The Sacramento Bee reports that a member of the California state assembly is proposing to place redistricting reform and a loosening of term limits together as a package to be adopted by voters in a special election in California in 2005.
I have serious doubts that combining both proposals in a single proposed constitutional amendment is permissible under the California Constitution. Although legislatively proposed constitutional amendments are not covered by the “single subject” rule, they are covered by the “separate vote” requirement. I looked into that requirement (including its original 1849 adoption) as a member of the Proposition 62 legal team challenging the placement on the ballot of Proposition 60, which was to enshrine party primaries andto require the state to sell certain surplus property. I believe the separate vote requirement bars the legislature from placing two distinct constitutional changes (particularly measures that would amend different provisions of the California Constitution) in a single proposed amendment. Although Proposition 62 was defeated at the polls, litigation over Proposition 60 and the separate vote requirement is pending at the California Supreme Court.
On the topic of redistricting reform, this PPIC Survey (see question 30, page 24) includes the following question:

30. A legislative redistricting reform measure that requires
an independent panel of three retired judges, instead of
the state legislature and governor, to adopt a new
redistricting plan. Would you vote yes or no?
44% yes
41 no
15 don’t know

Finally, Joshua Spivak offers this oped in the Los Angeles Daily Journal (paid subscription required) supporting redistricting reform.