California scheming.

I thoroughly enjoyed Rachel Morris's "The Race to Gerrymander" (November 2006). I am an attorney and Republican political consultant in California, and have always been interested in the issue of reapportionment. While I agree with her view that the Democrats could have been more aggressive in gaining House seats in California in 2001, it would have been more difficult than she suggests. (I was not involved in any way with redistricting in 2001, so my comments are strictly as a spectator.)

Democrats had already made significant gains without redistricting in California. In 2000, Democrats gained four House seats by defeating three GOP incumbents and winning one GOP open seat. Their first priority was to make those seats safe, which they did. They then eliminated the seat of a moderate GOP representative, replacing it with a safe seat for Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez's sister.

That left only a few obvious Republican targets. One was former representative Richard Pombo. Morris's comments about him are correct--his district became several points more Republican, and it's unlikely he could have won this year in his old district. [Ed: Pombo was unexpectedly defeated this year under the new map.] But she omitted one reason for that fact: Chandra Levy.

California's Central Valley has become steadily more Republican over the past 15 years. When Pombo first ran for Congress in 1992, Democrats held almost a 15-point registration edge there. By 2001, Republicans outnumbered Democrats. A nearby district held by Rep. Gary Condit had evolved from safely Democratic in 1992 to Republican by 2001. Condit was unbeatable, but Democrats weren't going to win that district as an open seat.

The redistricting was done in the midst of the Chandra Levy scandal. In order to keep Condit's district, Democrats carved a key-shaped chunk of Stockton and the Latino areas to its south from Pombo's district, and put it into Condit's. The Democratic candidate easily defeated Condit in the primary, and in November 2002 won only a nine-point victory. That indicates that Democrats did need to change the lines; securing Pombo was the price.

Democrats could also have gone after the few remaining GOP suburban seats. Demographic changes over the past decade have made suburban areas steadily more Democratic, and even small changes could have netted, one, perhaps two, seats. That did not happen. However, further gains beyond that would have required aggressive changes in Republican districts, which are in the most rapidly growing areas of the state. That is always difficult.

At the time, many analysts said the Democrats could have won an additional four seats with an aggressive map, which is true. But doing so would have given them 70 percent of the seats, and California is not Massachusetts. If Republicans were to get nearly half the vote statewide in a good year, that would sweep away 10 seats. A lot of Democratic politicians don't like that level of job insecurity. As Morris pointed out, a scenario where the Democrats gain enough less-safe districts to attain a House majority, at least for one term, isn't in the best interests of the actual occupants of the seats.

LARRY MOLTON

Castro Valley, Calif.