Our view: Measure makes sense, but don't expect miracles

We urge you to vote "yes" on Proposition 77, the redistricting initiative, but please don't expect it to quickly fix all of the state's political problems.

Prop. 77 would change the way California draws its voting boundaries for the state Legislature, Boards of Equalization and the House of Representatives. A panel of three retired judges would create voting districts with an eye to respecting political boundaries like cities or neighborhoods and ignoring party affiliations. Also included is a cumbersome provision to put the judges' plan before voters in the following election.

Over time, the system promised by Prop. 77 would move the state toward a rational process for drawing voting boundaries. Ordinary folks could understand and get behind their districts for the first time.

Geography would be king; election outcomes would become incidental. But this major election reform won't necessarily deliver important policy changes.

The measure is a reaction to the backroom deal in 2000 under which Democrats and Republicans agreed to stifle political competition and create "safe seats" for incumbents. State politicians did this by carving up neighborhoods to find voters likely to re-elect incumbents: Using sophisticated polling data and computer models, party consultants identified populations that leaned Republican or Democrat, then districts were contorted to segregate these folks into artificial groups.

We don't want to overstate the case against the existing system, which takes place every 10 years after the Census is complete. Drawing voting districts has traditionally been an inherently political exercise. When the governor and lawmakers couldn't agree, the state Supreme Court decided.

In the last election, this system worked especially well for incumbents and their political parties. In 153 contested races for state and national office, not a single seat changed parties.

The affect on policy has been more subtle. The absence of competition in the general election transferred power to the primaries. Because primaries are dominated by diehards of each party, the winners tended to be liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. In short, the 2000 gerrymander —— coupled with term limits —— pushed centrists from power, particularly in Sacramento, and replaced them with folks who are less likely to compromise.

Democrats won't cut spending, and Republicans won't raise taxes.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger based his support of Prop. 77 on the hope that moderates can be persuaded to again run for office in California. We share that objective, but there's a little problem.

In its refusal to accept fiscal reality and its fondness for deficit spending, the post-gerrymander Legislature precisely mirrors the California electorate. Voters have little appetite for a broad-based tax hike to support new spending. At the same time, any hint of spending cuts have been greeted with outrage —— witness the plummeting popularity of Schwarzenegger after teachers said the governor "cut" school funding in a budget in which education spending grew by $3 billion.

And so, freed from fear of the voting public, our lawmakers by coincidence are giving us roughly what we demand when it comes to the government's core function of crafting responsible budgets and running the state.

There is no magic bullet for what ails the California Legislature and the behavior of the folks we send to Washington. Coastal areas are steadily becoming more liberal while inland regions grow more conservative. That means rational, geographic districts probably won't send more moderate compromisers to government, at least anytime soon.

Prop. 77 is worth doing simply because it is the right thing to do. Voters will be more likely to get sensible districts, and ordinary folks will have a better shot at understanding and respecting the electoral process. But they should not expect miracles.