By JOHN HRABE

My list of 10 Ways To Improve the Redistricting Process has elicited a large number of thoughtful responses from experts in the Capitol. One legislative office told CalWatchDog.com that they’re investigating whether any of the reforms can be introduced as legislation this term.

I’ve culled through the feedback and assembled a revised list of recommendations and observations based on the experts, many of whom were directly involved in the redistricting process. The only organization that didn’t send us feedback was the one group we asked: the California Citizens’ Redistricting Commission.

1. Hiring Process:  The Commission’s hiring process for staff and consultants should be fully transparent.  Full transparency means that applicants’ names and applications should be made public and the public should have an opportunity to comment on the applicants prior to their hiring.  The Commission took the position, upon the advice of counsel for the Secretary of State, that employee hiring was a personnel matter that could be conducted without the disclosure of applications in closed sessions.  This was inconsistent with the letter and spirit of full transparency set forth in the Voters First Act, Proposition 11, enacted in 2008.

2. Bi- Partisan Staff and Consultants: The Commission’s staff and consultants should be bi-partisan or multi-partisan.  With the exception of the Commission’s public relations person, all Commission staff and consultants were ideological liberals or Democrats.  Executive Director Daniel Claypool and Staff Attorney Marian M Johnston are liberal Democrats.  Karin McDonald, the mapping consultant for Q2, and Ana Henderson are progressives to the left of the Democrats.  Moreover, the same can be said of consultants Matt Barreto and Justin Leavitt.  Significantly, the Gibson Dunn firm’s ostensible bi-partisanship was undermined by apparent, early and continued exclusion of Dan Kolkey from significant participation. When there is no balance, there is no check.  Checks and balances could have averted some of the partisan unhappiness at the end of the process.

3. Advance Publication of Commission Documents Under Bagley-Keene: The Commission should fully comply with Bagley-Keene.  Disclosure of action documents at the time they are considered does not comply with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act of 2004, and also led to unnecessary acrimony and public unhappiness.

4. Decision-Making Process: The Commission’s approach to its decision-making process needs to change.  The first draft maps weren’t the ones the Commission could have adopted, since they failed to meet the six legal criteria in Prop. 11.  The cancellation of the scheduled releases of the second draft maps meant that the public was deprived of a stationary target for its comments, and resulted in the “final” maps being disclosed only at the end of the process when public comment became totally ineffectual.  The Commission solicited but did not evaluate outside organizations’ statewide and regional maps.  The Commission directed staff only to present one final map of each type, depriving Commissioners of the option to choose among competing, and equally-compliant map alternatives.  All of these deficiencies in process affected the opportunity for effective comment.

5. Conflict of Interest Criteria: The Bureau of State Audits’ conflict of interest criteria did not provide full public disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Among the problems: Gabino Aguirre failed to disclose all his political contributions as well as his organizational affiliation with CAUSE, a group that was a participant in the Commission’s process. Commissioners also failed to update their conflict information (the disclosures were not updated after the initial applications).  Were stricter conflict of interest provisions applied to commissioners, Dr. Aguirre and perhaps other commissioners would have been disqualified from participating in some substantive and personnel decisions of the Commission.

6. Out-of-Meeting “Decision Making”: Commissioner Michael Ward has alleged that the commissioners conducted decision making during informal meetings and meals outside the Commission meetings.  Whether this allegation was correct or not, there was the opportunity associated with these off-hours activities for such out-of-meeting decision making activities whether or not the motive to make decisions out of meeting was present. While common communications should not be restricted, the Commission needs to adopt reasonable standards and procedures to limit actual or apparent out-of-meeting decision making, and to obtain additional ethics guidance that reflects Bagley-Keene Act limitations applicable to state officials.

7. Ex Parte Communications: The Commission should adopt or improve ex parte communication disclosure rules. Ex parte communications occur in informal situations when Commissioners are meeting or speaking with members of the public or in private meetings.

8. Racial and Ethnic Diversity: The issue of racial and ethnic diversity requirements needs to be addressed and is being litigated in the case, Connerly v. State Board of Audits and Citizens’ Redistricting Commission. The courts will almost certainly resolve whether the statutory requirements comply with Proposition 209 before the 2020 cycle.

9. Population Deviation: Population deviation was one of the most contentious topics for this commission as the Democrats sought to have as much as a 5 percent population deviation while two Republicans sought to have a 1 percent deviation. The commission implemented a 2 percent population deviation standard, double what some legal experts advised. The larger population deviation allows for more freedom to craft districts or engineer them toward a goal.  The larger the deviation, the more wiggle room to shift people into neighboring districts. A 1 percent population deviation would create more city splits throughout the state, but would greatly limit how much extra-constitutional engineering can be accomplished.

10. Nesting: The requirement to nest state Senate districts should be moved up in the rank of ordered constitutional criteria as its intent was to prevent the gerrymandering of the Senate maps. Nesting is where two Assembly districts are combined to form a Senate district. Theoretically, all 80 Assembly districts could be nested into the 40 Senate district. But the commission only nested three senate districts. That was miserable failure and complete disregard for this requirement.  The requirement to nest was ranked lower than “communities of interest.” That allowed the commission to cut-and-paste together any areas they deemed appropriate, instead of joining neighboring assembly districts.

11. Transcripts: Searchable meeting transcripts must be made available to public within 48 hours of a meeting (not up to 4 months later).

By JOHN HRABE

Parents and gamblers have a hard time being objective.

“If you ever put that much money on a pony, you kind of like it when it rounds home,” the self-described “proud father” of the Citizens Redistricting Commission, Charles T. Munger Jr., told a redistricting conference last September. Munger financed the Proposition 11 and Proposition 20 initiatives that instituted the commission.

Last month, Munger’s problem child received an undeserved stamp of approval from the California Supreme Court. Or, if you prefer the gambling analogy, the commission’s maps won because all other maps were disqualified as illegitimate contenders. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s decision is rewriting the redistricting history to eliminate all mention of the commission’s flubs. “The Commission-certified Senate districts also are a product of what generally appears to have been an open, transparent and nonpartisan redistricting process as called for by the current provisions of article XXI,” the court wrote in the first draft of California’s redistricting history.

That might be the worst unintended consequence of the court’s decision: an endorsement of a flawed process that desperately needs fixing. The redistricting commission ran over budget, failed to deliver its three draft maps for public input, went dark and reversed its call for public input, relied on outside help to make data publicly available and even had one meeting end in tears. In mid-July 2011, editorial boards were berating the commission. (See the Ventura County Star, the Los Angeles Daily News, the San Diego Union Tribune and the Santa Cruz Sentinel editorials.) Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye was looking into hiring map-drawing consultants.

“The process that the Citizens Redistricting Commission used as a first time effort should not be replicated without significant systemic revision,” Commissioner Mike Ward told me via email. Matt Rexroad, a partner with Meridian Pacific and redistricting expert, offered a few suggestions in a Sacramento Bee opinion piece back in October. Editorial boards and good government groups should set aside their hatred of Republicans and give Rexroad’s reforms a serious look. CalWatchdog has assembled our own list of reforms.

1. Deliver Draft Maps on Schedule as Promised

Problem: The commission promised three draft maps for public input, but failed to deliver anything but the first draft. “Not only did they completely abandon the first draft maps, but they failed to release another complete set of maps until the day prior to the vote,” Rexroad wrote in his second suggestion. The visualizations encouraged the commission to fluctuate back and forth between angry interest groups. When the commission announced it was skipping the second draft maps, Dan Walters described it as taking “the process behind semi-closed doors.” Not so open and transparent, after all.

Solution: Listen to KQED’s John Myers. He first pointed out that the commission confused its legal timeline. “The commission is operating under the belief that the final maps should be available for public inspection for two weeks before being certified on August 15,” he wrote in mid-July. “However, a review of both Proposition 11 and Proposition 20 — the templates for the process — reveals no requirement for that lengthy of a review, other than the public have notice of any meeting at least 14 days in advance.” Two extra weeks could have made the difference between draft maps and visualizations.

2. Adopt an Email Retention Policy to Preserve the Public Record & Ban Private Email Accounts

Problem: It’s never been reported, but Karin McDonald, the mapping consultant for Q2, demanded that commissioners communicate with her about redistricting business via her private email account, not her government email account. Peter Scheer, the executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, has written extensively about why government agencies shouldn’t be allowed to conduct government business via private email accounts. McDonald’s motives are unclear because the emails aren’t public. The commission never had an explicit policy forbidding such behavior or mandating the retention of private email records.

Solution: Adopt Peter Scheer’s three-point email retention policy. Read it here.

3. Commission Oversight: Swap the State Auditor for the FPPC

Problem: The State Auditor was the wrong state agency to monitor redistricting commissioners for potential conflicts of interests. The State Auditor has minimal understanding of the intricacies of campaign finance laws and is a poor choice to review the backgrounds of the commissioners and their families. A memo from the State Auditor’s office that was provided to CalWatchDog.com by an agency spokeswoman described their background searches as “routine” and “obviously rather brief.” 

Solution: Require the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state agency responsible for administering conflict-of-interest documents, to conduct all campaign finance background checks of redistricting commissioners.

4. Campaign Finance Restrictions: Lower the Disclosure Amount to $100

Problem: A campaign contribution is protected political speech because the donation itself is an expression of support for a candidate. It’s not just what the money can buy. Commissioner Gabino Aguirre’s $100 contribution to Assemblyman Das Williams, D-Santa Barbara, wasn’t going to make or break the Democrat’s campaign. However, it showed a potential conflict of interest. It was evidence that Aguirre liked and supported Williams for state office. But redistricting commissioners were only required to close donations of $250 or more. 

Solution: Lower the redistricting commissioner disclosure threshold to $100 for campaign or political contributions. The $100 threshold will match state campaign finance law.

5. Campaign Finance Restrictions: Add Business Contributions to the Disclosure Requirements

Problem: Within 18 months of her appointment, Commissioner Jeanne Raya’s business made four campaign contributions to a state political action committee. The business contributions were sizeable, totaling $1,000. Former chairman of the Fair Political Practices Commission Dan Schnur said, “The applicant should have listed the contribution: a contribution from a business in which you are the principal is a legitimate indicator of political involvement.” 

Solution: Require commissioners to disclose campaign contributions made on behalf of businesses and organizations in which the applicant serves as a principal officer.

6. Improve Commissioner Disclosure Forms

Problem: State law requires all redistricting commissioners to complete a supplemental application, in which applicants must: “Describe the professional, social, political, volunteer, and community activities in which you have engaged that you believe are relevant to serving as a commissioner, as discussed in Regulation 60847.” This self-disclosure of facts that “you believe are relevant” grants commissioners too much leeway to play innocent later.

Solution: Use the history and public record from this year’s redistricting process to compile a list of relevant organizations. We have an example of the wide range of various community and special interest groups that testified or lobbied the redistricting commission. Compile a list of all organizations and provide a supplemental sheet with specific examples.

7. Sequester Commissioners from Personal Interests, Affiliations and Geographic Bias

Problem: Commissioner Aguirre influenced the commission’s Central Coast maps to favor his political allies at the Central Coast Alliance for a Sustainable Economy. Even if commissioners can set aside personal biases, the commission’s code of ethics requires commissioners to “disclose actual or perceived conflicts of interest to the Commission.” Aguirre wasn’t alone. Other commissioners allowed personal histories with geographic areas to affect their map-drawing decisions. (See Rexroad’s Number 8.)

Solution: Sequester commissioners from mapping decisions from affiliated groups, personal and professional relationships and relevant geographic regions.

8. Hire a Neutral In-Process Reviewer to “Check the Checker”

Problem: In his speech at the August 15 press conference, Commissioner Ward outlined why an in-process reviewer was necessary: “This commission also failed on the openness and transparency front, when it failed to adopt an in-process review, a system to ‘check the checker’ to validate that information was accurate, forthright and correct. In one instance, I found that mapping consultants had incorrectly represented the public’s comments.” The commission almost went forward with an in-process reviewer but, according to John Eastman and Charles Bell, writing on the Flash Report, had to backpedal when “a public outroar ensued.”

Solution: Hire an in-process reviewer to evaluate the commission’s work and guarantee that the reviewer is independent and unaffiliated with commissioners, commission staff or mapping consultants.

9. Ban Partisan Hiring Decision or Require Bipartisan Hiring Practices 

Problem: The first time Republicans’ feathers got ruffled was when the commission hired Q2 as the lead mapping consultant. According to the Sacramento Bee, “Q2 met bidding requirements only after a last-minute change by the commission, which initially demanded experience in redistricting projects involving about 2 million people but dropped the standard to about 300,000.” Add the Rose Institute’s disqualification, and you’ve got at least the appearance of biased staffing decisions. Ironically, Doug Johnson of the Rose Institute was one of the first people to argue that the commission didn’t violate the Voting Rights Act with the Los Angeles County congressional splits. (See his quote in my City Journal piece.) There’s no question that Johnson and the Rose Institute would have provided neutral advice to the commission. The commission should have hired Rose and Q2 to avoid partisan complaints. 

Solution: Don’t amend any “invitations for bid” at the last minute and always hire both a Republican and a Democratic mapping consultants.

10. Honesty: Disclose that Commissioners Know How Incumbents Are Affected 

Problem: Proposition 11 mandates, “The place of residence of any incumbent or political candidate shall not be considered in the creation of a map.” The worst secret of the redistricting commission is that commissioners knew where incumbents lived. Emails from the public referenced how incumbents were affected by the draft maps. The commission’s press office distributed news roundups about all redistricting stories, which included the media’s horse race and campaign analyses. Of course, Aguirre knew where Williams lived because he contributed to his campaign. 

Solution: Come out with the secret. Disclose on the record at the start of the process where all incumbents live. It’s better than hiding or pretending that the commission is ignorant.

(See the related article from yesterday by John Hrabe, “CA GOP ‘Idiots’ Lose State Senate.”)

By JOHN HRABE

Back to the campaign drawing board for California Republicans.

The California Supreme Court recently upheld the maps drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

The immediate fallout: State Sen. Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, told his hometown paper that he wouldn’t seek reelection, due to the unfavorable maps approved by the court. In another swing seat, Republicans have yet even to field a candidate. State Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Moorpark, announced that he wouldn’t seek reelection in order to run for a new seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

If Republicans lose both state Senate seats, their Senate caucus will be reduced to fewer than 14 members, the all-important two-thirds threshold that gives Republicans the ability to block tax increases. At 13 Republican and 27 Democratic state senators, Democrats in the Senate could vote to impose infinite tax increases.

“It’s going to be seriously difficult for Republicans to stay above one-third in the Senate because of this,” California Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro complained to the Mercury News. “It puts the two-party system in the Senate in jeopardy.”

$2.1 Million Dollars for Useless Referendum

Republicans can now put a cost on their defeat: $2.1 million.

According to its fourth quarter campaign finance report, the Republican group Fairness & Accountability in Redistricting spent a whopping $2.1 million on its effort to put the new state Senate maps to a vote in November. The committee collected $1.7 million, or 80 percent, of its funding from the California Republican Party. That’s money that a cash-depleted party could have invested into voter registration programs for the three competitive state Senate districts.

“The CRP already spent a few million dollars on the referendum and varied lawsuit, all this while one of their best senate candidates, Jeff Miller, has no million-dollar voter registration program and can’t even afford a new URL,” observed the January 30th Redistricting Partners newsletter.

But it didn’t have to end this way for Golden State Republicans. Not if they’d followed the old maxim: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Lesson One: Research redistricting commissioners and use legislative strikes wisely.

Propositions 11 and 20 gave legislative leaders of both parties the power to strike up to two names from the final applicant subpool of redistricting commissioners. Republican leaders could have spent a few thousand dollars on opposition research reports on the backgrounds of redistricting commissioners. Or they could have spent just a few hours cross-checking applicants against the state’s campaign finance database. Had anyone at the California Republican Party done a few hours of research, they’d have discovered several campaign contributions by two commissioners.

Back in July 2011, CalWatchDog.com first reported on two redistricting commissioners’ partisan histories and campaign contributions. Commissioner Jeanne Raya failed to disclose four contributions totaling $1,000 made on behalf of her business to a state political action committee.  State law requires commissioners to disclose any civic, political or charitable donations of $250 or more.

Commissioner Gabino Aguirre made three campaign donations to Democratic candidates for state office. In November 2008, Aguirre contributed $100 to Ferial Masry, the Democratic nominee for the 37th State Assembly District. A year later, he made a $200 contribution to Gloria Romero, a former Democratic state senator. Aguirre also has extensive ties to a redistricting special interest group, the Central Coast Alliance United for A Sustainable Economy (CAUSE). The progressive social justice organization submitted its own redistricting maps for the Central Coast. It’s no coincidence that Blakeslee and Strickland’s seats, which are now likely to flip to the Democrats, are both on the Central Coast.

With just a little bit of research, Republicans could have made an educated decision to strike Raya and Aguirre. But Republican legislative leaders didn’t want to spend the money. One high-level staffer described Republican legislative leaders’ approach to the redistricting process as “an inexcusable reluctance to spend the resources to research the background of the commissioners.” Another senior staff member for a Republican legislator put it simply, “The truth is we’re idiots.”

While neither staffer wanted to be identified by name, one Republican political consultant openly defied party leadership in an attempt to save the GOP from itself.

“When you start the process telling people not to be involved and then end the process complaining that others were too involved, you have created your own emergency,” wrote Matt Rexroad, a partner with Meridian Pacific, in his rant for Capitol Weekly. “The issue that really galls me is that Republicans can cry foul all they want, but legislative leadership made it very clear that they did not want any Republican consultants to engage on redistricting.”

Lesson Two: Focus on the flawed process, not self-interested outcomes.

If they had been consistent in their objections, Republicans could have convinced the public that the redistricting process was flawed.

Republicans were right: the redistricting process was corrupted by special interest groups. Background research could have helped expose Aguirre, but the full extent of his partisan activities couldn’t have been fully brought to light in time for the legislative strikes.  That’s because Aguirre’s last and most egregious contribution, a $100 check to Democratic Assemblyman Das Williams, posted to the Secretary of State’s website nine days after the Bureau of State Audits completed its background check.

Williams had a vested interest in redistricting. Yet the commission took no action to disclose this potential conflict of interest or sequester Aguirre from Williams’ region. They did the opposite. Aguirre was put in charge of overseeing the Central Coast mapmaking.  He promptly adopted the maps suggested by his friends at CAUSE.

Jerry Roberts and Phil Trounstine, who have been highly-critical of the Republicans’ redistricting referendum, questioned the cause of Willliams’ redistricting good fortune. “When you look at Williams’ new 37th Assembly district, which is about as safe for him as can be, along with the new 19th SD, the future of the hyper-ambitious young pol looks bright indeed, whether he sits still for two more, two-year terms in the Assembly, or jumps into a 2012 race that could bring two four-year terms in the senate. Coincidence? You be judge,” the CalBuzz team wrote back in August.

Republicans didn’t concentrate on this message, in part, because they liked the configuration of the State Assembly maps. They also ignored the Voting Rights Act violations with the congressional maps because those were favorable to high-ranking House Republicans. Instead, Republicans voluntarily swapped a message about the flawed process for a pity-party about losing one-third control of the State Senate.

Lesson Three: Don’t look a gift commissioner in the mouth.

Redistricting Commissioner Mike Ward, an Orange County chiropractor with no prior involvement in state politics, demonstrated a more coherent message than Republican political pros.

“The Citizens Redistricting Commission has certified maps that are fundamentally flawed as a result of a tainted political process,” Ward said at the commission’s August 15 press conference. “This commission simply traded the partisan, backroom gerrymandering by the Legislature, for partisan, backroom gerrymandering by average citizens.”

Then Ward did what you’re supposed to do when you object to a corrupted process: he voted against all of the proposed maps. He didn’t cherry-pick maps based on those that would help his political party. The Senate referendum quashed Ward’s message about the flawed process. If the process was corrupted, why only challenge one set of four maps? Republicans’ inconsistent message impressed upon the press, public and ultimately the State Supreme Court that the referendum was motivated by partisan interests.

Lesson Four: Courts are influenced by public opinion.

Republicans’ last error with its redistricting message came with the referendum lawsuit. Republicans turned the lawsuit into a legal argument about the rule of law, the right to referendum and the will of the voters.

“In the law, the word ‘stay’ has a clear meaning. To ‘stay’ an action means to stop that action. The most authoritative legal dictionary of American law defines ‘stay’ as, ‘To stop, arrest, forbear.’ To ‘stay’ an order or decree means to hold it in abeyance, or refrain from enforcing it.” Black’s Law Dictionary, at 1267 (5th ed. 1979).

Assemblyman Don Wagner wrote in the Flash Report, “Thus, because the petition is ‘likely to qualify,’ the Supreme Court was directed by the Constitution to ‘refrain from enforcing’ the Commission’s Senate maps. In short, the California Constitution, with a simple, four letter word of indisputable meaning, stays or stops the use of the Commission lines until the people have their say on those lines at the ballot box.”

Legally, Wagner may be right. But, who cares? Not even the Supreme Court cared about legal precedents or Black’s Law Dictionary when public opinion stood on the other side.

Said the court’s unanimous opinion, “The Commission-certified Senate districts also are a product of what generally appears to have been an open, transparent and nonpartisan redistricting process as called for by the current provisions of article XXI.” In other words, the Court was influenced by press accounts and public opinion when deciding what to do with the redistricting mess.

In their stories about the court decision, neither the Los Angeles Times nor Sacramento Bee included a word about the corrupted process. Mike Ward was left out completely.

By the end of the redistricting scandal, Republicans had so badly muddled their message that there was no longer any reference to a corrupted process.

(Related: 10 Ways to improve the Citizens Redistricting Commission.)

By JOHN SEILER

Yesterday the California Citizens Redistricting Commission released its final maps, which already are generating lawsuits to overturn them.

In recent weeks, CalWatchDog.com ran an exclusive series of articles, by John Hrabe, exposing the process. He documented how two of the commissions, instead of being “independent,” were Left-oriented political activists. State Auditor Elaine Howle failed to do her job in vetting the applicants for commissioner.

Apparently relying partly on the CalWatchDog.com series, redistricting expert Tony Quinn wrote:

Dante condemned those who betray a public trust to the hottest place in hell. My candidate for Dante’ inferno this week is State Auditor Elaine Howle, who created the poll of candidates that formed the Citizens Redistricting Commission, now thankfully in its final weeks of existence….

Commissioner Gabino Aguirre managed to obtain a Senate district for his friend, Democratic Assemblyman Das Williams, in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. Aguirre made a campaign contribution to Williams after he was in the running for membership on the commission, and then helped craft the new Williams district without disclosing his contribution to anyone. He also helped draw the district intended to end the career of GOP Sen. Tony Strickland. Aguirre hosted a fund raiser in 2008 for the candidate running against Strickland’s wife, the then Ventura Assembly member. These are the kind of people Howle thought were “impartial,” the primary criterion for a commissioner.

What a sham.

The Hrabe articles can be read here:

Part 1 of the Redistricting Series: “Gabino Aguirre’s Secret Political Past.“

Part 2 of the Redistricting Series: “Did Gabino Aguirre Flout Code of Conduct?“

Part 3 of the Redistricting Series: “Chart Shows Aguirre Conflicts of Interest.“

Part 4 of the Redistricting Series: “Jeanne Raya Failed to Reveal Donations.“

A year and a half ago I was the first person to predict that, in 2012 or 2014, redistricting would bring Democrats two-thirds majorities in both houses of the California Legislature. My March 10, 2010 article, “Census Pushing Dems to 2/3 Majority,” still is relevant reading.

Demographic changes were the main reason. Immigrants in recent years have voted about 70 percent Democratic. More immigrants, more Democrats.

Looks like it will be 2012, thanks to a boost from the so-called “independent” California Citizen Redistricting Commission. Reports the Bee:

An independent California commission has set the stage for what could be the largest shake-up of the state’s political system in decades – and potentially give Democrats a two-thirds majority in both houses of the Legislature.

As John Hrabe has reported on CalWatchDog.com in a series or articles, the commission has been seriously compromised by the previously undisclosed, radical political ties and high Democratic partisanship of commissioners Gabino Aguirre and Jeanne Raya.

The Bee:

California Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro was laying the groundwork Monday to fight some or all of the maps, saying attorneys were considering either a lawsuit or a referendum that would place the issue before voters.

Asked if the commission’s final product would give Democrats a two-thirds majority in the Legislature, Del Beccaro said simply, “I think it has raised the stakes for that considerably.”

Legal challenges could get the whole mess thrown out, with the maps drawn by the state Supreme Court, as happened in 1991. Meaning the entire process of involving “independent” citizens was a typically Californian waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

They would have been better off turning a state map into a gigantic jigsaw puzzle, throwing the pieces up in the air, then reassemblying them at random.

July 26, 2011

JULY 25, 2011

By JOHN HRABE

A second member of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission,  Jeanne Raya, failed to disclose financial contributions made within the past 18 months to a state political campaign committee, according to documents reviewed by CalWatchDog.com. Ten days ago, CalWatchdog.com first reported Commissioner Gabino Aguirre’s failure to disclose three campaign contributions, one of which was made nine days after the State Auditor completed its background investigation.

The Jeanne Raya revelation raises new questions about the California State Auditor’s background investigation of redistricting applicants, which a high-level commission official described as being “invisible” and a memo from the auditor’s office admitted was “brief” and “routine.”

Raya is listed as the “Agency Principal” on the website for John L. Raya Insurance Agency, Inc. and reported ownership of the company on her 2010 Form 700: Statement of Economic Interests. But she failed to disclose to the commission four donations of $250 made by the company since March 2010.

The state’s former campaign finance watchdog believes that the contributions should have been reported, even though they were made through a business account.

“The applicant should have listed the contribution: a contribution from a business in which you are the principal is a legitimate indicator of political involvement,” explained Dan Schnur, former chairman of the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state agency responsible for administering  conflict-of-interest documents. “Someone who contributes to a PAC involves themselves politically just as much as if they had given to a cause.”

Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California, believes that the commissioner’s failure to disclose business contributions could have been a “legitimate misunderstanding” by the applicant. He put the onus on the state’s independent review process to fully bring to light any potential conflicts.

“It’s up to the State Auditor’s Office to determine whether it meets up to the letter of the law,” Schnur said. “In fairness to the state auditors, they are very capable people who don’t have a background in campaign finance.”

The California State Auditor’s office refused CalWatchdog.com’s repeated attempts to clarify whether the Auditor’s office intended for applicants to disclose contributions made through business accounts, or whether state auditors checked for political contributions made by applicants’ businesses.

“The staff checked for contributions made by those 120 applicants and family members,” Margarita Fernández, chief of public affairs for the California State Auditor’s Office, wrote in an email response to CalWatchdog.com. “If something came to their attention they could make additional inquiries.”

Taint of Partisanship

John J. Pitney, Jr., the Roy P. Crocker Professor of American Politics at Claremont McKenna College, believes that the state auditor had an obligation to “go as far as legally possible” to uncover conflicts of interest.

“The whole idea of the commission was to remove any taint of partisanship or self-dealing, ” he said. “The auditor should have gone as far as legally possible in uncovering any potential conflicts of interest.”

A high-level commission official with intimate knowledge of the State Auditor’s review process described the process as “invisible.” The source, who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution by the commission, added that they were “unaware of any check performed beyond reviewing  application materials.”

A memo from the State Auditor’s office that was provided to CalWatchDog.com by an agency spokeswoman confirms the anonymous source’s account of the process. The memo refers to the background searches as  “routine” and  described its own reports as “obviously rather brief.”

The review process by the State Auditor consisted of four key components, all of which relied heavily on information that was self-disclosed by applicants. State auditors started by “performing a routine search for information about every applicant from an established list of public and private sources.” The memo’s appendix lists a “Google search” as the first component of this “routine information search.”

Other steps of the review process included “contacting at least one of the persons who wrote a letter of recommendation concerning each applicant” and “contacting each applicant to try to confirm the accuracy of the information.”

The commission’s supplemental application required applicants to: “List all of the monetary and non-monetary contributions of $250 or more that you have made in any single calendar year during the past 2 years to any professional, social, political, volunteer, and community organizations and causes.”

The State Auditor’s Office established the $250 threshold through regulations, a standard that is lower than state campaign finance laws that require campaign committees to report contributions of $100 or more.

Contributions Are Support

Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, says that the significance of a $100 political contribution can vary based on individual circumstances, financial status or social obligations.

“But clearly it’s a contribution that indicates support, ” explained Smith, a Clinton appointee to the federal campaign agency who now teaches at Capital University Law School. “Only about 2 percent of Americans make political contributions — by definition, contributors of any amount are usually among the most politically active citizens.”

According to the California Secretary of State’s website, John L. Raya Insurance Agency Inc. has made four $250 contributions to the Insurance Brokers and Agents Candidate PAC since March 2010. Two contributions were made in March 2010, followed by two contributions in March 2011.

Under Schedule 2-A of her conflict-of-interest documents, Raya described herself as the company’s “Corp Secretary” with an ownership interest valued between $10,001-$100,000. State law requires officials to disclose any ownership interests of 10 percent or greater.

The failure to disclose political contributions also appears to violate the Commission’s Code of Conduct, which requires commissioners to “disclose actual or perceived conflicts of interest to the Commission.”

Part 1 of the Redistricting Series: “Gabino Aguirre’s Secret Political Past.“

Part 2 of the Redistricting Series: “Did Gabino Aguirre Flout Code of Conduct?“

Part 3 of the Redistricting Series: “Chart Shows Aguirre Conflicts of Interest.“

Part 4 of the Redistricting Series: “Jeanne Raya Failed to Reveal Donations.“

By JOHN HRABE

The following chart demonstrates the conflicts of interest for Dr. Gabino T. Aguirre, a commissioner for the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The conflicts are detailed in my articles for CalWatchDog.com:

Part 1: Gabino Aguirre’s Secret Political Past.

Part 2: Did Gabino Aguirre Flout Code of Conduct?

Following a CalWatchDog.com investigation by John Hrabe, California Republican Party Chairman Thomas Del Beccaro has written a letter to the California redistricting commissioners and Gov. Jerry Brown demanding that Commissioner Gabino T. Aguirre resign from the California Citizens Compensation Commission, or be removed. Part 1 of the investigation is here. Part 2 is here.

Here’s Del Beccaro’s letter:

.

.

.

.

By JOHN HRABE

New evidence obtained by CalWatchDog.com raises new questions about whether Dr. Gabino Aguirre, a member of California’s Citizens Redistricting Commission, violated the commission’s code of conduct and possibly state law by failing to disclose his association with a redistricting special interest group. The Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy (CAUSE), a politically active community-based organization, has submitted its own redistricting proposals to the commission and mobilized its staff members and volunteers to testify before the commission.

The Commission’s Code of Conduct, which is “considered binding on any person serving the California Citizens Redistricting Commission in any capacity,” sets forth restrictions on the behavior of commissioners. Among the code of conduct’s mandates, commissioners shall:

* “Speak the truth with no intent to deceive or mislead by technicalities or omissions”;

* “Disclose actual or perceived conflicts of interest to the Commission”;

* “Disclose information that belongs in the public domain freely and completely”

That second requirement, the disclosure of a perceived conflict of interest, appears to be a much higher standard of disclosure than the state regulations, which CalWatchDog.com initially cited in its first investigative report on July 15. State law requires all redistricting commissioners to complete a supplemental application, in which applicants must: “Describe the professional, social, political, volunteer, and community activities in which you have engaged that you believe are relevant to serving as a commissioner, as discussed in Regulation 60847.”

Rob Wilcox, a spokesman for the commission, failed to respond to two emails and a phone call requesting clarification about the policy.

CAUSE’s Maps

At a May 26th meeting in Northridge, Maricela Morales, CAUSE’s co-executive director, made a 25-minute presentation to the redistricting commission in which she presented the organization’s proposed maps for Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Ventura Counties. Yet, at no point during the presentation did she or Commissioner Aguirre disclose any prior relationship.

Just five days prior to CAUSE’s presentation to the commission, Morales and Aguirre testified on the same panel at the 2011 California State Conference of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). Aguirre appears to have been aware of the commission’s high standard of disclosure. According to the Ventura County Star, he promised conference attendees, “We have an open and transparent process where everything we say and everything we do is in front of the public.”

Last week, CalWatchDog.com first reported on Aguirre’s long history of involvement with the special interest group, a fact that was never fully disclosed on Aguirre’s application to serve on the commission. The Spring 2008 edition of CAUSE’s newsletter lists Aguirre as a member of its “Advisory Committee,” a position he retained until July 14, when CAUSE removed Aguirre’s name from its website.

Aguirre, who has repeatedly ignored CalWatchDog.com’s phone calls and emails requesting comment, is also listed in the Summer 2007 edition of CAUSE’s newsletter as the organization’s first Grassroots Supporter for a contribution of between $1-$499.

CAUSE Involvement

CAUSE is directly involved in the political process and organized “Get Out the Vote” efforts in the June 2010 primary and November 2010 general elections.

“In the weeks leading up to both the June 2010 primary and November 2010 gubernatorial election, CAUSE had conversations with over 40,000 new and infrequent voters in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties,” the group explained on its Web site.

Aguirre’s relationship with CAUSE could impact the redistricting process by offering favorable treatment to incumbent Democratic Assemblyman Das Williams. According to his campaign website, Williams previously served as the organization’s legislative analyst and led “the group’s efforts to stop a proposed Wal-Mart development in Ventura.” In the same Spring 2008 newsletter that listed Dr. Gabino Aguirre as a member of the CAUSE Advisory Committee, Williams made a plea for CAUSE volunteers to “gather signatures to qualify” and assist with the campaign to ban the big-box retailer.

CAUSE, which bills itself as a community-based organization, boasts of its strong ties with organized labor and progressive causes. In the December 2006 newsletter, the headline for a front page story reads “CAUSE Strengthens Ties with SEIU.” That’s the Service Employees International Union, one of the most radical of state unions. It recently funded a massive campaign calling for tax increases.

Under the website section titled, “Campaigns,” CAUSE described its preparation for a the June 2011 special election on the tax increases: “CAUSE and our many community and labor partners are now focusing moblizing volunteers to participate in phone banking and precinct walking around the critical upcoming June 2011 special election.” However, the June 2011 special election never was held as Republicans held fast in the Legislature to their opposition to tax increases.

Even Democratic politicians, including Gov. Jerry Brown, have been attacked for failing to meet the group’s extreme left-wing views. CAUSE’s Web site admonished volunteers of the repercussions from failing to mobilize voters:

The result: this year, the Governor of the state of California is trying to cut millions of dollars out of the Ventura and Santa Barbara school systems, eliminate the CalWORKS program for unemployed job seekers, and eliminate in-home services for the elderly. These cuts disproportionately impact poor and working people, and California’s small businesses. The Governor has NOT proposed asking California’s wealthiest citizens and largest corporations to delay their own tax breaks, or to pay their fair share to support essential services.

Redistricting Involvement

CAUSE has been one of the state’s most active organizations involved in the redistricting process. On February 2, 2010, CAUSE hosted a seminar to educate its members on how to apply for and be selected for the redistricting commission.  The group also mobilized volunteers to speak at commission hearings throughout the state.

Its activism appears to have paid off. Tony Quinn, a former Republican staffer and expert on redistricting, believes the current maps for the Central Coast are “very close to those proposed by CAUSE at the first public hearing in San Luis Obispo last winter.”