Replies

>>From the 24 judges thus selected at random, the following state legislators EACH pick 3 judges (with no overlap; no one judge can be picked by more than one legislator) to advance in consideration:

There is nothing in the measure (from your link) that says this will be "random". There are NO guidelines or criteria outlined as to how the Judicial Council will select the 24 nominees.

You mention that each legislator (Nunez, Perata, McCarthy, Ackerman) each get to pick 3 candidates.

You don't mention that they cannot select members of their own party. Therefore, the only GOP candidate who ever has a chance of being in the pool or selected as a "Special Master" will have to be chosen by Nunez or Perata (or their successors).

There is nothing in the measure (from your link) that says this will be "random". There are NO guidelines or criteria outlined as to how the Judicial Council will select the 24 nominees.

Wrong. It says "the Judicial Council shall nominate by lot twenty-four retired judges willing to serve as Special Masters." "By lot" means chosen in an out-of-the-hat, bingo-ball manner.

You don't mention that they cannot select members of their own party.

True, but that only makes the measure better.

Therefore, the only GOP candidate who ever has a chance of being in the pool or selected as a "Special Master" will have to be chosen by Nunez or Perata (or their successors).

So what's the difference? 6 will be chosen by Democrats and 6 by Republicans.

What you never say is why you prefer the current approach. Obviously you'd rather have 65% of the state legislature in Democratic hands, and meanwhile find fault with anything and everything proposed by Tom, Arnold and Ted to start fixing the problem (even if it's not perfect), than actually put your own preferred solution on the table. Until you do that, you're no better than Fabian Nunez.

The mechanical details are, of course, very important. My concern is simply that I am inherently suspicious of blue ribbon panels filled with appointed individuals, unaccountable to the voters, who are always politically well connected. As pogo pointed out, the alternative may well be worse. Perehaps so.

I trust McClintock and would be inclined to go along with his endorsement. I do not trust Arnold who has by now established himself as a promise-much/do-nothing RINO. What a disappointment he has turned out to be.