Background and procedural information
Proposition 77,
a ballot measure sponsored by recent gubernatorial recall leader Ted
Costa and supported by California Governor Arnold Schwarzennegger,
would amend Art. XXI of the California constitution to create an
independent redistricting commission composed of retired judges. The
measure, organized by People's Advocate,
a non-profit organization, ultimately failed at the
special election held on November 8, 2005 by roughly 60% to 40%. The California
legislature is currently in charge of drawing legislative and
Congressional districts, with the Governor maintaining power to approve
or veto proposed districts. This bill would have removed the
politicians from the process and would have imposed certain criteria for drawing
district boundaries. Visit the University of California's Institute for
Governmental Studies for more background information on Proposition 77 and redistricting reform.
Under the initiative, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?
Yes.
The proposed Section 2(a) within Proposition 77, explicitly requires
members of Congress and the state's Assembly, Senate, and Board of
Equalization to be elected from single-member districts. Currently, the
California Constitution provides for 80 Assembly members, 40 Senators,
and 10 members of the Board of Equalization, all to be elected from
single-member districts. In addition, Article 4, Section 6 of the
California Constitution requires that the Senate and Assembly members
will be elected from single member districts, and this requirement
remains unchanged by this proposed amendment.
Does the initiative provide for Voting Rights Act compliance (e.g. can the commission use voter history information)?
Yes.
The initiative specifically states in the proposed Section 2(c) that
proposed districts must comply with the U.S. Constitution and
applicable federal law, including the Voting Rights Act.
Under the initiative, how is the commission formed?
The
Judicial Council of California would nominate by lottery 24 retired
judges to serve as Special Masters on the redistricting commission.
These judges cannot have held partisan office, worked for partisan
officials within a year, and may not later run for one of the offices
in question within 5 years. From within this pool, the leaders of the
majority and minority party in both the Assembly and Senate would each
nominate three judges of their opposing party. The Chief Clerk of the
Assembly would then draw three names from this pool of nominees to
serve as Special Masters, with the added requirement that each of the
two larges political parties be represented within the three
selections. The drawings would be repeated until this requirement is
met.
Under the initiative, are competitive districts favored?
Neutral.*
Under the initiative, can members of the public submit plans?
Yes.
The initiative requires the Special Masters to establish a schedule to
consider redistricting plans and comment from any member of the public.
Does the initiative allow for mid-decade redistricting?
Yes. Within 20 days of passage, the process for crafting a new redistricting plan would begin.
*Note:
A proposal may be neutral on whether or not to favor competitive
districts for a number of reasons, including that such a requirement
may be thought to conflict with other criteria, potentially create
other legal issues, or is assumed to flow from the new process itself
-- or it might merely not be a priority for the legislative sponsors.
FairVote believes that some form of proportional voting is needed to
ensure maximum competitiveness for each seat and to ensure meaningful
choices for all voters.
Update: On November 8, 2005 California voted down proposition 77 by a vote of No-59% to Yes 41%