Michigan Republicans Go Off The Deep End

According to Rick Snyder, wealthy businessman and freshly-minted Republican governor of Michigan, the state, which is approximately $1.4 billion in the red, requires "shared sacrifice" to solve its budget problems. So how does that shared sacrifice work?

*His $45.9 billion proposal includes spending cuts for schools and would eliminate many personal tax breaks while slashing business taxes. Among the proposals: ending exemptions from the state income tax for most pension income.*

OK, we get it - You sacrifice your tax dollars, and your school funding, and he shares the proceeds with his business buddies.

This shouldn't be a surprise - businessmen make lousy, lousy governors precisely because they think like businessmen. They think in terms of businesses, not people; their natural affinity is to other businessmen, not to the workers that make up the vast bulk of their constituency. The bottom line is profit, not people. People don't count that much to businessmen like Snyder, particularly people that can't work anymore:

“Lansing politicians say everyone must share in the sacrifices, yet the only ones making the sacrifices in this unfair budget are seniors, schools and ordinary families,” said Henry Lykes, a retired Marine and retired Wayne County public service worker. “Lansing politicians must stop exploiting Michigan’s budget as an excuse to attack ordinary Michigan families, seniors and our children. I know a retiree in Westland who is struggling to get by. If Gov. Snyder taxes her retirement, she may have to cut back on her medicines, or even food. That’s just not fair.”

And with that sole motive comes a disdain, if not an outright dislike, of working people, especially union people, which is why he's been moving to bust unions in the same way Scott Walker has in Wisconsin.

All of which sets up the really seriously radical, undemocratic, un-American moves Snyder is pushing for, along with the Republican majority in the Michigan Legislature:

Newly elected Republican governor, Rick Snyder, is set to pass one of the most sweeping, anti-democratic pieces of legislation in the country – and almost no one is talking about it.

Snyder’s law gives the state government the power not only to break up unions, but to dissolve entire local governments and place appointed “Emergency Managers” in their stead. But that’s not all – whole cities could be eliminated if Emergency Managers and the governor choose to do so. And Snyder can fire elected officials unilaterally, without any input from voters. It doesn’t get much more anti-Democratic than that.

Except it does. The governor simply has to declare a financial emergency to invoke these powers – or he can hire a private company to declare financial emergency and take over oversight of the city. That’s right, a private corporation can declare your city in a state of financial emergency and send in its Emergency Manager, fire your elected officials, and reap the benefits of the ensuing state contracts.

Think about that for a moment. These are a dictator's powers Snyder is seizing. Simply by declaring an emergency, the Governor, by fiat, can dissolve local governments, hire a corporation from out of the state to come in and tell everyone what to do and how to do it, and you're forced to pay for it. The good people of Michigan, who have been designated "sacrificers" in the new regime of "shared sacrifice," will have absolutely no say in how their town or county is run.

And how will the Emergency Managers, these Republican commissars empowered by Snyder to so dismantle local governments, perform their duties?

Because the bill establishes no process for how appointees can carry out their new powers and specifically lays out that Emergency Managers need not consult with a community’s elected representatives, some worry that corporate managers, appointed by the governor, could liquidate community assets to cover debt and leave towns no better off than they were.

What values will guide these individuals or firms as they work to balance budgets?

How will a manager decide whether to sell off an ice rink or a library?

The Treasury Dept. is in the process of training potential Emergency Managers, so the Messenger asked for some details of the training in hopes of better understanding the motivations and priorities of the folks who may soon take over our schools and towns.

It turns out the training itself was mostly outsourced to the law and accounting firms — Plante & Moran, Plunkett & Cooney, Miller Canfield, Foley & Lardner — already involved in emergency financial management of Michigan towns.

And none of this is about the budget. It's all about busting up unions, and, even more importantly, selling off state functions to corporations. Because as we mentioned above, businessmen think only of profit, and there's no profit in letting a government perform a government's functions. Republicans like Snyder want only to privatize your government so they and their buddies can make a profit off of you.

The inimitable Rachel Maddow has more:

This is Republicans showing their true colors.

Fukushima Radiation - Update

If this is true, it's pretty frightening. From FishOutofWater over at Daily Kos: Breaking - Spent Fuel Fire At Reactor 4, Hydrogen Explosion & Radiation Release:

This is live coverage of the HNK feed. I'm doing my best to make sense of the translation. Apparently there is an ongoing fire that may be a spent fuel fire. This is very concerning. Evacuation has been ordered up to 30 km (20 miles). A spent fuel fire has the potential of causing far greater radiation release to the environment than a reactor accident.

The number 4 reactor was not operating at the time of the earthquake according to NHK. However, the loss of power that occurred when the tsunami wiped out the diesel generators caused the spent fuel pools to lose water circulation. Heat from the spent fuel would have eventually boiled off the water once circulation was lost. When spent fuel is uncovered it can heat up to such high temperatures that its zirconium alloy cladding catches fire. That appears to have taken place. Moreover these conditions apparently led to hydrogen generation which caused an explosion that destroyed the roof of the reactor 4 building.

. . .

NOAA particle trajectory modeling indicates the possibility of low levels of particles from the accident vicinity reaching the Pacific northwest of the U.S. in 84 hours. Levels in the U.S. would likely be diluted to very low levels by dispersion and mixing.

Most radioactive particles will probably end up in the Pacific Ocean.

(Emphasis added.) Go to the link above for more details, and contingency wind pattern diagrams.

A New Civil Rights Movement

Two videos out of Wisconsin are definitely worth the time to watch today.

In the first, a Wisconsin farmer, Tony Schultz, explains, among other things, that the previous "support" from farmers for Scott Walker's plan to gut Badgercare (Wisconsin's implementation of Medicare) were actually from large factory farms; family farmers from Wisconsin would be hurt by Walker and his Republican cronies:

WATCH THIS VIDEO and please share it widely. Republicans have ruled red and rural America for a generation, playing off of fears, driving wedges, creating sterotypes. And Democracts, it must be said, have too often given them an open field to do so. It took Scott Walker and his minions to bring it fully to the surface here in Wisconsin. Tony passionately states the common threats we face, and the opportunity we have to rebuild the connections across the landscape for a progressive future. Ironically, Scott Walker is ignorant of rural and small town Wisconsin, and the social fabric that keeps small town life healthy -- the schools, health care, environmental stewardship, the local cops and firefighters. Tony reveals that here.

In the next video, Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) breathes the fire of the righteous in his address to the Madison Workers' Rights Rally when he lays out for all to witness how our American democracy is being sold down the river to corporations, primarily by the Republicans:

What we have here today in Wisconsin is the beginning of a new civil rights movement.

Best line of the speech? "Economic democracy is a predicate to political democracy!" Will post a transcript when one becomes available.

By the way - where are Obama and the Democratic leadership on the labor rights protests in Wisconsin? Where are they on supporting workers' rights? Silent. Mute. Absent without leave. It's as if they don't care about the millions of Wisconsoners that elected them. The uncomfortable, but most rational, conclusion to draw is that they approve of Walker's actions. And why should Obama support workers' rights, after all? He was never a worker himself, only organizer, professor, and professional politician.

It's time we demand that the Democratic Party return to its roots as a party of the people. It's time the people took its party back.

California Potentially In Path Of Fukushima Radiation

Up to six cores at the Fukushima nuclear facility in Sendai, Japan may have already experienced meltdown. Unfortunately, this looming disaster raises the possibility (and at this point, it is just that, a possibility) of wind carrying airborne radioactivity as far as California:

California is closely monitoring efforts to contain leaks from a quake-damaged Japanese nuclear plant, a spokesman said Saturday, as experts said radiation could be blown out across the Pacific.

. . .

"At present there is no danger to California. However we are monitoring the situation closely in conjunction with our federal partners," Michael Sicilia, spokesman for California Department of Public Health, told AFP.

. . .

Experts have suggested that, if there were a reactor meltdown or major leak at Fukushima, the radioactive cloud would likely be blown out east across the Pacific, towards the US West Coast.

"The wind direction for the time being seems to point the (nuclear) pollution towards the Pacific," said Andre-Claude Lacoste of the French Nuclear Safety Authority, briefing journalists in Paris on the Japanese crisis.

Time to recall that Southern California has two nuclear reactors of its own at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Let's hope the Big One never hits here.

Japan - Six Fukushima Cores Melted Down?

Reuters tweet: FLASH: #Japan chief cabinet secretary says risk of explosion at building housing #Fukushima Daiichi No. 3 reactor

AUToday tweet: #fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. No.3 reactor now of concern. The power company has raised the warning leave to 4 on a scale of 0-7. #eqjp

United for Peace of Pierce County: Core Melting Presumed at Multiple Reactors as Six Cores Lost at Fukushima:

Efforts to cool nuclear fuel rods appeared to be failing at three reactors at two nuclear power plants in Japan's Fukushima prefecture, 150 miles north of Tokyo, in the aftermath of the devastating Mar. 11 earthquake (upgraded to 9.0 on the Richter scale, and now said to be the biggest within the boundaries of the North American and Pacific tectonic plates in 1,200 years) and tsunami, the London Guardian suggested.[1] -- "Kyodo News quoted Tepco as saying that the up to three meters of MOX fuel rods were exposed above water at the Fukushima plant," Justin McCurry said. -- "Shaun Burnie, an independent nuclear energy consultant and forner head of nuclear campaigns at Greenpeace, said the presence of a percentage of fuel core loaded with plutonium MOX fuel in the No. 3 reactor posed a grave threat to the surrounding area. 'Plutonium MOX fuel increases the risk of nuclear accident due the neutronic effects of plutonium on the reactor,' Burnie told the Guardian. 'In the event of an accident -- in particular loss of coolant -- the reactor core is more difficult to control due to both neutronics and higher risk of fuel cladding failure.'" -- China's Xinhua news agency reported that "the TEPOC reported that the No. 3 reactor at the plant lost its ability to cool the reactor core, becoming the sixth reactor that lost the function after No. 1 and No. 2 reactors at the No. 1 plant and No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 at the No. 2 plant had suffered the same trouble." -- Bloomberg Businessweek downplayed the fears about the nuclear emergency.[3] -- But the New York Times called the "widening nuclear crisis" the "worst involving a nuclear plant since the Chernobyl disaster 25 years ago."

CNN: Quake moved Japan's coast 8 feet closer to the U.S.

NASA photo of Sendai flooded areas:

Japan quake upgraded to 9.0. Now tied for 4th most powerful quake in recorded history.

Iowa - Leave No Mentally-Defective Gun Owner Behind

Iowa Republicans are making love to their guns again:

Republicans this week revived a proposal that would allow Iowans to carry weapons in public without permission from a sheriff, without background checks and without training requirements. The legislation, House Study bill 219, is known as “Alaska carry,” which is law in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming.

Republican Jeff Kaufmann joked that the law was the "give-a-handgun-to-a-schizophrenic bill".

No background checks and no training requirements? Honestly, why don't they just pass a law stating we can drive 120 while downing a bottle of Jack Daniels? We'd be just as safe.

Of course, we're missing the psychology here; a law about being able to carry weapons in public, with Johnny law unable to say squat about it, is all about pissants projecting personal power to make up for a four-inch pecker.

California Citizens' Redistricting Commission - Who Are The DTS Members? Focus on Forbes

The California Citizens' Redistricting Commission has 14 members. Five of the members are Democratic, five are Republican, and four are "DTS,' or Decline To State party. One requirement for the DTS commissioners was that they had to have been consistently registered with a political party or DTS for 5 years prior to their appointment; as such, they couldn't merely state on their application (for example, for purposes of loading the commission with one party or another) that they were DTS.

So who are the DTS members of the Commission? They are Stanley Forbes of Esparto; Connie Galambos-Malloy of Oakland; Michelle R. DiGuillo (Stockton); and M. Andre Parvenu (Culver City).

I always wonder about "decline to state" voters. Do they truly hew to neither the Democratic or Republican Parties? Do they tend towards a third party? Are they really Democrats or Republicans, but some aspect of state or local politics irritated them enough to change their preferences on their voter registration? Such motivations are not necessarily a part of the public record. However, some information can be gleaned from simple web searches.

Today, we'll focus on Stanley Forbes of Esparto. Forbes is white, male, lives in Esparto in Yolo County and earns between $35,000 and $75,000; has a Bachelor's degree in history from the University of Southern California, and a Master's in history from UCLA. He holds a law degree from Vanderbilt University School of Law. He is co-owner of The Avid Reader bookstore in Sacramento; and owner-operator of Forbes Ranch.

According to the Citizens' Redistricting Commission website:

Mr. Forbes is a co-owner of Avid Reader, a small retail bookstore. There he selects merchandise, sells and markets books, provides customer service and attends to financial matters. Mr. Forbes also has spent the last 32 years operating a family ranch, managing crop selection, market research, financial planning, equipment operation, irrigation, chemical and air quality regulation compliance, pruning and raking almonds. Mr. Forbes received a Bachelor's degree from the University of Southern California, a Master's degree from UCLA, and a Law Degree from Vanderbilt University. Mr. Forbes is registered as Decline-To-State.

"I am applying to serve on the Citizens Redistricting Commission out of a deep concern that unless reformed, California may be unable to effectively address the problems it faces as well as maximize the opportunities that will enable the people of California to pursue and fulfill their potential."

Well, the last statement sounds nice, but substance-wise is little more than political pablum. Granted, the California state Legislature is largely gridlocked now (primarily because the 2/3 majority requirement for raising any fees or taxes give the 36% of Republicans in the Legislature undue influence). However, how does Forbes plan to correct the situation?

Perhaps his Supplemental Application holds some clues. To explain why he wanted to serve on the Commission, Forbes explained that:

Legislative districts should represent communities of interests. This is inherently difficult in California given its regional and demographic diversity. As Mark Baldassare put it in his book, “California in the New Millennium”, California is in many ways four states with mutually suspicious ethnic communities all of which distrust the government. I believe these differences can be overcome provided the districts are based on communities of interest criteria: geographic, ethnic, economic and many others. As it stands now however, the primary community of interest is political party registration. This effectively results in many single party legislative districts that may not represent communities of interest that reflect our common interests in solving the problems facing the state. With single party districts and typically low turnout primaries, party activists who are more ideologically, rather than consensus or compromise, driven exercise a disproportionate influence on who is nominated and therefore who is elected than the public at large in their districts. This results in a Legislature excessively polarized and gripped by legislative gridlock.

California cannot successfully address its problems and build on its opportunities without ridding the Legislature of this partisan paralysis. This paralysis can only be overcome by developing legislative districts that are based on community of interest criteria other than political parties so that compromise and consensus building can be returned to our political process.

So Forbes appears to believe that political affiliation does not represent a "community of interest"? Political party affiliation is a reflection of commonality of interests and values, both economic, social. There's a reason Republican Districts are drawn to encompass wealthier, more upscale, and/or more socially-conservative neighborhoods and areas; that's how they tend to think generally. Political party affiliation is not a cynical substitute for "communities of interest" cooked up by the Legislature; it's the result of communities of interest.

In any event, Forbes looks like a Commissioner who will not just ignore political party affiliation in redrawing district lines, but will actively break political party-based communities whenever possible.

Forbes is right with respect to one community of interest: the 2001 redistricting has been rightly accused of not just preserving incumbents' seats, but acting to suppress the burgeoning Latino vote. We expect the Commission will have, as a primary task, rectifying this situation. Forbes seems attuned to this:

California is our nation’s most diverse state, and there is every reason to believe that that diversity will only increase given immigration and the higher birthrate of our new residents. This can and should be a source of strength, energy, and vitality. But the benefits are not automatic. Left unrecognized, diversity can be a source of social and political corrosion that can result when a population feels alienated and excluded from the political process and proposals made to address California’s opportunities and problems.

Given the remainder of his Supplemental Application, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he's alluding to Latinos and not to Republicans. However, the letter of recommendation from Pam Nieberg points to the former interpretation:

Stan, in his work on the [Davis] School Board and City Council, made efforts to recognize the diversity of our citizens and to accommodate that diversity. While on the School Board, Stan strongly supported and voted for the Spanish Immersion Program in our schools and encouraged diversity in hiring. He also studied demographic data to help determine where schools would afford the greatest ethnic and economic diversity. On the Council, his concern for economic diversity encouraged him to ensure that all were represented in the political process. He also worked on policies that ensured that 25% of our housing in all developments qualified as low income housing.

So what else does Forbes believe?

[California] suffers from a taxation system that many consider overburdens business and is too volatile.

I have no idea what "volatile' means here, but complaints about the effects of taxation on business are standard, meat-and-potatoes Republican fare. Consistent with this, according to Davis Wiki, Forbes was registered as a Republican until 2006.

Forbes does, however, appear to have a reputation for patiently listening to all sides of a particular issue. According to research by the Bureau of State Audits:

Bureau staff contacted Pam Nieberg, the author of one of Applicant’s letters of recommendation . . . [S]he witnessed Applicant working in his capacity as a council member, and joined him to support local candidates in campaigns for the Davis City Council and the Yolo County Board of Supervisors. Ms. Nieberg indicated that Applicant operates as a consensus builder. When faced with an opposing viewpoint, Applicant tends not to hastily argue the matter and force his views on the other person, but instead works toward reaching agreement on a solution. Ms. Nieberg stated that Applicant considers all viewpoints when solving problems, as he tries to “get people to agree logically.” Ms. Nieberg also stated that Applicant is known for working well with others.

Nieberg's letter of recommendation states similar views, as does recommender Joseph Martinez'. (Curiously, W. Vasey's letter is not available for inspection; the page comes up blank.)

Although not much more is discernible about Forbes from a simple web search, our take on Forbes is this: He has Republican leanings and sympathies. However, his main focus is getting government to provide solutions that work, both in the sense that they are logical and that they serve the community. We would hazard a guess that his apparent inclination for practicality outweighed, and would outweigh, whatever partisan leanings he has (which might be why he switched from Republican to Decline-To-State). In that sense, Forbes looks like a reasonably non-partisan, practical-minded addition to the Commission. We'll follow his input with interest.

Wisconsin - A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Recall

Wisconsin state senator Randy Hopper (R-Fond-du Lac) has been a big supporter of Governor Scott Walker's push to deny Wisconsin public employees' collective bargaining rights. Hopper is now a recall target because of his votes. So when protesters showed up at his Madison, Wisconsin house to argue the matter...well, I'll let the blog folkblum's rambles and rants take it from there:

Recall target, Sen. Randy Hopper (R-Fond du Lac), talks a good game about family values.

But protesters outside the Hopper house this week in Fond du Lac were met by his wife who reportedly came out and told them: Hopper no longer lives there, but with his 25-year-old mistress in Madison.

No confirmation on whether the divorcing wife signed that petition to recall Hopper who represents Wisconsin Senate District 18.

Hopper has been a close ally with Gov. Scott Walker whose billionaire-funded attacks on Wisconsin families is drawing international attention and widespread condemnation.

I'm betting Hopper's wife wants him recalled, too, if perhaps for other reasons.

Massive Earthquake Hits Japan

A powerful earthquake, 8/9 on the Richter scale, hit northern Japan last night.

At least 60 people are confirmed dead.

There are tsunami warnings for California's West Coast - La Jolla is expected to see a tsunami at approximately 8:48 PST this morning (an hour and a half from now); the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has issued a Tsunami Advisory for our part of the California coastline.

More updates here (keep checking for more updates as time progresses). Our best to the people of Japan.

Apportionment - What Is It?

The Census Bureau has put out a helpful video explaining what apportionment is (hint - it's not the same as redistricting):

California Redistricting - Bay Area Could Lose A Congressional Seat

The 2010 Census Redistricting Data for California was published today. The population of California grew from approximately 33 million in 2000 to almost 38 million in 2010:

And California is stuck with 53 Congressional seats for the coming decade, meaning that population shifts, alone, will account for much of the redistricting done in California in the next few months. Experts are predicting that, because of the obvious growth of the Central Valley relative to other parts of the state, the Bay Area stands to lose at least one Congressional seat:

The dramatic population shift under way in the state, redistricting experts say, will make plain that the Bay Area should probably lose a district. The population in the ascendant Central Valley has grown roughly 15 times as fast as the population in the San Francisco Bay Area over the last decade, according to federal population estimates.

However, any redistricting in the area may be a double-edged sword:

The congressional districts that the Bay Area already shares with the Central Valley — 1, 3 and 11 — could be stretched farther into the Central Valley, some political scholars say. But the pendulum may well swing the other way. Republicans say they fear that portions of Contra County [sic, Costa] County, like Congressional District 10, a heavily Democratic area represented by John Garamendi that is known as the “seahorse” for its odd shape, may be reconstituted to include localities like Danville and San Ramon — currently in the 11th District — making it even harder for Republicans to get elected.

[Editor's note - District 11, represented by Jerry McNerney, looks more like a seahorse to me, but I'm not a professional at these things.] Congressional Districts 1, 3 and 11 are presented below for reference:

Certainly, the western end of District 3 will be lopped off and potentially added to a new District; such a reformed District 10 would still be reliably Democratic. District 11 is almost certain to be radically recast, particularly the portion encompassing only part of Stockton (similarly, District 18, which represents the central portion of Stockton, would be significantly redrawn, as well). My guess is that District 10 would be redistributed among Districts 1, 7, 9 and 11 to reduce the number of Bay area Districts, while a new Central Valley District would be formed from portions of existing Districts 11, 18 and 19.

I've been focusing on potential redistricting in Southern California, but it looks like the Sacramento-area Central Valley will be a hotbed of redrawing as well.

Why Businessmen Make Lousy Governors

Rick Scott, newly-minted Teabagger-approved Governor of Florida, is pissing off his Republican allies in the state:

“The governor doesn’t understand there is a State Constitution and that we have three branches of government,” said State Senator Mike Fasano, a Republican from New Port Richey who upset Mr. Scott with rough handling of his staff during a testy committee hearing. “They are talking about the attitude that he is still the C.E.O. of his former health care corporation, and that is not going to work in this state, in Tallahassee, in my district. The people believe in three branches of government.”

Republican lawmakers in Florida were hoping for a smoother transition. Instead, they say, they got top-down management from a political novice.

This is after Scott killed job-creating high-speed rail in Florida, slashed education to benefit his corporate buddies, and generally showed himself to be a lying sack of crap.

It shouldn't be any surprise he's acting this way, however. He was a billionaire CEO of HCA/Columbia before buying the governorship, and the way he is running the state indicates how CEOs think about the rest of us. Everyone else exists to serve them; the state's voters can be cast aside like workers in an economic downturn. CEOs are paid pretty highly to not care about the people that work for them. Meanwhile, his corporate buddies--whom he obviously sees as investors--are showered with your tax dollars. CEOs don't care about people; to them, people are tools to be used. The only people that matter are other corporate leaders, particularly other CEOs.

Elect a CEO, you elect the guy that fired you in the last recession, and the guy running your cable TV and mobile phone companies, not to mention the guys who sent Enron, WorldCom and a host of similar companies into the ground in flames. Who would ever think someone like that would be effective at running a state for the benefit of its people?

More Deep Republican Stupid

Florida State Senator Jim Norman (R-Tampa) wants to make it a first degree felony to take pictures of farmland without permission. Apparently this was done to help keep factory farm practices secret.

This is what Republicans do when they get into power. For all their foaming-at-the-mouth blather about how much they want smaller government and to "get government off our backs," they're more than willing to throw the full weight of government against you and your rights to protect one of their corporate benefactors.

This is more evidence that Republicans simply can't govern. They cannot run a state, or the federal, government for the benefit of the people that live there, only the people who helped them get elected.

Secession?

Even the assholes are bigger in Texas.

California Redistricting - What Is A "Community Of Interest" Anyway?

California's Proposition 11, passed in 2008, removed the California State Legislature's authority to redraw California state Assembly and Senate district lines, and handed that authority to a Redistricting Commission. Proposition 20, passed in 2010, further transferred authority to redraw federal Congressional district lines form the Legislature to the Redistricting Commission.

The criteria the Redistricting Commission are expected to use in order to redraw district lines are as follows (from the text of Proposition 20):

(1) Districts shall comply with the United States Constitution. Senate Congressional districts shall achieve population equality as nearly as is practicable, and Senatorial, Assembly, and State Board of Equalization districts shall have reasonably equal population with other districts for the same office, except where deviation is required to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act or allowable by law.

(2) Districts shall comply with the federal Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1971 and following).

(3) Districts shall be geographically contiguous.

(4) The geographic integrity of any city, county, city and county, local neighborhood, or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes their division to the extent possible without violating the requirements of any of the preceding subdivisions. A community of interest is a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Examples of such shared interests are those common to an urban area, a rural area, an industrial area, or an agricultural area, and those common to areas in which the people share similar living standards, use the same transportation facilities, have similar work opportunities, or have access to the same media of communication relevant to the election process. Communities of interest shall not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.

(5) To the extent practicable, and where this does not conflict with the criteria above, districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness such that nearby areas of population are not bypassed for more distant population.

(6) To the extent practicable, and where this does not conflict with the criteria above, each Senate district shall be comprised of two whole, complete, and adjacent Assembly districts, and each Board of Equalization district shall be comprised of 10 whole, complete, and adjacent Senate districts.

The first two criteria are set in law, and any district lines today--even heavily gerrymandered ones--meet constitutional and Voting Rights Act standards. Similarly, the third criterion, geographical contiguousness, is met even in heavily gerrymandered districts (if only barely, in some cases). The fifth criterion is patently ridiculous, as it encourages drawing district lines by esthetics, which is a nonsensical criterion to determine representation.

Therefore, the first main criterion that is expected to differ from criteria used by the Legislature in previous redistricting efforts is that of keeping "communities of interest" together. But is that really much different than how the Legislature redraws boundaries? Lets take a look at two California Congressional Districts, District 39 (Linda Sanchez, D) and District 50 (Brian Bilbray, R). (For some of this discussion, please refer to www.govtrack.us, which has good-quality expandable district maps that are, unfortunately, not permalinkable.)

Bilbray's District 50 encompasses the relatively wealthy coastal region of Southern California from the village of Carlsbad to just below Solana Beach (where property values are quite high), and continues to central La Jolla (situated on and around mount Soledad), where the wealthy enjoy ocean views, but skips coastal La Jolla with it's university of California at San Diego student population and renters. It continues east from La Jolla through relatively conservative Clairmont Mesa, and up through wealthy Torrey Highlands and Carmel Valley (roughly between the i-5 and I-15 shields on the map below), and up through even wealthier Rancho Santa Fe and 4S Ranch, up into the relatively conservative communities of Rancho Bernardo, Escondido, and San Marcos.

So what is the "community of interest" in this case? Clearly, the District was designed to encompass as many high-earners, upscale professionals and business people as possible. Undoubtedly, the wealthy in La Jolla would feel they have more in common with the same groups of people in Rancho Santa Fe and 4S Ranch than the college students populating the UCSD area and the La Jolla coastline. If one just looks geographically, however, the southernmost section of Bilbray's district would seem naturally to extend to the coast, and to incorporate the UCSD areas.

So "gerrymandering" is not necessarily a bad thing, if you simply look at the interested communities within a District.

District 39 has similarly been accused of being highly gerrymandered. The 39th District is shaped like a horseshoe:

For a description of the 39th District, I'll defer to Larry Andre, "Former nominee Republican 39th Congressional District," who ran against Sanchez in 2010 and posted this public comment on March 3, 2011:

This district just happens prime example of how gerrymandering has hurt our state. The District starts in the west in South Los Angeles and sweeps around in a gigantic horseshoe shape ending in the east in Whittier. The district was obviously drawn to be safe Democrat and it has lived up to expectations, being 50% Democrat, 25% Republican, 25% DTS, and over 60% Hispanic, it was drawn in such a manner that included high Hispanic and high Democrat areas. This is only the beginning of the inequalities of the district. The western portion is primarily blue collar with high school education or lower, working poor to lower middle class, and immigrant, with the majority of the populace being Hispanic and to a smaller degree African American. This portion of the district includes the cities of Lynwood, South Gate and Paramount, The eastern portion of the district[,] a small sliver of North Long Beach, Lakewood, Hawaiian Gardens, Cerritos, Artesia, La Mirada, and 62% of Whittier are middle class to upper middle class, high school education and higher, with a mix of white, Asian, Hispanic, and others, The eastern and western halves of the district have few common bonds that would be required by the new redistricting law.

It's evident that a substantial portion of Andre's missive is sour grapes; the voters of that particular District rejected him. He was obviously unhappy the District comprised 60% Hispanic voters, despite the fact they are an increasingly-important voting bloc in the state. And the way California politics works these days, it would be hard to argue the Hispanic community does not constitute a 'community of interest".

Of course, the voters rejected Andre because they didn't like his politics and his positions on the issues, not because the District was "shaped funny". It's quite likely that had Andre adopted policy positions (and actually believed in those positions) that were more in line with his District's interests, he would have had a shot at winning the election. At its root, therefore, Republicans' interest in getting a Commission to redistrict California is borne from their failure to accept that most of the voters in California don't like them. They don't seem to like the increasing influence of Hispanics in the state, either.

What he, and a lot of people in the state, fail to realize, is that the interests, beliefs, values and outlook on life of a bloc of voters constitutes a "community of interest" every bit as much as do neighborhood, work or commuting patterns. Republicans tend to congregate with Republicans, and Democrats with Democrats, because they tend to think alike. There's a reason Districts are "safe": the majority of people in the District like who is representing them.

However, the more generally-stated reason for handing redistricting duties to the Redistricting Commission is not so much to keep "communities of interest" together, but "to create voting areas with more logical, consistent boundaries – such as including all of a city instead of just the Democratic or Republican areas of it – to promote more competitive races among the parties." (Emphasis added.) This quote from the OC Register, which plies its trade in one of the more consistently Republican areas of Southern California, essentially translates into "we want Congressional Districts that are easier for Republicans to win!" And that in itself is a problem, because the Redistricting Commission is explicitly constrained, by the language of Proposition 20, from considering Party voting patterns in drawing District lines.

In short, "communities of interest" doesn't appear at this time to be a cogent basis on which to redraw District lines, and, at worst, represents a fig leaf covering the more direct desire to artificially attempt to make Congressional races more "competitive".

However, the present system of Legislature-drawn lines likely benefits Republicans more than the CRC's efforts will. Republicans currently represent 19, or about 36%, of the 53 California Congressional Districts. Compared to the percentage of Californians registered as Republicans, 30.8%, California Republicans are arguably over-represented in Congress (however, 35% of likely voters are registered Republican). Republicans also fared particularly badly in 2010 (despite a Republican wave in other parts of the country), failing to win any statewide races. The hope of making California Congressional Districts more competitive for Republicans is, therefore, likely nothing more than a pipe dream.

In fact, one person, using Dave's Redistricting Application, predicts that redistricting will actually reduce the number of Republican California Congressional seats, with only 17 seats being designated as safe GOP, likely GOP, lean GOP or toss-up.

After the Redistricting Commission is done, Republicans may wish the Legislature was still drawing District lines.