Presented by Trudy Schafer, LWVC Program Director/Advocate

June 29, 2005

Californians have a unique opportunity this year to improve the way redistricting is performed in our state, and this hearing on SCA 3 marks a major step in response to that opportunity. League of Women Voters members around the state have repeatedly urged the legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger to work together to refine a real reform proposal, one that can be passed with a 2/3 vote in the legislature and by the citizens of the state. The League applauds Senator Lowenthal and Senator Perata for moving the legislative process forward with public examination of this proposal.

While SCA 3, as amended on Monday, contains a number of elements deserving of support, we believe there are also many that need examination and improvement. We appreciate the opportunity to make comments and raise concerns that need to be addressed as negotiations go forward.

The basic elements of redistricting reform in the public interest are an independent redistricting commission, an open process for public input and scrutiny, and sound criteria for the drawing of plans.

Independent redistricting commission.

At the presentation of SCA 3 to the press yesterday, the League outlined several questions concerning the makeup and operation of the commission. The most basic is whether the commission will have true independence and authority, or whether the legislature will retain control over the process by virtue of the method of appointment of commission members. Four of the seven appointments are to be made by legislative leaders, and the other appointing bodies may have significant ties to the legislature.

This problem can be addressed in a number of ways. One idea is the model in the original version of SCA 3, in which a nonlegislative body creates a pool of candidates from which the appointing entities choose. Another is to increase the commission size by including more members who are not in either major political party. There are, of course, other models for the composition of a commission whose membership represents a balance among interests, and those should be considered.

These should be coupled with more stringent provisions concerning who can be appointed to the commission, such as a prohibition on employees, consultants, or contractors of the legislature or congress.

We note the removal of the provision that commissioners would be ineligible for public office and registration as a paid lobbyist for three years after service on the commission, and believe that should be reinstated.

We would also like to see a requirement for a supermajority vote to approve a plan (for example, five of seven or six of nine commissioners). Drawing Lines: A Public Interest Guide to Real Redistricting Reform by the Center for Governmental Studies and Demos suggests that supermajority approval "balance[s] the risk of allowing a partisan plan (which can occur when a bare majority of Commissioners can enact a plan) and the risk of producing an incumbent-protection plan (which often occurs when Commissioners must come to a consensus)."

We are pleased that the amendments to the bill include an explicit directive that appointing bodies should make efforts to ensure that the commission is representative of California's racial, ethnic, cultural, and gender diversity.

Adequate funding is essential for the efficient performance of the commission's duties. We question whether a total budget equal to only 40 percent of the amount spent by the legislature on redistricting in 2001 is sufficient.

We are pleased that the section of SCA 3 describing Supreme Court jurisdiction in challenges to a redistricting plan has been retained. However, we question the deletion of former section 1.(s) of Article XXI, giving the commission standing in various legal actions.

A slight question also arises about the wording chosen for Article IV, Section 23.(a) and Article XXI. On page 5, line 30 of the bill, the former says the commission "shall establish and adopt plans . . ." while on page 8, line 20, the latter says only "shall adopt plans. . . ." The current language in Article XXI (with respect to the legislature, of course) is "adjust the boundary lines." Is there significance to these distinctions? If so, wording should be chosen to make it clear that the commission has complete authority.

Open, transparent process.

We are pleased that the provisions in SCA 3 for conducting business in open, noticed meetings and for making commission records and data generally open to the public have been retained and that the length of time for public notice has been increased from 48 hours to four days.

We believe the proposal would be strengthened by requiring public hearings held around the state both before and after plans have been proposed; and by a period for public comment before the final vote on plans. The public's access to data, proposed plans, etc., should be facilitated by means such as a Web site. The commission should be subject to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting law.

Redistricting criteria/standards.

We have concerns about the standards for redistricting plans in SCA 3.

The population standard is expressed in an overly restrictive manner. It should be sufficient to require adherence to federal constitutional standards and perhaps state a maximum deviation for legislative and Board of Equalization districts of something on the order of one percent. We are concerned that, combined with the high priority given to it, requiring population equality to one person (or a few persons) would in effect make it unnecessary for the commission to follow the other standards.

Protection from diluting the voting strength of racial or linguistic minorities is of such importance that compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act must not be jeopardized by its position in a prioritized list of standards. Thus we urge you to continue to find the best way to express the standards and their rank order.

We believe that the standards should prohibit use of the home addresses of incumbents or other candidates. It is important that the standards should not allow the goal of protecting incumbents or the preferential treatment of one political party.

Preservation and protection of communities of interest is also an important criterion for the drawing of plans. The final standard listed should be divided so that geographic compactness is separate and ranked below protection of communities of interest. We would also like to be sure that the term "geographic communities of interest" is well understood.

The League looks forward to further discussion of these and other elements of a well-crafted proposal for reform of the redistricting process. We thank you for taking negotiations on this issue a step forward and urge legislators of both parties, as well as the governor, to continue to collaborate on a measure that can be put before the voters in November. We look forward to the prospect of a campaign where citizen organizations will join the governor and legislators in taking the case for real reform to the people this fall.