|
|
May 20, 2013
|
|
|
|
 While You Were Sleeping, California Made New Election LawsPosted on Nov 23, 2010William F. Buckley once said, “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”
A great populist call from a man who, thank goodness, was no populist. But the thought rings through American politics today. Sarah Palin, no Buckley she, is the current spokeswoman for the attitude that the problem with American politics is that there are too many smart and informed people running the country. She is the champion of the ordinary, as a onetime Nebraska senator named Roman Hruska was for the mediocre.
If you remember, and I suppose few do, in 1970, Hruska defended the nomination of G. Harrold Carswell, a strikingly unqualified choice for the United States Supreme Court, by saying: “Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.”;
Well, California decided to test that thesis. A majority of voters approved a proposition denying the right of the state Legislature to draw the boundaries of legislative and congressional districts. From now on, the districts will be drawn by 14 ordinary citizens, men and women whose names have been drawn from a hat—not exactly a hat, just one of those spinning cages full of pingpong balls they use in lotteries.
The devils of politics have always been in the details, and in recent American politics the details have been jiggered to favor incumbent congressmen and state legislators, many of them charmingly mediocre. They had the power, and still do in most states, to craftily craft districts to make it difficult to unseat incumbents of either party. In other words, American election laws are basically a contract between the Democrats and Republicans in office to preserve each other and keep outsiders where they belong, outside. Election rules. Ballot designs. Voter registration. All these things were designed to protect incumbents against ordinary voters.
Advertisement
Next, the commission—five Republicans, five Democrats and four independents—will look at the maps they’ve made and vote again. This time nine of the 14 members must approve the final district lines.
That not-so-little revolution will complement another proposition that last year mandated that all California primaries be open. Democrats, Republicans, independents and oddballs of various kinds will all be on the same ballot, and the top two finishers, even if they are in the same party, will run against each other in the general election. That system has been used in various Southern states in the past, but the official Citizens Commission is another California innovation.
Will it work? Probably not. But it is politically exciting to live in a state that will try anything. There are a lot of Californians who think that the problem with things such as tea-partying are that they are just too moderate.
© 2010 UNIVERSAL UCLICK  TAGS:
|
It’s News, Not Espionage
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Investment Fraud Lawyer, May 23, 2012 at 1:52 am Link to this comment
Though lawyers and judges of all experience levels and ability deserve their chance to strut their stuff, there has to be a certain level of quality when it comes to a stage that is as such. I like the way they drew legislative and congressional districts. It is a creative way to test a theory.
Report thisBy azythos, December 4, 2010 at 1:10 am Link to this comment
“Now I can’t wait for the Rush Limbaugh-inspired “Operation Chaos” of Republicans deliberately voting for the Dem they’d most like to run against in the primary.”
That’s the best thing that can happen. You can’t destroy the 1-called-2-party dictatorship without first destroying the so-called “Democratic” wing of it, the tone that lulls the morons into slumber. If it should die by its own weapons, so much the better.
Report thisBy azythos, November 26, 2010 at 11:28 pm Link to this comment
“there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they” / “Well, California decided to test that thesis. A majority of voters approved a proposition denying the right of the state Legislature to draw the boundaries of legislative and congressional districts.”
This is sloppy thinking in the best hypothesis. Are you trying to smuggle the idea that all, or even any members of the “Legislature” are smart or knowledgeable? Or… honest? If yes, you are either an idiot or an ill-meaning intelligent person. Suggest a third hypothesis if you can. You could have made a good case against juries, but here?
Fourteen random members of the public, be they as prejudiced, average-intelligence and TV-fed from the cradle as possible, cannot be worse in deciding the districts than a “Legislature” that is legally and officially sold and bought, and entirely committed to the “Two-“party dictatorship.
Report thisBy Steve Juniper, November 25, 2010 at 11:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Districting is NOT to protect incumbents, although it
Report thisalso generally does. It is to favor one side of the
other. In California it favors democrats. In Texas it
favors Republicans. Although undoing it clearly
favors Republicans in California, without doing it
universally is a serious mistake. The law of
unintended consequences as work!
By snarkhunter, November 24, 2010 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Those complaining that primaries are for the parties are off base. Why should the government spend tax dollars for private organizations to choose their candidate? The parties are free to have caucuses or vote by mail elections to choose a single candidate in the open primary. Nothing prevents this, they could deny the party designation to any candidate they don’t approve of. They just don’t get a taxpayer funded election to do so, nor do they get a guaranteed spot on the final ballot. If SF gets a Green running against a Dem, and Newport Beach gets a tea party rep vs. a Republican, sounds like more fun for every one.
Report thisWith regard to redistricting, the column is written as if the current system was well designed and Californians are nut cases for chucking it. It isn’t—take a look at current district lines. The CC is a hack, but it can’t be worse than what we currently get, though it may be no better. At least they didn’t require a 2/3 vote to get rid of it if it doesn’t work.
By drklassen, November 24, 2010 at 2:36 pm Link to this comment
@Nataloff: Ballot initiatives are tricky. At some level they do serve as a check to politician power, but, clearly, they can also be a nightmare. I think some version of them may be a Good Thing, but the process really needs some work.
I used to be with you on term limits as a Bad Thing, but in this day and age with corporate personhood, unlimited funding, “war chests”, lobbying, etc. I’m now firmly in the camp of setting term limits on ALL elected positions. For the fed level, 2 terms in the Senate, 5 in the House.
Report thisBy Nataloff, November 24, 2010 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment
In addition to being selected by lot, the Redistricting Commission (is it still in capital letters if it’s not politicians?) must reflect the composition of California’s population, which automatically makes it more representative than the Assembly. Sometimes the voters get it right, as opposed to open primaries, term limits, and the truly destructive ballot initiative process. In any event, it will be fun to watch, like “Gerrymander: The Home Game.”
Report thisBy LillithMc, November 24, 2010 at 12:38 pm Link to this comment
There is also a movement to draw names from a hat to rewrite California’s state constitution. Already the proposition system alters the state constitution and makes it difficult to change it once it passes.
Report thisBy drklassen, November 24, 2010 at 11:52 am Link to this comment
I gotta agree that open primaries are stupid. Primaries are just the current means by which *parties* choose who will represent them in an election—-they should have NOTHING to do with states or “voter rights” or whatever (so long as, if they select via election, all voters who are allowed to participate, get to do so according to the party rules). That is, primaries are about parties; let them figure out how they want to choose candidates however they want.
The real issue wasn’t primaries, but the roadblocks put up by the Big Two to keep others off the main ballot entirely. The best fix for that is twofold: 1) mandate that ALL parties must abide by the exact same rules for ballot placement, and 2) instant run-off voting. The latter stops folks from voting for the lesser-of-two-evils by getting rid of the don’t-waste-your-vote excuse.
As for district-drawing, I think this is a WONDERFUL idea!
Report thisBy Dave Schwab, November 24, 2010 at 9:11 am Link to this comment
Top-two primaries are not the same thing as open primaries. Top-two is a proven system for protecting incumbents and giving an even bigger advantage to big-money candidates. Prop 14 was best summed up by Stephen Colbert: “The two richest guys win!”
Report thisBy Big Jess, November 23, 2010 at 10:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I live in CA and voted for the Prop 20 Commission. It might be better, even far better, than what we have now, and couldn’t be any worse.
But the open primary is a catastrophe. CA moved up its presidential primary from June to March to make it count in the presidential selection process. Now I can’t wait for the Rush Limbaugh-inspired “Operation Chaos” of Republicans deliberately voting for the Dem they’d most like to run against in the primary. The same will happen with many statewide races.
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, November 23, 2010 at 9:33 pm Link to this comment
I’ve got to hand it to Caliornia, the undemonization of politics.
Report this