Statement on Today’s Ruling Regarding Proposition 77 (California Redistricting)

Press release from Join Arnold ^ | JULY 21, 2005 | TODD HARRIS

[Jeff Gordon]

Proposition 77 is designed to fix the gerrymandering in California which has articially kept the democrats in control.

This liberal activist judge, Gail Ohanesian, does not believe California voters should have a say in this matter.

[mark3681]

What does the Terminator have to say about it?

[goldstategop]

Actually the Prop. 77 people broke the law by circulating TWO different versions of the intiative. The one they submitted to the voters for signature was NOT the sane as one they submitted to the Attorney General for verification and commentary. Their defense the differences were stylistic didn't wash. It was their responsibility to follow the law. The fact the measure got struck from the ballot means they must accept the blame in not taking care to see to it the ballot measure was the SAME as the one submitted to the Attorney General. DUH.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Jeff Gordon]

Thank you for the information.

[fifedom]

I saw a news report that this has happened before and the initiative got on the ballot because the differences were not substantive. I agree the ballot circulators are idiots to give the Rats an opening, but this is still an abuse of power by the judge.

[calcowgirl]

This liberal activist judge, Gail Ohanesian, does not believe California voters should have a say in this matter.

Liberal activist judge? She was given her start by Governor Deukmejian. (R)

Costa screwed up. Why not put the blame on those who did a sloppy job?

[doctor noe]

The pension reform measure was screwed up and now the redistricting measure was bungled. Why can't these people get it right? The only way to change things in California is via a statewide ballot. Better luck next year.

[citizen]

Was that the reason for the ruling?

[unixfox]

When will Kalifornians finally get tired of the communist regime in charge and run the bastards out of the state?

[savedbygrace]

Even so, were the differences significant or not? What were the differences?

[calcowgirl]

Apparently these are only some of the differences. I don't know what the others were, but the judge found them to be substantive.

San Francisco Chronicle, July 9, 2005

The legal dispute over Proposition 77, which would change the way political boundaries are drawn in the state, centers on differences between the official version of the measure that was submitted to the state attorney general and a second version that was used in the signature gathering. The boldfaced words highlight some of the dozen differences listed by the initiatives backers. Among them are:

-- Version circulated for signature gathering: "... the Judicial Council shall nominate by lot ..."
-- Version submitted to the attorney general: "the Judicial Council shall select by lot ..."

-- Circulated: "A retired judge selected ..."
-- Submitted: "A retired judge appointed ..."

-- Circulated: "From a pool of retired judges nominated ... "
-- Submitted: "From a pool of retired judges selected ... "

-- Circulated: "... shall each nominate, no later than five days before the deadline ..."
-- Submitted: "...shall each nominate, no later than six days before the deadline ..."

-- Circulated: "... at the same next general election provided for under subdivision (g) ..."
-- Submitted: "... at the same next general election as specified under subdivision (g) ..."

-- Circulated: "Except for judicial decrees, the provisions of this article are the exclusive means of adjusting the boundary lines of the districts specified within."

-- Submitted: "Except for judicial decrees, the provisions of this article are the exclusive means of adjusting the boundary lines of the districts specified herein, and the powers under Sections 8 and 9 of Article II shall be used only in the manner specified in subdivisions (g) and (h) herein."

Schwarzenegger's redistricting measure ordered off ballot

SACRAMENTO - A Superior Court judge on Thursday kicked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's redistricting measure off the special election ballot, ruling that supporters violated California's constitution by using two versions of the initiative in the qualifying process.

"The differences are not simply typographical errors," Judge Gail Ohanesian said. "They're not merely about the format of the measure. They are not simply technical. Instead they go to the substantive terms of the measure."

(snip)

San Francisco Chronicle, July 9, 2005

The legal dispute over Proposition 77, which would change the way political boundaries are drawn in the state, centers on differences between the official version of the measure that was submitted to the state attorney general and a second version that was used in the signature gathering. The boldfaced words highlight some of the dozen differences listed by the initiatives backers. Among them are:

-- Version circulated for signature gathering: "... the Judicial Council shall nominate by lot ..."
-- Version submitted to the attorney general: "the Judicial Council shall select by lot ..."

-- Circulated: "A retired judge selected ..."
-- Submitted: "A retired judge appointed ..."

-- Circulated: "From a pool of retired judges nominated ... "
-- Submitted: "From a pool of retired judges selected ... "

-- Circulated: "... shall each nominate, no later than five days before the deadline ..."
-- Submitted: "...shall each nominate, no later than six days before the deadline ..."

-- Circulated: "... at the same next general election provided for under subdivision (g) ..."
-- Submitted: "... at the same next general election as specified under subdivision (g) ..."

-- Circulated: "Except for judicial decrees, the provisions of this article are the exclusive means of adjusting the boundary lines of the districts specified within."

-- Submitted: "Except for judicial decrees, the provisions of this article are the exclusive means of adjusting the boundary lines of the districts specified herein, and the powers under Sections 8 and 9 of Article II shall be used only in the manner specified in subdivisions (g) and (h) herein."

[savedbygrace]

Thank you. Now I agree with the judge. Those are substantive differences.

[goldstategop]

Yep - to lawyers exact phrasing matters greatly. This sloppily drafted measure would have stirred up a hornet's nest of post-election litigation. We wouldn't like it if a lib group drafted a measure that said one thing and then submitted to the voters a second measure with different language substituted. It affects how you see the measure - not to mention the credibility of the drafters. Its too bad a million people's signatures are worthless. But when the means justify the end, they're the ones who pay the price for chicanery. The Prop. 77 people have learned a hard lesson in the law - its a stern taskmaster when it comes to spelling how to effect changes. There's a proper way to do it and a poor way to do it. So much for the "Year Of Reform."

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[calcowgirl]

It is amusing that some want to blame those liberal activist judges, when the
measure itself would put redistricting in the hands of the same bunch.

Costa et. al. should walk away gracefully. This 'victi-crat' mentality is
making them sound like a bunch of whining dems.

[goldstategop]

There's no way politics is ever going to be taken out of redistricting. It might be better to make the process more transparent and give voters the opportunity to decide if they can live with a set of proposed district boundaries. That would go a long way towards curbing the worst evils of gerrymandering without bringing judges, retired or otherwise into the mix. The judiciary is already politicized enough as it is. There's no reason to make the disease even worse by giving judges the power to choose politicians when that should be left up to the people.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[calcowgirl]

More information:

Text of judges decision:

Text of version submitted to AG

Text of version circulated for signature

Another difference noted:

AG VERSION:

(k) Except for iudicial decrees, the provisions of this article are the exclusive means of adiusting the boundary lines of the districts specified herein, and the powers under Sections 8 and 9 of Article II shall be used only in the manner specified in subdivisions (g) and (h) herein.

PETITION VERSION:

(k) Except for judicial decrees, the provisions of this article are the exclusive means of adjusting the boundary lines of the districts specified herein.

And a wholesale rewrite of one section:

SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations of Purpose

The People of the State of California find and declare that:

AG VERSION:

(a) Our Legislature should be responsive to the demands of the voters, but existing law places the power to draw the very districts, in which legislators are elected, in the hands of incumbent state legislators, who then choose their voters, which is a conflict of interest.

(b) The Legislature's self-interest in drawing its members' districts has resulted in partisan gerrymandering, uncompetitive districts, ideological polarization, and a growing division between the interests of the People of California and their elected representatives.

(c) The redistricting plans adopted by the California Legislature in 2001 produced an unprecedented number of uncompetitive districts, serve incumbents and not the People, and are repugnant to the People. The gerrymandered districts of 2001 resulted in not a single change in the partisan composition of the California Legislature or the California congressional delegation in the 2004 elections. These districts should be replaced as soon as possible and never used again.

(d) The experience of the 1 970's and 1990's demonstrates that impartial special masters, who are retired judges independent of partisan politics and the Legislature, can draw fair and competitive districts by virtue of their judicial training and judicial temperament.

(e) We demand that our representative system of government assure that the voters choose their representatives, rather than their representatives choose their voters, that it be open to public scrutiny and free of conflicts of interest, and that the system embody the principle that government derives its power from the consent of the governed. Therefore, the People of the State of California hereby adopt the "Redistricting Reform: The Voter Empowerment Act."

PETITION VERSION:

(a) Our Legislature should be responsive to the demands of the citizens of the State of California, and not the self-interest of individual legislators or the partisan interests of political parties.

(b) Self-interest and partisan gerrymandering have resulted in uncompetitive districts, ideological polarization in our institutions of representative democracy, and a disconnect between the interests of the People of California and their elected representatives.

(c) The redistricting plans adopted by the California Legislature in 2001 serve incumbents, not the People, are repugnant to the People, and are in direct opposition to the People’s interest in fair and competitive elections. They should not be used again.

(d) We demand that our representative system of government be fair to all, open to public scrutiny, free of conflicts of interest, and dedicated to the principle that government derives its power from the consent of the governed. Therefore, the People of the State of California hereby adopt the "Redistricting Reform: The Voter Empowerment Act."

[calcowgirl]

Ping to above - FYI

[John Lenin]

Arnie was stupid enough to hire liberals to work for him, serves him right. I'm tired of this amateur. Let the RATS sink with their own ship, Arnie is just propping them up.

[calcowgirl]

He hired liberals because he is one. I just got this email this morning from Team Schwarzenegger. More disingenuous propaganda that shows little resemblance to facts.

Reactions to Court Removal of Proposition 77 from Ballot

UPDATED FRIDAY, JULY 22, 2005

 

GOVERNOR’S COALITION RESPONDS TO COURT REMOVAL OF
PROPOSITION 77 FROM THE ELECTION BALLOT

Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
 “Today’s court ruling is a major disappointment and we are urging proponents to appeal immediately to ensure that Californians have a right to vote on this very important issue. This common-sense reform will restore accountability to state government, making sure that elected officials represent the people, not special interests.”

Julie Vandermost, President of the California Women’s Leadership Association
“This outrageous judgment stifles the voice of taxpayers who are demanding accountability from their government. We cannot allow political gamesmanship to block the peoples’ right to vote on this important issue. Californians should decide the mechanism for drawing district boundaries. The only way to hold politicians accountable is to give the power back to the voters. Politicians trying to maintain the status quo know they can’t defeat Proposition 77 in an election, so they chose to silence the will of the voters through a frivolous lawsuit.”

Matt Mahood, President of the Sacramento Metro Chamber
“I am disappointed the court's action will thwart the will of nearly 1 million Californians who signed petitions to place the Voter Empowerment Act on the ballot. Sadly, the net effect of this ruling will be to maintain the status quo in a state in desperate need of this kind of reform. We will continue this effort to ensure that Californians have responsive government via a responsible redistricting process.”

Duf Sundheim, Chairman of the California Republican Party
“The court ruling on Proposition 77 has no bearing on the commitment of the California Republican Party to support much needed reforms in California.  We encourage Governor Schwarzenegger to fight for the principles of reform that will make our state more accountable to the people. Reforming the status quo and fighting the entrenched interests that control California is no simple task.  California’s legislature has become a “Members Only” club, funded by organized labor unions and closed to average citizens. As long as labor unions choose legislators and legislators choose their voters, the system of government for the people in California will remain fundamentally flawed. The opponents of reform will throw every obstacle they can find in the way of the Special Election on November 8. Lawsuits and misinformation are the weapons of choice used by those who risk losing their control over Sacramento.  But the obstacles they throw in the way of reform must not deter us as we continue to move forward toward the goal of returning the power to the people.”

Rusty Hammer, President and CEO of the LA Area Chamber of Commerce
“For the 951,776 of us who signed the reapportionment measure, the LA Area Chamber is disappointed that this legal action protects the status quo so that politicians will continue to draw their own legislative districts—a clear conflict of self-interest.”

John Kehoe, Policy Director for the California Senior Action League
“Californians should be deciding the fate of this initiative, not the courts. Today’s ruling preserves a scheme where politicians can draw safe seats that make it almost impossible for them to lose elections.  As a result, partisanship and politics-as-usual prevail.  It’s time to give the power back to the people.”

Stacie Hewitt, a teacher in the Elk Grove Unified School District
“I am extremely disappointed that the court thwarted more than 951,776 Californians who signed petitions to place the Voter Empowerment Act on the ballot. Those who filed this lawsuit are engaging in a dangerous game of political manipulation to maintain the status quo. Pro-reform Californians will continue this fight to ensure that we have a voice in our government.”

 

Paid for by the California Reocovery Team

[NormsRevenge]

The Fix was in from the get go,imo.