I wonder if there is a more basic question to be answered. While this question is worthy of discussion on a number of levels - are districts too big? Do the media supply adequate information? — I think the more basic question is: Does the legislature represent the voters of California? I ask this in the context of an issue I raised in my own blog last Friday (a shameless plug, I know). There are two governing bodies in California, or perhaps we can say two different electorates, one filtered through the elected officials and the voters themselves. And, they often don’t agree on policy issues. You can see that in the result of many different kinds of initiatives. I will point out one that is obviously close to me - the Legislature as a body, supposedly representing their constituents, did not in 1978 and undoubtedly would not today, approve of Proposition 13. However, polling shows the voters do.

So I think it’s fair to ask, under the current structure does the Legislature fairly represent California voters?

“The Voters’ First Act,” passed by California voters on November 4, 2008, is an important first step that encourages lawmakers to be more responsive to their constituents’ best interests. If redistricting is removed from legislators’ hands, the districts are less likely to reflect the partisan desires of the incumbents.  Better efforts by a citizen commission that would consider geographic and population size, as well as regional, ethnic, social and economic interests should improve the current gerrymandered, self-interested lines drawn by the lawmakers themselves.

The California Auditor is responsible for the implementation of this new law and is already designing the process.  This will include commission members’ qualifications, application procedures, and a series of public hearings every step along the way. This process should be completed by the end of 2010 and the redistricting done in 2011.  All Assembly, Senate and Board of Equalization districts will be redistricted in the same fashion.  The new, redrawn districts should be ready in time for the 2012 state and national elections.

As with any process that protects democratic rights, the redistricting steps must be fair and reasonable.  However, the measures needed are also detailed and tedious to carry out.  I wonder to what extent the voters will become engaged in assuring fairness, clarity and transparency.

My take is a little different than Joel’s and Lucy’s.

I think legislators actually represent us all … But think of “represent us” as “reflect us.”

To Lucy’s point - The new reapportionment commission may provide a fairer process for drawing district boundary lines, but the new lines won’t change much because voters already apportion themselves - we all tend to live in communities with people who reflect our own lifestyles and political beliefs. So whether the lines are drawn by politicians or commissioners, there aren’t ways to create more Republican districts in the Bay Area or more Democratic districts in Orange County.

To Joel’s point - I don’t think legislators are wrong if they disagree with the voters’ decisions on initiatives. Democrats don’t agree with everything in Proposition 13 (property tax reform) and Republicans don’t agree with everything in Proposition 103 (insurance reform). Disagreement however does not mean that a) legislators should overturn or ignore the voters or b) they should stop trying to convince people to rethink their votes.

Sorry to be last, but it does give me the opportunity to see what everyone else has to say. You all make good points. So far, we’re dealing with the independence of lawmakers and whether we serve in the voters’ best interests.

First, I want to digress from your established focus to address the question of whether the tools and information are available for lawmakers as well as voters to do their jobs. I think that’s important because the answer is of course, but, as with many other things, the problem is in the execution.

Especially in this day and age, I find that I have a plethora of tools available to assess the problems that face us and come up with possible solutions. We have more than competent staff. We have smart personal staff dedicated to see that we succeed, equally smart and experienced caucus staff providing advice from our philosophic perspective and very competent committee staff to provide fairly objective analysis, though leaning toward the majority party approach. Add to that the Leg Analyst’s and Leg Council’s office, and it’s hard to argue that we don’t have an abundance of tools from a staff prospective.

We also have the press. Though the conventional sort is dwindling, the blogosphere is compensatingly robust. They serve to help us avoid becoming too blissfully comfortable on one way of thinking.

And speaking of the blogosphere, the internet is a tool the power of which we couldn’t even imagine not too far in the past.

The public, of course, has all the same media and internet resources as tools. The state also provides very useful tools and information to the public. The LAO, Leginfo, various departments’ and legislative websites offer a whole host of information and analysis.

The problem, as I stated, is in the execution. The old saying “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him (okay, or her) drink” applies. The quality of the result of actually solving problems and holding officials accountable lies not at all with the availability of “water”, but, rather, on whether any actual drinking takes place. Some robustly gulp, some merely gargle, and others remain parched with thirst.

Now back to the independence thing. I agree with Joel, it’s not really an issue of independence; it’s a question of whether the Legislature fairly represents California voters. Joel ends with a question. I would state that it does not, and for the reason of evidence that the record on initiatives shows as Joel cites.

I agree with Lucy in that the new redistricting plan will likely make a difference. It will not turn the balance of power for the reason that Richie points out. But the past manipulation of boundaries has turned the natural tendency of the flocking of similarly feathered birds to the corralling of those identically plumed, exaggerating the contrast of differences. The districts after 2010 will not usher in a Republican majority (darn!), but they will result in a Legislature with a more bell-shaped philosophic curve, as I believe is the electorate.

At the risk as coming off as everyone’s father asserting that the “good old days” were better … Roger - I would suggest that the current staff structure in the Legislature only provides tools for the ongoing negative spiral we are in.

My thought - there was a time when the Assembly and Senate policy committees didn’t have partisan consultants. Indeed committee consultants acted more like Legislative Counsel. They provided committee members with confidential and non-partisan analysis of ideas and bills. Instead of bloated partisan caucus staffs, the Assembly had a fantastic Assembly Research Office that served all members equally and with unbiased, confidential research information. There were no huge caucus staffs presenting political and partisan analysis of every bill on the floor or before every committee Members had small personal staffs to handle their specific needs. And because those personal staffs were small, legislators had no choice but to rely on non-partisan committee and research staffs to get their work done. When I served as Assembly Chief Administrative Officer, every committee consultant staff position, promotion, or hiring was voted by the entire Rules Committee. I won’t go into how all of that got polluted and politicized. Let’s leave it at there’s plenty of blame to go around. The fact is the legislature doesn’t need an initiative or a “non-partisan” blue ribbon anything to return to that system.

We can’t complain about an overly partisan legislature without addressing the fact that we have institutionalized and legitimized a fundamentally flawed staffing structure that promotes meaningless “drill” votes to one-up the other party. We have a legislature run by the political and partisan “military” at the expense of and supposedly on behalf of our elected “civilian” government.

You and I can instigate a change. We should. Because, in my view, that change would a) happen faster than more meaningless reforms will ever happen and b) actually lead to better public outcomes than the current arms race between second rate political staffers.

Let me know if you’d like to team up.

I’m actually going to side with Richie that redistricting is not going to make a huge difference. I think it is important and I have supported redistricting reforms whenever they appeared on the ballot. I think it is the right thing to do to create districts using established and common sense criteria that Lucy describes rather than to capture a certain voting block or to include a potential candidate’s house within a district. That said, as Richie points out, voters often apportion themselves into areas of similar voting beliefs.

However, I think Lucy’s broader point that she writes of establishing a plan less likely to reflect partisan desires might play out with the open primary proposal. Taking San Francisco as an extreme example,  the 9% or so registered Republicans in San Francisco could move an election in the direction of one candidate. Nine percent is a big chunk of votes that could turn many an election. If a San Francisco candidate can create a platform that holds much of his or her Democratic base but, at the same time, can induce cross over voters from the Republican voters that candidate might win, and a number of such candidates might change the tone in the legislature.

I would even suggest that a governing body elected under this dynamic might better reflect the electorate, and issue I raised in my first post.

Richie, as one of the oldest members of the Assembly I’m happy to allow you to be the father figure here. I am intrigued with your historical perspective and your take on current staff structure. Staff resources contribute mightily to the quality of our work. I would very much like to get together with you to further discuss this. A Richie Ross/Roger Niello collaboration would throw some folks for a loop, huh?

And Joel, I don’t think we disagree n redistricting. It will not make a huge difference. As I stated, no change of power, no immediate Rep takeover, but it will make a positive difference.

As for the open primary, I think it likely to pass. But I have concerns. It will reduce the importance of political parties. It may make them irrelevant in Ca politics. For all the concerns that some of our founding fathers expressed about political parties and the frustration that many in Ca have with them (20 percent DTS), I think the two-party system has served us well. But, as I said, I think it will pass so we shall see.

Lucy’s own history points to how an Open General Election can do much more to change dynamics than an Open Primary.

Not many people remember her history, but Lucy left the Democratic Party when she was a sitting State Senator and ran for re-election as an Independent, successfully. I was proud to serve as her campaign consultant before, during, and after that decision. We both were subjected to abuse, threats and accusations of betrayal as you might imagine.

What that experience showed was how difficult it is for Decline-to-State voters to qualify for the ballot. It took thousands and thousands of signatures. Democratic or Republican candidates need just 40 signatures to place their names before the voters.

With DTS voters now representing over 20 percent of the electorate (and I believe soon will be 30 percent), real change will come about by allowing them a more equitable route to become candidates for “partisan” office.

Major Party candidates and incumbents would be forced to moderate their behavior because they would face a constant threat from DTS candidates.

The flaw in the proposed Open Primary measure on next June’s ballot is that it’s still all about the two parties and DTS voters still cannot compete fairly as candidates. In addition, the Open Primary allows politicians to mask their identity by leaving their party affiliation off the ballot creating a circumstance where politicians can target voters based on party affiliation but voters can’t target candidates the same way.

While Richie and Roger are plotting to improve the inner workings of the Legislature (which I admit I have much less expertise than they do) let me return to the issue of elections. At the California Target Book conference yesterday a number of speakers talked about hardening of positions of the legislators and the greater influence of the Decline to State (DTS) voters. Republican pollster Steve Kinney flatly said the 20 percent DTS voters decide elections in California. Democratic pollster David Binder said the DTS voters are leaning Democratic which gives the Democrats an additional edge on top of their registration lead. Bill Lockyer said he thought Republican legislators were not as pragmatic as when he served, and admitted that Republicans may say the same of Democrats. Jim Brulte acknowledged that conservatives use to have great influence in Republican primaries, and they now dominate Republican primaries. Brulte went on to say that the growing DTS voters are moderate voters for the most part leaving the major parties under the control of more extreme elements.

All this brings me back to our discussion of the open primary. It seems to me that the DTS voters would welcome an open primary, and if they do, indeed, decide elections, then the open primary will be successful. Binder cited polls that indicated right now the open primary enjoys across the board support. Democrats 69 percent support; Republicans 66 percent; DTS 67 percent.

No doubt that DTS voters will welcome the Open Primary. My point however is that it won’t be long afterward when they conclude that not being able to qualify themselves as candidates in those Open Primaries means they are only partially “open.” And once that realization sets in they will begin to demand a new and more meaningful definition of “open.”

Following the news of the latest outburst questioning decorum in the political world (the governor’s visit to the SF Democratic fundraiser) leads me to a question. We have been told in the “good old days” that legislators were more collegial with one another, regardless of party. However, some of “good government” rules have interfered with legislators mingling, say at events sponsored by lobbyists. The theory being the better the legislators know each other and socialize with one another, the harder it is to be combative and the easier to cooperate. The question is how much have good government rules contributed to poor governance?

I don’t know of any good government rule that stops legislators from sharing a meal together, getting to know one another’s families, meeting after work to have a beer and watch a ball game.  Relationships take effort.  I worked for one of the most liberal legislators in the last  30 years.  Art Agnos championed gay rights before it was in style.  He pushed the nation’s first laws against sexual harassment.  Republican Board of Equalization Member Bill Leonard served with Art in the Assembly.  They couldn’t have been more different in their views… or better friends.  Their families got together even when picking the date was the only thing they could agree on.  But from time to time, they found an issue where they would team up.  Really team up.  And get things done.  They didn’t need lobbyists to buy them booze and fancy meals.

On a personal basis, I have found that, in each stage of my life (and I’ve had several distinct stages in various sectors), much of the valuable take-aways are the relationships. I don’t think I’m unique. Limited time in the institution may compromise that, but it need not, and, I think, does not, prohibit it.

We’ve already discussed reapportionment in this discussion. I agreed with Richie before that the reapportionment won’t change much. But I will note that in his explanation of the total elected Democrats at the end of the decades he skipped over the fact that in the shadow of the 90s’ court-managed reapportionment a Republican gained the speaker post for the first time in years.

I also agree with Richie that campaign financing reform has not achieved proponents’ goals. In fact, with the creation of Independent Expenditures, accountability has been lost. Let the candidates take contributions, report them and use them for the message the candidate controls and is responsible for.

As to whether Proposition 13 should be “off the table” if and when there is a constitutional convention, I don’t see how it can be. As I wrote on my Fox and Hounds blog Friday:

How can it be taken off the table when it is the central piece of the whole fiscal discussion? How many times in this (Getting to Reform) conference was Prop. 13 mentioned as part of the mix. Many believe it must be reformed. How can you have a constitutional convention and simply ignore Prop. 13?

However, I would suggest that those who want to include Prop. 13 in a constitutional convention do so at their own risk. Prop. 13 did something revolutionary. For the first time in history, it gave certainty in taxation to the taxpayer instead of the tax collector. Why would the people ever surrender that certainty?

Finally, Richie concludes by saying the Legislature reflects who we are. But isn’t that debate that started this discussion when I asked if the Legislature does indeed reflect the electorate as a whole?

The funny thing about reform is that it can’t change human nature or the occurrence of things as a result of it.  When partisans cloak themselves in reform attire as a ruse to forward the partisan agenda, or when puritans do so in an attempt to mold a world more toward their ideal, it will fail.

Though I think the change to reapportionment is a good one, any partisan ally of mine who believes it will dye the blue of California to red will be sorely disappointed.  And every attempt at campaign finance reform is a perfect example of the perceived ideal that is always mugged by reality.

So the point is, just like we cannot alter the dynamics of the economic marketplace by trying to force central command and control desires on the strength of the masses, neither can we impose a preconceived outcome in the marketplace of human thought and behavior that is played out in a free political system.  In that sense, whether Richie or Joel is correct in who or what the Legislature reflects may not matter.  To the extent that the Legislature attempts to control, direct and micromanage (and that it does a lot), it may just be considered a bit player!