Tag Archives: redistricting

Redistricting May Not Be Total Loss for California Republicans

Losing the redistricting lawsuit in the California State Supreme Court was a good thing for the California Republican Party. California Republican Party sued to throw out the maps for the State Senate because they were fearful of losing their 1/3rds veto power. However the 1/3rds veto power prevented the party from becoming a majority party. Republicans need to adapt to a different California than when they were able to get Ronald Reagan and George H.W Bush elected in 1980 thru 1988. California is different than the era a generation ago and the leaders of the California Republican Party need to recognize this fact and start to remove their heads from the sand to enter the land of reality. It has been 42 years since we have had the State Senate and almost 16 years since we had the State Assembly and we need to face the fact that the party needs to modernize.

There are actual benefits to having a majority in the state legislature in both chambers. You can actually pass legislation and make sure legislation you do not want gets thrown in the trash can like how the Democratic Party is doing it to job creation legislation that legislators such as Bob Huff and Bob Dutton have written.

First, the Republicans need to stop trashing the few benefactors they have in Charles Munger and pass his platform. As what Governor Schwarzenegger said in his speech to the state party, “We are failing at the box office”. If you want to “play to win” and get Republicans elected, we need to have a new state of mind. When we play to win as a party we will be able to save California from ruin.

California Republicans Need To Face Reality

California Republicans thought that Proposition 11 would become a breakthrough for the party’s representation compared to the redistricting of 2001 done by the Democratic Party legislators in Sacramento. Unfortunately the other partners in the Proposition 11 campaign, minority rights groups such as MALDEF and NAACP struck it big instead.

If you are wondering why there are not enough Republican districts, it is because we failed to reach out to minority communities such as in the San Gabriel Valley and the west end of San Bernardino County and they were not able to add cities such as Upland or Rancho Cucamonga to those districts.

Chairman Tom Del Deccaro said to the media “We are concerned that this appears to be a tilt towards Democrats.” Because there are not enough Republicans to make Republican leaning constituencies Tom. We have to become an electable party in order to be able to have more Republican districts and get them elected in Sacramento and Washington.

The platform is the first step in changing the party. The platform is a symbolic yet vital document for our state party. Wonder why our state party has no representation in the San Francisco Bay Area or Silicon Valley? We chased them away with the social issues that  have more priority than job creation agenda for the last two decades. Social issues are personal to all those involved and should be left to the region or district at a micro level. If voters in Temecula or Roseville want to focus on traditional marriage or right to life issues that is their choice.

The goal for our party is to make a party that can be elected in a state that is diverse as California. We need to work on what unites us than what divides us. Rohit Joy has stated “The CRP has got to stand for something or we’ll fall for anything”, the CRP is still standing for something, job creation and non-bloated government spending are the two main examples. Why fight for issues that divide people away from our party where we could figure out ways to improve the economy of California and make the lives of Californians better.

Our bench is empty, we elected 0 statewide officials from Governor, US Senate to Insurance Commissioner. I hear Mike Spence say over and over about minorities and their social conservatism, but they mostly want bigger government and higher taxes for you to pay. Even if African American voters in Oakland and Latinos in Pico Rivera voted for Proposition 8, they are certainly going to not side with us on the Amazon sales tax issue, or public pension reform to prohibit public pension spiking such as adding vacation time and fringe benefits to pension obligations.

Even though Proposition 8 was passed, the margin between Proposition 22’s victory in 2000 and Proposition 8’s victory in 2008 was substantial. Proposition 8 is ready to die either in the courts or on the ballot. Instead of being the party of limiting personal liberty, we should be known as the party as the party of opportunity and not as the party of the big wedge.

We are already a minority party and soon we will be eclipsed by the Decline to State Party, we tried the status quo for the last two decades and it is time for a message that can bring those voters back in the fold.

Redistricting in The Inland Valley First Draft

The first drafts are available and we are going to go through them one for the districts that are relevant for the Pomona Valley, San Bernardino and Riverside County. Districts have not been numbered yet, but I use the previous numbers as points of reference.

Board of Equalization: I guess we will have Orange and San Diego County’s BOE member as part of our district now in Ontario. So I will likely get more mailers from the Republicans running for this office. I do like George Runner, when he has little or no power to vote on socially conservative legislation and when he deals with money issues he’s a class act.

State Assembly:  (Previous AD 59 and 63)  Upland may get Democrats to represent them for the first time 1980 for all major offices even the State Assembly. Upland is the only San Bernardino County city included in the San Gabriel Foothills State Assembly district. This will be an open seat election since AD 63’s member Mike Morrell will likely have to face a battle royale against Tim Donnelly or run for State Senate when Bob Dutton gets termed out. AD 44 member Anthony Portantino will likely run in the district which got David Drier re-districted out.  When I used the 2011 odd-year report from the Secretary of State, the district was basically even in registration between Democrats and Republicans.

AD 63 used to have Upland, but this replacement district will have Rancho Cucamonga, the mountain communities, Hesperia, San Bernardino and Highland. The big news on this draft is that Mike Morrell and Tim Donnelly will have to run against each other if they choose to stay in the State Assembly.

I thought this district would be safely Republican, but adding San Bernardino to the mix may make it more competitive.

 

Continue reading Redistricting in The Inland Valley First Draft

Exploring 2012’s Inland Empire Districts [Preview]

Today we are going to explore some future districts coming to you in 2012, these are not the final districts but I will do a full feature article on the final maps and see how they may effect our representation in the Inland Valley.

These maps do not take in account where legislators live so there may be 2 or 3 legislators running against each other in the primary to see who will reign supreme.

State Assembly District 61, Future district NO CHANGE

State Assembly District 62, Future District NO CHANGE

State Assembly District 60, Future District, This district has more of Orange County and less of Los Angeles County.

Lets look at the partisanship:

It would be around 31%D, 43%R, 20% Decline to State and 6% other parties. Not as generous as the previous map. However its likely safely Republican and safe form the clutches of the SEIU.

State Assembly District 59, Future district, instead of a bizarre map of 2001, the district basically stays in one area instead of trying to serve two communities of interest.

You see the San Gabriel Valley and the city of Upland from San Bernardino county have their own seat, but there is a new district where Mike Morrell and Tim Donnelly will have to fight for their political lives if they want a second term. Where this new district covers from Hesperia, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands and Lake Arrowhead.

However the San Gabriel Valley portion of the district might end up becoming a Democratic Party pickup.

From using the registration statistics, its basically split 50/50. When we find out the exact partisan breakdown it will be rather interesting.

As what Democratic Party leaning blog Calitics said, “redistricting may end up leading some Republicans to end up voting for the Democratic Party leaning budget”. However Republicans in California are very dogmatic this year and even with changing demographics for re-election Republicans are still not going to support any tax increases at all. Republicans got tarred and feathered in 2010 for going against the grain in 2010 and they learned their lesson.

Inland Valley Redistricting

This may be a promising seat for a centrist Republican or a Latino of either party to run for. This district may not be definite, but it would be nice to see finalized. This is based on pending handouts for review.

It has the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Chino Hills, Chino, Montclair and Pomona.

Let us look at the partisan demographics

This is from the odd year registration report from February 2011

CITY DEM REP DTS Registration Advantage
Rancho 28650 33560 14817 36D-42R-18I
Ontario 25821 17219 9695 47D-31R-18I
Chino 11885 11878 5204 39D-39R-17I
Chino Hills 11977 15704 7910 32D-42R-21I
Montclair 6011 3149 2218 50D-27R-19I
Pomona 28464 12124 10626 53D-23R-20I

One thing is we need to look at the partisan statistics.

42% Democratic Party, 35% Republican Party and 18% Decline to State. It would be a district that would be very competitive and would not want an extreme ideologue from either party.

Help Keep the Inland Valley Accounted For

Cross posted to http://iepolitics.com

People of the Inland Valley you have a mission entrusted by the voters of California to help draw the district lines after the Census of 2010. All it takes is visiting the official Citizens Redistricting Commission website and finishing your application by February 12th of this year.  There are some exclusions for membership on this panel such as if you donated an excessive amount of money, if you are an elected office holder or ran for office in the last ten years, if you are an immediate family member of a candidate or office holder that would exclude you as well. Also this panel wants voters who voted in the last 2 out of 3 general elections and you have needed to hold your partisan affiliation for the last 5 years.

After reading the excluded list and you find yourself eligible fill out the application and after the first stage is done auditors will be going through the applications to find 120 of the brightest minds to be considered for the next stage for consideration. 40 Republicans, 40 Democrats, 40 of neither major party these individuals will be interviewed and cut down in half for the final selection process. With the final selection process happening around the fall of this year the 4 legislative leaders in both houses will be eliminating 2 people of their choice, then the State Auditor will randomly select 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats and 2 Other Party members, then those eight will chose another 6 from the pool and we get our final redistricting commission which would start in the beginning of 2011.

Many interest groups are counting on their members to submit their applications so there would be fair representation. Right now it’s a 75/25 split between men and women and Riverside and San Bernardino Counties are underrepresented at the time.  The redistricting of 2001 was horrible where communities of interest were neglected in the interest of gerrymandering for partisan advantage. Now we the people have the chance to make districts that are competitive like 1991’s remap while learning from the mistakes of 2001.

The official website is http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov

?

Redistricting Reform Now!

The death of Proposition 77 was the death of some common sense into California politics. 2001’s party monopoly in redistricting resulted in a reduction of competitive districts and the reduction in mainstream Democrats and Republicans.

Take for example Assembly District 61, the district I ran my first major campaign for office. It was originally a Republican district, but since when Nell Soto the former city council woman of Pomona won the Democratic Party locked in the district. Aspiring Republicans of all political persuasions from left leaning Republican (myself), business conservative (Wapner), and just simply conservative (Yates) have thrown their time and money and still not able to claim victory.

Also we want politicians who are not as dogmatic towards other viewpoints. Of course George Runner and Jackie Goldberg may be full of conviction for their politics, most voters prefer pragmatic problem solvers. Where are the Pete Wilsons and Gray Davises of California? I know the party activists do not want to lose their base leaning politicians, but most centrists of both political parties do not want the dogmatic ones to dominate our government.

I just want districts that are not gerrymandered and districts not drawn up by currently serving politicians.