The Process of Mapping out the Boundaries of Electoral Districts in the United States - Essay Example

?Compare and contrast California's wide Redistricting Process with the one done in 2001. Will the new process live up to its promise? Why or Why not? Redistricting can be defined as the process of mapping out the boundaries of electoral districts in the United States. The process of redistricting is primarily carried out based on the population changes that reflect in the census. While, in a majority of the states, the process of redistricting is carried out by the legislative, seven states, including California carry out this process through an independent commission to reduce the level of legislative politics. Every ten years, the census determines the total number of people who live in the state of California. According to the constitution of California, after the census, the boundaries of the districts need to be readjusted for the election purposes through the process of redistricting (Butler and Cain 1990). The main goal of this process is the establishment of electoral districts that are somewhat equal in terms of population. The process of redistricting affects the electorate for the state legislation, the House of Representatives as well as the State Board of Equalization. The plans of redistricting are passed in the legislature to become a law. In this study, California’s 2011 State wide redistricting process is compared with the one carried out in 2001. Furthermore, the question as to whether the new process would live up to the promises is also explored in detail. Redistricting in California (2001) When the redistricting process started in California for 2001, the process was carried out by the legislature. In California legislature, each of the houses had the authority to draw its own electoral district. The redistricting plan comes out because of a collaborative effort of both the legislative house and the congressional house. The final authority rests with the Governor who holds the veto power. The process of redistricting was carried out in a very open format in 2001. The basis of the redistribution process is through a database that contains both census information as well as the election data through a sophisticated database. As the process of redistricting has a very high influence on the way in which elections would take place, there is a lot of political underlining behind this process. When analyzed historically, a few facts come out in the prominence related to the process of redistricting in California. In 1982, the first instance of debate and controversy began because it was considered that the redistricting plans were very much in favour of the Democrats (Caves, 1990). During the 1980s, democrats continued to win a high majority of seats, even though popular opinion was in favour of the Republicans. The Republicans feared that the election results would continue to be in favour of the Democrats; Senator Pete Wilson drafted a very even plan that was later approved by the supreme court of the state (Benenson, 1999). Before 2001, the situation further complicated because of the control that the Democrats had in both the houses of the legislatures. Therefore, in order to get a higher advantage, the attempt was to target some specific Republic strongholds, so that some seats are secured for the Democrats (Culver, 1996). This paved the way for the strong partisan politics when it came to redistricting. Fully aware that the State of California had a strong Democratic foundation, the Republican group took the upper hand and drafted a proposal that would have removed the process to the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court did not approve of it because it violated the single subject rule. Therefore, the 2001 process went ahead with the control under legislature. Post attaining its status as a state without a racial dominance or majority, 2001 was the first time that the district boundaries were redrawn. Because of their majority, Democrats hired Michael Berman who led the redistricting process. The redistricting plan indicated the predictable 30-20 division between the Democrats and the Republics, which was met with a protest from the minority population as well as from protestors who felt that the process continued to be one of gerrymandering as before (Scheidegger, n.d). The indications from the Republics indicated that they were in consent for the minority status for a decade, with a primary purpose to hold on to the existing seats that they had. During this redrafting process, the voices of protests primarily came from women as well as the minority groups such as Latinos because they felt a clear dilution of their voting power (Epstein, 2007). One of the major protests that happened was carried out by the MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund), who strongly felt that the votes of the Hispanic population in California were weakened on purpose, and this group asked the Department of Justice to overturn the redistricting, while proposing that they would redraw the plans. However, in 2002, even though the court ruled that the votes were not weakened, the process of redistricting drew increased scorn. Therefore, the redistricting process that happens once every 10 years did not create much of political heat as expected because both the parities agreed that the process would be a ‘status quo redistricting’ in which both Democrats and Republics would keep the already existing seats. Hence, the process of 2001 can be described as a bipartisan gerrymander of districts in the state of California. Process of Redistricting in California 2011 The decade long period between 2001 and 2011 was critical as it brought about a radical change in the way in which redistricting happens in the state of California. With the increasing protest that happened after the 2001 redistricting on account of both increase in partisanship and minority protest, many changes happened before the actual process takes place in 2001. With the approval of Proposition 11 in 2008 as well as with the Proposition 20 in 2010, the control over redistricting was transferred from the legislature to an independent commission, which will be in charge of redrawing the boundaries for both stage legislatives as well as for congressional districts (Hernandez, 2011). The Proposition 11 that was passed in 2008 authorized the creation of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (Ballotpedia, 2008). According to this proposition, the process of setting or redrawing the boundaries of the 120 legislative districts as well as four districts of board of equalization would no longer be handled by the elected legislatives, but it would be passed on a 14 member commission. It also mentions about how the election of the 14 member committee would be carried out. According to Proposition 11, this committee should include five democrats, five republicans and four members who do not belong to these parties. The commission can appoint both lawyers and consultants if they think it is necessary. To select the commission the government auditors select 60 registered voters. Out of these, he auditors pick eight commission members by a draw of lots. These commissioners select rest of the six members. Proposition 11 was met with support as well as opposition. Some key arguments that were made in support of the proposition were that this initiative will help in opening up the process of redistricting in such a way that it will not be controlled solely by one single party. In the past, out of the 120 seats, not even one of them changed party hands during the election process for the past two years. Another argument in favour of this proposition is that earlier, legislators had to face a conflict of interest and their vested interest would come in between the process of redistricting. This matter is taken care of when the power is given to an independent commission that has accurate representation. This commission, because it has equal representation as well as neutral representation, would be able to make decisions keeping the public good in consideration, instead of giving thought to political aspirations. The key arguments that came into forefront against the Proposition 11 was that it would be a waste of tax payers money because each member of the commission would get a high salary and there would be additional expenses in terms of logistics, staffing, setting up offices and so on. The politicians can have a strong influence on the members of the commission, and hence influence the process of redistricting. This proposition does not guarantee any representation for minority communities such as the Hispanic population. The proposition also did not include reforms for the congressional electoral districts and hence, was not holistic in terms of reforms. To take the step of reformation of redistricting further, Proposition 20 was passed in 2010, which entrusted the task of redrawing the congressional district boundaries to the commission (Ballotpedia, 2010). This proposition also defines the ‘community of interest’ as a population, that has a lot of similarity in terms of both social conditions as well as economic life, and hence they should be included in one single district (Daily Kos, 2011). The main argument that was responsible for Proposition 20 was the big change that happened in the demographics of California. While the overall population did not grow relatively to the entire United States, it underwent a shift towards the east. Many people were moving towards in mainland area from the coastal areas. For example, the San Francisco Bay Area grew less than 1%, the Central Valley population increased by more than 21%, (Ballotpedia, 2010). As with Proposition 11, Proposition 20 also met with some support and some opposition. The argument in favour said the proposition would create fair districts and it will provide a sense of greater accountability to the representatives of the state in the United States Congress. Any scope of unfair practice would be minimized because the politicians will not have the power to redraw the boundaries to carve out a particular set of population. The arguments against this Proposition were that it would be a further waste of the taxpayers’ money. Another argument was that against the ‘community of interest clause’. Comparisons between both the plans According to the research and analysis, most supporters feel that the change in the process of redistricting is a welcome one. Traditionally, California has always withstood the worst of the bipartite division that resulted in the same candidates or party representing a particular area from time to time. When both the processes are compared, it comes out clearly that the new process has an upper hand due to the following main reasons. 1. Partisanship – Due to the bipartisanship, there was a strong argument that election results could always be predetermined as the districts showed clear indication of Democrat or Republican dominance. This was further strengthened because for the past two election cycles, not even a single seat changed the political hands. Election critics as well as analyst felt that such a predictable and predetermined behaviour was not a sign of a healthy democracy because there was no scope for change or improvement. Even with the changes in the pattern of the population, the partisanship did not change (Public Policy Institute of California, 2008). Therefore, it became necessary that the process of redistricting is carried out through an independent commission that does not have political affiliations, but at the same time gives equal representation to the political groups. The aim of the redistricting process in 2011 is to make sure that there is no grabbing of power by the political parties in terms of ‘safe seats’. Hence, there would be no unfair advantage given to any particular party. The election would become more competitive and fair, when compared to the elections carried out during the previous years. 2. Scope to Mobilize the Moderate or neutrals – Over the past decade, it was noticed that many voters, especially those who associate more with ethnic diverse groups, rather than the two dominant political parties are electing not to vote. A moderate electorate has a better chance to represent itself when it understands that the redistricting process is not carried out because of vested political interests (Jarvis, 2009). Hence, there is a higher scope to mobilize them with the help of interest groups so that the participation in the election increases. It also gives an opportunity for the moderate group to make their voices heard to the stakeholders. Therefore, the group of voters who hitherto felt that their participation in the election did not matter much because they all belonged to a district where the representation has already been decided during the process of redistricting, can be mobilized. The four seats in the commission that are not affiliated to either Republicans or Democrats can be used to provide representation to diverse ethnic groups. This will also encourage them to participate more in the election process. 3. Better Representation for the state – Most critics feel that the process of election carried out after the redistricting based on the proposal of the commission would provide better representation for the state. This set of elected leaders would be more capable of understanding the issues of the state because they would be elected through a more convincing mandate, rather than from a safe seat. Moreover, the consideration of trends in population as well as ‘community of interests’ would play a crucial role in determining the structure of the legislature in the future. In addition, as the chances of any safe seats or areas of dominance would reduce considerably, the election candidates would make efforts to go a step ahead to adequately understand the issues of their constituencies and provide better representation once they are elected. While the changes through Proposition 11 and 20 is much anticipated, some critics feel that it would be a colossal expenditure on the state without showing much benefits. The 14-member commission would be one that requires a high maintenance and support due to the ardours task ahead of it. Therefore, sceptics hold the opinion that the taxpayers’ money can be put to better use than spending it on the commission for redistricting. Even though the commission tried to maintain good representation, the minority groups have not yet been assured of a membership in the commission. This has resulted in them protesting as well as not participating in the elections. Another group feels that redistricting would not help in reducing the partisan behaviour of the elected representatives because; the partisanship is not due to redistricting alone. However, in spite of all these arguments, redistricting process with the help of an independent commission seems to be a good and strong option, and brings about a hope of change in the state. Conclusion For the state of California, the process of redistricting always brings out new arguments and debates. From 2008 until today, the establishment of the independent commission has raised many hopes as well as apprehensions among the electorate as well as the political parties. While the independent commission established for redrawing the boundaries is expected to carry out a fair task without any political influences, there are increased apprehensions about any possible loopholes that could undermine the entire process. The efficacy of this entire process could probably be judged only after the election is carried out to understand if there was a visible impact of the exercise. References References Ballotpedia (2010), California Proposition 20, Retrieved July 6, 2011http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_20,_Congressional_Redistricting_%282010%29 Ballotpedia (2008), California Proposition 11, Retrieved July 6, 2011 http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_11_%282008%29 Benenson, B (1999) California's redistricting puzzle falling into place. Campaigns & Elections 20(1) p. 12 Butler, D and Cain, B (1990) Congressional redistricting: comparative and theoretical perspectives, New York : Macmillan Caves, R (1990).Determining land use policy via the ballot box : the growth initiative blitz in California, Land Use Policy, 7(1) p.70-79. Culver, J (1996). Reforming California government, Comparative State Politics, 17 (3), 22-28. Jarvis, M. G. (2009) Redistricting Reform Could Save California from Itself, California Journal of Politics and Policy. 11(2) p. 22-23 Public Policy Institute of California (2008), Redistricting Reform, Can it reduce Partisanship? Retrieved July 6, 2011 http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_908EMRB.pdf Hernandez, C. A. (2011), Redistricting in California: Its Effects on Voter Turnout in Minority Populations and Misrepresentation .CMC Senior Theses: California Daily Kos (2011): California Redistricting - What Is A "Community Of Interest" Anyway? Retrieved, July 6, 2011 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/09/954297/-California- RedistrictingWhat-Is-A-Community-Of-Interest-Anyway Epstein, D (2007). Estimating the Effect of Redistricting on Minority Substantive Representation. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 23(2), p. 499-518 Scheidegger, K (n.d). Defining the Gerrymander. Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. Retrieved July 6, 2011. http://www.cjlf.org/publctns/ GerrymanderPaper2.pdf Read More