If you're trying to figure out whether or not to oppose Schwarzenegger's redistricting scheme, Brad Plumer and Matt Singer lay out the stakes. Put simply: the proposition is more partisan hackery. While the board that "redistricts" will indeed be nonpartisan, the methodology it uses is internally rigged against Democrats. It's like having an independent typist take dictation from a virulently political source.
Schwarzenegger's system relies on "compactness", which is to say it redistricts so as to make each district as geographically small as possible. For Democrats, who rely on urban voters, that's a massive disadvantage. For Republicans, who rely on spread out rural voters, that's a massive advantage. If you want competitive elections, redistrict based on competitiveness. Then you can have contested elections that pull towards the middle, just as Schwarzenegger publicly calls for. As it stands, this scheme will just create a lot of overwhelmingly Democratic districts and a bunch of lean-Republican districts. In other words, it'll maximize the effectiveness of the Republican vote and minimizes the potency of the Democratic vote.
There is, it should be said, a fairly strong argument for passing some sort of redistricting bill in California. The passage of such a proposal would make its adoption elsewhere much easier -- as Chuck Todd says, Californian initiatives are like the flu, they tend to prove contagious. And in a Republican-controlled country, more contestable districts will almost certainly be good for Democrats. More to the point, as a political writer, a dramatic increase in the stakes of midterm elections would be damn good for me. But in the end, this isn't the way to do it. If Phil Angelides takes out Arnold and proposes a redistricting scheme based on competitiveness, I'll sign right on. But with Arnold pushing a version tailored to simply elect more Republicans, I have to remain unhappily outside. I desperately want reform. But this sure as hell isn't it.
