The timing of when the Perata-Nunez Career Politician Term Limits Weakining Initiative will appear on the ballot is now in question (it’s looking very likely like Nunez will fail to garner the necessary 
percentage of valid signatures in a random count, necessitating a manual count in the 58 counties which very well might not be complete before a late-September cut-off to qualify for the February ballot).
This certainly becomes a very interesting development as discussions are underway in earnest to place a redistricting reform measure on the February ballot. The Governor, to his credit, has made this a top priority, witholding any potential support for a term-limits modification until this demand is met. Assembly Democrats have given lip-service about supporting redistricting reform, but have been slow to proffer any support for a plan that passes the smell-test for being meaningful reform.
Let’s start with an important premise that is important to consider when looking at redistricting reform.
A bad plan is worse than no plan. So if Republicans cannot achieve the minimum criteria that I offer below as my suggested ‘baseline’ for a new plan, I believe they should walk away. Why is this? First and foremost, a bad plan will not achieve the results — fair districts. Secondly, the passing of any plan will give voters the feeling that they have now dealt with this issue, and reduce the political will for a more effective fix later. And finally, we are talking about a negotiation here. On the table is a retreat from a very effective and popular term-limits measure which is a big deal for Republican activists, and voters. If a Republican legislator cannot articulate getting real reform in return for supporting a weakening of term limits, look for that to haunt them in their next primary for higher office. Remember, we always have the 2010 cycle to come back with a citizens initiative.
So what should Republican leaders and legislators be looking for in a solid redistricting plan? I say here are four important "must haves" in a plan…
1) There should be a truly independent commission drawing the lines. It should be randomly selected, and include no politicians, nor should any of its members be chosen by politicians. Let me be clear — the process must be free of influence or interference from the very politicians whose districts are being draw.
2) Every State Senate district must have two Assembly Districts nested within it, reducing game-playing.
3) Rules should be in place to guarantee that keeping communities together are in place, to avoid grotesque gerrymandering.
4) U.S. House Districts have been as shamelessly gerrymandered as state legislative districts, and must also be fairly and impartially redrawn.
California’s term limits law is a good one, and a strong offsetting factor to allowing a permanent liberal majority in the legislature from entrenching and consolidating its power. The ONLY argument for a concession to our current term limits is with a redistricting plan that would ensure that Sacramento liberals (and conservatives as well) are severed from having direct input into how new legislative districts are drawn. Otherwise, it’s not worth the big sacrifice, frankly.
Let me close by saying that I was disappointed, once again, to read in the paper that Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez has put yet another proposal on the table to massively integrate politicians into the drawing of their own districts, with a commission that would ultimately be selected by the Governor and legislative leaders. This is exactly the kind of proposal that should be rejected immediately. This is soundly in violation of principle #1 articulated above.
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.