"The Republican Congressional delegation was very concerned they would lose seats to this initiative."
Actually, California's Republican congressional delegation would gained seats as a result of the redistricting reform initiative. However, they (and the Democrats) would have to run for election in less safe, more competitive election districts, and would have to work harder and be more responsive to their voting constituents.
I was told by a good source that the Republican legislators in California made a deal with the Democrats. The deal was that the Republicans would not oppose the Democrat gerrymander as long as the Democrats preserved the balance between Republicans and Democrats in California's Congressional delegation.
This was a high priority for President Bush.
I was also told the Republicans could have and should have negotiated a better deal to get more seats in the state legislature.
As a result of this "bipartisan gerrymander", all Democrat and Republican incumbents received extremely safe, noncompetitive election districts, and all voters of all parties lost their opportunity for more honest elections and less corrupt government.
I'd heard that, but do not recall the source.
I've got to wonder sometimes how much of the frustration among Californians is actually generated from such deal making. I wonder if Californians will ever wakeup and just say enough is enough? I'm wondering what's behind the third largest party of voter registration, which isn't a party at all? That's the "Decline to State" registered voters. They are now more then half the size of the state Republican Party, more than 40% the size of the state Democratic Party and still taking registered voters from both the Democrats and Republicans.