Centerfield

Texas-California Compromise

While the Centrist Coalition favors non-partisan redistricting in California and elsewhere starting with the 2010 census, we have not endorsed Gov. Schwarzenegger's proposal to do a one-time mid-decade redistricting. Unlike the Texas mid-decade redistricting, this one would be non-partisan. However, given that the current California districts were drawn up by Democrats, it is likely that mid-decade redistricting would have the effect of hurting Democrats (individual Republican incumbents would also be endangered, but the party as a whole might prosper). That is why we favor simultaneous non-partisan redistricting in Texas and California.

I've been in a back and forth on the Common Cause blog over the California redistricting (as I don't have a log in over there, my comments are anonymous, but not all anonymous comments are mine). Blagfly, a Common Cause activist, wrote the following:

Common cause is not a centrist organization or a bipartisan organization. CC is a nonpartisan organization. Trying to promote the democratic reform of nonpartisan redistricting while keeping an eye on the partisan impact of that reform would be a violation of CC's principles. The point is not necessarily to keep the parties balanced. The point is to make our democracy work more democratically. Partisan equality does not necessarily equal balanced democratic process.

As to the effect of CA reforming while TX stays the same - you are right, that may cause an imbalance in national politics for a bit. Even if CC was concerned with that, I'm all for achieving whatever reforms can be achieved rather than sitting around waiting for all the stars to line up. CA and TX are never going to agree to pass redistricting reform simultaneously (have you ever met a Texan? Trying to sell something to a Longhorn because CA is doing it will not work, not even with Arnold going door to door in Austin).

As a non-partisan organization, Common Cause is focused on process. If the process is good, the outcomes are good. The Centrist Coalition, on the other hand, is NOT nonpartisan. We are bipartisan. We support moderates in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Actually, I like to think of us as multi-partisan, because we may also support Independents. As a 501(c)4 nonprofit, we are allowed to have opinions--but not give money to individual candidates.

Common Cause is also a 501(c)4, so as I understand it, their nonpartisanship is a choice made by their Board of Directors, not a requirement under law. In this particular case, by balancing Texas and California, we're not trying to be partisan, but rather nonpartisan in outcome as well as process.

With regard to the statement that Texans are unlikely to follow California's lead--that's true. But they would listen to President Bush, if he took this opportunity to heal the excessive partisan rifts left over from the election. The President is finding it difficult to get Social Security reform through Congress on a straight party-line vote. He might find that promoting nonpartisanship is in his political interest.

Posted by rickheller at February 23, 2005 09:35 AM