Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Rose Institute and Redistricting Reform: Like Peas And Carrots

A new report from the Rose finds that districts drawn under Prop. 77 significantly increase competition, reduce each party's safe seats about the same, create new majority-minority districts, reduce county fragmentation, and increase district compactness.

The new districts also make julienne fries.

The report, which also highlights historical evidence of past mid-decade redistrictings, each having occured without bringing down the sky or either political party, is available here. Or for those of you with shorter attention spans, try the Executive Summary. Still too long? Fine, here's the 2-page press release.

5 comments:

Richard said...

As a former Roser and my fellow Young Dem, how do you feel about Maviglio's quote in the Sac Bee, reproduced below?

"Opponents of Proposition 77 branded the Rose Institute report as speculative, meaningless and partisan, noting that the institute has been linked to GOP redistricting efforts in decades past.

"The Rose Institute is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party," Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, said in a prepared statement."

Just interested. Maybe someone should inform the Speaker that his Dem predecessor had a Roser on staff? =)

Anonymous said...

A lot of college students do internships with different organizations and some even draw a salary from time to time. However, the Rose Institute has a long history of being funded by Republican donors and in the past has even coordinated their activities with Republican legislators fighting reapportionment plans. They are clearly as much of a partisan organization as it is possible to be and retain their non profit status.

cd said...

Anon - ahahahahahhahhaaaaa. Hardly. Though it would've been nice had we been that well funded. During my era at the Rose Institute - oh, I was the manager there, or haven't y'all picked up on that - I assure you, the Rose Institute of State and Local Government fronted for no one.

Some of our specialists would, on their own, independent of the Institute, contract with various entities to draw maps, educate people, etc. But that's bidness, kids.

Richard - I had not noticed Maviglio's comments. But since I consider him a friend, I plan on giving him crap about them later. Guess the Rose is just continuing its tradition of pissing off the Speaker - whoever he may be.

Oh - and just in case any one out there wants to start questioning my party loyalty with respect to my employment history - I dare you. You'll lose.

Richard said...

That's the response I was waiting for CD. Touche!

Doug @ the Rose said...

Those lobbing partisan bombs toward the Rose should take notice that Bruce Cain said the Rose Institute findings are very close to his findings. (It's in the Sacramento Bee article:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/13631831p-14474331c.html)

I'm not surprised that the defenders of the redistricting statis quo are attempting to shoot the messenger, but could they aim a few of those shots Bruce's direction instead of entirely at the Rose?

But seriously, the debate about the Rose being Republican is absurd. Those "Republicans" who mythically ran the Rose in the early years included Rose Board Members March Fong Eu and Jess Unruh. Somehow I don't think either one of them (or Bruce Cain) is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Let's discuss the facts of the issue, not this distracting baloney.