It looks like redistricting reform is now on the table in California. Arnold is pushing the legislature to reform the system, and Republican activists are trying to get a measure on the ballot. Here are some thoughts.
The Details
The Devil is in the details, as always. The central question is who gets to appoint the nonpartisan redistricting panel.
Here's how it works in Iowa. A non-partisan administrative agency called the Legislative Service Bureau (LSB) drafts a plan after each census. The LSB is a part of the non-partisan Legislative Service Agency (LSA), which is created by the Legislative Council (LC) of the Iowa Legislature. The LC is made up of equal members of the minority and majority parties.
The LSB drafts the redistricting plan in consultation with Temporary Redistricting Advisory Committee (TRAC). The TRAC is composed of five members, one member appointed each by the Senate and House Majority and Minority Leaders and a Chairman selected by the four members.
The LSB submits the plan to the legislature, which can then vote up or down on the plan. The plan must be based on the following criteria: equal population, respect for existing political subdivisions (cities, counties, townships, etc.), contiguousness, and compactness. The plans may not be drawn to favor any political party, an incumbent legislator or member of Congress, or any other person or group, or for the purpose of augmenting or diluting the voting strength of a language or racial minority group.
If the legislature rejects the first plan, the LSB submits a second plan, which the legislature can again vote up or down. Only after the legislature rejects a third plan can it add any amendments to the plan. If the legislature cannot agree on a plan, then the issue is submitted to the courts.
Here are some overviews of the Iowa redistricting process:
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Central/LSB/Guides/redist.htm#fn102
http://www.centrists.org/pages/2004/07/7_buck_trust.html
http://www.fairvote.org/redistricting/reports/remanual/ia.htm
Would such a plan work in California? I'm not sure. Even such a nonpartisan procedure depends an awful lot on the cooperation of the two parties and the willingness of the majority party to accept a redistricting plan even if it threatens their hold on power or the election of incumbents. Iowa seems to have a greater tradition of cooperation and collegiality than California (or God forbid, Texas).
What are the details of the plan offered by Arnold? Who gets to pick the retired judges? Are there any legislative checks on the redistricting plan? Is it vulnerable to manipulation?
One Republican Proposal
From what I can tell, Arnold doesn't really have a detailed proposal yet.
According to this arcticle, however, Republican activist Ted Costa (who helped launch the recall of Grey Davis) is trying to get a redistricting proposition on the ballot. Here is a copy of his proposal:
http://www.fairdistricts.com/int_txt.asp
Note a few things about the proposal:
(1) This proposal would have provide for a new redistricting as soon as the proposal was accepted (i.e. a one time mid-decade redistricting), and then only after each census.
(2) The panel is chosen by lots from a pool nominated by the leaders of each party.
(3) The bill tries to create a bi-partisan pool of candidates by limiting the number that can be from one party, and tries to create a bi-partisan panel by mandating that the panel cannot be composed of members from the same party or fail to have at least one member from the minority party. Thus, the panel would not be nonpartisan, it would aim to be bipartisan.
(4) The legislature may comment on the redistricting plan, but has no authority to approve, reject, or amend the plan.
(5) Final approval of the plan ultimately comes by ballot initiative.
(6) "No consideration shall be given as to the potential effects on incumbents or political parties. No data regarding the residence of an incumbent or the party affiliation or voting history of electors may be used in the preparation of plans, except as required by federal law."
Other considerations
Another thing to consider is the amazing refinement of gerrymandering within the past decade. With the use of statistical databases, legislators can now gerrymander with remarkable precision. These databases show demographic data of each household (affiliation, age, gender, income, race, etc. of each voter), allowing legislators to carve up destricts with much greater precision to maximize partisan advantage.
In the past, gerrymandering was much more imprecise. Now, partisan or incumbent gerrymandering can be conducting with a greater assurance of success.
Would redistricting reform in California spur similar reforms in other states? Possibly. But it seems unlikely that reform would occur in the states that need it the most, where partisan gerrymandering is most aggressive. In Texas, for instance, the Republicans have successfully implemented an aggressive mid-decade gerrymander that allowed them to pick up gains in the House. It seems unlikely that they would agree to nonpartisan redistricting simply to undo their hard-won dirty work.
UPDATE: California Assembly Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy introduced a proposal, the text of which can be here. This plan is similar to Costa's and would require new lines be drawn in time for the 2006 elections. Here is one unique feature of this plan: "To the extent possible, district boundaries shall be drawn to ensure a level of competitiveness that would result in a difference
of no more than seven percentage points between the number of voters in each district who are registered with the two largest political
parties in the State." I'm not sure this is a particularly good idea.