LA Times: Phooey to Gov. Abbott and Gov. Newsom. Can’t science draw fairer political maps?
By James Rainey
Aug. 28, 2025 6:30 AM PT
CD10 Voices Editor’s Note:
CD10Voices.com is the website administered by CD10Voices for Empowerment.
By way of reminder, CD10Voices for Empowerment is a network of greater Los Angeles constituents, residents and stakeholders. We began our advocacy and engagement committed to ensuring accountable representation in the CD10 Council seat rendered empty in October 2021 by the unjust and unfair suspension of its duly elected representative by a discretionary action of the City Council under the leadership of the Council President who later resigned under pressure.
In a real sense, the current national debate pertaining to redistricting is fundamentally about fair and equal representation, much like what was at stake in CD 10. Therefore, we declare our allegiance to the 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments to the US Constitution and Voting Rights Act of 1965 that followed after decades of civic engagement and political struggle. These historical documents are the foundation on which CD10 Voices makes its claims and the unparalleled movement from which we continue to draw strength.
If you’re like a lot of other thoughtful citizens, you’re already queasy about the big, steaming boatload of hooey — a.k.a. congressional redistricting — that’s been sweeping the country from Texas to California to God knows where.
You’re wondering: Can’t we come up with a system that makes sure members of the House of Representatives are elected in closer proportion to their parties’ popularity with the broader public?
We can. But we most likely won’t, if history is any guide. More ideologically balanced systems have been proposed many times. Mathematicians have imagined them. Other countries have adopted them. But they haven’t gotten any traction in the U.S.
A couple of California’s most savvy political scientists — Bruce Cain of Stanford and Raphael Sonenshein of the Haynes Foundation — told me that one of the major reasons for lack of reform is that even fair-minded voters want more than one thing.
They want a system that grants each party the number of elected representatives it deserves. They also put a premium on keeping their cities and counties intact within single districts. Some demand farmers have a fair say, by grouping them in ag-centric districts. And the federal Voting Rights Act mandates that Latino, Black and Asian American voters not be too widely dispersed, to prevent diluting their voting power.
“It’s a messy, messy business,” said Cain, who has been in the thick of those dynamics and seen even more craven motivations — like the time-honored tradition of officeholders drawing districts to protect their own hides.
Today, California elects 52 members to the “People’s House.” In trying to balance the Dems and GOP, one might look at the results of the last two presidential elections. Across those contests, the Democrat won more than 61% of the vote, while the Republican, President Trump, got more than 36%. (The remainder went to lesser-known candidates.)
For proportional partisan balance, that would suggest that 32 of California’s House members should be Democrats, while 19 should be Republicans. (The lone remaining seat might go to, say, a Libertarian, given that presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen got more than 1% of the vote in 2020.) Those totals would represent a huge shift from the current breakdown, in which 43 Democrats and nine Republicans represent the state in Washington. But Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic-dominated Legislature just voted to ask voters to reduce Republican representation even further — potentially shifting as many as five more seats to Democrats. No wonder Republicans are fuming.
And no wonder Democrats in Texas also grumble, as they watch their Republican-led state pull a very similar maneuver, in reverse. They complain that Gov. Greg Abbott & Co. started the partisan remapping arms race. As noted by Mark Z. Barabak, The Times’ resident political savant, the Democrats play this tit-for-tat game at their peril, since President Trump’s party controls more state governments.
Holland and other countries have exorcised partisan gerrymandering in favor of more proportional systems. They hold nationwide elections, then dole out seats based on the share of the vote each party receives. At least one objection: The link between voter and representative can be weakened, when the officeholder is not pledged to represent a particular corner of the map.
An acclaimed Harvard University economist recently published an article proposing another solution: a mathematical formula for “compacting” districts to eliminate the Rorschach-inkblot abominations of today. It sounded great, in theory.
But Cain (who has personally helped draw past California political boundaries) has seen scads of mathematicians and economists offer solutions that “solve” the ideological fairness test. “The problem is the solution conflicts with a whole bunch of other things people care about,” such as keeping cities together and retain the voting power of minorities, Cain said.
At least California’s voter-approved system, with boundaries drawn by a bipartisan commission, seemed to offer better parameters for making decisions, taking the work out of the hands of career politicians. The system didn’t solve the congressional delegation’s ideological imbalance, but it was good enough to avoid triggering a lawsuit — a near-miracle in today’s hyper-combative America.