Not only does it favor liberals, but as a consequence of the 2001 redistricting, some of SoCals districts absolutely insulate ideologues. These districts tend to be politically monchromatic and contain extremly high percentages of residents who demand a larger public, social, saftey network.
The representatives from these districts are guided by single purpose mandates and absolutley ignore their minor constituancies which reflect the general state population.
The weakness of democracy is, in its purest form, that it provides for the rule of the mob without consideration for the rights of the minority. This weakness is balanced by our republican form of democracy. The minority protections provided by our republican system are being thwarted however by a sinister pattern of ideologically motivated redistricting of representation to exclude any consideration of minority opinion.
The consequence is that California now has a disproportate over-representaion of a single, minority class. Compounding this problem is the predictable tendency for these districts to elect ideologues as their representatives rather than individuals who balance their mandates with an eye for the good of the whole.
A few things work in our favor however: 1) that redistricting also made the Republican's districts safe ones. Since budgets require 2/3 passage and the Democrats need gobs of money to implement their schemes, the Republicans are in a good position to get in the way. 2) The Democrats passed a form of campaign finance reform that favors grassroots efforts, and the Republicans are much better at collecting money that way. 3) Even the supposedly 'safe' districts they've constructed for themselves can be breached. Witness the victory of Republican Shirley Horton over Davis' hand-picked guy, Vince Hall. 4) The state isn't necessarily as solidly liberal as people think. The Defense of Marriage act, to cite a recent example, passed handily. I'm betting Ward Connerly's Racial Privacy Initiative will too. California isn't a lost cause.