In December the Governor unveiled his broad, bipartisan proposal to change the way that legislative districts’ geographic boundaries are drawn. The goal of redistricting reform is to promote greater competitiveness in legislative races and restore public confidence in state government. The California Constitution must be amended to change how districts are drawn, requiring a vote of the people. The Governor looks forward to working with legislators to get a redistricting bill completed and on the ballot for voter consideration.

Redistricting reform makes good on the Governor’s promise to restore Californians’ faith in their government. Three years ago Governor Schwarzenegger promised Californians that he’d bring integrity back to the political process. As Governor, he backed Proposition 77 in the November 2005 election and has supported redistricting measures in the Legislature. Today he is calling for a fundamental change in the way political boundaries are drawn to promote fairness and transparency in elections.

Redistricting reform is a cornerstone of the Governor’s second term. He is committed to working with state legislators this year to change the current system, which allows incumbents to draw their own district lines. This system presents an inherent conflict of interest, unfairly protects incumbents and undermines party competition. In the past three election cycles only 4 of the 459 congressional and legislative seats changed party hands. Fixing redistricting will help renew and restore the people’s confidence in California’s government institutions.

The Governor calls for:

• The creation of an independent, politically balanced and diverse Citizens Redistricting Commission. The 11-person Commission will include four members from each of the two largest parties and three independent members. His proposal disqualifies those with potential conflicts of interest, including serving as an elected official within the past five years, holding lobbying jobs or having family ties to politicians. Qualifying criteria includes continuous party registration.
• A fair selection process. Under his proposal, a panel of ten county clerks establishes a candidate pool. Legislative leaders can each strike two candidates from the pool before the Fair Political Practices Commission conducts a random drawing of 11 names.
• Districts that respect existing law, state geography and California’s communities. The Governor’s proposal calls for boundaries that promote equal population, Voting Rights Act compliance, geographic contiguousness and compactness, and respect for communities of interest and municipal, county and geographical boundaries. Under the proposal, incumbent residence information may not be considered by the Commission.
• Transparency and public accountability when redrawing map lines. The Commission must adhere to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, allow public review and comment, provide for limited interest group involvement and make documents available to the public.
• Forthright enactment, court review and funding requirements. Any official Commission action will require six votes, and the public may appeal the Commission’s decisions directly to the state Supreme Court.

Redistricting reform has broad bipartisan support. Governor Schwarzenegger is joined by representatives from the Voices of Reform Project, a bipartisan coalition of citizens, former lawmakers, good governance organizations and major educational institutions, in calling for redistricting reform.  Advocates include the League of Women Voters, the Center for Governmental Studies, People’s Advocate, Common Cause, former legislative leaders of both major parties, former Congressman Leon Panetta; former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher; State Republican Party Chairman Duf Sundheim; and many others.

On the Record
Rose Institute Director Says Public “Eager To Make A Change”: “Most of California’s major newspapers have editorialized against redistricting abuse. Many observers of California government now understand the connection between districts drawn by legislators and the gridlock and extremism of current Sacramento politics. And now we have clear evidence that the public is eager to make a change.” Source: Statement by Dr. Ralph A. Rossum, Director of the Rose Institute, The Rose Institute of State & Local Government, “2005 Redistricting Survey,” Press Release, April 25, 2005.

League of Women Voters President Highlights Conflict of Interest: “California's redistricting process forces legislators into a system in which they have an inherent conflict of interest, drawing the very lines that determine their electoral future. It is a frustration to the voters that incumbent protection and party benefit are the common results of such a system.” Source: Statement of Jacqueline Jacobberger, President, League of Women Voters of California June 28, 2005.

Voices of Reform Says Current System Makes Legislators “Less Prone to Seek Bipartisan Solutions”: “Most of the men and women who took office after those elections are fair, honest and hard-working. But it defies credulity to believe that our state's voters would reward their elected representatives with a success rate of 99 percent. The reason for this situation is easy to identify. Legislative districts are drawn to protect incumbents -- by incumbent legislators themselves. Predictably, members of both parties want districts that will make their own re-elections as easy as possible. The elimination of competition ultimately leads to legislators who are insulated from popular opinion and less prone to seek bipartisan solutions.” Source: Joint Statement by Fred Keeley and Dan Schnur of the Voices of Reform Project, Sacramento Bee, “Foes agree: Voting districts need attention,” December 3, 2006.

Just the Facts
 “In California’s 2004 legislative and congressional elections, every incumbent running for reelection won, and no seats changed party hands…this lack of competition is due significantly to the Legislature’s decision to redraw electoral districts to protect incumbents against challengers.” Source: Center for Governmental Studies, “Drawing Lines: A Public Interest Guide to Real Redistricting Reform,” February 2005.

 “The use of an independent commission removes the redistricting power from legislators, for whom it poses an inherent conflict of interest. Under such a commission, redistricting authority would vest in a body composed of qualified individuals competent to apply the preferred redistricting standards objectively. A commission would be particularly well-suited to follow the procedural principles of transparency, effective public participation and accountability.” Source: The Council for Excellence in Government, “The Shape of Representative Democracy,” June, 2005:

“After the state legislature redrew the district boundaries in 2001, the number of competitive races decreased by more than 55 percent.” Source:  Common Cause Education Fund, “Designer Districts: Safe Seats Tailor Made for Incumbents,” April, 2005.

 “Despite the defeat of Proposition 77 on last year’s ballot, many voters (64%) still say the redistricting process needs change. Six in 10 (62%) would prefer to have an independent commission of citizens, rather than the governor and legislature, in charge of the redistricting process.”  Source: PPIC Statewide Survey, “Special Survey on the California State Budget,” May 2006.

“Two-thirds of California voters think redistricting should be done by an independent commission, not by state legislators. An equally large majority believes that it is a conflict of interests for legislators to draw their own district lines. Source: The Rose Institute of State & Local Government, “2005 Redistricting Survey,” April 25, 2005.

Voters would prefer having an independent commission, rather than the Legislature, oversee redistricting by a 3-1 margin – which includes an overwhelming majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
Source: “Findings on Redistricting Reform in California” by Lake Research Partners, April 2006.