CURRY CHANDLER
Staff Writer
Of the eight initiatives that Californians will be voting on this fall, one seeks to amend the state constitution with a new redistricting plan.
If passed by the voters, Proposition 77 would change the way that California voting districts are reapportioned.
The federal census measures the population of California every 10 years, and district boundaries are redrawn based on the census count, with the goal to create districts as equal in population as possible. Currently, the job of revising district boundaries is the duty of the California Legislature. Prop. 77 would have a three-member panel of retired judges draw up the redistricting plans.
The proposition also would institute additional requirements for drawing new boundaries.
Among these requirements: Districts would not be able to have a population difference of more than 1 percent. The dividing of counties and cities into multiple districts would be minimized, and the redistricting panel would be prohibited from considering partisan political issues when drawing up the reapportionment plans.
There would also be an approval process that would include public hearings to allow citizens to suggest plans themselves. After the unanimous approval of a redistricting plan, the plan would be included in the following primary and general elections. If rejected by the voters, another panel would be chosen to construct a new plan for the next primary and general elections.
Supporters of the initiative have dubbed the proposition “The Voter Empowerment Act.” The argument in support of the plan hinges on the claim that the final say in the decision-making process is given to the voters. With a rallying cry for holding politicians accountable, individuals and organizations such as the People’s Advocate group have championed Prop. 77 as a legislative broom that will “clean up Sacramento” and as a “common sense, bipartisan solution.”
A number of groups have allied themselves against Prop. 77, calling the initiative a political ploy filled with loopholes. The groups’ concerns and resources have been consolidated as “No On Prop. 77” (noonproposition77.com). Among the complaints with the plan is the three-person panel that would draw up the new boundaries.
“Redistricting California, a diverse state of 37 million people, is too big and too important for just three unaccountable people,” the group said in a statement.
Others have also found fault with the fact that the panel members would be selected by politicians, and this has fueled fears that the appointees would serve the interests of those who appoint them.
“How will Prop. 77 judges be independent from the politicians who choose them for the job?” the “No On Prop. 77” group said in the same statement.
The fact that the initiative would amend the state constitution has also been a source of conflict.
But supporters of the proposition maintain that the public benefits greatly from the plan.
“Fair districts mean competitive elections. Competitive elections ensure our elected officials listen to citizen voices and not just campaign contributors,” supporters said in an official rebuttal.
11-03-2005