Just a note to those California
Legislatures are dominated by whichever party holds the majority, and in Arizona that would be the
But Arizona voters cut their Legislature (and therefore the political parties) out of the loop in 2000 with a ballot initiative, and other states followed suit, including California in 2008 for state offices and 2010 for congressional offices. California's exclusion of the parties is even more sweeping than Arizona's.
The lawsuit that made its way to the Supreme Court was the Arizona Legislature's attempt to deal itself back in. Fortunately, those Arizona Republican leaders failed to convince the court's majority and, in so doing, dashed the hopes of their Democratic counterparts in California. Even voters who strongly support their political parties have a stake in ensuring that they control those parties, and not the other way around.
California's redistricting reform was instigated by independents and members of various political parties but with a special push from Republicans, who seemed certain that a fairer process would result in their capturing more seats. Others hoped that an independent commission would result in more competitive races and the election of more moderate politicians from either of the major parties. If those were the only measures of the success of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, the results have been disappointing. There has been some theater, such as the 2012 battle between redistricted Democratic Congressmen
But party turnover and political moderation were never — or ought never to have been — anything more than possible side effects. The point of redistricting reform is to ensure that elections more fully express the will of voters, not the parties. It is a work in progress that will continue to be refined as long as party leaders seek power and voters push back.