CA: FEC allows unlimited donations to oppose redistricting initiative

Well I still think your research is the best on this forum and trust your insights more than most.

I didn't address each and every one of your questions because I didn't need to. But because you appear to believe otherwise, I'll take a crack at it:

How many retired judges will be in this pool? Unlimited? How will they determine “willing to serve”? Will they contact all judges meeting the qualifications, or only include those that volunteer?

Technically unlimited, although certainly one would have to volunteer in order to in the "barrel." Volunteering would be undertaken by making (presumably in writing on a form to be developed) the commitments noted in the text of the initiative regarding a one-year embargo on post-panel politicking, etc.

Will they include those no longer living in California?

Now THAT is a good question. (I don't think the other ones are "bad," but this is the best of them.) The text doesn't restrict the pool to Californians, no, as it should. But I sense that this is, in practical terms, a minor concern. How likely is it that a not-Californian-anymore retired judge will even wish to serve, and to travel to Sacramento for months (at least intermittently, for hearings) to do so? If any DO volunteer, and if any make the roster of judges chosen "by lot" by the Clerk, there is no chance (practically; even if there is one technically) that any of them will survive the challenge process that follows. Still, the text should be changed to reflect that current Californian residency is a qualification.

Will they put an age limit on it, or will 90-year-olds be included in the pool?

No, there is no age limit in the text. But this bothers me a lot less than (even) the "Californian" issue above. As with that issue: the rare judges who volunteer despite being too old for the role can be "challenged" out of the pool if they are part of the initialy "by lot" list. You make a good point for future improvements, though, such as an age limit of 72 or 75, perhaps. (Must be careful there, as limit perceived as too low may irk older voters into rejecting the measure when they otherwise would not have.)

Etc. etc. etc. The criteria is [sic] not outlined. Some qualifications are outlined.

I still disagree. Some of the criteria that I'd like to see, and that you apparently NEED to see before you could support the measure, are not spelled out, no.

But the four or so objections I've counted you as making, other than the "etc." -- namely (1) volunteers only? how do we know who's volunteered?; (2) potentially unlimited pool?; (3) Californians only?; and (4) age limit? -- are either not troubling to me at all, as with #s 1 and 2,

or, as to #s 3 and 4, will be rendered harmless, in my view at least, by a combination of self-selection (for the very old, and non-Californians, are very unlikely to fill out the forms required for being "in the pool" in the first place) and "challenges" to remove any rare birds that do make it into the chosen-by-lot roster.

Your last two posts contain various and sundry insults, but I will just add those to the cost of my losing my temper last week, as justly deserved payback, if not true.

Your, 'if you are not for our proposition/candidate/legislation or express any reservations about it, you must be against it,' logic is what got you into trouble with ccg. It is typical of the one-sided "Republicans must fall into line" arguments I see out of "moderates" on this forum. What it accomplishes is to default all leadership to "the leadership." It squelches reasoned criticism out of which better legislation can be derived. That's why you get a battle.

Given that conservatives have every reason to distrust the CAGOP "leadership," especially after the treatment Bill Simon got at the hands of his own party, you are barking up the wrong tree on this forum. You may think you are being reasonable and supporting a unified effort, but that is not how it looks to conservatives, having been stabbed in the back by the CAGOP way too many times for that approach to work. Thus you are stuck debating the merits of every initiative and candidate.

Sorry CCG, I should have included you in that last post.

Thank you for your response. While we can all presume how these undelineated provisions might work, it goes to show that all criteria for the Judicial Council pool selection is not outlined in the text of the measure.

As to me insulting you, if I did, I apologize.

FYI, it appears that the Judicial Council will not sit idly waiting for individuals to volunteer. In fact, according to Douglas M. Johnson, "Consulting Fellow" of The Rose Institute, the institute has been enlisted to track down the judges, as the Judicial Council was apparently unaware of the number that are either living or dead as of May.

With a list from the Judicial Council of approximately 50 Federal judges and 950 state judges, The Rose Institute is attempting to find each member that might potentially qualify or be interested.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/roundtable/transcript.html

The Commonwealth Club of California
Voices of Reform Roundtable #1: Redistricting
(snip)
Mr. Stern: Well, I (unintelligible) knows really what the numbers are, because you can get a representative commission with retired judges. You have to stretch a little bit, and you have to go dig down a little bit. It can be done. But, clearly, ... the commission needs to be very diverse.
Mr. Johnson: Okay. I can throw some numbers at you, just 'cause we're in the process of doing this, but there's about 50 retired federal judges. Of them, 43 are white, and 44 are male, and then there's about 950 or so state judges. We've tracked down about 250 of them. They're quite a batch to try to track down. And --
Male voice: What if there aren't any? Statistical evidence (unintelligible)? (laughter)
Mr. Johnson: It's amazing. The judicial council gave us a list, and ... every fifth one has passed away, and the council doesn't know it yet. So, but about a quarter of them seem to be of some minority ethnic group, but it is a very small number. On that point, though, I guess, to follow up, that's why ?you should be listening? to a lot of -- I think I understand the idea of, "Let's get a diverse commission." I've never seen a proposal that could actually accomplish it. In California, I mean, the -- the talk in this report is, let the judicial council pick people. There's two incumbent legislators, both Democrats, on the judicial council. There's a weakness in the system. I think, while I understand that judges are not perfect, I do think they are the best. A random selection of -- retired judges is the best approach that we've seen, of all the proposals. It doesn't get you a diverse commission, but, as we've seen, the -- the special masters, made up of retired judges, has done a much-better job for minorities than the diverse legislature has.

... By questioning my sincerity, you are basically calling me a liar. ...

I've long considered that you desire to see no republican nor conservative gain in California. I get a kick out of it when others catch on to you.

>>Sorry CCG, I should have included you in that last post.

No problem. I agree. Good candidates and initiatives can, and should, be able stand on their own merit.

"I've long considered that you desire to see no republican nor conservative gain in California"

That is not my impression of calcowgirl. In California, the only Republican that can "gain" would be a GOP Hispandering Big Tent RINO, liberal or moderate. Even those gains are unlikely given the sheer stupidity and duplicity of the CAGOP. Any such gains would be most unlikely to benefit the conservative agenda. So if calcogirl disfavors that brand of Republican, I and many others are right there with her. As for conservatives, I believe she would be very happy to see "gain" as would I.

I've long considered that you desire to see no republican nor conservative gain in California. I get a kick out of it when others catch on to you.

Really? You mean those "conservatives" like Schwarzenegger? Or Riordan? Or those "conservative" measures like the CalBondage intitiatives? My record is very consistent--don't expect me to support stuff like Hollywood tax credits (handouts) and taxpayer subsidized Solar Roofs, either.

... don't expect me to support ...

I don't and won't.

I agree Czar. I try to look at the candidate and their actions/beliefs, rather than only the letter they chose to put next to their name. Republicans who are looking to take the party and the state further to the left are not those that I will favor. I consider that a loss, not a gain. Basic math, or tug-of-war.

You're not terribly perceptive, are you. You've got pretty strange colored glasses that are really fogged up, if that's what you see in our conservative FReeper extraordinnaire... "calcowgirl!"

Maybe you should get a lepodoptomy! You know, the one where you get the nerve cut that runs from you eyes to uranus and gives you such a crappy outlook on others you don't agree with!!!

Do you view the effort by these (quasi-?) governmental bodies to update their rosters as good news? I do, even if I'm a bit unsettled that such records are so out of date.

Do you view the effort by these (quasi-?) governmental bodies to update their rosters as good news? I do, even if I'm a bit unsettled that such records are so out of date.

I don't see it as good or bad, necessarily. I see it as fundamental to being able to implement the law though. The law, as written, included an agressive schedule for accomplishing the required tasks. If they waited for the law to be enacted, they would never be able to meet the schedule.

I wonder who is paying for the Rose Institute? Who are they accountable to? Will their process and records be made public? (Just a few questions that go through my mind when reading this stuff).

FYI, actions being performed by quasi-governmental bodies, often unaccountable, always bothers me.

...our conservative FReeper extraordinnaire... "calcowgirl!"

Thanks, waspman.

You beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez welcome!!!