|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Arnold Schwarzenegger Wrong on Redistricting Proposition David Horowitz Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has placed a well-intentioned yet nonetheless bizarre (almost Rube Goldberg-like) proposal on California's November 8 ballot that would strip the state Legislature of its constitutional responsibility for redistricting, void the current districts, and turn the job of an unprecedented mid-decade redistricting over to a three-member panel of retired judges who volunteer for the job. If Proposition 77 passes, new lines will likely be created for the 2006 elections. And new lines in this very blue state at this time will likely spell disaster for the GOP! Arnold is frustrated, and rightfully so, at the stubborn reluctance of Democrats in the state Legislature to respond to California's crises: a failing public education system and an out-of-control spending spree that places the state on the verge of bankruptcy. In 2004, he actively campaigned to elect many new Republicans to the state Legislature and, in at least two cases, to Congress. Yet none of the 153 districts at stake in 2004 changed partisan hands.
His frustration has given us Proposition 77. But Arnold misdiagnoses the disease at great risk to conservatives. Arnold blames (or scapegoats) the district lines passed by the Legislature in 2001 and signed into law by then Governor Gray Davis. But the district lines were not and are not the problem! How could he possibly expect to pick up seats in the face of a 2004 landslide Kerry win in California? And Republicans are unlikely to pick up any California seats (whatever the district lines, whatever the year) when they are running challengers against well-known Democratic incumbents as was the situation for Arnold in most of the districts in which he campaigned ... and failed. Arnold says that the district lines look as if a "drunk using an Etch-a-Sketch" drew them. Some do. But most of the unseemly lines were drawn either to fulfill Federal Voting Rights Act mandates (which Proposition 77's judge panel must also obey) or to follow irregular city and county boundaries (which 77's judge panel must also follow) or to protect Republican voting power and seats (which 77's judge panel is expressly forbidden to do). Neatness on a map will likely kill the Republican congressional delegation. And that's why 45 (out of a then total of 45) Republican state legislators unanimously voted for the state Senate and congressional lines. That's right a unanimous Republican vote for the district lines that Arnold's Prop 77 would discard! (An overwhelming majority of California's Republican congressmen endorsed the congressional plan).
Story Continues Below
The history of California's partisan redistricting wars is legendary and bitter. But 2001 was a first in modern history the controlling party of the Legislature (this time the Democrats) held out an olive branch (perhaps to consolidate overwhelming gains achieved in the 2000 election) to the minority party (this time the Republicans). The result: an unprecedented, non-acrimonious compromise that served the people well for the first time in recent history there was no public outcry. Karl Rove, The Architect, personally approved the congressional plan. Republicans, no matter how much they embrace the other elements of Arnold's reform agenda, no matter how much they share Arnold's frustration with the super-liberal state Legislature, no matter how much gratitude and admiration they have for the phenomenon of the meteoric "Arnold" rise to power, must reject Proposition 77. Anything else (support or even acquiescence to passage of 77) would be political myopia, evidence of an almost insane suicidal compulsion. What portends to be a tough year nationally could be a bloodbath (perhaps except for Arnold's personal re-election) in increasingly blue California. And voiding the current district lines will place many Republican seats at risk. Consider the current reality:
Can national Republicans survive a California debacle? A swing of 15 seats nationally will make Nancy Pelosi speaker of the House of Representatives. Nancy Pelosi third in succession to the presidency? But Republicans may ask, "Why do we win so few congressional and state legislative seats in California, given Schwarzenegger's impressive and overwhelming victory in the recall election? Something must be rigged and it must be the district lines." At first glance this might seem like a reasonable question. But it is not ... for three reasons: 1. The question reveals an ignorance of California legislative and congressional redistricting history. No matter who draws the lines, no matter how neat the lines, no matter how good (except for Newt's 1994 tsunami sweep) or bad the year Democrats have always knocked our socks off. In 1973 and 1991 the state Supreme Court (following vetoes by Reagan and Wilson of legislative plans) drew the lines, using three retired judges employing similar guidelines to those proposed by Prop 77. It was these "non-partisan" lines that produced 50 Democratic assemblymen (out of 80) and 26 Democratic state senators (out of 40) to preside over the 2001 redistricting. The 1973 court-drawn "fair" plan was an even greater debacle by 1978 Democrats held 57 of 80 Assembly seats! 2. The question implies an "apples to apples," not "apples to oranges," equivalency between voting for a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-environment superhero movie star married to a glamorous Kennedy (against a discredited Gray Davis or a feeble Cruz Bustamante) in America's most modern and libertine state, on the one hand, and voting for the typical nonmovie star Republican nominee for Congress or state Legislature (against well-financed, locally based incumbents or community leaders), on the other hand. How could any objective observer not see that Arnold's ability to get votes in California is far beyond the reach of a normal Republican nominee for state Assembly or Congress? 3. The question reveals some ignorance of our political system and the basis for drawing the lines for "districted" bodies like the Legislature and Congress. Contrary to the popular slogan, our system is not "one man, one vote." The Constitution (both state and federal) demands "single member, equal population, geographically contiguous, winner-take-all" districts. We are not Europe we don't allocate power proportionately based on votes. We count population (which has little bearing on number of voters children, aliens, non-participants), divide the population equally between districts and hold elections (discrete, sui generis elections between all shapes and flavors of candidates). The winner of each district takes power whether he wins by one vote or 1 million votes. And the number of actual voters in each district varies enormously. Suburban home-owning families (i.e., Republicans) register and vote at a much higher rate than barrio and ghetto renters (i.e., Democrats). But the barrio and ghetto renters get more representation (more children, more non-citizens, more people per voter). Latino districts cast fewer than half the votes that suburban Republican areas do. And their minority population concentration must be honored by any line drawer. Whether 77 passes or not, federal law this one signed by President Ronald Reagan mandates it. It hardly seems fair, you say? Why should non-participants be so overrepresented? Ask James Madison (apportionment by population, not number of voters, is a mandate of the Founding Fathers in the Constitution) or tell it to a judge (litigation is forever mandating more redistricting requirements). James Madison is dead, but a left-wing retired judge (maybe two or even all three of the members recall that California was the home of Earl Warren) is sure to be found (were it to pass) on 77's volunteer retired judge redistricting commission. That's the system and no pie-in-the-sky commission will change that reality. Republicans might ask, if I am right about 77's disastrous consequences to California Republicans, why are some cCongressional Democrats also against Prop 77? The answer is simple they hate and fear Arnold ... and will hysterically oppose anything he supports. But the people who selected Howard Dean to be chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who take Al Sharpton seriously, and who gave the seat of honor to Michael Moore at their convention can hardly be regarded as astute political analysts. Unthinking opposition to what the other party says is what Democrats do Republicans are too smart for that kind of knee-jerk emotional response. Two aspects of Prop. 77 should give true conservatives the most pause. First is its reliance on the "wisdom" of retired judges! The "wisdom" of judges??? What aware Republican would risk the future of the Republican Party in the U.S. House of Representatives on the fairness of those retired judges who would volunteer for service on such an arcane commission? Perhaps retired federal judges from California could "multi-task" draw district lines that serve their ideological interests while they prepare litigation strategies to remove "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Second, the whole idea is premised on the elitist (normally leftist) view that, if only the smartest and the best-educated people, untainted by politics, untainted by the need to please "bumpkin or racist or religious" electorates, could decide things, the world would be a much better place.
After a chorus of "It's a small world after all," we should sleep easy knowing that the "truly fair minded," the "best and the brightest," the "folks who stand above the fray with no dog in the fight" have (without fear of accountability to the people as the current system demands) arbitrarily allocated the most precious power in our free, open democratic republic to a volunteer elite without accountability to anyone. Conservatives ought to be ashamed of themselves for even entertaining this "vision of the anointed" elitist thought. At least you can kick a legislator out if you don't like a redistricting plan he supported. These volunteer retired judges are accountable to no one. California Republicans, please save Arnold from himself! Proposition 77 must be defeated.
David Horowitz is President of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and a nationally known author. His many books include "The Politics of Bad Faith," "The Art of Political War" (described by Karl Rove as "The perfect guide to winning on the political battlefield") and his autobiography, "Radical Son," which describes his journey from '60s radical to cultural conservative. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of Front Page Magazine (www.frontpagemag.com) and makes regular appearances in Internet, print and broadcast media.
Editor's note:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com |