it's...
Posted on 07/21/2005 5:53:08 PM PDT by FraudFactor.com
That's 9th Circus fecal court to you ;o)
The Republican Congressional delegation was very concerned they would lose seats to this initiative.
"this might have been done on purpose"
Could be someone against the initiative subversively working within the proponents sabotaging it. This is how Democrats do things in Kalifornya.
"There were a number of republicans and conservatives who were not for this measure at all. It is not clear it would have helped."
Incumbent politicians of both political parties oppose redistricting reform because they like their safe non-competitive election districts.
Remember, the incumbents of both parties get safe districts, and the majority part (the Democrats, in California) also get a disproportionately large majority of seats in the state legislature and in Congress.
I don't think you find a single honest incumbent Democrat in California's state legislature who will support real redistricting reform.
Likewise, some of the Republican legislators are not honest enough to support real redistricting reform even though they have the minority party status.
it's...
You would think ten people were editing and reviewing this stuff in the very least.
This is as weak as it gets.
"This is a sad day for California and the nation."
Yes, it is. A chance to bring Cali back from the brink has been lost.
Sorry, but the Lib Dems own Cali lock stock and barrel.
I was afraid of this. It is a sad day, because this initiative was badly needed. I just wish I knew the name of the individual who screwed this one up.
"The Republican Congressional delegation was very concerned they would lose seats to this initiative."
Actually, California's Republican congressional delegation would gained seats as a result of the redistricting reform initiative. However, they (and the Democrats) would have to run for election in less safe, more competitive election districts, and would have to work harder and be more responsive to their voting constituents.
I was told by a good source that the Republican legislators in California made a deal with the Democrats. The deal was that the Republicans would not oppose the Democrat gerrymander as long as the Democrats preserved the balance between Republicans and Democrats in California's Congressional delegation.
This was a high priority for President Bush.
I was also told the Republicans could have and should have negotiated a better deal to get more seats in the state legislature.
As a result of this "bipartisan gerrymander", all Democrat and Republican incumbents received extremely safe, noncompetitive election districts, and all voters of all parties lost their opportunity for more honest elections and less corrupt government.
His name is Ted Costa. He's a dumb ass and this isn't the first time he's screwed up an initiative.
I'd heard that, but do not recall the source.
I've got to wonder sometimes how much of the frustration among Californians is actually generated from such deal making. I wonder if Californians will ever wakeup and just say enough is enough? I'm wondering what's behind the third largest party of voter registration, which isn't a party at all? That's the "Decline to State" registered voters. They are now more then half the size of the state Republican Party, more than 40% the size of the state Democratic Party and still taking registered voters from both the Democrats and Republicans.
And lots of times it doesn't because some individual decides to "improve it" on their own. Sometimes with good intentions. Sometimes not. If you don't have this experience, you'll never catch it. My guess is, that's what happened here. Bureaucrats watching over a process for which they have no expertise. Breakdown in line and staff.
"Its funny how fast the system worked to remove Judge Moore when he challenged the powers to be,but let some judge misuse his authority like in this case and all they do is ring their hands and pretend they cant do anything about it,how convenient"
There is a difference here, because Judge Moore, the "Ten Commandments Judge", was removed for "ethics violations" for violating a federal judge's order to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama state Supreme Court building.
In the Redistricting Reform Initiative case, the judge is not violating an order from a judge of a higher court.
BTTT!
Bummer. Maybe these sorts of disqualifying technicalities won't reappear next time. Couldn't the judge have ruled upon the intent of the petitioners?
Just one more "e" in "fedeal" and you could have feedeal!!! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
Well we still have the paycheck protection act that will demand unions get their members written permission before stealing money from them for political purposes.
DAMN IT. I wonder if there's any chance of getting this appealed or back on an upcoming ballot. Grrrr.
In the meantime, San Diego Freepers should know that Prop A has been ruled by a judge today to require a 2/3rds supermajority in order to transfer the war memorial to the fed park service. The election is on this coming Tuesday! Thank the annoyed atheist and judge shopping for this perverse scheme.
SECOND most important, imho. The paycheck protection act would finally demand unions get explicit permission before stealing money from their members for their radical political agendas.
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.