Introduction
The redistricting process borrows from a rich political history on the political systems and the democratisation of the state. Politics of redistricting and reapportionment have for a long time occupied the minds of scholars and critics. In his analysis of the political effects of redistricting, Engstrom (36) argues that one of the seminal effects of the redistricting process is the gerrymandering on the political platform. There are also other effects bound to occur. For instance, the process leads to new leaders assuming power with new leadership styles and collaboration among the new faces of leadership unlike the old regimes and also the change in policies due to the change in the areas of representation. Webmaster (1) observes that with the change in the leadership and district borders, new regions will have newer challenges and priorities, which will only be met by change of policies. This therefore dictates that the leadership will automatically be changed in a bid to satisfying the needs of the people. Hence, the argument is that redistricting process affects the extent and nature of leadership and representation achieved in the respective counties where moderate candidates have a chance to participate in the general election.
Support Reason one: Gerrymandering
Engstrom (02) defines gerrymandering as the deliberate involvement of politicians in the process of redistricting with intent to influencing the outcome of the created district boundaries that will favour them politically; more so in acquiring more seats in the congress and the senate. California is one of the largest counties in the USA and therefore is bound to have large redistricting effects on the country’s leadership. This is owing to the fact the county holds the largest number of leaders in the House of Representatives, and therefore is pertinent to the policy formulation and the leadership style of the country.
As one of the effects of redistricting, gerrymandering has led to a number of political obscurities in the leadership process of the state. The 2010 national census had a lot of impacts on redistricting of the various districts in the region. The main political parties in the US include the Republicans party and the democrats.
The process of redistricting in the country leads to divisions and new political regions. The newly created sub-regions require new leaders and representatives in the House of Representatives. This process calls for new poll analysis and voting from the populations. As Serma (13) observes, the political leadership of the states are therefore directly influenced by the redistricting. California being one of the largest sub regions that has undergone redistricting will face a new crop of leaders and representatives. This process may therefore lead to republican and the democrats curving themselves leadership positions in the US political arena. The leadership in the US is based on the democracy of the larger majority. With the increase in population and the realization of population surges, the political class may aim to move and shift political regions into their control and support in preparation before the ballot process. A closer look at the political environment in the California state, the largest state in the US, reveals that the political structure of the region is formed on the basis of the needs of the people (Engstrom 09). In fact, the state majorly follows the principles of reapportionment of the state where the state undergoes subdivisions in order to be able to equalize the development of the various parts of the country. However, the political class of the region have been found to indulge in the redistricting of the various regions of the state in a bid to consolidate a few of the districts into their political control and support. This political process goes a long way into shaping of the leadership positions in the state and the whole country.
Gerrymandering is a political process that has been practised in the world for a long time. Engstrom (19) observes that it is through this process that politicians gain their entrance to the political class in the country. Leaders like the republican gerrymander of Ohio, Joseph Foraker bragged to the New York Times that he would allow his party to capture 14 of the 21 seats in the region (Engstrom 34). This proves that the process of redistributing in the country may be interfered with by politicians who are keen to gain a competitive position in the country’s leadership. Of a keen attention, to note is whether the position taken by the various gerrymanders does not hinder the process of democracy since it is based on impartiality. Serna (63) argues that the process of gerrymandering is a definite infringement on the essentiality that defines democracy. As much as democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people, gerrymandering reaps off the sole vision of the whole process. The redistribution is meant to open up the political space and boundaries for the better representation of the people, but when the political class obscure the thoughts and the vision s of the people through partial considerations in the number of sub regions cut out for the republicans or the democrats, the subversion of the democratic space is an ultimate inclusion. This is where the leadership of the state begins. The California is heir to the leadership of the state and any action taken by the gerrymander directly or indirectly affects its leadership. The subversion of “clean” democracy through the process of gerrymandering by the large political classes leads to the denial of democracy. This sabotages the leadership by defining it based on the favouritism on the politically positioned class.
Support reason two: Equal Representation in the leadership
The California redistricting process is one of the most critical processes in the leadership positioning, in the country (Nunnari 39). One of the most evident qualities of the process from the pre-established characteristics is the leadership changes, and the power control that the process is bound to produce in the near future and coming elections.
Redistricting process has the sole responsibility of ensuring that the region is distributed into sub districts which will be properly represented in the government and the law making process. The whole function of the process is to ensure equal representation from the people. This therefore leads to equal representation as the region is distributed according to the population growth and the need for representation. The process of redistricting the state has never been controlled like this one. For the first time, the political class lacked the total control from politicians and other powerful voices, therefore no gerrymander would cause serious alterations in their favour (Serna 63).
Reports by Carolyn Lochhead (par. 3) of the San Francisco Chronicle, notes that one of the greatest impacts of the redistricting process has forced a good number of the democrats to abandon their political lives into retire. The report indicates that with the new system of voting, there are possibilities of missed opportunity by some political elites who have been pushed out. For instance, the report indicates that Rep. Gary Miller, R-Diamond Bar (Los Angeles County) and the state Senator Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga (San Bernardino County) will be the contesting forces on the ballot after Redlands (San Bernardino County) Mayor Pete Aguilar failed to make it to the ballot box by three votes. Once again, the democrats were on a losing end, thanks to the redistricting process, which was curving out a breed of veteran politicians who had slotted themselves a competitive angle. Of importance also to note is the fact that the chances of the democrats have been anticipated to dwindle as a result of the curves that has been brought forward by the whole process. The open system of voting has also had impeccable differences on the process of voting in the whole country. While it has led to a new breed of equal representation in the house of congress and the legislative assembly, the impacts are way hard on some gerrymanders. In hope of this, the former house speaker, California’s Nancy Pelosi is counting on the redistricting process to amass support in her bid to regain the house’s control. Therefore the political leadership of the country and the large changes in the governance can directly be attributed to the redistricting process.
Although there are aspects of gerrymanders in the process, the unity and unanimous decisions made by the commission has assured the citizens of impartiality. In his response, Serna (13) remarks that the era of the calculative politician is way gone. There are no secluded or safe seats in the House of Representatives. This is a clear manifestation of equality and impartiality that the process has had on the political leadership of the country. Another aspect of equality in the leadership process of the state is manifested through the representation of the commissioners drawn in the process of redistricting. Nunnari (22) notes that there was equal representation from various parties, groups and members from all racial groups in the state. This ensured that all the members living in the state were equally represented in the process of redistricting. Of importance to note, is the new requirement that was set by the panellist. Anyone who had contributed more $2000 was not allowed to serve as a commissioner or in the panellists’ (Engstrom 93). The members would, therefore, not be accepted to participate in the process of redistricting. These mechanisms were advanced so as to prevent the control of the process that is normally associated with the process. The impartiality that has been witnessed in the process has led to a state where members elect members to the house of representative without much consideration on the districts of control. This has boosted the level of democracy as the members elected sail through without having curved themselves a niche in the process of redistricting to enable them amass the support from their stronghold regions (Engstrom 09).
Support reason three: The Open Primary elections
Serna (71) speculates that the open primary elections in the state of California will have more enriching effects by introducing new leaders as opposed to the usual faces in the leadership positions in the country. This will be based on the role played by the new political environment that is set to change dramatically in the area. The open systems posits that the members of the different political parties be eliminated based on the majority vote. This process eliminates the essence of the nomination process that normally kills the dreams of other political leaders who may have the visionary leadership that is highly sought after by the electorates (Engstrom 55). With the new open systems, the members who have the highest votes from the electorate will compete on a high platform than the earlier models where the nomination process will normally take part. This method only sees the top two members compete on the ballot box for the voters’ decision. Engstrom (12) contends that, with the advent of the new process, the political change in the country cannot be underestimated. This draws links from the process of getting into the House of Representatives. The process will oversee the members interested in the congress, or the state legislature advances new methods of campaigns and draw strategies that will see them sail through. The abolition of the party nominations in the ballot box means that the members of the state have to face a new competition in the manner in which the politics of the country are run. This is through the new faces that emerge due to the change in the election process of the country. With the inculcation of new members in the country’s politics, there are likely to be new boundaries and new breed of leaders (Nunnari 45). Consequently, the leadership positions that are held by the incumbent members will be relinquished to new members.
Serna (92) holds that, with the inclusion of new members in the House of Representatives, politics and leadership styles are bound to change. For instance, it is evident that, with the ascent to power by new political regimes, there are priorities that are likely to be reflected in terms of the policies that will be undertaken by the new leaders in office. The political support of the members will also change with an aim to solicit and consolidate support from the various factors of influence in the region. This, therefore, means that the members will more often shape their strategies and the policies implemented to suit their political inclination. Ultimately, there are new changes that are bound to follow (Engstrom 123). This results to wide changes in the leadership position of the state. Serna (92) develops that the 2012 elections will be the most influential of all in the state’s history since history will be drawn. If the redistricting process maps are passed and implemented, the political class may be found torn between new boundaries and new electorates. The constituents of the leaders may be mixed up, with new faces and unfamiliar members. This draws a lot of political impact of the process on the leadership of the place, particularly in terms of the members elected into the state house of representative and the congress.
New Electoral Districts and New Legislators
The imposition of new political realignments in the newly created districts will have a significant impact in the political aspersions and leadership systems in the country. For instance, Engstrom (61) notes that the seats for members of the congress will be determined by new electorates in the new districts. This will result to new members in the House of Representatives and the legislative house. With the ascent, top power of politically different members will have a lot of difference on the political system of the country. For instance, there will be a different ideological framework advanced by the new leaders. The political climate of the country is based on the decisions that are made by the members of the House of Representatives and the congress (Nunnari 88). This means that the frameworks upon which the political leadership of the country is based will be directly be influenced by the leaders from the newly created district boundaries. Nunnari (97) notes that the leadership models and approaches adopted by the new governments and the political regimes in the region will be a direct consequence of the new leaders. Therefore, the policies that will be legislated upon by the new leaders may have far reaching impacts than currently held. This will go a long way in shaping the leadership and the political systems in the country. Engstrom (115) notes that California has the country’s largest congressional members, made up of 53 congress men and 120 member state legislature. Therefore, we cannot underestimate the level of leadership and political policies that the redistricting process will have in the leadership of the country.
Serna (13) argues that the fragmentation that is exhibited by the redistricting of the various counties leads to a number of fragmentation in the political class of the country. One of the significant effects that are pointed out is the effect of the redistribution in the incentives of leaders in the region. With the new districts created, the politicians may increase or reduce the incentives that are directed to the people (Serna 13). While on the other hand, the incentives advanced towards a district may be increased on grounds of a mutual benefaction, the political class may also withdraw the incentives (projects development, funding) of the separated districts from their political enclaves. The redistricting process therefore, will be shaping the leadership traits and the manner in which the development of the county and the districts is based.
Collaborative leadership
Another impact of the political redistricting is based on the collaborative leadership systems in the country. Engstrom (23) develops that the redistricting can have two impacts on the political leadership of the county. One is that the political redistricting may lead to members of the governing council sharing in the development projects of the newly fragmented districts, thus increasing the level of development in the state. On another hand, the redistricting can lead to other members overriding on other leader’s developmental process and records, especially where the constituents fail to determine vividly the face behind the development records (Nunnari 39). This may have serious reconstructive surgeries in the political systems of the country. This is because the electorate reserve the right to vote for or against the leadership, hence leading to consequential changes in the leadership structure and convocation in the country.
Rebuttal of the Argument
While the various reasons discussed in the paper point out to the effects of the redistricting process, some critics may tend to disagree with the proposition that the process leads to the realization of new political realignments in the country. In their defence some cite the fact that since the people are well acquainted with the leadership of their legislator; the process will have little to convince the people with (Nunnari 26). To them, the political leadership will be determined by other political factors rather than the redistricting process. While their argument may partially hold, they ought to know that the leadership process of the country is directly interrelated with the political regions. For instance, the boundaries reached as a result of the redistricting process determine the political maps that will be used in the process of governance and representation. Therefore, the redistricting process directly affects the leadership and governance of the state.
Conclusion
The redistricting process leads to change and shifting of the leadership roles and positions in the political boundaries of the California region. Electorate have an equal chance of electing candidates who are neither liberal nor conservative, but moderate. This ensures that moderate candidates can get a chance to participate in the general election. The changing of the district boundaries in the county in the 2011 redistricting process will oversee a new breed of leaders elected in the county assemblies and the congress house. Vested with power, the new leaders who are the voice of the people and the sole body vested with authorities to make policies and implement them will lead to a change in the leadership capacity and systems of governance in the country. This confirms the hypothesis that the redistricting process leads to political changes and the leadership in the country.
Works Cited
Engstrom, Erik J. "Stacking the States, Stacking the House: The Partisan Consequences of Congressional Redistricting in the 19th Century." The American Political Science Review 100.3 (2006): 419-27. ABI/INFORM Complete. Web. 7 June 2012.
Lockhead Carolyn, “State results dim Dems' hopes for House takeover”. The San Francisco Chronicle.Web. 12th June 2012. Available at:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/06/11/MNTM1OV2BD.DTL
Serna, Joseph. "Redistricting Changes 2012 Electoral Battles."McClatchy - Tribune Business News: n/a. ABI/INFORM Complete. Aug 16 2011. Web. 7 June 2012.
Nunnari, Salvatore. “The effects of Redistricting on Distributive Outcomes.” Division of Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology.Web.7 June 2012
Webmaster, “California Citizens Redistricting Commission”.Web.18th June 2012 retrieved from http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/
