Smart Voter Your Ballot & Poll Place On Propositions Ballot Measure Analysis Pros & Cons Prop 73 Prop 77 Prop 74 Prop 78 Prop 75 Prop 79 Prop 76 Prop 80 PDF In Depth Prop 73 Prop 77 Prop 74 Prop 78 Prop 75 Prop 79 Prop 76 Prop 80 About Ballot Measures Why Special Election? Background How to Evaluate The Initiative Process Other Absentee Voting Register to Vote

REDISTRICTING.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

QUESTION

Should the California Constitution be amended to change the process of redistricting California's State Senate, State Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts, transferring the implementation of redistricting from the Legislature to a panel of three retired judges, selected by legislative leaders?

BACKGROUND

Every ten years, the federal census counts the number of people living in California. The California Constitution requires the Legislature after each census to adjust the boundaries of the districts used to elect public officials. This process is called "redistricting" (or sometimes "reapportionment"). The primary purpose of redistricting is to establish districts which are "reasonably equal" in population. Redistricting affects districts for the state Legislature (Assembly and Senate), Board of Equalization (BOE), and the U.S. House of Representatives.

Typically, redistricting plans are included in legislation and become law after passage of the bill by the Legislature and signature by the Governor. In the past, when the Legislature and Governor have been unable to agree on redistricting plans, the California Supreme Court oversaw the redistricting.

PROPOSAL

This measure amends the California Constitution to change the redistricting process for the state Legislature, BOE, and California members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Panel of Retired Judges. This measure requires that a three-member panel of retired federal and/or state judges ("special masters") develop redistricting plans. The measure requires that the judges meet a number of criteria, including that they have never held partisan political office. (The following box provides more detail on the selection process for the special masters.)

Requirements of District Boundaries. The measure adds new requirements regarding the drawing of district boundaries. Among these requirements are:

• For the Legislature and BOE, population differences among districts cannot exceed 1 percent.
• Senate districts must be comprised of two adjacent Assembly districts, and BOE districts must be comprised of ten adjacent Senate districts.
• The plan must minimize the splitting of counties and cities into multiple districts.

In addition, when drawing boundaries, the panel could not consider information related to political party affiliations and other specified matters.

Schedule. A panel would be required to develop a redistricting plan for use at the next primary and general elections following the measure's approval and then following each future federal census.

Approval Process. In developing a plan, the panel would have to hold public hearings and could receive suggested plans from the public and the Legislature. Once the panel unanimously approves a redistricting plan, the plan would be used for the next primary and general elections. The Secretary of State would place the plan on the general election ballot for the voters to consider. If the voters approve the plan, it would be used until the next redistricting is required. If the voters reject the plan, another panel would be appointed to prepare a new plan for the next primary and general elections.

Funding. The measure specifies that the Legislature must make funding available from the Legislature's budget (which is limited under the State Constitution) to support the work of the panel. This could include employment of legal and other experts in the field of redistricting and computer technology. Funding for the panel would be limited to a maximum of one-half of the amount spent by the Legislature on redistricting in 2001 (adjusted for inflation beginning after the 2010 federal census). For the first redistricting plan under the measure (to be developed for use at the next primary and general elections following the measure's approval), the funding would be provided from the state General Fund.

FISCAL EFFECT

Panel Allowable Costs. The Legislature spent about $3 million in 2001 on redistricting. This measure would limit panel costs for future redistricting efforts to half of this amount, adjusted for inflation. Therefore, the maximum amount allowable under the measure for each future panel would be about $1.5 million.

One-Time Redistricting Costs. Under existing law, the next redistricting plan would not be developed until after the 2010 federal census. The measure, however, requires that a redistricting plan be developed for use at the next primary election following the measure's approval. This additional redistricting plan would result in one-time state costs, which would total no more than $1.5 million for the panel's work. In addition, counties would experience some added one-time costs to implement the new district boundaries. These costs could be in the range of $1 million.

Impact on Future Redistricting Costs. The preparation of future redistricting plans (after 2010) under the measure would be on the same schedule as existing law. Due to the measure's limit on a panel's redistricting costs, there could be a reduction in the total amount the state spent for each redistricting effort. Any such savings would be available for other legislative expenses under the existing cap. If, however, voters rejected any redistricting plan, there would be some additional state and county costs for a new plan to be developed and implemented. Thus, the net impact on future redistricting costs in any decade would depend on decisions by voters.

Election Costs. Because the measure requires the redistricting plans to be approved by voters, it would result in costs to the state and counties each time a plan was placed on the ballot. These costs primarily would be related to preparing and mailing election-related materials. Since the approval of the plans could be consolidated with existing elections, the increased costs of the measure would probably be minor.

WHAT A YES OR NO VOTE MEANS

A YES vote means boundaries for political districts would be drawn by retired judges and approved by voters at statewide elections. A redistricting plan would be developed for use following the measure's approval and then following each future federal census.

A NO vote means boundaries for political districts would continue to be drawn by the Legislature and approved by the Governor. A redistricting plan would be developed only following each future federal census.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Allowing politicians to draw their own districts is a conflict of interest that must be changed.
• Proposition 77 will guarantee fair election districts for Californians, which in turn will result in fair, competitive elections.
• This will result in better, more responsible representatives because they will be accountable to the people rather than being dependent on special interest influence and money in politics.
• Better, more responsible representatives will work to address the key issues facing California, including education and the budget deficit.

OPPONENTS SAY

• Politicians have tried to push "redistricting reforms" four times in the last 25 years, and each time the voters said "NO."
• Proposition 77 will not result in reform, as politicians will select the judges redrawing the districts.
• Under this measure, voters will lose their right to reject redistricting plans before they go into effect and taxpayers may be stuck with millions of dollars of additional costs each time they reject redistricting plans.
• Special interests are spending millions to rush this plan into effect next year--what's the rush? We need to reform government, but Proposition 77 isn't the answer.

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION

Official ballot arguments in support are signed by Edward J. "Ted" Costa, CEO, People's Advocate; Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor, State of California; John A. Arguelles, Former California Supreme Court Justice; John Kehoe, Policy Director, California Senior Advocates League; Julie Vandermost, President, California Women's Leadership Association; and Nativo Lopez, President, Mexican American Political Association.

Official ballot arguments in opposition are signed by Daniel H. Lowenstein, Former Chair, Fair Political Practices Commission; Judge George H. Zenovich, Associate Justice Retired, 5th District Court of Appeal; Henry L. "Hank" Lacayo, State President, Congress of California Seniors; and Deborah Burger, President, California Nurses Association.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Supporters

Edward J. Costa, People's Advocate, (916) 482-6175, www.fairdistrictsnow.com

Opponents

Californians for Fair Representation--No on 77, (916) 448-7724, www.noonproposition77.com