As the public comment period on the current legislative districts being proposed by the Citizens Redistricting Commission comes to a close, the commission has heard from–and, we believe, listened and responded to the concerns of–a number of stakeholders including environmental organizations.
The staff of the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) and our sister organization, the CLCV Education Fund, sent letters and testified on several occasions before the commission about the importance of considering environmental factors when drawing the lines. (See our earlier post with background information about the commission here).
In one early hearing during this process, CLCV Chief Executive Officer Warner Chabot testified before the Redistricting Commission and presented a rationale for considering environmental “communities of interest”:
On behalf of [CLCV], I urge this commission to create boundaries and districts that contribute to the quality of life for the communities and people within them. As you create new districts, please consider communities of people and their common interests. Then create districts that represent the best interests of those communities.
Start with a blank slate. Look beyond the existing city and county boundaries. Please remember that Proposition 11 established two criteria as superior to all other, for establishing new districts:
One – The Federal Voting Rights Act
Two -The principle of contiguous geographic areas
We recognize and applaud both criteria as common sense principles. Both seek to protect the rights of all citizens and to prevent gerrymandered districts that disenfranchise any group of voters.
This testimony is focused on the second criteria. As you give priority to contiguous geographic areas, consider the natural environmental factors that both define and contribute to the quality of life and the economy of most communities.
Consider what matters to an average family or community – like breathing clean air or access to clean water as well as workable transit and having a secure job and a stable economy. Please consider the natural boundaries that often define communities of common interest. Consider special district boundaries like transportation or air districts and not just city or county lines.
Consider defining factors like watersheds, air basins or unique geography. For example, in most watersheds, communities share a common interest in the supply and quality of their water and the benefits of healthy water systems. And in many air basins, from the central valley to regions of Los Angeles, communities share a common interest in air quality and its impact on the health of people within their community. Communities also share in the need for efficient and effective transit systems.
Natural systems and features often define both the character and boundaries of many urban and rural communities.These natural boundaries like watersheds and mountains often encompass communities of common interest.
The common interest may often include a common economy, like agriculture or tourism. These communities often share other common features from their transportation system to similar demographics.
For example, consider certain natural regions, like the coastal zone or the central valley as communities of common interest. In these regions, communities define themselves by their common geography. These communities often share a common interest in their environment and economic base.
In summary, this Commission should create districts that give priority to communities of common interest. And those communities are often defined by common geography.
So please consider how natural landscapes, like watershed, air basins or common geographies, like coastal regions, define those communities of interest, which deserve a common political representation.
At additional hearings, including one last week, Warner continued CLCV’s efforts to ensure that the commission considers environmental factors as they draw the new district lines. An excerpt from CLCV’s recent letter to commissioners regarding one specific environmental “community of interest” is below as an example.
To see how the current proposal could impact the community where you live, check out http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/.
[W]e wish to express our support for the decisions of the commission to consider “environmental” factors when defining communities of interest. We also applaud the Commission’s efforts in many areas to “nest” two Assembly districts within a single Senate district and to create districts that represent communities of interest.
However, we urge the commission to reconsider the boundaries of the proposed Los Angeles Santa Clarita Valley (LASCV) Senate district and to consider applying the above factors to this district. Specifically, we urge you to consider a LASCV district that nests the two contiguous Assembly districts of “West Side-Santa Monica” and Thousand Oaks-Santa Monica Mountains.”
This Senate district is currently defined by coastal and San Fernando Valley communities that border on the Santa Monica Mountains. They share the natural environment of the coast and the Santa Monica Mountains. These contiguous communities share a common interest in the watershed, wildlife, open space and recreational values of the coast and mountain ecosystems in this region. The communities also share common socio-economic, cultural, educational transportation corridors, and infrastructure interests.
PROBLEM –The draft LASCV Senate district substantially fails the Commission’s own criteria to create a geographically compact district with a fairly regular shape. The proposed district does not respect the communities of interest surrounding the Santa Monica Mountains. It poorly “nests” the two relevant Assembly districts, by excluding almost 75 percent of the West Side-Santa Monica district. The proposed LASCV Senate district now includes a third (distant) Assembly district that is far inland (up to 50 miles from the coast), with few characteristics common to the communities (within the two Assembly districts), adjacent to the Santa Monica Mountains.
SOLUTION – We therefore urge the commission to create a geographically compact Senate district that respects the communities of interest by an increased nesting the two above mentioned Assembly districts rather than adding a third, inland Assembly district. We urge the Commission to consider including a greater percentage of the West Side-Santa Monica Assembly district into the LASCV Senate district. This will create a Senate district that far more accurately meets the Commission’s fundamental criteria. It will respect the communities of interest and uphold the Federal Voting Rights Act. It will improve the coordination between Senate and Assembly representatives in this region. Finally, it will create boundaries and districts that contribute to the quality of life for the communities and people within them.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Respectfully,
Warner Chabot
CEO, CA League of Conservation Voters and CLCV Education Fund
