Sorry I didn't reply sooner. I've had a few evening engagements this past week.
In my experience, the party regulars are highly united on redistricting. They believe that incumbent politicians will put easy re-election way above the people's best interest. It is not a conservative vs. moderate issue. In 1991, Congressman Doolittle and Assemblyman Bill Baker were widely believed to be negotiating with Willie Brown for a redistricting map that would be favorable to them personally. I cannot provide links to support this, nothing was online then. The CAGOP passed an amendment to the party bylaws that stated if you oppose the party's interest in redistricting, the party can support your primary opponent. The team that led the floor fight included the moderates you dislike, but also the leadership of CRA, YAF and the like. It passed nearly unanimously.
I believe that it is human nature for people to have selfish impulses. And I think human nature also drives most people to come up with justifications for why their selfish behavior isn't really so bad. Congressman Doolittle is trying to spin this as a noble quest he's on, but if he really was doing something good for Republicans and Conservatives, why did he advocate the same action that Nancy Pelosi, Howard Berman and Zoe Lofgren?
As SierraWasp asked you in his post #33 above, "Would you please describe a CA "party regular" for me? Examples would also be helpful..."
...Congressman Doolittle and Assemblyman Bill Baker were widely believed to be negotiating with Willie Brown for a redistricting map that would be favorable to them personally. I cannot provide links to support this...
Widely believed? i.e. Rumored? I know the newspapers don't cover everything, but what I read from the news of that time tells a bit different story (Public libraries offer online news going back many years).
The team that led the floor fight included the moderates you dislike...
I can handle moderates Republicans just fine. I had always considered myself one. What I dislike are Democrats in (R) clothing (that many call "moderate"). Them, I despise.
I appreciate your other input. I am truly undecided on this measure. I think it is a horrible law and that there were better and easier solutions. I don't like that the districts will be used before voter approval (why not after?). I don't like that we would turn over the power to only 3 judges (why not 5, or 7?); I believe this opens that body up to severe manipulation and corruption. I don't like that the process for selecting the pool of judges is being compiled by a pseudo-governmental body (The Rose Institute) who will be subject to unknown oversight, if any. I don't like that the Judicial Council will provide the initial list (the sole, two Legislators on this council are as left as they come: Joe Dunn and Dave Jones). I'm sure I forgot something, but you get the idea.
I do, however, find the current scenario horrible as well. So, I will have to decide.