End California gerrymandering (DKos)

End California gerrymandering (DKos)

by kos
Fri Jan 14th, 2005 at 10:39:50 PST

I'll just steal from Matt:

GERRYMANDERING IN CALIFORNIA. Last week, Kevin Drum said that even though gerrymandering is terrible, California Democrats should oppose Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to end it in order to preserve partisan advantage. Today, Peter Beinart says Democrats should support it in order to set off a national wave of redistricting reform. Today, Kevin says maybe, but he thinks it's a risky bet because there may well be no reformist wave.

I think Kevin's premise is off base. The California congressional delegation is 40 percent Republican. That's about what George W. Bush got statewide in 2000 and only a bit below what he won in 2004. The Democratic legislature simply hasn't implemented a highly partisan gerrymander in the Golden State. Instead, they've implement a risk-averse incumbent protection plan that makes it almost impossible for any CA Democrats to lose their seats, but also almost impossible for the Democrats to pick up any new ones. That's nice if you're a member of Congress, but not so nice if you care about liberal politics. A non-partisan redistricting in California might lead the GOP to pick up some seats, but it holds out an equal chance of handing more seats to the Democrats. Since the Democrats are in the minority in Congress as a whole, that's a good bet for liberals to take even if the anti-gerrymandering cause doesn't go nationwide. And, of course, it really would lay the groundwork for a broader reform agenda aimed against the ethical cesspool the GOP has made of Washington.

I've spoken to California representatives that have easily admitted to the "incumbent retention plan" that was the 2000 California redistricting. Sure, all our guys are safe, but we have little ability to challenge any of the GOP seats. We made a strong run at GOP Rep. David Dryer, sure, but only because of "scandal" (he was -- gasp -- gay!).

Non-partisan redistricting -- depending on who does the redistricting (in other words, not a Governor-appointed commission) -- would force some of our incumbents into difficult reelections. Good -- that's the essence of democracy, not 70% Democratic districts.

And on the flip side, it would give Democrats the ability to pick up seats in a state with lots and lots of seats. Worst case? We lose some seats. But given the state of the House, being down by 15 or being down by 20 has little practical consequence.

And best case scenario? The move spurs a nationwide effort to eliminate gerrymandering, a move that would ultimately benefit Democrats (just look at Texas, Florida, Illinois and Pennsylvania).

LINK