The Message That Voters Sent in Rejecting Propositions 118 and 119 : Reapportionment: Any new political map must be environmentally sensitive, fair to minorities and protective of abortion-rights legislators.

The greatest Republican leader in U.S. history said you can’t fool all the people all the time. Republican promoters of Propositions 118 and 119, the redistricting initiatives that were defeated in the June 5 primary, could have saved themselves a lot of trouble if they had heeded Abraham Lincoln’s warning.

Although the League of Women Voters endorsed Proposition 119, nearly every other good-government and public-interest group recognized both measures as clumsy attempts to stack the deck in favor of the Republican Party and against the environment, minorities and women.

That 80% of the Democrats voted against both propositions is no surprise. To their credit, nearly half the Republicans avoided the temptation to build bias into the state Constitution for the short-term benefit of their own party.

Still, Democratic legislators would be well-advised to do more than just gloat. Their 2-1 victories over Propositions 118 and 119 signified more than a simple rejection of the partisan excesses of the Republican proposals. The voters gave the Legislature an affirmative redistricting mandate for the 1990s.

Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) promised during the campaign that the redistricting process would henceforth be more open and fairer. This means citizen access to hearings, publication and distribution of redistricting bills well in advance of their enactment and other procedures that guarantee the right of public participation, thereby permitting debate and criticism of reapportionment plans. The primary voters who rejected Propositions 118 and 119 were entitled to rely on Brown’s promise, and the legislative leadership must make sure that it is kept.

The defeat of the measures was a rejection of abstract, supposedly neutral (but often biased) redistricting criteria, such as compactness. The voters very sensibly said they are more concerned with the political consequences of redistricting than with the shapes of districts on a map.

The dominant campaign theme used against the two propositions was environmental protection. Their defeat thus signified a mandate for environmentally oriented reapportionment plans. The voting power of pro-environment areas, especially along the coast, must not be minimized by “packing” them into the smallest number of districts.

Women’s groups worked to defeat the propositions because they regarded them as threats to women officeholders and to lawmakers who favor abortion rights. The Legislature thus has a mandate to adopt plans that are fair to female incumbents, that open opportunities for female challengers and that are compatible with the growing political strength of the abortion-rights movement.

Another vital component of the anti-118 and 119 coalition was minority organizations and voters. The state’s increasing minority population must attain greater political representation so that grievances and aspirations can be channeled within the system. A major priority of the reapportionment plans for the ‘90s should be the creation of minority districts that far exceed the minimum requirements of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Districts with a high concentration of minorities tend to be so overwhelmingly Democratic, 85% to 90%, that the party’s votes are inefficiently deployed--51% is all that’s needed. As a result, partisan interests are harmed. While the vote against Propositions 118 and 119 was no mandate for a Democratic gerrymander, it was a decisive rejection of the idea that fairness to minorities must be accomplished at the expense of the Democratic Party.

Fairness to minorities without sacrificing partisan fairness may require odd-shaped districts. California voters showed in the primary that they are sophisticated enough not to care.

Many reapportionment “reformers” take offense at the notion that redistricting should be driven by political considerations. The electorate had the good sense to realize that it is a contradiction to try to take the politics out of redistricting. The real goal is to make sure that the politics of redistricting are democratically controlled.

This means that the redistricting mandate is not yet complete. If Republican Pete Wilson wins the governorship, his veto power will give him a legitimate voice in reapportionment. Redistricting priorities will shift in the directions he represents, including more preferred treatment for Republicans and business interests.

If Dianne Feinstein wins, her election will reaffirm the mandate for the environment, women, minorities and Democrats.

Both candidates for governor are exceptionally well qualified to provide the leadership that will be necessary in the ‘90s.

Would Wilson have been as willing a candidate if Republican leaders concerned about redistricting had not urged him to run?

Would Feinstein have won the primary if Democratic leaders concerned about redistricting and convinced she had the best chance to win in November had not given her strong support?

Redistricting by the Legislature has its warts and pimples, but it stimulates the parties to bring forth their strongest candidates and it remains subject to popular mandates such as the one delivered this month. These are points to think about the next time you hear someone say we need districting “reform” because of some odd-shaped lines on a map.