BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SCA 3|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SCA 3
Author: Lowenthal (D) and Ashburn (R), et al
Amended: 6/13/06
Vote: 27
SENATE ELECTIONS, REAP. & CONST. AMEND. COM : 4-1, 6/29/05
AYES: Bowen, Dunn, Murray, Romero
NOES: Battin
NO VOTE RECORDED: Poochigian
SENATE ELECTIONS, REAP. & CONST. AMEND. COM : 3-1, 3/15/06
AYES: Bowen, Murray, Romero
NOES: Battin
NO VOTE RECORDED: Poochigian
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 9-3, 5/25/06
AYES: Murray, Alarcon, Alquist, Ashburn, Escutia, Florez,
Ortiz, Romero, Torlakson
NOES: Aanestad, Battin, Poochigian
NO VOTE RECORDED: Dutton
SUBJECT : Elections: redistricting
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This Constitutional Amendment provides for an 11
member Independent Redistricting Commission to reapportion
legislative and congressional districts, requires that each
of the 40 Senate districts be divided into two Assembly
districts (nesting), and grants the California Supreme
CONTINUED
SCA 3
Page
2
Court original and exclusive jurisdiction over all
challenges to a redistricting plan adopted by the
Commission.
Senate Floor Amendments of 6/13/06 make various conforming
and substantive changes in response to concerns expressed
in policy committee.
ANALYSIS : 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:
1.Each member of the Senate, Assembly, Congress, and the
Board of Equalization shall be elected from a
single-member district.
2.The population of all districts of a particular type
shall be reasonably equal.
3.Every district shall be contiguous.
4.Districts of each type shall be numbered consecutively
commencing at the northern boundary of the State and
ending at the southern boundary.
5.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.
In 1926, the people passed the so-called Federal Plan of
Reapportionment which divided the State into 40 Senatorial
districts based upon counties and 80 Assembly districts as
equal in population as possible. Under this initiative a
reapportionment commission was created composed of the
Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Surveyor General,
Secretary of State, and State Superintendent of Public
Instruction. In 1942, the Surveyor General was replaced by
the Controller on the Commission. In 1964 in the court
case Reynolds v. Sims , the United States Supreme Court
declared the federal plans unconstitutional. The
CONTINUED
SCA 3
Page
3
Commission tried to reapportion districts after the
Legislature failed in 1971. In 1972, the state Supreme
Court in Reinecke v. the Legislature declared the
reapportionment Commission unconstitutional. The court
indicated the Commission could only reapportion move
districts based on the federal plan. Because the federal
plan was unconstitutional, so was the Commission.
This Constitutional Amendment provides for the appointment
of a 11 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, as follows:
IRC Eligibility
No more than four 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.
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
CONTINUED
SCA 3
Page
4
No later than January 8 of each year ending in the number
one, a panel of 10 retired judges of the Court of Appeal
(five Democrats and five Republicans who will be appointed
by the Judicial Council) must establish a pool of 50
qualified persons who are willing to serve on the IRC with
19 Democrats, 19 Republicans, and 12 other.
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.
Permits the four legislative leaders to exclude two persons
each from the pool as a preemptory challenge.
Requires the eight commissioners to appoint three third
party or "decline to state" (other) commissioners.
If the eight members fail to appoint one or more of the
three additional members within 15 days of the above
meeting, the panel of retired judges shall appoint from the
nomination pool, those positions remaining unfilled, the
additional members who are not registered with any party
already represented on the commission. One of the three
additional members appointed by the IRC, as selected by
majority vote of the eight members appointed by the
subdivision shall serve as the chair of the commission.
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
Six members of the IRC, one of whom is the chairperson or
vice chairperson, would constitute a quorum and six 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.
CONTINUED
SCA 3
Page
5
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 the 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.
Actions by the Commission are all majority vote except the
final vote on the districts which will be by majority vote
of the Commission which much include at least one Democrat,
one Republican and one other.
The Legislature would be required to make the necessary
appropriation adequate to meet the IRC's estimated expenses
in the annual Budget Bill.
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 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 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
CONTINUED
SCA 3
Page
6
or considered in the creation of a map, but may be
considered in establishing the boundaries of final maps.
The IRC would initially create districts of equal
population across the state then adjust the districts as
necessary to accommodate each of the following goals,
prioritized in this order:
1.Districts must comply with the U.S. Constitution and the
federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.
2.Districts must each have equal population with other
districts for the same office, to the extent practicable.
3.Districts must be geographically contiguous to the extent
practicable.
4.District boundaries must respect communities of interest
to the extent practicable.
5.District lines must use visible geographic features, city
and county boundaries, and undivided census tracts to the
extent practicable.
6.Districts must be geographically compact to the extent
practicable.
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
CONTINUED
SCA 3
Page
7
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
percent to 64 percent 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 one percent population
variance and the "nesting" of Senate and Assembly
districts.
Two similar measures failed passage in the early 1980s.
CONTINUED
SCA 3
Page
8
Proposition 14, failed passage in 1982 by a 45.5 percent to
55.5 percent vote and Proposition 39 failed passage in 1984
on a 44.8 percent to 55.2 percent vote.
Proposition 118, which also failed passage in 1990 on a 33
percent to 67 percent 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 percent to
40.2 percent 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:
1.Population equality.
2."Nesting" of Assembly, Senate and Board of Equalization
districts.
3.Respect for city and county borders.
4.Compactness.
5.A prohibition on splitting of census blocks except when
constitutionally required.
6.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
CONTINUED
SCA 3
Page
9
voting history of electors may be used in the preparation
of 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
This bill requires the Governor in 2009, and annually
thereafter, to include in the Governor's Budget an amount
CONTINUED
SCA 3
Page
10
of funding sufficient to meet the estimated redistricting
expenses and to make office space available for the
operation of the Commission. It requires the Legislature
to make the necessary appropriation in the annual Budget
Bill.
Although costs for the commission are unknown at this time,
this program is being modeled after an Arizona initiative
and costs for that commission in 2001 were estimated at $6
million. In addition, costs for the Secretary of State
are estimated at $55,000 per page for ballot printing,
processing and mailing. Recent initiatives have been four
to six pages long totaling election costs of between
$220,000 and $330,000.
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/14/06)
League of Women Voters of California
American Association of Retired Persons, California
California Common Cause
California Metals Coalition
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/14/06)
National Association of Latino Elected Appointed Officials
Los Angeles County Chicano Employees Association (unless
amended)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"in California, as in many other states in the country, the
task of redistricting rests solely in the hands of the
state Legislature. This task is regarded as the most
political act undertaken by the state Legislature.
Redistricting by the Legislature has resulted in
safe-district seats solely based on partisanship. Safer
district seats are either uncontested or won by very large
margins, and elections are often determined in primaries.
This has led to more legislative and budget gridlock in the
state Legislature in past years, and a general feeling that
boundaries have served politicians' needs over the needs of
the people of California. In response to the people of the
State of California whom have expressed their desire that
the Legislature take steps to enhance government
responsiveness, restore trust through transparency, and
CONTINUED
SCA 3
Page
11
eliminate barriers to access and participation."
The League of Women Voters of California state that this
bill represents a major step toward instituting our goals
of redistricting reform, nonpartisan redistricting by a
diverse, independent commission, an open, transparent
process for maximum public input and scrutiny, and sound
criteria for drawing district lines. Polls taken shortly
after the November election showed that large numbers of
Californians support redistricting reform in principle.
They state they are firmly committed to putting that
principle into practice through the legislative process.
They appreciate the willingness to consider the suggestions
they and other public interest groups have made for
improving the specific provisions of this bill, such as
increasing the size of the commission to 11 in order to
make it more representative of the diversity of California.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : National Association of Latino
Elected Appointed Officials are opposed to the "nesting"
requirement included in the principals which would require
that each State Senate district be comprised of two
contiguous State Assembly districts because they believe
that this requirement can lead to the creation of districts
that deny Latino and other federally-protected minority
voters the opportunity to elect the candidates of their
choice, in contravention of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The Los Angeles County Chicano Employees Association is in
opposition because: (1) there is no criteria governing the
standards that would be used by a proposed panel of 10
retired judges of the Court of Appeals to nominate
candidates for appointment to the Redistricting Commission.
This ill defined selection process could lead to abuses.
There must be a detailed selection process. Experience in
redistricting should be accorded considerable weight in the
application process, (2) there should be at least four
public hearings before the Redistricting Commission
presents a map to the public for comment. The first three
public hearings should be to provide testimony. The public
should be allowed to comment on their problems with the
current districts and to provide suggestions on how to
better design these districts. The fourth public hearing
should be held over a two day period in Sacramento where
CONTINUED
SCA 3
Page
12
individuals, organizations, and elected officials who have
created statewide Assembly, Senate or Congressional maps
will be allowed to present them and have the Redistricting
Commissioners and the public comment on them. The next
hearing of the Redistricting Commission should be where the
commissioners present their initial maps for public
comment. Following that hearing of Redistricting
Commission, is the last hearing where the Commissioners
will present their final map for public comment. They can
at the close of the hearing, either adopts their map or
review it again for potential changes, and (3) the State
Senate and State Assembly districts should be held to
current Federal law in terms of population deviation. The
federal courts have let State Senate and State Assembly
districts have a deviation as high as 10 percent unless
they contain districts whose shape and size violate federal
constitutional standards. The result of the current
proposal on the deviation allowed for State Assembly
districts is that many more cities would be required to be
split in order to meet the proposed extremely low deviation
standard.
DLW:nl 6/14/06 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED