Parts of this article (those related to initial selection and current status of the district boundary commission) need to beupdated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(November 2010)
Proposition 11 of 2008 (or theVoters FIRST Act) was a law enacted byCalifornia voters that placed the power to draw electoral boundaries for State Assembly and State Senate districts in aCitizens Redistricting Commission, as opposed to the State Legislature. To do this the Act amended both theConstitution of California and theGovernment Code.[1] The law was proposed by means of theinitiative process and was put to voters as part of theNovember 4, 2008 state elections. In 2010, voters passedProposition 20 which extended the Citizen Redistricting Commission's power to draw electoral boundaries to include U.S. House seats as well.
The Act amended Article XXI of the state constitution and enacted Title 2, Division 1, Chapter 3.2 of the Government Code. These changes transfer authority for establishing Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization district boundaries from elected representatives to a fourteen-member commission. The commission is chosen as follows:
Government auditors select sixty registered voters from an applicant pool.
Legislative leaders are permitted to reduce the pool.
Auditors then pick eight commission members by lottery, and those commissioners pick six additional members for a total of fourteen.
The commission must include five commissioners of the largest political party in California (in practice theDemocrats), five commissioners from the second largest party (currently theRepublicans), and four of neither party. For approval, new district boundaries need votes from three commissioners of the largest party, three from the second largest, and three of the commissioners from neither party. The commission may hire lawyers and consultants to assist it in its work.
The state legislature retains responsibility for drawing district boundaries for California's Congressional Districts, but the Act adds additional criteria that the legislature must follow in drawing those boundaries.
Notable arguments that have been made in favor of Prop. 11 include:
Under current law the legislature draws its own districts which results in 99 percent of incumbents being re-elected[6]
Partisan gridlock caused by the current way of drawing legislative districts has caused the legislature to underperform in its mission of serving the people of California.,[7][8]
State legislative contests held in districts drawn by a Proposition 11 commission would be more competitive, leading to voters electing more moderate legislators.[9]
As of September 24, three campaign committees supporting Prop. 11 have filed officially with the Secretary of State's office. Some donors have contributed to more than one of these committees. The largest donors altogether are:
Gov. Schwarzenegger's California Dream Team, $2,446,000.[10]
Kimball Petition Management was paid $2,332,988 from two separate campaign committees to collect signatures to put this measure on the ballot.[14][15][16][17] Signatures to qualify the measure for the California 2008 ballot measures|November 2008 ballot were submitted to election officials on May 6, 2008. On June 17, theCalifornia Secretary of State announced that a check of the signatures had established that the measure qualifies for the ballot.,[18][19]
In late August, supporters of Prop. 11 filed a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission because the California Correctional Peace Officers Association—a group that opposes Prop. 11—gave contributions totaling $577,000 to theLeadership California committee, which is a campaign committee associated with state senate leaderDon Perata. The Prop. 11 group said that it was wrong for the police officers union to give the money to the Perata committee rather than directly to the No on 11, and also alleged that the police union was trying to curry favor with Perata. Days later, the FPPC took the rare step of rejecting the complaint without conducting an investigation.[20][21]
The official committee set up to oppose Proposition 11 was called "Citizens for Accountability; No on Proposition 11".[22] Paul Hefner is the spokesman for the "No on 11" effort.[23]
Arguments that have been claimed in opposition to Prop. 11 include:
No accountability to taxpayers. Each commission member is guaranteed $300 a day, plus unlimited expenses in the form of staffing, offices, etc.
The commission created under Prop. 11 would allow politicians to hide behind the selected bureaucrats to maintain a hold on redistricting as they wish.
The overly complicated process created by Prop. 11 would make it easier to mask hidden agendas of the people behind those on the committee.[24]
Prop. 11 offers no assurance of the same representation for communities, such as California's Hispanic community in the redistricting process.[4]
The current version of Prop. 11 does not include congressional districts as an earlier draft did, thereby not being complete reform and creating additional detractors to the measure.[25]
Even when commissions do create competitive districts, the people who get elected in them do not necessarily behave as political moderates.[26]
Kathay Feng, the main author of the initiative, and director of California Common Cause, said in late June that since the measure qualified for the ballot and the California Democratic Party had announced its opposition, there had been an attempt to bring everybody into line and to encourage those in support of the measure to oppose it.[27]
A poll released on July 22, 2008 by Field Poll showed Proposition 11 with 42% support and 30% opposition.[29] A late August poll released by the Public Policy Institute of California showed Prop. 11 with 39% of voters in support.[30]
^August 13, John Wildermuth on; PM, 2008 at 4:30 (13 August 2008)."Democrats Break Ranks on Prop. 11".Politics Blog. Archived fromthe original on 12 January 2019. Retrieved12 January 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
Yes