Quirk may leave millions unrepresented by state Senate
Every 10 years since the 1970s, millions of Californians have temporarily gone without representation in the State Senate while millions more have temporarily been double-represented.
Published: Dec. 15, 2011 Updated: Dec. 17, 2011 8:53 p.m.
Laguna Niguel Mayor Paul Glaab is one of the 3.97 million unlucky Californians who may go without representation in the State Senate in 2013 and 2014 thanks to a quirk in the law. Several Orange County cities may be affected, including Laguna Niguel, Seal Beach and Mission Viejo.
PHOTO BY CHRISTINE COTTER, TEXT BY BRIAN JOSEPH, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
SACRAMENTO – More than 230 years since the American Revolution, taxation without representation still survives in California.
Thanks to a quirk in the law, millions of Californians may not be represented by a state senator in 2013 and 2014 while millions of others could be represented by two senators.
And it's totally legal.
"I'm aghast," said William Siebuhr, a Westminster resident who is one of the unlucky Californians facing two years without a voice in State Senate. "Somewhere along the line, I've been screwed out of my rights," he said.
Just one mile away, John Vestman of Stanton could have two state senators. "It seems lopsided," he said.
In all, 3.97 million Californians may go without representation in the Senate, according to an analysis by The Orange County Register and The (Riverside) Press-Enterprise. Another 3.9 million residents could be represented by two senators, according to the newspapers' figures.
"Amazing," said Paul Glaab, mayor of Laguna Niguel, another city that faces two years without Senate representation. "To me, that's an anomaly that probably should be corrected," he said.
Since the 1970s, millions of Californians have temporarily gone without Senate representation every decade.
But the phenomenon receives little attention because it's complex and obscure, and because the courts have ruled it's not in violation of anybody's rights. It's just a weird byproduct of redistricting and the Senate's election schedule.
"It happens every time we redistrict," said Tony Quinn, a former GOP redistricting staffer. "You can't avoid it."
Experts, however, say it's not a big deal. If you have a problem with the government, you can still turn to your representatives in the State Assembly, U.S. Congress or local government, said UC San Diego political science professor Thad Kousser.
"It evens out because we have so many ways to get our voices heard in California," he said.
Republicans have filed a suit challenging the new Senate districts. At this point it's unclear whether the new or old districts will be used in next year's election, or whether judges will draw up a third set of maps to use while the case unfolds.
ONCE A DECADE
Redistricting is the process of redrawing legislative districts. It's conducted every 10 years to ensure that each district contains the same number of people. This year, for the first time, the process was handled by an independent commission, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.
For the State Assembly and the U.S. House of Representatives, redistricting is simple because all of their members are elected at the same time. Not so in the State Senate. There, members are elected on a staggered schedule. Half of the Senate will face voters in 2012, the other half in 2014.
Thanks to this staggered schedule, there is a two-year period every decade when half of the senators represent newly redrawn districts and the other half represents the old districts.
The difference between the old districts and the new districts account for why some Californians have two state senators and others have none.
The voter-approved initiatives that created the commission offered no guidance on the issue. In July, the panel's own attorney said the safest course of action was to approve a Senate plan without regard for how many voters would temporarily lose Senate representation.
Commissioner Jodie Filkins Webber said the panel thought otherwise. The commission directed its line-drawing staff to minimize "deferrals."
"I think we were successful," said Filkins Webber, who practices law in Orange County.
It's telling, she added, that the Senate plan's opponents have never brought up the issue.
Courts also have defended the phenomenon. In an early 1970s decision, justices called it the "inevitable byproduct" of meeting the one-man, one-vote standard in districts with staggered four-year terms.
It would be too difficult, and possibly illegal, to put all 40 Senate districts on the ballot every decade, the court said. It compared the situation to the "disenfranchisement that may be imposed on residents who move into a Senate district or who become of voting age shortly after an election has taken place."
There are ways to avoid this problem, however. Every decade, the state of Illinois elects its state senators to terms of four years, four years and two years, to ensure that all of their senate districts come up for re-election at the same time during redistricting. The state specifically schedules its Senate elections this way to avoid deferrals, said John Patterson, spokesman for Illinois Senate President John Cullerton.
UNEVEN DISTRIBUTION
California's no-senator phenomenon hits some parts of the state more than others.
Riverside County, which has about 6 percent of the state's population, contains about 10 percent of the residents that might not have a senator in 2013-14, according to the analysis by the Register and the Press-Enterprise. Orange County, which has about 8 percent of the state's population, contains about 18 percent of the potential deferrals.
San Diego County, with 8.3 percent of California's population, contains only about 5 percent of the possible deferrals.
Democratic redistricting consultant Paul Mitchell said the commission could have attempted to spread deferrals around the state.
"No one looked at this by region," he said.
But Republican redistricting consultant Matt Rexroad, who has criticized the panel on other matters, gave the commission high marks for its efforts to limit the number of voters deprived of their Senate vote next year.
"When you have a state of 37 million people, there are going to be people who don't have a senator for two years," Rexroad said. "It would be hard for me to have anyone articulate to me how they could have done it any better."
Whatever the case, Senate leadership says it's prepared to help any Californian without a state senator. Alicia Trost, spokeswoman for Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg, said senators will aide unrepresented areas in their region by adopting them as their own. Senators have been doing that for decades, she said, and the practice effectively provides unrepresented Californians with representation.
"The people will have a voice," said State Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana.
POLITICAL IMPACT?
Based on voter-registration numbers, the 2.1 million registered voters who may not have Senate representation are 42 percent Democrat, 33 percent Republican and 20.5 percent decline-to-state. That closely reflects California as a whole.
Kousser, the UC San Diego professor, said the phenomenon is unlikely to have a noticeable political impact in next year's election. The exception is if there is a major swing in voter sentiment this year.
"Whatever message voters deliver in 2012 is not going to be heard as loudly in the State Senate," he said.
Thanks to a quirk in the law, millions of Californians may not be represented by a state senator in 2013 and 2014 while millions of others could be represented by two senators.
And it's totally legal.
"I'm aghast," said William Siebuhr, a Westminster resident who is one of the unlucky Californians facing two years without a voice in State Senate. "Somewhere along the line, I've been screwed out of my rights," he said.
Just one mile away, John Vestman of Stanton could have two state senators. "It seems lopsided," he said.
In all, 3.97 million Californians may go without representation in the Senate, according to an analysis by The Orange County Register and The (Riverside) Press-Enterprise. Another 3.9 million residents could be represented by two senators, according to the newspapers' figures.
"Amazing," said Paul Glaab, mayor of Laguna Niguel, another city that faces two years without Senate representation. "To me, that's an anomaly that probably should be corrected," he said.
Since the 1970s, millions of Californians have temporarily gone without Senate representation every decade.
But the phenomenon receives little attention because it's complex and obscure, and because the courts have ruled it's not in violation of anybody's rights. It's just a weird byproduct of redistricting and the Senate's election schedule.
"It happens every time we redistrict," said Tony Quinn, a former GOP redistricting staffer. "You can't avoid it."
Experts, however, say it's not a big deal. If you have a problem with the government, you can still turn to your representatives in the State Assembly, U.S. Congress or local government, said UC San Diego political science professor Thad Kousser.
"It evens out because we have so many ways to get our voices heard in California," he said.
Republicans have filed a suit challenging the new Senate districts. At this point it's unclear whether the new or old districts will be used in next year's election, or whether judges will draw up a third set of maps to use while the case unfolds.
ONCE A DECADE
Redistricting is the process of redrawing legislative districts. It's conducted every 10 years to ensure that each district contains the same number of people. This year, for the first time, the process was handled by an independent commission, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.
For the State Assembly and the U.S. House of Representatives, redistricting is simple because all of their members are elected at the same time. Not so in the State Senate. There, members are elected on a staggered schedule. Half of the Senate will face voters in 2012, the other half in 2014.
Thanks to this staggered schedule, there is a two-year period every decade when half of the senators represent newly redrawn districts and the other half represents the old districts.
The difference between the old districts and the new districts account for why some Californians have two state senators and others have none.
The voter-approved initiatives that created the commission offered no guidance on the issue. In July, the panel's own attorney said the safest course of action was to approve a Senate plan without regard for how many voters would temporarily lose Senate representation.
Commissioner Jodie Filkins Webber said the panel thought otherwise. The commission directed its line-drawing staff to minimize "deferrals."
"I think we were successful," said Filkins Webber, who practices law in Orange County.
It's telling, she added, that the Senate plan's opponents have never brought up the issue.
Courts also have defended the phenomenon. In an early 1970s decision, justices called it the "inevitable byproduct" of meeting the one-man, one-vote standard in districts with staggered four-year terms.
It would be too difficult, and possibly illegal, to put all 40 Senate districts on the ballot every decade, the court said. It compared the situation to the "disenfranchisement that may be imposed on residents who move into a Senate district or who become of voting age shortly after an election has taken place."
There are ways to avoid this problem, however. Every decade, the state of Illinois elects its state senators to terms of four years, four years and two years, to ensure that all of their senate districts come up for re-election at the same time during redistricting. The state specifically schedules its Senate elections this way to avoid deferrals, said John Patterson, spokesman for Illinois Senate President John Cullerton.
UNEVEN DISTRIBUTION
California's no-senator phenomenon hits some parts of the state more than others.
Riverside County, which has about 6 percent of the state's population, contains about 10 percent of the residents that might not have a senator in 2013-14, according to the analysis by the Register and the Press-Enterprise. Orange County, which has about 8 percent of the state's population, contains about 18 percent of the potential deferrals.
San Diego County, with 8.3 percent of California's population, contains only about 5 percent of the possible deferrals.
Democratic redistricting consultant Paul Mitchell said the commission could have attempted to spread deferrals around the state.
"No one looked at this by region," he said.
But Republican redistricting consultant Matt Rexroad, who has criticized the panel on other matters, gave the commission high marks for its efforts to limit the number of voters deprived of their Senate vote next year.
"When you have a state of 37 million people, there are going to be people who don't have a senator for two years," Rexroad said. "It would be hard for me to have anyone articulate to me how they could have done it any better."
Whatever the case, Senate leadership says it's prepared to help any Californian without a state senator. Alicia Trost, spokeswoman for Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg, said senators will aide unrepresented areas in their region by adopting them as their own. Senators have been doing that for decades, she said, and the practice effectively provides unrepresented Californians with representation.
"The people will have a voice," said State Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana.
POLITICAL IMPACT?
Based on voter-registration numbers, the 2.1 million registered voters who may not have Senate representation are 42 percent Democrat, 33 percent Republican and 20.5 percent decline-to-state. That closely reflects California as a whole.
Kousser, the UC San Diego professor, said the phenomenon is unlikely to have a noticeable political impact in next year's election. The exception is if there is a major swing in voter sentiment this year.
"Whatever message voters deliver in 2012 is not going to be heard as loudly in the State Senate," he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment