Be Wary of These Petitions

There now are six initiative petition campaigns under way in California to change the method by which legislative and congressional district lines are drawn. Voters should be wary of claims that any one of the six reapportionment plans offers any improvement over the present system, as bad as it may seem.

Several of the plans, in fact, are exceedingly poor proposals that do not deserve consideration for the 1990 ballot. Voters approached by petition circulators promising a “fair” reapportionment plan should read the fine print carefully before signing anything. One initiative proposes to apportion legislative districts on the basis of registered voters only rather than all California citizens. The plan, by John E. Stoos and Chris Fellersen of Sacramento, would not change the congressional districting method, presumably because that would be a blatant violation of federal voting rights statutes.

Another proposal making the rounds, but not in formal petition form, would allow any interested party to submit a reapportionment plan that then would go on the statewide ballot. The voters would choose the proposal they liked best. No one knows how many plans would go on the ballot, but certainly enough to totally confuse any reasonable voter.

So far, the plan that is receiving the most serious attention is one by San Mateo County Supervisor Tom Huening and backed by the League of Women Voters, Proposition 13 co-author Paul Gann and former Legislative Analyst A. Alan Post. Through a cumbersome procedure, it would establish a supposedly independent commission that would consider any proposed reapportionment plan. The winning plan would be the one that would best meet the detailed criteria spelled out in the proposed constitutional amendment. But rigid conditions do not necessarily lead to fairness. Some flexibility is needed, too.

Under the present system, the California Legislature is required to adopt plans based on the 1990 census figures to reflect population shifts in the state’s 80 Assembly and 40 Senate districts, the four districts of the State Board of Equalization and however many congressional districts the state will have on the basis of the new population figures. The reapportionment bill can be passed by majority vote of the Legislature and must be signed by the governor before it becomes law. Republicans complain that the present districts drawn by majority Democrats in the Legislature give the Democrats an unfair advantage in the election of legislative seats.

Two of the plans now circulating as initiative petitions would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature for approval of a reapportionment plan. This would give the minority party more bargaining power, but would not necessarily improve the process. One of two things could happen: The Legislature could deadlock totally on developing a plan, or the majority party could guarantee safe seats to enough minority members to win the needed votes. Those minority party members who refused to play ball most certainly would find themselves searching through the maps to find out where their own districts went.

If California is to have change, the independent commission idea may offer the best hope. But so far no one has devised a commission system that does not threaten to distort the reapportionment process in some way.

There should be competitive legislative districts. Lawmakers should not be able to coast through election after election without significant opposition to test the incumbent’s records and ideas. But this is a political process and there is no way to remove politics from it. If the Legislature adopts plans about which there is controversy, the governor can veto them and force it to rewrite them, or the Supreme Court can be invited to intervene. Until a better plan emerges, that is sufficient protection of the voters’ interests.