California Republicans upset after getting what they want.

Status
Not open for further replies.

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
So California republicans pushed to take away redistricting power for the state legislature. The measure passed by a significant margin, and now the republicans are mad.

Victory no longer is sweet for California Republican Party interests that helped strip the Democratic-controlled Legislature of the right to draw political districts.

Republicans say the fledgling 14-member independent commission they helped create through passage of Proposition 11 in 2008 is tilting to the left.

State GOP Chairman Tom Del Beccaro cried foul last week over the hiring of Q2 Data and Research to provide expertise in drawing 177 legislative, congressional and Board of Equalization districts.

"We haven't seen the final results, but they certainly have opened the door to wide-ranging suspicion, and that defeats the purpose of the process," Del Beccaro said of commissioners.

Because the panel consists of ordinary citizens, not redistricting experts, the hiring of a line-drawing consultant is a lightning rod because of potential influence.

Redistricting, a once-a- decade process, strikes at the heart of political power because it can tilt a competitive district left or right.

Creation of the commission was championed by GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger partly as a backlash to lines drawn by legislative leaders in 2001 to protect incumbents.

Republicans contend that Q2 always had an inside track with the commission: Primary owner Karin Mac Donald was a trainer for the panel, which considered awarding her a sole-source contract for the line-drawing job before opting to seek bids.

Q2 met bidding requirements only after a last-minute change by the commission, which initially demanded experience in redistricting projects involving about 2 million people but dropped the standard to about 300,000.

"The process has not been fair and impartial," said political analyst Tony Quinn, a former GOP legislative staffer and a board member of the Rose Institute, the only other bidder.

Dan Claypool, commission executive director, said the change in bidding documents was meant to expand the pool of applicants, not to benefit any firm seeking the $550,000 contract.

"We think they're doing an excellent job – it's tough, but they're doing thorough, thoughtful work," Trudy Schafer, of the League of Women Voters of California, said of the redistricting panel.

Commissioner Jeanne Raya, a Democrat, said that she has not detected bias but that criticism probably is inevitable.

"I'm sure that there's going to somebody who's unhappy with everything we do," Raya said.

Del Beccaro and other Republicans object to Q2 largely because a minority partner is Bruce Cain, a chief adviser to Assembly Democrats in a highly controversial 1981 redistricting. Mac Donald, Q2's primary owner, is registered as an independent voter.

Steve Maviglio, Democratic strategist, dismissed claims of bias as GOP nonsense.

"They somehow thought when they backed Proposition 11 that that meant they were going to have an advantage," Maviglio said. "It hasn't resulted in that – so now they have sour grapes."

Controversy over Cain is a red herring because he has stated in writing that he will not be involved in the project and the commission required that a "firewall" be created to ensure it, Maviglio said.

The Rose Institute could not have won the contract, regardless, Maviglio said. Its bid was disqualified for failure to disclose donors and for failing to clearly identify staff conflicts of interest in bid documents. Three GOP commissioners dissented.

Del Beccaro, the GOP chairman, said there was an obvious solution to ensure impartiality when both bidders had partisan ties – one Democratic, one Republican.

"I don't see how you don't require them to work together," he said.

The commission left open the possibility of hiring an expert to review Q2's maps.

Q2's selection came on the heels of another vote revealing a partisan split. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher was awarded a $150,000 contract to provide legal advice on minority voting rights, with three of five GOP commissioners voting no until the lone competitor – Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Gross & Leoni – withdrew its bid after attracting little support.

Kathay Feng, of California Common Cause, a leader in the Proposition 11 campaign, said that finding redistricting consultants that have never worked for a partisan group is hard because the field is very specialized.

"We're not looking for people with blank slates – otherwise they would have no experience," she said.

Feng said she is satisfied that the selections of Q2 and Gibson Dunn create a "fairly balanced" team. Lead attorneys for Gibson Dunn, for example, consist of Republican Dan Kolkey and Democrat George Brown.
Kolkey is a former appellate court judge and legal affairs secretary for GOP Gov. Pete Wilson, while Brown is co-chairman of the board of directors of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco, which champions minority rights.
GOP Commissioner Jodie Filkins Webber said she "highly respects" colleagues but that she was not surprised by perceptions of left-leaning tilt.

"We were chosen to serve all the citizens and to maintain our impartiality," she said. "I feel that each of the Republicans has done that. I just want to charge the other commissioners with a reminder that that's what they're expected to do as well."

Commissioner Connie Galambos Malloy, a decline-to-state voter, said it is important to remember that consultants won't call the shots.

"The commission is the one that's going to be making the decisions," she said.

The panel consists of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four independent or minor-party voters. Three votes from each bloc are required to approve maps.

Funny how the Republicans were so happy when this passed, and now they are mad because they can't control the commission like they thought.

I should point out the measure also had some support from non partisan places like California Common Cause and the ACLU of Southern California.
 
Last edited:

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
16,005
8,597
136
More proof about being careful what you wish for. However, the repubs aren't being stupid about this. One way or another, the lesson they learned from this will be used in the future to their advantage.

I guess DeLay wasn't invited to mastermind the expectant repub coup in this regard. He's still out and about on appeals isn't he?
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
I think this is more about complaining how the commission they created is being manipulated by the same people who would have manipulated the process anyway.

However, my feeling is that redistricting is a bullshit operation anyway and should not be done. Ever.

There's a huge problem with corruption in all levels of government in California. Awarding no-bid contracts to friends, manipulating bidding requirements so that only a specific company can qualify, or tailoring RFPs to a specific company... This isn't just a problem with this one commission. It's a problem with all government in California, from the city level all the way up to the governor.

I abstained from voting on this issue because I believe that the sole purpose for redistricting is to help incumbents, and I am strictly against incumbency.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,154
55,704
136
I think this is more about complaining how the commission they created is being manipulated by the same people who would have manipulated the process anyway.

However, my feeling is that redistricting is a bullshit operation anyway and should not be done. Ever.

There's a huge problem with corruption in all levels of government in California. Awarding no-bid contracts to friends, manipulating bidding requirements so that only a specific company can qualify, or tailoring RFPs to a specific company... This isn't just a problem with this one commission. It's a problem with all government in California, from the city level all the way up to the governor.

I abstained from voting on this issue because I believe that the sole purpose for redistricting is to help incumbents, and I am strictly against incumbency.

Never redistricting would be an absurdity and an impossibility. If a state lost congressional seats, how would you handle this? Would you just cut that district out, leaving large swaths of your citizens without any congressional representation? What if you got new ones? What if you had a new city grow over a few decades, why on earth should millions of people have the same representation as a rural area had before it?

Redistricting is done to the partisan advantage of who is doing it, but it's not always to protect incumbents, it is frequently used to maximize seats, which actually hurts incumbents. Being against incumbency is also silliness, in many cases it takes years for people to get up to speed on complex issues.

You obviously haven't thought this through.
 

JimW1949

Senior member
Mar 22, 2011
244
0
0
I am against incumbents too, but for a different reason. I do not believe it is a good idea to have "career politicians".

I believe it is far preferable to have someone serve a limited amount of time in a political position, then that person steps down and goes back to working in the civilian sector again while someone else steps into the political position.

The reason I say that is because when you have someone in a political position for a very long time they lose touch with reality and when this happens the politician has no idea what it is like to have to actually work in the private sector making a living with the laws passed by the people in political positions. So if a politician knows he/she will be going back to the civilian sector again real soon, they will be a lot more careful about what laws they pass. Additionally, since they only serve for a short period of time, there would be no need to pay them a retirement. I am sure the laws would need to be changed to accommodate that, and since only politicians can vote on that, it may be hard to get passed, but I think it could happen.

Additionally, I believe the longer someone is in a political position, the more likely it is they will become corrupt. While this isn't always the case, it does seem that when someone first gets into a political position, they tend to be more honest and forthright, but the longer they are in the position, the more sneaky and underhanded they get.
 

wuliheron

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
3,536
0
0
Well it hasn't been good enough for Dems for a long time. Just look at them walking out of legislatures in places like WI because they won't get what they want.


Exactly. We need to give up this pretense of democracy and just get down to business. Where's my gun ma!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.