Like Kos, I am leaning in favor of supporting Proposition 77. Perhaps the most compelling reason to support redistricting in California NOW is that the new districts are likely to give Democrats a better shot at retaking the House in 2006.
Consider what Republicans have to say about the 2001 remap (sorry, registration required):
Former Assembly Republican leader Jim Brulte says the 2001 California redistricting that has helped propel Proposition 77 onto next month's ballot was fueled by a GOP bluff.
"It was a bluff that we orchestrated well," he said.
Brulte said he talked with Karl Rove, President Bush's political adviser.
"He wasn't pushing us; he just told me, 'If you can deliver 19 Republican seats, we'll hold the Congress of the United States,' " Brulte said.
Republicans currently hold 20 seats in California and nearly all of them are bats***t crazy Republicans. California deserves better.
Apparently, the GOP threatened Democrats in 2001 by suggesting they would spearhead a redistricting referendum if they did not get their way on the redistricting plan. As a result, the legislature caved, giving Republicans what they wanted--congressional seats--while preserving safe seats for assembly Democrats.
In my view, this is the worst of both worlds--protecting often unscrupulous local Democrats from competition while preventing Democrats in Congress from gaining the upperhand against the Bush Administration which has a fetish for screwing our state.
More from the article:
Ultimately, the two parties struck a deal, designed to protect the status quo in the Assembly, state Senate and congressional delegation, but at the expense of competitive races.
Key districts would tilt strongly Democratic or Republican, thus basically assuring the GOP of 20 out of 53 congressional seats to meet Rove's needs but also ensuring that Democrats would control both houses of the Legislature.
While I'm as partisan as they come, I have to admit that California's legislative Democrats are politically inept. The legislature is immensely unpopular and is seemingly unable to come up with proposals that would improve the image of our state party. Perhaps if greater numbers of Democrats were concerned about reelection or if they actually had a chance at knocking off Republicans, they would develop a brand of progressive politics that would make Californians proud of their Democratic state representatives and their state party...
Since I'm somewhat ambivalent about the size of the Democratic majority on the state level and since Democrats will likely hold a majority but not the 2/3 needed to pass important spending bills, I'm willing to see a loss of say 2-3 state-level Democratic seats in exchange for the election of say 4-6 moderate Republicans with whom Democrats may actually get to 2/3 and be able to get necessary compromise measures passed on budget matters...
The main focus of redistricting should be on its impact on Democratic congressional chances. At the federal level, California is becoming more and more enraged with the GOP. As congressional districts are currently configured, that rage can not be channelled against the Bush Aministration and its congressional allies. Certainly, redistricting would entail some risk for some Democratic incumbents because it might shift their districts to other regions. But no matter where in the state the districts end up, Democrats will likely have a net advantage.
As the minority party, we need to be willing to take whatever risks are needed to win. If Democrats end up losing 2 or so seats in the redistricting process (something that would be unlikely to happen based on an analysis of the state's congressional seats and even more unlikely if a 2006 wave develops), it doesn't really matter! If you're a minority in the House, it doesnt'rt really matter whether you're down 10 seats or 12 seats--you'll still lose on nearly every vote because Republicans will always be able to armtwist themselves to victory. Thus, while there is indeed risk for individual Democratic incumbents, there's not much risk for the party as a whole. (Nancy Pelosi, of course, sees redistricting opposition as her number one priority because she's primarily concerned with the interests of Democratic incumbents in the state who are solid votes for our hapless leader in intra-caucus power struggles.)
The potential pay-offs of redistricting in 2006 for Democrats, however, are immense. I believe Democrats could flip up to four seats in California if te state is redistricted in a fair manner.
That could be enough to ensure a majority, allowing Rep. Henry Waxman to use his committee to investigate the hell out of Republicans; putting Rep. George Miller into a poosition to fight for working families; to help Rep. Tom Lantos bring sanity to our foreign policy; and to elect Rep. Nancy Pelosi speaker. But perhaps Democrats prefer being an entrenched minority to the prospect of taking back our country by taking back the House.
The Republican Redistricting Hit-list:
1. Rep. Dan Lungren CA-03, Rep. Wally Herger CA-02, Rep. Doolittle CA-04
The problem these Republicans face is that there are three solidly Republican districts in an area that may only be able to support two. There's a reason Rep. Doolittle's so afraid of redistricting. A sane plan would probably put all of the crazy Republican areas in the Northeastern reaches of the state in one solidly Republican Sacramento exurban district and, perhaps, a toss-up Yolo and Sacramento suburban district...
2. The loathesome Rep. Richard Pombo
This district was designed to protect Democratic Reps. Tauscher and Cardoza as much as Pombo, but both have proven themselves good vote-getters. Tauscher would have nothing to worry about if she were given back the Democratic-leaning portions of the East bay, but giving Stockton back to Pombo or having his district reach in a sensible way into Sacramento suburbs would threaten the incumbent big-time. Cardoza might have a harder time, but he is an extremely conservative Democrat who should be able to win a more conservative district...while Pombo is just polarizing.
3. Rep. Elton Galleghy
This Ventura County district has a growing and active Democratic population, but it takes in Republican portions of Santa Barbara, excludes Democratic portions of Ventura County, and had Thousand Oaks added to the district in 2001 in order to protect the incumbent. He is a wingnut who could be vulnerable to a well-funded suburban (perhaps, Jewish) Democrat in the mold of Reps. Schiff, Harman, Sherman, and Davis (in San Diego) who were so effective at knocking off incumbents in the 1990s... but, alas, the district was made so Republican that that could not happen...meanwhile, Lois Capps in Dem-trending Santa Barbara would be invulnerable, even in a swing district and Brad Sherman would easily be able to hold his seat even with the addition of a Republican-leaning city like Simi Valley...
4. Rep. David Dreier
This district is an outrageous effort to divide the San Gabriel Valley Asian-American community-of-interest in order to protect Rep. Dreier's reelection and to solidify Adam Schiff (who easily beat a Republican by 10 points even without redistricting help!). A fair redistricting would create a new district out of the Western portions that would create a Dem-leaning district that would likely elect an Asian-American Democrat (Rep. Carol Liu, Rep. Judy Chu?) and combine the Eastern areas into an inland empire-based district.
5. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
A fair redistricting would reform a Long Beach-based district that Rohrabacher wouldn't have a chance of holding and that State Sen. Alan Bumenthal could walk into...
6. Rep. Ken Calvert
This wingnut represents swing areas like Riverside that are appended to insanely Republican Orange County. If his district were drawn according to the rules, it would include Democratic-leaning Perris and Mareno Valley instead of Orange County in addition to the Riverside County portions of his district that only favored Bush by 3.8 points in 2000. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has been so used to dividing up Democratic areas of this region among Republicans, there are not obvious Dems to run.
7.Rep. Mary Bono
Bono is one Republican who might be able to actually hold a toss-up district. Still, a fair redistricting would make her more reason to sweat than a 110-degree Palm Springs summer day. It seems to me the most sensible configuration of the region is to link Dem-leaning Imperial county to the South with Eastern Riverside. Meanwhile, if you look at the lines in the Southwestern corner of the district, they are carefully drawn to include crazy Republican Murrietta (at the intersection of the 15 and 215).
8. Home of the retiring "Dukestir"
This seat would probably stay Republican no matter what. Still, it would be more competitive had Dem-stronghold UCSD and surrounding area not been carefully excised from the Southern portion of the district. Moreover, it seems to me that Republican-leaning Carlsbad, a coastal town just north of the district fits with the rest of the district better than rabidly Republican Escondido. This open seat, in a fair map, could be a toss-up that only a socially liberal Republican could hold...
Sure, redistricting could make some Democrats vulnerable, but as I have illustrated, most Democrats who might be threatened are 1. well-suited to winning moderate districts and 2. would be protected by the immense impopularity of the national Republican party. Republicans, meanwhile, have many, many vulnerabilities and their federal officeholders have not developed the moderate personas that would allow them to win if unprotected by the gerrymander.
This is something that Rove knows. This is something incumbent Republican wingnuts know. That is why they are running scared of redistricting reform in CA and that's why Democrats should think about supporting the measure.
Edited to fix Html issue.