CA: Let people vote - Don't block initiative on technicality (Lockyer power trips)

San Diego Union -Tribune ^ | 7/9/05 | Editorial

[NormsRevenge]

The last thing California needs is another sideshow. That's why the looming battle between Attorney General Bill Lockyer and Secretary of State Bruce McPherson over Proposition 77 is so dismaying. The measure would take redistricting power away from the Legislature and give it to a panel of judges.

Unfortunately, sponsors submitted an initiative with slightly different wording than the petition signed by 951,000 Californians. As a result, Lockyer yesterday sued to keep the measure off the fall ballot. But McPherson says it is his call – and he sees the wording differences as trivial.

On balance, McPherson has the better argument. Lockyer may be right to worry a court would toss Proposition 77 out on technical grounds. But there are precedents to suggest a judge would use common sense in deciding to uphold the initiative. Here's hoping Lockyer uses a little common sense of his own.

[GVnana]

What's the difference in the wording? Anyone here know?

[Publius6961]

Don't remember the exact numbers, but it's something silly and trivial like an error that say "34 days" in one section and "35 days" in another.

I just have one simple question:

Isn't Lockyer subject to recall?

I say start the process now!

[TheDon]

Unfortunately, sponsors submitted an initiative with slightly different wording than the petition signed by 951,000 Californians.

A major screwup by the sponsors. There really is no excuse. The measure presented to the petition signers must be exactly what is submitted.

I say making the sponsors get the signatures for the correct petition is the right thing to do.

[NormsRevenge]

Here's a thread FRom last night with info.

California AG Files Lawsuit To Remove Redistricting Initiative From Ballot (Lockyer)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1439442/posts

[GVnana]

LOL! 34 or 35. Sheesh. Can't anyone read anymore?

[GVnana]

the proponents violated state law and deceived voters," Lockyer said in a statement.

951,000 signatures and this jerk wants it invalidated over a clerical error?

Me thinks Mr. Lockyear doth protest too much.

[Amerigomag]

Costa and his staff only have themselves to blame. Knowing they had made a serious mistake they waited and did little.

We are a nation of laws and Costa's group violated the law, a law which his group knew well.

Children will always be children (Lockyer and the Democrats) but the adults are expected to act responsibly in the presence of children.

[DeweyCA]

But there are precedents to suggest a judge would use common sense in deciding to uphold the initiative. Here's hoping Lockyer uses a little common sense of his own.

Is he kidding?? Any Lib judge will toss this, if it passes, in a second. They toss out laws, like Prop 187, even when there is nothing technically wrong. This will for sure be struck down. What a stupid mistake!!

[backtothestreets]

This initiative needs to be put to rest. Anyone that believes judges can be impartial on political matters is wrong. And being that the legislature must approve the selections of the governor, and Democrats hold a command of both chambers, many people are going to be woefully disappointed. They'll be further disappointed if California ever (that's a long time) elects a Democratic governor to join the Democratic legislature. And if this initiative were the fix on redistricting proponents are claiming, why do Republican Congressional members think the state delegation will lose seats as a result of this initiative?

[nothingnew]

The era of "judges" has passed. We now have "judicial activists" on too many benches. I admit I don't know much about this case, but it seems to me too much decision which should be left to "the people" gets hijacked by the judicial.

FMCDH(BITS)

[backtothestreets]

I agree with you. This initiative takes redistricting further from the people, creates another layer of government, and personally, Ithe term "Special Masters" describing members of the panel of appointed judges rankles me. Here's some excerpts from the initiative:

"Within 20 days following the effective date of this section. the Legislature shall appoint pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (c)(2) a panel of Special Masters"

"Except as provided in subdivision (b), on or before January 15 of the year following the year in which the national census is taken, the Legislature shall appoint pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (c)(2) a panel of Special Masters composed of retired judges"

And despite claims to the contrary, the governor has no roll in the process. If this initiative were going to harm the Democrats they would be blistering it with negative campaign ads. They are not, and that should have everyone wondering why.

[Seaplaner]

Isn't Lockyer subject to recall?

So far as I know he is. (Of course, it might take a special election.)

If I remember correctly, Mister Lockyer has little legal experience, other than law school.

I also seem to remember that he wasn't much of a stickler for the law when it came to investigating Mister Gray Davis' quite apparent indiscretions.

.

[Myrddin]

If I remember correctly, Mister Lockyer has little legal experience, other than law school.

Lockyer's "law school" was a poor quality night school. Roger Hedgecock enjoys taunting him with respect to the low quality of his "law school".

From his own web page biography: A graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, Attorney General Lockyer earned his law degree from McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento while serving in the State Senate.

[GVnana]

McGeorge is hardly a "night school" law school. It's fully accredited by the ABA, and is the law school of the University of the Pacific. Hedgecock doesn't know what he's talking about.

[LibertarianInExile]

Bump to that. Nothing wrong with UotP.