Sound far-fetched? Well, the Constitution says that anyone who is a citizen of the United States and reaches the age of 35 is qualified to be president. But that is not why I posed this scenario. I told this story to point out the power that public officials possess in making laws and changing attitudes. Sure, there is only one president, but the power to make law and change attitudes also exists on the legislative level, both in Congress and in the state legislatures. This article makes the case that it is important for the survival of this profession that it elect one of its own to the legislature, either on the state or national level. I want to point out that the opportunity to elect a DC will never be better than in 1992. Further, I will discuss the prospects of electing a DC and what we at the California Chiropractic Association (CCA) are doing to assist those DCs who are contemplating running for political office or who wish to run someone's campaign.
If one studies those states in the country where chiropractic legislation has its greatest success, more times than not there is a chiropractic doctor serving as a member of the state Senate or Assembly. Look at Louisiana where Dr. Charles Herring serves as a member of the legislature and has been appointed to a national workers' compensation task force of legislatures. You can also point to John Davidson, D.C. of Illinois. This list goes on and the benefits are obvious. The value of a lobbyist is that personal relationship with members of the legislature that allows access and information. The better the relationship and access, the more successful the lobbyist. A legislator has all of this and much more. A legislator gets into the private caucuses of the party leadership where legislative strategy and positions on bills are discussed. He has the ability to seek legislative counsel opinions and has direct access to the bureaucracy of state government which responds to legislative needs. Most important, the legislator has the power to vote. The power to vote not just for CCA bills, but the power to vote for or against bills which may be favored by other legislators. A DC in the legislature would force a change in perspective of other special interest groups as they relate to the profession. Would the California Medical Association (CMA) be as arrogant as they have been about chiropractic issues if they had to face a chiropractic legislator every week before the health committee? I doubt it -- particularly if the chiropractic doctor served as the chairperson of the health committee (as once occurred in the state of Washington).
The need for a chiropractic doctor in the legislature is obvious, and the opportunity to elect one will never be better than in 1992. In California, as in other parts of the country, the political landscape is going through major changes. These changes are opportunities which will allow competent and aggressive DCs to be elected to the Congress or to state legislatures.
The single most important factor providing this opportunity for the chiropractic profession is the redistricting process that occurs in every state. Every ten years there is a redrawing of congressional and state legislative districts based on the population statistics gathered by the federal census. To conform to past court decisions that codified the theory of "one man, one vote," the political lines must be drawn so that there is an equal distribution of voters between legislative districts. In simpler terms, this decision requires that each member of the U.S. Congress represents approximately the same number of voters. The Constitution allows for 435 congressional seats with each state having a minimum of one seat. Additional seats for each state are based on population.
The 1990 census showed a considerable shift in population throughout the country. As a consequence, some states showing phenomenal growth, particularly in the South and West, like California, will have an increase of congressional seats at the expense of states in the Midwest and Northeast which have lost population. States in those areas will lose seats because of their decrease in population.
Whether a state increases its congressional delegation or loses seats, the existing districts will have to be redrawn to accommodate the changes. The process of redrawing district lines in each state is performed by each state legislature and must be approved by the governor. Such a process sends shivers up and down an incumbent's spine: The incumbent may face a new group of voters to influence; and worse, the specter of new faces to challenge the incumbent's re-election. In those states where congressional districts have been added, there is a further opportunity for an outsider or a DC to win the seat.
The California scene best illustrates the results of redistricting. Over the last ten years the state Senate and Assembly have been dominated by the Democratic Party even though the state generally votes Republican on state and national elections. The registration for both parties is fairly close. A strong argument can be made that the Democrats control the legislature because the last time district lines were drawn, they controlled both the legislature and the governorship.
It appears the 1980 drawing of district lines for the state Assembly and Senate, as well as the congressional lines, was done in such a way to benefit the majority of the Democrats. Also, it is clear that this is not against the law as long as the "one man, one vote" concept is maintained. Now the circumstances are different. While the Democrats control the legislature, the Republican governor has veto power. Wilson has already vowed to veto any plan weighted to run Republican incumbents against themselves. He has also pledged to campaign against any Republican incumbent who agrees to override his veto in return for protection in re-election.
Other factors could further muddy the picture. California will pick up an additional seven congressional seats that must be carved out from the existing districts. Finally, any redistricting plan approved by the governor and the legislature must be sent to the U.S. Justice Department to be certain that it complies with the recently amended Federal Voting Rights Act. There is a high-stakes poker game going on right now between the legislature and the governor and between Republicans and Democrats. One thing is certain, the end product will be Assembly, Senate, and congressional districts that do not resemble the current political landscape. All this translates into new opportunities.
Redistricting alone is not the only factor influencing the political picture and creating opportunities, particularly in California. Proposition 140 has encouraged many members of the Assembly and state Senate to look for other legislative positions, leaving some districts which may be ripe for the picking. Proposition 140 set term limits of three two-year terms for members of the Assembly and two four-year terms for members of the state Senate. We're already seeing a redistribution of legislators. For example, Wilson's selection of State Senator Seymour as the U.S. senator from California resulted in three incumbent assemblymen running for Seymour's state Senate position. One of the incumbents won the seat which will result in a vacancy in the Assembly. Congressman Denneymeyer who will contest Seymour in the primary in 1992 will not be seeking re-election for Congress. State Senator Royce has announced his intention to run for the congressional seat, thus leaving another open seat for next year. Already there is speculation that a number of assemblymen will vie for that seat, leaving their seats vacant.
Is your head spinning enough? There is more. Cranston's decision not to seek re-election has resulted in a number of congressmen giving up their seats to run for the Senate. Barbara Boxer, Mel Levine, Bob Matsiu, David Drier, Robert Doran, and Tom Campbell are all expressing a strong interest in running. Each of these seats will undoubtedly look good to members of the Assembly and Senate who are operating under the albatross of Proposition 140 and would be interested in giving up their seats subject to redistricting -- more opportunities. The California Journal ran an article of the multiple campaigns which could occur. It's mind-boggling. More important it spells opportunity for this profession.
The opportunity is clearly present. The questions: Can a DC be elected? What does it take to run for political office? Yes, a DC can be elected, given the fact that DCs already hold legislative positions in other states. A chiropractic doctor has many advantages that most individuals seeking office for the first time don't have. First and most important, they have a loyal patient base of support which could be translated into volunteers, financial support, and votes. The loyalty of these patients is based on their trust, a rare commodity among politicians today. Additionally, a qualified doctor would gain the support of other doctors and their patients, and of course the chiropractic organization in the state.
Running for political office is no easy matter. I speak from experience, having twice run for county central committee, (losing the first time by 500 votes, the second by 50 votes) and also running a number of other campaigns on the local and state level. Running for office takes guts, energy, money, and a lot of volunteers. If you are successful in your election, you will still have to do it all again to stay in office. If you don't feel you have the time to be a full-time legislator, consider running for local offices like city council or county supervisor. Dr. Jim Petrikin of Fountain Valley and Dr. Martin Gallegos are examples of DCs who successfully ran for city council. These local governments pass laws and influence government.
If political office doesn't appeal to you, consider following the path of Dr. Everett Roden who became active with the California Republican Assembly (CRA). He has held a number of offices leading up to a term as the organization's president. Or consider the success of Mike Schroeder, who is currently treasurer of the CRA. Each of these individuals is adding to the stature of the profession. If you don't want to run for office consider being a campaign manager. Managing a campaign allows you to establish a strong bond with the candidate and increases your visibility in the community.
The political opportunities for the profession in 1992 are enormous, in California and throughout the country. For those of you who are interested, the CCA is sponsoring a workshop called "Candidates' School" on Thursday, June 20th, during the CCA/CCF Convention in Monterey. The workshop will be presented by our political consultant, David Townsend. He and his associates will discuss what it takes to run a successful campaign, including techniques of fund-raising, voter identification, and obtaining free media coverage. Who knows, a politician may emerge from this experience that will one day travel via Air Force One.
Garrett F. Cuneo,
Executive Director
California Chiropractic Association