Reapportionment

The ballot initiative, sponsored by Gov. Schwarzenegger and others, would take the power to draw state legislative districts -- but not Congressional districts -- away from state legislators and instead give the drafting role to a citizens' commission. Such measures have a perfect record in California--they always lose. But opponents have been a little slow to organize, and perhaps the initiative can escape attack and attention, what with the presidential election and the gay marriage initiative on the same ballot. Don't bet on it, however. 

This piece in the Contra Costa Times asks whether there's "donor fatigue" as Gov. Schwarzenegger raises money for his redistricting initiative and perhaps, some sort of budget reform ballot measure (or measures) in November. It's a fair question. The problem may not be fatigue but donors' clear-eyed assessment of the political chances of redistricting and budget reform. Redistricting has a perfect record at the ballot over the last 15 years -- it's lost every time -- and budget reform proposals of all stripes (notably Prop. 56 in 2004--backed by Democrats and unions -- and Prop. 76 -- backed by Schwarzenegger and Republicans --  in 2005) have gone down to defeat. What is the point of spending good money on reform proposals that will go down to defeat, no matter their merits?

BASS EXPANDS ON TAX REVIEW: The incoming California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass explains her plans for a tax reform commission in an interview with the Associated Press. Aaron McLear, a spokesman for the governor, is quoted as saying that the governor is interested in tax reform but it's "not a substitute for reforming our broken budget system." Yes, and no. Clearly, the state budget process needs procedural changes, and there are strong arguments for establishing a real reserve and an ability to respond more effectively to changes in revenue. But the main failed attempts at spending-side budget reform suggests that budget reform may not be possible without tax reform.

Governor Schwarzenegger has used ballot measures more often than any political figure in American history. He has spent more $25 million on his political career, most of that on ballot initiatives (and to the TV ads and signature gathering such campaigns require). He's kicked in more than $1 million into a new redistricting initiative which has little chance of passing. (CORRECTION: This $1.25 million donation comes not from personal funds--but from one of his political committees).This begs a question: is the blockbuster democracy industry taking advantage of the wealthy governor?

Rick Claussen, the consultant and initiative expert who has been brought in to help qualify the current redistricting initiative in California, got in touch this week. Claussen, who works from the Sacramento suburbs, is one of the grown-ups in the direct democracy business and has one of its strongest records, particularly in winning "yes" campaigns, which are much more difficult than "no" campaigns. He worked on previous Schwarzenegger ballot campaigns in 2004 and 2005, and he expressed confidence by email that the redistricting measure will qualify in time for the November ballot.

Claussen says the initiative is on track to hit its target of 1.1 million signatures the first week of May; signatures will be submitted the week of May 12. That number of signatures is nearly twice the 694,354 legally required to make the ballot. But in the initiative business, it is standard operating procedure to submit hundreds of thousands more signatures than legally required -- in large part to speed up the qualification process. When more signatures than required are submitted, county elections officials -- who do the counting in California -- can count using "random sampling" techniques, rather than by going through every signature. If the random sample shows that the number of valid signatures is greater than 110 percent of the legally required number (and a validity rate of 70 percent is considered good in this business), then the initiative automatically qualifies for the ballot. This makes things much faster.

Julie Soderlund, press whiz and top-notch consultant for the California Dream Team, Governor Schwarzenegger's political committee, has been sending out newspaper editorial after newspaper editorial endorsing the governor's latest effort to take reapportionment out of the hands of the California legislature.

Reapportionment reform is a good idea, sure. Legislators drawing their own districts is a conflict of interest, and a lack of political competition -- exacerbated by a bipartisan gerrymander in 2001 -- is a significant factor in California's legislative gridlock. And most of the editorials make strong points. But they don't make much difference.

In 2005, Schwarzenegger backed Proposition 77, another reapportionment reform initiative. And he had the endorsements of every significant newspaper in the state. Of the 36 largest papers in California, Prop. 77 was endorsed by... 36.

Papers of every ideological stripe backed it. It lost anyway. Voters either didn't understand the issue, or didn't care. Democrats argued it was a right-wing power grab. Look for apathy (recession and budget revenues will outweigh redistricting in voters' minds) and partisan objections to sink this measure too. It's become almost an iron law of California politics: reapportionment measures fail.

The LA Clippers don't win much. But to call one genre of ballot measures -- reapportionment initiatives -- the Clippers of initiatives is an insult... to the Clippers.

Or to put it another way. Such measures lose. Always. Dozens of such initiatives have been filed in California in the past 15 years. How many have been approved by voteres? Zero.

But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former state Controller Steve Westly are trying again. The two teamed up in 2004 to convince voters to pass Propositions 57 and 58, companion measures to refinance the state's debt and to establish a balanced budget requirement in the state constitution. The measures won, but the initiatives have failed to live up to Schwarzenegger's promise that they would fix the state budget "once and for all." Now they want to prevent a repeat of the "bipartisan gerrymander" the Golden State saw when new district lines were drawn seven years ago.

That gerrymander ended competition between the parties.Instead, the state was carved up into seats that were safe for Democrats and Republicans. Swing districts were eliminated. Democrats liked it because it locked in their majorities; Republicans embraced it because it prevented further losses. In 2004, not a single one of the 153 legislative and congressional seats changed hands from one party to another.