Dan Walters: Perennial proposal dies again

Reforming the self-serving, extremely undemocratic process of redrawing legislative and congressional districts every 10 years is like the weather. Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it.

Indeed, one could say that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature have been able to do more about the weather, in the form of landmark global warming legislation, than reforming redistricting by taking it out of the hands of Capitol politicians and giving it to an independent commission.

On Tuesday, for the second straight year, redistricting reform died on the final day of the legislative session, once again bogged down in details on how the commission would be formed and which criteria it would use to create 120 legislative districts and 53 -- or more -- congressional districts after the 2010 census and every 10 years thereafter.

It's questionable whether the Legislature's dominant Democrats are genuinely interested in ceding power over what is arguably the single most important factor in determining the partisan and ideological makeup of the Legislature and the nation's largest congressional delegation.

Democratic leaders, it's evident, are mainly interested in persuading voters to modify term limits via a measure on the Feb. 5 primary election ballot and entertained redistricting reform only because Schwarzenegger, a longtime advocate of reform, indicated that he would not support, and perhaps oppose, the term limit measure were it not accompanied by a redistricting measure.

There are, however, sharp differences even among Democrats over the commission's composition and over whether congressional districts should be included in its purview. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wanted congressional redistricting to remain with the Legislature, apparently so she could siphon off a few seats in California if she needs them to retain the Democratic congressional majority in the 2012 elections, and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata endorsed her position. But Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez included congressional seats in his bill.

Perata signaled the demise of redistricting reform after he and Núñez held a private meeting on the issue. It had been reported that Schwarzenegger would include redistricting in calling special legislative sessions on health care and water, but Perata flatly declared, "If they do redistricting in a special session, I am not going to take it up. There's an urgency in health care. There's an urgency in water. There is not an urgency in redistricting."

Schwarzenegger omitted redistricting, saying, "I don't think Senator Perata has much interest in that," and Núñez later said, "At this point we're going to miss the February election." He said he had been unable to reach agreement with Republican Assembly leader Mike Villines, but the disagreements extend way beyond those two politicians.

The decision to abandon reform may be good news for those who didn't want it, including Pelosi and most Democratic Party interest groups, but it may also make it more difficult for those same interests to persuade voters to change term limits because it raises the possibility of opposition from the popular governor.

Schwarzenegger was noncommittal Tuesday about what position he would take on changing term limits but it's highly unlikely that he'll endorse the measure, and he may oppose it. And with polls indicating that voters are somewhat ambivalent on term limit modification, Schwarzenegger's position could be critical to the outcome.

That said, the biggest losers are the people of California, who are being largely deprived of any real say in who represents them in the Legislature and Congress due to the bipartisan gerrymander of districts in 2001. Without reform, the 2011 redistricting could be even worse.

About the writer:

• Reach Dan Walters at (916) 321-1195 or dwalters@sacbee.com. Back columns: www.sacbee.com/walters.