Transcript Poli 103A California Politics Parties and Redistricting

Poli 103A California Politics
Parties and Redistricting
Parties and Redistricting

Why California Has Weak Parties

The Partisan Warfare of Redistricting
• Roles of parties
• History of nomination processes in CA
• Rules of the game
• Rules of thumb
• The new rules
Why California Has Weak Parties

In American politics, a party’s most
important functions are selecting a
nominee and supporting that
nominee in a general election.

In Europe, parties are much more
active in influencing the votes of
their legislators and disciplining
them by controlling their careers.
Why California Has Weak Parties
Nominating Candidates

In California’s history, the process of
selecting party nominees has
undergone significant changes.
• The Convention System, 1849-1908.
Parties got to throw their own parties,
managing and paying for conventions
that were not regulated by the state.
Historical “Evolution” of
Candidate Nominations in CA
The Convention System




No laws against bribing delegates.
No laws guaranteeing delegates the right to
vote at a convention.
“Both sneaks and sluggers were employed
as the occasion dictated.” –C. Edward
Merriam, 1908.
Streetfights between the longhair and
shorthair Union partisans in 1866.
Historical “Evolution” of
Candidate Nominations in CA

Direct primaries with cross-filing,
1908-1959.
• 1908 initiative, pushed by Progressives,
had the state take over and finance
primaries in which party members voted.
• Cross-filing removed a candidate’s party
label from the primary ballot, and allowed
candidates to run in multiple primaries
Historical “Evolution” of
Candidate Nominations in CA



Cross-Filing
Party members could still select their
nominee, but they often chose an
incumbent from the other party.
1952 initiative attached party labels.
1959 abolition of cross filing
prevented candidates from running in
more than one party primary.
Historical “Evolution” of
Candidate Nominations in CA


Blanket Primary, 1998-2000.
Proposition 198, financed by
moderate Republicans and reformers,
let voters chose the primary in which
they would participate.
Meant to bring independents and
moderates into the process, and
select more moderate nominees.
Historical “Evolution” of
Candidate Nominations in CA

The danger to parties was that by
opening up their primaries to nonmembers, they might select:
• Republicans’ favorite Democrat & vice-versa
• “Turkeys” who can’t win general election

The US Supreme Court agreed that
this system violated a party’s freedom
of association in California Democratic
Party vs. Jones, 2000
Historical “Evolution” of
Candidate Nominations in CA

In June, 2010, voters passed the
“top-two primary” law
• Put on the ballot by moderate
Republican Abel Maldonado
• Voters can choose from all candidates
from all parties in any office
• The “top-two,” regardless of party,
advance to the November ballot
Do Nomination Procedures Affect
Partisan Polarization?
0.5
0.4
0.3
Polarization
Score in
Session
0.2
0.1
Smoothed
Polarization
Series
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
1851
1855
1859
1863
1871
1880
1887
1895
1903
1911
1919
1927
1935
1943
1951
1959
1967
1975
1983
1991
1999
0
The Partisan Warfare of
Redistricting: Rules of the Game

After each census (2010, 2000, ...) new
congressional, state Senate, and state
Assembly districts drawn because:
• CA often got more seats in Congress.
• Old districts no longer = in population.

In the past, new district maps passed as a
bill in the legislature:
• Needed to pass each house with simple majorities
and be signed by the governor, requiring
compromise.
The Partisan Warfare of
Redistricting: Rules of the Game

If elected officials fail to reach an
agreement, redistricting passes to the
State Supreme Court, which may
appoint “Special Masters.”

The federal Voting Rights Act of 1965
allows affected voters to sue if the
voting power of racial and ethnic
minorities is diluted when lines drawn
with discriminatory intent and effect.
The Partisan Warfare of
Redistricting: Rules of the Game
The Partisan Warfare of
Redistricting: Rules of Thumb

There is often a trade-off between
making incumbents safe and getting
more seats for the party in power.
• A plan that makes incumbents safe (less
responsive) packs lots of their
supporters together in a district.
• A plan that helps a party win more seats
than it has voters (more biased) needs to
spread around just enough supporters.
The Partisan Warfare of
Redistricting: Rules of Thumb

There is sometimes a trade-off
between increasing minority voting
power and helping Democrats.
• Latino and African-American voters tend
to live in areas heavily populated by
Democrats.
• A district that is 55% African-American
is likely to be 85% Democratic, leaving
fewer voters to spread around.
The Partisan Warfare of
Redistricting: Rules of Thumb

There is a tradeoff between
maximizing the number of
competitive districts and keeping
together cities, counties, or
“communities of interest.”
• More and more, like-minded
Californians live near each other.
Creating district lines that keep them
together can lead to non-competitive
elections.
Changing the Rules of
Redistricting

In November, 2008, Proposition 11
narrowly passed to create the
Citizens Redistricting Commission
• 14 “average citizens” with equitable
partisan representation will meet to
draw the new lines. 9 must agree.
• They were charged with respecting
minority voting rights and keeping
together communities, but not with
maximizing competition.
Discussion Questions


What would California politics look like
without any parties? Can we look for clues
by studying local, non-partisan politics?
Which goals are most important in a
redistricting system?
• Competition
• Partisan proportionality
• Minority voting rights
• Compactness and continguity