Republican Senator Roy Ashburn has been a ‘point person’ of sorts for Senate Republicans on redistricting reform, but a controversial proposal that he introduced yesterday, Senate Constitutional Amendment 9, on term-limits, redistricting reform, and bans on fundraising is not legislation that is supported by the Senate Republican Caucus — nor Assembly Republicans for that matter.
 
Specifically, Ashburn’s bill seems to be seeking a ‘middle ground’ to try to achieve sort of compromise.  But Ashburn gives away too much to try to move something forward…  ALL THREE aspects of Senator Ashburn’s proposed constitutional amendment are flawed…
 
First and foremost, and probably most egregious, is that Ashburn’s proposal includes virtually the same end-run on voter-approved term limits that Speaker Fabian Nunez has been championing himself.  According to what I read, this proposal by the Bakersfield Senator would allow for "termed out" legislators to serve at least one more term in the legislature, while reshuffling formulas from three two-year stints in the lower house, and two-four year terms in the upper house — to a new plan of up to twelve years in a single house.  This proposal isn’t fooling anyone — it would allow many politicians, including Ashburn, to extend their time in the state legislature.
 
Ashburn’s measure also addresses redistricting reform.  I have not had a chance to study the specific method that is used to move the power to redraw lines away from the legislature, and into the hands of a more ‘independent group’ — but I was very disappointed to read that Ashburn’s proposal in this area EXCLUDES redrawing Congressional District lines for California.  This is outrageous.  Legislative Republicans and the Governor should be making it very clear that the same self-serving and shamelessly partisan gerrymander that is wrong for statehouse districts is equally as wrong for California’s Congressional Districts.  It is unclear to me why Ashburn’s starting point would be such an obvious retreat from where the GOP needs to be on this very important issue.
 
Finally, Ashburn’s proposal includes an assault on the the United States Constitution’s First Amendment, imposing fundraising bans for certain periods of time during the legislative session and bill-signing periods.  This is terrible public policy.  We’ve already seen from the evil McCain-Feingold legislation at the federal level that what happens is that money still moves around, but with bans and restrictions, it starts to become very difficult to tell from where and to where the money is flowing.  I can only imagine that like in other states that have passed such measures, the state political parties will be more than happy to step up and host ‘leadership events’ during the ‘blackout periods’ — not to mention a dozen other ways that the market will adapt to the situation.
 
I am not trying to be overly harsh on Senator Ashburn.  He is a friend, and no doubt that he is well-intentioned in trying to promote some sort of dialogue to move matters forward in terms of bringing everyone to the table.
 
The problem, of course, is that Ashburn’s proposal is hardly the middle ground.  He proposal on term limits mirrors that of the Speaker, his proposal on redistricting reform amazingly excludes the important fair redrawing of Congressional Districts, and his proposed fundraising ban seems to go beyond even what was discussed by the Governor.
 
While I respect the fact that Ashburn touched base with his leadership before bringing forth this proposal, I believe that Ashburn has done Republicans more harm than good by proposing this particular package.
 
The reality is that Nunez’ term-limits weakening measure is doomed for defeat if it appears as a stand-alone item on the February ballot.  There is no way that Republicans should capitulate to including a revamp of term limits in a bi-partisan package unless:
 
A) The loophole is closed so that current legislators don’t get a pass — the 12 year plan should apply to new legislators only.
B) Fair redistricting includes United States Congressional Districts.
C) We achieve some sort of consensus on a campaign reform plan that does not assault the First Amendment rights of political contributors.
 
If we cannot achieve these goals with the current legislative leaders, then we’ll have to wait two years, let Perata and Nunez return to the private sector, and being negotiations with their successors. 

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 17th, 2007 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.