Posted on 08/09/2005 3:21:59 PM PDT by calcowgirl
SACRAMENTO – A state appeals court on Tuesday refused to put Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's redistricting initiative back on November's special election ballot. The 3rd District Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, said supporters' use of two versions of the initiative in the certification process was a "clear violation of the constitutional and statutory procedures for the circulation of an initiative petition."
"The petitioners were under a duty to disclose the discrepancies as soon as they learned of them...," said the ruling by Justices Coleman Blease and M. Kathleen Butz. "Their failure to make a public disclosure has tainted ... the ballot pamphlet review process."
Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland dissented, saying the measure's constitutional issues should be decided after the election.
The measure would remove state lawmakers' power to draw boundaries for Congress, the Legislature and the state Board of Equalization, giving that responsibility instead to a panel of retired judges.
It ran into legal problems after supporters said they had inadvertently used two versions of the initiative during the qualification process. The version that was presented on voter petitions was different from the one submitted to the attorney general's office for preparation of a title and summary to go on the petitions and ballot.
The attorney general's office said that violated a clear-cut constitutional requirement that the same version of the initiative sent to the attorney general's office be used on petitions.
The requirement is designed to prevent initiative proponents from using "bait and switch tactics" to make changes in initiatives after they have been cleared to gather signatures, the office said.
"The proponents caused the problem in this case by their own negligence in circulating a different version of the initiative measure than that submitted to the attorney general," the majority ruling said. "They exacerbated the problem by concealing it until after the secretary of state had certified the initiative measure for the ballot and failing to make any public disclosure."
Any attorneys that can address the MATERIALITY of this?
Same basic intent in all variations of the petition.
And we need some judicial impeachments, YESTERDAY already....
Can anyone explain to me why the unelected, unaccountable retired judges contemplated for setting districts in this initiative would have been any less corrupt than state legislators? If the initiative had called for districts to be designed by a computer program, as I believe some other states do, it would have made more sense.
What's the next level of appeal, the California State Supreme Court? Or is it too late?
From what I read Friday, speculation was that either losing party would indeed appeal.
I am assuming from that, that it would not be too late.
It will be decided by SCOCal.
That the presiding member of the intermediate appellate panel dissented is a positive bellwether for us opponents of gerrymandering.
My reading of the two versions of the initiative (and, granted, this mistake never should have been made, in this era of word processors and software-based redlining of drafts) it seems that the differences are utterly immaterial. Those seeking the initiative's removal don't seem to be arguing otherwise.
Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid
There's enough "Stupid" to go around.
No where in this process have I heard Ted Costa explain why he pulled this stupid stunt.
Millions of Californian's sign a petition to place on the ballot an initiative to reform our government, within the rules and terms of the (CA) Constitutional. The reform is to correct an perverted election system that has disenfranchised Californians by reorganizing groups of voters into less-powerful groups, so that the same power-brokers can be guaranteed reelection, regardless of the will of the majority of citizens.
I don't believe there's any law that could prevent the ruling oligarchy from "redistricting" Californians into one, single district for all Republicans, and 200 districts for the Democrats. The GOP would have one assembly person and senator, and the Democrats would have the rest.
But then, I guess that sort of move would be too obvious a power grab. It's hopeless; Democrats don't steal elections, they steal the WHOLE ELECTORIAL SYSTEM! How is a Democrat like a Stalinist or Nazi (i.e. National-Socialist)? Once they get power, they ARE the law, and no other party or person can ever be elected again - they'll change the law and the judges to guarantee that result. That's what they intended to do in 2000, and dang aren't they pissed that Bush's election stopped them cold.
I just HAVE to leave this state. I've said it for years, the kids are senior's in High School - one more year, and we're out of here.
SFS
There is no good reason to put the courts in the position of having to decide what is good enough for qualifying an initiative measure for the ballot when actual compliance is easily attainable.Compliance was not difficult. It's ironic that those who appear strongly in favor of having (retired) judges draw districts are also most critical of their ruling, or judges in general.
Yep. The million dollar question.
The version circulated here undeniably changes the meaning of key provisions in the copy submitted to the Attorney General. It is the elector and not the court, who should determine whether changes of meaning in the text would have changed his or her signature on the petition.
Under that argument, there would be no need to ever circulate petitions at all. Just put it on the ballot.
Thank you. I think the judge is right, or less wrong than I had thought. WHile MOST of those differences are immaterial, some aren't. "Five days" doesn't mean the same as "six days." And there were a couple that were worse.
Basically, the Good Guys lost this round by default.
I've gone back and forth on whether I think this proposition would make things better or worse, so I'm not that emotionally attached to it either way.
But, when one looks at the facts of what actually happened, it is hard to come to any other conclusion than 'they screwed up', big time. By trying to blame everyone else (judges, Lockyer, etc), the campaign just looks dishonest, IMO. I'm reading the appeal ruling (link above) now. It was pure negligence and shouldn't have happened, especially given all the effort and money that went into this.
That's not really a fair portrayal of this measure. It is true that a panel consisting of retired judges will draw lines ... but it must do so based on strict rules requiring non-partisanship and barring oddly-shaped districts that break up historical communities of interest. As before, the proposed lines will be appealable to the state supreme court, which quite often has made substantial changes to legislators' line-drawing. (But I suppose you didn't have any problem, before, with "judges having the final say" ... ? Or did you forget about that aspect of the current law?) I wonder whether your opposition to the redistricting proposal here -- one that has worked well in Oregon and Iowa -- stems from your preference for the current system instead, whereby the state legislature draws its own lines. As a result of the gerrymandering that's come of that, 55% of the statewide vote for Democrats is leveraged into 63% of the legislative seats. If you don't support that state of affairs, and prefer it to the "oh no! it's the JUDGES!" approach of Prop 77, then what is your third alternative, if anything? Tom McClintock supports this measure, by the way. (That's not to say that he'd disagree with the court rulings we've seen, however.)
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.