From Matthew Yglesias at TAPPED:
GERRYMANDERING IN CALIFORNIA. Last week, Kevin Drum said that even though gerrymandering is terrible, California Democrats should oppose Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to end it in order to preserve partisan advantage. Today, Peter Beinart says Democrats should support it in order to set off a national wave of redistricting reform. Today, Kevin says maybe, but he thinks it's a risky bet because there may well be no reformist wave.
I think Kevin's premise is off base. The California congressional delegation is 40 percent Republican. That's about what George W. Bush got statewide in 2000 and only a bit below what he won in 2004. The Democratic legislature simply hasn't implemented a highly partisan gerrymander in the Golden State. Instead, they've implement a risk-averse incumbent protection plan that makes it almost impossible for any CA Democrats to lose their seats, but also almost impossible for the Democrats to pick up any new ones. That's nice if you're a member of Congress, but not so nice if you care about liberal politics. A non-partisan redistricting in California might lead the GOP to pick up some seats, but it holds out an equal chance of handing more seats to the Democrats. Since the Democrats are in the minority in Congress as a whole, that's a good bet for liberals to take even if the anti-gerrymandering cause doesn't go nationwide. And, of course, it really would lay the groundwork for a broader reform agenda aimed against the ethical cesspool the GOP has made of Washington.
Looks like I have to rethink my earlier position. The upside to redistricting reform nationwide is far greater than the downside in California. So even if the downside is more likely, it may well still be the wise thing to do.
The current incumbent protection redistricting plan in California is certainly not anything worth defending. It is a disgrace to democracy, as are the redistricting schemes in most other states.
Comments