Posted on 07/08/2005 6:27:50 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
SACRAMENTO -- Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a lawsuit Friday to remove Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's redistricting proposal from the November ballot.
At issue is whether backers of Proposition 77 made a mistake that could invalidate the 951,000 signatures needed to qualify the measure for the ballot. Organizers gave Lockyer one version of the measure, but provided a different version for the signature gathering, according to the attorney general (pictured, left).
Prop. 77 would move redistricting power from the Assembly to a panel of retired judges.
Lockyer filed the suit in Sacramento County Superior Court as the issue becomes increasingly politicized between the attorney general, a Democrat, and Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, a Republican appointed by Schwarzenegger. The measure is one of eight on the Nov. 8 special election ballot and one of three that are part of the governor's "Year of Reform" package.
"By opting to collect signatures on a ballot measure different from the text reviewed and approved by the attorney general, the proponents violated state law and deceived voters," Lockyer said in a statement. "Allowing access to the ballot for initiative proponents who switch or modify text during the signature gathering phase would defeat existing laws designed to protect the integrity of state elections and would corrupt the people's initiative process."
The measure asks voters to change the way district boundaries are drawn for members of Congress, the state Legislature and the Board of Equalization. Schwarzenegger wants to take the responsibility away from lawmakers and give it to a panel of retired judges, a process he said would create more competitive seats.
McPherson vowed to put the measure on the ballot Thursday despite questions raised by Lockyer's office.
He had asked the attorney general to review discrepancies in the language the attorney general relied on to write the official summary of the measure as it would appear on the ballot. The fine print of the constitutional amendment was then changed on petitions circulated and signed by nearly 1 million voters.
A spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger, Margita Thompson, said the proposition should remain on the ballot.
"The discrepancies are minimal, and the governor believes the people should be allowed to vote on the initiative," she said. "We believe the courts will uphold the rights of the over 900,000 people who signed the petition to have the initiative placed on the ballot."
I thought the AG was a position within the executive branch.
It's a separately elected office.
Check the dictionary under scumbag. You will find a picture of the California AG.
Dang, "scumbag" isn't even in my dictionary, but if were, you'd likely be correct (though there is heavy competition for that coveted slot).
Either no one has access to the legal filing or the California press feels the facts are just to complicated to be understood by its citizens.
Either way, if the initiative writers royally screwed up or Lockyer was protecting his buddies, I'm gonna be pissed.
This unauthenticated posting from a blog (blogphobloger.com} may help:
A few weeks ago, proponent Ted Costa noted a difference between the petition language submitted to the Secretary of State and the language circulated for signature - a big no-no. How technical a technicality it is will determine whether the proposition gets yanked. One Lockyer spokesman is quoted saying it's not really relevant whether the discrepancy was minor or significant in deciding whether to file suit.
It would, however, be relevant in the success of that suit. A dropped comma is far different from an dropped clause, etc. According to the Bee's article, the differences may be more artistic than substantive:
Both documents made the same points, but used different words, he said.
Kolkey cited this example: A sentence in the version used to gather signatures read, "Our Legislature should be responsive to the demands of the citizens of California, and not the self-interests of individual legislators or the partisan interests of political parties."
The same portion of the document used for title and summary read:
"Our Legislature should be responsive to the demands of the voters, but existing law places the power to draw the very districts in which voters are elected in the hands of incumbent state legislators, who then choose their voters, which is a significant conflict of interest."
Kolkey said most of the other discrepancies were stylistic and non-substantive - for example, both make the point that the judicial council shall create a pool of 24 retired judges to serve as candidates for the three-person redistricting panel. . Apparently, Ted decided to get real about for whom he cares - note how voters replace all California citizens generally in the first draft.
There is one possible big difference, however - one document describes the judicial council as "nominat[ing]," while the other as "select[ing]" candidates.
That's a pretty meaning-laden word to swap.
On the bright side, this possible litigation means I get a little more slack time on my promised review of the initiative and legislative proposal language, right? Right?
The thing is, of course, I would bet about 5-6% of petition signers read more than the tiny text that says "first name, last name" on the petition. That's not a reason to allow baiting-and-switching, but it nicely illustrates the absurdity of thinking this process is really the embodiment of informed, direct democratic activism.
Here are the supposed changes, but without context
Forbes, 07.08.05
Bill Mundell, Chairman, Californians for Fair Redistricting Says: "The Forces against 'Redistricting' Are Trying to Deny the Will of a Million Voters Who've Signed the Voter Empowerment Act"
Urges Attorney General to Stop This Obstruction of the Ballot Initiative ProcessAccording to Californians for Fair Redistricting, the effort to stop the Mundell-led redistricting initiative from going to a vote of the people has now made its way to the state attorney general's office.
Bill Mundell, Chairman of Californians for Fair Redistricting, says any attempt to stop this initiative from going to a vote of the people is an obstruction of the initiative process. "The hoopla over the minor differences in language between the Voter Empowerment Act and the ballot petitions signed by nearly a million voters has no substantive result and is a clear and present danger to the most important reform initiative in the November special election," declared Mundell as he vowed to fight for the rights of millions of defrauded voters. "The fact that a non-circulated draft of the initiative petition has stylistic and inconsequential technical differences from the ballot initiative signed by voters cannot invalidate the measure. There is plenty of legal precedent supporting this view. Attorney General Bill Lockyer, has to be cognizant of the rights afforded our citizens in the initiative process."
According to CFFR Executive Director David Robison, the specific differences that the opposition is seizing upon to try and stop the fair redistricting initiative are as follows: The circulated version uses the word "nominated" instead of "selected" and selected rather than "appointed." The circulated versions uses "provided for" instead of "as specified." The circulated version has stylistically altered three sentences from the draft submitted to the Attorney General's office, but the point and substance of each sentence is the same. The circulated version gives the legislative leaders of both parties an extra day to object (peremptorily challenge) a nominated special master. But, in both versions the special masters must be appointed within the same time period.
Bill Mundell, who is CEO and Chairman of Vidyah, Inc., a leading educational technology company based in Los Angeles, says he knew there would be inauthentic obstacles which would try to negate this vital reform. "The attorney general knows full well the history of obstruction in the reform of redistricting in California," Mundell challenges. "If he is the attorney general for all of us who live in this state he has to stop this preposterous challenge designed to rob voters of their right to vote on reform which is urgently needed to bring democracy back to California." This week Californians for Fair Redistricting sent out nearly a million emails urging supporters of the initiative to continue to press the Governor not to compromise and to allow voters a chance to vote on the fair redistricting initiative in November. "Mid-term redistricting in 06 is technically possible and morally right."
It's no wonder many stupid (well-funded) initiatives make it to the ballot. I've heard from signature gatherers "well, just sign it anyway so the people can vote on it." I sure ain't gonna sign a petition and then have to campaign against a well-funded machine.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Now we got a situation where if this initiative is left on the ballot, the opposition will hammer the point that this initiative was qualified "fraudulantly" and that can swing a lot of swing voters into the "NO" camp.
Hey! Politics ain't beanbag!!! Except to modurate Repellicans...
What a mess!
If they put the latter language on the ballot, one can say it wasn't approved by the AG.
If they put the earlier language on the ballot, one can say it wasn't qualified by signatures.
Lawyers are going to have a field day. It's no one's fault but the Costa folks, though. Stupid, IMO.
When my wife and I first heard about this a few days ago, Lockyer was still deciding whether or not to file suit and block this. I turned to my wife and said that he would fight the redistricting initiative no matter how small the descrepency, because that's just the kind of party hack that he is.
So at this point, what is left to vote on in November that will actually make a difference beside the paycheck protection intiative?
True. But messing with the language was a stupid move, IMO.
So at this point, what is left to vote on in November that will actually make a difference beside the paycheck protection intiative?
Well, here's the list of what's on the ballot thus far. None warrant a special election, IMO.
I'd vote for two of them whenever they hit the ballot.
-Redistricting
-Spending (and debt)
-Teacher Tenure
-Paycheck Protection
-Parental Notification
-Prescription Drugs
-Prescription Drug Discounts
-Repeal of Electricity Deregulation
Arnold's lark into politics to prove to Jesse Ventura that he could do it better than Jesse will soon be vaporized in the stop at nothing efforts of the big three... the terrible trio's efforts to neuter 1.The special election, 2.Arnold, and 3.Those rascally Republicans and their corporate benefactors!!!
Your next Governor will be Phil Angelides! Don't worry about the Mexican!! It's gonna be the Greek Developer!!! (NOT a Republican!) I don't want this to happen, but it's shaping right up before our very eyes!!!
Business as usual in old StinkyMento..
This state will need go over the edge before enough voters finally get 'it' !
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.