GOP Seeks a Reapportionment Strategy

There are things in life that evoke great passion, that speak to the human condition and summon emotions capable of moving men and mountains.

Reapportionment is not one of them.

The once-a-decade redrawing of political boundaries is exceedingly important and excruciatingly arcane, a problem for California Republicans who, quite literally, could find themselves wiped off the map after the 2000 census. The problem is this: After losing the governor’s seat in November, there is nothing standing between Republican legislators, who are in a minority in the Legislature, and the sort of partisan remap, or gerrymander, that eviscerated the state GOP in the early 1980s, the last time Democrats had unchecked control over the process.

“They could create all kinds of havoc if they can get away with drawing all these Picasso landscapes on a map of California,” said Matt Cunningham, a GOP strategist, recalling the sort of creative cartography that devastated party ranks the last time. “This is life or death for Republicans.”

Not so the average California voter, who probably thinks about reapportionment about as often as, say, arable land development in sub-Saharan Africa.

Still, Republicans are trying--as they have repeatedly over the last 40 years--to bring to the ballot a measure that would take reapportionment away from legislators. The latest proposal would give the job to a panel of judges, the way it was done after the 1990 census. The difficulty is making the issue compelling enough to raise the about $10 million to $15 million needed to wage a credible campaign--and forging a unified strategy among squabbling GOP interests.

“Reapportionment is a subject that’s about as understood by the typical voter as the principles of geophysics,” said Garry South, chief political strategist for Gov. Gray Davis, who promised a vigorous campaign against any Republican proposal. “It’s proven very difficult to juice up voters to solve a problem they don’t know exists.”

Esoteric though it may be, reapportionment goes to the very essence of representative democracy.

Every 10 years, after an updated national head count, state legislators redraw the boundaries used to elect California’s representatives in Washington and Sacramento as well as members of the tax collecting State Board of Equalization. Left in the hands of the self-interested, the exercise can be wickedly partisan.

Consider what the late Rep. Phil Burton (D-San Francisco) accomplished in the early 1980s, with the help of an approving Democratic Legislature and support from Democratic Gov. Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown Jr. A swoop of the pencil here, a jiggle of a line there and--voila!--a 22-21 Democratic advantage in the state’s congressional delegation became a 28-17 Democratic bulge. (California gained two seats after the 1980 census.)

Perhaps more significant from a competitive standpoint, only a single incumbent lost a bid for reelection during the entire decade.

Looking to 2001, Democrats are eyeing remap plans that could easily erase half a dozen or so Republican seats, a move with national implications, given the GOP’s precarious six-vote margin in the House of Representatives. Now, Democrats enjoy a 28-24 edge in California’s congressional delegation; the state is expected to pick up three or four more seats after the next census.

“California is the one state in the nation where Democrats can make gains simply by redrawing lines,” said Tony Quinn, a GOP reapportionment expert, who notes that other states likely to pick up seats--among them Arizona, Florida, Texas and Nevada--have Republican governors with veto power over reapportionment. “This is the one state where Democrats are likely to offset their losses elsewhere.”

At the state level, where demographic changes already give Democrats a growing partisan edge, the party could lock in its double-digit margins in the Assembly and state Senate for years to come.

Facing that disastrous scenario on the heels of November’s debacle, leading California Republicans have reverted to their recent fractious form, fighting over how best to prevent another Democratic gerrymander.

A rough--very rough--consensus has emerged around the notion of pushing a ballot measure to institute the remap method used eight years ago. In 1991, after Republican Gov. Pete Wilson and Democratic legislators hit an impasse, the reapportionment was conducted by a panel of retired judges appointed by the California Supreme Court, which drafted a plan widely recognized as fair to both parties.

The GOP consensus quickly breaks down, however, over matters such as timing--whether to aim for the March or November ballots--and content, with some wanting to limit the initiative to reapportionment and others wishing to jazz things up by including elements such as campaign spending limits or a legislative salary cap.

Some Sacramento legislators, meanwhile, think the party’s time and money would be better spent fighting to win back control of the Assembly, giving Republicans at least some say in the reapportionment process.

“Everybody disagrees about everything,” said Ron Unz, the Silicon Valley entrepreneur and driving force behind last year’s anti-bilingual education initiative. “All the people are yelling at each other at the meetings I go to,” said Unz, who has attended several recent GOP strategy sessions.

All of which sits fine with Democrats, mindful that history shows that the more complex a ballot measure and its attendant issues, the more likely voters will simply reject the matter out of hand. “There are a number of ways to attack that can confuse the issue,” said gubernatorial strategist South. “But no one’s going to take this thing lying down.”