REDISTRICTING--WHERE WE STAND
In 1987 and 1988, the League of Women Voters conducted an extensive study of the redistricting process in California. We immediately applied our resulting position in support of Proposition 119, an unsuccessful attempt to establish an independent commission to draw district lines in California. The next two redistricting plans drawn by the state legislature (in 1991 and 2001) either were rejected by the courts or were widely criticized as being fundamentally flawed. Today we find ourselves in the middle of a sustained public debate on the future of redistricting in California, a debate that will continue for some time.
What does the League have to say about the way California should redistrict? In brief, we support a 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 of the process. And we support redistricting by a bipartisan commission rather than by the legislature.
The standards on which a redistricting plan should be based, regardless of who has responsibility for redistricting, should include:
- Substantially equal population,
- Geographic contiguity, and
- Protection of the voting strength of a racial or linguistic minority from dilution.
To the extent possible, these standards should also include respect for legal boundaries of cities and counties, and preservation and protection of "communities of interest." However, the standards should not consider the protection of incumbents or the preferential treatment of any political party.
The League places a good deal of emphasis on the importance of the structure of the redistricting process. It is clear that members feel that how redistricting is done is even more important than who does it. League positions on opportunities for citizen participation in government decision making, the need for adequate notice of proposed actions and the need for open meetings are all crucial to member understanding of what constitutes a fair redistricting process.
The League believes that the redistricting process should include:
- Specific time lines for the steps leading to adoption of the redistricting plan,
- Public hearings on the proposed plan,
- An automatic nonjudicial backup procedure in the event of deadlock, and
- A requirement that any redistricting plan drawn by the legislature be adopted by more than a simple majority vote.
Members prefer redistricting by a commission over redistricting by the legislature. Balance, however, is considered important and commission members should reflect California's diversity of population and varied geography, as well as a balance of economic, social and partisan interests. Members conclude that a redistricting commission would make fair and effective representation a more likely outcome than the decisions of legislators, whose self-interests seem to dominate over their concern for fairness and the common good. Given only two practical choices-legislature or commission--the choice of a commission reflected members' dissatisfaction with the legislature's previous redistricting performance as much as enthusiasm for a commission per se.
The questions of who should redistrict California and how such redistricting lines should be drawn are complex. All the criteria involve difficult and controversial definitions and decisions. The League position does not promise panaceas or quick fixes. Rather, it represents a thoughtful reflection on a complex political process and offers balanced suggestions for a road map to navigate the difficult journey.
--LWVC
