What to make of report on redistricting shenanigans

I honestly haven't a clue. Then again, I've tried to steer clear of the immensely complex, immensely partisan - and yet immensely important - redistricting process. In a nutshell, the ProPublica investigative report says California Democrats manipulated the citizen's commission on redistricting in order to protect their incumbents. One of the ways they did this, according to the lengthy piece, was by having the commission hear testimony by Democratic operatives posing as "ordinary Californians." (One woman who supposedly represented the San Gabriel Valley was actually a lobbyist who grew up in rural Idaho.) Here's a summation:

ProPublica reconstructed the Democrats' stealth success in California, drawing on internal memos, emails, interviews with participants and map analysis. What emerges is a portrait of skilled political professionals armed with modern mapping software and detailed voter information who managed to replicate the results of the smoked-filled rooms of old. The losers in this once-a-decade reshaping of the electoral map, experts say, were the state's voters. The intent of the citizens' commission was to directly link a lawmaker's political fate to the will of his or her constituents. But as ProPublica's review makes clear, Democratic incumbents are once again insulated from the will of the electorate.

Both sides pounced soon after the piece was posted. Republicans say that it affirms their claims of chicanery by Democrats. The Democrats say that the conclusions are overblown. KQED's John Meyers says that the reactions are so partisan that it's hard to separate reality from spin. Case in point is the stealthy testimony of lobbyists and other interested parties.

Only the commissioners themselves can truly answer whether they were conned about the identity or backers of any particular person and/or group. It's worth noting, though, that a few weeks into the 2011 process, commission members confirmed that they were sensing patterns in public hearings of certain people who purported to be average Joes... but clearly were not. That doesn't mean that the commissioners didn't miss some key 'ringers' who showed up to plead an alleged community's case, but it does suggest that at some level the commission was savvy enough to take some of the testimony with a grain of salt.

Meyers offers this takeaway:

Neither Prop 11 nor Prop 20 ever specifically promised a "nonpartisan" commission -- that is, one made up of members and opinions with no formal political allegiances. Instead, what the two initiatives promised was a commission "independent" from elected officials and the tendency to gerrymander. And yet time and again through the process, some observers criticized Democrats on the panel for acting like -- well, Democrats -- and Republicans for acting like -- well, Republicans. (The criticisms were much more numerous, it should be noted, against the commission's Dems.) Four other members of the commission were unaffiliated with either party, but often had to make decisions that favored one partisan mindset or the other. If the public truly expected an apolitical redistricting process, then they were set up for disappointment from the very start.