Reforms and Reapportionment

San Clemente

I agree wholeheartedly with Stephen Barnett’s commentary titled “A Padlock for California’s Democracy” (Sept. 21). The biggest issue in this year’s governor’s race is not the death penalty, the environment or education--it is reapportionment. And the biggest concern for Californians is the impact the next governor will have on the 1990 reapportionment process.

Clearly, one of the main reasons that we have seen such an abysmal record of accomplishment in our state Legislature is that the 1980 gerrymandered reapportionment left incumbents so entrenched, so safe in their jobs that many have become deaf to the need of their constituents. Undoubtedly, the main reason we are seeing an explosion of one-sided, ill-considered and expensive ballot initiatives is that our Legislature has become unresponsive to public concerns.

No matter which party one favors, a gerrymandered reapportionment favors only the incumbents, not the people. Let’s face it, when 98% of all elections result in the retention of the incumbent and when the minority party candidate simply has no reasonable expectation of winning a general election, we don’t have a true representative democracy. The 1980 gerrymandering was indeed a triumph for California Democrats but a disaster for California’s democracy.

Reapportionment is not a glitzy, exciting issue and certainly is not well explained in 30-second sound bites. Nonetheless, it is important for the media to take this issue to the public, explaining the pitfalls of facing another 10 years of a non-responsive, padlocked Legislature.

JOEL L. STROM

Los Angeles