Proposition 77


My take on CA Proposition 77 - YES!!!!

This is part of my ongoing series of posts on each of the Propositions we'll be voting on. Here is the original post, with my ground rules for evaluating propositions, my scorecard and links to each of my arguments.

Proposition 77 - Yes

Summary - This prop would set up a system for redistricting California. Currently, CA's districts are decided by the legislature every time there is a national census. This plan would immediately begin a process to redistrict and then require the same process to be followed to redistrict after a national census. It would create rules for forming a panel of three retired judges to decide on the districts, which would then be brought before the voters for approval.

Commentary - If you only vote yes on one of the propositions this year, vote YES on 77. California is chopped into nonsense districts, decided entirely by legislators who are far more interested in having a defendable seat (i.e. keeping their job) than they are about moving CA forward. It widely favors the two parties currently in power, because they can make deals that essentially lock in the current balance of power. As long as districts are large enough, it makes it almost impossible for a grassroots candidate to run, because the money required to compete would be difficult to raise. In addition, as long as regions are cut up along party lines, the seats will be nearly impossible to lose - no Republican will win where there is a population that's 80% registered Democrat, and vice-versa.

If we are to solve any of the problems that currently plague CA, we must redistrict. The only good legislator is a scared legislator. What I mean by that is that any representative that is in a safe district - one he is guaranteed to win in the next election - has no incentive to be responsive to voter's concerns. If he has nothing to lose, he can do whatever he wants, and politicians wants are pretty predictable - more power, more money, and kickbacks for their friends/lobbyists. The way you stop that is by making this legislator work for the people he represents, and the way to make that happen is to make sure his seat will be up for grabs in the next election. If he has to fight and work hard to make sure he is responsive to the interests of the people he represents, he will be a much better legislator.

While I'm not completely sold on some of the provisions of this proposition, it is a better system than what we have now and will help to bring some balance back. The parts I don't like are the more technical rules on how the judges are selected and the involvement the 2 parties have with that. However, I trust judges (who's job normally is to be objective and decide based on merit) more than I trust legislators and this proposition adds the requirement that the district map be brought back to the voters. I would prefer to have competent people do the districting themselves and not have to bring it back to the voters (who may not have the acumen to discern the subtleties), but in an imperfect world that is at least a layer of accountability and I think voters can at least spot obvious flaws.

Ultimately this is a good (though perhaps not great) solution to a very big problem. It is an absolutely vital yes vote to try and shake things up a bit more in the legislature and bring accountability back to our representation.

UPDATE: Here's a post with a nice summary of how we got in the mess we're in. (h/t California Conservative, and the Carnival of Arnold)

Posted: Sun - November 6, 2005 at 02:57 PM | | | | | | |

©