Introduction
Responses about California Reform
Regardless of the introduction to the legislation in 2008, California was familiar with subsequent changes in 2010 and 2012. The Proposition 20 as the ballot initiative was adopted in 2010 with the purpose to improve the election process and develop the framework of the activity for the Commission. In generla, it is possible to states that the purposes of the legislators pursued during the development of this particular rule have been achieved and realized. First of all, the elections to the Congress in the state were featured with increased level of the legitimacy in accordance with the democratic principles and values. During the election campaign, the interests of the voters guided the process of the identification the borders between the territories regardless of the positions of politicians. However, certain results were not fruitful enough in order to state that the reform is successful. In particular, the Commission was not able to develop the competetive districts, while the representatives of the state bodies did not feel themselves obliged to act transparently towards the voters. Besides, to some extent the activity of the Commission in the establishment of the lines may be regarded as efficient. This body succeeded in the taking out the incumbents residing in certain districts and involve them in the election race on the equal terms with other politicians. In general, the electoral reform in California may be found as successful due to the fact that the additional steps in form of the adoption of Proposition 20 and 27 took place. The Proposition 20 had the aim to cover the congressional seats for the drawing process, while the next amendment removed the general procedure as to the redistricting of the process. In this regard, it should be said that the activity of the Commission was remarked with high level of the devotion in the drawing the lines in the districts as the work was completed on time along before the preparation to the election campaign. Furthermore, the activity of the Comission owned the preferences of the major political groups in the United States as the Republicans, Democrats.
For the purposes of the drawing the lines and create the maps, the Commission was requested to follow the criterias provided in the constitutional level:
Population equality;
Geographic contiguity;
Nesting;
Minority representation;
Georgaphic integrity;
Inclusion of the interests of communities;
Compactness in geographical dimension.
Upon the finalization of the process of drawing the lines on behalf of the Commission, the performance of the Commission was regarded as positive by the voters in California. Finally, the Commission drew the lines of 177 districts.
The overview of the activity of the Commission confirms the evidence that this body acted within the legal framework of the current legislation. This statement is based on the following assumptions. The first maps of the newly developed Commission were created in 2011. Given the fact that the activity of the Commission should correspond to the current legislation, members of the Commission should be equally represented. Representatives of Democrats and Republicans have 5 seats divided accordingly between them, while the rest 4 members are not affiliated to any existing political party. In this regard, the Commission acted in respectful manner so that to meet the boundaries between the interference of the state authorities in the election campaign and level of transperancy. Hovever, the activity of the Commission is fruitful as the example of the electoral reform in California presents the case on the establishment of several benefits for the population in addition to the creation of limitations for the independent bodies involved in election. The voters living in California gained the opportunity to obtain the authority belonging to the politicians for the purpose to eliminate the process of identification the voters. Furthemore, the polarization of the districts resulted in the situation where electorate is vested with the power to achieve the competitive environment in the election process. Moreover, the membership of the Commission in California shows that interests of all parties are met by their representation. Besides, the members of the Commission are strictly requested to comply with the legislation establishing their powers so that they should not take into account the impact of the particular boundaries over the incumbent or any political group. Although, it seems that the performance of the Commission is conducted in accordance with the legislation as the process of enrollment of the members is featured with legality and transperancy. The perspective members submit the applications via the website online, while the independent auditors hired by the Bureau of State Audits should choose the candidates for the membership.
Regardless of the fact that in general the activity of the Commission upon the electoral reform is found to be stable and beneficial for society, the actions of this body are devoted to the satisfaction of the interests of the minorities as well. In this regard, the notion of the communities of interest arises as the lines between the districts should be drawn in the fair manner in order to avoid the discrimination. First of all, it should be said that the Communities of Interest were stipulated in the Proposition 11 and then added by Proposition 20. According to this rule the redistricting should be provided in relation to homogeneous districts. Furthermore, all districts should be competitive enough in the election process. However, the Commission managed to stay focused on the Communities of Interest as it was required by the Proposition 20 instead to pay attention to the traditional protection of incumbents. In order to achieve the maintenance of the communities of interest, the Commission involved the testimony of COI in form of public hearings. The members of the Commission believed that the public input is important and relevant for the defining the COI in the state. In this respect, the members succeeded in the establishment of the boundaries between neighborhood council boundaries defining the lines between the East San Fernando Valley and West part. Furthermore, the Commission ascertained that there were several groupd of COI.In particular, such territories as Westchester and Hawthorne were treated as economical and political communities of interest. In contrast, the territory of Inglewood and Baldwin Hills were referred to the cultural destinations. Given the fact that members of Commission solely could not define the boundaries of the communities of the interest, they took the public testimony as the main source of the information for the fulfillments of thi function vested over them.
The Commission of California tried to avoid the extended fragmentation of the territories and different geohraphical parts. The members applied the district-by-district approach based on which the Commission should have decrease the amount of splits of the cities, different neighbourhoods and the communities of interest existing in Califonia. In general, the statistic shows that up to ten cities and 30 small towns were split. These districts are the following:
Butte County
The Sohoma County seat of Santa Rosa
Colusa and Butte
El Dorado County
Pittsburgh
Modesto
Alameda County
In general, the Commission should have splitted the regions with the purpose to achieve the equality between the population. There were no other available instruments which may be regarded as suitable for the compliance with the georgaphical criteria established in the voting legislation of California. Despite the fact that from one point of view, the performance of the Commission in the election campaign for the division of the boundaries may be found as positive one, there are many critical perceptions about this dimension of activity of the members. In particular, the population did not expect that Shasta County could be divided into two regions, while Tehama was splitted into three districts. Furthemore, the division of Monterey to some extent may be regarded as unnecessary establishment. In addition, some people believe that such regions as Porterville, Barstow and Oildale can not be regarded as the communities of interest. In this respect, one may assume that the Commission did in part the unnecessary work as there is no basis for the division of particular regions. Besiders, the ground for such division has the reasonable explanation as the actions of the members of the Commission were guided by the information provided by the public. As the Commission relied on the public input as the main source of data for the division of the communities of interests and other areas, it is possible to state that there is no unity among the population and the representatives of the districts. Therefore, this sphere of activity of the Commission should be improved in the next election campaign with the purpose to avoid the ambiguity in the treatment of the population to the division of the boundaries. Moreover, the updated process for the collection of public input should be presented with the aim to achieve the satisfaction of all interests of the population regardless of their belonging to the particular minority.
In order to proceed to the division of the regions for the election process, the Commission launched the process of the collection the public information about it. With that, special research consultants were hired by the state in addition to the fact that the Commission had the transcripts of the meetings, interviews with numerous participants involved in the redistricting process. Moreover, there is a separate budget issued by the Commission for the hired consultants with the purpose to collect the information and analyze the public input which should be used then by the members of the Commission. Although, it is highly important to state that the Commission had some problems with the performance of the consultants. In particular, the processing of the public input was delayed in 2012 as the consultants were hired a bit later than it was expected by the plan of action of the Commission during the election. This situation resulted in the fact that mapping was not launched until late May.
Improvements in the performance of the Commission:
The overview of the Commission of California as independent and separate body in the election campaign presents the evidence that the performance of this body adds value to the election process in general. Moreover, the involvement of this body provides the population with increased level of transperancy in the election as the population has the power to guide the activity of the Commission and submit the information regarding the division of the districts. Regardless of the exitence of numerous positive sides of the activity of the Commission, there are certain flaws that should be removed. In particular, it is necessary to reconsider the process of the drawing the lines of the boundaries between the disctricts and the further splits of the cities, as the analysis of the mapping taking place in 2012 shows that this division was not fair enough. In this respect, the members of the Commission and the voters jointly with legislators should develop a new mechanism for the division of the territories with the purpose to satisfy the needs of the population and the communities of interest.
References
Jung, Joon Pyo. 2015. "A Critical Analysis Of Electoral System Reform Proposal By The National Election Commission". The Journal Of International Relations 18 (1): 197. doi:10.15235/jir.2015.6.18.1.197.
Quinn, Tony. 2009. "Proposition 11 - What Will It Do?". California Journal Of Politics And Policy 1 (1): 1-3. doi:10.5070/p2b598.
