The Harmon Hotel, Spa & Residences, a glamorous 49-story complex, was supposed to be the signature feature of the Las Vegas Strip's new CityCenter, the largest commercial construction project in American history. After plunging six years of planning and millions of dollars into the project, the hotel will be demolished without ever housing a single guest.
Earlier this month, MGM Resorts International took the extraordinary step of seeking legal permission to implode its own building after engineering experts discovered major structural flaws and construction defects that could cause the building to collapse in an earthquake. But, the Harmon Hotel isn't the only historic endeavor that deserves to be scrapped.
California's Citizens Redistricting Commission also has structural flaws that undermine the integrity of its work product -- and it didn't require an earthquake to bring it crumbling down.
The commission's flaws are almost too numerous to believe: a brief and inadequate background check of commission applicants, an inability to deliver three draft maps for public input, and a failure to follow an open and transparent process. As a result, voters are left with maps, which at least one commissioner believes, violate federal law.
The commission's problems began with an inadequate review of its own applicants and, worse, those who ultimately were permitted to serve. A September 2010 memo from the California State Auditor's office described their own background checks of commission applicants as "routine" and "obviously rather brief." These inadequate reviews by state auditors failed to reveal multiple campaign contributions made by two commissioners to state political committees. And state auditors didn't even need to spend months rooting around in dusty archives or abandoned storage lockers. The proof was just a click away -- online for all to see.
One campaign contribution by Commissioner Dr. Gabino Aguirre posted on the California Secretary of State's website nine days after state auditors completed their background check. The contribution was significant, not because of its small dollar amount, but for its recipient, an incumbent State Assemblyman who benefited handily from the new district lines. The State Constitution actually contains language banning commissioners from factoring incumbents into their mapmaking decisions.
A second commissioner, Jeanne Raya, made $1,000 in campaign contributions from a business account to a political action committee. While business contributions themselves might not be grounds for disqualification, these contributions should have been disclosed to the public, especially in light of the commission's obligation to maintain an open and transparent process.
If the commission had drawn lines based on objective criteria, such potential conflicts of interest could be easily dismissed. Yet, the commission routinely and repeatedly relied upon the vague and elastic term "community of interest" to draw boundaries. The major danger here is that communities of interest quickly became an umbrella term that selectively included air pollution, joblessness and even flight paths. Is there any way to know why the commission sought to ensure representation for the jobless in Los Angeles County and not the Silicon Valley?
The commission also failed to implement an in-process review to prevent staff bias and ensure that the public's comments were properly represented. A June 30th staff memo that summarized Southern California public input alleged that a main theme from written comments was, "Keep Rossmoor with Long Beach."
Commissioner Mike Ward, the lone commissioner to vote against all of the commission's maps, rebutted this accounting of the public comments and pressed staff for an explanation. In a July 15th email, a mapping consultant admitted, "It appears that they were misinterpreted by our input specialists." Ward believes that "without any kind of in-process review, it's difficult to determine how many other public comments were misrepresented."
Finally, the most glaring problems with the commission's proposed maps are possible violations of the federal Voting Rights Act. The courts have traditionally interpreted the Voting Rights Act to mean that mapmakers must draw "majority-minority" districts to the greatest extent possible. Such districts guarantee representation for historically underrepresented ethnic groups.
In Los Angeles County, African-Americans were split across three congressional districts, instead of being drawn into one or two majority-minority districts. George Brown, a commission attorney who advised the commission on compliance with the Voting Rights Act, warned that splitting the African-American community into three congressional districts was legally unsound.
"I don't think that on its face there's a legal basis for saying just draw three districts with 30 percent African-American voting strength in the same areas that they're in now," Brown told commissioners at a May 28th hearing in Northridge.
Californians can expect the fundamental flaws in the redistricting process to surface in legal challenges and even a referendum that may challenge the entire system. The ultimate tragedy is that gerrymandering is real and there are many ways politicians and political activists manipulate the reapportionment process. The work of the commission was undertaken with the best of intentions and for all the right reasons -- and yet its cure was as bad as the problem it sought to solve.
Like the Harmon, this commission's superstructure needs to be torn down before it falls down -- right on top of all of us.
Follow John Hrabe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnhrabe
First off, we had the vote for citizens to decide redistricting a year or so ago. We won. And a comittee comprised of 6 Dems, 6 Repubs, and several undecideds already was formed and divided the map up. And I also know that Repubs were trying to block it because they lost ground and have only 90 days to collect the amount of signatures required. Ergo, this guy was a Republican pretending for my sake to not be. More dirty politics from Republicans.
I am proud of the work of the Commission in drawing districts that are fair, responsive to communities and make good common sense.
Anyone who would want to review our work should go to our website and review the press conference releasing the maps and review a copy of the Commission’s Final Report which provides a description of each districts drawn by the Commission.
I am sure your own review of the facts will lead you to a quite different impression, than any impression drawn by accepting the false comments of Mr. Hrabe.
Vincent Barabba
The Bureau of State Audits required applicants to fill out voluminous disclosure and conflict of interest statements which they in turn reviewed. Additionally the leaders of the two political parties in both the Assembly and Senate took the opportunity to eliminate 24 candidates from the pool of participants. Hrabe also insists on repeating the charge that two Commissioners did not properly disclose campaign contributions to candidates or other political organizations. That is just untrue. The contributions referred to by Mr. Hrabe were either under the reportable dollar amount or given by a business in which the Commissioner is a partner. In both cases the law did not require disclosure.
In the case of the Commissioner whose insurance business contributed to the Insurer Brokers and Agents of the West (IBA West), it was actually a contribution which is part of the organization’s annual membership dues. IBA West represents a diverse community of independent insurance agents who seek a voice in the legislative process.
Mr. Hrabe’s charges are empty. Instead of specifically attacking the maps themselves, he resorts to throwing mud at the Commission.
The Commission followed the criteria and gave instructions to the line drawers all in completely transparent public meetings which were streamed live for those who could not attend and are now archived on the Commission’s website at www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov. The process was unprecedented in its transparency and public participation. The Commission held 34 public input hearings around the state with over 2,700 members of the public giving testimony. Another 20,000 sent their comments in writing.
The Commission released a first draft of maps in June and provided interactive visualizations for the public to comment on. As the Commission made changes to these visualizations the new iterations were then posted. Often Commissioners were reading public comments when they came in online during the actual line drawing sessions. The Commission views the public as a full partner in the redistricting process and took their testimony to heart.
Since it is difficult for critics like Mr. Hrabe to find examples where the Commission did not follow, in priority order, the mandate of the Voters First Act, Mr. Hrabe stooped to incorrectly charge that the Commissioners were not fully vetted or adequately reviewed. As a Commissioner I can tell you first hand that the review process was lengthy and thorough.
(4) The geographic integrity of any city, county, city and county, local neighborhood, or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes their division to the extent possible without violating the requirements of any of the preceding subdivisions… Communities of interest shall not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates
.
(5) To the extent practicable and where this does not conflict with the criteria above, districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness such that nearby areas of population are not bypassed for more distant population.
(6) To the extent practicable, and where this does not conflict with the criteria above, each Senate district shall be comprised of two whole, complete, and adjacent Assembly districts, and each Board of Equalization district shall be comprised of 10 whole, complete, and adjacent Senate districts.
The Commission followed the criteria and gave instructions to the line drawers all in completely transparent public meetings which were streamed live for those who could not attend and are now archived on the Commission’s website at www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov. The process was unprecedented in its transparency and public participation. The Commission held 34 public input hearings around the state with over 2,700 members of the public giving testimony. Another 20,000 sent their comments in writing.
Part 1:
The voters created the Citizens Redistricting Commission to end the partisan gerrymandering that occurred when the Legislature drew district boundaries.
Mr. Hrabe contends that the process was “unsound,” but the process followed by the Commission is the one that California voters themselves overwhelming approved. The criteria set forth in the Voters First Act are sound and the basis for designing fair district boundaries.
The criteria approved by the voters in rank order are as follows:
(1) Districts shall comply with the United States Constitution. Congressional districts shall achieve population equality as nearly as is practicable, and Senatorial, Assembly, and State Board of Equalization districts shall have reasonably equal population with other districts for the same office, except where deviation is required to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act or allowable by law.
(2) Districts shall comply with the federal Voting Rights Act
(3) Districts shall be geographically contiguous.
I'll tell you what. Circulate a petition that disbands the Commission. The City and County of San Francisco has created and revoked district elections for county supervisors more than once, so all you have to fear from such an initiative is the charge of hypocrisy, which can be leveled at you now anyway. Be careful what you wish for in California politics. the last ten years should explain why very clearly
This is the right-wing case against the citizens redistricting commission.
And speaking of undisclosed information, this commissioner the activist author cites is actually a far right conservative from Orange County...
The truth, which you're not getting here, is that the maps were adopted with support from almost all the Republicans on the commission.
>>> As a result, voters are left with maps, which at least one commissioner believes, violate federal law.
I wish them luck...with CA now being a majority - minority state, trying to balance each of the hundred or so minorities will likely be impossible.