Redistricting won't cure what ails California
Sacramento Bee, The (CA)
February 21, 2005
Author: Heather Barbour
Special To The Bee
Estimated printed pages: 3
In his state of the state address, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked for a "21st century government
to match a 21st century world." He challenged Californians to bring him "big ideas to match our future."
But his plan to redraw the lines for new political districts is not a "big idea." It's an improvement,
because it would achieve a less polarized and more representative government. But voters have
rejected new methods for redistricting before and - even if it passed this time - it would leave in place
a 19th century Legislature.
It has been 125 years since California changed the number of seats in its Legislature. Back then, the
state's population was about 1 million. Today, a single state Senate district contains nearly that
number. The result is that California's legislators have grown distant from their constituents, making
them less accountable and leaving many voices unrepresented in legislative debate. It's a problem
unmatched anywhere in the country.
California has the largest legislative districts in America, by far. Its 80 Assembly members represent
about 450,000 people, more than triple the number in Texas, which claims the second-largest lowerhouse districts. In the Senate, California districts are nearly seven times the national average. If
California's districts matched the average size in states with populations of more than 10 million, the
state Senate would have 94 members instead of 40.
So even if the governor wins his fight to redraw political districts, the battle of special interest groups in
Sacramento will surely continue. Political campaigns, which are the reason legislators need special
interest cash, will remain expensive. In fact, campaign spending may go up because there will be more
competitive races. Grass-roots campaigns, wherein politicians actually go door to door, appealing to
voters in person, are not realistic in political districts that outrank six states in population . As a result,
more legislators will have to decide between special interest money and relatively faceless voters in
their districts.
Redistricting also won't make it easier for regular citizens - those without money, connections or an
existing political base - to get elected to the state Legislature either. In competitive but still
outrageously large districts, these factors may become more important than ever. It is very hard to get
to the finish line at the front of the pack when your rivals start the race at the halfway mark. Which
means the Capitol will still be a relatively elite body with few incentives to reach out to politically
alienated Californians. Politicians will still be able to win by doing exactly what they do now.
California is far too big to accommodate districts approaching the national average. Even matching
Texas, with the nation's second-largest districts, would more than triple the size of the California
Assembly. But it is realistic to think of growing the Legislature from 120 members today to 200.
With 150 Assembly members and 50 Senators, the modern Legislature would reflect the founders'
conception of a smaller, deliberative upper house and a larger lower house where the passions and
will of the people are expressed. Assembly members would be more accountable to districts with
about 230,000 constituents each, and the Legislature would benefit from new voices that are unable to
compete in today's giant, high-cost districts.
Schwarzenegger was right when he said in his state of the state speech that "we must make
California's elections democratic once again." And he encouraged innovative Californians to think
broadly about how to make their government more effective, representative and accountable. "I
welcome and seek your ideas," he said. "But do not bring me small ideas; bring me big ideas to match
our future. Bring me reforms to equal our problems."
Redistricting is a big step, but a small idea. Redesigning the Legislature so that it can accommodate
the diversity of voices in a giant and growing state like California is a big idea that will match our future.
***
Heather Barbour is an Irvine fellow with the New America Foundation, adjunct faculty in political
science at Sacramento City College and primary author of the blog atheneincalifornia
(www.atheneincalifornia.blogspot.com). She served as principal consultant to the Joint Committee on
Preparing California for the 21st Century in the Legislature. She can be reached at
barbour@newamerica.net.
Memo:
OTHER VIEWS
Edition: METRO FINAL
Section: EDITORIALS
Page: B5