Proposition 77: It’s all about fair representation

Almost everyone agrees that legislators should represent the residents of the various contiguous communities in their district and should not be allowed to shape their district based on partisan politics. But that is exactly what happened under the last redistricting plan adopted by the legislature in 2001. The legislative districts have become horribly misshapen and geographically distorted. The present system used to draw district lines for our state offices is inequitable and unfair, and that’s why Proposition 77 is on the ballot this month.

Proponents of Proposition 77 point to current districting nightmares like the so-called “Ribbon of Shame” 23rd Congressional District that stretches down the California coastline nearly 200 miles from Monterey County to Ventura County. This monstrosity was allegedly created to benefit Congresswoman Lois Capps, a Democrat. Southern California is not immune from districting quirks either. A look at Dana Rohrabacher’s 46th Congressional District (which stretches along the coast from Palos Verdes to Newport Beach) is an example of “beneficial” Republican districting. These districts, and others that are similarly distorted solely for political purposes, would no doubt be changed if Proposition 77 passes.

Proposition 77 is complicated and pushes local election folks off a cliff by requiring that a three-member panel of retired judges (“special masters”) develop a redistricting plan for use at the next primary and general election following the measure’s approval. That means that everything must be accomplished on a hurry-up basis to be ready for the June 2006 primary. It is bound to cause chaos in California on a major scale.

The need to fix the present system is definite and pressing. The current method is a scandalous mess. It got this way following deals made during the reapportionment process after the 2000 census. Safe legislative districts were created for both Democrats and Republicans up and down the state through redistricting. As a result, of the 153 seats -- 80 Assembly, 20 state Senate, 53 Congressional -- theoretically up for grabs last November, not a single one changed parties.

In other words, the status quo was locked in. Extreme members of both parties already entrenched in office were guaranteed to be elected despite the views and wishes of the district’s electorate. If breaking the status quo gridlock means fewer partisan warriors in Sacramento and the election of more results-oriented legislators who can build consensus, agree on solutions, and actually get things done in Sacramento, then that may be what the people of California wanted and needed in the first place.

I hope Proposition 77 passes on Nov. 8, but if it doesn’t we need a fallback position. The ideal solution would be for the state Legislature to sponsor its own independent redistricting process to fairly and equitably redistrict the state prior to the 2008 elections. This would put in place a solid and tested foundation for the following statewide redistricting process in 2011. Such new districts would be drawn following the 2006 elections, and newly elected office holders would be on notice that their districts could change substantially in 2008 and again in 2011. Current officeholders who are not termed out by 2006 would have time to adjust their plans to the new districting dictates. Prospective candidates for statewide office would likewise be able to condition their election planning on the new political landscape.

If Proposition 77 fails, it will not mean that the problem of inequitable representation has gone away. It will not validate the current status quo nightmare. It will not mean that we should do nothing until after the next census in 2010. Instead, I think it will put added pressure on those of us serving in the state Legislature to do the right thing and press for an independent redistricting plan that is equitable and fair to the voters we claim to represent. We shouldn’t have to be in the position of changing the state Constitution to force the issue. Legislators should heed the message of Proposition 77 that change is needed, and that it will either happen internally by choice or externally by force.

In the final analysis the people of our state deserve to be more equitably represented.

* TOM HARMAN represents the 67th Assembly District in the State Assembly. His district includes Huntington Beach as well as Seal Beach, Los Alamitos ,Cypress, La Palma, and portions of Anaheim, Garden Grove, Stanton and Westminster. To contribute to “Sounding Off” e-mail us at [email protected] or fax us at (714) 966-4667.

20051103ho9qh8kf(LA)