Replies

1. Judges aren't non-partisan.

Agreed. Someone has to appoint them. The legislators who now retain the redistricting power aren't either.

2. Only three Judges (vs. 5 or 7) is too much an opportunity for slant (and corruption).

Would 5 or 7 or 9 made the measure more palatable?

3. The Judicial Council selection process of identifying Judges in the pool is hidden from public scrutiny as it is being performed by pseudo-governmental bodies and institutions not subject to transparency provisions. (The only two legislative representatives on the Judicial Council are also two leftists: Dave Jones and Joe Dunn)

It is? Funny, I saw in in the text of the proposition.

4. The nomination process will be done by the same state legislators (but much fewer of them) that this initiative is supposed to correct.

Again, the judges can have the power or the legislators themselves. The last judicial redistricting produced much better districts than we have now.

5. Legislators doing the selections only get to choose candidates from the opposite party.

So?

6. The schedule for implementation is not only aggressive, but probably not feasible (Candidates file papers before the districts are even drawn--see Rose report).

The 90s redistricting was done under pretty tight deadlines. And it worked. Besides, the SOS can adjust the filing dates to comply.

7. The Secretary of State has said the schedule is not doable, as do other experts.

Odd, I heard SOS McPherson on the radio not even a month ago saying it was possible and his office was making plans to implement it should 77 pass.

8. By most accounts published, conservatives will lose seats and Republicans will probably lose seats, while minority districts (mostly Dem) will be protected under the Baker v. Carr provisions. Some have predicted that Republicans will lose their majority in the house.

Funny, I've read just as many reports saying 77 would produce more competitive districts and perhaps more Republican leaning districts. Also, I have absolutely no qualms about losing GOP members of the House when they're the ones backing Bush's big government "conservatism" for even a shot at picking up Assembly or Senate seats.

9. Mid-decade redistricting requires use of already outdated census data. So?

10. Despite requiring voter approval of new districts, the new district maps will first be used without approval, theoretically indefinitely.

Huh? Voters will have the opportunity to approve or reject the maps in 2006.

11. From what I can determine, legislators don't draw districts today--they hire Consultants to do it for them. Under the new law, Judges will chose from plans presented to them--by Consultants. The same exact people will be drawing districts--it is only a matter of who can sell the judges as to their 'plan' being the best.

It's a matter of whose paying the check to the consultants and who those consultants are. I doubt the judicial commission would have hired Howard Berman's brother.

12. There is no evidence that districts will be more competitive, as the language of the proposed law contains no provision for considering such (in fact, prohibiting consideration of parties/candidates/encumbants etc.).

Again, not according to what I've seen. And it's a GOOD thing that party registration, candidate/officeholder residence data is to be ignored.