A Model of Reform

"HERE IS A TELLING statistic," California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in his State of the State speech last week. "One hundred fifty-three of California's congressional and legislative seats were up in the last election and not one, I repeat, not one, changed parties. What kind of democracy is that?"

Good question -- and pertinent not just to California but to the depressing state of electoral democracy throughout the country. Mr. Schwarzenegger proposed to replace the self-serving politicians who draw -- and gerrymander -- their own legislative districts with an independent panel of retired judges. To which we say: Go, Arnold!

As computer technology has facilitated precision gerrymandering, redistricting has become ever more subversive of democratic government. More and more seats in state legislatures and the House of Representatives are "safe" for either Democrats or Republicans, and ever more incumbents of both parties are being elected without significant opposition -- or, for that matter, any opposition at all. Redistricting as this country practices it contributes to the polarization and coarsening of politics, because incumbents have to worry more about their extreme flanks than about the center, and it erodes political accountability. If California can reform its incumbent-protection system, it will offer a tremendous model for the rest of the country.

Are Mr. Schwarzenegger's motives pure? It doesn't really matter. California is a largely Democratic state, so partisan redistricting has tended to aid Democrats and a nonpartisan, professional system might help Republicans. By promoting reform, Mr. Schwarzenegger may help the long-term prospects of his party. But what's wrong with that? If Republicans in California would fare better under a more equitable system, whatever legislative windfall they might receive would be no more than they deserve. This is a lesson we wish two local governors, Mark R. Warner (D) in Virginia and Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) in Maryland, would learn. By championing redistricting reform, both could further democracy while helping their parties remain competitive in states where the opposing party dominates.

There is one significant problem with Mr. Schwarzenegger's idea: He wants new districts drawn as soon as his constitutional amendments are approved. We understand his reasoning: Past gerrymandering has produced an unrepresentative legislature, which in turn is blocking some of his other proposed reforms, so, for him, the sooner the lines are redrawn the better. But we think the counterargument is stronger: The advent of mid-cycle redistricting is a dangerous trend, threatening a new front in partisan warfare as district lines become subject to change whenever the political balance shifts. Redistricting should take place after each census, once every 10 years, and Mr. Schwarzenegger should push to change the system now but leave the lines in place until 2010. He should not let mid-cycle redistricting pollute his otherwise crucial message.