Temporary Redistricting Change Doesn’t Mean Temporary

Gov. Gavin Newsom is trying to sell his partisan redistricting measure by claiming it is only temporary for three election cycles, after which the California Citizens Redistricting Commission will take back the job of drawing legislative and congressional districts after the 2030 census.

Don’t bite. I’ve seen campaign promises that an adjustment to a law will only be temporary, but once passed efforts are made to keep the change.

I was a principal opponent of Proposition 30 in 2012, titled Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Note my emphasis on the word Temporary. The income tax portion of the Prop 30 tax increase was supposed to end in 2018. But two years prior to that proponents decided to come back to the voters with a continuation of the tax until 2030 and they were successful. Now there is talk from tax-increase advocates of going to the ballot again before 2030 to keep the TEMPORARY tax alive.

While Gov. Jerry Brown who led the campaign for the 2012 tax increase stayed officially neutral in the 2016 campaign to keep clean his reputation about the temporary status of the original tax increase, not so for the Lt. Governor at the time. His name was Gavin Newsom. He supported continuing the temporary tax.

Now Newsom and the Democrats who run the California government want to take back the redistricting power for congressional districts from the independent citizens commission, a reform embraced by the California electorate in two statewide votes and give the reapportionment authority to themselves.

What makes you think the majority Democrats will readily yield that power in 2030?

Some factors to consider.

According to a Brennan Center forecast, if current trends continue California is headed for a loss of up to four congressional seats in 2030 because of national demographic changes. On top of that, as I noted previously, population movement in and out of California is reducing Republican strength and increasing Democratic power. Democrats will certainly be enticed to take advantage of this situation to keep more Democrats in office.

One more important item that I wrote about already: politicians from both major parties never liked the independent redistricting commission and Democratic elected officials tried to do away with it in 2010 on the same ballot that the congressional seats were brought under the citizens redistricting commission’s charge.

Proposition 27, backed mainly by Democratic officials and allies, tried to eliminate the citizens commission all together. They were not successful then, but many will see an opportunity to wipe out the commission in 2030 under the changed circumstances noted above.

Let me say again the president and GOP are wrong for creating this congressional reapportionment mess.  The redistricting rhubarb was started by Republicans who wanted to break away from traditional redistricting standards. Altering tradition is not a conservative thing to do.

One thing this battle has brought forth is focus on the partisan political maneuvering of gerrymandering that should be fixed, probably by federal guidelines. It has been 213 years since the gerrymandering term was first applied to the underhanded, self-interested practice of reapportionment by elected officials. Now’s the time to end gerrymandering. It is not the time to dump the independent citizens redistricting commission.