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