California Redistricting Commission - Why Redistrict?

In writing about the California Redistricting Commission (CRC), it is good to keep in mind the question: why redistrict in the first place? Don't Congressional Districts work well enough as they are?

One reason for redistricting is population shifts. As certain Districts gain or lose population, they may become proportionally underrepresented or overrepresented, respectively.

Another, and perhaps more compelling, reason, is gerrymandering, the drawing of political boundaries for political advantage. The online magazine Slate has a slideshow of what it thinks are the most gerrymandered districts in the nation, including CA11 (Jerry McNerney, D), CA18 (Dennis Cardoza, D), and CA38 (Grace Napolitano, D). (Those Districts have nothing, however, on PA12 (John Murtha, D), PA18 (Tim Murphy, R) or IL4 (Luis Gutierrez, D).)

Such a process is not unknown in California. Quite the contrary:

A bipartisan compromise forged between the Democrats and Republicans during the redistricting a decade ago is one of the primary reasons why so few California congressional -- and state legislative -- seats have changed hands this decade. At the time, Republicans had threatened to put a redistricting initiative on the ballot unless Democrats created safe seats for them. The Democrats agreed to compromise in order to lock in their gains realized in the 2000 elections rather than expand their majorities.

One of the main rationales for Proposition 11 in 2008, which created the CRC, and for Proposition 20 in 2010, which extended the CRC's mandate to federal Congressional redistricting, was that, under current law, the Legislature, which is controlled by Democrats, controls redistricting. As a result, the great majority of incumbents are re-elected.

This in itself is not such a bad thing. If all of the 53 Congressional Districts in California were, hypothetically, safe seats, that would simply mean that the representation in Congress accurately reflected the two Parties' respective distributions within the state. "Competitiveness" in districts is only a concern if the Republicans believe they have no way of electing a candidate other than redistricting. However, the effective mandate for the CRC is to increase competitiveness within California's Assembly and Congressional districts. That can only be done by giving California Republicans, on average, a better chance of winning elections in the state than Democrats.

In the San Diego area, one Congressional District to watch is Bob Filner's District 51. Interestingly, Congressional District 51 didn't make Slate's "over-gerrymandered" cut; however, it still looks "interesting":

As can be seen in a detailed San Diego map (PDF), The western end of District 51 includes Otay Mesa, San Ysidro, Chula Vista, National City, and San Diego east of Downtown and west of Lemon Grove. This results in a District that is:

53.3% Latino, 14.5% Asian, and 10.8% African American contingent, forming a safe Democratic seat.

District 51 looks, on its face, to be ripe for redistricting. It was also a target for Republicans in the 2010 election cycle. It lies adjacent to Duncan Hunter's Congressional District 52:

Bob Filner has been a consistent winner in his Congressional races, winning in 2010 with 60% of the vote. Duncan Hunter won District 52 in 2010 with 63.2%. It may be tempting, therefore, for the CRC to redraw the lines between these two Districts, swapping more reliably Republican District 52 voters for more reliably Democratic District 51 voters to create a new District 51 that is far more "competitive,' while leaving District 52 a substantially safe Republican seat.

Keep your eyes open in San Diego.