Back to the ‘Nest’

You can’t get to the heart of what’s wrong with state Sen. Jack Scott’s 21st District just by looking at it.

Of course, it’s like many of the stretched, fractured and jutting legislative districts created in 2001 to keep seats safe for one party or the other. A skinny peninsula shoots from Warner Bros. studio out along the Ventura Freeway to Tarzana. A funnel cloud swoops out of the bottom across Dodger Stadium, coming to a point in Chinatown.

There’s a hole on the southeast, skirting around Republican San Marino and South Pasadena. Another gap on the top shuns La Crescenta-Montrose. (This is no reflection on Scott [D-Altadena], a courtly and distinguished former president of Pasadena College. Chances are the shape of his new district was a surprise to him too.)

But the shape is not the only story. In addition, the 21st covers all or parts of eight Assembly districts. In the 1990s, every Senate district consisted of just two Assembly districts -- “nested,” as the political experts call it. That made it far easier for a senator to coordinate legislation affecting his district with the Assembly member from the same area. Not now.

Think of the poor voter trying to figure out which Assembly district he or she lives in, let alone make contact with its representative.

This mess was concocted only to make the 21st safer for Democratic candidates than it was in the 1990s, when a panel of judges had drawn compact, rational districts that served the voters well.

Legislative leaders are resisting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s admirable effort to take the process away from self-protective politicians and give it back to an independent panel, probably of retired judges aided by redistricting experts. There are several proposals for doing this and some are not as straightforward as they look, but reform has to occur. Opponents are resisting for all the wrong reasons.

The major question is whether the issue will be put to the voters by a constitutional amendment proposed jointly by the Legislature and governor, the least contentious path, or through an initiative petition campaign that Schwarzenegger would lead and finance.

Schwarzenegger and many of his allies want new districts ready for use in the 2006 statewide election. This is the greatest hurdle for Democrats in the Legislature.

The liberal public policy organization Common Cause, which supports Schwarzenegger, also would prefer to wait until after the 2010 census to make the change but is willing to accept 2006. Common Cause wants a more diverse panel than the three retired state or federal judges, as in a proposed initiative being supported by Schwarzenegger. This should not be a large issue of contention.

Democrats fear Republicans are pushing for change in 2006 in hopes of picking up more seats in the Legislature and the 53-member congressional delegation. Texas Republicans did pull off a spectacular heist in their disputed mid-decade gerrymander last year. But California isn’t Texas (to date, Schwarzenegger shows no sign of being a Tom DeLay) and Democrats are a strong counterbalance to the Republican governor.

The plan most likely to be trusted will be devoid of tricky language. It will be specific in demanding compactly shaped districts (not like the 21st) that keep together cities and counties and nest two Assembly districts in each Senate district. And of course, it should mention strict compliance with federal voting rights law.

As the governor assails “the politicians,” he glides over the fact that he is at the core of this political process. He has the power to approve or veto any plan developed by the Legislature. And in fact, the plans of the 1970s and 1990s were drawn on behalf of the courts after governors rejected those sent up by lawmakers.

Time is growing short for the governor and Legislature to present a joint plan to voters, but the elements for a compromise are available. Schwarzenegger’s support for loosening of legislative term limits would be a powerful incentive. The pieces of the puzzle can be made to fit.