That's certainly the case in California, where Democratic legislative leaders have stated that they want to work out a new system for redistricting, even in the wake of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's failed plan. The state's bipartisan gerrymander is one of the worst/most effective in the country. None of the 153 legislative or congressional seats changed partisan hands in 2004.
A California redistricting study -- and a bonus report on regionalism! -- after the jump.
Reformers in California can point to a new study, from UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies, which proposes ways to redraw the lines so that a dozen or more congressional districts, and a like number of Assembly seats, will be truly competitive for both parties.
Even the authors of the study, though, caution that competitiveness is a slippery goal. It's hard to define, and often comes into conflict with other redistricting demands (compact districts, minority representation and more). Still, they offer guidance about what is possible, if legislative competition is truly wanted.
As long as I'm assigning homework, it's past time that we pointed out the regionalism project up in New England, called New England Futures. Neal Pierce and his associates at The Citistates Group are up to their usual tricks as part of this effort, writing long reports about the benefits of regional cooperation that are being run in newspapers and other media in the area.
Last week, Citiestates released the fifth of its six New England reports, this one focusing on transportation and infrastructure -- including electronic communication. Pierce et al don't always succeed in winning the debate. As we've noted repeatedly on the 13th Floor and in Governing (3rd item), regionalism is just as tough a sell as redistricting reform.
Still, Citiestates always does a great job of summarizing the areas they're focusing on, so if you have any interest in New England you can learn a lot from their series, no matter what you think about their conclusions.
