California’s  newly-seated Citizens Redistricting Commission, charged with redrawing  the state’s Assembly, Senate, Board of Equalization and Congressional  districts, is comprised of five Republicans, five Democrats and four  Independents, two of whom have past ties to a third party.

The  Commission was created with the passage of Proposition 11 in 2008, the  Voters First Act, which was amended by the passage of Proposition 20 in  November 2010 to empower the commission to redraw Congressional  districts in addition to those of state offices.  The Voters First Act  explicitly stipulates that the Commission consist of five members from  each of the two largest political parties in the state, as well as four  members who are either decline-to-state voters or members of a third  party.

The  very fact that the Commission must include four individuals who are not  members of either major party reflects the growing influence of  Independents in California’s politics.  Over the last decade,  registration numbers for the Democratic and Republican parties have  slowly but steadily declined, while the percentage of voters who decline  to state a party affiliation has increased by over 50%.  In 1998,  Democrats constituted 47% of registered voters, with Republicans at 35%  and decline-to-state voters at 13%.  By 2010, Democrats dropped to 45%,  Republicans dropped to 31%, and the unaffiliated jumped to 20% of all  registered voters.  Over the same period, third party registration has  remained relatively constant, hovering around 4-5% of all registered  voters.  All  four members of the Citizens Redistricting Commission who are not  members of the Democratic or Republican parties are decline-to-state  voters, though at least two have had a prior affiliation with a third  party.

In  his application for the Commission, M. Andre Parvenu of Culver City  apparently first identified himself as a member of the Peace and Freedom  Party but then sent a follow-up email stating that he is in fact a  decline-to-state voter, not registered with a political party.  Asked  about the discrepancy at an applicant review panel on September 9, 2010,  Mr. Parvenu stated that he had voted for the Peace and Freedom Party in  the past but now prefers to be nonpartisan, and thought it would be  “better to go decline to state,” adding, “throughout this process I want  to remain neutral.”  Mr. Parvenu has a bachelor’s degree in geography  and urban studies, a master’s degree in geography and urban planning,  and has been a city planner in Los Angeles for the last ten years.

Another  Independent member of the Commission appears to have past ties to the  Green Party.  Michelle R. DiGuilio-Matz of Stockton cites her status as a  decline-to-state voter as evidence of her “ability to be impartial.”   In response to an essay question on her application for the Commission,  she writes, “While I have been listed with formal political parties I  have always voted in a manner to reflect the qualifications and  expereince of the individual or issue on the ballot.”  Asked later to  clarify what she meant by this statement, DiGuilio-Matz responded that  she had previously been a member of the Democratic Party and the Green  Party, but has been registered as a decline-to-state voter for at least  five years.  In her application materials, she writes:

“I have found  that, while organized political groups have certain commonalities and/or  affiliations that may serve their consituents, I too often have seen  strict party adherance coming at the expense of rational discussion and  critical thinking. “Decline to State” reflects my desire to be as  unbiased as possible in adhering to political positions and a  willingness to be open minded in measuring the validity of various  positions.”

Stanley  Forbes of Esparto California, a decline-to-state voter, cites the  pernicious influence of party in describing his interest in serving on  the Citizens Redistricting Commission.  He argues that districts should  be “based on communities of interest criteria: geographic, ethnic,  economic and many others.”  He states, however, that currently:

“the  primary community of interest is political party registration. This  effectively results in many single party legislative districts that may  not represent communities of interest that reflect our common interests  in solving the problems facing the state.”

The results of this fact are  apparent in political polarization and gridlock in the state  legislature.

Last  but not least is Connie Galambos Malloy, a decline-to-state voter from  Oakland who, like the other members of the Commission, has a long resume  of community activism.  In one of her application essays for the  Commission, Galambos Malloy states that it was by working with local  communities that she recognized the disparity between those communities  and their political representation.  She writes:

“while working on  environmental toxics issues in the Central Valley, I was surprised to  learn how significant a share of the population Latinos represent, yet  how they comprise few to none of the local elected and appointed  officials in that region.” She continues, “This dearth of political  representation indicates an imbalance in the democratic process and I’ve  witnessed similar dynamics plays out across the state on local planning  and policy issues.”

To learn more about the Citizens Redistricting Commission, visit their website.  For more information on the Commissioners, see the Commission Applicants Page.