By Dr. Harold Pease
I live in a district that will always have a republican congressman, state senator and assemblyperson. In fact, my congressman did not even have an opponent and was able to store his contributions for a nuclear election on the first democrat that dares to be an opponent in the future. My assemblywoman also did not have an opponent. Nancy Pelosi will serve forever or until she dies or chooses to leave. She will never be defeated, as she too lives in a district that will always be democrat. The odds of turning either congress person out, even if the district was not purposely created to never change, is only at best 10% because of name recognition, campaign contributions, and resources of office, especially franking privileges (free mailing to constituents at tax payers expense) of the incumbent. In the U. S. Senate the odds of a challenger victory is only 20%.
These are safe districts. In California’s November election, voters were offered two solutions to theoretically end the practice of safe districts: either the legislature continues to draw boundaries as before, or a Citizens Redistricting Commission (unclear as to who selects them) now does so. Keeping the first group means that nothing will ever change. The politicians will always favor reducing or illuminating the competition in their boundary choices. Having a committee do so may be no better, as someone has to choose these people. The formula that California voters chose was a commission of 14: five democrats, five republicans, and four independents; none elected by the people. Obviously the independents will be making the choice. Independents are not a party, so they too still vote democratic or republican.
I propose something that would take party out of the formula all together. Let’s grid beginning in one corner of the state, say the northwest corner, moving east and south. The estimated population of California is 37,221,852 so divide this number by 53 for congressional seats, 40 for state senators, and 80 for assembly seats. All districts will be “population similar” and created as close to a square format as possible using existing school districts. Federal law requires the integrity of cities, counties, neighborhoods, and communities of interest be factored in. The latter of which should be contested constitutionally. Let the grid fall where it falls. Would this end the republican monopoly in my area or the democratic monopoly in San Francisco for Nancy Pelosi? Maybe not, but it does help make the game feel less “rigged.“
A “Nuclear” election results when the incumbent candidate stores unused contributions from one or more previous elections and uses these contributions to “nuke” his next opponent. This, in effect, allows incumbents the right to raise funds years before the challenger. Unused contributions need to be returned to their contributors or given to charity after each election. Saving or storing them to be spent at another time does not represent the will of the people necessarily at the time it first was given; more so if it comes from out of district contributors. It favors the incumbent. At the very least a gigantic war chest from unused campaign contributions intimidates potential candidates from the opposing party. As a result they often field no candidates or only weak ones.
Still, another campaign reform would require all funds for all contestants to come from the voters within the district one represents. No money from outside the district. It seems so unfair to have outside money flood into your opponent’s coffers. The argument exists that both sides are doing it, yet it is still outside money buying your congressman or senator for you and perhaps against you.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College.