The morning headlines may have trumpeted legislative action to reform the redistricting process, but this afternoon those efforts died a quiet death for 2006, after the two houses of the Legislature reached an impasse over timing.

The squabble was over how to proceed with SCA 3 by Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach). The constitutional amendment to transfer political map drawing duties from legislators to a panel of citizens must ultimately be approved by voters. Yesterday, the Senate approved the proposal.

But it still needs to be approved by the Assembly. And while most bills that pass one chamber are quickly transmitted to the other, SCA 3 still hasn’t shown up in the Assembly.

Why? Because the Democrats who lead the two chambers are at loggerheads about when redistricting reform should go to the voters.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-LA) wants it on the November ballot, which means it needs to be approved by the Assembly no later than tomorrow. Senate President Don Perata (D-Oakland), on the other hand, thinks a redistricting proposal shouldn’t be on the ballot until 2008. In part, that’s probably because Perata wants voters to focus on the massive infrastructure bond proposal already on the November ballot. And so the only way Perata could ensure that the proposal be considered in 2008… was to delay the transmittal of the bill. [UPDATE 2:30 pm: Well, Perata’s folks dispute that he intentionally delayed the bill. But it’s still the case that he didn’t want it on the 2006 ballot.]

This morning, Nunez apparently got tired of waiting, and decided to quickly call a vote on legislation that contained technical language needed to get SCA 3 on the November ballot, even though SCA 3 itself still hadn’t arrived in his chamber. Nunez failed to get the two-thirds vote that his bill needed– perhaps, in part, because a number of assemblymembers seemed unsure of what to do.

Aides to Perata later confirmed that SCA 3 would not be transmitted to the Assembly until the end of today… which will be too late, because the Assembly is in recess tomorrow. That was the clearest signal of all that the Senate leader didn’t want redistricting on the 2006 ballot. [UPDATE: see the above update, and add that Perata’s staff now says they in fact tried to send the bill over this afternoon]

Nunez convened an impromptu news conference a short while ago, where he admitted the issue will not be resolved this year, saying that he’s disappointed because there was “momentum” these last few weeks.

Today’s insider maneuvers seem to signal a couple of things. First, it’s clear that the Senate wanted to continue the discussion about redistricting; several senators said yesterday that they were hopeful some of SCA 3’s language could still be tweaked before the Assembly voted. But there seems to be some feeling in the Assembly that this delay could be perceived by voters as lawmakers dragging their feet on giving up the power to draw political maps– especially after Nunez and others urged voters to reject Proposition 77 last November by promising to resolve the issue at the Capitol.

There’s no reason to think that won’t still happen. But not this year.

[EPILOGUE, 3:22 pm: Speaker Nunez just held a conference call with reporters and editorial writers, steadfastly sticking to his assertion that SCA 3 would’ve gotten on the 2006 ballot had the Senate sent the bill in time. Even so, there’s another important fact being overlooked: the current Legislature still has 2 weeks left in its session to place this exact same measure on the 2008 ballot, and thereby not leave the issue to the next elected group of legislators, where it could all easily unravel. Can’t this group of incumbents still vote on redistricting? Technically, yes. But Nunez said that SCA 3 will now head back to a committee hearing, which sounds like the floor vote was a one-time only offer. Was it, I asked him? “You know how things work up here,” Nunez said in response to my question.]