Posted on 08/09/2005 3:21:59 PM PDT by calcowgirl
SACRAMENTO – A state appeals court on Tuesday refused to put Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's redistricting initiative back on November's special election ballot. The 3rd District Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, said supporters' use of two versions of the initiative in the certification process was a "clear violation of the constitutional and statutory procedures for the circulation of an initiative petition."
"The petitioners were under a duty to disclose the discrepancies as soon as they learned of them...," said the ruling by Justices Coleman Blease and M. Kathleen Butz. "Their failure to make a public disclosure has tainted ... the ballot pamphlet review process."
Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland dissented, saying the measure's constitutional issues should be decided after the election.
The measure would remove state lawmakers' power to draw boundaries for Congress, the Legislature and the state Board of Equalization, giving that responsibility instead to a panel of retired judges.
It ran into legal problems after supporters said they had inadvertently used two versions of the initiative during the qualification process. The version that was presented on voter petitions was different from the one submitted to the attorney general's office for preparation of a title and summary to go on the petitions and ballot.
The attorney general's office said that violated a clear-cut constitutional requirement that the same version of the initiative sent to the attorney general's office be used on petitions.
The requirement is designed to prevent initiative proponents from using "bait and switch tactics" to make changes in initiatives after they have been cleared to gather signatures, the office said.
"The proponents caused the problem in this case by their own negligence in circulating a different version of the initiative measure than that submitted to the attorney general," the majority ruling said. "They exacerbated the problem by concealing it until after the secretary of state had certified the initiative measure for the ballot and failing to make any public disclosure."
Any attorneys that can address the MATERIALITY of this?
Same basic intent in all variations of the petition.
And we need some judicial impeachments, YESTERDAY already....
Can anyone explain to me why the unelected, unaccountable retired judges contemplated for setting districts in this initiative would have been any less corrupt than state legislators? If the initiative had called for districts to be designed by a computer program, as I believe some other states do, it would have made more sense.
What's the next level of appeal, the California State Supreme Court? Or is it too late?
From what I read Friday, speculation was that either losing party would indeed appeal.
I am assuming from that, that it would not be too late.
It will be decided by SCOCal.
That the presiding member of the intermediate appellate panel dissented is a positive bellwether for us opponents of gerrymandering.
My reading of the two versions of the initiative (and, granted, this mistake never should have been made, in this era of word processors and software-based redlining of drafts) it seems that the differences are utterly immaterial. Those seeking the initiative's removal don't seem to be arguing otherwise.
Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid
There's enough "Stupid" to go around.
No where in this process have I heard Ted Costa explain why he pulled this stupid stunt.
Millions of Californian's sign a petition to place on the ballot an initiative to reform our government, within the rules and terms of the (CA) Constitutional. The reform is to correct an perverted election system that has disenfranchised Californians by reorganizing groups of voters into less-powerful groups, so that the same power-brokers can be guaranteed reelection, regardless of the will of the majority of citizens.
I don't believe there's any law that could prevent the ruling oligarchy from "redistricting" Californians into one, single district for all Republicans, and 200 districts for the Democrats. The GOP would have one assembly person and senator, and the Democrats would have the rest.
But then, I guess that sort of move would be too obvious a power grab. It's hopeless; Democrats don't steal elections, they steal the WHOLE ELECTORIAL SYSTEM! How is a Democrat like a Stalinist or Nazi (i.e. National-Socialist)? Once they get power, they ARE the law, and no other party or person can ever be elected again - they'll change the law and the judges to guarantee that result. That's what they intended to do in 2000, and dang aren't they pissed that Bush's election stopped them cold.
I just HAVE to leave this state. I've said it for years, the kids are senior's in High School - one more year, and we're out of here.
SFS
There is no good reason to put the courts in the position of having to decide what is good enough for qualifying an initiative measure for the ballot when actual compliance is easily attainable.Compliance was not difficult. It's ironic that those who appear strongly in favor of having (retired) judges draw districts are also most critical of their ruling, or judges in general.
Yep. The million dollar question.
The version circulated here undeniably changes the meaning of key provisions in the copy submitted to the Attorney General. It is the elector and not the court, who should determine whether changes of meaning in the text would have changed his or her signature on the petition.
Under that argument, there would be no need to ever circulate petitions at all. Just put it on the ballot.
Thank you. I think the judge is right, or less wrong than I had thought. WHile MOST of those differences are immaterial, some aren't. "Five days" doesn't mean the same as "six days." And there were a couple that were worse.
Basically, the Good Guys lost this round by default.
I've gone back and forth on whether I think this proposition would make things better or worse, so I'm not that emotionally attached to it either way.
But, when one looks at the facts of what actually happened, it is hard to come to any other conclusion than 'they screwed up', big time. By trying to blame everyone else (judges, Lockyer, etc), the campaign just looks dishonest, IMO. I'm reading the appeal ruling (link above) now. It was pure negligence and shouldn't have happened, especially given all the effort and money that went into this.
That's not really a fair portrayal of this measure. It is true that a panel consisting of retired judges will draw lines ... but it must do so based on strict rules requiring non-partisanship and barring oddly-shaped districts that break up historical communities of interest. As before, the proposed lines will be appealable to the state supreme court, which quite often has made substantial changes to legislators' line-drawing. (But I suppose you didn't have any problem, before, with "judges having the final say" ... ? Or did you forget about that aspect of the current law?) I wonder whether your opposition to the redistricting proposal here -- one that has worked well in Oregon and Iowa -- stems from your preference for the current system instead, whereby the state legislature draws its own lines. As a result of the gerrymandering that's come of that, 55% of the statewide vote for Democrats is leveraged into 63% of the legislative seats. If you don't support that state of affairs, and prefer it to the "oh no! it's the JUDGES!" approach of Prop 77, then what is your third alternative, if anything? Tom McClintock supports this measure, by the way. (That's not to say that he'd disagree with the court rulings we've seen, however.)
>>I wonder whether your opposition to the redistricting proposal
As I said in my other post, I have gone back and forth on this measure. I do not oppose it, but I am not convinced either. I strongly believe rules for drawing districts should be tightened to avoid gerrymandering; I just don't like the idea of handing that responsibility to three unelected (specially selected) retired judges. The rules should be tightened so that no matter who draws them, manipulation would greatly decrease.
I have read the existing law and the proposition; I think the language could be tightened MUCH further, regardless.
The petitioners could easily have avoided or discovered and corrected the problem of different versions before the circulation of the petitions. They and their counsel knew of the problem in May of 2005 but chose not to make any public
After petitioners discovered the discrepancy they failed to disclose it to the Secretary of State, Bruce McPherson, until after he had certified the measure as having received sufficient signatures. Petitioners made no public disclosure and (chose) not to inform the Secretary of State until June 13, 2005. This was three days after he had certified the petitions as sufficient to place a reapportionment measure on the November ballot, as Proposition 77.
The petitioners contend that they had “no duty” to disclose the discrepancy between the version circulated and the version submitted to the Attorney General. They submit that questioning this nondisclosure is an unjust punishment for their “good deed” of voluntarily informing the Secretary of State about the discrepancy after he certified the petitions.
From these brief snippets it would appear that Costa is absolutely arrogant.
At oral argument, they conceded the obvious: they knew that when the matter came to light there would be litigation about the propriety of placing the purported initiative on the ballot. In failing to make prompt disclosure they significantly shortened the period of time available for the judicial resolution of the controversy.Not exactly the way to endear yourself to judges.
The judges don't have a political career in front of them, so will have far less incentive to play games with the district boundaries. I don't think anything short of outright bribery (which carries criminal penalties) would be able to influence them all that much.
If I recall correctly, Iowa does the same thing, and the results have been pretty good.
It does, and they have. Oregon is in a similar situation.
Those who decry the current Prop 77 for "turning it over to judges" typically ignore one glaring point: The current system already provides for review by 7 judges, namely the California Supreme Court. (And thank heaven it does. As bad as the gerrymandering has been, the court has corrected some of the worst abuses.) They also seem not to care that the current system is even worse than one in which "unelected judges" will draw the lines, namely one in which those who'll be running IN the districts, are doing the district-line-drawing.
A final, unspoken reason for opposition or suspicion on the part of many conservative doubters of Prop 77 is that Satan himself, namely the hated Arnold, favors it. (Never mind that Tom McClintock does too. Shh. Don't tell anyone.)
I suppose I count myself among those who aren't exactly enamored with Schwarzenegger, and who would have preferred to see more people vote for McClintock instead. But in this instance, this is something that's been a big issue for me for a long time, so I was only too happy to see Schwarzenegger behind it. If he manages to pull it off, I will definitely have a new opinion of him.
I'm not optimistic about the appeals. This was a big wart on the nose that was bound to be seen eventually. And the fact that it was discovered IN MAY and no one took action just speaks to awful mismanagement. A huge dissapointment, and a crying shame for the many people who worked hard on this.
There is a distinct difference. The California Supreme Court is acting within the three branches of State Government. Unelected retired judges are not.
They also seem not to care that the current system is even worse than one in which "unelected judges" will draw the lines, namely one in which those who'll be running IN the districts, are doing the district-line-drawing.
The rules need to be tightened to eliminate manipulation by whoever draws them. There is no evidence this Proposition will improve the current situation. I have read predictions (they called it 'analysis') that Republicans would likely lose Congressional seats under this measure.
A final, unspoken reason for opposition or suspicion on the part of many conservative doubters of Prop 77 is that Satan himself, namely the hated Arnold, favors it.
LOL. Yeah, right.
LOL!
Ya gotta either laugh or cry.
Statement from Gov. Schwarzenegger
Regarding Court Ruling on Prop 77SACRAMENTO – Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today released the following statement regarding today’s ruling from the Third District Court of Appeals on Proposition 77:
“The court today ignored the will of nearly one million Californians who signed petitions demanding redistricting reform. Those voters knew they were signing petitions in support of reform and they deserve to get it. I believe that Proposition 77 earned a rightful place on the November ballot, and the people of California should be given the right to vote on it.
“It is a blatant conflict of interest to have politicians draw the boundaries of their own districts. Not a single congressional or legislative seat changed parties in last year’s elections. That is not real democracy. Elected officials should be accountable to the voters, not to their friends and colleagues who draw their district lines.
“I hope Ted Costa, the proponent of Proposition 77, will seek review from the California Supreme Court. The fight for reform in Sacramento will go on until the people’s voice is heard.”
The California Recovery Team (CRT) is a ballot measure, grassroots and legislative advocacy organization that provides the monetary and public support for the Governor’s reform agenda. The CRT plays an important role in helping Governor Schwarzenegger accomplish his reform plans through either legislative means or, should the legislature refuse to act, at the ballot box with a special election. The CRT also assists the Governor in opposing measures that are harmful to the California’s economy.
For more information, visit www.joinarnold.com.
Does this distinction make a difference? If the law gives them responsibility for certain operations of state government, then they become part of the state government for that purpose. The real question is whether they're liable to abuse that responsibility. Results from other states that have implemented an idea similar to this suggest that they would not, to any great degree.
The rules need to be tightened to eliminate manipulation by whoever draws them. There is no evidence this Proposition will improve the current situation. I have read predictions (they called it 'analysis') that Republicans would likely lose Congressional seats under this measure.
The fact that Republicans might lose seats in no way proves that there would be any manipulation going on. The criterion should be whether it makes districting more honest and intelligible, not how it affects the fortunes of one group of politicians or another.
Besides, if this measure passes in California, it will put pressure on other states to follow suit, including ones where Democrats would stand to lose seats under an anti-gerrymandering measure.
The retired judges judges might not have political careers ahead of them but to get to that level of judicial appointment, they have pretty strong political careers behind them. What will make them suddenly abandon the loyalties they forged coming up?
As to those who point to the current use of judges in the system, who said I support the current system? My point is given a chance to fix the system, why not go for a real fix?
Bingo! I agree.
Good point. Personally, I had to hold my nose when I signed the petition, but only because politics in CA stink to high heaven. We can't keep asking, "Why can't things be normal?" when we're faced with dire straigts.
Please Contact: Sharon Jimenez 310-247-8300 or cell 310-409-3306 or enzah@aol.com
“VOTER EMPOWERMENT INITIATIVE WILL SURVIVE THIS DECISION” –BILL MUNDELL, CHAIRMAN OF CALIFORNIANS FOR FAIR REDISTRICTING SAYS CFFR IS REVIEWING THE APPEAL COURT DECISION & BELIEVES THE SUPREME COURT WILL BE ASKED TO REVIEW THE APPEAL COURT DECISION AGAINST PROPOSITION 77
TODAY – LOS ANGELES – (August 9th, 2005)
Expressing disappointment over the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal, CFFR Chairman, Bill Mundell says the fight for redistricting reform will not be abated. The Voter Empowerment Initiative will take the power to draw political districts away from the legislature and turn the task over to a panel of retired judges.
“Proponents of Proposition 77 are reviewing the case with the intent of asking the Supreme Court to consider hearing the case before the stay expires on the night of August 14th,” said Mundell as he pledged to keep the reform effort alive. “We secured the signatures of nearly a million voters to qualify the fair redistricting initiative. The voters knew what they signed, and we have a duty to democracy to be vigilant in defending the rights of those voters to see this measure go on the ballot in the November 8th special election.”
Prop 77, the Voter Empowerment Initiative received more signatures than any other reform petition in the State of California this year. “The will of the people is clear,” says Mundell. “They signed the Voter Empowerment Initiative because they want reform now. In 2006 nearly a third of the legislative seats are open because of term limits. If we are to have fair elections to fill these seats we must have mid-term redistricting. Millions of Californians were disenfranchised in the 2001 gerrymandering where incumbents picked the voters using political profiling. The Voter Empowerment Initiative will prohibit the use of voting history to draw political boundaries, and the elections will be about communities and not about incumbencies.”
Californians for Fair Redistricting took the lead in gathering the signatures because of the urgent need for reform. “The redistricting initiative is the second act of the ‘recall’, the second state of the revolution that the people initiated two years ago. It may be the vehicle to finish the job begun then; the job of reclaiming their sovereignty and their power to redeem the California dream. If so, the initiative also contains the spark that will light the way for the people in many other states to do the same.”
I expect an emergency petition for hearing in the California Supreme Court will be filed tomorrow morning.
Are you aware that three of the SCOTUS justices who voted to order Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes, which lead to the end of his political career, were in fact Nixon appointees? You overestimate the influence of "political loyalties" when such loyalties, to the extent that they even existed to begin with, no longer have an influence on their future careers.
As has been pointed out on this thread, Oregon and Iowa have a similar system that works pretty well. Why would you expect it to be different in California?
Cause I've lived here for 20 years.
Computers still have to be programmed by someone. Even if it would be a better solution, though, it doesn't change the fact that taking the politicians who benefit the most from gerrymandering out of the process, will improve things. You can always say that California can screw it up, but if so then it can screw up any plan that's presented. That's no reason not to push for it.
I think we will have to agree to disagree.
Coalition Responds to Court
Ruling Regarding Proposition 77FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 10, 2005
Martyn Hopper, California State Director of the National Federation of Independent Business
“Opinion leaders throughout the state have noted that we must take the power of drawing legislative districts out of the hands of politicians and give it back to the people. Yet, when we have an opportunity to reform the system, partisan politicians block badly-needed reform. We must continue this fight to reform the way legislative districts are drawn and restore the voice of the people.”
Rusty Hammer, President and CEO of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
“The purpose of Proposition 77 is to take politics out of the redistricting process, and it’s too bad that a partisan lawsuit has gotten in the way of the voters being able to voice their opinions on this important issue.”
Mike Antonovich, Supervisor, Los Angeles County
"To guarantee fair and equal representation in the California Legislature and Congress, California citizens deserve the opportunity to vote on Proposition 77. Proponents should continue the fight to put the measure on the ballot – despite partisan political efforts to trample the equal representation rights of California voters."
Bill Evers, Trustee, Santa Clara County Board of Education
“I am disappointed about today’s ruling, yet we are committed to continue this fight. Under the current system, politicians are rewarded by campaign donors for working behind closed doors to carve out safe political seats. Again, the voices of the nearly one million voters who signed the petitions are stifled by special interests that are fighting to protect the status quo.”
Julie Vandermost, President of the California Women’s Leadership Association
“The court again silenced the voice of the nearly one million Californians today, restricting Proposition 77 from being placed on the ballot. Californians have a right to vote on this important measure, which will protect the fundamental principle of ‘one person, one vote.’ The way districts are drawn in California is not fair or democratic. We must reform the process to ensure that our legislative districts are an accurate representation of California’s diverse population, rather than a reflection of special interest control.”
Paid for by the California Recovery Team
We had a similar system to the proposed before the redistricting that has created the gerrymandered fraud we have now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.