Redistricting

California's Constitution, as well as state and federal laws have been established to help preserve the integrity of "one voice one vote." California requires that members of Congress, the Senate, Assembly and Board of Equalization be elected from single-member districts; that the population of all districts be reasonably equal (within one percent); that the geographical integrity of local governments and regions be respected "to the extent possible;" and that communities of interests be respected.

All over the state, the counties' Registrar of Voters, state and congressional staff have been working with elected officials and constituents to help determine boundaries that will hold communities, neighborhoods, and interests in tact; while struggling to preserve established constituent groups and keeping district numbers as close to a one percent variance as possible.

Within California, one new congressional district is currently being decided, for a total of 53 seats. The legislature is required to hold their final vote on the state's boundaries by September 14th, with the governor's signature due no later than September 26th. If the state legislature or the governor cannot agree, the State Supreme Court will make the decision (which is exactly what happened in 1990).

Locally, there have been numerous public hearings over the last six months. The Sacramento City Council approved their redistricting plans on August 14th. The Sacramento County redistricting map was adopted by the Board of Supervisor August 15th. By the time you receive this Voter, it is anticipated that copies of the new district maps will be available at the Registrar of Voters' office.

Though the opportunity for public input has lapsed, that doesn't necessarily mean that the opportunity for influence has also passed.

As Doris Fine, Government Director, LWVC recently wrote, "A recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court provided needed guidance to state legislatures and federal courts regarding the use of race as a factor in devising redistricting plans. The 5-4 decision upholds a long-disputed North Carolina congressional district against the accusation that it was a product of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The effect of the decision gives the green light to state legislatures to use political considerations in drawing district lines, even it if appears that race is also a key factor. According to the decision, "racial identification is highly correlated with political affiliation." Therefore while districts drawn to protect incumbents may appear to give undue consideration to race, the court ruled, that does not discredit them. In effect, race is not an illegitimate consideration in redistricting, as long as it is not the controlling or dominant race. The ruling is a warning to judges not to be too quick to label as racial a legislative judgment mostly based on politics."

The League's position on redistricting assumes that there is little likelihood of avoiding the political nature of a process that so blatantly serves the interests of those in office. Control by the party in power - whether directly or through appointment of a commission - is inevitable, but remains dependent on the legal requirements and on the faithfulness of legislators to those requirements in the mapping of their districts. The League's primary concern is that the criteria used by made available, and that the process as a whole be open to the public to the greatest extent possible. And, finally that the legislature be held accountable both for the process and the plans that are produced."

What can you do? Let your elected representatives know that they are being watched, and will be held accountable. Alert your community to the potential outcomes of the redistricting boundaries, and if warranted, call for additional scrutiny and concerted action.