For all the media attention paid to redistricting since the Legislature's extraordinary 2001 gerrymander virtually ended competitive general election races in California, the damage it has done doesn't seem to sink in with voters. That's why Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Don Perata weren't worried about a backlash when they broke their words and sabotaged a redistricting reform measure in September.
Too bad. The 2001 gerrymander has taken a real toll on democracy in California.
Consider the upcoming congressional elections. National polls show a volatile electorate more eager to shake things up than at any point since the 1994 election. At least 30 House incumbents appear at risk of defeat.
Given that California not only has the largest House delegation by far (53 members), and that there are ethical clouds over at least a half-dozen California congressmen, one would expect at least some turnover come Nov. 7.
One would be wrong. Few round-ups of the nation's most contested House races cite even one from California. Instead, a repeat of the 2004 elections – in which not one California House seat changed parties – is expected.
The 2001 gerrymander has made the state's political status quo all but invulnerable, no matter the circumstances. This is crazy.
This feeling of invulnerability has had the effect of defining political deviancy down, to borrow and embroider the phrase of Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Consider the epidemic of politicians who now openly divert campaign funds to their family bank accounts.
Close to home, there is Rep. Bob Filner, D-San Diego. As of last December, he had paid at least $505,000 in campaign funds to his wife for “fundraising” and “consulting services” since 1995, or about 11 percent of the money given to his campaign in that span.
To the north, there is former GOP Assemblyman Tony Strickland and his wife, Audra, who succeeded him in representing the Thousand Oaks area. The Stricklands gave themselves $138,000 in campaign donations for “consulting” over a five-year span.
Further north, there is Rep. John Doolittle, R-Roseville, who pays his wife 15 percent of all money she raises, providing an expected $107,000 for family expenses this election cycle.
Given that big donors almost certainly know these lawmakers will take a cut, this practice is indistinguishable from bribery.
Yet more and more politicians simply don't care – because they know that in California, once you win that initial contested primary for an open seat, you're home-free. In the Legislature, only term limits can force you out. In Congress, nothing but death gets in the way of re-election.
The only good news here is that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently said that if the Legislature doesn't place redistricting reform on the 2008 ballot, he will back an initiative campaign toward that end.
Gulled by a grossly dishonest TV ad campaign, voters rejected redistricting reform in 2005. Perhaps by 2008, they finally will see the light. We hope so – because of all the urgent causes out there, this cause has the strongest case.
