☆Thoughtful policy analysis on why CA redistricting scheme is a troubled idea
Former SJ Councilmember Pete Constant, currently a Professor and Chair of Public Policy Department at Jessup University does a deep dive on Gov. Newsom's redistricting proposal, and suggests it solves no real problem while creating new ones--from legal risks to eroded trust. An Opp Now exclusive.
The issue of mid-cycle congressional redistricting in California raises serious questions about fairness, legality, and democratic health. As a professor of public policy and department chair at Jessup University, I've spent years studying and advocating for reforms that make our electoral maps more equitable. In this piece, I'll discuss this from a policy analysis lens, rather than the simple partisan lens most often applied: identifying the problem, examining its implications, evaluating alternatives, and offering recommendations. My goal is to keep things straightforward so anyone can follow, while drawing on solid evidence and legal insights. After all, redistricting isn't just for experts, it's about how your vote counts.
Let's start with the problem at hand. California's current ballot initiative on redistricting bundles two unrelated ideas into one vote. First, it asks us to support a push for a U.S. Constitutional Amendment that would require all states to use nonpartisan commissions for drawing congressional districts. That sounds appealing for national fairness and something I would definitely support. But it is coupled with something I can’t support, approval of intentionally gerrymandered maps drawn by the state legislature; maps that ignore the work of our independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. This setup forces voters into an all-or-nothing choice. Like me, you might love the national idea but hate the local maps, yet you can't split your vote. From a policy standpoint, this violates the spirit of California's single-subject rule, which exists to prevent confusing or deceptive ballots. It's like mixing apples and oranges in one policy package, muddying what should be clear decision-making.
My own background in this area helps illustrate why this matters. Back in the early 2000s, I became a strong advocate for independent redistricting to stop politicians from gaming the system. In the 2008 voter guide for Proposition 11, I argued: "The current system where politicians draw their own districts is rigged to make sure they get reelected. Prop. 11 will put voters back in charge and make it easier to vote them out of office if they’re not doing their job." As a retired San Jose police officer and San Jose City Councilmember at that time, I saw how self-drawn maps protected insiders. Voters passed Prop 11, creating the Citizens Redistricting Commission. In 2010, they went further, approving, with over 61% support, an initiative requiring that the commission to handle congressional maps too. These changes aimed to make districts reflect real communities, not partisan strongholds.
Recently, I've seen this play out in my new community as well. As a Roseville resident, I fought against city council maps that the Sacramento Bee called "unethical, and also probably illegal" in a December 12, 2019, editorial. Those lines were twisted and stretched to keep incumbents safe, ignoring natural and physical boundaries and breaking up neighborhoods. Later, as the vice chairman of the city’s Charter Review Commission, I proposed a charter measure to establish the Roseville Independent Redistricting Commission that essentially parallels the City of San Jose’s long-standing model. The city council wasn't thrilled (one member lamented that it stripped away their authority – which, by the way was the specific intent), but the commission backed it unanimously. Voters wholeheartedly agreed at the ballot box, passing it with 63.5% yes votes.
Now, as the chairman of the Placer County Commission for School District Reorganization, I review school district trustee maps for compliance with the criteria of the Fair Maps Act, checking for things like compactness, logical boundaries, and disruptions to communities. In this role, I watched in dismay as the Roseville City School District tried a variation of the same trick. They gerrymandered maps to force a mid-term election between two popular candidates who were politically aligned. This was clearly done to break that alliance. This was simply unfair to the community.
These experiences show how important independent processes are to ensure the voice of the community and restrict self-interested gerrymandering.
Now, let’s analyze the proposed initiative. The flaws are clear. Starting off with the simple fact that the legislature didn't even have the authority to draw these maps. Our state constitution gives that job squarely to the commission. Established precedence makes it clear that when the constitution assigns a specific power, lawmakers can't just take it back. This overreach isn't just a technicality; it's a core policy failure that undermines necessary checks and balances.
Even if we set that aside for argument's sake, the maps themselves don't hold up. The process wasn't open or transparent. It not only happened behind closed doors and away from public input, members of the legislature continually dodged questions as to who drew the maps. Districts such as 2, 9, 30, 40, and 47 aren't functionally contiguous, meaning they're hard to navigate or represent effectively. The lines also split up communities of interest (groups with shared needs, like cultural ties or economic links) that the commission had worked diligently to keep together. Plus, while the commission is prohibited from considering party lines, the governor and legislators openly boast that partisanship was the primary consideration. From a policy perspective, this erodes trust in elections and will further the partisan divide.
The political timing is another (big) red flag. The California Supreme Court was clear in Legislature v. Deukmejian (1983) that redistricting should happen only once per decade, subsequent to the federal census, even if attempted through a voter initiative. Mid-cycle changes like what is proposed is an unveiled attempt to gerrymander solely to serve self-interests and political favoritism. This will destabilize our system.
And here's a key point: even if voters approve it, courts have struck down other measures contrary to the constitution. The California Supreme Court has made clear, "voter consent cannot convert an unconstitutional [statute] into a constitutional one." This protects us from majority overreach—what James Madison called the "tyranny of the majority."
There is no doubt, Governor Newsom's backing of this clearly and unequivocally prioritizes party power over these well-established safeguards, potentially concentrating influence and weakening democratic resilience.
What are the alternatives? First off, we should follow our constitution and stick with the commission's maps, which were crafted through public hearings and data-driven decisions.
Additionally, I’m all for federal legislation to prohibit redistricting mid-census cycles. It’s actually a good idea that can – and should – stand on its own. We should also strengthen the Fair Maps Act and expand independent commissions locally to build on successes like we did in Roseville. These options promote transparency, reduce partisanship, and enhance voter confidence—key goals in any sound election policy.
In the end, I recommend rejecting this initiative. It solves no real problem while creating new ones, from legal risks to eroded trust. As someone who's analyzed and advocated for fair redistricting for over 20 years, I know these issues affect everyday lives - your schools, taxes, and representation. Let's protect the progress we've made.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
We prize letters from our thoughtful readers. Typed on a Smith Corona. Written in longhand on fine stationery. Scribbled on a napkin. Hey, even composed on email. Feel free to send your comments to us at opportunitynowsv@gmail.com or (snail mail) 1590 Calaveras Ave., SJ, CA 95126. Remember to be thoughtful and polite. We will post letters on an irregular basis on the main Opp Now site.