Draw the line on redistricting

IT USED TO BE that “real” elections were held in November, and the June primary was just that: an opportunity for each political party to choose its nominees so that a nice, bruising, knock-down, drag-out campaign could begin.

However, aside from statewide contests, the concept of competitiveness in November, let alone suspense, has become laughable. There are 153 legislative and congressional seats at stake in California every two years -- 80 in the Assembly, 20 in the state Senate and 53 in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2004, not a single one of the 153 seats changed party hands. In the words of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: “The current system is rigged to benefit the interests of those in office and not those who put them there. We must reform it.”

It’s not that the system isn’t democracy, it’s just a decidedly perverse form of it. Here’s the background: Under the state Constitution, the Legislature draws new legislative and congressional districts every 10 years to adjust for population shifts as reflected in the U.S. census. Whichever is the majority party in the Legislature at that time traditionally drafts a redistricting plan that maximizes its domination of as many districts as possible.

In the 1970s, the Democrat-controlled Legislature drew a masterly contorted plan that assured the party control of a maximum number of seats in the Legislature and the California delegation to the U.S. House. Signed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown and implemented for the next election, it worked just as the Democrats intended.

But in the 1980s and 1990s, similar Democratic plans were vetoed by Republican governors, and the job of redistricting ultimately fell to the state Supreme Court. The plans drawn by a court-appointed “special master” -- in this case, a political science professor -- fulfilled the law and the spirit of good redistricting. Districts were compact and respected city and county lines wherever possible. Minority voters were protected under redistricting rules established by the federal Voting Rights Act. Not surprisingly, many more districts were competitive.

That exercise in good government went out the window in 2001. The parties forged a devil’s pact: the Democrats, in the majority, would redraw the districts, and the Republicans would agree to it, as long as both sides kept roughly the same number of state and federal seats they already controlled.

That was good for congressional Democrats, who would maintain their power for most of the decade, partly by shoring up Democratic support in four marginal districts that they had picked up in the previous election.

But why did the GOP agree to it? Largely because the national party wanted to hold control of the House of Representatives. The Republicans feared that simply leaving redistricting to the Democrats would cost the GOP another seat or two and jeopardize the party’s chances for any new districts the state got because of population gains in the new census. In return, the Republicans promised not to mount a ballot initiative campaign in 2002 to get voters to approve a substitute redistricting plan more favorable to the GOP.

The Democratic aides who drafted the plan created districts that wandered here and there to pick up pockets of voters to ensure that one party or the other maintained solid majorities. The lines mocked civic interests and geography; the winner in the primary was all but guaranteed election in November. Partisanship rose (and with it, dysfunction in Sacramento) because centrists of both parties could be pilloried in the next primary by challengers campaigning as true conservatives or liberals.

The only way to restore some balance is to take the job of drawing new district lines away from the Legislature and give it to an independent panel. A flawed initiative tried to do just that in the 2005 special election, but it went down to defeat with other parts of the governor’s reform package. One problem was that the initiative required new districts to be drawn for the 2006 election. That meant the proposed panel would have had to use 6-year-old census figures, opening the plan to a legal challenge. Another complaint was that the panel would consist of three retired judges, a plan that many felt could not adequately reflect the state’s diversity.

Now a proposed constitutional amendment is before the state Senate. The measure by Sens. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) and Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) would establish a consistent system, using an 11-member independent commission. If two-thirds of the Legislature votes for it, and voters approve it in November, it would take effect in 2011, after the next census.

Legislators cling to their redistricting power as a virtual birthright, but their leaders have promised high-minded reform. Will they keep their pledge or their power this time? The state Senate vote is scheduled to take place today. Watch and see.