Statement to the California Assembly District Representation Committee
by the League of Women Voters of California

April 14, 2005

Californians have a unique opportunity almost within their grasp-an opportunity to make a fundamental change in the way our government works. The League of Women Voters of California urges you set in motion the process to make a basic change in the way congressional, legislative, and Board of Equalization districts are drawn, by taking redistricting out of the hands of the legislature and governor.

The process of redistricting in California is set up to force legislators into a system where they have an inherent conflict of interest. The public has been frustrated repeatedly by the fact that incumbent protection and party benefit are, unfortunately, the common results of this system which is not fair to the legislature or to the citizens of California.

Elements of Redistricting Reform in the Public Interest

Independent redistricting commission. When League of Women Voters members studied the redistricting process, we concluded that redistricting should be done by an independent commission, rather than by the legislature, if desired standards are to be applied objectively. We prefer a commission that would include citizens at large, representatives of public interest groups, and representation of minority group interests. The membership of a carefully chosen body would reflect California's diversity of population and varied geography, as well as a balance of economic, social and partisan interests.

Adequate financing is essential for the efficient performance of the commission's duties. In Drawing Lines: A Public Interest Guide to Real Redistricting Reform (February 2005), Demos and the Center for Governmental Studies recommend that the commission should have the capacity to enact a plan, subject only to Supreme Court review, and should have standing in legal actions concerning it.

Transparent process.

As in all government activities, Californians' right to know and to participate in the redistricting process must be protected. We support a clear timeline for an open, transparent process that will include readily accessible outreach hearings or workshops before lines are drawn, hearings on the plans proposed for adoption, and enough time for public review before final decisions are made. Throughout the process, the public must have easy access to data, plans and documentation.

Redistricting criteria.

In 1964 Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that the goal of legislative apportionment is "fair and effective representation." What does "fair and effective representation" mean? That is the heart of the issue, and is best identified by what a fair redistricting plan should not do: create safe seats for individuals or a party, or execute a deal created to protect incumbents. Attaining that goal depends on how well the standards for a "fair" plan are spelled out. They should be prioritized, since even desirable standards commonly conflict, and for every standard applied, it often becomes harder to apply another.

The League believes that the standards on which a redistricting plan is based should include, in accord with existing constitutional and federal statutory requirements,

• substantially equal population
• protection from diluting the voting strength of minorities, in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

A fair redistricting plan should not allow:

• the goal of protecting incumbents
• preferential treatment of one political party.

Additional standards supported by the League of Women Voters are geographic contiguity and, to the extent possible,

• respect for the boundaries of cities and counties
• preservation and protection of other identifiable "communities of interest."

Once a decade. We believe that the redistricting process should respect the once-a-decade precedent in order to avoid more frequent partisan efforts to change redistricting results. Using 2000 census data for a 2006 redistricting would disenfranchise many voters in parts of the state where population is growing fast and give added power to voters in other areas. It is unlikely that county registrars of voters would be able to be prepared for a June 2006 election using districts redrawn in a process that would start in mid-November, unless opportunities for redistricting hearings and public input were badly compromised. If we wait until 2008, population data would be so out of date that it would make sense to wait until after the 2010 census.

Legislative and Initiative Proposals: Time Constraints

Redistricting bills. Several bills have been introduced in both this special legislative session and the regular session. The League supports SCA 3, by Senator Lowenthal, and ACAX1 5 by Assembly Members Canciamilla and Richman; both give the task of drawing district lines to an independent redistricting commission and in general satisfy many of the requirements of a good proposal.

The Governor's proposal was introduced by Assembly Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy as ACAX1 3 in the special legislative session. It has been amended to include a number of improvements suggested by Common Cause, the League, and others. The LWVC has informed the author that we will support his bill if it is further amended to delete a provision calling for a redistricting immediately on its adoption by the voters, and we have suggested some other, smaller, improvements.

The initiative route. Meanwhile, an amazing game of "initiative chicken" is being played. The timing of a possible special election next November means that both ends of the political spectrum are gathering signatures for initiatives on multiple subjects. Some are their versions of reform, others are their ways to threaten their opponents.

One initiative to change the redistricting process, by Ted Costa, is actively being promoted. Supporters have raised enough funds to be sure that enough signatures can be gathered to place it on the ballot. This measure has its ardent supporters, but it also has features that draw fire from others. And like the other initiatives that are "on the street," proponents could not amend their measure, even if they wished to craft a compromise, in time to qualify a new proposal for November.

Where is the good government in all this? Our plea to the legislature, the Governor, and everyone else involved is to work together to refine a real redistricting reform proposal, one that will be passed by the legislature with a 2/3 vote and by the citizens of the state. We need to use the legislative process, where proposals can be examined and improvements to them made. And the time pressure is clear: we have about a month to find a legislative solution, or the opportunity may be lost as initiative signatures are turned in.

A stronger democracy is the goal. Nonpartisan redistricting by an independent commission, with maximum opportunity for public scrutiny and standards that promote fair and effective representation, is an essential step toward that goal. The League of Women Voters of California challenges our legislature and governor to make California a leader for redistricting reform around the country.