Mike,
My understanding is that you  are referring to the Costa initiative --
or one version of it -- Costa has more than one redistricting initiative
in the pipeline.  Additionally, there are the following:

Zaremberg initiative filed just a few days ago.  It is SA2005RF0016  
Submitted for Title and Summary
"Redistricting Reform: The Voter Empowerment Act."

 Robert W. Harris has submitted four alternative measures:
SA2005RF0003 through 0006 for title and summary.  

All of these are on the Secretary of State's website:  www.ss.ca.gov

Jeff Wice
-----Original Message-----
From: "Michael McDonald" <mmcdon@gmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:11:15 
To:"'election-law'" <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Subject: California Redistricting Reform

As I read the California redistricting initiative language (see: http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/htRedistricting.html for a nice summary), I am concerned that the initiative language sets up a mechanical procedure for the panel of judges to adopt a map.  I dont see any language in the initiative that empowers the panel of judges to draw maps!  Instead, they are told to accept public submissions.  In judging these public submissions, the key criterion is that city and county boundaries should be kept whole.  Being retired judges, I would assume that they would adopt a literal reading of the initiative, as I have.
 
 
 
As I envision this process, the two political parties, who are the only players who can do the voting analysis necessary to provide a map that can pass VRA muster, will draw partisan maps that minimize county and city splits, particularly around minority communities that force splits of city and county boundaries.  Whoever can figure out how to simultaneously maximize both split minimization and partisan advantage wins adoption of their map.
 
 
 
Here are the two relevant sections:
 
 
 
1(e) The panel of special Masters shall establish and publish a schedule to receive and consider proposed plans from any member of the Legislature or an elector.
 
 
 
Nothing further in 1(e), up to and including the unanimous vote to adopt a final map, mentions the ability of the judges to modify a proposal or draw their own maps. 
 
 
 
And 
 
 
 
2(f) District boundaries shall conform to existing geographic boundaries of a county, city, or city and county to the greatest extent practicable. 
 
 
 
Perhaps someone closer to this initiative can illuminate the flaw in my reading of the language. But, as I read this, I dont think that this will solve the problem of drawing more competitive districts in California.
 
 
 
 AUTOTEXTLIST \s E-mail Signature ==================================
 
Dr. Michael P. McDonald            
 
Brookings Institution, Visiting Fellow
 
George Mason University, Assistant Professor
 
Dept of Public and International Affairs
 
4400 University Drive - 3F4
 
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
 
 
 
Office: 703-993-4191
 
Fax: 703-993-1399
 
 
 
mmcdon@gmu.edu
 
http://elections.gmu.edu/
  
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile.