Two interesting items from today’s WSJ Political Diary E-mail, from FR friend (and native Californian) John Fund…

Divvying Up California

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has poured cold water on a fellow Republican’s idea for a ballot initiative that would end the practice of awarding all of California’s Electoral College votes to the statewide winner. Under the proposed reform, the winner in each of the state’s 53 Congressional districts would collect one electoral vote, while the remaining two (representing the state’s two U.S. Senate seats) would go to the statewide winner. In 2004, under the proposed formula, George W. Bush would have won 22 of the Golden State’s electoral votes.

"In principle, I don’t like to change the rules in the middle of the game," the Governator told reporters yesterday. He made clear he wasn’t taking a final position on the idea, which is the brainchild of Thomas Hiltachk, a Sacramento lawyer who has often represented the state Republican Party. The governor’s stance will make it much harder for supporters to raise money and build momentum behind a ballot initiative. Democrats have already complained that passage would virtually guarantee that a Republican wins the White House in 2008 and have vowed to fight such a proposal tooth and nail.

But even if Democrats succeed in preserving the current winner-take-all system, they still have another challenge to fight. Governor Schwarzenegger wants to take away the legislature’s power to draw districts that protect incumbents and instead place the redistricting power with an independent commission. Currently, legislators slice up districts for themselves and Congress every 10 years to reflect population shifts, a practice often criticized as a blatant conflict of interest — because legislators draw the districts they run in. Reform proposals have been turned down by the voters several times after high-dollar campaigns were mounted against them, including a plan put forward by Governor Schwarzenegger himself in 2005.

But the governor says he wants to try again, and this time he wants the proposal to appear on the February 5 ballot, the same date the state holds its presidential primary. In that high-visibility and high-turnout election, the governor’s advisers believe a redistricting reform measure would have the best chance to pass.

Corruption Miasma Claims Another GOPer

Last April, GOP Rep. Rick Renzi of Arizona stepped down from the House Intelligence Committee after it was revealed that the FBI had raided a business tied to his wife as part of a probe into his official actions. Yesterday, the other shoe dropped as Mr. Renzi announced he would retire from Congress after three terms at age 50.

The Wall Street Journal has reported that Mr. Renzi was under intense pressure to step down after mining executives gave secret testimony before a Tucson grand jury that may tie him to alleged favors from the executives in exchange for Mr. Renzi’s help getting a new copper mine opened.

The Renzi retirement in a district that is precariously balanced between the two parties is just the latest blow to House Republican efforts to win back the control they lost in 2006. At least half a dozen members of Congress are under investigation for public corruption, the majority of them Republicans. The most prominent is Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, the former president pro tempore of the Senate, who is under investigation for his role in securing earmarks to benefit special interests.

Given that Democrats in Congress have largely abandoned serious reform of earmarks, you’d think Republicans would see an opportunity to distinguish themselves and reclaim their brand-image as fiscal conservatives. But most Republicans voted for the faux Democratic ethics and earmark reforms that passed this month and that are now headed for President Bush’s desk. Given that other members of Congress may soon face the same kind of trouble as Mr. Renzi, it would make both political and policy sense for Mr. Bush to veto the legislation, dare Congress to override it and demand that Congress go back to the drawing board. When it comes to real earmark reform, Congress may only change if it’s forced to.

This entry was posted on Friday, August 24th, 2007 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.