Drawing the map of California’s heart

If Sacramento lawmakers accomplish nothing else this year, they will make their tenure in the state Capitol worthwhile if they simply, finally, once and for all pass a program to institute redistricting reform. Redistricting is a crucial—

No, wait! Come back! Please. This really is a big deal. I promise. Yeah, redistricting is a boring concept, and in fact it’s a really boring word. Reporters who cover the issue bend over backward to come up with different ways of saying it, and it is a point of pride to be able to write an entire story, or an editorial, without using the word “redistricting.” I’ve done it myself. There’s “line-drawing” —not much better—and “carving up the state.” Here’s one of my favorite tricks: “ allowing politicians to pick their voters.”

But it all comes down to the same thing. Every 10 years, when new census figures come out, the lines of the state’s political districts have to be redrawn to make sure they all have close to the same number of people in them. Not voters, mind you, but people.

And there are a lot of districts. Forty in the state Senate, 80 in the Assembly, four in the Board of Equalization—don’t ask—and 53 in Congress.

For years now, redrawing those lines has been up to the political parties, or at least their leaders in California. They divide up the state like Coke and Pepsi divide up supermarket shelves. Hey Republicans, we Democrats are taking the San Fernando Valley, but you can have the northwestern fringes in your Ventura County district where your people live. Or wait, come to think of it, give us back the fringes and we’ll take a part of Ventura County too, because we can out-vote you here, while still lumping you in with some good Democrats in Santa Barbara and having a chance to defeat you twice. No? OK, we’ll give you Ventura back, but you have to turn Glendale over to us.

Reformers want to end this practice because they correctly see a glaring conflict of interest in turning over the line-drawing power (sorry, it’s the best I can do) to the parties. Many of them argue that if nonpartisan players did the job, districts would be not only more rational but more moderate and more competitive. In the northwest Valley, for example, or maybe the abutting portion of Ventura County, voters in the Democratic primary would take a pass on the more left-leaning candidates and pick the person who is most likely to win over a few Republicans or a chunk of independents. Same on the Republican side—and then, since either of the primary victors could carry the district, there would be a true debate and a winner who represents the interests of the voters and not just a special interest who funds the campaign. More people would vote. Democracy would thrive.

This is tough to admit, because it’s not going to much help my case that redistricting is important. But the reformers are way too optimistic about getting more competitive districts. There’s only so much California to work with, and the places where the Republicans outnumber the Democrats, and vice versa, are pretty clear. Los Angeles? Democrat. The Bay Area? Democrat. Inland Empire? Republican. Orange County? Republican. See? It’s easy. OK, now you try it.

The deserts? Good—Republican. Coast? Right, Democrat, but be careful—what about the North Coast? Yes, Republican. Mountains? Watch out. Republican mostly, but be careful around those growing Foothill communities where the Bay Area refugees are settling.

Sure, California is changing. There are Democratic seats in Pasadena that used to be Republican, and could be again, with a little line rejiggering. Moderate Democrat Lou Correa’s victory last November may have been a sign of a political shift in Orange County, or it could have been simply a rare example of the kind of close election that would take place around the state if people without a partisan stake were shaping the districts.

The point is that districting should be taken out of the parties’ hands even if it doesn’t result in more competitive elections and more moderate lawmakers. It’s just wrong. Arguing that partisan control of the process is inevitable does little more than impose a cynical smirk over the democratic process.

Besides, party-controlled districting hides a more corrupting practice than simply trying to grab seats. It allows the Democratic and Republican leaders to put seats up for sale.

Say, for example, you’re a Democrat about to be termed out of the Assembly, and you don’t want to go home. The state Senate beckons. But another termed-out Democrat is eyeing the Senate seat as well. And it is redistricting time. It sure would be great if the lines were redrawn to eliminate your potential opponent’s strongest base, or even his house. Make the sucker move! But if you want those lines—and even if you want to protect yourself against having your own home drawn out of the district—you’d better pony up. The party leaders need campaign contributions for their own treasuries, and if you spent the last six years cultivating big donors who will also give to the party bosses if you ask them to, you’re sitting pretty. If not, you’re out of luck, and out of a seat.

Top Democrats like Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez are willing to relinquish their considerable power over their colleagues’ districts if they get something for it. What they want, apparently, is more time in the saddle. Weaker term limits. Well, OK. If that’s what it takes. I don’t much like term limits anyway. But most voters do, so tying the two reforms is tricky.

That’s the problem with the current plan to change the way districts are drawn. The lawmakers say they love it. But in fact they may just be trying to love it to death.