The Role and Opportunities of an Independent Redistricting Commissions in Los Angeles

Redistricting is the process of redrawing legislative district boundaries to reflect population changes, occurring every ten years and utilizing data collected through the Census. This process occurs statewide, federally, and in local districts. A redistricting commission redraws legislative district lines and determines how people are represented and by whom. When district maps are not drawn intentionally, some communities and their interests can be pushed to the margins.

In November 2024, Los Angeles residents will vote on a ballot measure to change their redistricting commission model. This ballot measure stems from the massive public reaction to the city council's leaked audio tapes, where three of its former council members conspired to use the current redistricting process for their own gain. Los Angeles' redistricting commission has historically been intertwined with the city's legislative body, and city council members directly appoint those on that commission. This commission model has given politicians the ability to select people with a clear link to city council members, which has often led to gerrymandering – the manipulation of the districting process in favor of their appointer. The Ad Hoc Committee on Governance Reform was created in direct response to this event, calling for immediate reform of the current redistricting commission and for it to be selected independently.

An independent redistricting commission addresses the issues of transparency, influence, and potential corruption. Independent commissions are formed to center voters by establishing non-biased standards for those who can serve on the commission and criteria for how district maps should be drawn. An essential duty of these commissions is preventing political insiders from participating and eliminating explicit conflicts of interest that may exist when elected officials or those close to them draw districts. 

SCG's Public Policy & Government Relations team spoke with Jonathan Mehta Stein (Executive Director, California Common Cause) and Russia Chavis Cardenas (Voting Rights & Redistricting Program Manager, California Common Cause) to learn more about independent redistricting as voters prepare to see it on the Los Angeles City Charter ballot this November. In our conversation, Stein and Cardenas discussed California Common Cause's voting and redistricting efforts, outlined existing independent commissions in California we can learn from, and emphasized the importance of including communities in conversations about redistricting and other civic engagement efforts to empower them to advocate for long-term change. 

Common Cause Voting and Redistricting Record

Common Cause is a long-standing voting rights organization working to strengthen democracy and ensure that it reflects the will of the people, not politicians. Their origins were in leading the campaign that won the 26th amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1971, allowing 18-year-olds to vote. California Common Cause is specific to the state, while Common Cause's work spans across the nation. 

Today, one of their core pillars of work is continuing to modernize elections and ensure fair representation through improved redistricting. They have been advocating for independent redistricting for years, helping to end partisan gerrymandering at the state and congressional levels with the establishment of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission in 2008. With their report, The Roadmap for Fair Maps in 2030, California Common Cause has been essential in outlining steps to secure fair voting maps at every level of government. 

California Common Causes' efforts in Los Angeles are not new. Long before the leaked audio tapes that prompted the City Council to put independent redistricting on the ballot, California Common Cause called for a newly revamped redistricting process, which included an independent selection process, community-centered map drawing, and city council expansion. Their organization also released key recommendations for implementing an independent redistricting commission in their report, For the People: A Roadmap for Community-Centered Independent Redistricting in Los Angeles. This analysis details components like the purpose of an independent redistricting commission, the number of council districts, commission organization, commissioner qualifications, and more. 

A common hurdle California Common Cause has faced in this work is the misconception that engaging in civic engagement, Census, and redistricting efforts are political activities. Cardenas emphasized the nonpartisan nature of redistricting as comparable to registering to vote. The act of having individuals advocate for representation that looks like them and has experiences like them should not be considered political. In fact, redistricting presents an opportunity to increase community voice in government and participation in the electoral process to promote a representative democracy. 

"When maps are drawn by individuals who are not incumbents, you get a better map." 

Russia Chavis Cardenas (California Common Cause)

Learning from Other California Independent Commissions

It is important to note that Independent redistricting commissions are not new to local municipalities or the state of California. The cities of Long Beach and San Diego, as well as Los Angeles County and San Diego County, are jurisdictions within the state that already incorporate an independent body. The city of Los Angeles is playing catch-up. Stein states that an ideal independent redistricting commission model already exists in California, the state's own congressional redistricting structure. It has been carefully crafted by civic engagement and voting rights advocates, and it is used in most cities and counties that have passed one of these models. The ideal model includes:

• Conflicts of interest criteria that disqualify people from serving if they're too close to politicians
• Evaluation criteria for commissioners to ensure quality people if there is a lottery system
• Transparency requirements 
• Public participation requirements

The independent commission proposed in the November ballot follows the components of this model. Los Angeles residents can apply to be randomly selected to the commission, with just a few prerequisites needed (such as the ability to handle the rigor, being nonpartisan, committing to attendance, etc.), mitigating political actors' influence. 

Cardenas and Stein stressed the significance of the City of Los Angeles adopting an independent redistricting commission, specifically on the local level, for two reasons. First, local political arenas are where residents are impacted by and can see change tangibly in their daily lives. This process allows for a fairer democracy where communities that are actually impacted by policy decisions on the local level have agency without interference from incumbents. Moreover, independent redistricting brings communities together and gives them the power to decide how they should be represented. While the work in local jurisdictions might not capture the same sound bites as national news, it is just as relevant to people's lives. 

Second, Los Angeles is a large, premier city with many eyes on it. Cardenas emphasized that when a large model city like Los Angeles makes significant infrastructural changes, it creates a stronger narrative for why other jurisdictions should do so, hopefully inspiring these changes to spread and grow beyond California. Lifting the voices of underrepresented communities, bringing together diverse groups, building capacity, and amplifying coalitions and the work of nonprofit organizations are essential to the ongoing process of fair representation for all Californians – and this begins at the local level.

"Here's what philanthropy needs to understand. While independent commissions in the California model are essentially the nation's best answer for gerrymandering, it isn't a magic bullet. It doesn't work on its own. It requires philanthropy to invest so that community-based organizations can engage in this work." 

Jonathan Mehta Stain (California Common Cause)

Five Ways Philanthropy Can Get Involved

Investing in Advance 

Funding must happen early, even before a redistricting commission starts operating. If a commission is convened in 2031, the application process will happen in 2030, meaning recruitment will happen in 2029. To support this entire process to its fullest potential, philanthropy must fund this work years early. Investing when the redistricting cycle starts is already too late. For the 2030 state redistricting process, Philanthropy California's Fair Representation Fund report recommends starting to plan as early as 2026.

Voter Education and Mobilization

This is an opportunity to reorient people's attention to the local level, enabling both 501c(3)s and 501c(4)s to mobilize for civic engagement. While private foundations cannot fund (c)4 organizations, they can fund (c)3 organizations that participate in civic engagement through voter education outside political campaigning. Community foundations have the opportunity to fund 501(c)4 organizations that can fill in the gaps of disparate funding, as this is not a ballot measure with big money behind it. California already has six counties and fourteen commissions with independent redistricting. After implementation, these jurisdictions have tremendously empowered communities because of their transparency and openness to the public, allowing residents to take part in every step of the process.

Diversifying the Lottery 

Though effective, the independent redistricting process proves successful only when there is specific intention and outreach to underrepresented communities through local and ethnic media, community organizations, philanthropy, and other outreach methods. There is a critical opportunity for funders to support community leaders in joining the recruitment lottery through increased hyper-local giving to community-based organizations that are educating voters on redistricting and convening community groups to educate the public on the process and role of a redistricting commissioner.  For example, Long Beach's independent redistricting communication was developed with equitable outreach in mind to ensure it reached the city's diverse population.  

Understanding Census and Redistricting as a Single Process

The Census and redistricting processes are perpetually intertwined. We encourage funders to think of these as one continuous civic engagement project. Starting funding in 2026 can ensure that community-based organizations can prepare for multi-year civic engagement processes that support hard-to-reach communities and solidify their representation.

Strengthening Local Democracy through DAFs

Philanthropy can open pathways to funding through donor-advised funds (DAFs) that specifically invest in local communities. We often see DAFs supporting congressional swing states and issues outside the state, but democracy begins at home in the local municipalities. There are opportunities to solve the issues that plague our country locally, right where we live. 

Looking Ahead: What's at Stake?

As of August 2024, the LA City Council has put a charter amendment creating an independent redistricting commission on the November ballot for the City's voters to approve or reject. California Common Cause and partner organizations are fundraising for a campaign in support. At the same time, the City Council also put on the ballot a charter amendment that would create an independent redistricting commission for the Los Angeles Unified School District. This sequence of events demonstrates the influence that the City of Los Angeles holds as a keystone governmental system, influencing other local municipalities, even without an independent process being implemented yet.

If the ballot measure passes in November, plenty of work remains to further a multiracial democracy, with redistricting being only one tool for improving democratic practices. The philanthropic sector must continue to invest during the in-between years of the Census and redistricting to ensure that critical components of the civic engagement processes, like this measure and the actions above, are fully implemented so that our communities are reflected in our democracy.

However, a "no" vote on this proposition in November means that the Los Angeles City Council will continue to make redistricting decisions without checks on the potential corruption elected officials can employ. In previous years, we have sometimes seen funders and community-based organizations invest significant effort and resources in mobilizing people to participate in the redistricting process, only for there to be behind-the-scenes influence by a city council controlling the advisory commission. This process must change, no matter how many times it might be rejected. 

Stein mentions that even if this measure fails to pass this year, California Common Cause will continue to find any opportunity to push for the codification of independent redistricting commissions. Ultimately, a process run by politicians who preside over city districts will never genuinely represent communities in Los Angeles. Redistricting can completely silence a community or be a catalyst to future pathways for civic engagement. If a community is undercounted and denied fair representation, the government will be less responsive to the needs and priorities of these communities, which is often the case for Black, Indigenous, and communities of color. 

While there may be national attention on the presidential administration as the November elections are on the horizon, we cannot dismiss the importance of the local measures that will most directly impact the lives of residents. When undercounted communities are engaged and empowered through meaningful connection, they feel fully represented in democracy. The City of Los Angeles can vote for independent redistricting to realize this vision. 

​​SCG's Public Policy & Government Relations team was grateful to speak to Jonathan Mehta Stein and Russia Chavis Cardenas to learn more about independent redistricting and how philanthropy can get involved in this critical work to build a multiracial democracy. We encourage you to learn more about independent redistricting and democracy work and support California Common Cause's upcoming projects by contacting Russia Chavis Cardenas at rchavis@commoncause.org. If you would like to learn more about how philanthropy can engage more effectively in civic engagement and advocacy work, please contact Emily Michels, Manager of Public Policy & Government Relations, at emily@socalgrantmakers.org.