Ethnicity

As previously reported, the Commission reflects the state’s racial and ethnic diversity. The numbers of Latino, African-American, Native American, and Asian-American applicants all meet or exceed their respective percentages of the state’s registered voters. (A spreadsheet showing the remaining applicants with party, ethnicity, gender, geography, and economic characteristics is here. A summary set of tables is here.)

Other Factors

As Proposition 11 makes clear, “diversity” is not limited to race and ethnicity, and the Panel’s selections reflect other elements of diversity, including party, education, and income.

Party

As required by Proposition 11, 40 of the remaining applicants are registered Democrats, 40 are Republicans, and 40 are not registered with either of the two major parties. The Citizens Redistricting Commission represents the first time that independent voters will have a significant voice in the state’s redistricting process.

Gender

Male and female applicants come very close to 50/50 balance, at 53 percent male and 47 percent female.

Education

Representing a notable but often-overlooked element of diversity, the remaining pool of applicants contains significant numbers of both University of California system graduates (53) and California State University system graduates (36). UCLA leads the pack, as 19 of the remaining 120 applicants earned either undergraduate or graduate degrees from UCLA. UC Berkeley can claim victory too, as more of the applicants (twelve) earned undergraduate degrees at Berkeley than at any other institution. Cal State Los Angeles leads the Cal State group, with 4 undergraduate alumni in the remaining pool.

Seven remaining applicants graduated from Stanford, and seven from USC. Fifteen Thirteen are Ivy league graduates, while five earned degrees at the Claremont Colleges. Three graduated from Loyola and four from the University of the Pacific. Two each graduated from of St. Mary’s and University of Texas, Austin. Rounding out the diverse educational experiences of the remaining pool are a single graduates from each of NYU, MIT, Johns Hopkins, Howard, and Pepperdine.

If you have done the math on the preceding paragraphs, you realized that many applicants have multiple degrees. Ninety-four percent (113) hold at least a bachelor’s degree. There are 23 law school graduates, 57 holders of Masters degrees, 29 doctorates, plus 3 currently earning their doctorates. Two have AA degrees, and 1 has a technical degree from IBT. Four of the 120 remaining applicants have no college degree.

(These numbers are slightly incomplete because four holders of graduate degrees did not provide their undergraduate degree or institution. A spreadsheet listing the remaining applicants and their educational backgrounds is here. A spreadsheet with the counts by school and degree is here.)

Click for full-size map

Geography

The Panel also achieved impressive geographic and regional diversity. Los Angeles County has the most remaining applicants (21), which is no surprise as the County has the most people. Yet the San Francisco “Bay Area” region matched the “Southern Coastal” region among remaining applicants, with 35 each. The “North Coastal” region has the fewest remaining applicants (5), which makes sense since it also has the smallest percentage of the state’s registered voters (1 percent). The North and South Central Valley and Mountain regions combine for 19 percent of the state’s registered voters, and they provide 22.5 percent of the remaining applicants. The heavily-Republican Inland Empire and heavily-Democratic Central Coastal regions each have a significant number of the remaining applicants (8 and 9, respectively), representing 7 and 9 percent of the remaining applicant pool. Those regions constitute similar 7 and 8 percents of the state’s registered voters. Twenty-nine of the state’s 58 counties are represented in the remaining pool. Kern and Sonoma counties are the largest counties with no residents in the remaining pool, and they are home to 1.8 percent and 1.4 percent of the state’s registered voters. None of the remaining 27 counties without representation in the remaining pool have over 1 percent of the state’s registered voters. Representing the state’s smaller counties, Humboldt, Plumas, Amador, Mendocino and seven other counties have at least one resident each remaining in the pool, though each is home to less than 1 percent of the state’s registered voters.

Income

While the Auditor’s income categories do not precisely match the Census Bureau’s categories, the applicants appear to represent some economic diversity. Middle-income earners, between $35,000 and $125,000 per year, represent approximately 44 percent of the state’s residents and 46 percent of the remaining applicant pool. As might be guessed based on the educational backgrounds described above, higher-income applicants are somewhat over-represented in the remaining pool, with roughly 28 percent of the state’s population earning over $125,000 and 50 percent of the applicants coming from that income range. Yet the “under $35,000″ income category is still represented, with 4 applicants in the remaining pool of 120.

Conclusion

California’s voters instructed the Applicant Review Panel to create a pool that reflected the state’s broad diversity, not just race and ethnicity. To date, the Panel clearly succeeded in that task. As it conducts interviews and narrows the pool down to the smaller pool of 60 finalists, it will become even more difficult to fully reflect the state’s diversity. Yet the Panel’s actions to date have shown its dedication to meeting this challenge.

Among the 97 interviewees selected through Tuesday:

• 45 are male (46 percent) and 52 are female (54 percent).
• 13 are Asian American (13 percent), 23 are Latino (24 percent), 6 are Native American (6 percent), 9 are African American (9 percent) 1 is Pacific Islander (1 percent) and 6 are “Other” (6 percent).

For comparison, according to a 2008 surname analysis by the California Statewide Database, 49 percent of registered voters in California are male, 51 percent are female, 20 percent are Latino and 8 percent are Asian American. There are no surname lists for African Americans, but according to the Census Bureau’s 2006-2008 American Community Survey (ACS) data African Americans constitute 6 percent of the state’s total population, and in the 2000 Census African Americans constituted 6 percent of California’s voting age population. In 2000, Native Americans constituted 1 percent of the state’s voting age population and now (according to the ACS data) constitute just under 1 percent of the state’s total population.

In summary, looking at gender and ethnicity, the group selected so far for interviews meets or exceeds the diversity of the state’s registered voters in terms of women, Latinos, Native Americans, and African Americans. And 23 more Democrats remain to be added to the interview group.

More detailed analysis to follow, including analysis of the geographic diversity of the selected interviewees.

Until then, follow the ARP’s work on its video feed or through the Rose Institute’s Twitter updates. The Rose Institute is providing real-time updates to the list of “forwarded to interview” and “dropped” candidates in a Google Docs online spreadsheet. You must log into either a Google account or a GMail account (both are free) to access that link.

UPDATE: The ARP has finished selecting the interview group. The final gender and ethnicity data (drawn from the Auditor’s database): 47% female, 53% male;  37% White; 27% Latino, 13% Asian-American, 12% African American, 5% Native American,  1% Pacific Islander, 6% Other.

From the original 30,725 applications, 314 applicants remain. Of those, 72 received “Yes” votes from all three members of the Applicant Review Panel at its last meeting. It is expected, but not yet official, that all of those 72 will advance to interviews, leaving only 48 remaining spots in the final 120.

Among the 72 unanimous yes candidates, 18 are Republicans, 22 are Democrats, and 32 are “other” party members. As a result, the Panel now has to select 22 more Republicans, 18 more Democrats, and only 8 more “other” candidates. Among the 242 remaining applicants who did not receive three yes votes last meeting, there are 95 Republicans, 93 Democrats, and 54 “other” candidates. The odds are best for the remaining Republican candidates, as 23 percent of them will advance to the 120 interviewees. The remaining Democratic candidates face slightly longer odds, as only 19 percent of them will advance. The “other” party candidates face the longest odds as only 15 percent of them will advance.

The panel is also charged with ensuring the pool reflects the diversity of California, at least as well as possible within any relatively small pool of people. The 72 unanimous yes candidates include 37 men and 35 women. One big question is whether the Panel will aim for gender balance within each partisan pool, or just within the entire pool of 120. If they aim for balance within each pool the remaining Republican women have a good chance to advance: putting 20 Republican women into the interview stage requires approving 13 of the remaining 26 Republican women (those not in the pool of 72 unanimous yes candidates). Among the other partisan pools of applicants, 15 of the 32 “other” candidates in the unanimous yes pool are women, leaving openings for only 5 of the remaining 19 women (and for only 3 of the remaining 35 men in the “other” pool). Among the Democratic pool, 14 of the 22 in the unanimous yes pool are women and 8 are men, leaving spots for 6 of the remaining 41 Democratic women and 12 of the remaining 52 Democratic men. Again, we do not know if the Panel will aim for gender balance within each partisan subpool or only within the entire interview pool of 120.

Geographically, 11 people are in the unanimous yes pool from the “North Central Valley and Mountains” (9 of whom are from Sacramento); 25 are from “Southern Coastal” (including 17 from Los Angeles); 6 are from the “Central Coast”; and 4 are from the “Southern Central Valley and Mountain” region. Only 1 person is in this group of 72 is from the “Inland Empire” and only 1 is from the “North Coastal” region. Both the Inland Empire and North Coast representatives are registered Decline to State (the “other” partisan pool), so those 9 Republicans and 6 Democrats from the Inland Empire not in the unanimous yes group still have a high likelihood of making it into the interview pool. The odds are also relatively high for the 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats from the North Coastal region.

Los Angeles County, according to the Census Bureau’s 2006-2008 American Community Survey population estimates, constitutes 27 percent of California’s population. That translates into 32 people in a 120-person pool. Los Angeles currently has 17 people in the unanimous yes category, so about 15 of the remaining 52 applicants from Los Angeles with less than 3 “yes” votes may expect to advance. With relatively equal numbers between the parties in this group of 52 (21 Republican, 26 Democratic, but only 6 “other”), it is hard to predict who is likely to advance.

The 72 unanimous yes candidates include 46 white, 10 Latino, 9 Asian American, 3 African American, 2 Native American, 1 Pacific Islander, and one self-declared “Other” applicants. It has been noted by Common Cause and others that the pool of 314 is more diverse than the legislature. If the Panel is going to aim so high as to try to match the Latino, Asian and African American groups to their percentages among the entire population of California (according the Census numbers mentioned above), they would constitute 43, 15, and 7 members of the 120-person interview pool, respectively. If we are correct in the assumption that the 72 unanimous yes applicants are in the pool, then four additional African-Americans (among the remaining 24), six additional Asian Americans (among the remaining 18), 33 additional Hispanics (among the remaining 35), and only 5 additional Non-Hispanic White applicants (among the remaining 150) would make it into the interview pool. Keep in mind, however, that the demographics of California’s voters vary significantly from the demographics of its population, so even an interview pool that falls short of those goals could reasonably reflect the eligible population of redistricting commission members. And everything is relative: Common Cause and others have pointed out that the pool of 314 is already more diverse than the alternative redistricting authority: the legislature.

This analysis assumes that all of the final 314 candidates completed their Form 700 financial disclosure forms. There is a strong likelihood that some number did not, which will narrow the pool of candidates the Panel has available for consideration.

After the Panel selects the 120 for interviews and then whittles the pool down to its 60 finalists, applicants will still need to survive the “strikes” from each majority and minority legislative leader and then be chosen either in the initial random drawing or in the follow up commission selection stage.

The Applicant Review Panel’s responsibility to reflect the state’s diversity within the pool of 120 is challenging. It is inevitable that there will be those who complain of both real and imagined slights. The political atmosphere surrounding this November’s Propositions 20 and 27 further muddies the atmosphere. Once the final 14 Commission members are announced, the safeguards the authors wrote into Proposition 11 are likely to ensure a reasonably diverse and representative Commission, though no group of 14 (or of 120, be they the legislature or the interview pool) can ever fully reflect every aspect of California’s vibrant and varied people.

The suit against Amendment 7 focused on the amendment’s clarity. The attorney representing the Florida House of Representatives argued that Amendment 7 merely created “additional standards that [went] with the standards that presently exist.” Opponents of Amendment 7 believe the amendment would allow the state legislature to bypass the provisions of FairDistricts’s proposed Amendment 5 and Amendment 6. Ron Meyer, the attorney for the Florida state NAACP, argued that the “amendment is nothing if not deceptive, if not unintelligible…[the state legislature] could have…made [it] a very simple, straightforward amendment….and they chose not to do that for the very purpose of being able to hide the impacts.”

In his ruling, Judge Shelfer cited his own inability to comprehend the language of Amendment 7. Said Shelfer, “I’m not the brightest light on the Christmas tree, but it took me three days…to get a handle on what this amendment does.”

An appeal of Judge Shelfer’s verdict is set to go before the Florida Supreme Court. Meanwhile, separate law suits against FairDistricts Florida will have court hearings this week in Tallahassee.

San Diego’s City Charter requires that a Redistricting Commission be created at the beginning of every decade with the purpose of setting boundaries for City Council districts. The 2010 Commission will be the second independent redistricting commission in the city’s history. The final report from the 2001 Redistricting Commision is available here.

The City Charter says the Commision will be made up of seven members appointed by the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court, San Diego Judicial District. The Charter outlines how “in the event that the Presiding Judge declines to make the appointments, they shall be made by a Municipal Court Judge selected by vote of the Judges of the Municipal Court, San Diego Judicial District. Should the Judges of the Municipal Court decline to so act, then the Redistricting Commission shall be appointed by a panel of three retired Superior Court Judges drawn at random by the City Manager [...] In the event that all of the preceding individuals decline to act, then the Redistricting Commission shall be appointed by a majority vote of the City Council . . . ”

According to the City Charter, appointees should “give the Redistricting Commission geographic, social and ethnic diversity, and [...] have a high degree of competency to carry out the responsibilities of the Commission. The appointees shall include individuals with a demonstrated capacity to serve with impartiality in a nonpartisan role. Each member of the Commission shall be registered to vote in The City of San Diego.”

Once Commisioners are chosen, they will hold at least four public meetings across the city before preparing an initial redistricting plan for the City Clerk. The Commisions must hold at least three public hearings discussing its initial map before adopting a final plan. In 2001, over fifty public meetings were held before a final map was reached.

Earlier postings evaluated the overall demographics of the pool of 622. Yet the Panel’s decisions are more accurately evaluated by looking within each of the three separate pools: Democrats, Republicans, and Others. The Rose Institute acquired the full database of applicants (through a public records request) and analyzed the demographics of each pool. The results indicate the opportunities and challenges facing the ARP.

The key number for any analysis is 14. There will be 14 commissioners on the final Citizens Redistricting Commission: 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 Others. To constitute 30 percent of the Commission, a group (whether ethnic, regional, economic, age, or whatever) needs 4 people. To constitute 15 percent of the Commission, the group needs only 2 people on the Commission. Even groups with only a few members remaining in the pool can still end up with a significant number of seats on the Commission.

The Pool of 622

There are now 331 Democrats, 182 Republicans, and 109 “other” applicants (these numbers differ slightly from those released at the last ARP meeting because of updated numbers from the Auditor). Looking at ethnicity, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are reasonably evenly distributed among the three pools, as they constitute 10 percent of the remaining Democratic applicants, 9 percent of the Republicans, and 5 percent of the Others. Latinos are 12 percent of Democrats, 12 percent of Independents, and 6 percent of Republicans. African American applicants are more concentrated: they constitute 15 percent of Democratic applicants, 6 percent of Others, and only 2 percent of Republicans. The Democratic pool is 60 percent White. The Other pool is 68 percent White. And the Republican pool is 80 percent White. In the Democratic pool 56 percent are male, as are 76 percent of those in the Republican pool and 63 percent of those in the Other pool.

Economically, the three partisan pools are remarkably similar. Those earning over $250,000 are 7 to 9 percent of each of the three groups. Twenty-seven to 33 percent of each group earn $125,000 to $250,000. Thirty-three to 37 percent of each group earn $75,000 to $125,000.  Eighteen to 22 percent of each partisan pool earn $35,000 to $75,000, and five to ten percent of each group report earning less than $35,000.

Narrowing, and Balancing, the Pool

As has been noted, these demographics are not yet representative of California. The result is that White, Democratic, male applicants are the most likely applicants be eliminated between now and the interview stage.  The Other pool will be reduced from 109 to 40 before interviews begin, while the Democratic pool must be reduced from 331 to 40 and the Republican pool from 139 to 40. With 228 women remaining in total, 26 percent of the women currently in the pool could reasonably expect to advance to the total group of 120 that will be invited to interview. Among the Other pool, half of the 40 women currently in the pool are likely to advance, as are 47 percent of the 43 remaining Republican women and 14 percent of the 145 remaining Democratic women, assuming the Panel attempts to keep gender balance in each pool. In contrast, under that same assumption, less than 1 in 9 of the remaining 186 male Democrats should expect to advance to an interview.

The Pool of 31

At its June 11th meeting, the Panel revealed that 31 applicants received positive initial evaluations from all three of the Panel members. It is likely that these 31 will be the first group nominated for the 120 member “to interview” pool. This group of 31 includes 17 Democrats, 8 Republicans, and 6 Others. If they are put into the interview pool, that means only 23 more interview spots remain for Democrats, 32 for Republicans, and 34 for Others. Among the 31, 5 are Asian American (4 Democrats and 1 Republican). Two are African American (both Democrats). Two are Latino (1 Democrat and 1 Other). One is a Pacific Islander (a Republican).  And 21 are White (10 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and 5 Others). Eleven are women (7 Democrats, 3 Republicans and 1 Other), while 20 are men (10 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 5 Others).

The Form 700 Twist

The ARP is expected to reduce the pool down close to 120 at its meetings this week. But the deadline for the applicants to complete the Form 700 report is not until later in July. The Commission must ensure that it still has 120 applicants to interview even if some (or many) decide not to complete the Form 700.

The 623rd Applicant

Unofficial reports from the Auditor’s office indicate that A’lyce Baldarelli, applicant #15799, may have been lost in processing and accidentally excluded from the ARP’s June 11th deliberations. She may be added back into the pool for ARP consideration tomorrow. She is a Republican woman from Ontario (San Bernardino County). [h/t to @vkogan for first alerting us to this issue.]

Stay Informed

As the Panel begins the next stage of its work, follow developments as they happen on this blog and on our twitter feed: @RoseInstitute.

Chief Justice Mullarkey’s retirement figures into Colorado’s upcoming redistricting as well. Redistricting of state legislative seats in Colorado is done by an eleven-member commission. Four members of the commission are directly selected by the chief justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. Three are appointed by the governor, and each leader in the legislature appoints one. In the 2001 redistricting cycle, Mullarkey’s four Democratic-leaning appointments to the commission, along with the two appointments made by the Democratic leaders in the legislature, led the commission to create a redistricting plan which favored Democrats and enabled them to gain control of both houses of the legislature in 2002. In 2004, when Republicans regained control, then-Senate President John Andrews attempted to pass a congressional redistricting plan more favorable to Republicans, which the Mullarkey court subsequently rejected in a 5-2 decision.

Under Colorado’s constitution, when the chief justice retires, the governor appoints a new justice from three nominees chosen by the Colorado Supreme Court Nominating Commission, and then the justices elect a new chief from amongst themselves. By retiring now, Mullarkey ensures that a new similarly minded chief justice will be in place before the next court term. Her retirement reduces the risk that the other three liberal justices on the court will not be retained at this November’s election. A more conservative court that elects a more conservative chief justice, combined with a Republican governor, would enable Republicans to appoint a majority of Colorado’s redistricting commission in 2011.

Read about it at Politics Daily

Meanwhile elections officials worked overtime to verify signatures for the Pelosi/Berman initiative to eliminate California’s new Citizens Redistricting Commission. That measure’s qualification was announced at 7:39pm on Thursday (the final day for measures to qualify). Supporters of the term limit measure turned in their petitions to the counties between April 19th and April 22nd, while almost all of the Pelosi/Berman signatures were turned in on May 24th. Yet signatures for the redistricting measure backed by the Speaker of the House (also backed by the former Speaker of the Assembly) were verified before signatures for the term limits proposal.

The Pelosi/Berman measure was not the only measure to jump ahead of the term limits proposal. Seven of the nine initiatives that qualified for the November ballot turned in signatures after term limits proponents (a 10th measure that will appear on the November ballot was put on the ballot by the legislature). The other six proposals verified ahead of the term limits measure were the measure to pass state budgets with a simple majority vote, to repeal business tax laws, to prohibit Sacramento from taking transportation and local government funds to balance the state budget, to fund state parks through a vehicle license fee, to suspend the state’s greenhouse gas law, and to require a two-thirds vote of the legislature to increase fees.

(Hat tip to Rose Board Member and co-editor of the California Target Report Tony Quinn for alerting us to this news.)

The remaining applicants are 53 percent Democratic, 29 percent Republican, and 18 percent “Other” (Decline to State and/or registered to other political parties). With the ‘partisan pool’ approach to Commission selection, this partisan breakdown is largely irrelevant, because Democratic applicants are only competing against other Democratic applicants, Republicans are competing against other Republicans, and members of the “Other” pool are competing only against their pool. Each of those three partisan pools will have 20 names approved by ARP for the final selection phase. (The Commission will ultimately consist of 14 members: 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 others.)

All that was needed to move from Stage 1 to Stage 2 was the time and interest to complete the application, so the demographics of those two pools were driven only by self-selection. The initial data on who survived the ARP’s cut from Stage 2 to Stage 3 are more interesting, though the ARP made clear that at this stage they only reviewed applications one by one. Once the total number of applicants is down to a more manageable size, the ARP will include in their considerations their mandate to ensure the remaining applicants reflect California’s diversity.

Overall, less than 14 percent of Stage 2 applicants made it to the group of 622. Asian Americans were the most likely ethnic group to make the cut. Fourteen percent of Asian Americans applicants made it, compared to eleven percent of African Americans, eleven percent of the self-labeled “other” ethnicity, and ten percent of Hispanics. Nine percent of non-Hispanic White applicants survived the latest cut, as did only five percent of American Indian and Alaskan Native applicants.

Residents of California’s North Coast region were the most likely to make it into the latest group, with eighteen percent surviving from Stage 2. Eleven percent of Bay Area residents, and ten percent of applicants from the North Central Valley and Southern Coastal regions, made it into the latest group. Only eight percent of Central Coast applicants and only seven percent of applicants from the Inland Empire and Southern Central Valley regions survived. (The regions are as defined by the State Auditor.)

Twenty-five percent of applicants from Del Norte and Mendocino counties made it to the latest group. Twenty percent of Yolo, Suttter, Plumas, and Lake County applicants survived. Among the larger counties, Alameda did the best with sixteen percent of applicants moving on to the next step, followed by San Francisco with twelve percent, Sacramento and Santa Clara with eleven percent, and ten percent from Los Angeles, San Diego, San Mateo, and Contra Costa counties. Sixteen counties have no applicants in the remaining pool.

Reducing the applicant pool from 4,564 to the current 622 was a major task. Many well-qualified applicants did not make the cut. And this is only the first ARP review of applicants. The ARP faces very difficult decisions as it reduces each partisan pool down to 40 applicants for interviews, and when it eventually makes its final reduction down to 20 applicants in each pool. (More details on the selection process are here.)

Everyone who applied should be commended, both for his or her willingness to spend a considerable amount of time completing the application, and for the interest in helping California. That spirit of participation is vital to making this Commission a success.

More details (including demographics within each partisan pool) will be published as the data becomes available.

Special thanks to Rose Institute Research Assistant David Meyer who first identified the trends reported in this post.

6/23/2010: Updated to correct party registration reference. Thanks to commenters Dennis and Vlad for bringing the data questions to our attention.