Proposition 77: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
Dan Weintraub of the Sacramento Bee and California Insider Blog has The nitty-gritty on 77.
Several readers have asked that I link to the actual text of the two Proposition 77s, the one submitted to the Attorney General for title and summary and the one circulated to the voters.
Here is the copy submitted to the attorney general, on his web site.
And here is the copy circulated to voters, from the Fair Districts Now website.
So, there have you have The Good and The Bad.
Now, comes The Ugly part:
Here are some of the differences in two versions of the redistricting initiative. :
VERSION SUBMITTED TO ATTORNEY GENERAL
“…until the next adjustment of boundary lines is required pursuant to this article.”
“…the Judicial Council shall select by lot…”
“…shall be equally represented among the selected retired judges…”
“A retired judge appointed…”
“…shall each nominate, no later than six days before the deadline…”
“No later than four days before the deadline…”
“…If said list of remaining nominees does not include a retired judge from each of the two largest political parties, the drawing for the Special Master from the absent political party or parties shall be made from the original pool of twenty-four retired judges selected by the Judicial Council…”VERSION USED TO GATHER SIGNATURES
“…until the next adjustment of boundary lines is required pursuant to subdivisions (a) or (i).”
“…the Judicial Council shall nominate by lot…”
“…shall be equally represented among the nominated retired judges…”
“A retired judge selected…”
“…shall each nominate, no later than five days before the deadline…”
“No later than three days before the deadline…”
“If the drawing is unable to produce at least one Special Master from each of the two largest political parties, the drawing for the Special Master from the political party not represented from the list of remaining nominees shall be made from the original pool of twenty-four retired judges nominated by the Judicial Council…”
Patterico asked Ted Costa for this information last Sunday at the Bear Flag League Summer Conference and Flap thinks Costa stonewalled Patrick.
I’ll let the appellate judges make the ruling on the case but it looks UGLY to Flap.
Flap handicaps a better chance at a redraft and circulation of a new initiative if redistricting is to occur in California before the next census.
Technorati Tags: Schwarzenegger, Bill Lockyer, Proposition 77, California, California Special Election, Ted Costa, People’s Advocate
Cross-posted to The Bear Flag League Special Election Page
4 Comments
Xrlq
If I'm reading this right, one version of the initiative has something happening either five or six days before a deadline, and something else happens either three or four days before that deadline, and the two are substantially identical in all other respects? Must either be a really, really important deadline, or a really, really stupid judge.
Flap
No, the judge has a zero tolerance. "There is no good reason to put the courts in the position of having to decide what is good enough for qualifying an initiative measure for the ballot when actual compliance is easily attainable," she wrote.
Ted Costa and his people could have hired a proof-reader.
Xrlq
What a maroon. By that reasoning, she ought to be nullifying every contract that contains a typo that could easily have been detected by the parties drafting it, writing "there is no good reason to put a judge in the position of actually having to do her job when the parties could have made it unnecessary by planning better in advance." I was also hoping she would at least try to explain why these piddly differences are more important than the more significant disparities, chronicled last fall by Patterico, between the circulated version and the ballot version of Prop 66.
Flap
Maybe she just punted on the issue.
She knows the California Supremes will decide the issue.
She has a track record with strict interpretation of election law – ask McClintock.