Redistricting Measures Spark ‘Fraud’ Charges : Props. 118, 119: Backers of initiatives to establish new rules in drawing of political district lines accuse opponents of distortion.

The League of Women Voters on Friday accused Democratic leaders who oppose Proposition 119 of deliberately distorting the initiative’s content in an attempt to fool voters into believing that the ballot measure would harm the coast and the environment.

And to blunt the effect of their opponents’ ads, backers of Proposition 119 have begun to air two commercials featuring Charlton Heston blasting fellow Hollywood actor Jack Lemmon for participating in a “fraud” with Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.

Proposition 119 would create an independent commission to handle the job of drawing new political district lines after the 1990 census. It includes guidelines to prevent congressional or legislative districts from crossing county lines along the Central Coast. This would force the realignment of a handful of current districts that stretch, for example, from Carmel to Fresno or from San Luis Obispo to Bakersfield.

Another measure, Proposition 118, has similar guidelines but would leave the redistricting task in the hands of the Legislature. It would require that any plan receive two-thirds votes in each house, the governor’s signature and the approval of the voters.

“The opposition is interested in protecting incumbents,” said Carole Wagner Vallianos, president of the League of Women Voters of California, which helped draft Proposition 119. “These ads are a veiled effort to confuse the voters.”

The ads Vallianos criticized are part of a Democratic-led effort against Propositions 118 and 119. They feature Lemmon and another actor, James Garner, alleging that the propositions are backed by “corporations” and “politicians.” The Garner ad says the two measures could let “big business exploit our oceans, trees and few remaining wilderness areas.”

Karin Caves, a spokeswoman for the campaign against 118 and 119, said the Garner ad’s claim is based on the fact that the biggest backers of the two measures are the “worst polluters in California.” She said the measures also threaten the environment because they would help more Republicans get elected.

“Republicans have over and over again voted against air quality, toxic clean-ups, offshore oil protections and onshore oil protections,” Caves said.

Many supporters of the two initiatives acknowledge that the measures would lead to Republican gains, at least in the short term. They say this is so because the Democrats used their control over the last redistricting to unfairly extend and protect their majorities in the Legislature and the state’s congressional delegation.

But Caves’ contention that both measures also would reduce the number of “coastal districts” in the Legislature and Congress appears to be off the mark.

Neither measure does anything to stop the line-drawers from creating as many coastal districts as there are today, if not more. Current districts that stretch for many miles along the Los Angeles or San Diego coasts could be broken up to increase the number of representatives with coastal constituents.

In San Diego County, for instance, about two-thirds of the county’s coastal strip is in the 75th Assembly District. In some places, the district includes nothing but sand. It was drawn that way by Democrats to concentrate Republicans from the county’s northern end with GOP voters in Point Loma, Coronado and Imperial Beach.

In any case, coastal districts do not always produce environmentalist lawmakers. The Sierra Club opposes both redistricting measures, claiming--as do the Democrats--that the initiatives would decrease coastal and environmental representation. But last week the club attacked legislation sponsored by two North Coast Democrats that the club said would make it easier for lumber companies to cut down old-growth redwood forests.

In addition, some of the environmental movement’s arch-enemies come from coastal districts in conservative Republican areas such as Orange County.