California Proposition 77 would remove control of the redistricting process from the legislature and governor and place it in the hands of a panel of retired judges. The left-leaning blog Daily Kos has been looking for reasons to vote against 77, since it's supported by the Governator, but it can't find any. And besides, notes Chuck Todd, quoted in the Daily Kos entry,

Bottom line, California initiatives are like colds, they're very catchy. If this reform measure passes in California, every other state with an initiative/referendum process would likely follow suit. And there are far more gerrymandered states in favor of the GOP right now than the Democrats. Redrawing the districts in these states would lead to Congress being much more representative of the national mood.

But there's still something that worries me. One of the arguments against Prop. 77 says, "Redistricting plans made from Prop. 77 automatically go into effect WITH NO APPROVAL FROM THE VOTERS" (hysterical caps in original). Where is this in the text of the legislation? If it's there, it's worrisome. If it's not, then the opponents are lying.

Here's how the proposed process would work, as explicated from the text of Prop. 77 (which you too can read by clicking on "California Proposition 77," above):

1. Within 20 days of the passage of Prop. 77, the legislature must appoint a panel of "Special Masters" (the three judges who will redraw the districts). The process will be repeated after every national census.
2. The Special Masters are nominated by lot from a group of 24 retired judges willing to serve as Special Masters. But not just any judge will do; only judges who have never held a political party office or partisan public office, and who haven't received income from the state legislature ir the U.S. Congress or any committees thereof. Oh, and only a maximum of 12 of the 24 nominees may be from the same party. And Special Master nominees must pledge that they won't run for public office within five years of serving as a Special Master.
3. Eight high-level members of the legislature each nominate three judges, and no judge can be nominated by more than one legislator. And the three judges each legislator chooses cannot be of the same political party as the legislator.
4. Out of the 24 nominees, three are drawn by lot. This party is sticky: three judges are drawn at random. But the lot isn't completely random; at least one Special Master must be from one of the two largest political parties in the state.
5. So, we've chosen the judges. Next, we have meetings, all of which are announced publicly and all of which are open to the public. We make a schedule to consider redistricting plans and we entertain comments from the public and the legislature. Only one person from each of California's legislative bodies -- the Senate, Assembly, U.S. Congress, and Board of Equalization -- can be elected from a district into that particular body. The districts must be approximately equal in population and they must be contiguous (i.e., you can't have parts of districts physically separated from one another) and they must conform as closely as possible to existing city or county boundaries.
6. Once we've come up with a redistricting proposal, it's put on the next ballot as a ballot initiative to be approved by the voters.
7. If the redistricting plan is approved, that's great. It becomes law and that's how the districts will be drawn. If the plan isn't approved, then we appoint a new panel of Special Masters within 90 days and the whole process starts all over again.
8. If someone objects to the redistricting plan selected by the Special Masters on the grounds that it does not follow the rules of Prop. 77, he or she must submit that objection within 45 days of the filing of the plan with the Secretary of State (which happens after the Special Masters approve the plan and go to put it on the ballot). If necessary, the courts can rule upon whether or not a plan adopted by Special Masters follows the rules of Prop. 77 or not. (This doesn't mean that a redistricting plan would automatically go into effect while the court was hearing an objection to it; the court might issue an injunction to temporarily halt the redistricting process while a trial was being held on the matter.)

So, is it a false statement to say that "[r]edistricting plans made from Prop. 77 automatically go into effect WITH NO APPROVAL FROM THE VOTERS"? Yes. That is 100% false. It is a complete and total lie. Prop. 77 requires that a redistricting proposal be approved by voters for it to go into effect.

Is it a false statement to to say that "PROP. 77 TAKES AWAY THE RIGHTS OF THE VOTERS to reject redistricting plans before they go into effect" (hysterical caps in original)? Yes. That is 100% false. It is a complete and total lie. Prop. 77 allows anyone to object to a plan approved by the Special Masters, but it does institute a window of 45 days for such an objection. Imposing such a limitation is not unheard of and not uncommon.

In summation, the opponents of Prop. 77 are out-and-out lying about what Prop. 77 does and does not do. (The same goes for opponents of Prop. 75, who suggest, in a radio advertisement, that almost any union would be restricted under that initiative. That suggestion is completely untrue; Prop. 75 would affect only public employee unions. While I oppose Prop. 75, I do not approve of its opponents making completely untrue statements about Prop. 75. if you're going to oppose something, oppose it with a reasoned argument, not lies and scare-tactics.)

Even though Prop. 77 is supported by the Governator, there's nothing wrong with it. There's no reason not to vote yes on Prop. 77.