NALEO URGES STRONG OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION 11


For Immediate Release September 30, 2008	Contact: Rosalind Gold (213) 747-7606, ext. 4420 Email: rgold@naleo.org

NALEO URGES STRONG OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION 11 Flawed Redistricting Measure Would Jeopardize Fair Representation for Latinos and Other Minority Voters
LOS ANGELES, CA - California’s November ballot includes Proposition 11, an initiative which would make serious and detrimental changes in the state’s redistricting process. NALEO urges you to oppose this flawed and dangerous measure because it is an ineffective approach to achieving open and accountable redistricting in California. Proposition 11 would also jeopardize opportunities for Latinos to attain full representation in the state. Because redistricting is a fundamental component of our representative democracy, the NALEO Board of Directors developed principles that we believe should guide a redistricting process, whether it is conducted by a state legislature, an independent commission, or some other entity. Attached is a fact sheet [click here] that includes these principles and specifically describes how Proposition 11 violates them. We have the following concerns about Proposition 11: Proposition 11 would create a complex and confusing process for appointing commission members that will not ensure commissioner accountability, diversity, or expertise. Proposition 11 creates a “two-track” redistricting process where the state legislature would establish the boundaries for Congressional districts, while a new redistricting commission would establish them for California legislative and Board of Equalization districts. This two-track process risks reducing coherency in redistricting criteria and public participation during commission hearings, both of which undermine the goal of achieving an open and accountable redistricting process, one of the main purposes of redistricting reform. Some of Proposition 11’s redistricting criteria could impair compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which protects Latinos and other under-represented groups from discrimination in the electoral process. For example, the criteria include an inflexible and confusing requirement that state senate districts be created by “nesting” adjacent assembly districts. Past California redistrictings and current research demonstrate that this requirement is a significant obstacle to achieving full minority representation in the state. Proposition 11’s provisions which attempt to address potential commissioner conflicts of interest would unreasonably prevent or discourage capable citizens from serving. They would deter qualified citizens who are engaged in the most acts of civic participation that create no meaningful risk of such conflicts. Many of Proposition 11’s supporters claim that the measure will reduce “partisan gridlock” in Sacramento by making California’s elections more competitive. These supporters fail to understand that in many minority communities, compliance with the Voting Rights Act produces districts which are not competitive in general elections. Because the law requires that we unite “communities of interest” — those with similar ethnic, social, and economic concerns — members of these communities often have the same party affiliation. Thus, true electoral competition typically takes place in the primaries, with fierce intra-party battles occurring for many seats. In addition, partisan gridlock is a complex phenomenon, involving the nationwide hardening of allegiances,the rise in party discipline, the end of the fairness doctrine, and much more. A recent study released by the non-partisan Public Policy Institute of California finds that California’s 2001 redistricting – which Proposition 11 supporters blame for gridlock over the budget and a polarized legislature – did not make legislators more partisan. Proposition 11 would have no impact on the fundamental social and political trends responsible for California’s legislative gridlock , and it would not address any of the basic challenges affecting our system of governance. The redistricting process has a critical impact on the ability of Latinos to participate in our democracy and have fair access to electoral opportunities. NALEO has been an active participant in the state policy dialogue about the options available to improve California redistricting. Based on the NALEO Board principles, Proposition 11 is the wrong approach to making these improvements, and could have serious detrimental consequences for the state and the Latino community. We urge you to oppose Proposition 11, and to make your opposition known by filling out the attached form [click here] and faxing it to Adam Berkowitz, at Progressive Strategies Partners, (323) 254-5788. If you have any questions about the NALEO’s opposition to Proposition 11 or its work on redistricting, please contact Rosalind Gold, (213) 747-7606, ext. 4420, rgold@naleo.org.
###
About NALEO: The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) is the leadership organization of the nation's more than 6,000 Latino elected and appointed officials.
© 2008 NALEO Educational Fund Unsubscribe from our list

LOS ANGELES, CA - California’s November ballot includes Proposition 11, an initiative which would make serious and detrimental changes in the state’s redistricting process. NALEO urges you to oppose this flawed and dangerous measure because it is an ineffective approach to achieving open and accountable redistricting in California. Proposition 11 would also jeopardize opportunities for Latinos to attain full representation in the state.

Because redistricting is a fundamental component of our representative democracy, the NALEO Board of Directors developed principles that we believe should guide a redistricting process, whether it is conducted by a state legislature, an independent commission, or some other entity. Attached is a fact sheet [click here] that includes these principles and specifically describes how Proposition 11 violates them.

We have the following concerns about Proposition 11:

Proposition 11 would create a complex and confusing process for appointing commission members that will not ensure commissioner accountability, diversity, or expertise.
Proposition 11 creates a “two-track” redistricting process where the state legislature would establish the boundaries for Congressional districts, while a new redistricting commission would establish them for California legislative and Board of Equalization districts. This two-track process risks reducing coherency in redistricting criteria and public participation during commission hearings, both of which undermine the goal of achieving an open and accountable redistricting process, one of the main purposes of redistricting reform.
Some of Proposition 11’s redistricting criteria could impair compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which protects Latinos and other under-represented groups from discrimination in the electoral process.
For example, the criteria include an inflexible and confusing requirement that state senate districts be created by “nesting” adjacent assembly districts. Past California redistrictings and current research demonstrate that this requirement is a significant obstacle to achieving full minority representation in the state.
Proposition 11’s provisions which attempt to address potential commissioner conflicts of interest would unreasonably prevent or discourage capable citizens from serving. They would deter qualified citizens who are engaged in the most acts of civic participation that create no meaningful risk of such conflicts.

Many of Proposition 11’s supporters claim that the measure will reduce “partisan gridlock” in Sacramento by making California’s elections more competitive. These supporters fail to understand that in many minority communities, compliance with the Voting Rights Act produces districts which are not competitive in general elections. Because the law requires that we unite “communities of interest” — those with similar ethnic, social, and economic concerns — members of these communities often have the same party affiliation. Thus, true electoral competition typically takes place in the primaries, with fierce
intra-party battles occurring for many seats.

In addition, partisan gridlock is a complex phenomenon, involving the nationwide hardening of allegiances,the rise in party discipline, the end of the fairness doctrine, and much more. A recent study released by the non-partisan Public Policy Institute of California finds that California’s 2001 redistricting – which Proposition 11 supporters blame for gridlock over the budget and a polarized legislature – did not make legislators more partisan. Proposition 11 would have no impact on the fundamental social and political trends responsible for California’s legislative gridlock , and it would not address any of the basic challenges affecting our system of governance.

The redistricting process has a critical impact on the ability of Latinos to participate in our democracy and have fair access to electoral opportunities. NALEO has been an active participant in the state policy dialogue about the options available to improve California redistricting. Based on the NALEO Board principles, Proposition 11 is the wrong approach to making these improvements, and could have serious detrimental consequences for the state and the Latino community.

We urge you to oppose Proposition 11, and to make your opposition known by filling out the attached form [click here] and faxing it to Adam Berkowitz, at Progressive Strategies Partners, (323) 254-5788. If you have any questions about the NALEO’s opposition to Proposition 11 or its work on redistricting, please contact Rosalind Gold, (213) 747-7606, ext. 4420, rgold@naleo.org.