Understanding Redistricting, Part 1

It matters how you draw the lines

Dante Atkins of Daily Kos has a very useful article on the importance of redistricting for progressives.

In most states, the decennial maps for congressional districts are redrawn and approved by state legislatures. Why does this matter? Because partisan state legislatures are likely to divvy up the districts in a way that benefits their party. How does this work in practice? At its most elementary, let's hypothesize a state with a population of nine people: five Democrats and four Republicans. And from those nine people, the Census Bureau required creating three districts with an equal number of people. If the state legislature were controlled by Democrats, they might make a map that carves the state in a way that has a majority of Democratic seats. But if Republicans were to control the legislature—something that happens from time to time in Democratic-voting states such as Minnesota—they just might pass a map with different districts that gives the GOP a majority of the seats. 

The 2010 elections will have long-lasting consequences for control of the House of Representatives. The problem isn't just that Republicans won so many seats; the larger problem is that they won them at exactly the right time. Incumbent representatives are hard to defeat, but unseating freshmen is generally an easier task. Unfortunately, having a wave election in a redistricting year allows the new majority party to take advantage of the redistricting process to shore up vulnerable members, usually by taking some friendlier territory from a safer, better-known incumbent—serving essentially to "lock in" that majority for the rest of the decade. In addition, less scrupulous legislators can use the redistricting process to consolidate the districts of opponents to force their members into either retirement or a bruising primary fight and removing them from their seats regardless—a process playing out right now to eliminate Democratic seats in states like North Carolina and Michigan. The GOP has also shown its willingness to use redistricting to ward off potential political disadvantages at the state legislative level as well: for example, Wisconsin Republicans are redrawing the state senate lines in a hurry before the recall elections, even though doing so right now would create a bureaucratic nightmare. Clearly, the GOP is willing to use redistricting as a political weapon in spite of any resulting collateral damage.

While most states have this concern, California no longer does. In 2008, voters passed Proposition 11, which created a so-called Citizens Redistricting Commission that removed the authority to draw legislative lines from the state legislature and put it into the hands of a supposedly non-partisan commission (in 2010, a second proposition was passed that put the authority to draw boundaries for congressional districts as well into the hands of this same body). The Democratic Party opposed this measure for obvious reasons: As Democrats have a substantial majority of seats, they control the redistricting process and could use it to maximize Democratic seats while ensuring no contentious primary battles among the state's delegation. (Full disclosure: I serve on the executive board of the California Democratic Party.)Furthermore, the commission's mandated structure is hardly representative of California's population: despite the fact that California is an overwhelmingly Democratic state, the commission is required to have an equal number of Democrats and Republicans serving, with absolutely no guarantee of geographic or ethnic diversity.

The commission has had other problems, such as missed deadlines and cancellation of draft maps—and right now, the current maps are likely to face suits, especially from organizations in the Latino community who feel that the maps dilute their community's voting power and are thus illegal under the Voting Rights Act. Nevertheless, among Democrats the mood of uncertainty at the congressional level has yielded to a cautious optimism, as the commission's draft maps (should they hold) will likely result in Democratic gains of multiple seats, and defeat or retirement of several longtime Republican members. 

MadProfessah elected to California Democratic Party Central Committee!

MadProfessah has been elected to the California Democratic Party central committee! I was running as part of the Democratic Neighborood Activist slate of the 45th Assembly District (DeLeon) :

PAUL AHRENS (Mt. Washington) – IATSE Local 44 Assistant Business Agent and Political Coordinator, Delegate to County Federation of Labor
RON BUCKMIRE* (Montecito Heights) – Occidental College Math Department Professor, Black Gay Activist
FRANCISCO CENDEJAS (City Terrace) – SEIU United Health Care Workers Analyst
JOHN CLEARY* (Lincoln Heights) - Hospital Administrator, Stonewall Dem. Club President
COLLEEN COLSON (Montecito Heights) – County Health Dept. Liaison to the American Indian Community (retired)
MARIANN GATTO (Highland Park) – City of Los Angeles Museum Curator/Educator
JOSELYN GEAGA-ROSENTHAL (Historic Filipinotown) - Clinical Social Worker, Echo Park Neighborhood Council
MARCIA GUZMAN (El Sereno) – Democratic Campaign Activist
CAROL JACQUES (Mt. Washington) –Northeast Dem. Community Headquarters Coordinator, Northeast Dem. Club Vice President, AFSCME Local 685
BILL KYSELLA* (Hollywood) – Deputy City Attorney, Stonewall Dem. Club, SEIU #721
HELEN LEUNG (Elysian Valley) – Council Aide, Community Activist
ANA MASCAREÑAS (City Terrace) – Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles Membership Coordinato

Also elected was KELLI DUNAWAY who is a UCLA law graduate and Obama super-volunteer and FREDDY CEJA*, openly gay (and HIV+) Latino activist who was not a member of our slate.

The asterisks indicate that the person is openly gay.

REPORT: Victory Fund Conference Plenary

MadProfessah is in the District of Columbia for an LGBT Bloggers Summit and was able to attend two plenary sessions of the Victory Fund's International Gay and Lesbian Leadership Conference which amusingly enough is at the Mayflower Hotel where, as Kate Clinton put it "New York lost a Governor."

The first plenary session I attended was "What Just Happened: Analyzing 2008 and Looking Ahead”

Keynote Speaker: John Mercurio, Executive Editor, The Hotline

Moderator Kerry Eleveld, Senior Political Editor, The Advocate

Panelists
Steve Elmendorf, President, Elmendorf Strategies
Hilary Rosen, Washington Editor, Huffington Post
Bill Smith, National Political Director, Gill Action Fund

Steve Elmendorf (Kerry-Edwards 2004 Deputy Campaign Manager)
and Hilary Rosen (former head of the RIAA and frequent CNN commentator)

Bill Smith, Gill Action Fund

This was a very interesting session, with John Mercurio recounting three main reasons why McCain-Palin lost: 1) President Bush's incredible unpopularity ( Obama won every state where BUsh;s approval rating was below 35% on election day and LOST every state where it was above that number--his national approval rating on election day was 29%. People who approved of Bush voted for McCain 89% and people who disapproved of Bush voted for Obama two-to-1.) and) 2) The economy (which Obama led McCain by a surprisingly narrow 50-44 margin) and 3) Palin as running mate. On election day 60% of the public felt that Governor Sarah Palin was unqualified to be President.

Mercurio went on to discuss some lower tier issues, such as McCain's age, the Denates, Obama's decision to reject public financing and young voters. He was a font of interesting little facoids. McCain got the smallest percentage of young voters since 18 year old were granted the right to vote in 1972. African American voters went for Obama 95% while Obama won Independent voters 51-45. There are fewer than 100 counties nationwide whree Obama performed worse than Kerry or Gore (and almost all of them were in the Deep South.)

The questions for the panelists (posed by Kerry Eleveld) were

"What suprised you the most about the 2008
election"

Rosen: the extensive duration of the campaign and Obama's
discipline

Elmendorf: Financial advantage of the Democrats (in addition to
Obama's 750 million he raised another $100 million for the DNC)

Smith: the Obama campaign effectivenss and conservatives staying
home on election day

"Why did we lose Prop 8?"

Smith: We underperformed in every Demographic, not just
communities of color. It's impossible to do long term outreach and education
work in a 120-day campaign.

Elmendorf: Marriage is a tough issue, We will win eventually but
its a generational thing.

Rosen: Executive directors of advocacy organizations don't run
good political campaigns and political operatives don't run good advocacy
organizations.

"How are the Republicans coping with their electoral
losses?"

Smith: There's a lot of crying and a lot of vodka.

Rosen:I think they are eager to blame the economic debacle on
the Democrats, especially the Democratic president

The second plenary session was over lunch and featured a diverse international panel of guests The members of the panel were:

Keynote Ambassador Michael Guest
Moderator Ari Shapiro, NPR News

Panelists
Zvonimir Dobrovic, Director, Queer Zagreb Festival, Croatia
Paula Ettelbrick, Executive Director, International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission
Edmond Rhys Jones, Human Rights Officer, British Embassy
Sunil Babu Pant, Member of Parliament, Nepal

The stunningly tall (and handsome) Ari Sharpiro
of NPR News moderated the panel.

The panel was very interesting, especially for someone like me who is very interested in international LGBT issues and was once on the board of directors of IGLHRC for 6 years. I found out about a new project called The Council for Global Equality currently being run by Mark Bromley (who introduced Ambassador Guest at the luncheon) and IGLHRC founder Julie Dorf. Ari Shapiro did an excellent job of moderating the panel, asking insightful questions.

The inclusion of the (straight) British contingent was fascinating, because he was able to talk about the "LGBT Diplomatic Toolkit" the British Foreign Office has sent to every British embassy in the world whch details how each embassy can and should talk about LGBT equality, in every country there is a British embassy. Rhys Jones mentioned that the Embassy can be a force for change in many aspects and mentioned that they have, on several occasions, supported local Pride parades and declarations with the flying of the rainbow flag in addition to the Union Jack. Asked if the United States had ever done that, Paula Ettelbrick simply said "No." But with Hillary Clinton as the incoming Secretary of State, I think this is something that we should expect from the Obama administration.