This measure amends the California Constitution to change the redistricting process for the state legislature (both Assembly and Senate), Board of Equalization (BOE), and California members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Panel of Retired Judges. This measure requires that a three-member panel of retired federal and/or state judges ("special masters") develop redistricting plans. The measure requires that the judges meet a number of criteria, including that they have never held partisan political office. (The box on the following page provides more detail on the selection process for the special masters.)

Requirements of District Boundaries. The measure adds new requirements regarding the drawing of district boundaries. Among these requirements are:

• For the legislature and BOE, population differences among districts cannot exceed one percent.
• Senate districts must be comprised of two adjacent Assembly districts, and BOE districts must be comprised of ten adjacent Senate districts.
• The plan must minimize the splitting of counties and cities into multiple districts.

In addition, when drawing boundaries, the panel could not consider information related to political party affiliations and other specified matters, such as the potential effect on incumbents and political parties.

Schedule. A panel would be required to develop a redistricting plan for use at the next primary and general elections following the measure's approval and then following each future federal census.

Approval Process. In developing a plan, the panel would have to hold public hearings and could receive suggested plans from the public and the legislature. Once the panel unanimously approves a redistricting plan, the plan would be used for the next primary and general elections. The Secretary of State would place the plan on the general election ballot for the voters to consider. If the voters approve the plan, it would be used until the next redistricting is required. If the voters reject the plan, another panel would be appointed to prepare a new plan for the next primary and general elections.

Funding. The measure specifies that the legislature must make funding available from the legislature's budget (which is limited under the state Constitution) to support the work of the panel. This could include employment of legal and other experts in the field of redistricting and computer technology. Funding for the panel would be limited to a maximum of one-half of the amount spent by the legislature on redistricting in 2001 (adjusted for inflation beginning after the 2010 federal census). For the first redistricting plan under the measure (to be developed for use at the next primary and general elections following the measure's approval), the funding would be provided from the state General Fund.

BACKGROUND

(from the LAO analysis)

Every ten years, the federal census counts the number of people living in California. The California Constitution requires the legislature after each such census to adjust the boundaries of the districts used to elect public officials. This process is called "redistricting" (or sometimes "reapportionment"). The primary purpose of redistricting is to establish districts which are "reasonably equal" in population. Redistricting affects districts for the state legislature, BOE, and the U.S. House of Representatives.

Typically, redistricting plans are included in legislation and become law after passage of the bill by the legislature and signature by the Governor. In the past, when the legislature and Governor have been unable to agree on redistricting plans, the California Supreme Court oversaw the redistricting.

The LWVC position on Redistricting 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 position also supports a bipartisan commission as the preferred redistricting body.

SUPPORTERS Signing ballot arguments for	OPPONENTS Signing ballot arguments against:
Edward J. "Ted" Costa, CEO People's Advocate	Daniel H. Lowenstein, Former Chair Fair Political Practices Commission
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor State of California	Judge George H. Zenovich, Associate Judge Retired 5th Circuit Court of Appeal
John A. Arguelles Former California Supreme Court Justice	Henry L. "Hank" Lacayo, State President Congress of California Seniors

The rebuttal to the supporters' argument was signed by Daniel H. Lowenstein; Deborah Burger, President, California Nurses Association; and Henry L. "Hank" Lacayo.

Other organizations opposing Proposition 77 include the LWVC; Asian Pacific American Legal Center; California Association of Highway Patrolmen; California Democratic Party; California Federation of Teachers; California Teachers Association; Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; and Working Assets.

Chris Carson, LWVC Government Director, govt@lwvc.org

Trudy Schafer, LWVC Program Director/Advocate, 801 12th Street, Suite 220, Sacramento 95814, 916-442-9210, Fax 916-442-7362, tschafer@lwvc.org

Visit the Redistricting page on the LWVC Web site, http://lwvc.org/lwvc/action/redistrict/

Californians for Fair Representation--No on 77, 1127 11th Street, Suite 950, Sacramento 95814, 916-448-7724, www.noonproposition77.com.

SUMMARY POINTS

• We do need to change the process for drawing legislative and congressional district lines in California. But Proposition 77 is a flawed proposal; it is not the way to reform the system.
• Responsibility for redistricting should be vested in a bipartisan special commission that includes citizens at large, representatives of public interest groups, and minority group interests. This proposition establishes a commission of just three retired judges. In the near term, such a panel almost certainly will not be diverse in background or ethnicity.
• The normal practice is to redistrict only every ten years, after the federal census. Instead, Proposition 77 would require a mid-term redistricting immediately following its passage.
• California's population has increased by three million since the last census in 2000. Drawing new lines with old data--figures that don't take into account millions of new Californians and where in the state they live--is not fair.
• The impact would be greatest on rapidly growing regions and communities like Latinos and Asian Pacific Americans that have grown faster than the general population.
• The mid-decade redistricting provision would certainly be challenged in the courts if Proposition 77 passes.
• County elections officials are concerned that a redrawing of the lines immediately after the November election could not be done properly in time for the 2006 elections. If the process is rushed through, public input may be compromised.
• Among the standards on which a redistricting plan is based should be preservation and protection of "communities of interest" with shared cultural, demographic or economic interests. Minority communities in particular could suffer because Proposition 77 does not require that such factors be considered.
• Proposition 77 requires that the redistricting plan adopted by the three-judge panel must be placed on the ballot and voted upon by the people of California. On that same ballot we would elect representatives from those same new districts! And, if the plan is rejected, the entire redistricting process would be repeated, including a vote on the new lines at the next general election.
• This is a cumbersome process that will confuse voters and candidates and interfere with efficient, effective government.
• The League of Women Voters and other public interest groups have urged the legislature and Governor to propose a redistricting process that is real reform. We challenge them to put a proposal before the voters next year that
• takes the process away from legislators who have a built-in conflict of interest and gives it to an independent commission that reflects the interests and diversity of all California
• includes an open, transparent process that encourages public participation
• specifies fair criteria for drawing the lines.

Note: Please adapt this letter to your own community and check your local paper's word limit for published letters.

Editor:

This year, the League of Women Voters and other groups urged the legislature and Governor to enact redistricting reform requiring an independent commission, an open process and fair standards for drawing district boundaries.

Californians were rightly outraged at the bipartisan gerrymander in 2001 and want to prevent this from happening again. Unfortunately, Proposition 77 on the November ballot is not real reform. It unwisely entrusts the task of drawing legislative boundaries for 35 million Californians to three retired judges. True reform dictates a larger, more diverse panel that includes ordinary citizens.

Moreover, the Prop. 77 panel would not be required to consider vital community information in drawing boundaries.

Proposition 77 also requires a harmful mid-decade redrawing of district lines, based on outdated 2000 census data that ignores at least three million new Californians. Further, every new plan must be approved by a vote of the people--even while it is being used in elections. If the plan is rejected, we will have more plans and more elections. Can the state afford the costs, in terms of money, time and energy?

Vote NO on Prop.77. California deserves a redistricting process that counts and respects the interests of all her citizens.

Sincerely,

(your name)

For more information on this proposition, go to Smart Voter's coverage.