Mark Olbert

Mark Olbert

I appreciated Rudy Espinoza Murray’s recent guest perspective on the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors redistricting process. Both Rudy and I serve on the Citizens Advisory Commission appointed to make recommendations on what, if any, changes should be made based on the 2020 census.

Rudy argued a county as diverse as San Mateo deserves a Board of Supervisors not dominated by white men, and district lines ought to be drawn so a more diverse leadership will get elected.

Even though I’m an old white guy, I appreciate diversity because it leads to better public policy decisions. Its value doesn’t have to come from differences in race or ethnicity or country of origin. In fact, it mostly stems from leaders having different life experiences. Which are often a function, granted, of race, ethnicity, the socioeconomic level of one’s family, country of origin, etc.

Where I differ from Rudy is I don’t believe using boundaries to tilt the system toward electing a more diverse-looking group of leaders based on race or ethnicity is the best approach. We absolutely don’t want the deck stacked against any group. But that’s different from stacking the deck in favor of some group or groups, even if they’ve been underrepresented. It’s why such gerrymandering was held to be unconstitutional.

The rules governing redistricting target several goals ... at least some of which conflict with each other. That isn’t surprising. Determining how voting power gets consolidated to create a decision-making body whose experiences and insights span those of the entire community is inherently complicated. So complicated that any single-focus approach should be suspect. Because it would almost certainly ignore or minimize other vital community interests.

Using boundaries to solve diversity problems reminds me of the old saying “when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.” But boundaries are not the only tool available to support and encourage diverse leadership. Based on nearly 20 years as a local elected official I’d say other factors are far more important in determining who gets elected.

First there’s the issue of money. Campaigns are expensive, and if you aren’t lucky enough to be able to fund your own, you’ll have to spend a lot of time schmoozing donors. That takes time away from earning a living and enjoying your family.

Learning how to reach out to people you don’t know is something many of us don’t master growing up. Not everyone is a salesperson. Moreover, even if you have good campaigning instincts you still need to determine who to make your pitch to. The data on who votes in what elections (not how they voted, just whether they voted or not) is publicly available ... but it can be challenging to navigate.

Beyond money, campaign savvy and figuring out how to sell yourself there’s also the issue of how our elected bodies meet and operate. Few of them do so in a way which makes it easy for parents with school-age children to play a role (due to when meetings are held, lack of child care support, etc.).

This isn’t meant to be an exhaustive list. There are many other factors which also play a role in discouraging pursuit of elective office by most people of ordinary means. These are just the ones I heard, many times, from people when I was an elected official.

Rather than focus all our attention on drawing the “right” boundaries, wouldn’t it be better to draw the lines fairly ... and address the factors limiting candidate diversity directly? By requiring our public agencies to offer training on how to network and campaign? By making the voter records easier to access and use? By changing when and how our leaders meet, and offering support services like child care?

And — dare I say it? — maybe we should think, carefully, about public financial assistance for campaigns.

Some will argue that’s a waste of scarce taxpayer dollars. But if we truly want elective office to be open to all citizens, benefiting our community through diverse leadership, why shouldn’t we be willing to spend public funds to make at least a down payment on it? Because if I had to pick one factor limiting the diversity of our leaders it’d have to be money.

Figuring out how to do that the right way won’t be easy. But there are existing models we could follow.

Regardless, I encourage everyone with an interest in redistricting to contact the commission and share your views on our boundaries. But, beyond that, I encourage everyone who wants, like me, to see diverse viewpoints and perspectives on the board, to think about doing more than just how to draw lines on a map.

Mark Olbert is a member of the San Mateo County District Lines Advisory Commission and the former mayor of San Carlos.

Recommended for you

(3) comments

Rudy E

I'll share my thoughts at our next DLAC meeting. I think we agree more than we disagree, however, we cannot ignore the spirit of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Maps Act (AB 849) - and that's to give people of color a chance. The law is clear that race cannot be the predominant factor, but it HAS to be an important factor. If not, what's the point? -Rudy Espinoza Murray

Terence Y

Considering the $31 billion given to EDD fraudsters and the money wasted on other dubious projects and union giveaways, public financial assistance for campaigns sounds like it might be a steal – of even more taxpayer money. BTW, setting boundaries are the same as redistricting. Racism in the name of diversity is still racism.

Ray Fowler

Hello, Mark

You wrote, "... maybe we should think, carefully, about public financial assistance for campaigns."

You're a progressive. Another progressive, Bernie Sanders, did not receive federal funding during the 2020 election cycle nor did he use his own money. Yet, he raised over 211 million dollars... and the majority of campaign contributions received by Bernie came from individual donors who gave less than 200 dollars each... not the general public.

When you write "public financial assistance for campaigns" that really means more money coming out of taxpayers' pockets... and perhaps you are OK with that idea. However, if you live in a district located in the southern end of Town X, why should your taxes go to support someone running for office at the extreme northern end of your hometown? If tax money goes to local campaigns, it's possible your money would be sent to a candidate you cannot vote for... and that candidate may be someone you would never vote for.

Should we add public financial assistance for campaigns to the current administration's infrastructure proposal?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase an Enhanced Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!