I like the current system Scott Blough. What proof is there that redistricting will change anything? Did it make a difference in Texas? Isn't Mr. Delay in some trouble for that? Do you really think the powers that be would let this be fair, or that any proposal out there is not really to benefit the maker of the motion? I believe Frederick Douglas said that those in power do not give up their power willingly, you must take it from them. Can the powerless in this day and age take power from the powerful and if they do, will they uphold your ideals of fairness, or become what they sought to change?

Sure, you can view it as a partisan issue if you like. The difference is the Governor is arguing for forming a committee of citizens chosen at random by the FPPC to draw up a reapportionment plan, so this isn't just redrawing of districts, it is actually arguing for a different way to draw up districts.

Assuming republicans would gain seats is not a foregone conclusion as the goal is to create competitive elections not republican victories. Sometimes there are unintended consequences.

I guess the real question is, if incumbents believe they are truly the best representative for their area, why would they worry if they had to appeal to different voters and communities?

Even democrats have introduced a plan and Fabien Nunez even recognizes the systems broken and they are in the majority.

Scott, you bring up a very good point. If an incumbents (or candidate) believes they are the best representative for the area, then they should be able to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters.

CAPC will be very involved in promoting redistricting and other governmental reform. At first blush, I like what I read about Arnold's idea but will leave it to our State Advisory Council to provide further guidance.

CAPC (California Association of Political Centrists, for any newbies) will be dedicating much of its energy in 2007 to election reform, with redistricting at the top of the list.
Whatever is decided, passed by legislators or put on the ballot, should be beyond reproach. Having a small board selected by the heads of political parties would leave out many DTS who left their parties out of frustration with the rigged system. The DTS are a large part of the electorate and should be included in the board that makes these decisions. Decline to State voters are not apathetic. They care very much, but do not find answers in the current system. Having a fair system with more competetive, accountable offices will make the whole process healthier and more representative of the people. I'm not sure that using elections officials to pick the pool will be the best way, because they are elected also, which means they are partisan. As both major parties say, there is no such thing as a non-partisan race. But, I do like the idea of selecting a large pool of citizens to work on the redistricting. A small board can be too easily "gotten to."

Mr. Blough,
Would you rather see Dick Cheney's daughter get married to her girlfriend, or see her have a child out of wedlock? Should the government be able to tell two people who love each other what they can or cannot do if it hurts no one else? I thought republicans wanted government out of peoples lives?

M Fillmore:

I thought this topic was about redistricting. Maybe, you should write a guest blog about what your interested in talking about.

In terms of redistricting, I'm much more interested in a citizens' board than the democrat proposal.

Katie: What do you think the State Advisory council will say about this topic?

Seems like Dennert beats the other outlets everyday. I like him when he gets angry. Hey Dennert! Somewhere a politician just ate dinner with a lobbyist!

I have calls in right now to get some input and the Executive Board is meeting on Monday so will probably know more next week or so.

This is kind of a trivial question, but when was the last time Republicans controlled both the state assembly and the state senate in California?

Right now, I'd pretty much say not in my lifetime, but I may be wrong.

Thanks Katie for the update.

Katie, Leslie:

Do you know if both plans present options to the legislature for approval or they just present their findings and move forward with the new plan?

Mr. Blough,
If redistricting happens and lets say every race was competitive, would it not invite even more money into the system, more corruption, more special interest money? Doesn't the current system limit this because of safe districts? Do you really want more of what you do not already like?

There are really two types of contributions, but only one is likely to be changed by redistricting:

1.) Campaign money from the big spenders with vested business or personal power interests is now as high as it can go and earmarked for sure winners to buy as much of their favor and access as possible. If in the future no race had a strong favorite, it might logically follow that those same dollars would be spread around with more candidates - in more contests and parties - to "hedge the bets" and guarantee continued access no matter who the winners would be.

2.) Those contributors who actually give money to support the candidates whose ideas, skills and character they admire would not be effected this way. It would be logical to assume they would continue to do all they could for those in whom they believe.

I'm all for redistricting, providing it's done in a fair and sensible manner. It should also be done at census time, in 2010.

Clearly the way the system is set up now, Democrats have an advantage statewide. The partisan in me doesn't mind being in the sacrificial goat district to maintain our advantage, as frustrating as it is to be stuck with someone like Audra Strickland and Elton Gallegly.

I know that even Republicans currently in power have fought the idea of redistricting, so the traditional thinking that reapportionment would hurt Dems, isn't necessarily true. Especially in the long run.

I truly believe we have the better message and plan, so I have faith that Dems would continue to prevail in dominant numbers statewide.

I do think that redistricting would push both parties more to the center, as extremists would lose their appeal and power bases in gerrymandered districts.

Maybe every district should reflect the statewide registration numbers of dems vs rep with dts thrown in based on statewide numbers. Now those would be some interesting looking districts!

Machiavelli,

Wouldn't it be pretty undemocratic for San Francisco to be represented by a Republican? The same goes for Rural Georgia to be represented by a Democrat.

I can't see Santa Monica being forced to have a close race as representing the will of the voters. Seems like it is a recipe for a tied election being tipped by the party with more money.

Of course, moving away from single district ideas could get rid of gerrymandering altogether. It would also foce people to vote for the ideas, not the personality.

Machiavelli--

First, I'm not against money in politics, just against the decisions that result from those contributions. It just seems like common sense that someone who receives tons of support from let's say, trial lawyers, should not be able to decide on tort reform. Or someone who receives large contributions from public employee unions should not be able to decide their raises and benefits packages.

Since money is speech and under Buckley v. Valeo you cannot ban money in politics, it seems more important to me to expand the conflict of interest law to include money received in one's campaign account, of which public officials would remove themselves from such decision, as so many do regularly for things they have a private interest in.

Or if they make a deicsion on that issue, they should not be able to accept the funds from those interests in payback.

In terms of more money in competitive districts, I'm not sure what would happen if districts get more competitive. I do not believe redistricting will make every district competitive either, especially if it's drawn around local communities, but I believe some seats will become more comeptitive than others forcing candidates to appeal to many different voters.

Feel free to share any back-up or evidence that more competitive elections bring more corruption as I really don't think it does. If anything compeitive elections will bring greater transparency and act as a greater check on at best suspect behavior.

To me, it's clear the system of conflict of interest and competitive elections needs to be shaken up big time, which is why I support these proposals.

Anything less is selling the public short and in some cases selling the public out.

The worst type of partisan wrote this post. He is the type that will vote for Elton Gallegly or not speak out against him. Then, Elton Gallegly goes back to DC year after year and empowers the likes of Delay who redistricts in the most blatant power grab ever.

After all that he comes bacl here and whines because there isn't enough Republican seats and wants Democrats to play fair?

I will back your plan BLOUGH when you stop backing Gallegly. Or should I say Delay. Or whatever right wing nut job you are supporting. You can't be a moderate but team up with the most wicked branch of the Republican party year after year.

Go sell your redistricting plan to Texas.