/lwvc/action/redistrict/, League of Women Voters of California
www.commoncause.org/ca/, California Common Cause
www.aarp.org/states/ca/articles/california_advocacy.html, AARP

Other references: 

Legislative Analyst’s Office analysis of Proposition 11 for the Voter Information Guide (ballot pamphlet): www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2008/11_11_2008.aspx

Center for Government Studies, A Comparative Overview of California Redistricting Reform Proposals in 2008, comparing Proposition 11 to current requirements of the California Constitution, a 2008 legislative proposal, and a CGS model: www.cgs.org/images/publications/cal_redist_final_2008.pdf

Ballotpedia.org:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_11_%282008%29

SUMMARY POINTS

• See two-page flyer
• Publish an article in your organization's newsletter
  
  

get involved

Consider sending a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. Please adapt this letter to your own community and check your local paper’s word limit for published letters.