|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
We’re not saying the purportedly nonpartisan Citizen’s Redistricting Commission pulled a fast one, but its release of dozens of new “visualizations” (maps) last Friday just before the three-day Independence Day weekend is suspicious. Many voters and politicians, including a few good reporters, were already off celebrating.
Paul Mitchell of Redistricting Partners, a Democrat, former legislative staffer and now a consultant focusing on legislative races and independent expenditures, points out that the way to bury a story is to give it to the media before a holiday weekend.
Either by design or mistake, that’s exactly what the commission did, releasing scores of redrawn district maps as its busy week ended. Mitchell said this avoided the spotlight from anyone with a family or a social life.
The state commission has now reconvened, holding daily hearings until next Thursday when it is scheduled to release yet another set of redistricting maps. This should be fun to watch as the Democratic, Republican and nonpartisan members field the heavy criticism already being vented while still maintaining the necessary super-majority of 9 of 14 votes to achieve final approval.
The 14-member commission is responsible for redrawing the boundaries of California’s congressional, Board of Equalization, state senate and assembly districts based on 2010 Census data and public input, and also in compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act, which protects against “minority vote dilution.”
A Latino rights group already has called the June 10 first redistricting drafts a “worst case scenario for Latinos,” noting that Latinos stand to lose a congressional seat despite accounting for 90% of the state’s growth over the last 10 years.
The African American Redistricting Collaborative is urging the commission to recognize its population strengths and draw redistricting maps accordingly.
The Asian Pacific American Legal Center is working closely to present a united case to the commission.
Here in the Tri-Valley, it’s still unclear where the boundaries are in the 10th, 11th and 13th congressional districts, represented by Congressmen John Garamendi, Jerry McNerney and Pete Stark, respectively.
Last Thursday, State Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan seemed surprised to learn that her district boundaries that had been expanded to include Dublin and Pleasanton had already been redrawn back into Contra Costa County.
As for Pleasanton’s once three-Assembly districts, it appears to be not in any, at least for the time being.
Unfortunately for the reading public, all this confusion comes on the heels of a glowing analysis of California’s new way of drawing political maps in the June 18 issue of The Economist, a British magazine that is not usually kind to the political structure and activities of our state.
It calls the chaos among California’s incumbent politicians a “good sign,” with the new lines of the state’s 177 congressional districts being finalized by a “genuinely independent commission of citizens, not by state legislators.”
As charges of favoritism along political, ethnic and special interest lines intensify in the coming week, we’ll see if The Economist is right in recommending our new system to other states.
–Pleasanton Weekly staff.
–Pleasanton Weekly staff.
The redistriting commission is not non-partisan. The Democrats got control. This fiasco has shown us that we will not get non-partisan redistricting until we have districts drawn by computer with no racial or political tinkering allowed. That’s not likely, so the Tri-Valley will continue to get the shaft, the loons and unions will continue to rule California, and California will continue it’s slide towards a third-world economy.
I’m appalled to hear that any racist group believes it should have a voice in redistricting. I certainly hope that they don’t get a seat at the table. No political district should be constructed to grant a particular race or immigrant group any advantage. To the greatest extent possible, cities should not be split either. That’s probably the only valid argument I’ve heard in changing the plans presented so far.
I agree with Steve that racist groups should not have a voice in redistricting. It should only be for rich white Christian people educated and working in upper management. I mean who wants Hispanic, Asians, Democrats and other racist organizations involved. And Ngo Loon is right. Since Jerry Brown has taken over these past few months, well, there goes the neighborhood. I know that Arnold was in there for a lot of years, but he was from LA and not from the center of the world… Pleasanton and more specifically Ruby Hill and other rich white Christian districts that have educated and upper management jobs. There’s gotta be a law against these “other” people wanting to live in our great state. It’s a good thing we took it away from the Mexicans in the 1800’s are they would have created pollution, billionaires that pay no taxes and elitism including gated communities. No more racist organizations ever in California politics.
since the state is so narrow, and the original 13 colonies made up our great land, why not simply, with a straight ruler, scribe a line across the width of the state, dividing it into 13 equal distant regions…..give the state 13 districts from which to elect 13 representatives, who, by the way must reside in the district for which they run…..A computer could draw the lines….Some cities and/or towns would be split…so be it….nothing racist, nothing political, just the lines would be drawn in the sand…Of California….let it be written, let it be done….
dknute’s comments are so right on! I’ve always thought that Los Angeles should get no more representation than Del Norte county. Population criteria is such an antiquated idea that would have appalled our 13 founding fathers.
dknute
Your idea is brilliant. You are hereby ordained the redistricting dude. Thank goodness for rational and objective people.
“Population criteria is such an antiquated idea that would have appalled our 13 founding fathers.”
Blossom,
Thanks for the laugh!!
The Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3:
“(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) [*The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.*] The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.”
14th Amendment, Section 2:
“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.” Ratified 7/9/1868
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec2.html
Billie thanks for the quote from the Constitution. I too was amused by the statement regarding population and our founding fathers. It’s amazing how easily people forget the basics regarding Civics in this country. Equal representation is accomplished by the Senate and population based representation by the House of Reps and thus the need for districts. States have mirrored this two house approach for their local governments. You will never please everyone when drawing district lines, but I rather have it in the hands of a citizen committee than the politicians.