Redistricting reform may yet emerge from Legislature

Mercury News Editorial

January 31, 2006

Redistricting went down ingloriously in November, along with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's other initiatives. But don't count it out.

A new and improved constitutional amendment is fermenting in Sacramento and could be ready for serving to voters in June or November. It could have the endorsement both of Republican and Democratic leaders and a broad coalition, including Common Cause and the Mexican American Political Association.

Though supportive in concept last time, good-government reformers were divided over specifics and frustrated by the governor's highhandedness. We were, too, though we backed Proposition 77.

A successful new version would end a glaring conflict of interest by giving an independent commission authority to draw boundaries of legislative and congressional districts. Legislators would no longer ``Etch A Sketch'' their own incumbencies.

Redistricting wouldn't cause a ``velvet revolution,'' a wholesale transfer of power from incumbents to newcomers or loosen the grip that gerrymandered districts gives both parties. Most likely, only a handful of safe seats would become contestable.

However, objectively and independently drawn boundaries might dampen some voters' cynicism toward politics. That's one reason Democratic and Republican leaders say they're for reform. Another is that they hope to pair redistricting with an initiative to lengthen term limits. More on that in a moment.

State Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach , is leading the redistricting effort, through SCA 3. Though still being refined, it would correct two main faults of the governor's proposal: its timing and the commission's narrow composition. Under Proposition 77, a panel of three retired judges would have redrawn boundaries in time for the 2006 election -- a rushed deadline leaving little opportunity for public review. Under SCA 3, retired judges would nominate members of a larger redistricting commission (anywhere from five to 11 members is being discussed; we'd prefer at least seven); legislative leaders then select some, but not all, commissioners from the list. Redistricting would take effect after 2011, using data from the next census.

To purge the process of mystery and subjectivity, the initiative would list qualifications of commissioners (no politicians or lobbyists) and spell out criteria for forming districts, such as protecting the rights of minorities, using commonsense geographical boundaries and combining contiguous cities. There'd still be arguments, but objective standards would help clarify boundary debates.

Some legislators view longer terms in office as a fair trade-off for giving up their power over redistricting. Common Cause and other organizations agree that term limits -- six years in the Assembly, eight in the Senate -- should be relaxed. We do, too. Voters would benefit from the expertise that legislators would acquire through longer tenures. And politicians not always worried about being termed out could focus on their current office instead of always angling for the next one.

But each measure should stand on its own. Saddling a redistricting plan with asterisks would undermine a benefit: restoring faith in the Legislature.