Read a transcript of the program below.
DAVE IVERSON: From KQED Public Radio in San Francisco, I'm Dave Iverson. Two years ago, California voters approved Proposition 11 which took the power to draw legislative districts away from the state legislature and placed it in the hands of a citizen's commission. Fast forward to the present and redistricting is back on the ballot with not one but two propositions, once again, before the voters. One would expand the power of the citizen's commission to draw boundaries for both state legislative and congressional districts.
DAVE IVERSON (CONTINUED): That's Proposition 20. Proposition 27 would do away with the citizen commission all together and return political mapping power to the state legislature. We'll talk about what the fuss is all about next on Forum after this.
From KQED Public Radio in San Francisco, I'm Dave Iverson. Sometimes coverage of politics focuses on what's important, state budget, say. And sometimes on matters of lesser consequence; Barbara Boxer's hair comes to mind. But a topic like redistricting rarely commands the headlines but in proposition happy California redistricting is just the stuff to be the focus of not one but two statewide ballot propositions this year, Proposition 20 and 27. And this is not the first go-around on this topic.
In 2008, voters passed Proposition 11 which created a citizen's commission to draw state legislative districts instead of leaving that job to state lawmakers. This year represents a double or nothing opportunity. Proposition 20 would expand the power of the citizen's commission to include that of drawing congressional districts. Proposition 27 does away with the commission altogether and returns redistricting power to the state legislature. In this hour of Forum, what's at stake with Propositions 20 and 27 and why -- who creates the map really matters.
We'll get to our debate over this topic in a moment but we want to get a little background first. Joining us to do that, John Myers. He is, of course, Sacramento Bureau Chief of KQED news. John, good morning.
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF: Good morning, Dave.
DAVE IVERSON: So, John, take us back in time for a moment to Proposition 11 which was passed, uh, two years ago in 2008 to create this citizen's commission. What was the rationale behind that creation?
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF: Well, I think, uh, even I would, uh, dial back slightly further as the, the beginning of the answer, Dave, is that there were multiple efforts in the decades before 2008 to, to try to change the redistricting process in California. They failed at the ballot box. But finally Prop 11 right passed in 2008 and the rationale was that politicians should not be drawing their own districts; that it was an inherent conflict of interest and that political games are, are done behind closed doors.
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF (CONTINUED): And certainly the redistricting maps that were done in 2001, because they're done every ten years after the census is collected and we get new population data, uh, the ones that were drawn in 2001 were widely criticized as incumbent protection plans where the, the state was carved up to make sure no one lost their seat and that's roughly what happened for, for a number of years. I mean, they, they were pretty safe districts for the legislature and for Congress.
And so the, the effort began to try to change that. The governor seemed intent on doing it. Um, and what we got in 2008 was kind of, uh, half of the loaf of what the governor and a lot of, uh, government reform advocates wanted. Uh, they got legislative districts drawn by an independent panel or at least they will be in 2011 if everything goes forward. But congressional districts were left in the hands of the legislature. It was a bit of political compromise because there was a lot of pressure from Washington, from California Democrats who did not want -- uh, and this is led by Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the, the (stammers) delegation -- who did not want, uh, the power diluted in some way.
They wanted to control their power at least in California to have Democratic members of Congress. So that was a bit of a, a split decision in 2008 which kind of set the stage for where we are now and I think you, you described it great as double or nothing. Prop 20 would give congressional drawing, uh, powers to this new commission which is still being picked, by the way. We don't even have the commission picked yet. And Prop 27 would do away with the whole thing all together, shoot it back to the legislature, back to the way it was, um, for decades and decades.
DAVE IVERSON: And one thing we should probably note about this, John, is this is one of those unusual topics where there's sort of unanimity between Democrats and Republicans, right? They both like the current system, the old system of having the legislature draw the districts, be that for the Assembly or State Senate or Congress, because it's in their own best interests, either party.
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF: The -- they do, although, I would say everyone -- (stammers) everyone likes it when it favors them. When it starts to not favor them they start to clamor about the process and then -- and then people who are on the outside, uh, government reform groups and, um, you know, people who are academics and, and, you know, maybe even journalists in a way, always seem to point the finger at 'is this really a good idea when legislators draw these maps', which they do in just about every state in the country with a few exceptions.
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF (CONTINUED): And California would really be leading the way if this, uh, independent commission moves forward. You know, they've been picking these commissioners now over the last year. The state auditor has been, uh, sifting through a number of people who've applied. They have strict criteria, that they can't have political involvement for X number of years and can't have worked for politicians. Ad, uh, they've got that pool down to about 60 people right now and, and the timeline is that they will move this process forward in the next few months to have this, uh, commission -- these14 commissioners sat and ready to start looking at legislative map drawing, um, come early next year.
But if Prop 27 passes, they're all going to pack their bags and -- or actually never even take the job because the whole thing will, uh, default back to the legislators.
DAVE IVERSON: So that brings us to the present and what's before voters this time around. Again, this idea that either expand what they can do, that's the double part of the proposition or -- or nullify them altogether. In a way, it's sort of curious and since, I mean, this would be a situation where the citizen's commission might be abolished before it even does its job.
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF: Yeah. And I think that, you know, you're -- you're going to have great guests on who are going to debate the pros and cons of these measures but, uh, to, to kind of peel back the curtain for a moment and talk about how both of these move forward -- Proposition 20 which would expand the powers of the -- of the independent citizen's commission to draw congressional districts was put on the ballot primarily through the money of one person, a guy named Charles Munger, Jr., who is a father. Uh, Charles Munger is the right-hand man of Warren Buffet, the, uh, the oracle of Omaha and the financial world.
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF (CONTINUED): Uh, Munger's independently wealthy. Uh, he helped finance the gathering in the signatures. He got this on there. He believes in congressional, uh, independent redistricting. On the other hand, Prop 27, the abolishing of the entire commission was almost single-handedly put on the, on the ballot by congressional Democrats and Democrats even in the legislature who have funneled campaign cash into that process and are still doing it, into the Prop 27 campaign right now. Uh, the measure, uh ,was largely pushed by a Los Angeles area congressman, Congressman Howard Berman, who he and his brother Michael Berman have been involved in, uh, political redistricting efforts for decades in California.
And have been responsible for drawing a lot of the maps. And, uh, there is a sense that, uh, Prop 27 -- and again, I want to defer to the, the, the guests in support of Prop 27, who is the proponent of Prop 27, I believe --but there is a sense that Prop 27 was put on the ballot effectively to say if the voters had to say no to everything then the supporters of 27 would be fine.
Because they don't -- really what we're talking about here is whether congressional districting needs to be done by an independent body. And, uh, they will also say that they think legislative districting, uh, redistricting should be drawn by the legislators -- that's the, the argument for Prop 27. But there's a lot of politics going on here. And again, if you look at the money and you look at who has been (stammers) you know, who has been financing this, you've got one independently wealthy person who wants to have government reform in Prop 20.
You've got a lot of Democrats in California funneling money into Prop 27 to try to wipe the whole process out and go back to Sacrament to draw these maps.
DAVE IVERSON: John Myers, the Sacramento Bureau Chief of KQED News. John, before we let you go, just a, a quick side question which is a little bit of bubbling around as I read the papers this morning suggesting that there might actually be a real live state budget passed sometime soon. Have any insight on that?
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF: Well, I, I got a feeling I'm going to be here, uh, this, this weekend, as well, monitoring these negotiations. The, the, the negotiations have heated back up. The Governor's come back to the state. Uh, people seem to be re-engaged. There seems to be optimism but there are still really serious questions to resolve about how many spending cuts and whether or not you have tax increases. So, uh, we're going to be watching it over the weekend.
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF (CONTINUED): Uh, that's, uh, that's probably the most pressing thing to watch here at the Capitol but, um, we'll, we'll see what happens.
DAVE IVERSON: John Myers, again, Sacramento Bureau Chief for KQED News. John, thanks very much for setting the stage for us.
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF: You're welcome. Thanks.
DAVE IVERSON: Joining us now to take up the consequence of Propositions 20 and 27, KathayFeng. She is the Executive Director of California Common Cause. She is supporting (stammers) Proposition 20 which, again, would expand the powers of the citizen's commission. She opposes Proposition 27 which would do away with the citizen's commission altogether. Kathay Feng, thanks for joining us.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: Thanks for having me.
DAVE IVERSON: And Daniel Lowenstein joins us as well. He's professor of law at UCLA, author of the law tax book Election Law. He takes the other side of this. He is in favor of Proposition 27 which would do away with the citizen's commission. Uh, he is opposing Proposition 20 which would expand the powers of the citizen's commission. Professor Lowenstein, thanks for being with us as well.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: My pleasure.
DAVE IVERSON: Well, let's begin by talking about the purpose of all of this which is, after all, what can be done best to put forward a, a legislature or a congress, for that matter, uh, that represents the people in the best possible way. Kathay Feng, I asked that last side question of John Myers about whether or not we were going to have a state, uh, budget in part because some of the -- all of the stirring and rumbling about this question comes about because we don't think perhaps our current legislature is necessarily doing the best of jobs.
DAVE IVERSON (CONTINUED): Describe for us just philosophically for a moment, why you think drawing the districts in a different way would improve the functionality of the state legislature and in the Congress?
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: Well, if we return the process of redistricting to legislators and incumbent politicians, the problem is that they are inherently human and they, they tend to draw lines, um, in order to protect themselves which means they're cherry picking voters. Um, they're, they're looking for voters who are most likely to support them. They're cutting out, uh, any communities that might vote against them. They're also looking at specific things like where challengers might be and they're, they're cutting them out.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE (CONTINUED): Um, and what that means is that if the public feels like it's not satisfied with the direction that their, uh, their legislator is taking or their congressional member, they really don't have a way of expressing that because there's no challenger left. There's no -- there's -- there is no chance of possibly voting that person out. Um, and so it, it creates, uh, a kind of distance from voters that's very dangerous. Um, and it, it really removes the ability, um, that I think most of us believe should be inherent in a democracy, which is that ultimately voters and constituents should be able to hold their representatives accountable through the election process.
And if you can't because the districts have been drawn in a way to be super protective of the incumbent, then you've got a broken system.
DAVE IVERSON: And do you (stammers) do you draw a direct line between that sort of what you would consider to be kind of incumbent protection, uh, to how well or how well the -- or how well rather, the, the legislature functions or doesn't function?
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: I think that there is a line in the sense that there are incumbents who, um, believe that they can get away with grandstanding, um, and making, um, very hard line positions, um, about the budget or about other issues, um, and not be responsive to their constituents. When a lot of people are saying, hey guys, just get together, figure out, you know, something that, that is workable so that our state can move forward because we're in such a, a crisis right now economically and otherwise.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE (CONTINUED): And they don't want to see the legislature bickering. But instead we do have in the legislature some pretty hard-lined, um, uh, folks who've, who've decided that they're going to draw the line in the sand and they're not going to cross over and, and even if, you know, leaders may be proposing compromises, they're just not going to vote with them. And that really creates a recipe for gridlock and a, a recipe for, um, long-term disastrous results for our state.
DAVE IVERSON: Kathay Feng, Executive Director of California Common Cause. Again, she supports Proposition 20 which would expand the current citizen's commission to not only draw the powers of -- not only have the power to draw boundaries for the state legislature but also that for congressional districts. On the other side is those who support Proposition 27 which would do away with the citizen's commission and return the power of redistricting back to the state legislature. Daniel Lowenstein represents that point of view, again, professor of law at UCLA.
DAVE IVERSON (CONTINUED): Professor Lowenstein, take up the other side then, if you would, and whether or not you see redistricting as being important to increasing the way in which our legislative bodies function.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Uh, no, I really think, uh, actually redistricting, uh, is very overrated by, uh, the press and, uh, a small number of activists such as Kathay (stammers) Feng. But, uh, most people, I -- the great majority of, uh, citizens and there's actually even survey evidence to prove this -- uh, quite correctly realize that this isn’t something that effects their lives, uh, very much. Uh, there are about a thousand, uh, issues that are much, much more important for the ordinary person in this state.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA (CONTINUED): Uh, it's very important for politicians which is why there's so much, uh, sound and fury about it. Um, I certainly agree with your premise that, uh, there are some problems with the California legislature and, uh, some pretty serious problems. But, you know, if you go to a doctor or a supposed doctor, uh, and, and you have a bad back and the doctor says, well, I think I'm going to cut off your fingers, uh, you know, the, the, the ailment may be a real ailment...
...but you have to ask whether it’s the right remedy and in this case it isn't. Um, Proposition 11 was sold as, as having a certain modest cost. We haven't even selected -- we're only partway through the selection process and, uh, it's already over the entire budget by several million dollars. This is a sheer waste. Uh, it, it's a -- it's a duplicative process. Uh, we've got it being done in the legislature; we have it being done through this commission. It's wasting millions of dollars.
We're at a period in which we just can't afford to, uh, waste that kind of, uh, tax money. Uh, the idea that, uh, uh, that redistricting, um, you know, somehow, uh, makes incumbents impossible to defeat may sound good but, uh, if you -- if you look at the evidence, it just isn't true. And one of -- there are many ways to prove that. One is that if you look at -- there are some states that have adopted commissions, uh, similar to this one.
And, uh, incumbents do at least as well in those states, uh, as they do here. Uh, uh, what Proposition 27 will do is as you've accurately said, uh, bring this back to the legislature which unlike the commission is accountable to the voters; uh, but it's not true to say that it's simply a restoration of the status quo ante because Proposition 27 has a number of safeguards in it that never existed before, uh, that will constrain the legislature.
For example, uh, it's much more strict on population equality which is one of the most important principles of redistricting. Uh, it -- it's much more strict in requiring, uh, that, uh, legislative districts follow city and county boundaries, for example. It also has, uh, procedural, uh, (stammers) guarantees to insure, uh, uh, transparency. So, uh, actually Proposition 27, uh, is, is a vast improvement over this wasteful, duplicative commission. And it's a, uh, uh, it's also really an improvement even over the prior system.
DAVE IVERSON: But let me ask you about the (stammers) the principle rationale for having someone other than the legislature draw their own districts. It is -- seems self-evident that there is a conflict of interest in that, that there is a kind of built-in, self-serving mechanism. If you have the legislature draw the boundaries for themselves, it's almost unavoidable, would it not be, Professor Lowenstein, for there not to be, uh, for there to be rather a kind of self-serving motivation?
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Well, you can spin (stammers) oh, oh, look, I think that, uh, uh, it's the very nature of a democracy. Democracy depends on the fact that, uh, members of the legislature want to get re-elected and that they will act accordingly. That's the mechanism that gives accountability to the public. But it's no more true in redistricting than it is in anything else. Uh, they may vote in a certain way because, uh, people (phone rings) in the district like it or because they can get campaign contributions or for some other reason.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA (CONTINUED): Uh, but when you look at the results, as I said before, what you find is that, uh, so far as incumbency protection is concerned, there's no difference between the legislature doing it and the commission doing it. So, if that's your goal, uh, this is simply -- it's cutting off your fingers for a bad back. It's a -- it's a remedy that's not going to achieve your goal.
DAVE IVERSON: One of the concerns, Kathay Feng, that's been brought up about the citizen's commission is whether or not it is indeed representative. Mr. Lowenstein and others make the argument that the legislature is actually more representative of the state of California than is this citizen's commission. Over 30,000 people applied, uh, to be a part of it but the pool of candidates that wound up applying for this, wound up being more tilted on the side of, of white and male. Uh, there were fewer, uh, uh, Latinos, African Americans, and Asians who applied to be a part of it. Respond to that concern, that yes, this is a citizen's commission but does it indeed truly represent the diversity that is California?
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: Well, here's the really great news. Um, number one, when we were running Proposition 11, one of the criticisms that, um, people like Professor Lowenstein -- who by the way, I was a student of so with, with all due respect, I, I have to disagree with everything that he's just said -- but everybody, you know, on the other side said that nobody would apply because only the experts knew how to do this and, um, there wouldn't be any interest because everybody knows that this doesn't affect their daily lives.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE (CONTINUED): But in fact, you know, once the word was put out that there was a possibility for people to engage in shaping their own democracy, we had an overwhelming response and that's great. Now, the next step is that we knew that, uh, it was likely that the pool wouldn't be perfectly representative of the state because you have to just look at who is going to most likely participate, uh, generally in voting and you know that it's, it's not always representative.
And so, in Proposition 11, in the law we actually wrote that, um, the selecting body would help to narrow that pool down to a smaller group of 60, um, that they move forward through the process that would really represent that states diversity and, in fact, that's exactly what's happened. So, we're now looking at a smaller pool that they've looked through with excruciating detail. They've had -- live public interviews have been online. If people wanted to visit they could go to www.wedrawtheline.ca.gov. They can see everything happening real time.
And, um, they have selected a group of 60 people -- or they're going to be selecting a group of 60 people that actually are as diverse as the state's population. And, in fact, the pool as it stands right now of a 120 people is more diverse than, than the state legislature. In fact, uh, it, it, it doubles the percentage of woman, um, who are severely under-represented in the legislature. Um, it's got the same percentage of Latinos as the state population.
And so on and so forth with Asian Americans and, and African Americans, as well. And I think also regionally, politically, you know, uh, thinking about, um, occupation and other types of, um, perspectives and backgrounds -- the, the selection process has really been very conscientious to pick, um, some applicants who I think are going to represent the best and brightest that California has to offer. Now, I think that, again, um, uh, Professor Lowenstein has said a couple of things that really bear responding to.
Um, he talked about how, um, there is no proof that, um, incumbents aren't re-elected again and again when they draw their own districts. All you have to do is if you leave the ivory tower and you look at the election results of the last decade, you see that 99 percent of all incumbents are re-elected, um, because they've gone and drawn their own lines and they--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) Well, I think -- I think just to interject for a moment. Um, I, I, I think the point he was making is that incumbents are re-elected regardless and that no matter how you do redistricting, incumbents get re-elected and that we see that phenomenon nationwide in, in states, in Congress, in -- in all elections. And that just how the districts are drawn is not necessarily what defines whether or not an incumbent gets elected.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: So let's look at a specific example. The, the number one person who is leading this effort, um, with Proposition 27 is a congressman by the name of Howard Berman, um, who in the 2000s, um, along with his brother who was a consultant for all of the congressional, uh, members to, to draw state's districts for them and received, um, $20,000 dollars from each congressional Democrat, --basically to draw them a safe seat -- um, was concerned that he might face a Latino challenger. And so, uh, in fact, what he ended up doing in drawing the lines for his own congressional district was to cut out--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) Well, he didn't -- he didn't draw the lines for his own district. That job is done by the legislature.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: (overlapping) Okay. No. His brother draw the lines for all of the congressional members and then they handed that map to the legislature and the legislature adopted it without change. So, in fact, he did draw the lines (laugh) with the help of -- with the help of his consultant brother, yes. Um, but in fact, uh, there have been a lot of accounts of, of the, the fact that he controls that process. And, uh, when he drew the lines for his own district, um, he cut out a 170.000 Latinos from his district because he wanted to make sure that there wouldn't be a challenge. Now--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) Let me hold you there, if I might, Kathay Feng. We have to drop -- get away here for a, a short break. When we come back, I want to let, uh, Daniel Lowenstein respond to that issue and we'll dig in further into how this -- these two propositions might change, uh, the legislature and what the role of the citizen's commission will either be or whether it will go away entirely. We welcome your participation in this conversation, too. Here's the number if you want to join us.
DAVE IVERSON (CONTINUED): It's (866) 733-6786. (866)-733-6786 or you can email us your thoughts at Forum@KQED.org; that's Forum@KQED.org. Back with more in just a moment. This is Forum. I'm Dave Iverson.
Welcome back to Forum. I'm Dave Iverson. Our topic this hour, Propositions 20 and 27 which have to do with redistricting, a quick recap. In two years ago, voters passed Proposition 11 which created a citizen's commission which would draw the boundaries for the state legislature. This year, there's a sort of double or nothing opportunity. We can expand the power of the citizen's commission to not only draw the boundaries for the state legislature but also for -- for Congress or you can vote for Proposition 27 which would do away with the citizen's commission altogether.
Joining us to debate these proposals, Kathay Feng, she's the executive director of California Common Cause and Daniel Lowenstein, professor of .aw at UCLA, author of the law text book Election Law. Before the break, Professor Lowenstein, Kathay Feng was making the point that there's just something, if I could use this word, a little unseemly about, um, people who are in power defining how they're going to stay in power by having the power to draw the lines.
And she offered the example of Congressman Berman who has been very supportive of Prop 27 which would do away with the citizen's commission and, uh, his brother, who is a consultant and active in this arena. Just, if you would, just respond to that particular question. Wouldn't it be a bit of a breath of fresh air in California governance, to have citizens actually actively engaged in this process rather than having it done by the participants themselves?
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Howard Berman's district, and I'm quite familiar with that situation and I will address that. Before I do, I just want to say one thing, I -- I'm glad that Kathay mentioned that, uh, uh, she was once my student. I hope she will agree that, uh, um, I always tried -- I didn't try to get my students to agree with me on everything. I tried to get them to think for themselves and I'm very glad to be pitting against her on this.
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) You were clearly successful, yeah.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Uh, on the other hand, uh, another thing I hope that I tried to, uh, uh, teach them was to debate fairly which means accurately characterizing the position of, uh, the opposition and I, and I really appreciated, Dave, your, your pointing out that she had mischaracterized, uh, uh, what I had said with respect to the incumbency issue. But with respect to Howard Berman's district, I think it is, uh, a good example of how, uh, Kathay's side of the debate tends to oversimplify these things.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA (CONTINUED): Uh, let's start with, uh, what I think she will not disagree with, which is that Howard Berman is one of the most effective and highly, uh, respected, uh, members of, uh, the House of Representatives. He's, he's a very liberal member of the House but he is highly respected by both Democrats and Republicans. He's the Chair of the, uh, Foreign Relations Committee. Uh, now--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) But, but, to, to interject on, on your side, um, Professor Lowenstein, that's not the point. I mean, the, the point isn't whether or not he's effective; the point is whether or not he has the power to define the people who will, uh, elect him or not.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Well, if you'll let me continue, I'll show you why I think it is a part of the point.
DAVE IVERSON: Okay.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Because, um, uh, Kathay was careful enough not to say that he was protecting his own re-election, uh, in the views that he expressed with respect to his district, uh, but she probably gave the impression, uh, perhaps that, that was what he was concerned about. They (stammers) there, there was a lawsuit over this district and a couple of others. They couldn't get an expert witness to say that Howard Berman would have been defeated, uh, no matter how the district was drawn.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA (CONTINUED): Uh, every major, uh, Latino political leader in the country or virtually every (stammers) uh, major Latino, uh, leader, uh, supports Howard Berman. They appreciate very much the work that he's done on immigration and other issues. This was not a matter of his re-election. But his district, which I live in, is a mixed district. It includes, uh, some pretty poor, uh, areas many of which are Latino.
Uh, it includes some, uh, very wealthy, uh, but very liberal areas and by representing this district, uh, it is possible for Howard to be, uh, a more effective, uh, representative for his constituents. The districts that he has with the -- with the makeup, the mixed makeup that it has, helps him, uh, in his work, uh, uh, on, on -- as Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. He wanted a particular kind of district to make him a more effective representative. Uh, which he is and, uh, not to protect his own re-election which was not even an issue. I mentioned--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) I take your point and I -- and I'm sorry to, to jump in on you but, but I do want to get our listeners included in this. I guess the, the question would be, not, again, whether or not he's effective, but whether or not the -- who should -- who should decide who, who represents, um, who defines what those boundaries are; whether or not that should be done by people who have a self-interest in that; or whether or not a citizen's commission can do that effectively or whether they can't.; whether -- whether or not they're well-suited to do that job. Let's hear what our listeners, um, have to say and get them engaged in this conversation, too. Steve is up first in San Francisco. Steve, go ahead, please.
STEVE: Uh, yes, um, thank you, and I, I really enjoy the show. Uh, I, I believe this concept that redistricting is irrelevant, um, is an argument that, frankly, proves too much. If it is irrelevant, why have we had the issue of gerrymandering for as long as our, um, democracy has existed. And it ignores the fact that the perception of fairness in the process so that the people can be fairly representative is, um, really discarded. Um, I'd love to know how the perception of fairness, which I think the perception currently is that it's not a fair system, can be addressed. I'll take my answer off the air.
DAVE IVERSON: Steve, thanks. Thanks for the call. Um, Daniel Lowenstein, that's a, a great question, I think. If -- isn't there some value in a time when people feel disengaged with politics perhaps or certainly don't have a high regard for the legislature, to allow public participation as a way of increasing the amount of trust and engagement that people have in our process?
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Well, uh, first of all, I, I didn't say that the issue is irrelevant. What I said was, that it doesn't affect the average citizen, uh, very much, uh, in his or her daily life. Uh, it's extremely important to individual politicians, uh, which is why they care about it so much and, uh, it's important to political parties. But with respect to this (stammers) uh, this idea of a citizen's commission is a slogan.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA (CONTINUED): The members of the legislature are citizens. Uh, the members of this commission will be citizens. Let's look at how they are chosen. The members of legislature are elected by their constituents who have the opportunity to un-elect them and I think across the country, oh, uh, this year in the last two elections, a lot of politicians are going to find out that that's a real thing. Um, this commission is chosen not by the citizens of this state, but through a bizarre, extraordinarily complicated, uh, uh, process that the citizens have no control over.
Uh, it's a bunch of anonymous tax accountants who, who filter it down. Then despite the fact that this is supposed to keep the politicians out of it, uh, the partisan legislative leaders in each house of legislature have a veto power over the people who get appointed to this. Uh, and then finally, uh, there are, uh, rules in this that (stammers) that actually prevent anybody who's had any experience that would give them (stammers) any understanding of what they're doing so that in the end the real decisions are going to be made by the staff of this commission.
And nobody can say to this day how that staff is going to be chosen and who they are going to be responsive to. So, uh, and, and with respect to public confidence, I defy you to look at the, uh, states that have adopted commissions and try to show that there's any higher degree of confidence in government in those states than in the states that do redistricting in the ordinary way. This is simply -- it's not going to affect that, that question.
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) Kathay -- yeah, Kathay Feng, uh, your, your response on the question of, one, would this restore confidence or not as, as Steven raised for us. But secondly, this question of who this commission is because that has been the subject of some debate, whether or not these people will actually, A, be able to do this job; and, secondly, whether or not the process is so convoluted, um, that we'll wind up with a group that will actually truly be representative of the state.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: I think that, uh, if you look at whose applied, um, so far and who's in the, the pool of 120 that, you know, eventually will be whittled down to 14, um, you see an amazing degree of civic engagement. Um, you see a lot of people who actually do have, um, some, some very relevant skills and background. In fact, Prop 11 required, um, that the final pool, uh, be chosen based on relevant analytical skills, be chosen based on diversity and appreciation of diversity.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE (CONTINUED): And a whole range of factors. So we see, for instance, um, people who are, um, civil rights scholars. Uh, we see somebody who is, uh, was the special masters in drawing the line, uh, the district lines for the courts in previous decades. We've got people who are, um, leaders in their communities who are actively engaged at the local level, um, and who really, uh, actually bring quite a bit of experience and knowledge in running public meetings and, uh, handling demographics, in looking at the legal issues.
.But also thinking about perspectives of different communities. In the end, the skill sets that I think that this final 14 will bring will amaze everybody because I think that we've got a large and very talented state to pull from. And I think that the only thing that, um, uh, I would severely disagree with, um, is Professor Lowenstein's characterization that, um, there's nobody with experience because the conflicts of interest that we put in there saying that if you, uh, were a consultant or a staffer to an elected, if you an elected themselves, if you were a (stammers) major donor to an elected or, you know, if you had some special relationship or special, um, interest in the outcome of a district, that you couldn't apply.
Now, I think that actually there are lots of people who applied who, who satisfied all of those conflicts of interest and, and who, I think, people will be very impressed with.
DAVE IVERSON: Let me hold you there and get another caller engaged. Nancy in Berkeley has our next question. Nancy, go ahead.
NANCY: Hi, um, yeah, I mean, usually I agree with Common Cause. In fact, you know, we usually contribute money to them and stuff and, and I, I'm not real crazy about the, the alternatives. I'm really in a quandary. However, I thought I would like to be one of the, you know, uh, people on the commission and so I applied. And it was insane. There was a huge application. You had to an (stammers) , you have to write five essay questions.
NANCY (CONTINUED): The questions them -- I mean, the answers to really kind of stupid questions like how do you feel about diversity and then you had to get three recommendations. I mean, it absolutely stymied and it stymied a lot of people, friends of mine. Now, I have a Masters degree and, you know, it, it was too much for me. So I cannot believe that this commission is a representative of people in general. I, you know, I, I think, you know, that it's people who are, you know, definitely college graduates.
Probably Ph.Ds who have, um, you know, a lot of, uh, people they know who can recommend them and, you know, will sit down and write, you know, these three page essay answers to these stupid questions.
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) Okay, Nancy...yeah--
NANCY: (overlapping) You can't tell me that African Americans and, and Latinos and, you know, people who, who don't speak English all that well, it couldn't possibly be representative of the state of California.
DAVE IVERSON: Nancy, thanks. Thanks for the, the point of view on the difficulties in applying, though it is still worth saying that some 30,000 people did put their names forward and as Kathay Feng was suggesting, um, there's, there's an interesting group of people who have made it thus far through the process. Before we take our next call, let me just both ask you a, a, a basic question here, um, which is why not just see how this works first before either expanding it or doing away with it?
DAVE IVERSON (CONTINUED): I mean, voters just passed this in 2008; why not just take it out for a test drive, see if it works, and then go forward? But it seems to me we're putting forward to the voters before even know whether or not the current idea works, Prop 11, to either double it or do away with it. Why not just try it out first and then go from there? Daniel Lowenstein?
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Well, I, I think that, uh, actually, uh, if hadn't been for, uh, Charles Munger, Jr., and his $4 million dollars, uh, and his purchasing a place on the ballot for Proposition 20, uh, which takes a bad, wasteful idea and extends it to make it even more bad and wasteful, uh, I think what you're suggesting probably would have happened, um, but, uh, uh, given the fact that we felt it, it's necessary to, to, uh, oppose Proposition 20...
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA (CONTINUED): ...which, which is, um -- I mean, even people who don't agree with me on 27 and who think that a commission should be, uh, um, uh, redistricting for the state legislature, uh, there are separate important reasons to oppose Proposition 20 and I hope we'll get to those before the show is over. But, um, uh, I think that would have happened but, on the other hand, I, I think, uh, something that, uh, John Myers, uh, mentioned at the, uh, beginning of the show should be pointed out here.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: And that is, it's not as if the people demanded this and somehow, uh, we're trying with 27 to, uh, undo what the people did. The truth is that, uh, these proposals have been on the ballot five or six times going all the way back to the 1980s. They have been consistently defeated by the people by large margins. Um, they, I think for precisely the reason that they didn't want, uh, people interested in the House of Representatives to be effectively making the arguments against this kind of commission. Uh, they set it up with Proposition 11, uh--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) Let me hold you there. Sorry to keep interjecting. I apologize to both of you but we are short on time and, and this is a complicated question and I do want to get both of you to respond. Because it seems to me, this is essentially what I'm reciting as the League of Women Voters, uh, position, Kathay Feng, which is let's see if this works before we expand it; let's see if this works before we do away with it.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: Right. I think this, I think when you look at some of the real live consequences of what happened in the last round of redistricting, we're essentially, both Democrats and Republican incumbents, um, colluded together to basically say, let's draw each other super safe districts. What ended up happening was that a lot of communities along the way were cut-up into lots of pieces. And in a -- in a real life way, the consequence is that when they need help and they turn to their representatives, um, to assist them, they get ping-ponged from one office to another because one piece of the community is in this district...
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE (CONTINUED): ...one piece of the community is in that district and really they don't have an effective political voice. If we give weight to -- if we expect -- the reason why -- but--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) But, but, but that's not my -- my, my question is not that. My question is -- my, my question is why not try this out before we either do away with it or double its power?
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: I hear you. But I think the challenge is that if you don't cover congressional districts, if we don't pass Proposition 20, what will happen is that you'll have, um, congressional districts potentially still being drawn by incumbent politicians where communities may potentially continue to be cut-up. And that means that for the (stammers) the rest of the decade when it comes to important issues, they will essentially be left without that political voice.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE (CONTINUED): So if you think that, you know, justice delayed is, is, is essentially justice denied then, um, one has to conclude that, that if you think that the process is fair for the state legislature, um, to have an independent redistricting commission drawing those lines, then it's also fair for Congress. And particularly for the communities that will be affected, it's important for them to have a voice at every level of government, state, as well as congressional. And so you don't want to delay that.
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) And let's -- yeah, let's hear from another--
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: (overlapping) It's a misstatement of fact that, that really ought to be corrected there. Uh, in the 1990s, uh, redistricting was done by the Supreme Court. Uh, in the 2000s, it was done by the legislature. The number of cities and counties that were divided was very, very substantially lower when the legislature did it than when the Supreme Court did it. Furthermore, uh, Proposition 27 for the first time would make it a legal requirement that, uh, the splitting of cities and counties be, uh, minimized.
DAVE IVERSON: And let's hear from another caller. John in San Francisco is next. John, go ahead.
JOHN: Good morning. Uh, I think that Proposition 27 makes, uh, a certain amount of sense, uh, because it would, uh, uh, make the splitting up of, uh, specific geographical areas such as counties and cities more difficult. But we're only being presented with that alternative because of Common Cause's, uh, support of Proposition 11 and Proposition 20. And I think it's time for the citizens of our state to, to take charge of the election process and give the citizen's committee, uh, an opportunity, uh, to see what they can do.
JOHN (CONTINUED): I'm not sure that it's going to be successful but I know what has happened in the past hasn't worked and I think that the citizen's committee should be given an opportunity to see what it can do and including, uh, the federal elections.
DAVE IVERSON: John thanks. Thanks for the call. A couple of emails coming in. Don writes, “One election, we pass a proposition to do one thing, next election there is a proposition to change it. One assumes if something passes it will be on the ballot again in the next election. So is there no limit to how often or we wind up voting on the same issue over and over again.” Lots of other emails coming in. Uh, Ken writes, uh, "Thanks for this good show. There's only one way to draw distinct boundaries - arbitrary lines based on county boundaries. All, and I mean all, other lines will be gerrymandered to some degree.”
DAVE IVERSON (CONTINUED): Sally writes, “I think that the mess that is our constitution and budget is the direct result of direct democracy. Citizen involvement should be a very strong argument against more direct citizen involvement.” And John writes, “I can't believe that in this high-tech state we still allow politicians to draw their own political constituencies. My solution would be to leave it to computers to draw the boundaries based on specific rules.” Just have, um, I'm afraid, a little bit of, of time before we have to take a break for our, our fundraising drive.
So, um, if you would, make each an argument for why in the end, no matter who does this, be it politicians or citizens, um, why it's important to come up with districts that represent people in the best way. Why is the citizen way of doing this, Kathay Feng, the best way to have a representative democracy?
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: Well, I think we're already seeing a level of participation in the redistricting process that's opening up, um, what used to be dominated by backroom deals and, and a lot of secrecy and I think that's a really good thing. Because the more that people engage in, um, the redistricting process, the more they'll engage in a electoral process, the more that we'll be able to, um, watch and be part of, um, the government and the society that we shape. So I think that's a really positive thing.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE (CONTINUED): I think the openness and transparency that we're already seeing with the redistricting selection process will be translated once we have a commission to a process where people can really see real time live how those districts get drawn and, and understand how other communities are impacted. And ultimately, when it comes to important issues, um, we'll be able to choose electedes (sic) who really reflect our values. And that may be re-electing people but it also may be giving voters a chance to express their, their frustration if they feel that with, um, the electedes who are currently in office.
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) And...uh huh. And Daniel Lowenstein, your argument for why those powers are, are best held by the legislature.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: I would say that all of the things that Kathay just said are strong reasons to vote yes on 27 and no on 20. Let me ask the people who are listening to this program, uh, I mean, Kathay says this is this open process. This is supposedly a citizen's process that the people can watch and, and understand. Okay, people listening to this program, including me, by the way, how many of these 60 people can you name?
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA (CONTINUED): And I would guess that for the overwhelming majority, uh, of people listening to this program including me, the answer to that question is going to be zero. Uh, there, there is no--
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: (overlapping) Yeah, but how many of your 120 (unintelligible) .
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) Hang on, hang on, Kathy, please. We just have a moment so a quick last thought and then, then we must leave this.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: (overlapping) There's no citizen control, uh, in a commission. At least the legislators, you know, who they are and if you don't like them you can vote again them. That's citizen control.
DAVE IVERSON: And we'll leave it there for now. We've been talking with both Daniel Lowenstein, professor at UCLA and Kathay Feng of Citizens, uh, Common Cause to focus on this issue of redistricting. As you know, this is a fundraising period for KQED Public Radio. For more information on how to support KQED, go to KQED.org. I'm Dave Iverson.
DAVE IVERSON (CONTINUED): As we continue our discussion now on redistricting, I want to get to a couple of emailed in questions. John writes, “The goal of the redistricting committee is to create reasonable districts, not to increase, uh, the rate of incumbents losing. Better districts will result in representatives more willing to compromise but still likely to be re-elected.” Ian writes, “Professor Lowenstein, looking at California districts, one cannot help but notice how they've been gerrymandered into uncomfortable shapes and sizes. Is there not a certain amount of respectability to redrawing these lines along more regular boundaries? It seems shameful to have a map with such blatant evidence of gerrymandering.”
So let's talk for a moment. Both Daniel Lowenstein first, then Kathay Feng, on whether -- how we can best have a district that does represent people in some sort of (stammers) consistent way whether that's geographically defined or in what way. So, I mean, you both agree, I think, that, that districts ought to have some consistency to them and not be (stammers) redrawn willy-nilly.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: Sure. Um, what Proposition 11 did was to lay out, um, a list of mapping criteria rules, basically, that the commission has to follow. Um, basically, so, you know, first and foremost, you want to draw districts that have an equal number of people; and then, second, you want to respect the voting rights act; and, third, you want to draw lines, you know, districts that are connected; and, and, fourth, you want to respect cities, counties, and communities.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE (CONTINUED): And in creating that list of rules for the commission to follow, um, for the first time, the state is basically saying let's try to make this fair and objective. Just like any sports game, let's lay out what those rules are beforehand and not quibble about them, um, during the process. And I think if we were to return the process back to the legislature, um. and this is the reason why people need to vote no on 27, is that the legislature has notoriously, um, essentially put one rule paramount to all of those other rules and that is protect incumbency. Um--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) But in the language of Proposition 27, as I understand it, Daniel Lowenstein, there -- you're putting forward language that even though the legislature would have the power to draw their own boundaries they would be constrained in their ability to do that. How, how can you guarantee us that they would, in fact, follow those directions?
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Well, the -- I think that the, the main difference on this, uh, because in some ways, uh, on, on the particular point we're talking about, there's similarities between--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) Right.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: --uh, 11, uh, and 27. Uh, the main difference is that, um, 27 is much more specific. The criteria are vague, uh, many of them in, uh, 11 whereas in, uh, 27, uh, they are quite specific and the way that, uh, you can enforce that is that, uh, it will be -- I mean, the legislature will follow them for this very simple reason, that if they don't, uh, their plan is likely to be overthrown in court.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA (CONTINUED): And that's the one thing they don't want. Uh, I think we should point, however, to Proposition 20 which is different, uh, and I think really pernicious in a way that, uh, uh, uh, 11, although I disagree with it, is not. And that's why yes on 27 and no on 20 are distinct issues. You could be against 27, you should still be against, uh, 20 as well because 20, for reasons that are unclear to me, puts in two new criteria.
Uh, one of which is that the people in the district should have basically the same standard, uh, of living, uh, or income. And secondly, that they should have, uh, similar, uh, uh, wage (stammers) excuse me, uh, job opportunities. Um, it's really calling for a kind of a economic segregation. There should be districts for rich people and districts for middle class people and districts for poor people--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) But that's a bit of an overstatement, isn't it--
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: (overlapping) No.
DAVE IVERSON: --uh, Professor Lowenstein? I mean, the actual language says a community of interests is the contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. How do--
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: (overlapping) You're looking at 11. You're looking at 11. I, I, I agree--
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: (overlapping) No. That, that's from Prop -- that's from Prop 20.
DAVE IVERSON: I mean, I, I don't understand how community of interests gets to the point of your saying where there's an income test.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Because, because there's more specific language that specifically uses that language. Now, I've had people say (stammers) uh, as you may be aware, uh, some of your listeners may be aware, uh, I had an op ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, uh, a week or so ago, uh, and I've had a number of people bring this up with me that, well, there are lots of criteria and the -- and I've only, you know, and these -- the ones that I've mentioned are only two.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA (CONTINUED): They're really pretty overlapping. Uh, so, what's such a, a big problem. But what they don't understand is that, um, when theDAVE IVERSON: From KQED Public Radio in San Francisco, I'm Dave Iverson. Two years ago, California voters approved Proposition 11 which took the power to draw legislative districts away from the state legislature and placed it in the hands of a citizen's commission. Fast forward to the present and redistricting is back on the ballot with not one but two propositions, once again, before the voters. One would expand the power of the citizen's commission to draw boundaries for both state legislative and congressional districts.
DAVE IVERSON (CONTINUED): That's Proposition 20. Proposition 27 would do away with the citizen commission all together and return political mapping power to the state legislature. We'll talk about what the fuss is all about next on Forum after this.
From KQED Public Radio in San Francisco, I'm Dave Iverson. Sometimes coverage of politics focuses on what's important, state budget, say. And sometimes on matters of lesser consequence; Barbara Boxer's hair comes to mind. But a topic like redistricting rarely commands the headlines but in proposition happy California redistricting is just the stuff to be the focus of not one but two statewide ballot propositions this year, Proposition 20 and 27. And this is not the first go-around on this topic.
In 2008, voters passed Proposition 11 which created a citizen's commission to draw state legislative districts instead of leaving that job to state lawmakers. This year represents a double or nothing opportunity. Proposition 20 would expand the power of the citizen's commission to include that of drawing congressional districts. Proposition 27 does away with the commission altogether and returns redistricting power to the state legislature. In this hour of Forum, what's at stake with Propositions 20 and 27 and why -- who creates the map really matters.
We'll get to our debate over this topic in a moment but we want to get a little background first. Joining us to do that, John Myers. He is, of course, Sacramento Bureau Chief of KQED news. John, good morning.
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF: Good morning, Dave.
DAVE IVERSON: So, John, take us back in time for a moment to Proposition 11 which was passed, uh, two years ago in 2008 to create this citizen's commission. What was the rationale behind that creation?
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF: Well, I think, uh, even I would, uh, dial back slightly further as the, the beginning of the answer, Dave, is that there were multiple efforts in the decades before 2008 to, to try to change the redistricting process in California. They failed at the ballot box. But finally Prop 11 right passed in 2008 and the rationale was that politicians should not be drawing their own districts; that it was an inherent conflict of interest and that political games are, are done behind closed doors.
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF (CONTINUED): And certainly the redistricting maps that were done in 2001, because they're done every ten years after the census is collected and we get new population data, uh, the ones that were drawn in 2001 were widely criticized as incumbent protection plans where the, the state was carved up to make sure no one lost their seat and that's roughly what happened for, for a number of years. I mean, they, they were pretty safe districts for the legislature and for Congress.
And so the, the effort began to try to change that. The governor seemed intent on doing it. Um, and what we got in 2008 was kind of, uh, half of the loaf of what the governor and a lot of, uh, government reform advocates wanted. Uh, they got legislative districts drawn by an independent panel or at least they will be in 2011 if everything goes forward. But congressional districts were left in the hands of the legislature. It was a bit of political compromise because there was a lot of pressure from Washington, from California Democrats who did not want -- uh, and this is led by Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the, the (stammers) delegation -- who did not want, uh, the power diluted in some way.
They wanted to control their power at least in California to have Democratic members of Congress. So that was a bit of a, a split decision in 2008 which kind of set the stage for where we are now and I think you, you described it great as double or nothing. Prop 20 would give congressional drawing, uh, powers to this new commission which is still being picked, by the way. We don't even have the commission picked yet. And Prop 27 would do away with the whole thing all together, shoot it back to the legislature, back to the way it was, um, for decades and decades.
DAVE IVERSON: And one thing we should probably note about this, John, is this is one of those unusual topics where there's sort of unanimity between Democrats and Republicans, right? They both like the current system, the old system of having the legislature draw the districts, be that for the Assembly or State Senate or Congress, because it's in their own best interests, either party.
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF: The -- they do, although, I would say everyone -- (stammers) everyone likes it when it favors them. When it starts to not favor them they start to clamor about the process and then -- and then people who are on the outside, uh, government reform groups and, um, you know, people who are academics and, and, you know, maybe even journalists in a way, always seem to point the finger at 'is this really a good idea when legislators draw these maps', which they do in just about every state in the country with a few exceptions.
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF (CONTINUED): And California would really be leading the way if this, uh, independent commission moves forward. You know, they've been picking these commissioners now over the last year. The state auditor has been, uh, sifting through a number of people who've applied. They have strict criteria, that they can't have political involvement for X number of years and can't have worked for politicians. Ad, uh, they've got that pool down to about 60 people right now and, and the timeline is that they will move this process forward in the next few months to have this, uh, commission -- these14 commissioners sat and ready to start looking at legislative map drawing, um, come early next year.
But if Prop 27 passes, they're all going to pack their bags and -- or actually never even take the job because the whole thing will, uh, default back to the legislators.
DAVE IVERSON: So that brings us to the present and what's before voters this time around. Again, this idea that either expand what they can do, that's the double part of the proposition or -- or nullify them altogether. In a way, it's sort of curious and since, I mean, this would be a situation where the citizen's commission might be abolished before it even does its job.
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF: Yeah. And I think that, you know, you're -- you're going to have great guests on who are going to debate the pros and cons of these measures but, uh, to, to kind of peel back the curtain for a moment and talk about how both of these move forward -- Proposition 20 which would expand the powers of the -- of the independent citizen's commission to draw congressional districts was put on the ballot primarily through the money of one person, a guy named Charles Munger, Jr., who is a father. Uh, Charles Munger is the right-hand man of Warren Buffet, the, uh, the oracle of Omaha and the financial world.
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF (CONTINUED): Uh, Munger's independently wealthy. Uh, he helped finance the gathering in the signatures. He got this on there. He believes in congressional, uh, independent redistricting. On the other hand, Prop 27, the abolishing of the entire commission was almost single-handedly put on the, on the ballot by congressional Democrats and Democrats even in the legislature who have funneled campaign cash into that process and are still doing it, into the Prop 27 campaign right now. Uh, the measure, uh ,was largely pushed by a Los Angeles area congressman, Congressman Howard Berman, who he and his brother Michael Berman have been involved in, uh, political redistricting efforts for decades in California.
And have been responsible for drawing a lot of the maps. And, uh, there is a sense that, uh, Prop 27 -- and again, I want to defer to the, the, the guests in support of Prop 27, who is the proponent of Prop 27, I believe --but there is a sense that Prop 27 was put on the ballot effectively to say if the voters had to say no to everything then the supporters of 27 would be fine.
Because they don't -- really what we're talking about here is whether congressional districting needs to be done by an independent body. And, uh, they will also say that they think legislative districting, uh, redistricting should be drawn by the legislators -- that's the, the argument for Prop 27. But there's a lot of politics going on here. And again, if you look at the money and you look at who has been (stammers) you know, who has been financing this, you've got one independently wealthy person who wants to have government reform in Prop 20.
You've got a lot of Democrats in California funneling money into Prop 27 to try to wipe the whole process out and go back to Sacrament to draw these maps.
DAVE IVERSON: John Myers, the Sacramento Bureau Chief of KQED News. John, before we let you go, just a, a quick side question which is a little bit of bubbling around as I read the papers this morning suggesting that there might actually be a real live state budget passed sometime soon. Have any insight on that?
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF: Well, I, I got a feeling I'm going to be here, uh, this, this weekend, as well, monitoring these negotiations. The, the, the negotiations have heated back up. The Governor's come back to the state. Uh, people seem to be re-engaged. There seems to be optimism but there are still really serious questions to resolve about how many spending cuts and whether or not you have tax increases. So, uh, we're going to be watching it over the weekend.
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF (CONTINUED): Uh, that's, uh, that's probably the most pressing thing to watch here at the Capitol but, um, we'll, we'll see what happens.
DAVE IVERSON: John Myers, again, Sacramento Bureau Chief for KQED News. John, thanks very much for setting the stage for us.
JOHN MYERS, KQED BUREAU CHIEF: You're welcome. Thanks.
DAVE IVERSON: Joining us now to take up the consequence of Propositions 20 and 27, KathayFeng. She is the Executive Director of California Common Cause. She is supporting (stammers) Proposition 20 which, again, would expand the powers of the citizen's commission. She opposes Proposition 27 which would do away with the citizen's commission altogether. Kathay Feng, thanks for joining us.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: Thanks for having me.
DAVE IVERSON: And Daniel Lowenstein joins us as well. He's professor of law at UCLA, author of the law tax book Election Law. He takes the other side of this. He is in favor of Proposition 27 which would do away with the citizen's commission. Uh, he is opposing Proposition 20 which would expand the powers of the citizen's commission. Professor Lowenstein, thanks for being with us as well.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: My pleasure.
DAVE IVERSON: Well, let's begin by talking about the purpose of all of this which is, after all, what can be done best to put forward a, a legislature or a congress, for that matter, uh, that represents the people in the best possible way. Kathay Feng, I asked that last side question of John Myers about whether or not we were going to have a state, uh, budget in part because some of the -- all of the stirring and rumbling about this question comes about because we don't think perhaps our current legislature is necessarily doing the best of jobs.
DAVE IVERSON (CONTINUED): Describe for us just philosophically for a moment, why you think drawing the districts in a different way would improve the functionality of the state legislature and in the Congress?
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: Well, if we return the process of redistricting to legislators and incumbent politicians, the problem is that they are inherently human and they, they tend to draw lines, um, in order to protect themselves which means they're cherry picking voters. Um, they're, they're looking for voters who are most likely to support them. They're cutting out, uh, any communities that might vote against them. They're also looking at specific things like where challengers might be and they're, they're cutting them out.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE (CONTINUED): Um, and what that means is that if the public feels like it's not satisfied with the direction that their, uh, their legislator is taking or their congressional member, they really don't have a way of expressing that because there's no challenger left. There's no -- there's -- there is no chance of possibly voting that person out. Um, and so it, it creates, uh, a kind of distance from voters that's very dangerous. Um, and it, it really removes the ability, um, that I think most of us believe should be inherent in a democracy, which is that ultimately voters and constituents should be able to hold their representatives accountable through the election process.
And if you can't because the districts have been drawn in a way to be super protective of the incumbent, then you've got a broken system.
DAVE IVERSON: And do you (stammers) do you draw a direct line between that sort of what you would consider to be kind of incumbent protection, uh, to how well or how well the -- or how well rather, the, the legislature functions or doesn't function?
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: I think that there is a line in the sense that there are incumbents who, um, believe that they can get away with grandstanding, um, and making, um, very hard line positions, um, about the budget or about other issues, um, and not be responsive to their constituents. When a lot of people are saying, hey guys, just get together, figure out, you know, something that, that is workable so that our state can move forward because we're in such a, a crisis right now economically and otherwise.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE (CONTINUED): And they don't want to see the legislature bickering. But instead we do have in the legislature some pretty hard-lined, um, uh, folks who've, who've decided that they're going to draw the line in the sand and they're not going to cross over and, and even if, you know, leaders may be proposing compromises, they're just not going to vote with them. And that really creates a recipe for gridlock and a, a recipe for, um, long-term disastrous results for our state.
DAVE IVERSON: Kathay Feng, Executive Director of California Common Cause. Again, she supports Proposition 20 which would expand the current citizen's commission to not only draw the powers of -- not only have the power to draw boundaries for the state legislature but also that for congressional districts. On the other side is those who support Proposition 27 which would do away with the citizen's commission and return the power of redistricting back to the state legislature. Daniel Lowenstein represents that point of view, again, professor of law at UCLA.
DAVE IVERSON (CONTINUED): Professor Lowenstein, take up the other side then, if you would, and whether or not you see redistricting as being important to increasing the way in which our legislative bodies function.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Uh, no, I really think, uh, actually redistricting, uh, is very overrated by, uh, the press and, uh, a small number of activists such as Kathay (stammers) Feng. But, uh, most people, I -- the great majority of, uh, citizens and there's actually even survey evidence to prove this -- uh, quite correctly realize that this isn’t something that effects their lives, uh, very much. Uh, there are about a thousand, uh, issues that are much, much more important for the ordinary person in this state.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA (CONTINUED): Uh, it's very important for politicians which is why there's so much, uh, sound and fury about it. Um, I certainly agree with your premise that, uh, there are some problems with the California legislature and, uh, some pretty serious problems. But, you know, if you go to a doctor or a supposed doctor, uh, and, and you have a bad back and the doctor says, well, I think I'm going to cut off your fingers, uh, you know, the, the, the ailment may be a real ailment...
...but you have to ask whether it’s the right remedy and in this case it isn't. Um, Proposition 11 was sold as, as having a certain modest cost. We haven't even selected -- we're only partway through the selection process and, uh, it's already over the entire budget by several million dollars. This is a sheer waste. Uh, it, it's a -- it's a duplicative process. Uh, we've got it being done in the legislature; we have it being done through this commission. It's wasting millions of dollars.
We're at a period in which we just can't afford to, uh, waste that kind of, uh, tax money. Uh, the idea that, uh, uh, that redistricting, um, you know, somehow, uh, makes incumbents impossible to defeat may sound good but, uh, if you -- if you look at the evidence, it just isn't true. And one of -- there are many ways to prove that. One is that if you look at -- there are some states that have adopted commissions, uh, similar to this one.
And, uh, incumbents do at least as well in those states, uh, as they do here. Uh, uh, what Proposition 27 will do is as you've accurately said, uh, bring this back to the legislature which unlike the commission is accountable to the voters; uh, but it's not true to say that it's simply a restoration of the status quo ante because Proposition 27 has a number of safeguards in it that never existed before, uh, that will constrain the legislature.
For example, uh, it's much more strict on population equality which is one of the most important principles of redistricting. Uh, it -- it's much more strict in requiring, uh, that, uh, legislative districts follow city and county boundaries, for example. It also has, uh, procedural, uh, (stammers) guarantees to insure, uh, uh, transparency. So, uh, actually Proposition 27, uh, is, is a vast improvement over this wasteful, duplicative commission. And it's a, uh, uh, it's also really an improvement even over the prior system.
DAVE IVERSON: But let me ask you about the (stammers) the principle rationale for having someone other than the legislature draw their own districts. It is -- seems self-evident that there is a conflict of interest in that, that there is a kind of built-in, self-serving mechanism. If you have the legislature draw the boundaries for themselves, it's almost unavoidable, would it not be, Professor Lowenstein, for there not to be, uh, for there to be rather a kind of self-serving motivation?
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Well, you can spin (stammers) oh, oh, look, I think that, uh, uh, it's the very nature of a democracy. Democracy depends on the fact that, uh, members of the legislature want to get re-elected and that they will act accordingly. That's the mechanism that gives accountability to the public. But it's no more true in redistricting than it is in anything else. Uh, they may vote in a certain way because, uh, people (phone rings) in the district like it or because they can get campaign contributions or for some other reason.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA (CONTINUED): Uh, but when you look at the results, as I said before, what you find is that, uh, so far as incumbency protection is concerned, there's no difference between the legislature doing it and the commission doing it. So, if that's your goal, uh, this is simply -- it's cutting off your fingers for a bad back. It's a -- it's a remedy that's not going to achieve your goal.
DAVE IVERSON: One of the concerns, Kathay Feng, that's been brought up about the citizen's commission is whether or not it is indeed representative. Mr. Lowenstein and others make the argument that the legislature is actually more representative of the state of California than is this citizen's commission. Over 30,000 people applied, uh, to be a part of it but the pool of candidates that wound up applying for this, wound up being more tilted on the side of, of white and male. Uh, there were fewer, uh, uh, Latinos, African Americans, and Asians who applied to be a part of it. Respond to that concern, that yes, this is a citizen's commission but does it indeed truly represent the diversity that is California?
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: Well, here's the really great news. Um, number one, when we were running Proposition 11, one of the criticisms that, um, people like Professor Lowenstein -- who by the way, I was a student of so with, with all due respect, I, I have to disagree with everything that he's just said -- but everybody, you know, on the other side said that nobody would apply because only the experts knew how to do this and, um, there wouldn't be any interest because everybody knows that this doesn't affect their daily lives.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE (CONTINUED): But in fact, you know, once the word was put out that there was a possibility for people to engage in shaping their own democracy, we had an overwhelming response and that's great. Now, the next step is that we knew that, uh, it was likely that the pool wouldn't be perfectly representative of the state because you have to just look at who is going to most likely participate, uh, generally in voting and you know that it's, it's not always representative.
And so, in Proposition 11, in the law we actually wrote that, um, the selecting body would help to narrow that pool down to a smaller group of 60, um, that they move forward through the process that would really represent that states diversity and, in fact, that's exactly what's happened. So, we're now looking at a smaller pool that they've looked through with excruciating detail. They've had -- live public interviews have been online. If people wanted to visit they could go to www.wedrawtheline.ca.gov. They can see everything happening real time.
And, um, they have selected a group of 60 people -- or they're going to be selecting a group of 60 people that actually are as diverse as the state's population. And, in fact, the pool as it stands right now of a 120 people is more diverse than, than the state legislature. In fact, uh, it, it, it doubles the percentage of woman, um, who are severely under-represented in the legislature. Um, it's got the same percentage of Latinos as the state population.
And so on and so forth with Asian Americans and, and African Americans, as well. And I think also regionally, politically, you know, uh, thinking about, um, occupation and other types of, um, perspectives and backgrounds -- the, the selection process has really been very conscientious to pick, um, some applicants who I think are going to represent the best and brightest that California has to offer. Now, I think that, again, um, uh, Professor Lowenstein has said a couple of things that really bear responding to.
Um, he talked about how, um, there is no proof that, um, incumbents aren't re-elected again and again when they draw their own districts. All you have to do is if you leave the ivory tower and you look at the election results of the last decade, you see that 99 percent of all incumbents are re-elected, um, because they've gone and drawn their own lines and they--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) Well, I think -- I think just to interject for a moment. Um, I, I, I think the point he was making is that incumbents are re-elected regardless and that no matter how you do redistricting, incumbents get re-elected and that we see that phenomenon nationwide in, in states, in Congress, in -- in all elections. And that just how the districts are drawn is not necessarily what defines whether or not an incumbent gets elected.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: So let's look at a specific example. The, the number one person who is leading this effort, um, with Proposition 27 is a congressman by the name of Howard Berman, um, who in the 2000s, um, along with his brother who was a consultant for all of the congressional, uh, members to, to draw state's districts for them and received, um, $20,000 dollars from each congressional Democrat, --basically to draw them a safe seat -- um, was concerned that he might face a Latino challenger. And so, uh, in fact, what he ended up doing in drawing the lines for his own congressional district was to cut out--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) Well, he didn't -- he didn't draw the lines for his own district. That job is done by the legislature.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: (overlapping) Okay. No. His brother draw the lines for all of the congressional members and then they handed that map to the legislature and the legislature adopted it without change. So, in fact, he did draw the lines (laugh) with the help of -- with the help of his consultant brother, yes. Um, but in fact, uh, there have been a lot of accounts of, of the, the fact that he controls that process. And, uh, when he drew the lines for his own district, um, he cut out a 170.000 Latinos from his district because he wanted to make sure that there wouldn't be a challenge. Now--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) Let me hold you there, if I might, Kathay Feng. We have to drop -- get away here for a, a short break. When we come back, I want to let, uh, Daniel Lowenstein respond to that issue and we'll dig in further into how this -- these two propositions might change, uh, the legislature and what the role of the citizen's commission will either be or whether it will go away entirely. We welcome your participation in this conversation, too. Here's the number if you want to join us.
DAVE IVERSON (CONTINUED): It's (866) 733-6786. (866)-733-6786 or you can email us your thoughts at Forum@KQED.org; that's Forum@KQED.org. Back with more in just a moment. This is Forum. I'm Dave Iverson.
Welcome back to Forum. I'm Dave Iverson. Our topic this hour, Propositions 20 and 27 which have to do with redistricting, a quick recap. In two years ago, voters passed Proposition 11 which created a citizen's commission which would draw the boundaries for the state legislature. This year, there's a sort of double or nothing opportunity. We can expand the power of the citizen's commission to not only draw the boundaries for the state legislature but also for -- for Congress or you can vote for Proposition 27 which would do away with the citizen's commission altogether.
Joining us to debate these proposals, Kathay Feng, she's the executive director of California Common Cause and Daniel Lowenstein, professor of .aw at UCLA, author of the law text book Election Law. Before the break, Professor Lowenstein, Kathay Feng was making the point that there's just something, if I could use this word, a little unseemly about, um, people who are in power defining how they're going to stay in power by having the power to draw the lines.
And she offered the example of Congressman Berman who has been very supportive of Prop 27 which would do away with the citizen's commission and, uh, his brother, who is a consultant and active in this arena. Just, if you would, just respond to that particular question. Wouldn't it be a bit of a breath of fresh air in California governance, to have citizens actually actively engaged in this process rather than having it done by the participants themselves?
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Howard Berman's district, and I'm quite familiar with that situation and I will address that. Before I do, I just want to say one thing, I -- I'm glad that Kathay mentioned that, uh, uh, she was once my student. I hope she will agree that, uh, um, I always tried -- I didn't try to get my students to agree with me on everything. I tried to get them to think for themselves and I'm very glad to be pitting against her on this.
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) You were clearly successful, yeah.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Uh, on the other hand, uh, another thing I hope that I tried to, uh, uh, teach them was to debate fairly which means accurately characterizing the position of, uh, the opposition and I, and I really appreciated, Dave, your, your pointing out that she had mischaracterized, uh, uh, what I had said with respect to the incumbency issue. But with respect to Howard Berman's district, I think it is, uh, a good example of how, uh, Kathay's side of the debate tends to oversimplify these things.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA (CONTINUED): Uh, let's start with, uh, what I think she will not disagree with, which is that Howard Berman is one of the most effective and highly, uh, respected, uh, members of, uh, the House of Representatives. He's, he's a very liberal member of the House but he is highly respected by both Democrats and Republicans. He's the Chair of the, uh, Foreign Relations Committee. Uh, now--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) But, but, to, to interject on, on your side, um, Professor Lowenstein, that's not the point. I mean, the, the point isn't whether or not he's effective; the point is whether or not he has the power to define the people who will, uh, elect him or not.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Well, if you'll let me continue, I'll show you why I think it is a part of the point.
DAVE IVERSON: Okay.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Because, um, uh, Kathay was careful enough not to say that he was protecting his own re-election, uh, in the views that he expressed with respect to his district, uh, but she probably gave the impression, uh, perhaps that, that was what he was concerned about. They (stammers) there, there was a lawsuit over this district and a couple of others. They couldn't get an expert witness to say that Howard Berman would have been defeated, uh, no matter how the district was drawn.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA (CONTINUED): Uh, every major, uh, Latino political leader in the country or virtually every (stammers) uh, major Latino, uh, leader, uh, supports Howard Berman. They appreciate very much the work that he's done on immigration and other issues. This was not a matter of his re-election. But his district, which I live in, is a mixed district. It includes, uh, some pretty poor, uh, areas many of which are Latino.
Uh, it includes some, uh, very wealthy, uh, but very liberal areas and by representing this district, uh, it is possible for Howard to be, uh, a more effective, uh, representative for his constituents. The districts that he has with the -- with the makeup, the mixed makeup that it has, helps him, uh, in his work, uh, uh, on, on -- as Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. He wanted a particular kind of district to make him a more effective representative. Uh, which he is and, uh, not to protect his own re-election which was not even an issue. I mentioned--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) I take your point and I -- and I'm sorry to, to jump in on you but, but I do want to get our listeners included in this. I guess the, the question would be, not, again, whether or not he's effective, but whether or not the -- who should -- who should decide who, who represents, um, who defines what those boundaries are; whether or not that should be done by people who have a self-interest in that; or whether or not a citizen's commission can do that effectively or whether they can't.; whether -- whether or not they're well-suited to do that job. Let's hear what our listeners, um, have to say and get them engaged in this conversation, too. Steve is up first in San Francisco. Steve, go ahead, please.
STEVE: Uh, yes, um, thank you, and I, I really enjoy the show. Uh, I, I believe this concept that redistricting is irrelevant, um, is an argument that, frankly, proves too much. If it is irrelevant, why have we had the issue of gerrymandering for as long as our, um, democracy has existed. And it ignores the fact that the perception of fairness in the process so that the people can be fairly representative is, um, really discarded. Um, I'd love to know how the perception of fairness, which I think the perception currently is that it's not a fair system, can be addressed. I'll take my answer off the air.
DAVE IVERSON: Steve, thanks. Thanks for the call. Um, Daniel Lowenstein, that's a, a great question, I think. If -- isn't there some value in a time when people feel disengaged with politics perhaps or certainly don't have a high regard for the legislature, to allow public participation as a way of increasing the amount of trust and engagement that people have in our process?
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Well, uh, first of all, I, I didn't say that the issue is irrelevant. What I said was, that it doesn't affect the average citizen, uh, very much, uh, in his or her daily life. Uh, it's extremely important to individual politicians, uh, which is why they care about it so much and, uh, it's important to political parties. But with respect to this (stammers) uh, this idea of a citizen's commission is a slogan.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA (CONTINUED): The members of the legislature are citizens. Uh, the members of this commission will be citizens. Let's look at how they are chosen. The members of legislature are elected by their constituents who have the opportunity to un-elect them and I think across the country, oh, uh, this year in the last two elections, a lot of politicians are going to find out that that's a real thing. Um, this commission is chosen not by the citizens of this state, but through a bizarre, extraordinarily complicated, uh, uh, process that the citizens have no control over.
Uh, it's a bunch of anonymous tax accountants who, who filter it down. Then despite the fact that this is supposed to keep the politicians out of it, uh, the partisan legislative leaders in each house of legislature have a veto power over the people who get appointed to this. Uh, and then finally, uh, there are, uh, rules in this that (stammers) that actually prevent anybody who's had any experience that would give them (stammers) any understanding of what they're doing so that in the end the real decisions are going to be made by the staff of this commission.
And nobody can say to this day how that staff is going to be chosen and who they are going to be responsive to. So, uh, and, and with respect to public confidence, I defy you to look at the, uh, states that have adopted commissions and try to show that there's any higher degree of confidence in government in those states than in the states that do redistricting in the ordinary way. This is simply -- it's not going to affect that, that question.
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) Kathay -- yeah, Kathay Feng, uh, your, your response on the question of, one, would this restore confidence or not as, as Steven raised for us. But secondly, this question of who this commission is because that has been the subject of some debate, whether or not these people will actually, A, be able to do this job; and, secondly, whether or not the process is so convoluted, um, that we'll wind up with a group that will actually truly be representative of the state.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: I think that, uh, if you look at whose applied, um, so far and who's in the, the pool of 120 that, you know, eventually will be whittled down to 14, um, you see an amazing degree of civic engagement. Um, you see a lot of people who actually do have, um, some, some very relevant skills and background. In fact, Prop 11 required, um, that the final pool, uh, be chosen based on relevant analytical skills, be chosen based on diversity and appreciation of diversity.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE (CONTINUED): And a whole range of factors. So we see, for instance, um, people who are, um, civil rights scholars. Uh, we see somebody who is, uh, was the special masters in drawing the line, uh, the district lines for the courts in previous decades. We've got people who are, um, leaders in their communities who are actively engaged at the local level, um, and who really, uh, actually bring quite a bit of experience and knowledge in running public meetings and, uh, handling demographics, in looking at the legal issues.
.But also thinking about perspectives of different communities. In the end, the skill sets that I think that this final 14 will bring will amaze everybody because I think that we've got a large and very talented state to pull from. And I think that the only thing that, um, uh, I would severely disagree with, um, is Professor Lowenstein's characterization that, um, there's nobody with experience because the conflicts of interest that we put in there saying that if you, uh, were a consultant or a staffer to an elected, if you an elected themselves, if you were a (stammers) major donor to an elected or, you know, if you had some special relationship or special, um, interest in the outcome of a district, that you couldn't apply.
Now, I think that actually there are lots of people who applied who, who satisfied all of those conflicts of interest and, and who, I think, people will be very impressed with.
DAVE IVERSON: Let me hold you there and get another caller engaged. Nancy in Berkeley has our next question. Nancy, go ahead.
NANCY: Hi, um, yeah, I mean, usually I agree with Common Cause. In fact, you know, we usually contribute money to them and stuff and, and I, I'm not real crazy about the, the alternatives. I'm really in a quandary. However, I thought I would like to be one of the, you know, uh, people on the commission and so I applied. And it was insane. There was a huge application. You had to an (stammers) , you have to write five essay questions.
NANCY (CONTINUED): The questions them -- I mean, the answers to really kind of stupid questions like how do you feel about diversity and then you had to get three recommendations. I mean, it absolutely stymied and it stymied a lot of people, friends of mine. Now, I have a Masters degree and, you know, it, it was too much for me. So I cannot believe that this commission is a representative of people in general. I, you know, I, I think, you know, that it's people who are, you know, definitely college graduates.
Probably Ph.Ds who have, um, you know, a lot of, uh, people they know who can recommend them and, you know, will sit down and write, you know, these three page essay answers to these stupid questions.
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) Okay, Nancy...yeah--
NANCY: (overlapping) You can't tell me that African Americans and, and Latinos and, you know, people who, who don't speak English all that well, it couldn't possibly be representative of the state of California.
DAVE IVERSON: Nancy, thanks. Thanks for the, the point of view on the difficulties in applying, though it is still worth saying that some 30,000 people did put their names forward and as Kathay Feng was suggesting, um, there's, there's an interesting group of people who have made it thus far through the process. Before we take our next call, let me just both ask you a, a, a basic question here, um, which is why not just see how this works first before either expanding it or doing away with it?
DAVE IVERSON (CONTINUED): I mean, voters just passed this in 2008; why not just take it out for a test drive, see if it works, and then go forward? But it seems to me we're putting forward to the voters before even know whether or not the current idea works, Prop 11, to either double it or do away with it. Why not just try it out first and then go from there? Daniel Lowenstein?
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Well, I, I think that, uh, actually, uh, if hadn't been for, uh, Charles Munger, Jr., and his $4 million dollars, uh, and his purchasing a place on the ballot for Proposition 20, uh, which takes a bad, wasteful idea and extends it to make it even more bad and wasteful, uh, I think what you're suggesting probably would have happened, um, but, uh, uh, given the fact that we felt it, it's necessary to, to, uh, oppose Proposition 20...
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA (CONTINUED): ...which, which is, um -- I mean, even people who don't agree with me on 27 and who think that a commission should be, uh, um, uh, redistricting for the state legislature, uh, there are separate important reasons to oppose Proposition 20 and I hope we'll get to those before the show is over. But, um, uh, I think that would have happened but, on the other hand, I, I think, uh, something that, uh, John Myers, uh, mentioned at the, uh, beginning of the show should be pointed out here.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: And that is, it's not as if the people demanded this and somehow, uh, we're trying with 27 to, uh, undo what the people did. The truth is that, uh, these proposals have been on the ballot five or six times going all the way back to the 1980s. They have been consistently defeated by the people by large margins. Um, they, I think for precisely the reason that they didn't want, uh, people interested in the House of Representatives to be effectively making the arguments against this kind of commission. Uh, they set it up with Proposition 11, uh--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) Let me hold you there. Sorry to keep interjecting. I apologize to both of you but we are short on time and, and this is a complicated question and I do want to get both of you to respond. Because it seems to me, this is essentially what I'm reciting as the League of Women Voters, uh, position, Kathay Feng, which is let's see if this works before we expand it; let's see if this works before we do away with it.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: Right. I think this, I think when you look at some of the real live consequences of what happened in the last round of redistricting, we're essentially, both Democrats and Republican incumbents, um, colluded together to basically say, let's draw each other super safe districts. What ended up happening was that a lot of communities along the way were cut-up into lots of pieces. And in a -- in a real life way, the consequence is that when they need help and they turn to their representatives, um, to assist them, they get ping-ponged from one office to another because one piece of the community is in this district...
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE (CONTINUED): ...one piece of the community is in that district and really they don't have an effective political voice. If we give weight to -- if we expect -- the reason why -- but--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) But, but, but that's not my -- my, my question is not that. My question is -- my, my question is why not try this out before we either do away with it or double its power?
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: I hear you. But I think the challenge is that if you don't cover congressional districts, if we don't pass Proposition 20, what will happen is that you'll have, um, congressional districts potentially still being drawn by incumbent politicians where communities may potentially continue to be cut-up. And that means that for the (stammers) the rest of the decade when it comes to important issues, they will essentially be left without that political voice.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE (CONTINUED): So if you think that, you know, justice delayed is, is, is essentially justice denied then, um, one has to conclude that, that if you think that the process is fair for the state legislature, um, to have an independent redistricting commission drawing those lines, then it's also fair for Congress. And particularly for the communities that will be affected, it's important for them to have a voice at every level of government, state, as well as congressional. And so you don't want to delay that.
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) And let's -- yeah, let's hear from another--
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: (overlapping) It's a misstatement of fact that, that really ought to be corrected there. Uh, in the 1990s, uh, redistricting was done by the Supreme Court. Uh, in the 2000s, it was done by the legislature. The number of cities and counties that were divided was very, very substantially lower when the legislature did it than when the Supreme Court did it. Furthermore, uh, Proposition 27 for the first time would make it a legal requirement that, uh, the splitting of cities and counties be, uh, minimized.
DAVE IVERSON: And let's hear from another caller. John in San Francisco is next. John, go ahead.
JOHN: Good morning. Uh, I think that Proposition 27 makes, uh, a certain amount of sense, uh, because it would, uh, uh, make the splitting up of, uh, specific geographical areas such as counties and cities more difficult. But we're only being presented with that alternative because of Common Cause's, uh, support of Proposition 11 and Proposition 20. And I think it's time for the citizens of our state to, to take charge of the election process and give the citizen's committee, uh, an opportunity, uh, to see what they can do.
JOHN (CONTINUED): I'm not sure that it's going to be successful but I know what has happened in the past hasn't worked and I think that the citizen's committee should be given an opportunity to see what it can do and including, uh, the federal elections.
DAVE IVERSON: John thanks. Thanks for the call. A couple of emails coming in. Don writes, “One election, we pass a proposition to do one thing, next election there is a proposition to change it. One assumes if something passes it will be on the ballot again in the next election. So is there no limit to how often or we wind up voting on the same issue over and over again.” Lots of other emails coming in. Uh, Ken writes, uh, "Thanks for this good show. There's only one way to draw distinct boundaries - arbitrary lines based on county boundaries. All, and I mean all, other lines will be gerrymandered to some degree.”
DAVE IVERSON (CONTINUED): Sally writes, “I think that the mess that is our constitution and budget is the direct result of direct democracy. Citizen involvement should be a very strong argument against more direct citizen involvement.” And John writes, “I can't believe that in this high-tech state we still allow politicians to draw their own political constituencies. My solution would be to leave it to computers to draw the boundaries based on specific rules.” Just have, um, I'm afraid, a little bit of, of time before we have to take a break for our, our fundraising drive.
So, um, if you would, make each an argument for why in the end, no matter who does this, be it politicians or citizens, um, why it's important to come up with districts that represent people in the best way. Why is the citizen way of doing this, Kathay Feng, the best way to have a representative democracy?
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: Well, I think we're already seeing a level of participation in the redistricting process that's opening up, um, what used to be dominated by backroom deals and, and a lot of secrecy and I think that's a really good thing. Because the more that people engage in, um, the redistricting process, the more they'll engage in a electoral process, the more that we'll be able to, um, watch and be part of, um, the government and the society that we shape. So I think that's a really positive thing.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE (CONTINUED): I think the openness and transparency that we're already seeing with the redistricting selection process will be translated once we have a commission to a process where people can really see real time live how those districts get drawn and, and understand how other communities are impacted. And ultimately, when it comes to important issues, um, we'll be able to choose electedes (sic) who really reflect our values. And that may be re-electing people but it also may be giving voters a chance to express their, their frustration if they feel that with, um, the electedes who are currently in office.
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) And...uh huh. And Daniel Lowenstein, your argument for why those powers are, are best held by the legislature.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: I would say that all of the things that Kathay just said are strong reasons to vote yes on 27 and no on 20. Let me ask the people who are listening to this program, uh, I mean, Kathay says this is this open process. This is supposedly a citizen's process that the people can watch and, and understand. Okay, people listening to this program, including me, by the way, how many of these 60 people can you name?
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA (CONTINUED): And I would guess that for the overwhelming majority, uh, of people listening to this program including me, the answer to that question is going to be zero. Uh, there, there is no--
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: (overlapping) Yeah, but how many of your 120 (unintelligible) .
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) Hang on, hang on, Kathy, please. We just have a moment so a quick last thought and then, then we must leave this.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: (overlapping) There's no citizen control, uh, in a commission. At least the legislators, you know, who they are and if you don't like them you can vote again them. That's citizen control.
DAVE IVERSON: And we'll leave it there for now. We've been talking with both Daniel Lowenstein, professor at UCLA and Kathay Feng of Citizens, uh, Common Cause to focus on this issue of redistricting. As you know, this is a fundraising period for KQED Public Radio. For more information on how to support KQED, go to KQED.org. I'm Dave Iverson.
DAVE IVERSON (CONTINUED): As we continue our discussion now on redistricting, I want to get to a couple of emailed in questions. John writes, “The goal of the redistricting committee is to create reasonable districts, not to increase, uh, the rate of incumbents losing. Better districts will result in representatives more willing to compromise but still likely to be re-elected.” Ian writes, “Professor Lowenstein, looking at California districts, one cannot help but notice how they've been gerrymandered into uncomfortable shapes and sizes. Is there not a certain amount of respectability to redrawing these lines along more regular boundaries? It seems shameful to have a map with such blatant evidence of gerrymandering.”
So let's talk for a moment. Both Daniel Lowenstein first, then Kathay Feng, on whether -- how we can best have a district that does represent people in some sort of (stammers) consistent way whether that's geographically defined or in what way. So, I mean, you both agree, I think, that, that districts ought to have some consistency to them and not be (stammers) redrawn willy-nilly.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: Sure. Um, what Proposition 11 did was to lay out, um, a list of mapping criteria rules, basically, that the commission has to follow. Um, basically, so, you know, first and foremost, you want to draw districts that have an equal number of people; and then, second, you want to respect the voting rights act; and, third, you want to draw lines, you know, districts that are connected; and, and, fourth, you want to respect cities, counties, and communities.
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE (CONTINUED): And in creating that list of rules for the commission to follow, um, for the first time, the state is basically saying let's try to make this fair and objective. Just like any sports game, let's lay out what those rules are beforehand and not quibble about them, um, during the process. And I think if we were to return the process back to the legislature, um. and this is the reason why people need to vote no on 27, is that the legislature has notoriously, um, essentially put one rule paramount to all of those other rules and that is protect incumbency. Um--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) But in the language of Proposition 27, as I understand it, Daniel Lowenstein, there -- you're putting forward language that even though the legislature would have the power to draw their own boundaries they would be constrained in their ability to do that. How, how can you guarantee us that they would, in fact, follow those directions?
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Well, the -- I think that the, the main difference on this, uh, because in some ways, uh, on, on the particular point we're talking about, there's similarities between--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) Right.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: --uh, 11, uh, and 27. Uh, the main difference is that, um, 27 is much more specific. The criteria are vague, uh, many of them in, uh, 11 whereas in, uh, 27, uh, they are quite specific and the way that, uh, you can enforce that is that, uh, it will be -- I mean, the legislature will follow them for this very simple reason, that if they don't, uh, their plan is likely to be overthrown in court.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA (CONTINUED): And that's the one thing they don't want. Uh, I think we should point, however, to Proposition 20 which is different, uh, and I think really pernicious in a way that, uh, uh, uh, 11, although I disagree with it, is not. And that's why yes on 27 and no on 20 are distinct issues. You could be against 27, you should still be against, uh, 20 as well because 20, for reasons that are unclear to me, puts in two new criteria.
Uh, one of which is that the people in the district should have basically the same standard, uh, of living, uh, or income. And secondly, that they should have, uh, similar, uh, uh, wage (stammers) excuse me, uh, job opportunities. Um, it's really calling for a kind of a economic segregation. There should be districts for rich people and districts for middle class people and districts for poor people--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) But that's a bit of an overstatement, isn't it--
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: (overlapping) No.
DAVE IVERSON: --uh, Professor Lowenstein? I mean, the actual language says a community of interests is the contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. How do--
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: (overlapping) You're looking at 11. You're looking at 11. I, I, I agree--
KATHAY FENG, CALI COMMON CAUSE: (overlapping) No. That, that's from Prop -- that's from Prop 20.
DAVE IVERSON: I mean, I, I don't understand how community of interests gets to the point of your saying where there's an income test.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA: Because, because there's more specific language that specifically uses that language. Now, I've had people say (stammers) uh, as you may be aware, uh, some of your listeners may be aware, uh, I had an op ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, uh, a week or so ago, uh, and I've had a number of people bring this up with me that, well, there are lots of criteria and the -- and I've only, you know, and these -- the ones that I've mentioned are only two.
DANIEL LOWENSTEIN, PROF. LAW, UCLA (CONTINUED): They're really pretty overlapping. Uh, so, what's such a, a big problem. But what they don't understand is that, um, when the plan is being formulated, uh, you -- it's not just an impressionistic, what are all the criteria, you have to be concerned about how could this plan be challenged in court and--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) You know, I'm, I'm so sorry. But we're going to have to hold it there. This conversation could go on and on. I'm sorry, Miss Feng, to not give you a response on that last point. I would encourage our listeners to look into this more, to read about it. There's lots online and to continue to post your comments on our website as we continue these important conversations about how California will proceed in the November election. Thanks both to Daniel Lowenstein and Kathay Feng for being part of our program today.
DAVE IVERSON (CONTINUED): This is Forum on KQED. I'm Dave Iverson.
ANNOUNCER: Funds for the production of Forum are provided by the members of KQED Public Radio and the Germanicos Foundation and the Generosity Foundation in honor of Louise and Claude Rosenberg.
plan is being formulated, uh, you -- it's not just an impressionistic, what are all the criteria, you have to be concerned about how could this plan be challenged in court and--
DAVE IVERSON: (overlapping) You know, I'm, I'm so sorry. But we're going to have to hold it there. This conversation could go on and on. I'm sorry, Miss Feng, to not give you a response on that last point. I would encourage our listeners to look into this more, to read about it. There's lots online and to continue to post your comments on our website as we continue these important conversations about how California will proceed in the November election. Thanks both to Daniel Lowenstein and Kathay Feng for being part of our program today.
DAVE IVERSON (CONTINUED): This is Forum on KQED. I'm Dave Iverson.
