The Need For Redistricting Reform From This California Democrat’s Perspective

California Progress Report.com
By John A. Smith
Region 16 Director, California Democratic Party
April 4, 2008

I place high value on those who can disagree without being disagreeable, and I respect their opinions because they truly see some greater good in their own argument. However, when someone uses insults and innuendo to attack their opponents, I not only lose all respect for the person making the insult, I also realize they don’t have a rational argument to make in the first place. If they did, they would use it without resorting to the smear.

Recently, a political consultant attacked Fred Keeley and Leon Panetta for their position in favor of the Independent Redistricting initiative. Whether you like the initiative or not, Keeley and Panetta are outstanding former lawmakers who know firsthand how our redistricting process is broken. These two leaders are among a growing league of former lawmakers who recognize the long term damage to the political process and public trust that gerrymandering inflicts. They really have nothing to gain by this reform outside of a better California. And as former elected representatives who know exactly how the current system functions, it’s only appropriate that they’re calling for an overhaul of the process. They do not deserve this attack.

Call it a sound bite if you like, but it’s true: lawmakers drawing their own districts is a conflict of interest. Among the people defending this broken system most aggressively are those who benefit most from the status quo: key political staff. Consultants who encourage support of the current system are protecting their clients and elected bosses, which allows them to protect their jobs. It is, after all, how they make their living. We shouldn’t expect anything different, but please let’s not look to these very talented people to guide our judgment on an issue in which they have a direct, personal financial interest.

In safe districts, primary elections are dominated by candidates with the most severe partisan behavior and beliefs. This means that legislators selected in the general election are not representative of the overwhelming majority of Californians – who are neither fiercely conservative, nor liberal – but instead by the marginal voters who are interested in strictly partisan rhetoric.

Since our legislature drew their own districts in 2001, there have been a total of 495 elections for Assembly, State Senate, and Congress. In those elections, only 4 districts were won by the opposing party. We’ve all seen the real result: a Legislature so broken by partisan gridlock and contention that they have failed miserably to reach middle ground for fear of alienating their base of hard-core partisan voters.

If more legislative elections are competitive, rather than a foregone conclusion, and the election system puts voters first by placing them in districts that were not designed to protect partisans or incumbents, we will see different campaigns and different decisions. In turn, the skills of campaign consultants would be better aligned with the public interest if they were helping candidates appeal to everyone in their districts rather than only one side or the other.

I, for one, want to get past the partisan rancor and hope to find in civic life and state politics a respectful discussion focused on how we can improve the governance of California. We don’t get anywhere by publicly and personally tearing down our best public leaders.

We need to figure out how to fix the system so it brings out the best candidates and brings out the best in those who are elected. We need to start by modeling the kind of discourse we would like hear among our elected officials.

John A. Smith currently serves as Director of Region 16 for the California Democratic Party. His region includes Assembly Districts 60-61-62-63-72. Mr. Smith has been active in grassroots politics for about 12 years. He received a BS in Business from the University of Redlands.

Posted on April 04, 2008