California Voters FIRST Act

California Voters FIRST Act
Name	California Voters FIRST Act
Enacted	2008
Ballot	Proposition 11 (2008); Proposition 20 (2010)
Jurisdiction	California
Subject	Redistricting reform

California Voters FIRST Act

The California Voters FIRST Act is a pair of constitutional and statutory changes enacted by California voters in 2008 and 2010 to transfer authority over state legislative and congressional redistricting from the California State Legislature to an independent commission. The measures followed decades of disputes involving Gerrymandering controversies, Voting Rights Act of 1965 compliance, and lawsuits such as Karcher v. Daggett and Vieth v. Jubelirer. Prominent advocates included Arnold Schwarzenegger, Common Cause, and reform activists who cited precedents from commissions like the Iowa Legislative Services Agency and proposals debated in the U.S. Congress.

Background and enactment

Proposition 11 (2008) placed redistricting for the California State Senate, California State Assembly, and California Board of Equalization under a newly formed commission; Proposition 20 (2010) extended that commission's authority to United States House of Representatives districts in California. The movement built on earlier reforms from figures such as Richard Nixon and critiques by journalists at the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and academic analyses from Stanford University and University of California, Berkeley. Supporters argued the change would reduce partisan influence evident in maps drawn after the 1990 United States census and the 2000 United States census, while opponents included state legislators and political operatives aligned with California Democratic Party and California Republican Party factions. Ballot campaigns featured advertisements produced by groups like California Common Cause and funded by donors associated with Elizabeth Warren-era reformers and local philanthropies.

Provisions and requirements

The Act established eligibility, transparency, and conflict-of-interest rules for the commission. Commissioners must be registered voters with demonstrated affiliation to major parties such as the Democratic Party (United States) and the Republican Party (United States), as well as unaffiliated voters; selection involved the California Secretary of State and random draws from lists compiled by auditors like the California State Auditor. Provisions required compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, respect for communities of interest such as those defined in analyses by Public Policy Institute of California and regional planning bodies like the Southern California Association of Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area), and prioritized geographic contiguity consistent with mapping standards used by the U.S. Census Bureau. The measures mandated public hearings, disclosure rules overseen by the Fair Political Practices Commission and published datasets using standards similar to those of the National Historical Geographic Information System.

Independent redistricting commission

The commission's structure was modeled to limit influence by incumbents and leaders from institutions such as the California Legislature. It consists of 14 members: five Democrats, five Republicans, and four from neither major party, selected through a process involving the Secretary of State of California and screening by the California State Auditor. Commissioners must follow criteria that include compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and respect for communities of interest in regions like Los Angeles County, San Diego County, the Central Valley (California), and the San Francisco Bay Area. The commission conducts mapping with technology related to geographic information systems like those used by Esri and draws on demographic data from the United States Census Bureau and analyses by institutions such as the Brennan Center for Justice.

Legal challenges and litigation

The commission and its maps have been subject to litigation in federal and state courts including the United States Supreme Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court of California. Notable suits involved claims under the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment by parties including incumbents, political parties like the Libertarian Party (United States) and advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union. Cases referenced precedents like Baker v. Carr, Reynolds v. Sims, and Rucho v. Common Cause. Challenges raised issues about the constitutionality of the commission's structure, interpretation of the state constitution, and compliance with federal law; outcomes shaped subsequent reforms and further ballot measures contested in forums such as the California Supreme Court, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and administrative proceedings before the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

Implementation and effects

Implementation produced new legislative and congressional maps applied for the 2012 United States House of Representatives elections and subsequent cycles including 2018 United States House of Representatives elections and 2020 United States House of Representatives elections. Analysts at think tanks like the Public Policy Institute of California, academics at University of California, Los Angeles and University of Southern California, and reporters at the New York Times and Washington Post assessed impacts on competitiveness in districts such as those in Orange County, California, Sacramento County, California, and the Inland Empire. Some studies reported increased competitiveness and turnover in certain districts, while others noted persistent polarization comparable to national trends documented by the Cook Political Report and the Brookings Institution. The commission's public hearings engaged civic groups including League of Women Voters of California and local advocacy organizations from regions like San Joaquin Valley and Silicon Valley.

Criticisms and reforms proposed

Critics argued the commission did not eliminate all partisan effects, citing controversies in map choices affecting incumbents such as Dianne Feinstein and Kevin McCarthy and disputes involving county boundaries in Riverside County, California and San Bernardino County. Reform proposals ranged from adjustments to selection processes advocated by organizations like Common Cause and scholars at Harvard University and Yale University, to calls for algorithmic or commission redesigns inspired by work from Gerrymandering algorithms researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Political actors including state legislators and advocacy coalitions have proposed ballot measures and legislative changes debated in forums like the California State Senate and the California State Assembly; alternative models referenced international commissions used in countries such as Canada and United Kingdom.

Category:California ballot propositions Category:Redistricting in the United States Category:Election law in the United States