Comparing 2011 and 2001 Redistricting of California State - Essay Example

?Comparing and 2001 redistricting of California In the US, there are nineteen s and all these s have one form from the three types of redistricting commissions which are the Advisory Commissions, Back Up Commissions and Primary Commissions which are charged with various issues of the state (Rosen ). In California boundaries determine administrative lines of Board of Equalization districts and Assembly. Currently, the California State Legislature draws those lines themselves. However, due to politicization this has resulted to decreased number of persons turning out for census as well as redistricting. Would 2011 redistricting when appropriately done help to ensure that every voter is equally represented unlike previous redistricting of 2001? This paper thus compares the 2011 and 2001 redistricting of California State. Introduction As compared to 2001 redistricting the 2011 redistricting disagreements appears to start again in California (Rosen). This has been sparked by the recently redistricting reform proposals that were offered by Governor of California state, Democratic legislators as well as lobby groups and ordinary citizens. Throughout their proposals, these legislatures and activists embrace that redistricting should be done by an independent commission. According to researches, this observations redistricting by 2011 would result to be one of the best ever experienced California. This would be because the opportunity the process would allow citizens to decide democratically the mapping of their administration through the independent commission elected by their leaders based on the authority vested to them (Maviglio 38). These commissions are as established by the people and the federal government. For instance: Advisory Commission: establishes suggestions which are handed over to legislative. These suggestions can be adopted or rejected by the legislature. The advisory commission is practiced in Vermont as well as in Maine. Primary commissions: this team has the independent mandate to formulate and implement redistricting projections. States that practice this type of arrangement are New Jersey, Ohio, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Alaska, Arkansas, Washington, and California (Cressman 6). Backup Commissions: convenes only when the legislature has failed to enact redistricting program. In such events, this commission has the capacity of drawing new district boundaries. This type of commission is active in Connecticut Illinois, Oklahoma, Texas and Mississippi. Thomas of Brookings Institute observes that after every ten as stipulated by the government of the United States, a census is conducted in the all States which is used to readjust population figures throughout the country (Statewide Database). These established population figures would then applied to determine redistricting which is the re-drawing of state legislative district and Congressional leadership. Evaluations indicate that immediately the census outcomes have been released, states would be commissioned to carry out the redistricting activities. In considerable number of states the activities of redistricting are led by the state governor and legislature. In California boundaries determine administrative lines of Board of Equalization districts and Assembly. Currently, the California State Legislature draws those lines themselves. However, due to politicization this has resulted to decreased number of persons turning out for census as well as redistricting (Bickerstaff 45). For instance, Thomas of Brookings Institute (Maviglio 43) intimated that some Congressional Districts are systematically crafted inkblots. In such districts, voters might be made to think that they choose elected officials, however it’s the elected leaders who choose them. However, the legislative redistricting, carried out by an independent commission comprising partisan appointees, would be less egregious. This arrangement has received consent from political scientists who agree that an independent commission of 2011 is fairer. In comparison to 2001, the weaknesses and strengths of independent redistricting commissions can be seen by the new California Commission of 2011. As reported by the commission, there was less partisan conflict as well as less partisan regional conflict. This observation would also be approved by the general public (Schuck 93). The general public opined that the use of retired independent professionals, as envisioned by the California proposals, would be unique among other commissions and would offer the State an opportunity to make exhaustive decisions to benefit the community of California. The new process of 2011 would live up to its promise Unlike fairness that would be in 2011, those charged with the responsibility of redistricting founded their activities on partisan and other arrangements that resulted to conflict of interest 2001 (Rosen). In addition, as compared to diminished political space in 2001, most of the 2011 California proposals by political leaders promise increased electoral space and competition than earlier redistricting commissions. This would be so since the Governor’s demanding that there is need to form an 11-member citizen’s commission that would have no politicians or lobbyists allowed to supervise redistricting of California. However, 2011 electoral competition is intricate due to human geography and definitional difficulties created in 2001. For instance, California has surplus of political areas which are firmly Republican or Democratic. According to Cressman (17), to make areas of California like Newport Beach or San Francisco competitive would oblige that the independent body charged with redistricting would need to have positively symmetrical focus. However, I m of contrary view that this would not spoil any previously created standards of 2001 for local boundaries as well as communities of interest. In addition, that which was learned from earlier directives by the courts would not help shape the knowledge of 2011 leaders of California. According to the California Journal’s evaluations of legislative races of 2011 redistricting would consider the maximum number of competitive races that occurred in 2001(Cressman 19). These 2001 figures as would not be as competitive and safe as it would be in 2011. For example, in 2001 only few of the Assembly and Senate races were found to be truly competitive and open as compared to would be in 2011 Senate and Assembly race. During 2001, there were undefined term limits which had tremendous effects on competition; however, 2011 measures would be established by the independent body which would consider founding better and fair terms for all residents and contestants in California. Therefore, the results would be better than the 2001 congressional redistricting in California which resulted to causing partisan gerrymandering (Rosen). The Statewide Database calls for an independent commission by most of the community leaders, lobby groups as well as legislatures in 2011 as compared to 2001 redistricting reforms would offer good outcomes. This is also supported by scholars who opine that redistricting boundary and other reform in 2011 in California would not result in an explosion of contested House races as observed earlier in 2001. However, this new directive that redistricting should be done by an independent body would also offer California with competitive representatives. This would be good for California State since it would provide the electorate with the opportunity to elect leaders who are moderates and who would capable of enacting timely and realistic budgets. According to forecasted evaluations of 2011 by vast professionals, California’s own experiences in this redistricting would result to modest determinations than in 2001 (Maviglio, 59). According to forecasts of 2011 by political leaders, nationally or even in the state of California, independent redistricting would create a political nirvana to be emulated by other states unlike what was caused by 2001 gerrymandering. In addition this measure would offer 2011 with nonpartisan political reason for political gridlock and hyper-partisanship therefore making California State safer for all citizens (Schuck 120). Resolution to avoid conflict of interest As compared to 2001, South Bay Association of Chamber of Commerce (SBACC) has been one of the groups that supported redistricting change. This group established concrete measures by 2008 that would serve major roles in making 2011 redistricting a success. Its lobbying in the year 2010 resulted in voters largely passing four key measures that established or expanded a redistricting commissions' jurisdiction. By 2011 this lobbying would diminish legislative authority and misuse of power vested to the officials in 2001. In fact this is one of the founding observations that would lead to fair redistricting in California State. For example, small cities like Winters, Hercules Davis, Woodland and others found in the outskirts of significant metropolitan region of Solano County have been included in the new mapping (Maviglio 88). In addition, as compared to 2001, there are changes meant for the state Assembly which would subdivide Solano between two districts in 2011. The two districts would be given equal share and on demographic and geographic diversities. Besides, unlike in 2001 the state Senate of 2011 would be merged sensibly from the two district Assemblies. All these changes in 2011 would lead California voters to drop measures that resulted to their earlier incapacitation by dishonest leaders (Schuck 136). According to (SBACC), the new process of 2011 would live up to its promise since plans by independent bodies would participate. Among them South Bay Association of Chamber of Commerce (SBACC) would be spearheading the implementation of California Voters FIRST Act which aims to get rid of the conflict of interest that was prevalent in 2001. This would lead to the creation of a 14-person ordinary citizens redistricting commission of California. The established California Voters FIRST Act would also create a politically balanced Commission comprising 5 Republicans, 5 democrats as well as 4 others in 2011. According to SBACC through this Act, commissioners would be chosen based on their practices of impartiality, skills, and they would also reflect California’s geographic and demographic diversity. Besides, the Act would protect societies, counties and cities. The Act would make a list of prioritized mapping methodology which would be followed by the Commission. This list would make sure that the constitution of federal and state governments are adhered to (Schuck Peter, 144). The Act would take into account that California’s communities, cities, and counties are accorded due respect in 2011 unlike 2001 that there was no regard for them. According to Maviglio (92), the 2011 process would be free and open to all California citizens as compared to 2001. The Commission would also embrace public hearings so as to receive public input. The Act would eliminate the acts of closed-door political arrangements by legislators to draw district regions that would protect these unscrupulous legislatures. According to (Clark 58), the capacity of the Citizen’s Redistricting Commission involves the district mapping of the California Senate, Assembly and Board of Equalization representatives in the following redistricting cycle after each decennial census preceding 2011. However, the Commission would not be charged with the mapping of the U.S. Congressional districts. As a result of lobbying from such organizations as well as the public outcry for redistricting and California elections to be more open and competitive, the Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled methods of mapping California (Maviglio 95). This measure would help contain the highly politicized and partisan exercise of mapping legislative and congressional district boundaries. This call has been heeded despite his previous redistricting efforts being rejected by voters; the governors’ proposal a year latter has been adopted. However, opposition adherents have been less enthusiastic about redrawing the boundary lines despite their pledge to work with the governor, this group expressed some concern regarding the plan. This so because they believe this is not their party policy and neither is it for the party’s benefit (Bickerstaff 101). Unlike in 2001, the 2011 State lawmakers are responsibly giving suggestions on how redistricting should be done in accordance with sound agreements. This kind of decision was also harbored by the founding fathers of the United States who abhorred that decisions should be people driven and fair. As written by James Madison in the 52nd federalist ‘an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with the people.’ The answer was to assert membership right in the House of Representatives according to populations. This is so because the founders of the American Constitution wanted it that way. In most instances debate on redistricting process in California State is normally competitive and politicized. According to (Maviglio 119), the real goal of redistricting is to readjust constituents in designed ways that would benefit the party in leadership. However, as observed by (Bickerstaff 112), by changing the current district lines drawn in 2001 which are widely perceived as having been established to protect sitting officials would not better redistricting in 2011. This is because there are inbuilt convictions within the people that these are only political gimmicks. For instance there is evidence based on the involvements of the incumbent Governor of California who has cited that in the recently concluded elections across the state, only a handful of congressional and legislative seats changed parties (Clark 70). This argument is supported by Fred Keeley, a former assemblyman from Santa Cruz who was largely considered to be a victim of the 2001 redistricting process. For example the Governor’s proposal demands that there is need to form an 11-member citizen’s commission that would have no politicians or lobbyists allowed to supervise redistricting of California. He suggests that the team of these potential commissioners should be chosen by different county and city elections representatives (Clark 97) . Conclusion In conclusion, it is evident from the way the federal government is acting to establish that the new strategy of redistricting would last as promised. This is supported by actions taken by both the government and lobby groups through founding addresses for the strategically established boundary review team throughout California. These addresses which would be used as data banks for collecting public opinion on redistricting are situated in proximities of public reach which would eventually result to positive redistricting of 2011 unlike that of 2001. This is so since the process would be fair based on established changes by the current leadership of California. Work Cited ____Groups that supported redistricting change: 20011 Bickerstaff Steve. Lines in the sand: congressional redistricting: University of Texas Press, 2007. Clark George. Stealing Our Votes: How Politicians Conspire To Control Elections and How To Stop Them. Dorrance Publishing Co., Inc., 2004 Cressman Derek. The Recall's Broken Promise: How Big Money Still Runs California Politics. The Poplar Institute, 2007. Maviglio Steven. California Republican Redistricting Hypocrisy: Statewide Database, Berkeley, 2011. Rosen Carol: San Jose Redistricting Commission: Ready to Send Recommendations to City Council. crosen@community-newspapers.com retrieved on 22/6/2011. Schuck Peter: Meditations of a militant moderate: Cool Views on Hot Topics: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006. South Bay Businesses Support Redistricting Reform Proposal (SBACC): 2008. Statewide Database: California's Redistricting & the Citizens Redistricting Commission. University of California, Berkeley, 2011. Read More