Generally speaking, I'm unimpressed by Hollywood actors who get involved in politics. A society that attaches great heft to the political opinions of people who play dress-up for a living is probably viewing its priorities through the wrong end of a telescope.

But over the years I have slowly gained respect for some of the actors who find their way into elected office. They seem to possess certain persuasive abilities. The skills actors use to move people on stage and on film also make them effective at rallying people around issues and causes.

Which brings me to Arnold Schwarzenegger. California's tough-man "govern-ator" is setting out on a crusade to change the way his state draws its political boundaries. Last week he joined a press conference designed to push the issue nationwide.

I say hurrah that someone with a gift for the theatrical has finally gotten behind such an important issue.

Of course, Utah has about as much chance to take up his crusade as Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson has of getting a freeway named after him. But about a dozen states, including our neighbor Colorado, are beginning to take a serious look at how legislative and congressional districts are drawn. Their reasons for doing so make sense.

Rather than being a once-a-decade issue that follows every new census, redistricting is now something some states are trying to do more often. Texas and Georgia, for example, are trying to redraw things in the middle of the decade. Why? Because they can. Today's world of computers and demographic data make it possible to track populations much more closely and accurately than in the past. Why wait 10 years to solidify your power?

Here in Utah, legislative leaders succeeded this year in bottling up a bill sponsored by Rep. Roz McGee, D-Salt Lake, which would have established a bipartisan redistricting commission. No surprise there. She's a Democrat in a state where Republicans rule. But this is an issue that always seems to be championed by whichever party is getting stomped on. Schwarzenegger is a Republican, in a state where Democrats control the Legislature.

This is an issue that never seems to get people riled until they walk into the voting booth and suddenly discover they no longer live in the same district they did the last time they voted. There's nothing quite like the feeling that you can't wait to vote for someone, only to find he isn't even on your ballot.

But it has more subtle implications than the momentary flare-up of Election Day anger.

Last time I wrote about this, readers e-mailed me to wonder why the party preferred by voters should not have the power to draw the state's political boundaries. When I called the bipartisan commission idea more fair, one reader said, "You seem to think that 'more fair' means to give more power to those who are not elected by a majority of voters. To me that is the height of unfairness!"