California's Proposition 77 would have shifted responsibility for designing the state's voting districts from the legislature to appointed retired judges, subject to approval by the voters. The defeat of 77 does not imply that Californians want to continue the gerrymandering, a scheme by which district boundaries are drawn so that they favor incumbents and the dominant political party, resulting in a districting map with strange shapes and weird corridors. (See http://www.calvoter.org/voter/maps/ for maps of California's districts.)

Gerrymandering in a state dominated by one political party has in the past led to maximizing that party's control by drawing the boundaries so that, for example, districts are either 55 percent Democrat or 90 percent Republican, giving Democrats more representatives than if the districts were drawn without regard to political party.

Much of the money spent to oppose Proposition 77 came from out of state, including funds provided by members of Congress and other lawmakers. They feared that passage would induce initiatives in other states to shift the design of Congressional districts to neutral commissions.

Many voters rejected all the propositions promoted by Governor Schwarzenegger, to signal their disapproval of the special election. Many who voted against 77 were influenced by misleading ads showing three dour judges that implied a loss of control by the people, not telling viewers that the districting would need to be approved by the voters. Some voters may have wanted to keep their particular Democratic or Republican representative. Others objected to what was called a "power grab," redrawing the districts in 2006 rather than waiting for the new census. Many voters simply vote "no" as a default when they are confused or unsure.

While gerrymandering may occasionally preserve the representation by a conservative or liberal legislator who feels safe enough in his or her district to take controversial positions on issues, the creation of a one-party district can shift the battle to the primary election within the political party. It is better in general for voting districts not to be "safe" for a party.

While the design of compact voting districts by neutral panels such as judges works adequately in some states, the rejection of this plan by the people provides an opportunity to rethink the design of voting districts. Let's go back to square one. Why should, for example, the districts in Los Angeles County be drawn by representatives of the whole state? Why not let the local folks draw the boundaries for their local districts?

The board of supervisors of a county could appoint a panel of judges, political scientists, party representatives, or voters' representatives to draw the district lines for that county. The makeup of the panel would be decided by the county boards. Where a district contains or overlaps two or more counties, the boards of these counties would appoint representatives to a common panel to draw the lines.

If the voters of a county preferred, they could vote to create a special commission to draw the district lines, rather than have the power rest with the board of supervisors. In either case, the lines would be subject to approval by the voters of those counties. This would bring the creation of districts closer to the people affected.

Nowadays, the design of voting districts is done with computer software programmed to create districts with equal populations, with preference to city and county boundaries. Using software, the panels would balance various objectives, such as having politically competitive districts while also conforming as much as possible to city and county lines. In many cases, the local population is heavily Democratic or Republican, so the district line need not look like a snake that has just swallowed a pig.

It is generally more democratic and less corruptive for political decisions to be made bottom-up rather than top-down. Power should flow up from the people and their neighborhoods rather than top-down from high-level officials. Decentralized redistricting would thus be a step toward a more genuine democracy that better reflects the desires of the people.

It is an inherent conflict of interest for legislators to draw their own voting districts. Informed voters most likely do not approve of the status quo but rather rejected one particular plan at one unpopular election. Decentralized district design should be on the table as the legislature considers reforms.