By Steve Hill
Published May 8th 2003 in Steven Hill's Written Testimony Before the California HAVA Commission
Imagine, for a moment, that you are a Doctor of Democracy. And
you are going to diagnose the patient of democracy that is lying on the
gurney before you -- that is, democracy in California. Like any good
doctor, you need to read the vital signs of the patient. The vital
signs of democracy are things like voter turnout, competitiveness of
elections, how many seats were uncontested or won by landslides, and more.
So you take a reading of the first vital sign: voter turnout.
The voter turnout for California's most recent governor's race was the
lowest in state history. Only about 30 percent of the state's 21.7
million eligible voters bothered to go to the polls, dropping
California to 47th in state rankings for voter turnout. Voter turnout for
congressional and local races has been even lower. Here in San Francisco, our
last city attorney race had voter turnout in a December runoff of
about 13 percent of eligible voters.
Moreover, voter turnout is lower among some
groups than others. Who doesn't vote? Young people, poor
people, and people of color disproportionately vote less than older,
whiter and wealthier people. So when people and pundits like George
Will say "Maybe they don't vote because they are satisfied," we know
that turnout is lowest among those people who have LEAST reasons to
be satisfied.
So you take a reading of the second vital sign: competitiveness
of elections. In the 2002 California congressional elections, 50
out of 53 seats either were uncontested (two seats) or were won by huge
landslide margins of 60 to 40 percent or higher (48 seats). Two
more seats were won by a non-competitive margin of 55 to 45 percent or higher,
for a total of 52 out of 53 races - 98 percent -- that weren't even
close. The victor was foreordained, and there was no choice for voters in
these races other than to ratify the only candidate who stood a
chance of winning.
At the state
legislative level in 2002, out of 80 Assembly seats, 70
of these either were uncontested (eight seats) or were won
by huge landslide margins of 60 to 40 percent or higher (62
seats). Five more seats were won by a non-competitive ten point spread
(55 to 45 percent or higher), for a total of 75 out of 80 races - 94 percent
-- that weren't even close. State senate races saw the same kinds of results. Eighteen
of the twenty seats up for election either were uncontested (six
seats) or were won by huge landslide margins of 60
to 40 percent or higher (12 seats). One more
seat was won by a non-competitive ten point spread (55
to 45 percent or higher), for a total of 19 out of 20 races -
95 percent -- that weren't even close.
Why is this, one might ask? Is it because all the
incumbents, in a time of a declining economy, energy crises, school
crises, and more, still were massively popular? Hardly. Here's a
stronger likelihood. According to Rep. Loretta Sanchez quoted
in the Orange County Register, she and other Democratic
congressional incumbents forked over $20,000 each to the political
consultant who was overseeing the gerrymandering of legislative
district lines to have drawn for them a "designer district" in which
they could not lose. This is just "insider trading" by another name,
no different than Enron or any of the other insider scandals. Not
only that, but the consultant doing the line-drawing was the brother
of one of the incumbents, and he split a Latino area in order to
ensure his brother's re-election, prompting a lawsuit by the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Education Fund. The 2001 redistricting
plan in California, which was dominated by the Democratic Party,
raised "incumbent protection plans" to a crass new level. This
money paid was tantamount to the type of "protection money" one
might pay to a local mafia don to protect your turf.
The net effect of redistricting in California was to do away
with legislative elections for the next ten years. The lines
drawn were purposefully crafted to create safe, one-party districts where
the outcome is foreordained. Voters don't need to show up to
the polls. In fact, we at the Center for Voting and Democracy are able to
predict these winners well over a year in advance, just by looking at
these kinds of demographics and a few other factors. There once was a
time when voters went to the polls on the first Tuesday in November
and picked their representatives. But that's changed. Now,
the representatives pick us first. These kinds of shenanigans rob voters of our vote. Is it any
wonder that voter turnout has hit record low levels?
Here's what we must do in
California to revitalize our democracy:
1) California should adopt the Iowa model for
redistricting. Iowa took the redistricting process out of the hands
of the incumbents and their parties, and gave it to an independent
nonpartisan commission. A commission should then use non-political
criteria for line-drawing like< population equality, contiguity,
and enhancing competition, while ensuring full protection of
minority voting rights. This produces positive results because the
ability of politicians to manipulate district lines is severely
constrained.
2) California also should form a commission to study
getting rid of single-seat districts entirely, for either the
Assembly, the Senate, or both, and replacing these winner-take-all
districts with a "full representation" (proportional representation)
voting system that doesn't require redistricting. Full
representation would produce more competition, more choice for
voters, increase voter turnout, and allow California's burgeoning
multi-racial population to enjoy diverse and fair representation
without this smoke-filled-room business of gerrymandering district
lines. Illinois used such a system for 110 years to elect its
lower house, and enjoyed these sorts of benefits. Other local
governments and school boards in the U.S. already are elected using
these full representation systems, and they are used extensively in
Europe and elsewhere. The Democratic Party uses such a system to
nominate its presidential candidate (the Republicans do too, but
only in a third of states). This option might be particularly
attractive considering recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Voting
Rights cases.
3)California should adopt instant runoff voting to elect its
statewide constitutional offices like governor, lieutenant governor,
etc. This will institute a runoff system where voters can rank their
candidates, 1, 2, 3, and free up voters to vote for the candidates
they truly like. It will increase positive campaign debate, and
provide different incentives for candidates that will clean up the
worst of the negative campaigning that has plagued California
politics in recent years. Candidates will win by building coalitions
and attracting second rankings from the supporters of other
candidates, rather than by tearing each other down. The
redistricting process is the Achilles heel of our winner-take-all
voting system. It is time to consider reforms that will not
only free California from the machinations involved in redistricting
battles, but will also empower voters to choose their
representatives, and not the other way around.
The patient of California democracy lies prone on the gurney,
and the oscilloscope registering the vital signs is nearly a flat
line. As doctors of democracy, we can say with great assurance, that the
patient is very sick. Not only is the patient very sick, but the remedy
will need to be profound and systemic, and not simply palliative in
nature. I urge you to be clear-headed in your diagnosis, and bold in
your recommendations for a cure.
Thank you.
Steven Hill