Editorial Pans Common Cause "Voters First" Redistricting Initiative

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

Editorial writers across the state -- no matter what the ideology of the newspaper -- have done cartwheels promoting redistricting initiatives over the past couple of years. No matter how absurdly partisan or unworkable.

That's why I stood up and took notice when the Common Cause "Voters First" initiative got a rare slap from the long-time political editorial writer of the Fresno Bee, Jim Boren, over the weekend. Boren, one of the state's most ardent redistricting reform champions, dumped on Schwarzenegger-backed initiative hard:

"I cheered this effort until I read the details of this initiative in my favorite newspaper. The measure would create a system so confusing that voters may never figure out what they are voting for. That usually means they'll cast a "No" vote if the redistricting initiative gets on the November ballot. This measure has other problems. It gives a pass to the state's congressional delegation, making this a "political initiative" instead of a "good-government initiative." ... I normally wouldn't go into these details in this column, but this ham-fisted selection process needs to be explained.

The state auditor would select a three-person auditing group, and that panel would create a pool of 60 candidates. The candidates would be screened for several things, including analytical skills and impartiality. I'm not sure how that would be guaranteed. The group must have 20 Democrats, 20 Republicans and 20 independents or those from minor parties. The four legislative leaders would trim the list to 36. Then eight commissioners would be chosen randomly, and they would choose the other six commissioners.

There you have it -- an independent redistricting commission. Even if you accept this convoluted process, it's impossible to accept a system that cuts out Congress for political reasons."

So perhaps even Boren can now understand why it's been so difficult getting redistricting done. The devil is in the details, indeed.