BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, REAPPORTIONMENT AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Debra Bowen, Chair
BILL NO: SCA 3 HEARING
DATE:3/15/06
AUTHOR: LOWENTHAL ANALYSIS
BY:Darren Chesin
AMENDED: 3/9/06
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.
Overview
This measure would instead provide for the appointment of a five
member Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) which would
establish congressional, Assembly, Senate, and State Board of
Equalization districts by February 28 of each year ending in the
number one. The provisions of this measure are deemed to be
self-executing.
IRC Eligibility
No more than two members of the IRC may be members of the same
political party and no two or more may reside in the same
county.
Each member must be continuously registered with the same
political party, or registered as unaffiliated with a
political party, for three or more years immediately preceding
appointment.
SCA 3 (LOWENTHAL) Page 2
Within the three years immediately preceding appointment, a
member may not have been appointed to, elected to, or have
been a candidate for any public office, and may not have
served as an officer of a political party, or served as a
registered paid lobbyist or as an officer of a candidate's
campaign committee.
Legislative and congressional staff and consultants,
contractors to the Legislature, and any person with a
financial or family relationship with the Governor, a Member
of the Legislature, a Member of Congress, or a member of the
State Board of Equalization, are not eligible to serve as
members of the IRC.
During their terms, and for three years thereafter, IRC
members shall be ineligible for public office in this State or
for registration as a paid lobbyist.
IRC Appointments
No later than January 8 of each year ending in the number one,
a panel of 10 retired judges of the Court of Appeal (who will
be appointed by the Judicial Council) must establish a pool of
25 qualified persons who are willing to serve on the IRC with
10 nominees from each of the two largest political parties and
five who are not registered with either of the two largest
political parties.
The panel of retired judges must make every effort to ensure
that the pool of candidates is representative of both genders
and California's racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity.
No later than January 31 of the same year, one appointment to
the IRC from the pool of 25 nominees must be made in this
order by each of the following officials: the Speaker of the
Assembly, the Assembly minority leader, the President pro
Tempore of the Senate, and the Senate minority leader. Each
official shall have a seven-day period in which to make an
appointment.
The four IRC members appointed by the legislative leadership
must then select, by majority vote, from the nomination pool a
fifth member who is not registered with any party already
represented. That fifth member will serve as chairperson of
the IRC.
SCA 3 (LOWENTHAL) Page 3
The term of office of each member of the IRC expires upon the
appointment of the first member of the succeeding IRC. The
IRC may not meet or incur expenses after the redistricting
plan becomes final except with respect to any pending
litigation or as otherwise specified.
IRC Proceedings
Three members of the IRC, one of whom is the chairperson or
vice chairperson, would constitute a quorum and three or more
affirmative votes would be required for any official action.
The IRC could only conduct business in meetings open to the
public and noticed at least 14 days in advance.
With specified exceptions, the records of the IRC pertaining
to redistricting, and all relevant data would be open to
inspection. Ex-parte communications with members would be
prohibited.
The IRC would be required to display a draft map of
congressional, Assembly, Senate, and State Board of
Equalization districts to the public for comment for at least
30 days. The Assembly or the Senate, or both, may act within
this period to make recommendations to the Commission by
majority or by minority report, which must be considered by
the IRC. The Commission would then establish final boundaries
for these districts and certify them to the Secretary of
State.
The Legislature would be required, by majority vote, to make
the necessary appropriation adequate to meet the IRC's
estimated expenses. The IRC would have procurement and
contracting authority and may hire staff and consultants,
exempt from civil service, including legal representation.
The Supreme Court will have original and exclusive
jurisdiction in all proceedings in which a plan adopted by the
IRC is challenged.
Redistricting Criteria
Each member of the Senate, Assembly, Congress, and the State
Board of Equalization would continue to be elected from
SCA 3 (LOWENTHAL) Page 4
single-member districts. The territory of each Senate district
must be divided into two Assembly districts.
Party registration and voting history data must be excluded from
the initial phase of the mapping process but may be used to test
maps for compliance with other specified goals. The places of
residence of incumbents or candidates may not be identified or
considered.
The IRC would initially create districts of equal population in
a grid-like pattern across the state then adjust the grid as
necessary to accommodate each of the following goals,
prioritized in this order:
Districts must comply with the United States Constitution and
the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Districts must each have equal population with other districts
for the same office, to the extent practicable.
Districts must be geographically contiguous to the extent
practicable.
District boundaries must respect communities of interest to
the extent practicable.
District lines must use visible geographic features, city and
county boundaries, and undivided census tracts to the extent
practicable.
Districts must be geographically compact to the extent
practicable.
To the extent practicable, competitive districts should be
favored where to do so would create no significant detriment
to the aforementioned goals.
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
SCA 3 (LOWENTHAL) Page 5
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.
Recent 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 amending a plan which complied with
specified standards including a 1% population variance and the
"nesting" of Senate and Assembly districts.
SCA 3 (LOWENTHAL) Page 6
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.
Proposition 77, another initiative intended to create a
redistricting panel, failed passage by a 59.8% to 40.2% vote on
the November 8, 2005 Statewide Special Election ballot. The
initiative would have required 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 would have been required to consider legislative and
public proposals and comments and hold public hearings. The
redistricting plan would have become effective immediately when
adopted by the panel and then automatically submitted to the
voters for approval. If voters subsequently rejected the plan,
the process would repeat itself. The criteria the panel would
have followed included 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
SCA 3 (LOWENTHAL) Page 7
plans, except as required by federal law.
The proponent of Proposition 77 is sponsoring yet another
redistricting commission initiative that is currently eligible
for circulation. This measure would create an 11-member
commission selected randomly from voter rolls by the Secretary
of State.
Communities of Interest
The term "community of interest" is not defined by statute but
is generally considered a group of persons united by shared
characteristics, interests, values, history, culture, ethnicity,
background, economic ties, etc., that may or may not coincide
with a specific governmental boundary. For example, a river may
form a boundary between two cities or counties, but the entire
river valley may comprise a recognized community of interest.
Census Tracts
According to the United States Census Bureau, census tracts are
small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a
county. Census tracts usually have between 2,500 and 8,000
persons and, when first delineated, are designed to be
homogeneous with respect to population characteristics, economic
status, and living conditions. Census tracts do not cross
county boundaries. The spatial size of census tracts varies
widely depending on the density of settlement. Census tract
boundaries are delineated with the intention of being maintained
over a long time so that statistical comparisons can be made
from census to census. However, physical changes in street
patterns caused by highway construction, new development, etc.,
may require occasional revisions; census tracts occasionally are
split due to large population growth, or combined as a result of
substantial population decline.
COMMENTS
SCA 3 (LOWENTHAL) Page 8
1.Is Five Enough ? Under this measure, the IRC would be made up
of five people selected from a pool of 25 nominees (ten from
each of the two largest political parties) established by a
panel of 10 retired Court of Appeal judges. The four
legislative leaders would select one person apiece and the
four people chosen would select the fifth member of the panel.
No more than two members of the IRC can be from the same
political party and or county. What's not clear is whether a
five-member IRC is most appropriate or whether a larger IRC
would be more representative of California's voters. Some of
the parties who have expressed an interest in this measure
have raised the question of whether an 11-member IRC would be
more appropriate. The author and committee may wish to
consider what the appropriate size of the IRC should be.
2.Is Nesting for the Birds ? This measure requires that each
Senate district be divided into two Assembly districts,
otherwise known as "nesting." While nesting provides some
administrative convenience, it may also serve as an artificial
barrier to creating districts that better comply with other
established criteria such as compliance with the federal
Voting Rights Act, compactness, and respect for communities of
interest. The author and committee may wish to consider
whether the nesting of Assembly districts should be required.
3.All in the Family . This measure provides that persons with a
financial or family relationship with specified officeholders
are not eligible to serve as members of the IRC. The author
and committee may wish to consider clarifying the definition
of "financial or family relationship" for the purposes of this
prohibition.
4.First and Goal . This measure sets the following as the first
two prioritized goals when establishing districts: (1)
compliance with the United States Constitution and the federal
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), and (2) equal population with
other districts for the same office. The equal population
goal however, is a direct result of numerous
constitutionally-based federal court cases. Furthermore,
while compliance with the VRA must be required, it is
obviously subordinate to the Constitution. The author and
committee may wish to consider amending this bill to combine
population equality with constitutional compliance and setting
VRA compliance as the second prioritized goal.
SCA 3 (LOWENTHAL) Page 9
5.What Is "Competitive" ? As the final prioritized goal for
establishing districts, this measure provides that, to the
extent practicable, competitive districts should be favored
where to do so would create "no significant detriment" to the
aforementioned goals. The author and committee may wish to
consider amending this measure to clarify the definitions of
"competitive" and "no significant detriment," or perhaps
consider removing this goal altogether. This provision was
not in the version of SCA 3 approved by this committee last
year and since it may conflict with the other criteria
delineated in this section - and since what is "competitive"
or a "significant detriment" are in the eye of the beholder -
the author and committee may wish to consider removing this
goal.
6.Starting Out In The Dark . The measure precludes the IRC from
using party registration and voting history in the initial
phase of the mapping process, however it allows the
information to be used to test the maps for compliance with
other provisions of SCA 3. The VRA requires the use of party
registration and voting history data when crafting
redistricting maps, so it's not clear what benefit is achieved
by preventing this information from being used early in the
process. Any proposed maps will certainly be changed as they
go through the public hearing process, but by excluding the
use of this data early in the process, this provision
virtually ensures that the first set of maps will be legally
deficient.
7.Can I Have Your Number ? Existing law requires districts of
each type to be numbered consecutively commencing at the
northern boundary of the State and ending at the southern
boundary. This measure, however, does not address how
districts should be numbered, though the version of SCA 3
approved by this committee last year did included language to
address this issue. The author and committee may wish to
consider amending this measure to clarify how districts of a
given type shall be numbered.
8.Related Legislation . The redistricting provisions of this
Constitutional Revision are conceptually similar to ACA 8
(Maze) which is pending referral to Assembly policy committee,
ACA 3x (McCarthy) which is pending in the Assembly Committee
on District Representation, and ACA 5x (Canciamilla) which is
also pending referral to Assembly policy committee.
SCA 3 (LOWENTHAL) Page 10
PRIOR ACTION
Senate ER&CA Committee 4-1
(This measure was pending on the Senate Appropriations Committee
suspense file when it was substantially amended and subsequently
referred back to this committee for further consideration.)
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: None received
Oppose: None received
SCA 3 (LOWENTHAL) Page 11