What Scandals?

In a recent post I discussed Mark Sanford's bid for congress after his infamous affair. A lot has happened since then. For one, the GOP has pulled support from Sanford's campaign after his strange family life took an even stranger turn. Meanwhile, Sanford is fighting for his political life in a current dead heat with his opponent, Colbert-Busch.
The trend of political redemption has continued in 2013 with Anthony Weiner making an exploratory committee for a potential New York City Mayor bid. Weinner has far less of a chance than Sanford, but its still a fascinating story line.
I still believe that scandals have a negative impact upon candidates. but there is certainly evidence to suggest otherwise.
For another story on the effects of political scandals, check out the blog How Politicians Communicate with the American People:

http://politicalcommunicationandmessaging.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-missing-impact-of-scandals.html
This blog has a conflicting view point and some interesting data to support it. I still believe that a politicians with scandals are a bad investment. I guess we will see for sure later in 2013 when Sanford and Weinner conclude their respective redemption campaigns.

Waters Backs Greuel, Bass Pick Garcetti

As the election is reaching its climax more and more elected officials and political celebrities are finally picking a side. Recently Maxine Waters chose to endorse Wendy Greuel, while Karen Bass chose to endorse Eric Garcetti. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0409-mayor-black-endorsements-20130409,0,1684436.story
Like so many other events in this campaign the endorsements led to a stalemate. Bass and Waters are two of the more prominent black representatives of Southern California. Garcetti and Greuel bothe need to garner support from the wide open black community. Endorsements from Waters and Bass were both highly sought after. In the end, neither candidate was able to secure support from both of them and so the endorsements would appear to cancel one another out. Jan Perry has endorsed Garcetti, but the pivotal battle for South LA still seems wide open.
The race is tight in many key demographics, but these late endorsements have helped give us a clearer picture of the candidates and their supporters. Kevin James endorsed Garcetti, as James felt he was the more conservative of the two remaining candidates. Waters is one of the most liberal politicians in the state and has chosen to endorse Greuel. It seems that Garcetti is beginning to position himself as somewhat of a moderate, although he did also aggressively court Waters' endorsement.
It interesting to watch these late endorsements role in. Often endorsers wait until the last minute to make a decision, this has been especially true in this close race. If you choose the losing candidate, its best to pick late so that your connection to the loser is brief in eyes of the public. And if you want to be viewed as political Nostredamus who always makes the right pick it is best to wait til the last minute. Being cautious and gauging how the wind is blowing before making a last minute decision increases your odds of being right. Waiting unttil the last minute is how many endorsers have come to be thought of as crucial endorsements, or political king makers.
As the race heats up and election day closes in we are sure to see many more important figures jump off the fence and finally make a decision between Garcetti and Greuel.

Mark Sanford Hiking the Campaign Trail

The year’s best April Fools joke was played a day late, and on the GOP. On April 2^nd Mark Sanford won the Republican primary for the 1^st congressional seat of South Carolina. Sanford has won the right to face Elizabeth Colbert Busch, who happens to be the sister of late night personality (and Super PAC owner) Stephen Colbert. The RNC has been thrust into a lose-lose situation. They can either get in a fundraising and media battle with Colbert to save a seat they have not spent money on in decades, or they can watch Colbert’s sister steal a historically red seat out from under them. Either option looks bad for a party relying on its stranglehold on both the South and the House of Representatives. This race is more than just a funny headline that ought be gracing the cover of The Onion; this is another example of the crossroads that must be faced by todays Republican Party.

            Incredibly, Sanford could potentially win, as recent polls have him behind Colbert Busch by as little as two points. This is a very wealthy and right-leaning district. It is also essentially the same district (after 2012 redistricting) as the one Sanford represented in the early 2000s.

 If Sanford does manage to win, the GOP must be questioning how beholden he will be to them. National and local Republicans did not exactly rush to Sanford’s aid when his scandal broke and many of them were certainly hoping that his opponent would win the Republican primary.

Has there ever been a bigger wild card politician than Sanford? He has risen like a phoenix out of his self inflicted ashes and seems determined to gain power once again. This man seems bound by nothing. His party will be supporting him only for congressional seat numbers, his constituents only because they are demographically far too conservative for Colbert Busch to truly represent their will. If he is elected, nothing will stop him from voting however he desires. The man truly has nothing to lose and no one to represent but himself.

Sanford has been running a campaign based on redemption. It’s a smart gambit. Bring up your affair before anyone else does and your opponents cannot talk about it. Ask your mistress to become your fiancé and take her on the campaign trail. Suddenly she has a name (Belen Chapur) and a face. He has repeatedly thanked her for her longstanding suffering. Voters are starting to feel sympathy for her. Sanford has turned his greatest weakness into a strength.

But there is someone else Sanford has been thanking besides his fiancé: God. Religion and forgiveness have become the backbone of this campaign. This is probably a good thing for Sanford, but it is definitely a bad thing for the conservative party.

The RNC is trying to move away from the stigma that their party is controlled by the far right wing and that Evangelical Christians make up the party base. In contrast, it appears Sanford will run on a social conservative platform.

If the RNC chooses to roll out big bucks to bail out Sanford, they will be forced to tap into campaign coffers meant for the all-important 2014 congressional elections. Republicans can simply not afford to lose their congressional majority.

The Republican Party is truly at a crossroads. They must abandon the tainted and extreme right wing elements of their party to have a fighting chance. The Republican party of the last eight years has been characterized as too old, uncompromising, sloppy, and stupid to win the big elections. They are trying to move in a new direction by placing the moderate Christie and Latino Rubio at the vanguard of their party.

The 2012 election gave them a jolt. Party leadership saw the writing on the wall and they have tried to change. They have taken some new more progressive stances on policy, most notably in immigration.

But they seem unable to help themselves from continuing to support bad candidates in important, public races.

How many Newt Gingriches and Mark Sanfords must the Republican Party suffer through before they decide enough is enough? Southern white males who philander are a bad investment. You do not see the DNC letting John Edwards out of his cage much these days.

Updating their party’s platform on key issues was a step. An actual effort to gain the Latino vote will help too. But until the RNC stops aiding candidates like Sanford, and even allowing them to run, their hopes for 2014 and beyond will look just as bleak as they did on November 7, 2012.

In a recent post I discussed the incredible low turnout of the Los Angeles' Mayoral primary. Informative Avenue (check out there blog here http://informativeavenue.wordpress.com/), commented suggesting that LA does care at least a bit more about the mayoral race than those March numbers suggested and that we can expect to see the turnout percentage pick up when Garcetti and Gruell finally have their showdown. I think these are some great points and that we can expect to see more interest in the race now that it is past a very non-competitive top two primary. I agree with these sentiments, but that being said I think there is another reason worth highlighting as to why LA has had extremely low turnout;  the Los Angeles vote by mail policies.
Los Angeles has some of the worst numbers for voting by mail, and registered voter who have chosen Permanent Vote by Mail. A poor PVM percentage tends to lead to a lower turnout. John Wildermouth of Fox & Hounds made a great case for Los Angeles shifting to a full vote by mail system.

"When the leading candidate for mayor, Eric Garcetti, collects the votes of fewer than 100,000 of the city’s 1.8 million registered voters, it’s not time for fiddling around the edges of voting rules. Go big or go home.
If Los Angeles really wants a truly representative election, the city needs to go 100 percent vote-by-mail. Right now.
It’s not that shocking an idea, really. More than half of California’s votes were cast by mail last November. For the lower turnout June primary, it was 65 percent.
Even in Los Angeles, which for a variety of historical reasons has one of the lowest percentages of permanent vote-by-mail voters in the state, more than 40 percent of those voting in last week’s election cast ballots by mail."

http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2013/03/if-you-want-voters-time-to-try-mail-only/

Wildermouth is certainly correct that LA's history and relationship with voting by mail is a complicated one, however the current major source of resistance is Dean Logan, the Registrar for Los Angeles County.
Logan has repeatedly gone on the record stating his beliefs against voting by mail.

In the New York Times: 'Dean C. Logan, the registrar for Los Angeles County, said the rate was partly a byproduct of the popularity of voting by mail in California and partly a function of how the state defines rejected ballots. Its definition includes ballots that voters requested but that the Postal Service returned to election officials as undeliverable.Voter behavior is changing and evolving,” Mr. Logan said. Young people do not sign their names as consistently as older ones, he said, and mail delivery is becoming less reliable.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/us/politics/us-voting-flaws-are-widespread-study-shows.html?_r=0

The county has the least money and policy invested into voting by mail, consequently LA County has had the lowest vote by mail percentages in the state, and now an overall voter turnout that is lower than the state average (in both the 2012 general and 2013 primary elections). Pretty embarrassing for on of the largest and wealthiest counties in the state. 

It is certainly true that we may me see an uptick in voter turnout now that Gruell and Garcetti are beginning to lay into each other a bit more and make this a more exciting campaign, but the fact remains that Los Angeles has a broken voting process. The state is rapidly moving toward a full vote by mail system (like that of Oregon). Logan's failure to keep pace has led to Los Angeles falling behind the state average in voter turnout.

Conflicting Consultants

California has become an increasingly expensive place to wage a campaign. This is especially true in the large expensive cities of Los Angeles and San Fransisco. Political consulting firms have grown more powerful over the last two decades, and one of the services they offer, direct mail, has become and expensive yet integral part of any successful candidate.
Since 2004, Mack|Crounse has been the industry leader of direct mail consulting. The firm has had a huge impact on the California political landscape, working for many progressive Democrats all across the state, they even worked on the Obama campaigns, and made millions along the way.
However, this past week Mack and Crounse split and the powerful firm dissolved.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/conflicting_interests_split_top_democratic_firm-223371-1.html?pg=1
It appears Crounse had been taking jobs for Democratic candidates who were running against fellow Dems in top two primaries. Crounse acted on their behalf unbeknownst to Mack through a shell corporation. Though none of the campaigns conflicted with Mack|Crounse clients directly, they were opposite many of the unions and organizations that employed Mack|Crounse.
When Mack heard the news, the firm folded. Both men have taken several employees from the old firm and plan to start new, competing firms.
Aside from being a bizarre and intriguing story, the breakup of Mack|Crounse has some immediate political implications. As one of the largest firms in the state, their breakup may create a power vacuum leading to the rise of several smaller up and coming firms. The two men will try to retain as many of their old clients as possible but remains to be seen how much of a consulting shuffle this will cause.
This story also highlights how modern California politics work. In a state now controlled by a Democratic super majority, Democrats pitted against Democrats has led to more and more uglier struggles between candidates, lobbyists, and consultants with similar visions. The top two primary has led to fiercer primary battles within parties. It has also become clear that direct mail is here to stay, especially in high populated areas like Los Angeles. Consultants have a growing role in California politics, as they experience economic growth it is imperative for a firm to prevent greed from blinding their overall vision and goals.

Paul Rand's Filibluster

The Junior Senator from Kentucky rose to speak, and he just kept on speaking. When he was finally done he had propelled himself to the vanguard of the Republican Party, in the process the sacred political institution of the filibuster received yet another blow. A few weeks ago nobody outside of Kentucky knew who Rand Paul was. At that time, the young guns of the Republican Party were Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, and Ted Cruz. Paul was not yet the Great Young Libertarian Hope of the RNC. Then Rand had his little Mr. Smith Goes To Washington moment and a star was born. A lot can change in thirteen hours. But in the midst of Rand’s big moment the filibuster took another hit. Paul’s and others actions have continued to change the definition of the filibuster. Once a quaint if not desperate attempt to give voice to the minority, the filibuster has morphed into an unstoppable monster that feeds off political gridlock.

When the dust and Paul’s throat had finally cleared, the Fifth amendment stood protected, Brennan was confirmed, and America was safe from diabolical murder drones. So what really happened? Paul’s coming out party happened, along with the birth of his 2016 presidential bid.

            This was never about Brennan. It was never about drones. It was never about the Fifth Amendment. It was about Paul.

            Shortly after his filibuster Rand spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Then he won the CPAC straw poll, usually a strong indicator of the next GOP presidential nominee.

            He gave a speech that sounded almost identical to the repetitive pseudo libertarian ideology that made up the majority of his filibuster. Suddenly Paul has a stump speech.

Obama used his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention to test out his stump speech upon the world. Paul was not the rising star he is today during the 2012 convention. Unlike Obama he did not have the opportunity to be the keynote speaker at the RNC convention.

So he took matters into his own hands. He found a way to twist a CIA nomination into a discussion of his solution for the struggling GOP’s identity crisis. Paul tried his stump speech out on the senate floor, and he found a way to make the whole world watch. You may only have caught a sound bite of Paul’s speech, but that’s all you needed to get the gist of his vision of an RNC 2.0.

It was a savvy political and marketing move. In the age of social media Paul managed to reach his target base of the “college libertarian” by one of the oldest, played out tricks in the book.

There is a great deal of irony in watching the 140-character Twittershpere blow up over a man rambling about nothing for thirteen hours. But the gambit worked and Paul’s name is trending; not just on twitter or Facebook but on traditional news outlets, and more importantly in 2016 presidential polls.

I do not fault Paul for making a thinly veiled personal move on the senate floor. Every senator in history has done that. I blame him for misusing the filibuster and thus adding ammunition to the growing movement to end or severely cripple it.

            Presidents Obama and Bush used so many executive orders that the American public has come to view that strategy as normal as opposed to extreme. In similar fashion the Republican Party has used or threatened to use the filibuster during the last few years more then any other time in U.S. history. It has been a successful strategy, but just as with executive orders, it is a misuse of a small constitutional loophole, almost an oversight.

            Many would argue for the destruction of the filibuster all together. Harry Reed has certainly grown sick of it and was behind the late January filibuster reforms. Reforms that were intended to streamline the process and make filibusters more rare.

            It seems those reforms did not work. I do not believe that any reforms would work; the inherent power of the filibuster is that once a legislator starts talking only his own body can really put a stop to him. There is no real way to change that.

Nor am I in favor of abolishing the filibuster. The filibuster has a certain mystique in the American political landscape. The great equalizer, it gives a voice to the minority in moments of desperation.

            The real way to stop filibusters, executive orders and the like is for congress to become a little bit less polarized. Political gridlock is the cause for these desperate measures. Republicans and Democrats need to take a step back and realize that as effective and attention drawing these filibusters and executive orders are they were never intended to be common components of the modern political lexicon.

            Paul claims his basic beliefs lie in opposing big government; and he believes that this same message appeals to the young base he is working so hard to gain. Ironically, I cannot think of a better example of big government then a half empty senate room held hostage by a self aggrandizing senator speaking on murder drones and his own future amid a government sequester.

            The filibuster is like a comet; they are entertaining to watch every now and again but I’d be all right if I did not see another one for seventy years.

How will the Sequester Impact Los Angeles?

We are now approaching week two of the sequester with no end in sight to the political gridlock that caused it in the first place. Perhaps we have all been distracted by a certain thirteen hour speech, but the sequester has not seemed to attract the same buzz and attention that the fiscal cliff reached. And that is a shame, because unlike the "fiscal cliff," sequester is a real word, is actually happening, and will have widespread affects, even here in Los Angeles. Unfortunately, no one is sure what exactly those affects will be.
If you are unfamiliar with the sequester, here is very informative article discussing the national implications it holds:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/20/the-sequester-absolutely-everything-you-could-possibly-need-to-know-in-one-faq/

But what about California? The above post claims that California stands to lose more jobs than just about every state; over 200.000. Only Virginia and Maryland (with their numerous D.C. and defense jobs) are in the same league.
However, the city of Los Angeles recently released a statement giving a much more specific breakdown as to which jobs and agencies are in danger:

http://ceo.lacounty.gov/pdf/portal/Sequestration%20022513.pdf

As you can see, the Departments of Public Health, Senior Services, and Community Development are the only programs that will be seeing significant cuts. LA also has defense interests and jobs, but not as much as other areas of California. So at first glance the outlook does not look so bad, but the comes the kicker:
"The ultimate fiscal impact of the 2013 sequester on the County cannot be determined at this time because non of the 12 FFY 2013 appropriation bills, which fund discretionary programs have been enacted. Instead, all discretionary programs are temprarily funded under a Continuing Resolution through March 27, 2013."
Healthcare and other Los Angeles service will currently see small cuts; if this sequester in not ended by the end of March, then we will begin to see major effect form the sequester at our local level.
With Los Angeles government in the middle of an election cycle, and fairly powerless to deal with such a federal matter, the city is forced to rely on a swift end to Washington gridlock. This week we have seen a thirteen hour filibuster over a nomination and the 5th amendment. Then on Saturday night President Obama made a few sequester jokes at the annual Gridiron Dinner (glad to see the sequester did not halt this important event). If Washington can not get it act together and push for something differnt then yet another stop gap that only pushes the deadlines ahead a few months, then Los Angles  and the rest of the country will face some serious cuts in services and jobs next month.

Poll Shows Mayoral Race to be Stuck Right Where it Began

The final poll for the mayoral election race finds Garcetti and Greuel in the lead with 27% and 25% of the vote respectively.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-poll-mayor-20130302-g,0,5632576.graphic
Conducted by the LA Times and USC, this poll shows what many all ready knew; this has all but become a two person race. But as we look ahead to the May election, it is important to notice what else this poll show us. No candidate had gained a real advantage and Los Angeles' citizens are not excited about this election.

'"Voters don't appear to have very strong feelings about anyone who's running or anything they're talking about," said Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh School of Politics at USC.
The USC Sol Price School of Public Policy/L.A. Times Los Angeles City Primary Poll found that both Garcetti and Greuel have had limited success in building a base among the major constituencies they have targeted. Their similar records and Democratic views have left them in something of a middling stand-off.'
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-poll-mayor-20130303,0,6577652.story

The two certainly have similar resumes. Garcetti has served on city council since 2001, Greuel since 2002. Both are lifelong politicians, though Greuel worked as an executive at Dreamworks from 1997-2002. Both are fairly progresive Democrats. Greuel has focused on her corruption ans waste cuts, Garcetti has pointed to hard budget decisions he has made while serving as city council president.

In failing to distinguish themselves from one another they have been unable to cultivate strong bases, something that will make this runoff more challenging for each candidate. Garcetti has ties with the Latino community, and though he leads that demographic, he has failed to truly win its support. This is an area he needs to improve in if he hopes to follow in the footsteps of Mayor Villaraigosa who controlled the Latino demographic in his wins. If Greuel (or Perry if she somehow sneaks through) would be the first female mayor of Los Angeles. Surprisingly this had little affect in the USC/LA Times poll.When asked what affect it would have for a candidate to be the first female mayor of Lo Angeles, 71% said it would have no affect at all.

Other than being the most experienced, big name candidates Greuel and Garcetti have failed to get many people outside of their districts to fully support them. Since the very first polls nothing has changed, Garcetti has a slim edge, he and Greuel seem destined for the runoff. Throughout this campaign Greuel and Garcetti have conducted a fairly friendly campaign, rarely going at one another. Garcetti has been a marginal frontrunner for much of the race, but everything will reset once this elecction finally boils down to Greuel and Garcetti on March 6. There is going to be about fifty percent of the electorate up for grabs. Greuel and Garcetti must find ways to separate themselves or else remain in a boring yet unpredictable stalemate, limping toward the finish line in May.

The Infinity Piece Puzzle: How Redistricting at Both the National and Local Levels have become a Decennial Nightmare

“The stakes are incredibly high, every congressman is keenly aware that redistricting looms.” –Tim Storey of the National Conference of State Legislatures

Redistricting decides just how much your vote counts, or does not count. It’s no wonder that politicians have redistricting dates marked on their calendars. The process decides the fate of their political career, their home district, and the future power of their party. Politicians have perfected redistricting to a science that allows them to keep control of an area for a decade. Every ten years, when the new census comes out, districts across the country (at both the local and national level) are redrawn. For the next year or two, redistricting will briefly be in the spotlight as committees and congressional bills decide whether your vote will count. Then the process returns to court cases, intellectual discourses, and the murky shadows of backroom politics; only to rear its head once again in another decade. Most people do not know how redistricting works or what affects it has upon their lives. Democrats and Republicans use redistricting as battle of tug of war that allows them to keep a stranglehold of their traditional power bases. This happens especially in large states across the country, especially in California and Texas, and for the purpose of this blog I will discuss the troubles redistricting practices of Los Angeles. The impetus for change must come from outside party lines. Redistricting can seem like an impossible problem, and perhaps a truly perfect district may never exist, but there is an elegant, albeit simple, mathematical solution that can remove the infighting and political elements of redistricting.

If redistricting creates so many problems why even go through the process? The history of redistricting is as long and complicated as the process itself; but redistricting has slowly became a more and more important issue due to the racial, population, and political party changes that our country has seen. First, one has to understand the difference between reapportionment and redistricting. Reapportionment determines how many congressmen, and thus also how many Electoral College votes a state will receive. Just like redistricting, this process also occurs once every ten years, and numbers are based on the U.S. Census. Reapportionment has nothing to do with party politics; there is no opportunity for gerrymandering, or any other form of manipulation to suit parties' desires. It is purely mathematical. Up until 1930 congress cycled back and forth between different mathematical models created by three famous early Americans politicians: Thomas Jefferson, Daniel Webster, and Alexander Hamilton. http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/scr/REDIST/red-us/redist-US.htm#N_9_. After the 1930 reapportionment, congress came up with the model that has been in use for every census after 1940. This is called “the method of equal proportion.” http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/2a. You can read the lengthy law from this link, but the basic idea is a simple math equation. “The formula uses the State's population divided by the geometric mean of that State's current number of seats and the next seat (the square root of n(n-1)). This formula allocates the remainders among the States in a way that provides the smallest relative difference between any pair of States in the population of a district and in the number of people per representative” (Reapportionment and Redistricting in the USA). These are basically the only words that the constitution has to say on the subject of reapportionment. The system is based on simple math, removes politics from the equation, and has gone unchanged since 1930. It is a shame that redistricting is not such an easy process.

Redistricting occurs when the states take census data, and the results of reapportionment, to determine districts for congressional, as well as state and local elections. Unlike reapportionment the process is highly politically charged process. There is not mathematical formula involved, no absolute right or wrong way to go about dividing up the cities and counties. Instead, long and contentious arguments arise as the legislature members argue over how to divide the state toward each individual’s party or personal advantage. Gerrymandering occurs when a district is redrawn in such a way that one party has gained a clear advantage over another. Though gerrymandering is technically illegal, the federal government does very little to stop it, and so it has become a frowned upon practice that happens in almost every state and is committed frequently by both parties.

Redistricting is primarily left to the states, but there is still some federal guidance. The most useful verbiage from the constitution concerning redistricting is as follows: “each state’s quota must be elected from single-member districts of equal population.” This is states’ rights at its finest. Do whatever you want, as long as the districts end up at about the same population size. Each state has a vastly different system for redistricting. Since there is such little guidance from the constitution, most federal regulations and laws come from the courts.

Two distinct population shifts have occurred, leading to courts mandating redistricting reform. As populations moved from rural to urban, states struggled to keep up and citizens of cities began to see their vote value diminish below those of lower populated rural areas. This led to several court cases, the most important of which was Baker v. Carr. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_6. The importance of Baker and subsequent cases was that it gave courts the authority to examine state redistricting plans, and to overturn them if necessary.

The second major shift occurred during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, as minority populations grew in size and power. The next step in redistricting regulation was the Voting Rights Act, a byproduct of Baker, and a law that would lead to even more Supreme Court redistricting cases. The VRA created the idea of “pre-clearance,” which gives the federal government the ability to examine certain state redistricting proposals, and act on them, before they become laws. As court cases about the VRA have arisen, the courts have created more guidelines about how redistricting should proceed.

Federal regulation for the redistricting process has come almost entirely from the courts, and this creates quite a few problems. Courts have no real ways to enforce their opinions and rulings. It can take years or even decades for a case to reach the supreme court; this creates a huge problem in redistricting when the law in question before the court can only last for eight to ten years until the next census. Finally, the two major demographic changes that the courts have allowed for are racial, and rural to urban population change. Prior to the above demographic shifts, there was also a change to the two party system, a third event that the courts have never accounted for. When Hamilton and Jefferson derived their mathematical reapportionment system, and founding fathers decided to leave the rest up to the states, they had no idea that we would end up with a bipartisan system. The Supreme Court is loathed to intermingle with political issues, and so while the Court faced race and population issues, it has had little to say about gerrymandering for purely political purposes.

The courts have had some impact upon redistricting regulations, but most decisions are still left up to the states. Each state has unique legislation to decide its districts, but there are two basic models. Districts are either redrawn by the legislature through bills that are crafted and approved by the state’s congress, or by a type of state redistricting committee. Thirty-seven states favor the legislation format, though it clearly lends itself more towards gerrymandering. Of the remaining thirteen states that have used redistricting reform to create committees, six states use political commissions, while seven use independent commissions. http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/national-overview-redistricting-who-draws-lines. The main difference between these two systems is that political commissions have less balanced committee members and are more likely to end up with gerrymandered districts. That said, each of the thirteen states have largely different sets of criteria for their commissions.

California is one of the seven states that use an independent commission, called the Citizens Redistricting Committee. Article 21 of the California State Constitution explains how the committee is set up and run. http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/downloads/meeting_handouts_012012/handouts_20120104_crc_caconst.pdf. “The commission shall consist of 14 members, as follows: five who are registered with the largest political party in California based on registration, five who are registered with the second largest political party in California, and four who are not registered with either of the two largest parties in California.” It takes nine concurring members to approve a vote. In theory this creates a purely unbiased committee. Of course in a more liberal state such as California there will still be some favoritism to the Democratic Party. Though no one has claimed that gerrymandering has occurred as a result of this committee, nonetheless there have still been complaints about the system and its results. In just this past fall election, Proposition 40 served as referendum that would have nullified the redistricting work of the CRS. However, it received little support, lost its backers and was defeated 72% to 28%. This was the same election in which California Democrats gained a super majority (basically giving them total control of the California legislative system) in over a decade. http://www.californiatargetbook.com/ctb/default/index.cfm. So while California may have one of the fairest systems in the country, the CRS has still led to redistricting controversy, and a state that has an extremely polarized, and often one-sided political landscape. The CRS may not deserve all the blame for California’s redistricting controversy, but committees are still an imperfect answer to the problem. That said, California system might be the closest in the entire country to a system void of political motivation.

When redistricting show up in the news, it is usually concerning a southern state seeking pre-clearance, a high profile court case concerning the VRA, or a state legislature mired in gridlock over a new redistricting plan. State and federal level efforts are highlighted, and the redistricting plans at the local level are largely ignored. However, local redistricting, especially in large cities, can be just as contentious and secretive of a process as what occurs in the legislature of any gerrymandering state. Here in Los Angeles, the city elections are less than a week away, and many of their outcomes have been heavily influenced or even predetirmined by the controversial redistricting that occurred in mid 2012.

Local politicians rarely register with a party, but LA politics are certainly not devoid of conflict, and the redistricting process can be brutal. This was especially true in 2012. Los Angeles does not have as impartial a system as the CRS, and instead has a borderline dysfunctional committee system. Los Angeles must create two forms of districts every ten years, City Council Districts (LACCRC), and Los Angeles Unified School Districts (LAUSD). I will be focusing on the LACCRC, which came into the spotlight for its continuous gridlock last summer.

Just like California, the LACCRC attempts to form an unbiased committee. Section 204 of the Los Angeles city charter explains the committee’s process and duties. Committee members are selected in a rather confusing manner:

There shall be a Redistricting Commission to advise the Council on drawing of Council district lines. The Commission members shall be appointed in the following manner: one by each Council member except that the Council President shall appoint two members, three by the Mayor, one by the City Attorney, and one by the Controller. No City officer or employee shall be eligible to serve on the Commission. The Redistricting Commission shall appoint a director and other personnel, consistent with budgetary approval, which positions shall be exempt from the civil service provisions of the Charter.

-       http://redistricting2011.lacity.org/LACITY/laws.html

One of the major flaws with this system is that within local politics, a syndrome of cronyism can easily arise when powerful parties are connected. The mayor, council president, and city attorney can easily be friends, and can easily stack the committee.  Section 204 is really quite basic and leaves much to be desired.

            Last summer the LACCRC struggled to complete their task of submitting a final plan by July 1^st. The city became bitterly divided, by race, class, politics, and a multitude of factors. “City Council President Herb Wesson told a group of Baptist ministers that the city was divided into factions, and that he was "able to protect the most important asset that we as black people have, and that's to make sure that a minimum of two of the council people will be black for the next 30 years" (LA Times). This comment and others like it have led to several pending legal cases against the final redistricting plan. In the end, the plan seemed to favor blacks and whites over Latinos. In “LA Observed” Bill Boyarsky commented that it was strange for a Latino Mayor to push in that direction, but left it at that, “writing it off as another example of the murkiness of Los Angeles Politics.” The LA Times took it a step further when discussing Wesson, “Perhaps Wesson and others were actually working to preserve black voting power, or to blunt Asian or Latino voting power. It appears at least as likely that they were using their redistricting power to punish enemies and reward friends and supporters.” The redistricting ended up not really being about a struggle between Democrats and Republicans or Latinos and Blacks, but rather an opportunity for the more influential city council members to shore up their districts. “Council President Herb Wesson and Councilman Jose Huizar are happy with their new districts. Wesson’s now includes Koreatown and mostly black Baldwin Hills and Leimert Park; Huizars’s now covers downtown Los Angeles” (http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_20217500/editorial-l-city-council-redistricting-an-inside-job).

            Wesson was not the only city council member to have an unfortunate outburst.

“An explosion of verbal fireworks set off the Los Angeles City Council's 90 minute discussion and vote on new district boundaries today as Councilwoman Jan Perry told the council president she regretted speaking out about what she saw as a corrupted process because it ultimately led to the destruction of her district.”

-       http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/17/los-angeles-redistricting_n_1355658.html

Perry saw her own district get cut to ribbons; the same district that lost parts of downtown to Huizar’s. Perry ultimately decided to run for mayor, perhaps partially in an attempt to settle the score, but trails considerably.

            Here is the end result of months of squabbles and backroom deals, a map that looks a bit arbitrary to any Angelino; http://graphics.latimes.com/la-council-redistricting-v3/. It seems that the LACCRC is little more than an attempt to give the outward impression that Los Angeles’ redistricting process is not a petty, political, popularity contest between the mayor and the city council.

Redistricting at the federal, state, and national level is in desperate need of reform. There are not enough federal mandates and a national precedent must be set (even with the understanding that every state’s needs and populations are different). There have been several different attempts and theories for redistricting reform in recent years. Committees like the one in use in the state of California certainly seem to be a step in the right direction, but after what I have witnessed in Los Angeles this Summer I believe that no matter how impartial a committee is intended to be it can always be manipulated to serve a darker purpose. Instead, I favor a simple mathematical solution based upon an algorithm.

There are several different proponents for this type of solution. Here is one presented by the Center For Range Voting: http://rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html. People fear the mixture of technology and voting, but this is not like a voting machine that could be rigged without anyone knowing. The method and equation is very simple, almost anyone could check the math. Race, religion, and political party preference have all been removed from the process creating fair normal looking districts for all fifty states. A team at George Washington University has also come up with a slightly more complex algorithm: http://redistrictingnow.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/the-k-means-algorithm/.

Pick any algorithm you like. Run them 1,000 times. Combine all the different models out there. It does not matter. What matters is getting political scientists and mathematicians to work together to get the politics out of redistricting forever. Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best options. We do not need 30 person committees to muddy the waters even more; we will see the results of such committees in one week after the Los Angeles election results come in. Meanwhile, drowned out by all the squabbling, simple math equations could provide the solution on how to permanently remove gerrymandering from the American political lexicon.

Ask Us Anything! Eric Garcetti and the future of online politics:

In 2008, and once again in 2012, Obama showed the world the power that the internet can have upon politics. This strategy seems to be trickling down across the country and is now being seen at the local levels of politics. Mayoral frontrunner (both in money raised and in the polls) Eric Garcetti recently took to Reddit to field a host of questions from Los Angeles' constituents.
Reddit is becoming a new way for politicians to reach out to their base and those who would normally ignore politics. Obama and Biden were two of the more notable recent candidates to utilize this medium. It should really come as no surprise that the progressive and youthful Garcetti would use Reddit. Having been called "the hipster candidate" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/eric-garcetti-la-mayor-hipster-candidate-2013-los-angeles_n_2499666.html
in this year's mayoral election.
In what is called an "AMA" or ask me anything post, Garcetti responded to a variety of questions ranging from transportation, to business, to marijuana.
Garcetti answered quite a few questions, in a quick manner that avoided slogans and promises and got down to his core ideas. It became quite easy to see what issues were truly important to him. This was especially apparent when he discussed his ideas for metro/rail reforms and improvements.
"We need to get the Wilshire extension moving and I am optimistic that the differences with some folks in BH can be addressed and settled. Most of the rail/busway lines that I would like to see have been at least in some initial planning stage. But some have just begun. For instance, I am very supportive of a transit tunnel through the Sepulveda Pass, with a transit line and a toll road--to help pay for the transit--finally relieving the most choked artery in this city. I'd like to see that connect to a north-south line in the San Fernando Valley that is badly-needed. I'm very supportive of the Crenshaw Line as well, but would like one day to see it extend north up towards the Beverly Center/Cedars-Sinai if possible."
He gives you a concise clear vision of what he would like to achieve. If there is one thing that was unfortunate about this AMA it was that in the short answers details can be vague, but when he was talking about issues that his close to home Garcetti gave some very strong answers.
I really love that Garcetti was unable to dodge issues here - obviously he can choose to ignore a question and leave it unanswered - but everyone can see when a question goes ignored. He got asked some hard hitting questions (such as the ludicrous salary city council members currently make) and for the most part he answered them. And the entire conversation is still sitting there, plain for the world to see, nearly a month after the AMA began.
Long after Garcetti stopped responding to questions and comments, people within the Los Angeles "subreddit"continue to debate and discuss Garcetti and the other candidates for mayor. Reddit is creating a forum that allows candidates and their oposition to examine what people like and dislike about a candidate. Perhaps this can become a tool that strategists can use in similar ways to focus groups. But at its best this goes beyond a user friendly polling or vote gaining tool; this dialogue between candidate and constituent allows for an open, honest discussion of policies and ideas free from moderators, bumbling reporters, and pre-approved debate questions. It is a perfect tool for local level politics.

Mayoral Race Narrows - Garcetti and Greuel Compete for Hollywood

The Race for Los Angeles' next mayor increasingly seems to have become a battle between Wendy Greuel and Eric Garcetti. They have yet to really go after one another - certainly no real attack ads - but one of their more public power struggles seems to be shaping up over Hollywood.
Patrick Range McDonald recently wrote about this battle for the stars in LA Weekly:
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2013/01/wendy_greuel_mayor_race_fund_raiser_celebrity.php

Much of the article describes how neither candidate has a clear edge and that both have vied for the attention of celebrities with signature Hollywood events. Its certainly shaping up to be quite a fight for an area in which both candidates have roots and expect to succeed. Garcetti has worked around Hollywood for over a decade and of course Greuel has a background with Dreamworks. But there is something more facinating about these candidates struggle for celebrity support, McDonald states;
"In 2008, it was clear that the cool kids lined up with then-presidential candidate Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. This time around for the mayor's race, it's tough to say who has the inside edge on those folks.
But the other mayoral candidates -- Jan Perry, Kevin James, and Emanuel Pleitez -- don't come close to the kind of star power that Greuel and Garcetti have gathered."
Celebrity endorsements (though perhaps always helpful) seem to have become a prerequisite in politics - especially in Los Angeles. The debate is out as to how helpful they truly are at gaining votes (I don't think anyone at the RNC will be calling up Clint Eastwood anytime soon), but they have become an indication of who the frontrunners are. This especially true for the Democratic party.
Greuel and Garcetti could both use the votes that the physical area of Hollywood can provide and the votes that can be garnered by celebrity endorsements. Here's Salma Hayek explaining what a renaissance man Eric Garcetti is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0V4jGCpzUk
Maybe people will vote for Garcettis because of this ad, but I also think these celebrity endorsements are a show of power. Ever since Obama gained so much support from celebrities - far more than Clinton, McCain, or Romney - we have come to gauge who the frontrunner is based on who Hollywood tells us it is. We may not vote the way Salma Hayek tells us to, but this race is narrowing to two people. And whether or not Greuel and Garcetti need celebrity support, they are making a show of spending the money and time to gain the endorsements and celebrity approval that the city of Los Angeles and the Democratic party have come to covet. 

Neil deGrasse Tyson - A Modern Public Intellectual

Neil deGrasse Tyson came to Los Angeles to speak at the University of Southern California last week. Although he is one of the most decorated men in astrophysics, it was not just astronomy and physics majors who were excited to see him last week. In his talk he rarely discussed any of his work or theories in astrophysics. Instead, the talk was centered around Tyson’s opinions on the state of science and education in America. People of all majors were excited to come see and hear him, and he spoke on a range of subjects outside his particular field. This is because Neil deGrasse is a public intellectual. As such his opinions have come to mean something. We are witnessing a new era of the public intellectual, a shift from weekly columns and TV appearances to twitter updates and Internet presence. In the case of Neil deGrasse Tyson, we get both forms of public interaction.

Tyson has an exemplary academic background. He has earned a B.A. from Harvard in physics, an M.A. in Astronomy from UT Austin, and both an M.A. and a Doctorate of Philosophy in Astrophysics from Columbia. Tyson has written ten books; many of which are far more accessible to the average reader than one would expect from an astrophysicist. He has written columns for Natural History Magazine and numerous op-eds for the New York Times. He frequently appears on talk shows and the parody news programs on comedy central. He was the host of NOVA for several years. He currently works and studies at the Hayden Planetarium. He is one of the most educated and intelligent men of this generation.

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/profile/about-neil-degrasse-tyson

 In the below video you can watch Tyson dancing at his office Christmas party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vdLM5gMJN0

The video has over forty thousand views. Why?

Because Neil deGrasse Tyson has become a celebrity, he has achieved cult status. He has been called a “science communicator,” the ambassador of science to the outside world. He talks on a range of topics outside his area of expertise including politics, current events, religion, race, and areas of science outside of astrophysics. He often speaks on evolution and his skeptical views on intelligent design. He travels the talk show circuits and has become the go to guy whenever a show or pundit needs a viewpoint from the world of science. He has transcended his area of study into becoming a spokesperson for science.

Perhaps it is not a requirement that public intellectuals consider themselves to in fact be a public intellectual, but Tyson certainly does view himself in that light. In an interview with Popular Science magazine Tyson discussed why he feels the need to comment on politics and explains his role as the sort of front man for NASA:

“Previous to this book, I was active as an adviser to White House, and NASA, and sort of as a public conveyor of things related to NASA. It’s just my role, on TV and that sort of thing. I didn’t think it ever needed to be a book; I thought I could just sort of talk about it, and people would absorb the concepts and take it to heart. But that just wasn’t happening.”

Tyson also frequently speaks about political issues; regardless as to whether they have anything to do with astrophysics or NASA. He recently sent out a series of tweets on gun control:

“In Wal-Mart, America's largest gun seller, you can buy an assault rifle. But company policy bans pop music with curse words.”

Followed by: “Apparently, in Wal-Mart the right to bear arms (2nd Amendment) is stronger than the right to freedom of speech (1st Amendment).”

Tyson is no gun expert; has no policy, legal, or constitutional background. He is simply speaking his mind on an issue he believes in. So what makes his Tweets so special? Plenty of people have taken to social media to argue their side on the second amendment (and perhaps more eloquently than these simple barbs).  Tyson is popular; both tweets were re-tweeted over sixteen thousand times. So what makes his opinion more important than say Ashton Kutcher's? Because Tyson is famous for being smart and has advanced degrees in astrophysics. This is how a public intellectual is born; unlike you or I, people follow his every move and word, and unlike other celebrities he has the resume of someone our society believes should be intelligent.

But why Neil deGrasse Tyson? Public intellectuals need to be well spoken; perhaps that’s why so few come out of the science world. Tyson is certainly charming, witty, and well spoken. But perhaps he achieved his spokesperson status simply because he cares. There may not be that much of a gap in the intelligence level or cultural and political viewpoints between Tyson and the three other leading astrophysicists in the world. I don’t know who those three people are, and neither do you. It may well be that Tyson achieved his status due to his jovial character and public speaking skills. However, he takes the time to write op eds, to return media inquiries, to make public speaking engagements. He is most certainly well compensated for his time; however, he already has (several) prestigious, high paying roles. He chooses to don the cape of Science and the Public Intellectual because he actually cares. He cares where this country is headed. He often seems stunned by his own celebrity. In an “Ask Me Anything” post on Reddit, Tyson explains the position fame has placed him into and the duty he believes it has created for him. “With "popularity" comes ever more responsibility and accountability. Sometimes I regret my lost freedom to just act stupid every now and then.”

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/qccer/i_am_neil_degrasse_tyson_ask_me_anything/

He chooses to use this fame as a tool. To get his message out, in an effort to affect laws, policy, government funding, and even the way people think.

In the “Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual,” Stephen Mack discusses whether religion and politics, or rather religion and public intellectuals can mix. He argues that the paradox may not be as black and white as it appears.

http://www.stephenmack.com/blog/archives/2007/08/index.html

“It isn’t because they are polar opposites—an ideological oil reacting against a metaphysical water. Rather, it’s because they are, more or less, alienated kindred vying for the same space in the human imagination” (Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual).

Religion certainly plays a large role in Neil deGrasse Tyson’s work and punditry. Many confuse him as an atheist. He is actually an agnostic. He claims that religion and science cannot coexist at this time, with this form of organized religion. Yet despite this, he does not rule religion out. He believes there may be a place for it, that as religion and science change they may grow to find common ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_RWT3w_qPU

In this video Tyson discusses his own religious upbringing and the fact that many scientists are in some way religious. He exposes his belief that the bible and science should not be mixed together, but still clearly leaves space for the possibility of God. His problem is with the fundamentalists, with those who would see church in school. Overall though, he states that science and religion have long coexisted. In other words, just as with politics, religion and science do not have to be “oil and water.”

I also believe it’s important to note that the above video was from a speaking engagement at BYU, one of the most religious universities in the country. It also garnered over one hundred thousand views; people have come to care specifically as to what Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks about religion.

In another article on the idea of the public intellectual, titled the ‘the “Decline” of Public Intellectuals,’ Mack discusses the myth of American Anti-intellectualism and the state of the Public Intellectual as a class. http://www.stephenmack.com/blog/archives/2007/08/index.html Tyson seems concerned with both. He has shifted his life’s work away from deep problems of Astrophysics to perhaps the even tougher problem of improving science education, and overall education, of Americans. Perhaps we are not seeing a decline in public intellectuals but rather a shift in their focus and the mediums they use to reach their audiences. I have chosen to mainly cite Tyson’s work on twitter, you tube and other Internet mediums as opposed to some of his better-known work on T.V. and in print. This is because Tyson is coming to use these types of mediums more and more. He discussed this transformation in a 2012 interview in The Atlantic (a more Public Intellectual friendly medium of the past).http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/neil-degrasse-tyson-how-space-exploration-can-make-america-great-again/253989/

              In his most recent book, Space Chronicles, Tyson included select tweets, because he views them as important, and as a treat for his patient readers that may be in over there head with some of his less user friendly material. He also sees that different mediums fit different audiences and he wants to get his message out to the most people possible. “There are many different dimensions of reaching the public, particularly with the many media today, social media in particular, which parcel what audience you might reach from one medium to another” (The Atlantic). Tyson is part of the new age of public intellectuals who are using social media and the Internet to reach a broader audience than ever before.

Mack closes ‘The “Decline” of Public Intellectuals’ by stressing that what is important about public intellectuals is their ability to bring an important voice to the forefront – to attempt to create change in our country. He says, “the measure of public intellectual work is not whether the people are listening, but whether they’re hearing things worth talking about” (The “Decline” of Public Intellectuals?). This is exactly what Tyson does. Through his background in science he questions a litany of issues facing America, mostly concerning government funding, such as science education or the future of NASA. Tyson embraces his role as the bridge between the geek-friendly youthful generation and the few hyper educated scientists that actually work with the “sexy” subjects that fascinate us like black holes. He uses this role (be it Twitter, his books, or public and T.V. appearances) to create a bully pulpit from which he exposes his views in hopes of a better tomorrow for science and education in America.