Claim Democracy
Claim Democracy encourages networking and collaboration among national, state and local democracy groups in order to build support for and strengthen a national infrastructure for a pro-democracy movement within the United States.  Its most significant accomplishment thus far has been our November 2003 and 2007 Claim Democracy conferences, which brought together representatives of more than 100 organizations and more than 500 people for intensive private meetings and public dialogue inWashington, D.C. In light of recent election administration problems and high-profile obstacles to fair elections in the public interest, its major goal for 2008 is the Democracy SoS (Secretary of State) project, designed to develop a comprehensive agenda for action by Secretaries of State and other elected officials who influence election policy.

The vision for Claim Democracy is to help create and support a network of state-based organizations that work to secure, enhance and exercise the right vote through a range of reforms and activities. Rather than exclusively focus on one particular reform or another, these organizations would be able to coordinate and pool resources to advocate one of a number of reforms that meet clear pro-democracy goals. Examples include: expanding the electorate, increasing citizen participation, providing fair representation, promoting better political debate, freeing voters to support their candidate of choice and supporting equality in the political process. Potential activities include plans to:
  • Establish a new website with a range of information about pro-democracy issues, blogs from several leading pro-democracy advocates and easy means to find pro-democracy advocates in one’s state or locality. An internal invitation-only set of pages would facilitate communication among leaders of pro-democracy groups.

  • Promote creation of and support for a network of state and local groups working to promote participation and reform in their state – ideally seeking to integrate efforts to boost citizen participation with reform efforts and seeking to establish lasting relationships with elected officials able to enact change.

  • Coordinate regular meetings of a pro-democracy roundtable of national and local groups, designed to promote strategic thinking, greater communication and coordination in the pro-democracy movement and support for state/local efforts.

  • Develop a “war-room” communications ability able to spotlight deficits in our democracy and work being done to address those efforts.

  • Develop and work with caucuses of pro-democracy elected officials, at local, state and federal levels – coordinating strategic initiatives that can be carried out at different levels.

  • Develop curriculum about the history of expansion of democracy in the United States as a whole and individual states to be used in K-12 schools.


 
'Safe Seats' Cheat the Voters
Published November 10th 2002 in Los Angeles Times
There wasn't much mystery last week about who would be elected to the state Legislature or California's delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives. Party leaders in the Legislature stacked the deck last year when they drew new district lines to reflect population shifts on the basis of the 2000 census. Those 153 districts were carved into enclaves of heavy Democratic and Republican voter registration to provide "safe" seats. Maps in hand before a single vote was cast, you could have picked the winner in virtually every district -- 80 in the Assembly, 20 in the state Senate and 53 in the House. Only five of the 153 were true contests. All but one of the 49 California incumbents in Congress won by a landslide, with at least 60% of the vote. The other, Rep. Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara), won with 59%. Democrats remain strongly in control of all three houses. This cynical deal may serve the pols well, but it's bad for California. It becomes virtually impossible to hold lawmakers accountable at the next election. The Legislature is increasingly polarized between Republican conservatives and liberal Democrats. In spite of their majorities, Democrats need some GOP votes to pass the budget and any other fiscal bill. That's why this year's budget was deadlocked for two months beyond the deadline. It's in the public interest to have clear lines of opinion and vigorous debate. But the Legislature is so fractured now, it's virtually impossible to reach a compromise on any major issue, particularly on spending and taxes. The result of Tuesday's election will be even more gridlock. In most states, legislatures have the task of redrawing legislative district boundaries and those of the state delegation to the U.S. House, usually subject to gubernatorial approval. A few legislatures have appointed commissions that do the job. In Iowa this year, a nonpartisan bureau set the boundary lines for districts. California's districts were drawn to last until after the 2010 census. The silver lining, if any, is that good-government groups have time to develop an alternative to legislators drawing their own districts. There is a solution, but not one the legislators would accept. They cherish the power to decide where district lines go, even to skew them so that a potential challenger is put into a neighboring district. Past ballot initiatives to give the job to an independent commission were defeated in a flood of misleading attack ads paid for by legislative leaders. Some activists talk of the Iowa method. That might be difficult in California because the head of the comparable office, though serving both Republicans and Democrats, is picked by the leaders of the party in power. Although Iowa considers its procedure nonpartisan, it's impossible to remove politics from the process. That isn't the goal. The goal is to bring competition -- and a chance for serious debate -- to legislative races. The discussion should begin now. Because it would require a constitutional amendment to take away the Legislature's redistricting power, there's no reason why the measure couldn't order the drawing of new districts for the next election. That would return real competition and accountability to the political process in California.