Proposition 11

Big Governor, Small Reform Agenda

Joe Mathews — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:09:00 -0500

The most striking thing about Gov. Schwarzenegger's political reform event Wednesday at a railroad museum in Sacramento was how little was said about the future. The event celebrated the narrow triumph of Prop 11, the measure to strip California legislators of the ability to draw their own districts. But there wasn't much specific about that. Schwarzenegger's office did issue a press release that listed legislation he's supported in the past, and argued that he will pursue more transparency, without giving details).

Prop 11 was a significant political triumph (similar measures had lost before), but its impact is likely to be small. The measure doesn't take effect for another two years. And given the political geography of California, it will be hard to draw single-member districts that don't strongly favor one party or the other. Californians tend to live near people who vote like they do.

The value of Prop 11 was to develop momentum for more profound reforms. But no reforms were discussed at the Wednesday event, according to a transcript. The only idea clearly on the table is having "open" or non-partisan primaries for statewide offices, instead of the current partisan primary. That would certainly have a greater impact than redistricting. And tamping down partisanship is necessary. But the measure doesn't take on the state's core and related problems: its dysfunctional budget system (which requires super-majorities to pass a budget or raise taxes) and its initiative-mad politics. The open primary's effects on these problems would be, at best, indirect.

It's time for reform groups to be more aggressive and try harder, more direct reforms. Passing any kind of political reform, including an open primary, will be so difficult anyway, that it makes better strategic sense to pursue big changes -- such as ending the two-thirds requirement, or increasing the size of the legislature and allowing voters to elect more than one representative per district.

What Do Redistricting Results Mean?

Joe Mathews — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:59:00 -0500

The results of Prop 11, the redistricting reform initiative in California, still remain too close for most media outlets to call. At Fox & Hounds Daily, I try to find a pattern in the scattershod map of the votes tallied so far.

Speaking Too Soon?

Joe Mathews — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 13:42:00 -0500

I'm back today to discover that Prop 11 isn't a done deal at all. Its backers have declared victory, but Prop 11 opponents refuse to concede. The redistricting reform initiative has a lead of nearly 100,000 votes with all precincts reporting, but there are still more than 1 million outstanding ballots -- absentees and provisionals -- to count.

Fire and Prop 11

Joe Mathews — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:38:00 -0400

This is the new ad in favor of Prop 11, the California initiative to strip state legislators of the power to draw their own disricts. A citizens' commission would do the job instead.

It stars a firefighter. This is typical--cops, firefighters and teachers have been staples of initiative ads in California. Firefighters are among the most popular public servants. Often, firefighters in ads are there on behalf of unions that have endorsed a measure. That's not the case here, however.

Redistricting Opponents Caught Red-Handed

Joe Mathews — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:07:00 -0400

Opponents of Prop 11, the California initiative to change how legislative districts are drawn, have been calling the initiative a Republican power grab. But now they've paid for space on a Republican mailer calling it a Democratic power grab. The Yes on 11 campaign quickly pointed this out today. More details via the Sacramento Bee.

The Strategic Mistakes Of the Prop 11 Campaign

Joe Mathews — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:14:00 -0400

Redistricting reform is always a tough sell--too complicated, and the partisan voters on both sides are too skeptical. But Prop 11, the California initiative to take the power to draft legislative districts away from the legislature, has the best chance of any such measure. As opposed to 2005, when a redistricting reform initiative failed badly under an onslaught from public employee unions, the opposition this time is relatively weak and poorly funded. But the initiative has far less than majority support in public polls. Why? The campaign messaging is a mess.

What's the problem? The campaign's ads are anti-politician blasts at the legislature for their many sins. Press conference seek to gin up populist anger. But this message doesn't match the reality of the measure and the folks leading the campaign. The most prominent backer is, of all things, an unpopular politician -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is today getting attention for fundraising he's doing in Florida for the measure. And the campaign is even boasting of the support of non-Californian politicians such as New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg. The billionaire mayor was accurately called a hypocrite in the New York press this week for coming to Los Angeles to campaign for Prop 11 (becaues of the importance of the will of the people) even as he seeks to avoid a popular referendum on a plan that would extend term limits and permit him to run for a third term as mayor.

Here's my question for the Prop 11 supporters: How can you run a campaign that's anti-politician while your campaign is depending on rich and famous politicians like Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger? It's no wonder that support is soft and voter confusion about the measure is high. On top of that, the campaign has made a series of over-the-top claims about redistricting reform that they can't prove. (That Prop 11 will make the legislature more responsive, that it will somehow fix the budget). Prop 11 has its virtues. It ends a conflict of interest in lawmakers choosing their own districts, but there's little evidence it will make a material change in the legislature.

Instead, Prop 11 supporters should be running a subdued campaign that emphasizes how modest the measure is. Radio and TV ads should talk only about the details of the measure--the conflict of interest we now have, and the way the citizens' commission proposed by the initiative might work. I'd suggest that the ads nod to the initiative's modest by calling it a "first step" in an effort to reform California politics. This sort of argument would have the advantage of being true. Prop 11's backers support other changes that would make a more profound difference in the state's political culture, like ending the super-majority requirement for budgets and establishing open, or non-partisan, primaries.

Immediately, the Prop 11 campaign should knock off the anti-politician rhetoric.. People know they hate politicians right now-- they're inundated with populist blasts at the political class, so inundated that I wonder how much value such criticism has. Voters want solutions, even modest ones. So talk about the details.. Since Prop 11has the bipartisan support of politicians, the campaign may mention a few of those politicians to show it's not threatening to partisans. But the campaign's leaders should think about asking Gov. Schwarzenegger not to campaign for the measure. Doesn't he have a budget and economic crisis to handle? I suspect that any dollars he's raising in Florida aren't worth the damage from news stories about his traveling there. Such fundraising does not match the message of a campaign that should be about political reform and clean government. And Schwarzenegger's popularity is such (approval rating at 40 percent or below--even lower than that in a private poll I saw this week in Sacramento) that Prop 11 is unlikely to benefit -- and could be hurt -- by his association with the redistricting reform cause.

Bottom line: Prop 11 requires a softer sell.

Redistricting Reform's Best, and Last, Chance

Joe Mathews — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:57:00 -0400

Back in the spring, I ran into a consultant working for redistricting reform, the California ballot initiative Prop 11, and he predicted that there might not be a funded campaign against the measure. I scoffed -- I think redistricting reform, while a fine cause, has been oversold and is politically a waste of time. But it looks more and more like he was onto something.

Redistricting measures have a long tradition of failing. But if there's ever going to be a year for such an initiative to pass, this may be it. The latest good news for Prop 11 is that the powerful California Teachers Assn., which has spent big to beat previous redistricting efforts, has decided to stay neutral. (CTA isn't happy with the legislature over the most recent budget, and this smells like payback to Democratic leaders who oppose redistricting). That leaves the no campaign without critical financial and organizational strength.

That said, it's still an uphill battle for redistricting, which has less than 40 percent support in polls. Few initiatives with such little support end up winning. But the ray of hope in those surveys is that the "no" vote is low, too, with a huge undecided. If redistricting supporters can somehow get out their message (a tough thing to do with attention on the worldwide economic crisis and the presidential campaign), they might have a chance at winning over undecided and earning a narrow victory.

Redistricting Initiative "Is A Power Grab," Says Supporter of Redistricting Reform

Joe Mathews — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:52:00 -0400

Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Weintraub writes today that politicians will lie to beat the redistricting reform initiative on the November ballot. But if Ted Costa's views are heard, they may not need to do much.

Ted Costa was the original proponent of both the recall of Gov. Gray Davis and of Prop 77, the failed redistricting initiative in 2005. In an email, he blasts the new initiative, Prop 11, as a "power grab," matching the rhetoric -- if not meaning -- of the measure's opponents.

Democrats and legislators have constituted most of the opposition to this point. But Costa is a Republican, and his argument, if it gets heard over the din of the presidential election and the gay marriage ban, could peel Republicans off the measure. Costa also betrays his own personal frustration with Common Cause and other backers of the measure; he's spent years trying to work with them on redistricting, and doesn't like their approach, from how the lines are drawn to the fact that Congressional districts aren't included. The measure only covers state legislative districts, and the districts for California's Board of Equalization.

Here's Ted's email:

"In a funny way the initiative opponents are right. The redistricting initiative IS a power grab! But not a power grab by Republicans.

This initiative is a power grab by the left wing interest groups who drafted it like Common Cause, and AARP, and those who've endorsed it (ACLU) to seize control of the redistricting process from the incumbents like Perata. The interest groups want a more liberal legislature that will be more likely to give then a 2/3 vote to raise taxes..

Fairness and accountability have little to do with this initiative.

It's all about shifting power from incumbents to special interests!

If it were truly reform, there would have been real instead of misleadingly phony criteria to keep cities and counties from being divided, and there would have been actual language to promote competitive districts. But there is none. The left vetoed such language.

There would have been strong conflict of interest provisions, to keep employers of lobbyists (not just lobbyists) and former legislative consultants (not just former legislative employees) off the Commission.

There would have been some minimal safeguards like better disclosure of who recruited applicants, or a jury-like random invitation process to prevent special interests from recruiting hidden ringers for the Commission. But there are no safeguards.

In fact, this measure is precisely tailored to put public interest group liberals like Common Cause, AARP, and ACLU allies, and perhaps even their Board members on the Commission with no restraints on their ability to gerrymander the state.

And a liberal gerrymander by this Commission would APPEAR biparstisan, because no one may ever know who or if hidden ringers are really working for some incumbent or special interest, instead of the interets of the Party in which they happen to be registered.

If the Mafia could recruit potential jury panelists to pack a jury pool, how would we ever be sure the prosecutor found them all and that the trial was honest? If the Mafia could write rules to allow them to pack the jury pool, would we adopt them?

And if a jury, once selected, could write its own rules of evidence (its "criteria"), instead of following the law, would we have any confidence in the result? Why would we give any jury such unlimited power?

This initiative is a mockery of reform!

Unless the "reform" you want is a tax increase and a MORE liberal legislature.

Under today's Rules at least Republicans can:

1. Elect a Republican Governor to force a fair plan OR

2. Referend a partisan gerrymander OR.

3. Use the threat of a referendum to force at least an incumbent protection gerrymander that blocks the 2/3 majority the left needs for a tax increase.

4. Count on the greed of Democrat incumbents to create a safe district Democratic majority instead of the incumbent-threatening gerrymander it would take to get a 2/3 liberal tax-raising majority.

5. Perhaps even propose and pass real redistricting reform that would protect cities and counties, and guard against special interests planting phony Republicans on the Commission

The left has, under the current system, so far failed to get a 2/3 vote for a tax increase....