LOOKING TOWARD 1992 : Changing the Shape of Politics, in Homage to Gerry’s Memory : Redistricting: High-minded debate is largely smoke and mirrors--highfalutin doublespeak masking a gutter war for control of California’s future.

It’s spring, and hard-core fanatics are poring over box scores and performance statistics. Fantasy baseball? No, these are technocrats and politicians consumed by reapportionment--or redistricting, as it’s also known. This decennial rite of reallocating and reshaping legislative and congressional districts is an exercise with stakes much higher than a fictitious World Series win.

Some similarities exist, however, between fantasy baseball and reapportionment: Both are complex games with their own set of rules. Both are played by small bands of zealots who speak a strange language that only they care about and understand.

What happens in fantasy baseball--born during the 1981 baseball strike and popular among sports fans--is that people act as “owners” who put together their “dream teams” by “drafting players” off current rosters. It’s all done with statistics and batting averages.

Redistricting is the political equivalent--a Byzantine, arcane ritual of little interest to anyone except a few politicians fighting to control the distribution of power. But gerrymandering--drawing districts to the political advantage of one party over another--has been a U.S. tradition from the days of Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry. (In 1812, the Republican-controlled state Legislature carved up Massachusetts to diminish the power of the Federalist Party. One sprawling district resembled a salamander or, as a Federalist derided it, a “Gerrymander.”)

Over the years, most Californians have largely ignored reapportionment. The electorate just doesn’t seem to care about politicians’ “dugout scuffles.” Or, as Jay Leno explained the low return of census forms, “The census determines how many representatives we have in Congress. No wonder they’re not sending them back.”

But that’s exactly why reapportionment is an especially hot topic this year--at least inside the ballpark. California stands to gain about seven new congressional seats after the 1990 census. That would bring the state’s total to 52--nearly 12% of the entire House membership. Those stakes have drawn Republican and Democratic Party leaders, in California and nationally, into a fight over remapping methodology. And they’re slugging it out June 5 in the primary.

Redistricting in California is now carried out by the Legislature, subject to the governor’s veto and the possibility of a voter referendum or judicial review. That’s why, after the 1980 census, state Democrats, controlling both the Legislature and the governorship, managed to skew reapportionment in their favor.

If the GOP loses the California governorship this year, the Democrats could once again draw the lines to suit themselves. The Republicans are trying to prevent that. Up at bat are two initiatives, Propositions 118 and 119 on the June ballot, which would change the way California draws legislative districts.

Reformers have tried the initiative process before to curb the Legislature’s power over reapportionment, arguing that incumbent redistricting is an inherent conflict of interest. They struck out.

This time the voters might be more receptive, because the call for reform of the reapportionment process comes in the wake of scandal, partisan wrangling and policy gridlock in Sacramento.

In fact, Proposition 118, whose ballot title is “Legislature / Ethics / Reapportionment,” uses ethics as a hook to sell redistricting. Sponsored by Gary Flynn, a Republican ally of Gov. George Deukmejian and supported by Republican Party organizations, it places remapping responsibility into the hands of a beefed-up Joint Legislative Ethics Committee. The proposal also bans gifts and honorariums from legislative lobbyists or people whose firm employs lobbyists, and prohibits legislators from becoming lobbyists for one year after leaving office.

Proposition 118’s ethics package has been criticized as “shallow” and “vague” by both Republicans and Democrats. However, its redistricting standards are more specific. The Legislature retains the authority to redistrict, but a plan needs a two-thirds vote of each house to be enacted; only a majority is required now. The governor is given absolute veto power over reapportionment plans and, once passed, plans must be submitted for voter approval. Proposition 118 also requires that all districts be compact and respect local government boundaries, and prohibits favoring a particular party or incumbent.

Proposition 119, titled Reapportionment by Commission, is sponsored by San Mateo County Supervisor Tom Huening and supported by the California League of Women Voters. It takes redistricting completely out of the hands of elected officials and creates a 12-member bipartisan commission, appointed by retired appellate court justices, to vote on reapportionment plans submitted by registered voters. Proposals must meet certain criteria, including a requirement that minority populations be divided in such a way that their political clout will not be diluted. The plans adopted by the commission would become law, subject only to referendum or judicial review.

Supporters of both propositions argue that their reforms would decrease partisanship and politics in the reapportionment process. Maybe. Maybe not. Never underestimate the “unintended consequences of reform.” Or dismiss the possibility of ulterior motives.

The bottom line is that redistricting is a political process. That makes it a partisan issue and the vote on the two propositions--and the campaigns surrounding them--will reflect that reality.

The high-minded debate over “fairness,” “participation,” “compactness,” “accountability” is largely smoke and mirrors. All this highfalutin doublespeak masks a gutter war whose spoils include control of California’s future.

Both propositions would decrease the dominance of the Legislature’s current majority party over the redistricting process. If you’re a Republican, you’ll probably like that. If you’re a Democrat, you won’t. It’s as simple as that.

Supporters of both propositions insist “objective criteria” for drawing lines will prevent legislators from gerrymandering. But just because a district looks pretty doesn’t mean it isn’t gerrymandered.

Just because the battle over reapportionment is partisan, that doesn’t make it wrong. Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) hit it when he told a reporter, “I don’t see any clear line between the political process and the legislative process. The legislative process depends on who is elected to office.” The way legislative districts are drawn determines who governs. Who governs, in turn, determines what our state’s policy priorities will be.

But don’t think that merely changing the reapportionment system will solve the problems of political gridlock and weak leadership that plague California. In today’s political system, a government that is responsible and accountable to all its citizens is difficult to achieve. Money, power, personalities and values all play a role in preventing it. There’s little indication that new lines will change that.

Neither will voter apathy and ignorance. If the anemic turnouts of recent years are an indication, a small number of June voters will determine how they want California’s “dream team” chosen and what the players will look like.

That noted sage Yogi Berra would argue, “If the people don’t want to come out to the park, nobody’s gonna stop ‘em.” Well, that might be fine for our national pastime, but it’s not so good for representative government.

Whatever the outcome of the June election, unless California voters start to pay attention, reapportionment will remain a closed game of insider’s baseball.