California Set To Become Even More Democratic!

[Liberty Belle]

Source: Mother Jones

— By Kevin Drum

Sat Jun. 11, 2011

For the past few decades, Democrats have been in charge of the California state legislature when it came time draw up redistricting plans after the decennial census. In 2001 a Democrat was governor too. But in 2008 and 2010, voters (including me) approved initiatives that took redistricting out of the hands of the legislature and gave it to an independent commission charged with creating compact, nonpartisan district lines. Yesterday they released their map of California's new districts. So what happened now that Democrats are no longer in charge?

You're looking at three to five Republican members of Congress that just kind of vanish," said Matt Rexroad, a Republican political consultant in Sacramento who advises clients on redistricting. The prospect of Democrats securing two-thirds of both state legislative houses is "very much in play," he said. No single party has held a supermajority in both the Assembly and Senate in many decades.

....In Washington, some GOP strategists expressed confidence that Republicans would be able to compete in some of the proposed new districts that appear to favor Democrats, possibly limiting the loss of seats to just one or two. But analysts were predicting otherwise.

"At minimum, should pick up two to three seats, but that could go as high as four to five," said David Wasserman, House editor of the Washington-based Cook Political Report, which monitors redistricting.

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/06/california-set-become-even-more-democratic


Read more: http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/06/california-set-become-even-more-democratic

---

Wow. If Dems get a 2/3 majority it means they can actually pass a budget with **gasp*** tax increases on the wealthy so we can save public education and public services. Even though Dems have a majority, they can't pass a budget with any tax hikes because the state constitutionr requires a supermajority.

This is huge. I don't know if those 3-5 Republicans who may "just kind of vanish" according to this analysis includes Brian Bilbray but his district is now very competitive in registration, and even the GOP admits he will have a tough time. Bilbray, you may recall, picked up Randy "Duke" Cunningham's seat after Duke got convicted of bribery (he's now in the slammer). Bilbray however is arguably just as corrupt or worse. He started a Congressional cigar "club" that 's a front for lobbyists to schmooze legislators and does their bidding.

If you're in CA, click this link and put in your address to see how your districts change: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-redistricting-map,0,6145644.htmlstory

Meanwhile I'm ceelebrating because under the proposed new district lines, I will no longer be represented by Republicans in Congress, the state Senate or state Assembly -- my town is moving to all Democratic districts. The redistricting also moves a college in our area into a Dem district--wow, what a concept, a representative who may actually show up and speak to the students, and even listen to them!



Please kick this puppy into the stratosphere!

[Misskittycat]

1. I'm in Brian Bilbray's current District - California 50.

I've looked at the maps, and the proposed District I'm in is significantly different than the current CA 50. Instead of being entirely in North San Diego County, it is now narrowed and elongated and extends well up into coastal Orange County. (From the standpoint of having things in common with others in the same Congressional district, that reconfiguration is quite odd.) I'm not sure who currently represents the Orange County portion of the proposed district.

[thelordofhell]

2. Do you need 2/3 to have a tax decrease?

If you don't the 2/3 law is unconstitutional.

[Sirveri]

19. It's not unconstitutional if it's part of the constitution.

Stupid Norquist morons.

[thelordofhell]

20. Tell that to slaves

[Scuba]

3. Sure hope they're not DINO's.

[Warrior Dash]

4. If the recent ballot initiates are any indication of how the people feel,

they do not want their taxes raised.

Are you suggesting that the legislature should govern against the will of the people?

[cosmicone]

5. Almost all polls favor increasing taxes for the wealthy.

Enjoy your stay on DU.

[Warrior Dash]

6. Just 9 percent prefer mostly tax increases and 8 percent say it's OK to borrow and run a deficit.

Whatever you say dude...

http://yubanet.com/california/Californians-Say-Voters-Should-Have-Voice-in-Budget-Choices.php

[No Elephants]

8. I did not see anything at your link saying Californians oppose taxing the wealthy, so,

unless I missed that salient point, your source does not contradict cosmicone's post.

About 70% of all American adults polled suppport tax increases for the wealthy. I'd be surprised if Californians differed.

[Warrior Dash]

10. They favor taxes on the wealthy until they discover that they are categorized as "the wealthy."

[cosmicone]

21. Warrior Dash ...

I saw some of your prior posts on DU and if I'm not mistaken, the following are your positions:

1) Every tax increase is bad and not wanted by people
2) We need to give more tax cuts to make the economy going
3) Religious fanatics are frequently right and their opinions should form some of the basis of state policy
4) Unions are generally bad and result in too much spending and wastage
5) Businesses are above reproach and we must coddle them and overlook their environmental, financial and social transgressions
6) and more .. but I don't want to make this a thesis on your posts

Did you stumble upon DU by mistake or are there any core democratic party principles you believe in? If yes, what are they? Please enlighten me.

[leftistboy]

12. but in general, polls do show that americans want to tax the rich more

do you disagree?

[Warrior Dash]

14. They do until they discover that they are "the rich."

[cosmicone]

22. I am a Californian who would end up paying more in taxes ..

but ... I would welcome that because a stable state which is able to adequately dispense services to me is far more important than a paltry selfish tax break.

What good is a few thousand dollars in tax breaks do if my house burns down due to inadequate fire protection?
What good would money do if I get mugged and shot because there aren't enough police?
What good would money do if I cannot sleep because children are starving and people are dying from lack of healthcare and shelters?
What good would money do if the state apparatus is so badly damaged that my children, grandchildren and great grand children have to go without college education?

I'm sorry, I refuse to be selfish, short-sighted and foolish.

[Cal33]

15. I'd like to see this actually being carried out. It's about time that the

ordinary people got some of their money back. Also, all tax loopholes should be closed, and
the rich should be paying their full taxes from now on -- just like everybody else.

[No Elephants]

7. What cosmicone said. Also, are these people of whom you speak using public services? If so, they

need to pay for them, whether they want to or not.

Goods and services cost money. Denial of that fundamental reality is a delusion that has brought California to its knees.

[Warrior Dash]

9. The only thing I know about CA politics is what I read...

and unless everyone is printing lies, Seventy-three percent (73%) of California voters oppose raising state income taxes to eliminate the budget deficit. Raising the state sales tax is opposed by 69%.

However, pointing out what Californians want has led to calls for me to be banned.

[Liberty Belle]

18. There are other less painful taxes and fees.

Republicans in the Legislature have opposed:

closing loopholes for yacht owners
closing loopholes for corporations that offshore assets to the Bahamas to dodge state taxes
a nickel a glass increase in tax on alcoholic beverages to avoid slashing education funds
a wellhead tax on oil, even though CA is the ONLY oil producing state with zero wellhead tax. Even Sarah Palin's Alaska has a 25% wellhead tax.

I'm sure if you polled Californians the overwhelming majority would rather see all or most of the above rather than seeing their kids schools ruined, tuitions jacked into the stratosphere at public colleges, services slashed for everything from in-home care for the elderly to medical services for the poor, and 25% of state parks closed! I get livid when Republicans try to frame this as Dems wanting to raise YOUR taxes when in fact that's not the case at all.

[Liberty Belle]

17. I'm saying the Legislature should act like grownups and be responsible.

Our Rep (now retired thank God) actually spoke on the Senate floor against closing a tax loophole for YACHT OWNERS in his inland district with no ocean -- while supporting deep cuts in services that hurt the poor, the sick and the elderly. That sort of crap is just plain wrong.

Nobody wants taxes raised on the poor or middle class, but making the wealthiest Californians and the richest corporations pay their fair share is reasonable and ought to be done. They're paying less now than when Reagan was Governor!

[PuffedMica]

11. I hope this sets a National precedence

Voting districts should be defined strictly by population, not by Republican gerrymandering. Obviously in this instance, the Republicans had carved out district lines that gave them and advantage. The advantage went away when the rules were fairly applied.

I like the idea of passing a budget with fair taxation. It is about time the majority laid down the law about who carries the tax bill and force the rich to pay their fair share.

[Overseas]

13. K&R!

[Igel]

16. Some (D) will also lose their seats.

As far as I can tell from my relatively uninformed knowledge of this, part of what they did was make sure that voters were united by "interest", viz. ethnicity.

This makes for more Latino districts, with some (D) and (R) "sheltered" from ethnically compact districts that would naturally want to be represented by somebody of the same skin color and accent. In order to do this, they jerrymandered a bit so that the current politicians were in districts that would also "naturally" vote for people of *their* skin color and accent (in other words, Euro-American). This seems even handed to me; to most it would seem racist.

Compacting some districts still made for a bit of jerrymandering in order to actually comply with the law.