In 62 B.C., Julius Caesar divorced his wife, Pompeia, after rumors circulated that she was romantically linked with Publius Clodius, a notorious philanderer. Caesar himself reportedly did not believe the rumors, but made it clear when demanding the divorce that “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.”
Caesar took dramatic steps to ensure the integrity of his office. California’s Redistricting Commission does not appear to hold the same high standards.
The controversy stems from their hiring of Q2 Data and Research, a Berkeley firm chosen to draw “fair and impartial” district lines through a series of thinly veiled steps.
Keep in mind that the Commission nearly hired Q2 on a “no-bid’ contract until they were embarrassed by public criticism for that patently unfair practice. Forced to issue a public bid notice, the notice contained three key components: bidders should (1) disclose prior redistricting experience at the Metropolitan Statistical Area level – with minimum populations of about 1.5 million and up; (2) disclose potential “conflicts” relating to the partisan backgrounds of persons involved with the bidders’ proposals; and (3) disclose financial supporters with partisan backgrounds that might cause disqualification.
Even so, three steps later, the Commission got what it wanted all along, the Democrat firm of Q2.
Step 1: Without answering why, in the middle of the process and contrary to the Commission’s approved standard, the staff significantly lowered the experience qualification standard. That change allowed Q2 to qualify as a bidder when Q2 would have failed to meet the Commission’s original standard and thus would have been disqualified.
Step 2: The Redistricting Commission, again without explanation, disqualified the only other bidder, the Rose Institute, in part for failing to disclose that some interns Rose proposed to hire to work on the project had also served in legislative offices with Republican ties. At the same time, the Commission chose not to disqualify Q2 for failing to disclose in its written bid that Bruce Cain, a Democratic redistricting consultant who was closely involved in the infamous 1981 and 2001 gerrymanders of California, was a part-owner of Q2. Now the Commission asserts that Cain somehow will not take part despite being the only other partner of the person who will do the work. Are you suspicious yet?
Step 3: On a 9-4 vote, with three Republicans dissenting, the Commission disqualified the Rose Institute’s bid. Why? They were disqualified because of a last minute, made-up requirement that Rose disclose donors to its parent university (Claremont McKenna College) during the past 10 years which may be indicative of partisanship – even though private universities are tax exempt 501(c)(3) organizations that are prohibited from partisan election activities. Rose certified there was no such problem, but that was not good enough for the Commission.
Three easy, but perhaps unlawful steps. You see, the press has ignored that fact that the vote to disqualify Rose likely was in violation of Proposition 11. The law requires that staff hiring decisions must be subject to a supermajority vote (a majority of the Democrats, Republicans, and decline-to-state voters on the panel must approve any hiring decision). No such vote occurred because no supermajority of Republicans voted for disqualification.
Only after Rose was disqualified did the commissioners vote 13-0 to hire Q2 — the last bidder standing — as the result of watered-down standards and by overlooking Q2’s material omission to identify its part-owner.
The most troubling aspect of this entire convoluted process, and another glaring omission by the press, is that the Redistricting Commission has ignored the only fair and equitable resolution. Republicans told the Commission that, because almost all experts in the redistricting field have some partisan clientele, the Commission should adopt a balanced approach: hire the Democrat-leaning Q2 and the Republican-leaning Rose Institute. The Arizona Redistricting Commission, which was the first to plow the ground of citizens’ commission redistricting during the last decade, suggested this same approach: hire staff from both camps.
As we all know, integrity is far more easily maintained than recovered. Voters passed Propositions 11 and 20 in the hopes that the new Redistricting Commission would be like Caesar’s wife — above suspicion. Having ignored the transparency demanded of this important process, the Commission risks disappointing voters as another attempt at pure democracy could well fall a victim to partisan philandering.