California Proposition 20, Congressional Redistricting Initiative (2010)

California Proposition 20
Election date November 2, 2010
Topic Redistricting measures
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 20 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on November 2, 2010. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported transferring the task of congressional redistricting from the California State Legislature and the governor to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, which was created by Proposition 11 of 2008.

A "no" vote opposed transferring the task of congressional redistricting to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, thus maintaining current law in which the California State Legislature and the governor are responsible for congressional redistricting.

Election results

California Proposition 20
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		5,743,069	61.23%
No		3,636,892	38.77%

Results are officially certified.

Overview

What did Proposition 20 do?

Proposition 20 transferred the task of congressional redistricting from the California State Legislature and the governor to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, which was created by Proposition 11 of 2008 and that consists of five Democrats, five Republicans and four of neither party.

When creating districts, the commission was directed under the measure to consider the geographic integrity of cities, counties, neighborhoods, and communities of interest. Proposition 20 defined a community of interest as "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, 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."

What was Proposition 27?

A competing initiative on the November 2 ballot, Proposition 27, would have repealed Proposition 11, thereby eliminating the Citizen's Redistricting Commission. Proposition 20 and Proposition 27 each included a provision stating that if they both received a majority vote, the proposition that received the highest majority vote is the law that would take effect. Proposition 20 passed by a vote of 61% in favor to 39% opposed. Proposition 27 failed by a vote of 41% in favor to 59% opposed.

Were other redistricting measures on the ballot in other states in 2010?

Legislative and congressional redistricting take place in every state after the decennial federal census. Ballot questions about redistricting were also on the ballot in Florida (Amendment 5 and Amendment 6) and in Oklahoma (State Question 748). Both measures were approved.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 20 was as follows:

“

Redistricting of Congressional Districts. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Removes elected representatives from the process of establishing congressional districts and transfers that authority to the recently-authorized 14-member redistricting commission. Redistricting commission is comprised of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four voters registered with neither party. Requires that any newly-proposed district lines be approved by nine commissioners including three Democrats, three Republicans, and three from neither party.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Support

"Yes on 20" website logo

Sponsor

• Charles Munger filed Proposition 20. Munger supported Proposition 11 of 2008 and donated at least $2 million to the support campaign.

Supporters

• David Pacheco, the California President of AARP
• Kathay Feng, the executive director of California Common Cause
• John Kabateck, the executive director of the California chapter of the National Federal of Independent Business
• Alice Huffman, President, the California chapter of the NAACP
• Julian Canete, the executive director of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
• Richard Rider, chairman of the San Diego Tax Fighters

Official arguments

The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ Proposition 20 will put an end to legislators drawing election districts for their friends in Congress—districts that virtually guarantee Members of Congress get reelected even when they don’t listen to voters. Proposition 20 will create fair congressional districts that make our congressional representatives more accountable to voters and make it easier to vote them out of office when they don’t do their jobs. Proposition 20 simply extends the redistricting reforms voters passed in 2008 (Prop. 11) so the voter-approved independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, instead of politicians, draws California congressional districts in addition to drawing state legislative districts. The Commission is already being organized to draw fair districts. Visit the official state site to see preparations for the Citizens Redistricting Commission’s redistricting in 2011 (www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov). Proposition 20 will: Create fair congressional districts. Help make our congressional representatives more accountable and responsive to voters. Make it easier to vote Members of Congress out of office if they’re not doing their jobs. YES ON PROPOSITION 20: STOP THE BACKROOM DEALS Right now, legislators and their paid consultants draw districts behind closed doors to guarantee their friends in Congress are reelected. Sacramento politicians pick the voters for their friends in Congress, rather than voters choosing who will represent them. The Los Angeles Times and Orange County Register revealed that in the last redistricting, 32 Members of Congress and other politicians paid one political consultant over ONE MILLION dollars to draw district boundaries to guarantee their reelection! Proposition 20 puts an end to backroom deals by ensuring redistricting is completely open to the public and transparent. Proposition 20 means no secret meetings or payments are allowed and politicians can’t divide communities just to get the political outcome they want. YES ON PROPOSITION 20: HOLD POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE When politicians are guaranteed reelection, they have little incentive to work together to solve the serious problems we all face. Proposition 20 will create fair districts so politicians will actually have to work for our votes and respond to voter needs. “When voters can finally hold politicians accountable, politicians will have to quit playing games and work to address the serious challenges Californians face.”—Ruben Guerra, Latin Business Association The choice is simple: GOOD GOVERNMENT GROUPS ASK YOU TO VOTE “YES” ON PROPOSITION 20 to force politicians to compete in fair districts so we can hold them accountable. POLITICIANS WANT YOU TO VOTE “NO” ON PROPOSITION 20 so they can stifle voters’ voices so we can’t hold them accountable. It’s time we stand up to the politicians and special interests and extend voter-approved redistricting reforms to include Congress. Voters already created the Commission—it’s common sense to have the Commission draw congressional as well as legislative districts. “People from every walk of life support Proposition 20 to send a message to politicians that it’s time to put voters in charge and get California back on track.”—Joni Low, Asian Business Association of San Diego JOIN US IN VOTING YES ON PROPOSITION 20. YesProp20.org ”

Opposition

Opponents

• Daniel H. Lowenstein, a professor at UCLA and a former chairman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission
• Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste
• Hank Lacayo, president of the Congress of California Seniors
• Aubry L. Stone, president of the California Black Chamber of Commerce
• Carl Pope, chairman of the Sierra Club

Official arguments

The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ NO ON 20—it wastes taxpayer dollars and it turns back the clock on redistricting law. Proposition 20 is a disaster . . . it must be defeated. NO ON PROPOSITION 20—IT WASTES TAXPAYER DOLLARS: 20 is the brainchild of Charles Munger, Jr.—son of multibillionaire Wall Street tycoon Charles Munger. MUNGER JUNIOR IS THE SOLE BANK-ROLLER OF 20. (Well, four other contributors have given all of $700.) But just for its qualification, MUNGER GAVE $3.3 MILLION, a figure that will probably multiply many times by Election Day. But if Proposition 20 passes, the taxpayers will start paying the bills instead of Munger Junior. Prop. 20 will cost us millions of dollars. Compare Prop. 20 with its rival, Prop. 27. First, non-partisan experts have concluded that YES ON PROP. 27 saves taxpayer dollars: “Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: LIKELY DECREASE IN STATE REDISTRICTING COSTS TOTALING SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS EVERY TEN YEARS.” Second, Prop. 20 adds to the cascade of waste that Prop. 27 would avoid. Governor Schwarzenegger has already proposed going back to the well to double the redistricting budget, spending MILLIONS MORE DOLLARS to draw lines for politicians while the state is facing a $19 billion deficit. AND NOW WITH PROP. 20, MUNGER JUNIOR WANTS TO MAKE THIS WASTEFUL BUREAUCRACY SPRAWL EVEN FURTHER AT THE EXTRA EXPENSE OF YOU, THE TAXPAYER. NO ON PROPOSITION 20—IT MANDATES JIM CROW ECONOMIC DISTRICTS: Proposition 20 turns back the clock on redistricting law. Inexplicably, Proposition 20 mandates that all districts (including Assembly, Senate, and Congress) must be segregated by income level. This pernicious Prop. 20 mandates that all districts be segregated according to “similar living standards” and that districts include only people “with similar work opportunities.” “Prop. 20 is insulting to all Californians. Jim Crow districts are a thing of the past. 20 sets back the clock on redistricting law. No on 20.”—Julian Bond, Chairman Emeritus, NAACP Jim Crow districts are a throwback to an awful bygone era. Districting by race, by class, by lifestyle or by wealth is unacceptable. Munger Junior may not want to live in the same district as his chauffeur, but Californians understand these code words. The days of “country club members only’’ districts or of “poor people only” districts are over. NO ON PROP. 20—all Californians MUST be treated equally. OUR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC IS NOT A TOY TO BE PLAYED WITH FOR THE SELF-AGGRANDIZEMENT OF THE IDLE SECOND-GENERATION RICH. NO ON 20, YES ON 27. ”

Media editorials

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2010

Redistricting on the ballot in 2010

Support

• Contra Costa Times: "If voters adopt Proposition 20, California finally will have a workable, bipartisan system of drawing both legislative and congressional districts in a manner that makes sense for California voters rather than for the protection of incumbents and to give an unfair advantage to candidates in the dominant political party."

• Lompoc Record: "the commission holds great promise for the future of California’s political landscape."

• The Long Beach Press-Telegram: "Politicians despise the independent commission because they no longer get to choose their own voters and keep seats safe for their parties. This is particularly true of Democrats because they currently hold more of those seats than Republicans. They fought the redistricting proposal in 2008, and now they're bankrolling Proposition 27 on the November ballot to kill the commission before it has even begun its work. Californians must reject this unconscionable power grab by voting yes on Proposition 20 and no on Proposition 27."

• Los Angeles Daily News: "Today nearly every California seat in the Legislature and Congress is safe, and that's one reason lawmakers have little incentive to work together."

• The Los Angeles Times: "[Prop 20] may gradually break down some of the impediments to efficiency and deal-making that have thwarted Sacramento in recent years and that have wreaked havoc in Washington as well."

• North County Times: "California's delegation to the House of Representatives is as politically polarized as the state Legislature, and for the same reason: Gerrymandered districts that ensure incumbents are rarely challenged, and are answerable to the most ideologically inflexible voters."

• The Orange County Register: "Proposition 20 is one of the most critical reforms on November's ballot, one of the few that could actually make a difference in reforming politics in California."

• Riverside Press Enterprise: "California has no reason to backtrack on governmental reforms. The dismal records of state and federal legislators should spur voters to expand changes that can improve government, not toss the whole effort out. Thus in November voters should pass Proposition 20, and reject Proposition 27."

• San Bernardino Sun: "The process of selecting the first commission has been completely transparent, with all 30,000 applications posted on the Web and 120 finalist interviews streamed live. Once the 14-member panel is chosen, it will work in public, in contrast to the closed-door plotting in Sacramento."

• San Diego Union-Tribune: "Given this troubling picture, voters should embrace a redistricting system likely to yield a California congressional delegation with fewer ideologues. Voters are demanding change – and with good reason. Proposition 20 is about bringing change and undermining the status quo. We urge a yes vote."

• Santa Rose Press Democrat: "There is a public price to pay for letting legislators draw their own districts, in effect choosing their voters. Incumbents whose only threats are term limits and primary challengers have little incentive to compromise."

• Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Proposition 20 would add congressional districts to the purview of the 14-member citizen panel and take it away from the very politicians who benefit from non-competitive districts."

• San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "Once these earnest citizen watchdogs get rolling, no one in the state - excepting the venal, self-interested pols who used to have the job - will have the kind of expertise they will in California's electoral demographics. They will be perfectly equipped to redraw the congressional districts that, in theory, bring together true communities of interest within a district's boundaries to represent California in our federal government."

• Ventura County Star: "Proposition 20 would not involve any additional state cost. Best of all, it embodies the values of good government, efficiency and economy in mapping out new districts."

Opposition

• Sacramento Bee: "While [supporters of Proposition 20] are right to say that many congressional districts are drawn for purely partisan purposes and unfairly protect incumbents, reform needs to happen on the national level, not just in a single state. California's interests could be harmed if it alone undertook an experiment in reforming how congressional districts are drawn. Imprudently mapped districts could leave the state with far less seniority in Congress than it now enjoys, giving the state less clout over appropriations and legislation."

• San Francisco Bay Guardian: "But the commission is hardly a fair body — it has the same number of Republicans as Democrats in a state where there are far more Democrats than Republicans. And most states still draw lines the old-fashioned way, so Proposition 20 could give the GOP an advantage in a Democratic state. States like Texas and Florida, notorious for pro-Republican gerrymandering, aren't planning to change how they do their districts."

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements and 2010 ballot measure petition signature costs

A total of 694,354 valid signatures were required to qualify the initiative for the ballot. Supporters submitted 1,180,623 signatures in mid-March 2010. Election officials announced that the measure qualified for the ballot on May 5, 2010.

The petition drive management company hired to collect the signatures was National Petition Management. NPM was paid $1,937,380 (through May 6, 2010) for their signature-gathering services.

See also

2010 Measures

• 2010 Measures
• Redistricting measures on the ballot
• 2010 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

Suggest a link

Basic information

• November 2, 2010, General Election Voter Guide

Support

• "Yes on Proposition 20"
• Campaign finance reports for "Yes On 20, No On 27 - Hold Politicians Accountable"
• "Yes on Proposition 20" on Facebook
• Yes on 20, No on 27 on Twitter
• "Yes on Proposition 20" channel on YouTube

Opposition

• Yes on 27, No on 20
• Campaign finance reports for "No On 20, No On Munger - A Coalition Of Entrepreneurs, Working People, Businesses & Community Leaders"
• Campaign finance reports for the "California Coalition for Leadership and Accountability in Budget and Redistricting, Yes on 25 & 27, No on 20
• Campaign finance reports for " Yes On FAIR, Yes On 27, No On 20--A Coalition Of Entrepreneurs, Working People, Businesses, Community Leaders Such as Karen Bass & Other Concerned Citizens Devoted to Eliminating Bureaucratic Waste"