The State of Redistricting
A friend in Texas, who keeps me apprised of redistricting conditions there, keeps asking me what the situation is in California with Gov. Gavin Newsom's efforts to counteract gerrymandering here.
As background, California passed a state law about 20 years ago to have a bipartisan, independent commission draw Congressional district lines after each census. So, any attempt by MAGOP officials to suggest that California has majorities because of unfair gerrymandering tactics is a blatant, demonstrable lie. And to respond to the effort by Texas to manipulate districting in the middle of a 10-year census period, Newsom has said that, rather than push through a secret plan through the legislature like Texas is trying to do, he wants to hold a Special Election in November and let the voters decide on his redistricting plan. Further, the plan would a) only be temporary, for this one election only, and not change state law permanently, and b) it would only kick in if the Texas plan goes forward.
So, where do things stand with that proposal?
Here are excerpts from a couple of articles on the status of things. Short version: there’s a narrow window, but it is actively being worked on –
From KCRA TV-3 in Sacramento --
The California Secretary of State's office confirmed Tuesday that in order for there to be a redistricting special election on November 4 in California, state lawmakers need to declare a special election by August 22.
Lawmakers have been on summer recess and are scheduled to return to Sacramento on August 18.
The August 22 deadline means they would have five days to draw the new Congressional maps, set the ballot initiative that would be presented to voters, and take public comment.
The ballot initiative would require a 2/3 vote of approval from state lawmakers in the Assembly and State Senate in order for it to be presented to voters.
…"No way that this timeline can be met and have real transparency and due process on an issue as important as representation in our democracy," said Republican Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher on X Tuesday night. "Totally shady and corrupt."
Also, from ABC TV-7 in San Francisco –
Multiple legislative sources familiar with the matter tell ABC7 News that state lawmakers are working on new congressional maps that are "almost ready," as an attempt to offset any action taken by Texas. Newsom told reporters at an unrelated press conference Monday that any legislation California passes would only be triggered by action in Texas.
"Things have changed. We're reacting to that change," he said. "We're working with the legislature on a trigger that if they do move forward, California will not sit by idly and watch this democracy waste away. We'll fight fire with fire."
So, two-thirds approval are needed in the Assembly and State Senate. I checked, and Democrats have majorities larger than that requirement. The State Senate has 40 members, and Democrats holds 30 seats. The Assembly has 80 seats, and Democrats hold 60 seats. So, that’s 75% in each house, both above the 66.7% needed.
That said, not all Democrats in the Assembly and Senate support changing the law. Though I don’t know how many -- I only read a quote from one. And of course, not supporting the change does not mean that, when it comes to voting, they won’t be convinced that it’s nonetheless the way to act. After all, I don’t like changing the law – but – it’s only temporary for one election, it will be decided by a public vote, it’s playing by the same rules others are playing by and not putting yourself at a disadvantage, and it might be what’s necessary to save democracy. So, even though I don’t like it…I would vote for it if I was in the Statehouse.
Needless-to-say, there’s a very small opening on when this could be done. But what I loved reading is that lawmakers are already working on districts maps, so it seems like it will be ready to go and debate and vote on when officials return from Summer recess.
Will it pass the state legislature? And if so, will the voters pass it?
Well, we'll find out. But at least it's moving forward. And maybe (hopefully) won't be necessary.
Comments