Originally Posted By cmpaley <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/13839263p-14679565c.html" target="_blank">http://www.sacbee.com/content/ politics/story/13839263p-14679565c.html</a> Democrats embracing overhaul of redistricting Núñez, Perata say change is needed - just not Prop. 77. By Jim Sanders -- Bee Capitol Bureau Published 2:15 am PST Thursday, November 10, 2005 Story appeared on Page A3 of The Bee Democratic legislative leaders who helped lead the fight against Proposition 77 said Wednesday they plan to push an alternative measure to change how political boundaries are drawn. Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata say voters want the process overhauled, but not in mid-decade or under Proposition 77's terms. (SNIP) Núñez said Wednesday that he supports change, but not Proposition 77. "I've said all along that we're more than open to a redistricting effort which takes the power to draw district boundaries from the legislative and gives it to a truly independent, bipartisan group. We're working on that," he said. Núñez did not commit himself to a timetable for passing such legislation - the next federal census is in 2010 - but he said a proposal will be unveiled "sooner rather than later." Perata said he backs the concept in Senate Constitutional Amendment 3, which was shelved last year. It calls for redistricting to be handled by a seven-member commission, whose majority would be appointed by legislative leaders. (SNIP TO THE END)
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Oh now that would DEFINATELY not be a fix. >>It calls for redistricting to be handled by a seven-member commission, whose majority would be appointed by legislative leaders<< The gist of this is that whoever is leading the legislature gets to appoint the commission members. The majority party gets the leadership positions. More of the same political chicanery. There will be no solution anytime soon. If politicians had to speak the truth, this guys comment would go something like this: "It will be a cold day in hell before we approve of anything which will take the power to redraw districts out of our hands. But to make you people feel better and so you will think we are doing something and actually care, we will give it just enough attention to fool you. At the rate of progress we are making we might even have a law drawn up by say 2475 AD, but only if the monkey we assigned to the task learns how to write."
Originally Posted By cmpaley A majority of seven would be four. Two would probably be selected by the leadership of the Senate and two would probably be selected by the leadership of the Assembly with the other three selected by the Governor. I don't really see the problem. In fact, I can probably see that the leader of the Democratic Assembly Caucus, the leader of the Republican Assembly Caucus, the leader of the Democratic Senate Caucus and the leader of the Republican Senate Caucus would each choose one member of the commission. Or another process to make it fair. For example, when there are labor disputes and arbitration is needed, the process is that there is an arbitration commission that consists of five persons: two from management, two from the union and the fifth is selected from a group of persons who are experienced in labor disputes. Each side takes turns striking a person's name from the list until one name remains. That person becomes the "third party." There are many ways of coming up with a commission that is fair and impartial.
Originally Posted By DlandDug But three retired judges-- all previously elected by the people of the state in nonpartisan races-- are too risky? If the Dems in Sacramento actually cared to fix this deeply flawed system, they have had ample time to do so. Oh wait-- it has been fixed all along, hasn't it?
Originally Posted By cmpaley The proposition was flawed because it would be done in secret with no public input until after the fact (a straight up and down vote on the ENTIRE plan). The judges wouldn't have been allowed to take "communities of interest" into account but only ZIP Code, city and county lines, and census tracts. The fact is, the Democrats DO want reform, just not the right-wing-ram-it-down-your-throat version of reform that Schwarzenegger tried to foist upon the people of California.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Well, since you put it that way I see what a reasonable argument it is.
Originally Posted By cmpaley :-\ Schwarzenegger brought up the need for reform. Fine and dandy. He set forth his agenda in the State of the State address last year. Fine and dandy. He went to the legislature with demands and refused to negotiate. "Do this or I call a special election." The legislature insisted on negotiating. He made cursory attempts but woulnd't negotiate in good faith so he could have his special election. When he called the special election, the most extreme, right-wing proposals were put out for signature and put on the ballot. What else do you call this?
Originally Posted By DlandDug I did not find the idea that the parents of a minor should be notified before a medical procedure is performed on their child extreme. I did not find the idea that two years is too short a time to grant a teacher tenure (a lifetime job) extreme. I did not find the idea that three retired judges are less inclined to corruption in drawing political district boundaries extreme. I did not find the idea that Union members should not have to go out of their way to decline to support the union agenda with their own money extreme. The legislature in Sacramento has no interest in working with Arnoild Schwarzenegger, and has a clear and vested interest in getting one of their own kind back in office. If that means typifying a sincere effort at reform as a "blatant right wing power grab," then so be it.
Originally Posted By cmpaley I don't think this was a sincere effort at reform. It was about defunding the Democratic party through Prop 75, silencing teachers by making it easier to fire them without cause through Prop 74. Prop 76 was about giving the Republican Party unprecidented power to get the budget they want simply by holding out for 45 days in the summer and giving the Governor dictatorial powers to do anything he wanted by creating fiscal emergencies in order to trigger the budget (and contract) cutting authority at will. 77 wasn't as big an issue for me, but I don't like the fact that it didn't allow for public input. True reform would entail things like: 1. Making it easy to opt-out of having union dues used for political purposed by requiring an opt-out box on the application or a simple opt-out form that any member can sign at any time without losing any rights or privileges of membership. 2. Undoing Gray Davis' Big Mistake of 2000 by eliminating new programs created after 2000 that were not self-sufficient and undoing the massive tax cuts, including the state paying for the VLF Offset, and requiring the pay as you go technique to keep spending under control. 3. The idea of a seven member panel to redistrict the state after the 2010 census has a lot of merit. I would require that two members be selected by the Senate (the Licans choose one and the Dems choose one), two by the Assembly (the Licans choose one and the Dems choose one), one by the Governor, one by the California Congressional delegation, and a seventh member to be selected by lot.
