Posted on 10/23/2007 8:00:04 AM PDT by SmithL
Two Republican political consultants are trying to revive an initiative to change how California's electoral votes are tallied in next year's presidential election, seeking support from major GOP donors including Rep. Darrell Issa, who financed the 2003 gubernatorial recall.
Sacramento-based consultant Dave Gilliard, an Issa adviser, is spearheading a drive to collect at least 600,000 more signatures by mid-November for an initiative that would divvy up California's electoral college votes by congressional district. The June 2008 initiative could provide next year's Republican presidential candidate with an additional 20 or more electoral votes in Democratic-leaning California.
Qualifying the initiative at this late stage will cost at least $2 million to pay for signature gatherers. Neither Gilliard nor fundraiser Anne Dunsmore named their donors, but Gilliard confirmed they hope to get support from Issa. The Republican congressman was unavailable Monday because he was monitoring fires in his San Diego-area district, a spokesman said.
"He's one of the people being talked to, but I can't confirm that he's involved yet," Gilliard said.
In 2003, Issa spent $1.7 million to finance signature-gathering efforts that qualified the gubernatorial recall for the ballot. He had intended to run for the office himself but dropped out when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger entered the race.
Gilliard said he is confident the new campaign can raise enough money to gather the necessary signatures by Nov. 13, the secretary of state's suggested deadline to submit petitions for the June ballot
...If the campaign cannot gather enough signatures in time, Gilliard said it would attempt to place the initiative on the November 2008 ballot. He has been advised the initiative would still take effect in next year's presidential election if approved on the same ballot.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
I think it will: in states where intitiative and referendum are part of the state constitution, the electorate is the legislature intermittently when there are ballot issues.
Since initiatives have the weight of law in California, why would it not pass Constitutional muster?
If this happens, Republicans should have a virtual lock on the presidency. That would be an extra 15-20 electoral votes!
“” like this proposal, but I do not think it will withstand Constitutional scrutiny.””
Why not? Its already being done in two states (New Mexico & New Hampshire).
I don’t really think this is a particularly good precedent to set. It sounds great in California ... but we might not be so pleased if it were to happen in Texas (which, if it happens in CA, TX will be close behind).
This draws the nation closer to a popular election, and farther away from the state-based electoral election the founders had invisioned.
This isn’t a good idea.
H
Probably because the US Constitution gives sole power to the state legislatures to determine the method by which electors are chosen. There are constitutional scholars on both sides of the issue about whether a referendum qualifies under the US Constition even if the California state constitution recognizes referenda as being acts of the legislature.
““ like this proposal, but I do not think it will withstand Constitutional scrutiny.””
Why not? Its already being done in two states (New Mexico & New Hampshire).
Sorry, I wasn't clear. The concept is constitutional, because the Constitution explicitly gives that authority to the State Legislatures. However, this proposal will be going directly to the voters, since the overwhelmingly Democrat California Legislature won't touch this issue.
NEVADA & New Hampshire.
But you are right. There is no Constitional reason this couldn't be done.
While I don't realistically see this happening in this very-blue state, it is good to see Republicans fighting instead of rolling over.
NEBRASKA & MAINE.
Yep, and in Ca the criminals and perverts are a large block of the electorate. Add to that the vindictive socialist progressives and this will have a hard time getting passed.
Then, of course, there is the ONE JUDGE rule after any proposition is passed in Ca.
You misspelled Maine and Nebraska.
Wow, you put one of them in capital letters and *still* got them both wrong!
It's Maine and Nebraska.
I disagree. It should actually help people to understand that we are not a democracy but a democratic republic. By aligning the electoral college electors and the districts of the representatives, the fact that we don't directly vote for the candidate but vote for someone who then represents us should be more explicit.
I have always thought that the whole nation should follow the example of Nebraska and MAINE, not New Hampshire, in allocating electoral votes. I think that it is more in-line with the intent of the Founding Fathers and frankly, more fair.
New Hampshire, New-Braska, whatever!
I’m SO confused.
This is a clever initiative and we in the GOP , a huge minority now in Ca., will vote for it. But, no one else will. I cannot see how the majority Dems will allow this ploy to get by. If Arnold came out for it, perhaps. But, even then , I doubt it.
While I don't disagree with you I think this initiative is necessary. It puts the state of California back in play for both parties. When a state is essentially uncontested, THAT too is undemocratic and far from what the founders envisioned, especially for a state that is 10% of the population with 10% of the electoral vote.
The right thing to do, someday, would be to split the state into two states. While it seems heretical, such makes far more sense.
... spoken by a lifelong California resident.
>> When a state is essentially uncontested, THAT too is undemocratic and far from what the founders envisioned, especially for a state that is 10% of the population with 10% of the electoral vote.
First - uncontested doesn’t necessarily mean undemocratic. Democrats just seem to congregate in CA like Republicans have congregated in Texas. Like minds tend to congregate, and to the extent the population is politically like-minded, that can result in elections that are relatively uncontested. The fact that Republicans are a lock in Texas and Democrats are a lock in California isn’t due to lack of democracy ... it is due to general agreement throughout the State.
Second - If we’re going to throw CA back into the mix ... then Texas will soon follow. Texas is a largely uncontested Republican state bearing much of the same influence that you describe in California.
>> The right thing to do, someday, would be to split the state into two states. While it seems heretical, such makes far more sense.
This is a monumentally lousy idea.
First - The federal government doesn’t have the authority to split up powerful states.
Second - Splitting states up is entirely counter to the ideals of federalism ... and splitting the most powerful states (like CA and TX) up into less powerful entities is the best way I can think of to amass all political power in Washington D.C.
I can’t describe how horrible this idea is - as the federal government will become a monstrosity, and the power of State governments would dwindle to virtually zero.
>> ... spoken by a lifelong California resident.
As a lifelong Texan ... I’d prefer my state remain a bastion of conservatism. Splitting the state up simply won’t fly.
H
“I like this proposal, but I do not think it will withstand Constitutional scrutiny. The Legislature could legally implement this proposal, but that will never happen in this bluest of states.”
As for the initiative proponent’s statement that the CD method could go into effect for the election being held on the same day that the initiative is approved, I don’t think it holds water. The rules for handing out EVs are the ones in place on the day of the election, and can’t be changed retroactively. Even if the referendum is deemed to be an appropriate way to change the rules, it wouldn’t be able to go into effect until the 2012 election.
Does anyone know the website for the initiative?
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.