I thought about it and agonized for weeks, even months. As recently as a few hours ago, I was pretty sure I was voting no. But I've decided that Prop 77, the proposed redistricting reform on the ballot, is not only good for democracy, it's probably going to be inadvertently good for the Democrats also. Here's why:
First, I, like most of us, am uncomfortable with our incumbent return rates and noncompetitive elections. Ideally, we would have a federal constitutional amendment or something similar mandating redistricting reform, because I do understand why there are those who make the argument that California going first is unilateral disarmament (though I also agree with the argument that if successful here, it's likely to spread and thus eventually advantage us). The best case for 77 being unilateral disarmament argues that because Prop 77 privileges compactness, it inherently must disadvantage Democrats, because we are more likely to be compact. I think that there is a good deal of merit to that point. However, the process of choosing the judges who draw the maps is arduous and frankly, quite good. It involves both parties' legislative leaders getting to nominate retired judges from the other party, and having veto power over the ones chosen by the other party. I tend to suspect that at worst, a new map would, in a vacuum, give a couple of seats to the Republicans. Probably no more than two or three, I suspect.
However, and this is the key to why I voted yes -- 2006 will not be a vacuum. A political scientist will tell you that almost every election has a partisan tide in one direction or the other -- the question is just the size thereof. I think everyone, from nonpartisan semi-hacks like Larry Sabato, Charlie Cook, and Stu Rothenberg, to politicians of both sides (though usually the Republicans are anonymous) is pretty unanimous that 2006 will be a Democratic tide, for any number of reasons. If 77 has passed, then a large number of representatives will be seeking reelection in largely unfamiliar districts -- essentially open seats. In any kind of positive environment -- which we are virtually guaranteed in 2006, the question being only the degree -- we have a serious advantage in open seat races, and thus a decent shot at picking up Republican seats in California, even though the new map might favor us slightly less.
In other words, in a year like 2006, a map that is slightly hostile but brand new may be more advantageous than a map that is slightly friendly but old hat.