Is the California Special Election 2005 edition burning out the voters? The Sacramento Union has this story, Special Election Burnout.

Is there such a thing as too much democracy?

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s determination to get a tighter grip on the state budget and reshape a Legislature known for its political extremes will send California voters to the polls for the fourth statewide election in two years.

The collateral damage might be voters themselves.

The cavalcade of candidates and ballot propositions—dating to the October 2003 election that put Schwarzenegger in office—has left many weary of all that goes with them.

In short, “People are tired,” said Trudy Schafer, a lobbyist for the League of Women Voters of California.

To many voters, “There is a never-ending campaign,” said Democratic consultant Kam Kuwata, who has advised Sen. Dianne Feinstein and former Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn. “People scratch their heads and say, ‘Why are we doing this?’”

This MSM ASSociated Press piece seems to have a bias against a November vote of the people. However, not everyone is against the election.

“I have no patience for folks who say, ‘I have voter-fatigue,’” Fresno Mayor Alan Autry, a fellow Republican, said after Schwarzenegger called the special election last month. “The governor’s trying to solve problems. I fully support him.”

Eight initiatives have qualified for the November ballot, including the governor’s proposals to give him a stronger hand in state spending, redraw congressional and legislative districts and raise the bar for teachers to obtain tenure. The attorney general has since questioned the validity of the redistricting measure after supporters changed the wording of his summary on petitions circulated to get it on the ballot.

Other measures would require minors seeking abortions to get parental approval, reregulate the state’s energy market and lower prescription drug prices.

But that could be just the start. The ballot could become more crowded _ and confusing _ if Schwarzenegger and legislators reach compromises that could place other measures before voters in November.

In a way, the governor could end up campaigning against himself. If he cuts separate deals with legislators, those too could land on the ballot in November. If that was the case, the governor would have to convince voters to reject his initial offerings in favor of the compromises.

“Confusion about issues on the ballot is a considerable barrier for voters in the state,” said Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation, an advocacy group. “My fear is people who are burned out may choose to sit home.”

Duhhhhhhhhh and who does better in elections with lower voter turn-out?

Take a guess…….

It is not Bill Lockyer’s party and that is why the California Attorney General is trying to block one initiative from the ballot and the Democrats are feverishly attempting to negotiate the other initiatives away.

Alexander said some of the arcane subject matter—redistricting, for example—could be a voter turnoff. And Schwarzenegger’s willingness to govern through the ballot box, rather than through the Legislature, has placed voters in the awkward position of settling Sacramento political disputes, she said.

“The voters are frequently being asked to come in and mediate. That can be very taxing on voters,” she said.

But others dismiss the notion of voters overwhelmed by democracy. Low turnout is tied to a lack of motivation, not the number of elections, said Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate.

He said that more than 60 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2004 presidential election, the highest rate since 1968.

“People show up when they think there is something important to decide,” Gans said. “I don’t believe voter fatigue.”

Flap agrees that some of the measures contain very arcane material.

However, when the public knows it counts ………………. they show up.

Look at the recall election!

Corss-posted to The Bear Flag League Special Election Page

Proposition 77 is an Initiative Constituional Amendment slated for the November 2005 Special Election.

Proponents: Edward J. (Ted) Costa, Dr. Arthur Laffer, Major General Sidney S. Novaresi (USAF) Ret., Jimmie Johnson (916) 482-6175

Amends state Constitution’s process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts. Requires three-member panel of retired judges, selected by legislative leaders, to adopt new redistricting plan if measure passes and again after each national census. Panel must consider legislative, public proposals/comments and hold public hearings. Redistricting plan becomes effective immediately when adopted by judges’ panel and filed with Secretary of State. If voters subsequently reject redistricting plan, process repeats. Specifies time for judicial review of adopted redistricting plan; if plan fails to conform to requirements, court may order new plan. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would have the following major fiscal impact: One-time state redistricting costs, probably totaling a few million dollars. Comparable savings for each redistricting effort after 2010 (once every ten years).

The graphic above (HT: The Interociter) illustrates one of the many examples of inequitable and ridiculous California voter apportionment maps currently in place. Proposition 77 with its three judge panel aims to make reapportionment of legilslative and congressional districts less partisan and more equitable.

However, the California Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, last Friday sued to remove the measure from the November ballot.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed suit Friday to remove Proposition 77, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s redistricting initiative, from the Nov. 8 special election ballot.

He said the text of the initiative on petitions circulated for voter signatures was rewritten after he had approved a summary of the measure.

Under state law, initiative proponents can make non-substantive edits to their measures — such as correcting typos — any time before the summary process is completed. That process usually takes about 45 days.

Substantive changes, such as adding or deleting words or provisions, can be made only within the first 15 days after the initiative is submitted for review, Lockyer’s office said. After that, initiative proponents who want to make substantive changes must start over and submit a new measure for review.

Now a new piece, Size matters in remapping state legislative boundaries It’s not a district’s shape but how many people it has by Heather Barbour of the New America Foundation examines whether it is the SIZE of the legislative rather than the shape that should be considered. (Note: although Prop. 77 includes congressional districts, the size of those districts could not be changed unless there was an amendment to the U.S. Constitution).

If we really want to do something about our electile dysfunction, we’re going to have to do a lot more than pop a redistricting pill.

Thanks in large part to Dr. Schwarzenegger, Californians will be voting on a prescription for redistricting reform this November. But while a more neutral drawing of legislative district boundaries may lessen the symptoms of California’s political disorder, it won’t cure the disease. The real problem in California politics is the size of legislative districts — as measured by population, not their shape.

In 1879, when Californians set the 120-seat ceiling on our state Legislature, just under a million people lived here. That’s the same number of people living in just one of our state Senate districts today. California’s state senators now serve more people than do the governors of Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.

California’s Assembly districts are also abnormally large. Our lower- house districts dwarf those of other states by a long shot. Second-ranked Texas, for example, has big oil, big cattle and big hats, but their lower- house districts are pint-sized compared with ours. You could fit three of their puny provinces in one of our approximately 423,000-person Assembly legispheres.

Of course, there has been some discussion of dividing California into two states, but Southern California would have a problem with water, now, wouldn’t they?

Apparently everything isn’t bigger in Texas.

To understand what it means for California voters, consider this: In 1883, a California Assembly member answered to about 10,000 people. Now, it takes 42 people to equal the political power a single voter had in 1883. Put another way, if a single vote was worth a dollar then, it would be worth only 2.4 cents now. No wonder more than a third of California’s nonvoters think voting doesn’t make a difference in elections.

One representative for half a million or more people is simply not acceptable. Campaigns in large districts are incredibly costly, which invites corruption and limits potential candidates to an elite few. They also force citizens with conflicting needs to compete for a single vote in the Legislature, which means that all but the most powerful voices lose out completely.

Large districts are hard on legislators and even harder on constituents. Keeping up with mail, casework, phone calls, speeches and meetings, in addition to complex policy issues and bill drafting, keeps legislators working hours that would likely violate every labor law in the country. And even then they must cut corners. How many of us have contacted a legislator and — if we got response at all — received a form letter not really addressing our concerns, months after the fact? Is this what the great American experiment promised?

And having more legislators is going to improve constituent, customer service?

Hummmmmm, perhaps.

Unfortunately, there’s no simple solution to our problem. If we cut districts to the scale our forefathers enjoyed, we’d have more than 3,000 legislators. That’s simply not realistic. But increasing the number of seats by even a moderate amount would change California politics considerably.

A state Legislature with 80 more representatives — a total of 150 Assembly members and 50 senators — would improve accountability and better reflect California’s diverse political and cultural climate. With smaller districts, San Francisco might even add a Republican to its delegation.

OK, maybe not. But the Green Party might have a chance.

Political Correctness for the San Francisco leftie crowd rears its head here.

But, a 150 seat member California Assembly gerrymandered in a partsian manner does the voter little good.

A switch to smaller legislative districts might also mean more seats for women and ethnic minorities, without having to sacrifice other groups. This could help ease tensions over demographic change, growth and the distribution of political power in the state. And California would benefit from having new voices and fresh perspectives in the Legislature.

Reducing the size of over-populated districts is a much more effective way to achieve the goals of redistricting reform proponents. Any discussion of redistricting will be incomplete if this issue is not on the table. We have already allowed our state to grow from 1 million people to nearly 37 million without change. How much bigger do we have to get?

So, to answer that age-old question: Yes, size matters. And if Californians are serious about curing what ails their beleaguered political process, they’ll reduce the size of legislative districts, not just reshape them.

An interesting argument which falls flat without redistricting boundary reform. Also, a harder sell to the voters than Prop.77 type measures – it increases the amount and cost of government.

Nice try but no cigar.

Cross-posted to The Bear Flag League Special Election Page