Title:
Berman/D'Agostino Redistricting and Political Campaign Materials, 1968-2003
Creator:
Michael Berman and Carl D'Agostino and their firm, Berman & D'Agostino Campaigns
Extent:
209 boxes
Repository:
Institute of Governmental Studies Library, University of California, Berkeley
Shelf Location:
The collection is housed in a remote storage facility. Access to materials may be arranged by applying in writing to the Library Director, Institute of Governmental Studies. At least two weeks notice is required.
Provenance:
The Berman/D'Agostino Collection was acquired by the Institute of Governmental Studies Library in several shipments from 2002 to 2004.
Access:
The collection is open for research. Access to materials may be arranged by applying in writing to the Library Director, Institute of Governmental Studies. At least two weeks notice is required.
Publication Rights:
Copyright has not been assigned to the Institute of Governmental Studies Library. All requests for permission to publish or quote from manuscripts must be submitted in writing to the Library Director. Permission for publication is given on behalf of the Institute of Governmental Studies Library as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission of the copyright holder, which must also be obtained by the reader.
Preferred Citation:
[Identification of item], Berman/D'Agostino Redistricting and Political Campaign Materials, Institute of Governmental Studies Library, University of California, Berkeley.
The Berman/D'Agostino collection consists of redistricting maps, 1970-2000, campaign literature and related political materials documenting the careers of Michael Berman and Carl D'Agostino, leading California political consultants and strategists. Mr. Berman and Mr. D'Agostino have been key players in California reapportionment politics and Democratic political campaigns since the early 1970s. Their consulting firm is Berman and D'Agostino Campaigns, also known by the acronym, BAD.
In June 2004 Michael Berman provided the following additional background: For more than 30 years, BAD (or the principals of BAD prior to its formation in December 1981) has played a major role (along with IGS Professor Bruce Cain) in California's redistricting process. Through four decade cycles (as California grew from a 1960 Census population of less than 16 million people to its 2000 census population of close to 34 million people, a gain of over 112%, and as the size of California's Congressional delegation grew from a 1960 38 Congressional districts to its 2001 delegation of 53 districts) the principals of BAD were the primary implementers of the lions' share of successful (and unsuccessful) legislative redistricting proposals.
Redistricting in California has been the focus of enormous media coverage, the subject of a 30 year long political war between Democrats and Republicans and a magnet for hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign contributions and legal expenditures to: a) wrest control of both houses of the State Legislature, b) change via initiative the way redistricting is implemented, and c) convince the State Supreme Court and federal courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) that either the Democrats or the Republicans have been unfair to the other party, or have been unfair to minority groups (in California, primarily Latinos).
Control of the Legislature and control of the U.S. Congress is at stake when California redistricts. This collection documents the history of a 30 year redistricting war that resulted in a Court imposed redistricting proposal following Ronald Reagan vetoes in the 1970s, a partisan Democratic plan passed by a Democratic Legislature and signed by Governor Jerry Brown in the 1980s, and a Court imposed redistricting proposal following Pete Wilson vetoes in the 1990s.
As demonstrated by then Governor Ronald Reagan's 1971 late night visit to the State Assembly (in his pajamas) to cajole Republican legislators to refrain from voting for any Democratic sponsored redistricting compromise (chronicled in the previously submitted papers), the California's recent redistricting wars were intense.
The collection includes printed matter, videotape, and film, and is recorded in three inventories:
Inventory No. 1
Lists maps used in redistricting efforts at the state and local levels from 1980-2000.
Inventory No. 2
Lists an array of materials beginning in the late 1960s relating to political campaigns, reapportionment efforts, litigation, and California political life involving Berman and D'Agostino individually and collaboratively, and their firm, BAD Campaigns, Inc. The collection includes slate mailers, early computer drawn maps and targeted mailing lists, film and video political commercials, litigation relating to challenges to redistricted lines, and California political battles that were ultimately resolved in the courts, and files relating to the main campaigns managed by them individually, collaboratively, and as a firm, beginning with Henry Waxman's Assembly campaign in 1968, managed by Michael Berman.
Inventory No. 3
Includes materials documenting the creation and legislative passage of the 2001 State Senate and Congressional redistricting plans, the legal defense of those plans, the 2001 legislative redistricting hearing transcripts, the successful Section 5 compliance submissions for the 2001 redistricting, assorted materials from previous redistrictings (70s, 80s, and 90s) referenced by BAD during the 2001 redistricting, and 5 boxes of materials, literature, videotapes, campaign literature from BAD's political activities. Of particular interest in Inventory No. 3 are the 2001 litigation journals, reapportionment worksheets, and files concerning Cano vs. Davis, the case which upheld the State Senate and Congressional plans in the courts. In November 2001 the federal district court for central California denied a request for a temporary restraining order to halt the use of the plans in the 2002 elections (191 F. Supp. 2d 1135), and in June 2002 the same court affirmed the plans in a substantial opinion (211 F. Supp. 2d 1208). In January 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the district court decision in a unanimous summary ruling (537 U.S. 1100).
In June 2004 Michael Berman provided this further detail:
2000's Redistricting Cycle - Make Love, Not War
With the election of Gray Davis as Governor in 1998, Democrats were in control of the redistricting process for the 2000s cycle. BAD was called out of retirement by State Senate Pro Tem John Burton and the Democratic Congressional Delegation to advise regarding the drawing of the lines and to strategize passage once again. Unlike the 1980s, the Democrats were at a high water mark as the process began and the relatively slow growth of California vis a vis the rest of the country meant California was entitled to but one new Congressional seat (in the 70s California was awarded five additional seats, beginning the 80s cycle two seats, beginning the 90s cycle seven seats).
BAD proceeded on a strategy of bringing the two sides together for an unprecedented bi-partisan redistricting. Michael Barone, in his authoritative Almanac of American Politics 2004 (pages 155-157), describes this unique redistricting and characterizes the plan as passed as having "the elegance one would expect of the nation's foremost redistricter."
Boxes 13 thru 20 contain data files, press coverage, and research used by BAD to craft the redistricting proposals. Included in these boxes are political and census data from the U.C. Berkeley/IGS data base and compiled by Pac Tech. This collection provides a unique insight into the technical and strategic processes of formulating the redistricting laws.
Box 24 contains remaining materials (most were previously submitted) from the 70s, 80s, and 90s redistricting referenced by BAD during formulation and legal defense of the 2001 redistricting.
Box 21 contains a complete set of hearing transcripts of the State Senate Elections and Reapportionment Committee.
Box 23 contains the official Section 5 pre-compliance submissions to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Boxes labeled 29 thru 31 include the posterboards used as instructional tools and persuasion devices in the countless meetings with legislators and Members of Congress.
Taken together these materials provide a unique insight into the strategies, tactics and processes employed by the State Legislature and BAD to bring together both parties to pass an unprecedented bipartisan redistricting plan.
MALDEF (and Other Latino Advocacy Groups) Challenge the Congressional and State Senate Plans in Court
Although 23 of the 26 Latino legislators embraced the redistricting plan, it was challenged by the Mexican American Legal and Educational Defense Fund (MALDEF). Citing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, MALDEF contended the State Senate and Congressional lines unfairly limited the ability of Latino populations to elect a candidate of choice. The suit specifically singled out BAD as "intentional discriminators" in the drawing of two Congressional Districts, including the San Fernando Valley based seat held by Congressman Howard Berman (Michael Berman's brother) and even though that district as drawn contains a 58% Latino population.
In a unanimous ruling, a three-Judge federal panel (by coincidence, one of the more liberal pro Civil Rights three Judge Federal District Court panels ever assembled) ruled via summary judgment that the plans did not discriminate and upheld the redistricting plan. MALDEF then filed an appeal of the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, and that Court (considerably less liberal) unanimously affirmed the summary judgment ruling.
Boxes 1-10 provide a complete documentation in rough chronological order of all the legal filings (those of plaintiff MALDEF, defendant State Senate, and Amici) and court decisions. This collection offers a unique insight for lawyers and scholars into the changing federal court interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Boxes 11-12 include the legal filings in a state law challenge (actually three state law challenges combined into one case, Andal v. Davis, et al.) to all three redistricting statutes (Assembly as well as State Senate and Congress). Once again the Court ruled in favor of the legislatively-passed statutes. A single lawsuit (of the three) that involves only the Assembly districts (and therefore is largely unrelated to the BAD papers) is currently being appealed to the State Supreme Court.
The value of this legal brief collection reaches far beyond dry legal history. The State Senate's legal advocates (the Los Angeles law firm of Irell & Manella headed by noted lead attorney Jonathan Steinberg) graphically outlined the details of representational theory, the crafting of a complicated redistricting plan, and BAD's role in that process. MALDEF's filings describe the longing of race-based groups to cling to a representational theory that mandates race as the preeminent consideration in redistricting. Taken together these briefs are, in effect, a textbook of modern redistricting practices.