We want leaders who will put the welfare of the state before partisan politics! We want a state government that will get things done!

Ahh! The inviolable slogans of John Q. Public!

I have asked myself of late: What is all this rabble-rousing about the upcoming special election?The propositions up for a vote are each significant and important no matter what your political persuasion. I am, however, particularly interested in Proposition 77, the redistricting initiative. Prop. 77 will hopefully give Mr. John Q some teeth to bare on the term limits of politicians who have too much job security.

The official summary, prepared by the state Attorney General’s office, defines the proposition as one that “amends the process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts.”

In short, this initiative would affect national and state politics by changing the process through which election districts in the state are drawn. Of course, I have to take all of this with a grain of salt. Within the context of American politics, when was incumbency ever a hindrance?

The summary prepared by the Attorney General’s office goes on to describe what details are proposed in the proposition: “This measure requires that a three-member panel of retired federal and/or state judges develop redistricting plans.”

I guess the Governator thinks this change to redistricting will make for fairer state and national races; that it will decrease partisanship and make for more competitive seats. I’m going to agree with this premise, generally.

The proposition, if passed, would appoint a panel of judges; but the panel of judges itself would be selected by legislative leaders. This is the little detail that bothered me. How can we ensure that partisanship in this redistricting process will be kept to a minimum when the panel of judges is selected by legislative leaders? Granted, in theory, judges are supposed to be objective arbiters of the law.

And then my eyes dropped down to the stipulated requirements of district boundaries. In the final paragraph of the summary, I noted a particular point of emphasis: “In addition, when drawing boundaries, the panel could not consider information related to political party affiliations and other specified matters.”

I am reluctant to assume that this will eliminate any future attempts to tamper with the redistricting process. I won’t even go so far as to say that what is set out in this proposition, if passed into law, won’t be tampered with, stretched and torn by politicians looking for easy re-election.

I sympathize with many voters who, like me, find themselves wading through a whole lot of political jargon to get at the central issue in many of these state initiatives. The whole process is mind numbing.

But regarding the importance of Prop. 77, the changes proposed to the redistricting process seem fair and reasonable enough.

If we’re going to attempt to be as objective as possible about the election process, the panel of judges has my vote in determining national and state election district boundaries.

Contact Kyle Hardwick at [email protected]