Gerrymandering in California

Ed Salzman paints the gloomiest of pictures in his portrayal of California state government (“Seeking Villains in a Sacramento Swamp,” Opinion, Jan. 21). We’ve become, he writes, “a morass of political corruption, legislative paralysis, initiative excess, voter manipulation, and citizen cynicism.” Worst of all, no clear solution can be identified, Salzman concludes. Salzman should reread his own piece. About two-thirds of the way through he would find his villain: “Legislative districts are drawn to maximize incumbent protection.” In a word, gerrymandering, the practice of eliminating voters as serious players in legislative politics by drawing districts that make incumbents defeat proof.

Gerrymandering derails every democracy’s first line of defense against ethical lapses and the inclination of officeholders to avoid the difficult business of governing.

What happened 10 years ago? Politicians did not, en masse, suddenly lose their moral compasses.

What happened was that computerized gerrymandering more sophisticated than anything that had been possible before was employed by the Democrat Party, supported by the California Supreme Court under Rose Bird, to shut the voters out of California’s legislative politics.

The explosion of initiatives is a direct result of the Legislature’s do-nothing record. And that record is the predictable result of shielding officeholders from the voters through gerrymandering. The vacuum left when the voters were shut out 10 years ago has been filled by powerful contributors.

Two June ballot reform initiatives--one authored by Gary J. Flynn, the other by San Mateo County Supervisor Tom Huening--would outlaw gerrymandering. Either of them would end the corruption afflicting our system as quickly as it was corrupted by removing the corruption’s source and restoring fair representation for the ‘90s.

FRANK VISCO

Chairman, California

Republican Party, Burbank