Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Removed Redistricting Reform/Anti-Gerrymandering Initiative from Ballot
KABC AM 790 Radio News | Thursday, July 21, 2005 | FraudFactor.com

Posted on 07/21/2005 5:53:08 PM PDT by FraudFactor.com

Judge Removes Redistricting Reform Initiative from California Ballot

According to KABC AM 790 radio news, a judge just removed Proposition 77, the Redistricting Reform/Anti-Gerrymandering Initiative, from the ballot for the California Special Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2005. This is the Redistricting Reform measure supported by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Proposition 77, the Redistricting Reform/Anti-Gerrymandering Initiative, was the single most important initiative on the ballot to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse by California state government.

The reason cited was a violation of the California Constitution by using two different versions of the initiative in the qualifying process. That is, two different versions of the initiative appeared on different signature petition forms used to gather signatures of registered voters.

This is a major blow to California voters and tax payers who need relief from the massive political corruption and waste of tax dollars resulting from safe, non-competitive gerrymandered election districts that result when the incumbent politicians redraw their election district boundary lines.

The outcomes of the general election for most of California's 80 State Assembly seats, 20 of the 40 State Senate seats, and 53 Congressional seats are determined by the Primary Election, before the General Election, due to gerrymandered election district boundary lines. Also, the Democrat majority party ensures itself an artificially large super-majority due to gerrymandering.

Thus, California has suffered election theft every two years for many decades, and all voters of all parties suffer from nonresponsive entrenched politicians who instead cater to lobbyists and other special interests.

Safe gerrymandered election districts have allowed the Democrat super-majority in the California Legislature to ignore the 63 percent of the voters who voted for Proposition 22, defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. The Democrats legislators have enacted multiple laws giving the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same sex "domestic partners".

The money and time spent to qualify the initiative is lost.

More information on Proposition 77 is available at:
http://www.fraudfactor.com/#prop_77

More information on gerrymandering is available at:
http://www.fraudfactor.com/ffgerrymander.html

The text of the initiative can be found at:
https://www.fairdistricts.com/Initiative_Text.asp
and:
http://ag.ca.gov/initiatives/pdf/sa2004rf0037_amdt_1_ns.pdf


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: antigerrymandering; california; corruption; gerrymandering; government; governor; political; politics; prop77; proposition77; redistricting; reform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: FormerACLUmember
"9th Circuit fedeal coart."

That's 9th Circus fecal court to you ;o)

21 posted on 07/21/2005 7:23:13 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
"There were a number of republicans and conservatives who were not for this measure at all. It is not clear it would have helped."

The Republican Congressional delegation was very concerned they would lose seats to this initiative.

22 posted on 07/21/2005 7:27:24 PM PDT by backtothestreets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy

"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.


23 posted on 07/21/2005 7:27:52 PM PDT by GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos (Peace on earth! After major whup-a$$)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

"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.

24 posted on 07/21/2005 7:28:46 PM PDT by FraudFactor.com (Support redistricting reform to end gerrymandering and achieve more honest and responsive government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FraudFactor.com
Image hosted by Photobucket.com it's...

25 posted on 07/21/2005 7:28:52 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist ©®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos

You would think ten people were editing and reviewing this stuff in the very least.

This is as weak as it gets.


26 posted on 07/21/2005 7:30:54 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FraudFactor.com

"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.


27 posted on 07/21/2005 7:40:50 PM PDT by WOSG (Liberalism is wrong, it's just the Liberals don't know it yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FraudFactor.com

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.


28 posted on 07/21/2005 7:41:26 PM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets

"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.

29 posted on 07/21/2005 7:42:09 PM PDT by FraudFactor.com (Support redistricting reform to end gerrymandering and achieve more honest and responsive government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rottndog
You are right about the incompetence. Dang, a bad thought just occurred to me. What if opponents of an initiative purposely put out petition collectors with false versions. How would the signers know? I wonder if that is even a crime?
30 posted on 07/21/2005 7:47:39 PM PDT by backtothestreets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

To: GVgirl
I just wish I knew the name of the individual who screwed this one up.

His name is Ted Costa. He's a dumb ass and this isn't the first time he's screwed up an initiative.


32 posted on 07/21/2005 7:56:27 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (I'm sick and tired of being sicked and tired!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: FraudFactor.com
"I was told by a good source that the Republican legislators in California made a deal with the Democrats.."

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.

33 posted on 07/21/2005 8:04:28 PM PDT by backtothestreets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
I'll be watching to see what comes out of this. But I worked in the publishing industry long enough to know that it takes constant supervision, diligence and outright suspicion and not trusting anything anyone else tells you, to make sure that printed matter comes out the way it's intended.

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.

34 posted on 07/21/2005 8:15:07 PM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GatorPaul

"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"
In 2001, he installed the Ten Commandments monument without consulting his colleagues. A U.S. District judge demanded that the monument be removed by August 20, 2003. Moore refused to comply and was suspended from office and charged with six ethics violations. On August 27, the monument was moved to a side room in the courthouse.
Judge Moore's Ten Commandments monument

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.

35 posted on 07/21/2005 8:24:24 PM PDT by FraudFactor.com (Support redistricting reform to end gerrymandering and achieve more honest and responsive government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

BTTT!


36 posted on 07/21/2005 8:36:29 PM PDT by afnamvet (Jet noise...The Sound of Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: FraudFactor.com

Bummer. Maybe these sorts of disqualifying technicalities won't reappear next time. Couldn't the judge have ruled upon the intent of the petitioners?


37 posted on 07/21/2005 8:44:55 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; FormerACLUmember
"9th Circuit fedeal coart."

Just one more "e" in "fedeal" and you could have feedeal!!! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

38 posted on 07/21/2005 8:47:34 PM PDT by SierraWasp (What other nation could spear a comet in deep space on independence holiday? God Bless America!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PRND21
Yup. Those sons-of-bitches (Arnold-hating freepers included) are killing this state. KILLING IT.

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.

39 posted on 07/21/2005 8:47:42 PM PDT by newzjunkey (San Diego: **YES ON A** Protect Mt Soledad War Memoral from annoyed atheists!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FraudFactor.com

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.


40 posted on 07/21/2005 8:50:10 PM PDT by newzjunkey (San Diego: **YES ON A** Protect Mt Soledad War Memoral from annoyed atheists!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson