In previous articles I have argued that the push for redistricting reform is primarily an effort by Republicans to game the system to artificially produce legislative parity that they cannot convince voters to give them. As voter registration numbers show a increasingly Democratic electorate Republicans are under even more pressure to try and stave off electoral oblivion.

But what would the actual impact of the proposed reforms be? Over at the California Progress Report, Bill Cavala argues it might cost Democrats 7 to 10 Assembly seats – enough to produce a divided chamber. Cavala knows redistricting – serving on Speaker Willie Brown’s staff will have that effect – and so his projections should be taken seriously.

There seem to be be two major factors guiding Cavala’s projections. The first is Section 5 (listed as Title V in Cavala’s article) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which mandates DOJ “preclearance” of any electoral change that might affect protected groups. Although few Californians realize this, Section 5 provisions apply to several California counties: Kings, Merced, Monterey, and Yuba. This must be kept in mind when redistricting the legislature.

The second factor is the proposed initiative’s goal of having as few districts as possible cross county lines. While this might sound like a good idea, in fact it is grossly ignorant of California urban geography. County lines in our state have not changed since the 19th century, and development and economic patterns have typically not reflected county boundaries. Western Contra Costa and Western Alameda Counties (the I-880/I-80 corridor) have much more in common with each other than the areas on the other side of the hills in the same county; or parts of northern Orange County that are more like LA County in demography and economy than they are like southern Orange County.

With those factors in mind, Cavala predicts the following districts will shift from a Democratic majority to a Republican majority: AD 1, AD 17, AD 27 (by splitting Santa Cruz and Monterey, a natural pairing, and attaching Monterey to the far-distant San Luis Obispo), AD 30, AD 31, AD 53, and AD 61. The seats Cavala predicts would become marginal are AD 35, AD 62, and AD 78. His conclusion:

Assuming the Contra Costa based AD 15 remained a marginal (albeit Republican held seat), Democrats would have to win three of the four ‘competitive’ seats to retain a one-vote majority in the Assembly.

(And, note that there are 6 competitive or marginal seats in the plan drawn by the Legislature: AD 15, 17, 30, 31, 78, 80 and only four likely to be produced by any commission)

In short, the rules that the redistricting commission would use, combined with the Voting Rights Act, would eliminate the Democratic majority in the Assembly. It is hard to believe this is not the intent of the measure. Arnold has always wished to have a smaller Democratic majority and a greater Republican role in Sacramento. If they can’t produce it at the ballot box, then why not produce it in a redistricting commission where the GOP has an artificial and undeserved parity of representation?

The redistricting proposal is a “steal the state” plan not unlike the presidential electors scheme floated by Republicans last year, a California knockoff of the Tom DeLay redistricting of Texas that decimated Texas Congressional Democrats. Californians should reject this as the partisan power grab that it so nakedly and obviously is.