Poli 103A California Politics Parties and Redistricting

1. Poli 103A California PoliticsParties and Redistricting

2. Parties and Redistricting • Why California Has Weak Parties • Roles of parties • History of nomination processes in CA • The Partisan Warfare of Redistricting • Rules of the game • Rules of thumb • The new rules

3. 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.

4. Why California Has Weak PartiesNominating 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Historical “Evolution” of Candidate Nominations in CA • The danger to parties was that by opening up their primaries to non-members, 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

10. 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

11. Do Nomination Procedures Affect Partisan Polarization?

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. The Partisan Warfare of Redistricting: Rules of the Game

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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