Time for reform?

One bit of good news out of Sacramento these days is that legislators are taking a hard look at the thorny issue of redistricting. Amazingly enough, they’re thinking of giving up their power to design their own districts—testimony to the seriousness of the problem.

Their ability to design their own districts every 10 years is a clear conflict of interest that, not surprisingly, has allowed the districts to become extremely safe for incumbents. In the last general election, every incumbent seeking re-election won and not a single Assembly, Senate or congressional district changed party hands.

This “Safe Seats” law is bad for California because it squeezes out competition and moderation. Primary elections become paramount, and because hardline party loyalists vote more consistently in primaries than moderates, the winners tend to represent the extreme wings of their parties. The result is the polarization that now renders the Legislature largely impotent when it comes to solving the state’s many problems.

Last week, the Assembly and Senate formed a special joint, six-member conference committee to come up with a redistricting proposal for the Nov. 7 ballot. The group immediately began talking about how to tie redistricting reform to changes in term limits, but without success. Tuesday (Aug. 15), the group disbanded, explaining that members weren’t going to be able to agree on a proposal before the Legislature recesses on Aug. 31.

Fortunately, there is a sound proposal in the pipeline. That’s Senate Constitutional Amendment 3, which passed the Senate on Wednesday (Aug. 16) and went to the Assembly. It calls for district boundaries to be drawn by an 11-member citizens commission following the 2010 census. As a constitutional amendment, it requires a two-thirds approval by the Legislature to make the ballot. We hope legislators see the wisdom of supporting it.

SCA3 is a good concept that removes the taint of self-interest from the process, and voters would be more likely to support it if they knew it had the backing of the lawmakers whose influence it would diminish.