State’s Growing Population Will Drive Agenda

Recent figures from the 2000 census show California with 33.9 million people, a rise of 4.1 million from 1990. More detailed data will emerge later in the year, but it’s already clear that the size and makeup of the state’s population will shape the political agenda of the decade ahead.

For California politicians, the key issue of the next two years will be redistricting: the drawing of new lines for the Assembly, state Senate and U.S. House. Democrats will control the process for the first time since the 1980s, since they have the governorship and majorities in both houses of the Legislature. Normally, such a situation would mean a bonanza for the party in power, as it could draw lines favoring its candidates. Over the past several years, however, the Democrats already have scored big gains. Their advantage stands at 50-30 in the Assembly, 26-14 in the Senate and 32-20 in the House. It would be hard to increase their margins much further.

Here and there, they might have some opportunities. In the 39th Assembly District, in the Garden Grove area, Republicans have just a 2% lead in registration. In November, Republican incumbent Ken Maddox won easily over an underfunded challenger, but new lines might add Democrats or subtract Republicans, thereby attracting tougher and better-financed opposition in 2002.

Where they could not draw new districts to elect their own, Democrats still could make life miserable for the GOP. One nasty trick would consist of pitting two or more Republican incumbents against each other. The resulting primaries would split the party and eat up resources that could otherwise go to general election campaigns against Democrats.

That would be especially true in Orange County, where Republicans seldom shy away from internal combat. Whatever the Democrats gained politically, they would have the added pleasure of watching a bloody show, much like the Romans in the movie “Gladiator.” (No county Republican, however, is likely to be mistaken for Russell Crowe.)

After the redistricting wars, the census data may compel lawmakers and voters to face a deeper issue: the sheer size of political constituencies in California. In 1879, the state constitution provided that the Assembly would have 80 members and the Senate would have 40. Those numbers have not changed in 122 years. So whereas these districts had average populations of 11,000 and 22,000 at the start, now they have 424,000 and 848,000. California state senators have the largest constituencies of any state lawmakers in the country, each with more people than South Dakota.

Much the same is true in our largest counties. Orange County supervisors each serve approximately 563,000 people, while their Los Angeles County counterparts have the most-populous districts of all, each containing nearly 2 million.

These big numbers have big consequences. State and local lawmakers ought to be close to the people, but it is hard to maintain a personal touch with so many. If an Orange County supervisor wanted a one-minute chat with each person in the district, he or she would have to do it eight hours daily, every day for three years.

Moreover, these overgrown districts are a primary reason why California political campaigns are so costly. There is simply no cheap way to communicate with half a million people. Reducing the size of districts probably would do more to reform campaign finance than limiting contributions or expenditures.

So far, the problem has sparked little public interest. Last fall, Los Angeles County voters rejected a ballot measure to raise the number of supervisors, thus reducing the population of each district. But the measure’s defeat had less to do with the merits of the idea than with other issues involving the structure of county government, which is why The Times editorially opposed it even while endorsing smaller districts. In the years to come, the idea will gain support as bulging districts keep widening the gap between the people and their representatives.

Another trend with far-reaching consequences is the rapid development of inland California. High housing prices in coastal areas are prompting families to go farther and farther east for affordable homes. So while our state may be famous for its beaches, its fastest-growing counties--including Riverside and Kings--are landlocked. As a result of this trend, the inland will gain more representation in Sacramento.

The increasing clout of inland California will mean more attention to its concerns. If you want to see one of those concerns, go to the Riverside Freeway at 6 a.m. and look at the stricken faces of people driving in from Riverside. Get ready to hear a lot about transportation.

Demography may not always be destiny, but if you want a glimpse at California’s future politics, take a glance at the census numbers.