Strange Bedfellows

There is growing opposition to the Governator's plan to realign all electoral districts for federal and statewide political offices in California. Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters:

The McCarthy measure (ACA3x) does provide
for the selection of an independent panel of judges,
as Schwarzenegger promised, but when it spells out
the criteria under which the judges are to function,
the measure moves away from the simple,
even-handed standards used by the special masters
in 1991 and attempts to affect outcomes - another
potential gerrymander in the guise of
reform. The devil, as they say, is in the details - a
passage that seeks "a level of competitiveness that
would result in a difference of no more than 7
percentage points between the number of voters in
each district who are registered with the two largest
political parties in the state."

Huh? As the Supreme Court's action in 1991 indicated,
drawing compact districts that fairly represent
California's disparate communities naturally creates
a high level of competitiveness. In fact, partisan
control of the Assembly changed hands twice
in the 1990s. But by making partisan competitiveness
a goal unto itself and defining it as a seven-point
differential, the McCarthy measure would appear to
enhance prospects for Republicans to win legislative
majorities. Democrats are already attacking
redistricting reform as a smoke screen for a Republican
power grab. The McCarthy measure gives them
ammunition.

Yesterday, Common Cause endorsed Arnold's redistricting proposal at a press conference in D.C. As other shocked commentators have noted, this is like "cats lying down with dogs." Common Cause is making common cause with a Governor who is currently being sued by a number of good government groups and is suing the state's Fair Political Practices Commission for the right to supercede fundraising restrictions. Even though numerous California Republicans are not enamored of Arnold's plan does not necessarily mean it is good for Democrats. There is a right way to redraw the district lines in California, but Arnold's proposal is not it. I would support something like the process used in Arizona or Iowa, but regardless I don't think that this change should be enacted prior to the 2006 state and federal elections. What part of "decennial redistricting process" do Arnold and Common Cause and Tom Delay not understand?