BTW: During the 1981 reapportionment process- the Rose Institute – was exceedingly helpful to group called Californios for Fair Representation.

Also, I am in no way, shape, or form representing them right now. This is actually–for better or worse–my idea of fun.

Your quick blurb is a bit misleading. Although white non-hispanics make up a minority of the population, they made up 59% of the registered voters in the 2008 election. The figure is even higher for those voters that bother to turn out. The figure is even higher for older voters.

The state auditors office hasn’t seen fit to enlighten us with statistics on the age of the applicants. I think it’s a safe bet, however, that they’re older than the average voter. You have to be at least 23 to apply for the commission. (The architects of Prop 11 apparently thought bright energetic college kids who have actual experience drawing lines aren’t qualified enough.) In addition, the commission is a ten-year commitment. The per diem pays well, but most young adults and middle aged voters aren’t flexible enough career wise to make that sort of commitment. That leads me to think many of the applicants are older and/or retired, a demographic group that in California also happens to be white. (Also, we shouldn’t neglect a crucial fact: redistricting is about as exciting as two tortoises and a tea kettle. And who tends to like boring things? Old… JK JK) Thus, the fact that applicants are likely older indicates that we shouldn’t be surprised if they also happen to be predominantly white.

Still the statistical underrepresentation of people of color in the applicant pool is tragic and does represent a failure of the outreach campaign. You’re definitely right about that. Given these demographic and voter trends, however, perhaps we should blame the outreach campaign rather than the redistricting commission process. Cynical as I am, when I think about this, I can’t help but be reminded of the fact that many of the groups contracted to do outreach to underrepresented groups opposed Prop 11. Perhaps the Irvine Foundation, in its infinite wisdom, should have given some of that money to groups who actually supported the initiative—like, say, the Rose Institute.

Regardless, I think the real question is why are newspapers suddenly finding interest in the redistricting commission? And why do so many of the headlines say it’s “failing?” Maybe, just maybe, the people behind the new initiative to repeal prop 11 are calling in a few favors. Given that Michael Berman—yes brother of THAT Berman, the one who masterminded the Westside redistricting machine that had a stranglehold on LA politics for the better part of a decade—is the one behind the effort, I can’t help but wonder. But maybe I’m too cynical. I mean the MSM isn’t picking up on it so everything must Ay-Okay, right?

PS I’m surprised in this whole thing that no one’s mention the standard in Prop 11 itself: the fact that commission members will have demonstrated an “appreciation for California’s diversity.” Seems pretty rock solid to me. Or maybe I’m just being blinded by all that post-racial actually-judge-people-by-who-they-are-not-what-category-we-feel-like-lumping-them-into bs all the kids are talking about. Or maybe it’s more naïve to still obsess about race in 20-freaking-10…

PSS Shameless plug for the Rose Institute: cute infographics on the redistricting commission applicant statistics: http://rosereport.org/commission-stats/