Dan Walters: What's behind rival California redistricting plans?

By Dan Walters
dwalters@sacbee.com

Fabian Núñez ended his four-year reign as speaker of the state Assembly Tuesday by proposing – seriously or not – that the Legislature cede the power to redraw legislative districts to an independent commission and modify legislative term limits.

As he staged the last news conference of his speakership (he'll formally hand over the position to fellow Democrat Karen Bass next week), Núñez took a couple of oblique swipes at a rival redistricting reform plan being championed by his sometime ally and sometime rival, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Núñez's political timing was perfect, since he released an outline of his proposal just a couple of hours before the governor announced that his odd-bedfellows coalition of conservative business groups and liberal political reformers had collected 1.2 million signatures to secure a place on the November ballot. And to compound the complexity, Republican Schwarzenegger claimed the support of Gray Davis, the Democratic governor whom voters recalled in 2003.

If the political lineups are a bit confusing, the rival redistricting measures are even more so because they contain many similarities, along with some important differences. And when it comes to drawing legislative districts – a process that often determines which party and which individual politicians enjoy power – the devil is very much in the details.

Take, for instance, the makeup of the redistricting commissions. Schwarzenegger wants a 14-member commission, more or less drawn at random by the state auditor's office, made up of five Democrats, five Republicans and four independents. Núñez says he wants a 17-member commission of seven Democrats, seven Republicans and three independents, nine of whom would be chosen by lot from pools chosen by 10 sitting and retired judges, subject to some modification by the governor, and eight by the Legislature.

The auditor-chosen process has always seemed a little screwy, since there would be no minimal qualifications of knowledge. Having judges involved is better, emulating, to some degree, the fair redistricting plans drawn up the state Supreme Court in 1973 and 1991 after the Capitol deadlocked.

Another potential conflict has to do with "diversity," which the Núñez plan would require in drawing districts, although its legal definition remains uncertain. "It doesn't require diversity," Núñez said of Schwarzenegger's plan, "and leaves a lot of holes in what I believe is a very complex task."

But "diversity" is a word that could open the door to endless litigation, as does Núñez's "community of interest" requirement for drawing new districts, overshadowing city and county boundaries. What does that mean? Republicans fear it could favor Democrats.

We know that Schwarzenegger's reform measure will be on the November ballot. We know that Democrats and minority rights groups have already denounced it as a Republican power grab, despite its endorsement by liberal groups such as Common Cause and the California Democratic Council.

We don't know what, if anything, will become of the Núñez plan, since it would need a two-thirds legislative vote – thus requiring Republican support. And to complicate the matter even further, Núñez wants his measure to include modification of legislative term limits, a variation of the scheme that voters rejected in February, and limits on legislative fundraising.

It sounds like something designed to fail. A very possible scenario, therefore, is that Núñez's plan is bottled up in the Legislature and Democrats mount a heavy campaign against Schwarzenegger's measure. It then fails, as has every other redistricting reform proposal, and the noxious status quo – legislators drawing their own districts after the 2010 census – continues.