Posted on 09/12/2005 10:43:39 AM PDT by calcowgirl
Boldly treading where few other Republicans want to go, Roseville Rep. John Doolittle has stepped forward as a leading critic of the redistricting measure supported by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
(snip)
Doolittle, who in Congress is trying to advance up the House Republican leadership ladder, is resolute. He insists that he has received "almost no grief" from fellow California Republicans over his opposition to Proposition 77.
"I think people know I am a pretty strong and loyal Republican," the 54-year-old, eight-term congressman said. "This proposition is bad for the Republican Party."
With only nine of the 20 members of the California Republican congressional delegation lined up behind Schwarzenegger's redistricting initiative, Doolittle represents the majority view but feels a bit lonely on the front lines.
"I seem to be the only one on record publicly opposed to this," he said.
The thesis behind Proposition 77 is that state lawmakers have abused their power to redraw district lines to eliminate competitive races and create safe districts for incumbents of both parties.
The ballot measure would hand the once-a-decade redistricting task to a panel of retired judges. To get the ball rolling, it requires the panel to develop a redistricting plan for use in the next round of primary elections, although some have suggested 2006 election deadlines and expected court challenges will make that impossible.
It may come as a big surprise to California Republicans backing Schwarzenegger's initiative, but Doolittle is convinced that the California measure has unwittingly become part of a nationwide Democratic plot.
"Democrats are doing this because they think this is a way they are going to take away our majority in Congress," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Activist Ted Costa, a champion of the proposition to hand the task of redistricting to an independent commission, went so far as to brand Doolittle "a poster child for why we should have redistricting."
We don't need a bunch of liberal judges setting the lines for districts. I think this guy is right, this is bad for republicans.
The reason behind Arnie's push to redistrict is to knock down the gerrymandered areas the libs set up to favor their votes from their voters (and we know who they are)...we even have a new district which was CREATED just for illegals and Mexicans as to capture their votes --- your libs in action.
This state has been dessimated by libs. They need to go.
Doolittle has a safe district, as do pretty much every incumbent of either party. He doesn't want to run the risk of being placed in a more competitive district.
DECIMATED, that is! :-)
The commission would be bipartisan, with neither party having an advantage. That would be better than allowing the liberal majority of the legislature drawing district lines to protect themselves, and keeping the GOP forever in the minority.
The problem is that right now they are basically deciding their own districts.
Wrong..read the resolution..how the judges are chosen..
From the article:
The only area of agreement seems to be that for Doolittle personally, regardless of who draws the boundaries, his district is probably safely his for as long as he wants.
Interesting take. I'm still torn on this one.
I hate the way the Prop was written, but I hate the current process too.
Decisions, decisions...
As a conservative repub, I have to say Doolittle has really done little.
The guy has been TALKING about the Auburn Dam, a source of renewable energy, water, and recreation for 20 years and doing NOTHING to bring it about.
I am thinking it is time for a change, but unfortunately, he is not going anywhere. I certainly wish for a conservative that can do SOMETHING, but that can't happen as long as we have the C- congressman in our district.
I think it would CLEAR the WHOLE MATTER UP in a HURRY!!!
You're probably remembering this post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1464708/posts#19
and EGD's reply:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1464708/posts?page=35#35
Ok, ok, you guys:) I give up! How do they choose the judges? If they are bi partisan it would be an improvement over what we have now!
from the voter information pamphlet http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/text77.pdf
(C) From the pool of retired judges nominated by the Judicial Council, the Speaker of the Assembly, the Minority Leader of the Assembly, the President pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Minority Leader of the Senate shall each nominate, no later than five days before the deadline for appointment of the panel of Special Masters, three retired judges, who are not registered members of the same political party as that of the legislator making the nomination.
http://www.fairdistricts.com/Initiative_Text.aspI noticed some stuff in here that I had not noticed before in the selection of the 3 "Special Masters." (That term gives me the shivers)
--The "Judicial Council" first "nominates" 24 judges.
--Perata(D), Nunez(D), McCarthy(R), and Ackerman(R) then get to select 3 of those 24 (each) as candidates for "Special Master", (reducing the pool to 12).
--BUT--they can only select candidates NOT in their own party. So, the only GOP possible nominees would have to be selected by Perata and Nunez. While the same is true on the other side of the aisle (McCarthy/Ackerman selecting Dems), I see the left as playing a much dirtier game.
Burton's resolution was rejected. According to Republican Party spokeswoman Karen Hanretty, the resolution was made moot by action taken by the party's executive committee in June endorsing the redistricting proposition.
"The party has already unanimously supported redistricting," she said. She questioned why Doolittle was so determined to stand in the way of it.
Does the Executive Committee now constitute "Unanimous support" of the party?
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.