California Attorney General Sues to Remove Proposition 77 from California Special Election 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.
If the Attorney General is successful in this suit, and the Proposition is disqualified from the ballot, it may help the Governor’s reform agenda. Redrawing district boundaries for poliitcal hacks are of little interest to anyone other than the politicians themselves. And of course, there would be a constitutional challenge to delay implementation until after the next census, in any case. The Special Election ballot is not harmed with the removal of this measure.
The Governor could then concentrate on Prop. 76, the California School and State Spending Initiative and Prop. 75 Paycheck Protection – Public Employee Union Dues Initiative both anathemas of the Governor’s adversaries the Labor Unions.
A spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger, Margita Thompson, said the measure should remain on the ballot.
“The discrepancies are minimal, and the governor believes the people should be allowed to vote on the initiative,” she said. “We believe the courts will uphold the rights of the over 900,000 people who signed the petition to have the initiative placed on the ballot.”
The redistricting measure is one of eight on the Nov. 8 special election ballot and one of three being pushed by Schwarzenegger. His others would cap state spending and extend the time it takes teachers to get tenure.
Lockyer said in a statement: “By opting to collect signatures on a ballot measure different from the text reviewed and approved by the attorney general, the proponents violated state law and deceived voters.”
Lockyer said there were numerous substantive changes, including “language emphasizing the unique ability of judges to draw competitive districts, altering the method used to identify line-drawers and modifying assorted deadlines.”
The Governor and Attorney General can fight it out in court. The decision makes no difference. The measure can always be recirculated for the June or November 2006 ballot where the Governor can run on the issue – providing he runs for re-election.
Besides Schwarzenegger has already won this round.
Flap handicaps this a certainty.
Cross-posted to The Bear Flag Special Election Page
Update #1
For another view on the importance of Prop 77 go and see The Interociter
14 Comments
Kevin Murphy
Considering that I've waited 30 flipping years for this to get to the ballot, NO IT CAN'T WAIT. [long string of very nasty invective deleted]
This is actually an easy sell: ask voters whether they should chose their representativesor should their representatives choose them? Talk about "rigged elections" and "incubants always winning in the crooked system."
And, no, there is utterly no federal reason why the remap cannot happen right away (they've done it elsewhere) and since this is a state constitutional amendment there is, by definition, no state constitutional probelm.
This either happens now or never in my lifetime — your post is so very wrong.
Flap
Unfortunately, as it may seem to you, my post is correct.
Besides the Federal constitutional problem with the Congressional seats (which by the way are bigger prizes than the lowly California Assembly)this particular initiative means little in the grand game of California politics.
There have been other redistricting schemes over the past couple of decades and none of them have been long lived. This is simply another one.
If Arnold wants one to run on and hold the Democrats accountable in 2006 – now that is a different story.
Kevin Murphy
But, flap, how come all the federal challenges to the Texas redistricting failed? Since it was done by mere legislative action without even the fig leaf of reform — straight up "we wanna more seats" — you'd think that it would be less favored than a reform intended to give meaning to "one man, one vote" and the guarantee clause. Even if the guarantee clause is not justicable, it does give support to legislative actions which enhance it.
Now, if the Texas Democrats' appeals win in the US Supreme Court, you might have a case. The Colorado case was decided on state grounds, so it doesn't apply.
Flap
And how long do you think it will take the California case (which by the way will be supported by Republican and Democrat incumbents) to make its way to SCOTUS with the 9th Circuit the way it is?
By the time the case is decided it will be 2010 and new census time.
If Arnold wants to run on the initiative it will have legs in 2006.
Flap handicaps more than a 50-50 chance this measure is DEAD!
But, then again, it doesn't really make any difference does it?
Ben Hoskins
Hey Flap. I agree with Kevin on both the constitutionality issue and the importance of redistricting. My whole arguement is here
http://democracymarket.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-r…
and also on the Bear Flag Special Election Page. Looking forward to your thoughts.
Flap
Well, if you think this initiative constituional amendment, even if it reaches the ballot, will not be:
1. Defeated at the November polls (with heavy spending by both parties). The latest California Field Poll has it losing by 11 pts.
2. Implemented in the next decade – If adopted, then the losing side will launch a protracted legal battle which will delay any implementation until after the 2010 census.
3.Traded away by the Governor for a modification of term limits.
then you believe in the same arguments that gave the California Republican Party the 1983 Sebastiani Reapportionment initiative debacle.
The Governor does not need this initiative to win the Special Election of 2005.
He has already won, if he stays the course (even if Prop 77 is thrown out).
Ben Hoskins
I don't buy the comparison. First, the Sebastiani Reapportionment was different in that it was a power play by Republicans. Prop 77 is a reform prop which, as you noted, is opposed by both Rep. and Dem. legislators. More importantly, my understanding is that the Sebastiani Reapportionment was pretty blatantly unconstitutional. Prop 77's sponsors claim they have made certain their initiative is such that they avoid the major issues with Sebastiani. Granted though, their track record on the paperwork so far is not impressive.
But I think the main issue is we're focusing on different things. You seem to be focusing on the fact that the special election can still be viewed a success on PR terms and how it will effect the 2006 election even if Prop 77 is dropped or loses. I think that may be true. My point is not that the governor needs redistricting reform, but that California needs redistricting reform. And I’ve yet to see anything to convince me why I should think otherwise.
Flap
And Prop. 77 is not a blatant power grab?
Are you kidding me?
The fact that it qualified for an off-year special election ballot where the voter turn-out will be low bespeaks the intent.
The special election is all about 2006.
The Governor does NOT need redistricting reform. And watch him try to trade it this coming week. He knows that it may not pass, in any case, this November.
Does California need fair districts? YES
Does California need Prop. 77?
Flap is not so sure.
Ben Hoskins
I said Sebastiani was a blatant power grab by Republicans. You said yourself Republican legislators will oppose Prop. 77. Prop 77 may be a move to take power from the Legislators, but it is not necessarily a power grab by one party at the expense of another. Regardless, this is a minor point that I don't know really matters. The partisanship of Seastiani wasn't its main problem, and furthermore SCOTUS found even if it redistricting is hyper-partisan it’s not necessarily a problem.
What I don’t understand is this: You say yourself CA needs fair districts, so why the apparent animosity towards Prop 77?
Flap
But, Prop 77 is a power grab.
The rationale that it is opposed by Republican incumbents so it is then not favoring the CRP over the CDP is naive. Any change in the status quo will favor the CRP – at least in the short run.
Prop 77 is the brain-child and supported financially by Bill Mundell, an educational software company executive, whose latest venture is to sell educational programs to China….. so what is his interest here? Good government? Pardon my cynicism.
Animosity towards Prop 77? Not really!
It just doesn't make any difference for the special election 2005 or for the general election of 2006.
See my latest post for the reasons why Paycheck Protection is the issue that has the Deomocrats Bottled Up.
http://flapsblog.com/?p=515
Ben Hoskins
The rational isn't that Rep. Legislaters oppose it so the CRP opposes it. It's that the last round went as well as the Reps could possibly hope (basically no seats lost) compared to other states so they don't have the screaming need that makes this blatant or pressing. And that it isn't going to be what matters in the courts. I do agree with you that on balance any change to the status quo helps the Reps.
Glad to hear no animosity. And I agree that 2005 vs. 2006 doesn't matter that much – as long as it happens.
clark smith
I wholeheartedly agree with Kevin (http://flapsblog.com/?p=504#comment-197).
Paycheck protection and Gerrymanderless redistricting are the best One-Two punch possible in combating the insanity which is California politics.
California desperately needs sane redistricting. Flap's ho-hum attitude on it is … well, amazing.
Flap
Clark,
Better read on….. and you will understand more.
Try…..
http://flapsblog.com/?p=508
and
http://flapsblog.com/?p=515
I agree about the paycheck protection initiative, Prop 75, but redistricting…..yawn.
aphrael
Does it honestly not bother you guys that, if Lockyer loses, it will become legal for the initiative which is circulated to not be the same as the initiative which is approved for circulation?
At that point, how do we even know that the initiative I sign in support of is the same one you do?