Markos has taken the bait on Gropenfuhrer-sponsored California Prop 77, which would leave redistricting to a panel of judges instead of politicians. "I'm voting YES to redistricting unless someone has a damn good reason otherwise."

Here's a damn good reason for ya: it's backed by Der Gropenfuhrer and the California Republican Party. Prop 77 was designed by Republicans to benefit Republicans. What other reason do you need?

I cannot believe smart people still take Republican policy proposals at face value.

The measure is, of course, cleverly crafted and worded to appear "fair and balanced". It promises "reform". Whenever I hear Republicans use that word, I think of the closet-Klansman politician in "O Brother, Where Art Thou?", standing on stage with his Re-form broom.

Kos poster "calpolitic" refutes Markos' points brilliantly. While it is true that Ahnuld and the CRP will not get to pick the panel of judges who will do the redistricting, the Proposition they have designed allows them to set the criteria judges will have to follow when redrawing the map. These criteria work to the Republicans' advantage.

By requiring judges to draw a redistricting map that emphasizes compact districts incoroporating entire cities, the criteria in Prop 77 literally corrals Democrats into urban districts.
...
Where does this leave the remaining districts? They'll be rural and suburban, and stacked in favor of the Republicans.

Gerrymandering may be objectively unfair and unbalanced, but a Republican-crafted policy IS NOT, CANNOT BE THE SOLUTION. Fairness and Balance are not even close to being on the Republicans' list of priorities. It takes stone-blind wishful thinking to believe the Republicans would put all this effort into a Proposition that might somehow benefit Democrats.

But that's exactly what Chuck Todd of National Journal is engaging in. And Markos agrees "completely".

Of course, in California, if districts were no longer drawn by partisans but by bipartisan panels of some political or judiciary makeup, then Democrats could possibly lose a few seats -- though no one's made a good case to us how they would net a loss. There are some GOP seats they'd likely nab in Southern California that would offset their losses in other parts of the state.

Todd also cites additional silver lining that would result in other states from passing Prop 77.

As noted above, Ohio has a similar redistricting reform measure on the ballot this November, which if enacted, would likely give Democrats a better chance in a number of districts.

Question for Chuck Todd: what does "likely" mean? That the probability is above 50%? Below 50%? Within the realm of all imaginable possibilities? I would definitely need that specific information before I decide to vote for a Republican measure to change the law that currently maintains a Democratic super-majority in California Government. "Likely" doesn't cut it.

For more on California politics, check out NorCal Politics, started recently by some "friends of ours". Also, Alliance for a Better California has a great site.

The Alliance for a Better California is a coalition of nearly 2.5 million teachers, firefighters, nurses, police officers, health care workers and average, every day people who are devoting our careers to helping others.

They have been doing a kick-ass job of creating and delivering an advertising campaign with clear, compelling messages. I see their ads on Cable and hear them on the Radio all the time. Which is why Der Gropenfuhrer and the CRP want to destroy Unions' ability to advertise with Prop 75.

Meanwhile, a Beltway Pro and a Liberal-Moderate Uber-Blogger are busy advocating for a Republican ballot initiative. Thanks guys.