Eric Alterman, thinkologist for The Nation and prolific
Reason
pen
pal,
has been
hinting darkly for a while now that the big Democratic midterm
victory is going to end with Santa shaking his head sadly and
saying "We'll just have to cancel
Christmas Winter Holiday! And the
children have been so good this year!" While Alterman's never quite
willing to consider that the left is just selling a product few
Americans want to buy, he's got a strong point about how
districting has greased the ladder for the Democrats, linking to
this
interesting study:
Why are things so tough? Looking at the 2004 election, the Democrats won their victories with an average of 69% of the vote, while the Republicans averaged 65% in their contests, thus "wasting" fewer votes. The Republicans won 47 races with less than 60% of the vote; the Democrats only 28. Many Democrats are in districts where they win overwhelmingly, while many Republicans are winning the close races—with the benefit of incumbency and, in some cases, favorable redistricting.
I find gerrymandering issues heap-big confusing—isn't there a pretty low ceiling to how much you can redistrict your way to victory at the national level? (That is, I can see how it works to gerrymander a district at the local level, but when you're talking about all 535 seats in Congress, shouldn't it tend to even out?) But as Delaware Dave Weigel reminded me the other day, since the days of the Contract With America, the GOP has had plenty of time in control of a variety of state houses to set things up. It's going to take some doing for Powerhouse Pelosi to orchestrate a national turnover, and a general sense that "Americans are unhappy with the direction of Congress" is not enough to do it.
Studying how the Republicans have stacked the deck against Democrats (sort of like how the Democrats did the exact same thing to Republicans until the 1990s) takes some of the sheen off President Bush's performance as head of the Republicans, but not much. As I never tire of pouring icy water on political hopes, I'll point out again that Bush is still way ahead of the average presidential-coattails performance in off-year and midterm races. Even if the GOP lost both houses in November, Bush would still be ahead of the average. He's already an electoral success for his party. How such a small man had such a big effect is something future historians, with their smellevision and massive frontal and parietal lobes, will have to puzzle out.
Party-wise, gerrymandering may even out. TRhe problem with it is that it's now an Incumbents' Lifelong Employment Act. They try very hard to eliminate swing districts of any sort.
Gerrymandering doesn't even out nationally because the Republican gerrymandering strategy - packing as many black people into a landslide-majority black/Democrat district, thus leaving the four or five surrounding districts solid-majority Republican - has been assisted by black Democratic politicians, who've been supportive of the same strategy.
Incumbent protections regulations, oops I mean campaign finance
regulations are another reason it is difficult to unseat incumbent
politicians.
They also markedly increase the power of PACs and lobbyists.
Think about it this way. Let's say you played baseball for the
Rs against the competing team, the Ds. Let's further assume that
you played 50 games, and that over the course of those 50 games,
the Ds scored 60 runs, and your team, the Rs, scored 50. Now you'd
expect, given the run distribution, that the Rs would lose a few
more games than you would win.
But - let's say I give you complete control over how all of those
runs are apportioned per game. The optimal strategy would be to
push all of the D's runs into one game, and none of the Rs. That'd
give the D's an incredibly lop-sided victory, 60 - 0. However,
you're then free to take one run for the Rs for each remaining
game, winning the next 49 games, 1-0, giving you a record of 49-1,
despite the fact that overall, you were outscored.
That's why the article talks about not "wasting" votes, because as
long as you win by even one vote, it's inefficient to waste the
remaining votes when you can push them into a different district
via gerrymandering.
Joe is correct, it's the result of an informal bipartisan agreement: Democrats wanted very safe black seats, and Republicans said "Sure, let's do that!"
"How such a small man had such a big effect..."
Wise choice of political enemies?
"While Alterman's never quite willing to consider that the left
is just selling a product few Americans want to buy..."
More to the point, does the left have a product many Americans can
recognize? Aside from "not Republican", I mean.
What Joe and Papaya said. Much of the race-based gerrymandering
was done at the behest of Democrats.
But at the same time, gerrymandering isn't everything. It's
arguably contributed to republican victories, and may very much
make the difference in razor thin margins-- a million votes here, a
million votes there, eventually you're talking about real
victories.
However, given the very good forum over at Cato Unbound over
Democrats attracting that mysterious voting bloc called
"libertarians", some interesting points in the bigger picture
should be pondered.
The fact is, Democrats can win races if they attracted enough votes
across a spectrum. They should learn this by studying Republican
victories despite former Democratic gerrymandering.
I'm almost... almost ready to hope for Republican
victories in the upcoming election in that it might send a message
to Democrats to seriously differentiate themselves from
Republicans.
I am not going to take Moulitsas advice and vote for Democrats and
hope for a policy shift later. I've been burned before on that. So
to speak: If you can't come up with the front money, you're not
for real.
In 1991, the California legislature could not agree with the
Governor on a redistricting plan, so Judges drew up the election
districts. The result was that many districts were competitive for
several elections.
In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger suggested changing the law to put
redistricting in the hands of a non-partisan commission of
ex-Judges. The Democrats and several GOP incumbents spent massively
to defeat it, so now California has no competitive districts.
This issue is bigger than who will win the election. The issue is
whether voters determine who will be elected, or officials decide
who can vote for them.
How such a small man had such a big effect
He hasn't. He has no coattails. Left and right are equally
disgusted with him--conservatives more sensibly so, since he
pretended, once, to be one of them, sort of. The left is fighting a
devil of their own imagining. Their post-Kerry-loss attachment to
"systemic" explanations for their haplessness is desperate
and...hapless.
It's simple. The ground occupied by Bush (and Lieberman and
Hillary) is the American "center"--boundless government, domestic
and foreign. Slightly greater numbers of Republicans than Democrats
are talking that talk lately, so slightly greater numbers of them
are winning. It'll change when the talk changes.
It's why libertarians always lose--and, sadly, always will.
Seems this is a case of poker and who's willing to take the
greater risk. If the pubs are willing to spread their voters out
more than the dems (and have a slightly better product) they will
win big. If the dems are more interested in self-preservation (i.e.
more selfish) and collaborate with the pubs to insure their own
"secure seats," they set themselves up to lose to a more confident
opponent.
It all works out in the end, what goes around, comes around, as
long as the rules are uniform and slow-to-change.
Maguire has a good analysis of this affect at Just one
Minute.
Historians likely will question why the "small man" was able to perform so well in elections despite his bold stands on social security, taxes and national security. But, I guess, historians that don't work for the Los Angeles Times might have had more time to appreciate history than a full time science fiction buff.
When you add demographic trends in with gerrymandering, it becomes pretty clear that the current fiasco notwithstanding, we are in for a "permanent" Republican majority...
When you add demographic trends in with gerrymandering, it
becomes pretty clear that the current fiasco notwithstanding, we
are in for a "permanent" Republican majority...
I respectfully disagree. I think that if the Democrats can really
appeal to a wide cross-section- especially a large percentage of
so-called 'swing' voters, they can take majority of both houses.
And forgive me for being Captain Obvious, but the white house is
certainly up for grabs.
I wonder if gerrymandering to have such close races is all that
wise.
In any given population, there are fence sitters and swing-voters.
And in that population, over time, there will be people who change
their minds, lose hope or get disgusted.
You can only game the system so long before human dynamics fails to
work for you and your own strategy comes back to bight you in the
ass. And in any complex system, attempting to control the variables
can, in and of itself, create unpredictable results.
Now, if you've won by engineering close races and then:
1. fail - in a big way - to remember to follow the message that got
you elected OR
2. your strategy is dependant on repeatedly trumping up the same
hot button issues with no real attempt at any solution or
resolution in order to "whip up your base." OR
3. Your party is so obviously corrupt, venal and obtuse...
...then you're pretty much setting yourself up for some
ass-handing.
BTW, the Washington Stock Exchange's stock for the GOP retaining control of the House in '06 has pretty much nose-dived over the past 2 weeks and is down around it's historical low.
There have been a number of "small" Presidents. Tyler, Lincoln,
Roosevelts (both the shrimp and the cripple), Wilson and
Reagan.
I think G.W. measures up!
"When you add demographic trends in with gerrymandering, it
becomes pretty clear that the current fiasco notwithstanding, we
are in for a "permanent" Republican majority..."
What?!?
In about 15 years, Texas will be a majority-minority state. Ditto
New Mexico, and Arizona. A few years after that, Colorado.
If current demographic trends, and the demographic voting patterns
of today continue, the Republicans will no longer be able to win a
national election, or hold the House.
I suspect by 'demographic patterns,' Lemur is talking about
religious identification and church attendance. It's a mistake to
draw a simplistic conclusion from this, however, because the vast
majority of weekly-church-attending black and Hispanic Americans
are pulling the lever for the Democrats - a pattern which Katrina
and the Immigration Wars are only exacerbating.
Since the 1994 GOP sweep, high powered gerrymandering software and computing has been developed. Thus, GOP state government majorities have had the power of this computing to help national majorities in the House. The flipover of many Governorships to the Dems will probably mean that the 2010 census will not lead to so many GOP districts. I have not seen any polling or predictions on this, but I have to assume that state houses and senates are probably poised for big Dem. gains, with the national GOP troubles causing big, but unpolled, losses in state elections. I personally believe that the country would be better served by a uniform apportioning algorithm, such as all East to West, or all North to South within states. This would divide some cities awkwardly, etc., but would over time better reflect the population and keep politicians focused on that, rather than how to rig the system to stay in power.
When you add demographic trends in with gerrymandering, it
becomes pretty clear that the current fiasco notwithstanding, we
are in for a "permanent" Republican majority...
You may be right via lucky guess (or insider information from
Diebold), but absent the latter, it is far from clear.
I've already laid out my suspicion with current "trends in with
gerrymandering," so such a provocative statement of surety and
confidence might warrant a righteous smackdown...but I'd be
interested in your defence of that position with some solid
explanation.
thedifferentphil,
In addition, a Democratic Congress in 2007-2009 will not hamstring
Census 2010 the way the Republicans deliberately uncut efforts to
reduce undercounts in Census 2000.
There are several demographic trends at war with each other
inside the U.S. population, and I'd hesitate to predict which one
will dominate politics in the first half of Century 21. To
wit:
1.) The huge number of immigrants. Only those who arrive through
official channels are going to be eligible to vote, unless some
sort of amnesty, however qualified, is enacted. But a plurality or
even a majority of new naturalized citizens will be Democrats, and
the citizen-kids of even the illegals are also likely to trend that
way.
2.) The comparative fertility of conservatives of the church-going
stripe v. their sisters who are more or less secularist, from the
professional woman to the more..bohemian..of lifestyle. It's not
that lefties and Career Women don't have children, but they have
fewer than the Red State Moms do. Does the membership of NARAL
think its going to outbreed the Baptist Ladies' Sodality?
3.) The power of internal migration. One result of the shift of
population within the U.S. is that the old Northeastern states have
been losing seats in the Congress and the Electoral College to our
nation's warmer climes for some time. Florida, California and Texas
are out-clouting New York, Michigan and Pennsylvania. You also get
weird effects, such as the influx of non-white immigrants to CA
being offset by an out-migration of middle-class whites to states
like Nevada and Utah. Both groups may just be following employment
opportunities, but some people who are "Red Staters" in their souls
just got sick of living in a blue one.
It is possible that immigrant-heavy states may become more
Democratic, while conservative Sun Belt states, which have been
Republican strongholds for some time, will continue along that
path. Extrapolating existing trends without limit is a good way to
make stupid predictions, though. I imagine life will throw up
enough complexity to make monkeys out of the prognosticators.
Ahhnold's attempt to replace political-map drawing by the
Legislature with a state commisiion failed, but Iowa has had one
for a while, and people there seem pretty happy with it. In many
states, the decennial mapping trauma has been a wrangle among
incumbents intent on nailing down even safer seats, party
operatives trying to game the system to increase the number of
seats they hold, and racial and ethnic interest groups trying to
carve out districts some of their members can win. The latter are
often backed by the federal Justice Dept., especially in the states
under special scrutiny from the Voting Rights Act. The whole mess
frequently winds up in the laps of judges anyway, which is why the
Iowa Plan has such appeal. If you lose a redistricting lawsuit, and
the judiciary chooses to impose someone else's map, you can get
screwed but good. A commission may not allow you to steamroll your
opposition, but you won't get run over, either.
Kevin
the Republicans deliberately uncut efforts to reduce
undercounts in Census 2000.
You mean when they insisted that the Census actually count
people, as written in the Constitution, as opposed to the
Democratic plan of "estimating" more people than could be counted
in Democratic areas? Those villainous Republicans!
What realy annoys me is whan they use the terms BCE BEFORE COMMON ERA and CE COMMON ERA as if their afraid to iffend the athesit wackos at the most infamous ACLU and the rest of the leftists groups
Words don't convey how pathetic you appear, Wally.
You have the grammatical comprehension of a 12 year old.
What realy annoys me is whan they use the terms BCE BEFORE
COMMON ERA...
I'm with ellipsis on this one, Wally. You're a boob.
Consider: Maybe the 65% of the rest of the world that's NOT
Christian get's annoyed when we try to reframe their history around
our religion and shove our beliefs down their throat.
Besides, B.C. & A.D. don't even start on the right year to
correspond with Christ's birth so it's a pretty pathetic argument
to begin with.
"You mean when they insisted that the Census actually count
people, as written in the Constitution, as opposed to the
Democratic plan of "estimating" more people than could be counted
in Democratic areas?"
No, I mean the plan by the professional demographers working for
the Census bureau to adjust known-inaccurate numbers to make them
more accurate.
Classic Democrat vs. Republican issue: the entirety of the
professional statistical and demographer fields endorse a scheme to
improve the accuracy of the Census; Republicans notice that the
errors favor their poltical interests and kill the plan; Democrats
complain; the press reports the story as "he said/she said."
The question of accuracy never even crossed your mind, did it
PapayaSF?
Backin' up joe on this one, too. Republicans have zero cred when
it comes to abiding by peer reviewed, scientifically-based
reality.
Faith in God is one thing. But when given a choice of faith in
established experts vs faith in Republican pandering, I'm gonna go
with the experts.
This is the same crap behind the over-the-counter emergency
contraception issue in the FDA. Experts said do it. Partisan
wankers said no.
Or FEMA. Sensible people said get someone with experience. Bush
said, "Hire Brownie."
Once the Census goes off the real count there's a strong
possibility it will also go off the rails, as every political
faction with an axe to grind will try to get its fingers into the
now-up-for-grabs demographic pie.
Then of course there will be lawsuits out the yingyang, as various
activist groups demand "justice" in the form of bigger census
estimates for their aggrieved "under-represented" constituents and
activist judges will start throwing out numbers and replacing them
with new ones -- always bigger, of course.
Local and even state governments would also have an interest in
inflating the numbers. They get more money, more representation,
more clout, and more power with increasing population.
So many stand to gain at Federal taxpayer expense from inflated
Census numbers that anything but a straight-up count leaves too
much room for corruption to ever be considered.
All this is moot anyway, as the Constitution calls for a count, not
an estimate.
"Once the Census goes off the real count there's a strong
possibility it will also go off the rails, as every political
faction with an axe to grind will try to get its fingers into the
now-up-for-grabs demographic pie."
That's not a reason to take an inaccurate census; it's a reason to
have a reliable system in place to shield the professionals from
political interference.
"Local and even state governments would also have an interest in
inflating the numbers."
And other local and state governments, as well as national
organizations who favor certain groups over others, have in
interest in an inaccurate census that undercounts certain
populations. See above comment about independence from political
interference.
"All this is moot anyway, as the Constitution calls for a count,
not an estimate." No one is proposing to end the count, or replace
it with an estimate. The statisticians and other professionals who
design the census want to use sampling and imputation to adjust the
count, not replace it.
There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids improving on the
actual enumeration that fails to actually enumerate everbody. The
Constitution does not include the words "...and that's it" after
"actual enumeration." The Repubicans simply object to having an
accurtate census, because the inaccuracies benefit them.
Sadly, the legislature has been controlled for the past 12 years by
people who consider partisan interest more important than effective
government or scientific evidence. It shouldn't matter who would
benefit from making the census more accurate.
Umm-
There's always the Senate!
You can't gerrymander the Senate. I just had a thought- if the
Senate is as corrupt as the House, does that mean that
gerrymandering does not cause corruption?
if the Senate is as corrupt as the House, does that mean
that gerrymandering does not cause corruption?
Al, there are many forms and causes of corruption but in the end,
the 'cause' of corruption is individuals choosing corrupt methods
to achieve dubious ends.
Gerrymandering, per Wikipedia, is a controversial form of
redistricting in which electoral district or constituency
boundaries are manipulated for an electoral advantage. So it
is essentially, by definition, a corrupt practice.
The real difference 'tween the House and the Senate, as regards
gerrymandering, may be the level of partisanship it has led to.
Some have asserted that the Senate is comparitively less partisan
than the House, though I don't really have a solid opinion one way
or another on that one.
Laika's Last Woof: Exactly.
There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids improving on
the actual enumeration that fails to actually enumerate
everbody.
Joe, that's the kind of "let's improve the Constitution without
actually amending it" thinking that's produced the weakened,
half-ignored document we have today. Sure, accuracy is nice, and if
you have ways of improving "enumeration," fine. But I don't think
estimates are "enumeration."
I'll tell you what: I'll give you a census with transparent,
carefully-done scientific "adjustments" for accuracy, and you give
me photo ID for all voting and increased penalties for voting
fraud. Deal?
PapayaSF,
I see authorization in the Constitution to raise a Navy. I see
authorization to raise an Army. I don't see squat about raising an
Air Force. Do you know why that is?
Because an Air Force, while carrying out the same role as, and
improving on the efficacy of, an Army and Navy, is based on
technologies that did not exist at the time the Constitution was
framed. You know, sort of like modern statistical analysis.
Should the fact that the Constitution only specifically referenced
an Army and Navy be read as forbidding the creation of an Air Force
to improve our military capabilities? Should the fact that the
Constitution only specifically referenced an actual enumeration be
read as forbidding the use of statisical analysis to improve our
census-taking?
"Army" and "Navy" clearly mean "armed forces," and an air force
is a totally non-controversial extension. (Really: has anyone, even
the most rigid Constitutionalist, ever argued that having a
separate Air Force is unconstitutional?) The Constitution doesn't
mention "Marines" either, but nobody ever said their existence
contradicts the Constitution, even though we've had Marines since
the days of the Founders.
But "enumeration" has always meant "counting," not estimating. Is
it perfectly accurate as a means for a census? Nope, but it's a lot
harder to twist an actual count for political purposes than any
form of estimating, as LLW wrote above.
"Sadly, the legislature has been controlled for the past 12
years by people who consider partisan interest more important than
effective government or scientific evidence."
12?
Short memories ...
PapayaSF,
You're argument, though rigidly constitutional, is becoming
somewhat disingenuous.
It's perfectly reasonable to assume that when the constitution was
written, to most folks back then, counting heads was considered the
most logical, reasonable way of arriving at an accurate
census.
Lo some 200 years later, we find ourselves realizing that the scope
of a census for 300 million people is beyond the capacity for civil
servants to merely do a head count.
It's obvious that the framers were looking for an accurate count to
equitably ensure representation. These were, after all, men of the
enlightenment.
I'm figuring that they would probably find sticking with an
inaccurate headcount method over a more accurate approach simply to
accord to the letter of the 'as written' document to be pretty
stupid.
PapayaSF,
"and an air force is a totally non-controversial extension"
Among census takers, demographers, anthropolotigists, and
staticitians, incorporating statistical analysis to improve the
accuracy of the count is as totally non-controversial as using air
power is among the professional military. The only controversy that
exists over incorporating modern statistical methods into the
census is that whipped up by partisans with an interest in
inaccurate, biased census numbers. I do not for a second believe
that this phony "controversy" - on with as much grounding in
scientific evidence as the link between marijuana smoking and spree
killing - has any relevance whatsoever to the proposal's
constitutionality.
Let me run a not-so-hypothetical by you: a census taker gets forms
back from every house on Elm Street except one. He knows it's
there, he knows that people live in it. Like a good census taker,
he follows up, leaving messages and knocking on the door, but it
keeps getting slammed in his face. Perhaps the people who lived
there are the remains of a family murdered by the Khmer Rouge, and
they don't like to deal with the government. Or perhaps they just
travel a lot. Neighbors report that there are a few people living
there, but they don't know how many. They report seeing kids. They
think the house has been divided up among more than one household,
but they're not really sure.
He can "actually enumerate" the houseing unit, so obviously he
reports that. What about the people - since he doesn't have the
opportunity to "actually enumerate" them, should he write the
number of people he "actually enumerated" there: zero? What about
the number of households?
Should that census taker provide population, household, and
ethnic-group figures for that block that he knows to be untrue? Or
should he go beyond reporting what he's actually been able to count
first hand, in order to provide the most accurate information he
can?
You know that right definition for an "actual enumeration" is? One
that actually enumerates everyone, as closely as the Census bureau
can get.
Madpad, if the Constitution is outdated and needs to be changed,
it includes a mechanism for making such changes.
Joe, see above. Also: your hypothetical seems nitpicking to me.
Frankly, I doubt that this happens often enough to be statistically
significant, just as I doubt your claim that there are somehow vast
numbers of legal voters who are somehow unable to get photo
IDs.
But if your example is all we were arguing about, I wouldn't object
too much. However, that's not what the argument was circa 2000.
IIRC, it was Democrats and liberal social scientists who wanted to
add in estimates of people they couldn't count. It wasn't "We know
4 people live at 123 Elm St. even though they won't answer the
door, because that's what the people at 121 and 125 say." It was
"Our statistical estimate says there are X thousands of homeless in
this city, so let's add them to the census count." Once again,
that's not an enumeration, that's a guess.
It's obvious that the framers were looking for an accurate
count to equitably ensure representation. These were, after all,
men of the enlightenment.
Eh, these were the same fellows that counted "other persons" as
3/5ths of a person for census purposes?
I'm all for making the census a better COUNT, but not a statistical
free-for-all.
PapayaSF,
"Frankly, I doubt that this happens often enough to be
statistically significant..."
Frankly, you are wrong about that.
"IIRC, it was Democrats and liberal social scientists who wanted to
add in estimates of people they couldn't count."
Yes, of course, the statisticians and anthropologists at the Census
Bureau, and the American Statistical Association, are liberal
Democrats. How do we know this? Why, they made a proposal that
would not have been good for the Republicans. So they must be
biased, and wrong.
'It was "Our statistical estimate says there are X thousands of
homeless in this city, so let's add them to the census count."'
Yes, it was statisticians and anthropologists who knew how to
idenfity what the undercounts were. Why are you assuming that they
don't know what they're talking about, or that they're cheating?
Because they're telling you something you'd rather not hear?
Because the undercounts they've identified are concentrated among
groups of people you don't like? Because the outcome of a better
census would benefit the Democratic Party?
You've only read the spin about this, and you've concluded that you
know who is making a legitimate argument, and who is a partisan
cheat. Well that's just great. It's this blinkered partisanship,
this refusal to acknowledge inconvenient, scientific truths, that's
gotten this country into so many messes over the past six years,
and you still refuse to learn your less.
You can't ignore the truth just because you don't want to admit
it's the truth!
There's a good book titled "Who Counts?" about the debate, if you'd
like to learn more about this issue. If you'd rather wallow in your
comfortable, self-serving ignorance, fine. But there is absolutely
no question that the methods the Census Bureau recommended, and
that the Democrats in the Congress endorsed, would have made the
census more accurate. None. The benefits of statistical sampling in
the census have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is a
serious disservice to this country, and an injustice to the people
who live here, to sabotage the operations of the government for
partisan gain.
"Lo some 200 years later, we find ourselves realizing that the
scope of a census for 300 million people is beyond the capacity for
civil servants to merely do a head count."
And yet the IRS seems quite good at finding us.
"The only controversy that exists over incorporating modern
statistical methods into the census is that whipped up by partisans
with an interest in inaccurate, biased census numbers."
This is a straw man, but as it happens also undermines your
argument for estimating: If partisans are motivated to bias the
census figures then using estimates leaves more room for those
motivated to bias the figures to do so, not less. As with the
direct counting of votes in elections, a direct count of people for
the census enforces the strictest measure of accountability.
Allowing estimates in such a political climate opens the door for
even more inaccuracy, particularly if activist lawyers and biased
judges start throwing out estimates they don't agree with and
replacing them with their favored estimates.
If people are as motivated to produce fraudulent results as you
claim, maintaining the accountability of strict enumeration becomes
critically important. We must under no circumstances open ourselves
to the kind of fraudulent "counts" that would result from adding in
"estimates" whose formulae would, by your own admission, be subject
to political pressure.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245