BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, REAPPORTIONMENT AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Debra Bowen, Chair
BILL NO: SCA 3 HEARING
DATE:6/29/05
AUTHOR: LOWENTHAL ANALYSIS BY:Darren
Chesin
AMENDED: 6/27/05
FISCAL: YES
DESCRIPTION
Current law provides that in the year following the year in
which the federal decennial census is taken, the
Legislature shall adjust the boundary lines of the Senate,
Assembly, Congressional, and Board of Equalization
districts in conformance with the following standards:
Each member of the Senate, Assembly, Congress, and the
Board of Equalization shall be elected from a
single-member district.
The population of all districts of a particular type
shall be reasonably equal.
Every district shall be contiguous.
Districts of each type shall be numbered consecutively
commencing at the northern boundary of the State and
ending at the southern boundary.
The geographical integrity of any city, county, or city
and county, or of any geographical region shall be
respected to the extent possible without violating the
requirements of any other subdivision of this section.
Current law requires the Legislature to pass the budget
bill by midnight on June 15 of each year.
Current law provides the public with access to legislative
records pursuant to the Legislative Open Records Act
(LORA), as specified.
Current law does not require members of the Legislature to
conduct public meetings within their districts.
This Constitutional Revision makes findings and
declarations regarding the desire to enhance government
responsiveness, restore trust through transparency, and
eliminate barriers to access and participation.
In furtherance of these goals, this Constitutional Revision
- if approved by the voters - would create the Citizen's
Commission on Boundaries and Accountability (Commission)
which, beginning in 2010, will establish and adopt the
boundaries of the Senate, Assembly, Congressional, and
Board of Equalization districts following each federal
decennial census.
The Commission would also be required to review and make
recommendations regarding legislative procedures, fiscal
transparency, and enhancing public access to legislative
records.
This Constitutional Revision would, if approved by the
voters, also:
Require each member of the Legislature to conduct at
least two "town hall" meetings in his or her district
each calendar year. A "town hall" meeting is defined as
a publicly noticed meeting that a member of the
Legislature invites his or her constituents to attend to
discuss legislative issues.
Require each house of the Legislature to pass the budget
bill prior to adjourning for summer recess.
Commission Specifics
The Commission, commencing in 2010, will establish and
adopt the boundaries of the Senate, Assembly,
Congressional, and Board of Equalization districts
following each federal decennial census.
The membership of the Commission will serve three-year
terms and will be appointed by the following entities in
this order between January 1 and July 1 of each year ending
in zero:
The Governor
The President pro Tem of the Senate
SCA 3 (LOWENTHAL) Page
2
The Speaker of the Assembly
The Senate Minority Leader
The Assembly Minority Leader
The Judicial Council
The President of the University of California
The appointees must meet the following criteria:
No more than three members of the Commission can be from
the same qualified political party;
No members may be current or recent officeholders,
candidates, party officials, or lobbyists, as specified;
No two members may reside in the same county.
The appointing authorities must make every effort to ensure
that the members of the Commission represent California's
racial, ethnic, cultural, and gender diversity.
SCA 3 (LOWENTHAL) Page
3
The proceedings of the Commission must be open and publicly
noticed and all records available for public inspection, as
specified. Expenses for the Commission will be paid out of
the Legislature's operating funds and may not exceed 40% of
what was spent for the 2001 redistricting, adjusted
thereafter for inflation.
The Supreme Court will have original and exclusive
jurisdiction in all proceedings should a plan adopted by
the Commission be challenged. Challenges must be made to
and addressed by the Court according to a specified
schedule.
Redistricting Criteria
Redistricting plans adopted by the Commission must conform
to the following criteria and prioritized in the following
order:
a.Officeholders must be elected from single-member
districts.
b.The population of all districts of a given type may not
deviate plus or minus one person per Senate,
Congressional, or Board of Equalization district and plus
or minus 7 persons per Assembly district.
c.Districts must comply with the United States Constitution
and the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.
d.Every district must be contiguous.
e.Districts must be numbered consecutively from north to
south except that Senate districts may deviate from this
requirement, as specified.
f.The geographic integrity of any city or county must be
respected to the extent possible without violating any of
the above criteria.
g.Districts must be geographically compact to the extent
practicable and must reflect geographic communities of
interest.
SCA 3 (LOWENTHAL) Page
4
BACKGROUND
Other States
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures
(NCSL), since the landmark Supreme Court decisions of the
1960s that established the one-person, one-vote principle,
a number of states have shifted redistricting of state
legislative district lines from the Legislature to a board
or commission. There are 12 states that give first and
final authority for legislative redistricting to a group
other than the Legislature. Alaska, Idaho and Arizona were
the most recent states to join this group, using a
commission for the first time in the 2000 round of
redistricting.
There are pros and cons to removing the redistricting
process from the traditional legislative process and the
track record of success by commissions is inconsistent in
terms of having plans overturned by courts. Some people
often mistakenly assume commissions will be less partisan
than legislatures when conducting redistricting, but
whether that actually occurs depends largely on the design
of the board or commission.
Critics of the current redistricting process argue
congressional and legislative elections aren't competitive
largely due to the process of adopting new districts.
Arizona voters approved a state constitutional amendment in
the late 1990s, moving redistricting from the Legislature
to the five-member Arizona Independent Redistricting
Commission that must have at least one member who is not
from the two major political parties and must draw
districts using a specific list of criteria, including
making the districts competitive if at all possible. In
2004, an Arizona state Superior Court overturned the plans
produced by the Arizona Independent Redistricting
Commission for failing to meet the competitiveness
criteria, in addition to other violations of the state
Constitution.
The commissions vary greatly from state to state in terms
of their make-up. Most of them include appointments made by
legislative leaders.
SCA 3 (LOWENTHAL) Page
5
The November Ballot Initiative
An initiative sponsored by Edward J. (Ted) Costa to create
a redistricting panel has recently qualified to appear on
the November 8, 2005 statewide special election ballot.
The initiative requires a three-member panel of retired
judges, selected by legislative leaders, to adopt a new
redistricting plan for California's Senate, Assembly,
Congressional and Board of Equalization districts
immediately upon passage and again after each federal
decennial census. The Panel must consider legislative and
public proposals and comments and hold public hearings.
The redistricting plan would become effective immediately
when adopted by the panel and automatically submitted to
the voters for approval. If voters subsequently reject the
plan, the process would repeat itself. The criteria that
the Panel must follow would include the following:
Population equality.
"Nesting" of Assembly, Senate and Board of Equalization
districts.
Respect for city and county borders.
Compactness.
A prohibition on splitting of census blocks except when
constitutionally required.
No consideration of potential effects on incumbents or
political parties. No data regarding the residence of
an incumbent or other candidate or the party affiliation
or voting history of electors may be used in the
preparation of plans, except as required by federal law.
Competing Measures
If SCA 3 also appears on the November 8, 2005 statewide
special election ballot, the Constitution provides that if
provisions of two or more measures approved at the same
election conflict, those provisions of the measure
SCA 3 (LOWENTHAL) Page
6
receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.
While SCAs don't require a signature from the Governor to
appear on a ballot, if SCA 3 isn't approved by both houses
of the Legislature by June 30, 2005, a separate bill will
need to be passed and approved by the Governor for the
measure to appear on the November 8, 2005 ballot.
Prior Redistricting Initiatives
Proposition 119, which failed passage in 1990 by a 36% to
64% vote, would have created a 12-person Independent
Citizens Redistricting Commission appointed by a panel of
three retired state appellate justices from a list of
voters nominated by nonprofit, nonpartisan organizations.
The Commission was to adjust boundaries of California
Senate, Assembly, Congressional, and Board of Equalization
districts by reviewing submitted plans and adopting a plan
or amended a plan which complied with specified standards
including a 1% population variance and the "nesting" of
Senate and Assembly districts.
Two similar measures failed passage in the early 1980s.
Proposition 14, failed passage in 1982 by a 45.5% to 55.5%
vote and Proposition 39 failed passage in 1984 on a 44.8%
to 55.2% vote.
Proposition 118, which also failed passage in 1990 on a 33%
to 67% vote, would have enacted new redistricting criteria
and provided that all Senate seats stand for election
during the same years as opposed to the current staggered
schedule. Proposition 118 did not create a redistricting
commission but left that responsibility with the
Legislature.
COMMENTS
1.What's a Constitutional Revision ? Only the Legislature
may place a Constitutional Revision on the ballot.
Initiatives may seek only to amend the Constitution.
Since this measure includes redistricting reform, changes
to legislative procedures and other requirements, it
therefore constitutes a revision to the Constitution and
is appropriately referred to as such.
SCA 3 (LOWENTHAL) Page
7
2.Numbering Senate Seats . The provision of this
Constitutional Revision that permits Senate districts to
deviate from the strict north-to-south numbering
requirement is intended to minimize the "deferral" of
voters that is an unavoidable consequence of staggered
Senate terms.
For instance, during the 2001 redistricting, any portion
of the state that was in an "old" even-numbered Senate
district but became part of "new" odd-numbered Senate
district, did not technically have a representative in
the Senate between 2002-2004. In such cases however, the
Senate Rules Committee assigned an incumbent Senator to
provide constituent services to these deferred areas.
Conversely, any portion of the state that was in an "old"
odd-numbered Senate district but became part of a "new"
even-numbered Senate district was actually represented by
two different members of the Senate between 2002-2004.
These dually represented places are referred to as
"accelerated" areas.
This Constitutional Revision provides that any new Senate
district that contains 60% or more of population of an
area previously assigned an odd or even-numbered district
shall be assigned an odd or even district number,
whichever is applicable.
3.You Want a Budget When ? Although current law requires
the Legislature to pass the budget bill by midnight on
June 15 of each year, this deadline is rarely met and
there are no consequences for the Legislature's failure
to do so. This Constitutional Revision would prohibit
each house of the Legislature from recessing for the
summer until it has passed the budget bill.
4.Timing of Redistricting Plan . Under this measure,
redistricting plans would be developed just as they are
now from a timing perspective, in each year ending in
zero following the release of the federal census data,
with the goal of being in place by the regularly
SCA 3 (LOWENTHAL) Page
8
scheduled elections for the year ending in "two."
Under the measure that's qualified for the November 8,
2005 ballot, the three-member panel of retired judges
would have the ability to adopt a redistricting plan
immediately upon passage of the measure by the voters.
That plan would take effect immediately (in theory, in
time for the 2006 election cycle although many observers,
including the Secretary of State, do not believe that is
possible) and would then be submitted to the voters
(presumably on the June or November 2006 ballot) for
approval. If the voters reject the proposal, a new
redistricting plan would have to be drawn up for 2008 and
approved by the voters before it could be put in place.
This creates a number of inequities, not the least of
which is the fact that as discussed in Comment 2, people
who live in "deferred" Senate districts could technically
be without representation for years.
5.Appointers Are Similar, Appointees May Be Different .
Under this measure, the four legislative leaders, the
Governor, the Judicial Counsel, and the President of the
University of California must appoint members to the
seven-member Commission created by this Constitutional
Revision, pursuant to certain criteria.
Under the initiative that has qualified for the November
2005 ballot, the four legislative leaders are each
required to select three retired judges from a list
submitted by the Judicial Council. The leaders must
select retired judges who are from a different political
party than they are, then each leader gets one
"preemptory" challenge to remove one judge from the pool.
That will leave a maximum of eight retired judges, at
which point the Chief Clerk of the State Assembly will
blindly select three names of judges to serve on the
panel.
6.Related Legislation . The redistricting provisions of
this Constitutional Revision are conceptually similar to
ACA 8 (Maze) which is pending referral to Assembly policy
committee, ACA1X3 (McCarthy) which is pending in the
Assembly Committee on District Representation, and ACA1X5
(Canciamilla) which is also pending referral to Assembly
policy committee.
SCA 3 (LOWENTHAL) Page
9
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: None received
Oppose: None received
SCA 3 (LOWENTHAL) Page
10