« June 2005 | Main | August 2005 »

July 31, 2005

Proposition 77 Gets its Day in Court

Posted at The Southern California Law Blog

The Third District California Court of Appeal will hear oral argument in the Proposition 77 litigation on August 5, 2005. You can read the court's order at California Election law.

Posted by League Member at 08:50 PM | Comments (0)

Schwarzenegger: Election is Good - Cancelling it BAD

Posted by Flap at the FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

Dan Weintraub of the Sacramento Bee today has Election is best bet, win or lose.

Thanks to his recent string of unforced errors and a free-fall in the polls, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is getting a ton of unsolicited advice these days, and much of it is bad. The worst idea yet is one that is dangerously close to becoming conventional wisdom among the pundits and political consultants who hover around the Capitol: Cancel the Nov. 8 special election.

Read it all.

Glad to see that Dan agress with Flap:

California Special Election Watch: Cancel the Election?

California Special Election: Deal Unlikely?


Governor Schwarzenegger: Not the Time to Turn Squishy

and finally

But, remember Schwarzenegger has already won the 2005 election. Even if he loses every measure (very unlikely), he stays the course for California reform, maintains the status quo and depletes the resources of his opponents. Resources that cannot be used in the Democrat primary race in June and cannot be saved for television ads against him.

Actually, Flap has heard from members of the Governor's team that he was gearing up for the campaign all along.

Flap is glad he was the Terminator and not Gulliver.


Technorati Tags: , , ,

Posted by League Member at 01:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 29, 2005

California Special Election Watch: Gray Davis Supports Redistricting Change

Posted by Flap at the FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

Former California Governor Gray Davis says he supports taking the process of drawing legislative and congressional district lines away from the legislature and governor.

"I believe it is a mistake to have the Legislature and the governor draw the district lines," Davis said in a call to Sacramento radio station KTKX. "It's basically a conflict of interest."

Davis did not specifically endorse the measure Schwarzenegger is trying to put on the November ballot. That measure would have retired judges draw the lines starting in 2006. The former governor said he thought the change should occur at the next regularly scheduled census in 2010.

It looks like California Governor Schwarzenegger has picked up an unlikely ally.

However, the devil is in the details since Davis did not specifically endorse Proposition 77 or Schwarzenegger's special election.

Davis said he thought the issues Schwarzenegger were raising were good ones, but said he did not support the idea of a special election in November. He also is opposed to the other two measures Schwarzenegger had put on the ballot -- one to change teacher tenure and another to restrict state spending.

The former governor, who was ousted by Schwarzenegger in the 2003 recall election, said he thought his successor should work with lawmakers to find a bipartisan compromise that could then be presented to voters.

The equitable apportionment of California's legislative and Congressional districts is a laudable goal. But, isn't former and recalled California Governor Gray Davis being just a bit disingenuous since he signed the blatant gerrymander of 2000?

On the other hand, the Democrat legislative leaders and unions cannot be too happy with ANY support of Schwarzenegger.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Update #1

Dan Weintraub has a take and the links to a transcript and audio, Davis backs remap reform.

Former Gov. Gray Davis, taking a spin on conservative talk radio, gave conflicting comments on his support or opposition of Prop. 77, the disputed initiative proposal that would take the job of drawing district lines away from the Legislature.

Davis, speaking Thursday on KTKZ in Sacramento, first said flatly that he supported the initiative. Then he said he supported the concept of judges drawing the district lines. Then he backed away further and said he wouldn't support drawing new lines mid-decade, as Prop. 77 proposes. But he never squared those concerns with his stated support for the measure and his desire to see it voted on in November.

The one thing he did make clear is that he believes it is a conflict of interest for the Legislature to draw its own political boundaries.

Here is a full quote from a transcript prepared by the station:

"And my concern is that every elected official should have some sense of jeopardy in a November election. They should have some obligation to the general interest and not just having to win their primaries. And so I think its better off having people who are not combatants in this process, retired judges, draw those lines. Actually, I think of the last 4 reapportionments, Eric, 2 were drawn by judges because the courts threw out the redistrict plans and they turned out fine. So, uh, I’m for that initiative. I’m not for it starting in 2006, but I’m for the concept of having judges draw the lines.

"I’d like to see it on the ballot in November, but worst case it should be on the ballot in June. People should have the opportunity to decide whether or not they want the legislature and the governor to continue to craft reapportionment plans or take it out of their hands and put in the hands of what I believe would be less partial decision makers, retired judges.”

Davis, by the way, opposed the governor's teacher tenure and budget reform initiatives and the "paycheck protection" measure that would limit the ability of public employee unions to raise political money through unions dues.

You can hear or read the whole thing here.

Posted by League Member at 09:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 28, 2005

Proposition 80: Reinstated to California Special Election Ballot

Posted by Flap at the FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

The California Supreme Court overturned a lower court's decision Wednesday and ordered election officials to place an initiative that would re-regulate the state's electricity market back on the Nov. 8 special-election ballot.

The justices, in a 6-0 decision, said the constitutionality of Proposition 80 could be decided after the election if it's approved by voters.

Proposition 80: Initiative statute, 1114. (SA05RF0053 Amdt. #1-NS). Electric Service Providers. Regulation. Initiative Statute.

Proponents: Robert Finkelstein and Michel Peter Florio (415) 929-8876

Subjects electric service providers, as defined, to control and regulation by California Public Utilities Commission. Imposes restrictions on electricity customers’ ability to switch from private utilities to other electric providers. Provides that registration by electric service providers with Commission constitutes providers’ consent to regulation. Requires all retail electric sellers, instead of just private utilities, to increase renewable energy resource procurement by at least 1% each year, with 20% of retail sales procured from renewable energy by 2010, instead of current requirement of 2017. Imposes duties on Commission, Legislature and electrical providers. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Annual state costs of up to $4 million for regulatory activities of the California Public Utilities Commission. These costs would be fully offset by fee revenues. Unknown impact on state and local costs and revenues, as the measure’s impact on retail electricity rates is uncertain.

Is this an OMEN for Proposition 77?

Briefs are due in the Court of Appeal by Friday, so stay tuned.

However, it appears even if approved by the voters the neasure will be back before the courts.

In a suit by energy producers, the appeals court ruled last week that Prop. 80 conflicted with a provision added to the state Constitution in 1911 that gave the Legislature "plenary power'' to increase the PUC's authority over utilities. Plenary power is defined as total and exclusive, leaving no room for lawmaking by initiative, the three-judge panel said.

But the state's high court said Wednesday it wasn't clear that the ballot measure and the constitutional provision were in conflict. In those circumstances, it's advisable to defer any legal challenge until after the election, "rather than to disrupt the electoral process by preventing exercise of the people's franchise,'' the court said, quoting its own ruling in a 1982 election case.

If Prop. 80 passes, the case will be back before the court.

Look forward to Proposition 77 to be treated in a like manner.

It is not over until it is over.....or until the Caifornia or U.S. Supreme Court decides.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Posted by League Member at 05:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 27, 2005

California Special Election Ballot

Posted by Flap at the FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

The California Secretary of State, Bruce McPherson released yesterday the details of the special election ballot.

The Link to the Secretary of State's Office is here.

The draft copy of the Official Voter Information Guide for the November 8, 2005, Special Statewide Election can be accessed through the PDF files listed below. The law requires the Secretary of State's Office to place the Official Voter Information Guide on "Public Display" before we print and mail a copy to every household of a registered voter. The Secretary of State is making the Official Voter Information Guide available for public inspection from July 26, 2005, through August 15, 2005.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT A FINAL COPY. THERE MAY BE COURT-ORDERED CHANGES MADE TO THIS VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE BEFORE THE FINAL COPY IS PRINTED AND DELIVERED TO YOUR HOME.

Please register to Vote and Vote on Election Day.

Flap has included a link for online voter registration below.

Voter Registration


Technorati Tags: , ,

Posted by League Member at 10:09 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Comments now working

If you've tried to post a comment in the past, there were configuration problems that prevented it. They've been fixed. However, depending on the phase of the moon, it may not be immediately apparent that your comment has been posted. If you don't get an error message, it probably has been.

Posted by League Member at 09:38 AM | Comments (0)

Schwarzenegger: Tinkertoy Terminator

Posted by Flap at the FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

Jonah Goldberg of the National Review has, Tinkertoy Terminator No more power to the people! in which he blames Californians for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's woes.

It’s not nice to kick a guy when he’s down, but I’m thinking he can handle it. Arnold Schwarzenegger is falling apart like a Terminator made from Tinkertoys. About a year ago, flibbertigibbets and voluptuaries in Washington and California were convinced that Arnold could somehow intimidate the entire political process into revoking that pesky amendment that bars the foreign born from running for president (though I suppose it doesn’t bar them from running, just serving). Now Schwarzenegger is doing worse in the polls than that vaguely remembered political skid mark of the Schwarzenegger juggernaut, Gray Davis, was when he was ousted from office in a recall.

These Washington columnists do not have an appropriate read on California politics or the Governor. Schwarzenegger has skillfully been raising and saving resources for the November special election and grooming a donor base for his re-election in 2006.

The Governator has been successful in attriting the special interests that will coalesce in an attempt to deny him re-election. He has made them raise an inordinate amount of money (by surcharging the paychecks of union employees, teachers and prison guards) and waste resources on an off-year election. Granted he needs a better media campaign, but as a Hollywood Star, when the times comes.....He'll BE BACK.

True, he has slipped in the polls. And true, he should have launched his own media campaign to combat the well conceived television ad campaign of the unions. But....... the Governator has been keeping his powder dry, is right on the issues and is ready for a November fight.

I’m sympathetic to the substance of Schwarzenegger’s agenda. But the last thing California needs is more populism. What it needs are strong, competitive political parties, run by people who are held accountable for their actions, not overruled by special elections and referenda every time things go south.

Ultimately, the real culprits are Californians themselves. They don’t want responsible leaders so they don’t get them. Golden Staters would do well to remember their Shakespeare. The fault lies not in the movie star, dear Californians, but in yourselves.

Not a CLUE.

Stay Tuned.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Posted by League Member at 08:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 26, 2005

Questions for Lockyer

Dan Weintraub reports that the Attorney General is refusing to create a new summary for Prop 77, even though the version that is currently scheduled to go on the ballot is not the one he originally saw:

The title and summary that's been posted at the secretary of state's site for Prop. 77 is the one Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer prepared for the version of the initiative that was never circulated. He's said he doesn't intend to prepare a new one unless ordered by the court to do so. But the law requires the title and summary to be available for review by the public for a certain period.
Dan has a question for Lockyer. I have more pointed ones:

Mr. Lockyer, either you are intentionally flouting the law, or the summary you initially prepared needs no changes, as the two versions are fundamentally the same. Which is it? If there are differences, which words in the summary would you change, and why?

(cross posted at Interocitor)

Posted by League Member at 11:07 PM | Comments (0)

July 25, 2005

California Special Election Watch: Schwarzenegger to Stay the Course

Posted by Flap at the FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

It was a GOOD day for California and for California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Proposition 77, the redistricting constitutional amendment which was ordered off the California November special election ballot last week by Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian was reinstated (albeit, it may be briefly) when Justice Coleman A. Blease, of the 3rd District Court of Appeal agreed to stay Ohanesian's order until the case could be decided.

Supporters of a ballot measure aimed at redrawing congressional and legislative districts filed an appeal Monday and were granted a temporary suspension of a lower court ruling that ordered Proposition 77 off the ballot.

The measure, one of three backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for the November special election, would give authority for redrawing district boundaries to a panel of retired judges. But organizers of the petition drive mistakenly used two different versions in the circulation process prompting Sacramento County Judge Gail Ohanesian to toss the measure from the ballot last week.

But Justice Coleman A. Blease, of the 3rd District Court of Appeal agreed to stay Ohanesian's order until the case could be decided.

Although not unexpected, the ruling allows the measure to be included in a public display of all the measures qualified for the Nov. 8 special election. Officials said the display is a largely procedural action intended to give counties official notice of what measures will be on the ballot.

Still, the measures backers drew some hope from the judge's ruling.

"This is really a good sign," said Bill Mundell chairman of Californians for Fair Redistricting, a group involved in gathering signatures to put the redistricting initiative on the ballot.

"We really feel that the legal precedent is firmly on the side of overlooking minor discrepancies," he said.

There is no word yet on when the case will come before the court but Mundell said he believed it would be this week


And............................................

Previous to the stay being announced for Proposition 77, the Governor announced that the special election would proceed with or without this measure. Reuters has Schwarzenegger to go ahead with special ballot.


Arnold Schwarzenegger said on Monday that he would go ahead with a special November election despite a court ruling casting aside one of the California governor's three proposed ballot items.

A man who prides himself on not taking no for an answer, the Republican governor told journalists on Monday that he would move forward anyway with the vote, which includes measures on the budget and teacher pay that he hopes voters will back.

"I'm very happy to move forward with our reforms," he said at an event aimed at promoting healthy diets in schools. "And I'm looking forward to really create the reforms that I've promised to the people of California and nothing is going to stand in my way to do that."

The Governator is BACK!

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Posted by League Member at 09:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Prop 77 Back Alive (for now)

A state appeals court has issued a stay of the lower court order removing Prop 77 from the ballot, pending a hearing. Briefs are due Friday. This means that nothing irrevocable will happen to Prop 77 until the appeals court has its review. Whatever they decide, the losing side will appeal to the state supreme court (now missing a judge). And no, the feds won't step in, even under the "guarantee clause."

(cross-posted at Interocitor)

Posted by League Member at 08:19 PM | Comments (0)

July 24, 2005

Schwarzenegger: Gulliver or Terminator?

Posted by Flap at the FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog.

Is California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Gulliver, the giant prisoner of a race of little people who have tied him down or the Terminator, a human-looking, apparently unstoppable cyborg?

The pundits from the Left believe the former; the Right hopes the latter.

And how will this affect the 2005 California Special election and Election 2006 where the Governor must seek re-election?

The San Francisco Chronicle has this Sunday News Analysis piece, Sand kicked in face of strong-man governor.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has relished the role of the fearless "Terminator" armed for battle against an army of special interests, is suddenly looking more like Gulliver -- besieged, tied down, and overrun by his opponents.

And no wonder: After months of campaigning, fund raising and warning of a Nov. 8 special election he insisted was "guaranteed,'' the governor's team blinked this week. Campaign adviser Mike Murphy floated a trial balloon -- most likely to gauge Democratic Party as much as voter reaction -- with Friday's public acknowledgement that Team Schwarzenegger has discussed the impossible: dumping the much-heralded special ballot altogether.

The fact is this trial balloon of cancelling the November special election has been the topic of conversation for many weeks. Flap has had a number of pieces:


California Special Election Watch: Cancel the Election?

California Special Election: Deal Unlikely?


Governor Schwarzenegger: Not the Time to Turn Squishy

And the Left wishes to influence the Governor to quit. Indeed, they are trying to PUNK him.

Here are some of their comments:


But veteran Democratic strategist Garry South said there's hardly an outpouring of pity for the GOP action-hero-turned-governor with this latest development. "He's gotten himself into this pickle," he said. "This was all about testosterone, and we'll have to see whether his glands outduel his brain on how to get out of this mess.''

Democratic consultant Gale Kaufman also seemed to be enjoying the governor's predicament. Strategy is limited, she said, when you're hanging on the side of a cliff.

"They are in free fall here,'' she said of the governor's team. "They don't have any good choices.''

Ha! Name calling from Gray Davis's former political strategist. And who is now working for California Controller Steve Westly, who is also an announced candidate for Governor (running in a contested June 2006 Democrat primary against California Treasurer Phil Angelides).

Wouldn't it be convenient for the special election to be cancelled so all of that teacher union (CTA and AFT) and SEIU money raised for a media campaign this November could be channeled into the 2006 races?

Yes, how convenient for the Democrats to save campaign resources by trying to PUNK the Governor into cancelling his own election to his own electoral demise in 2006.

But, remember Schwarzenegger has already won the 2005 election. Even if he loses every measure (very unlikely), he stays the course for California reform, maintains the status quo and depletes the resources of his opponents. Resources that cannot be used in the Democrat primary race in June and cannot be saved for television ads against him.

The Governor has been raising money and has plenty on hand for television and a Get Out the Vote campaign. Donors who have supported Proposition 77 (now off the November 2005 ballot, pending an appeal) will rally behind the Governor when the measure reappears revised (more than likely) on the November 2006 ballot. Arnold has the resources, but does he have the political will?

He now must ignore the pundits, the early polls and stay the course.


Technorati Tags: , , ,

Posted by League Member at 04:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 22, 2005

California Special Election Watch: Cancel the Election?

Governor Schwarzenegger, Senate Pro Tem Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez during happier times at the signing of the California Budget.

The ASSociated Press and the San Francisco Chronicle have Talks over special election stalled, some consider cancellation an option.

With negotiations between Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic leaders at a halt, both sides are poised to go to political war in a Nov. 8 special election, even as the number of ballot measures dwindle and new calls are made by some to cancel the balloting all together.

"We are so deep into it now, I don't see how you can get the toothpaste back into the tube," said Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles. "We are so far down the path, I think we should have the special election and put the whole issue to rest."

Is this reverse psychology?

The Governor has already won the special election.

Nunez and the Democrats know this.

They are trying to PUNK Arnold into canceling the Election - THE ONLY WAY HE CAN LOSE!


But Democratic leaders said they have no interest in further talks and want to move forward to the election.

"We've concluded negotiations as far as I'm concerned," said Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland. "These are far too complicated issues to expect resolution in the next three weeks. The governor was interested in trying to work day and night, like we've done on the budget, but these issues are too complex and really require the legislative process to be involved."

Republican political consultant Dan Schnur said Democrats may be giving up a rare opportunity to extract concessions from the governor.

"If Democrats walk away from negotiations at this point, they may be giving Schwarzenegger back the rhetorical high ground," he said. "Now he can go to the voters and say he wants to make changes but the Democrats don't want to cooperate."

Schwarzenegger will not cancel the election. And he will not negotiate any further.

The Democrat legislative leaders have their political war and will re-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger in the process.

Posted by Flap at the FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Posted by League Member at 09:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Proposition 77: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Posted by Flap at the FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

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: , , , , , ,

Posted by League Member at 08:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Prop 80 Tossed Also

Posted by Ben Hoskins at Democracy Market

The 3rd District Court of Appeal, in a 3-0 opinion, tossed Prop 80 off of the ballot today. The prop would have made it so individuals and businesses could not purchase energy outside of the PUC. It was backed by the unions (I still don't fully understand why) and opposed by business (who don't like to be told where they have to buy stuff).

The court found that only the legislator has the authority to give the PUC additional powers so they tossed it. Again, you'd think people would check on things like that investing millions into the process.....

Cross-posted at the Bear Flag League Special Election Page

Posted by League Member at 01:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Special Election: Issues or Party

BlogCabin California is disgruntled at the way the Special Election is being cast--it's about issues, not partisanship, they say:

what voters need to hear is talk about the issues on the ballot, so that they don’t think this election is partisan warfare but something which affects peoples’ lives.

Prop 75, for example, will allow teachers and nurses, not their union bosses, to determine whether they want their paychecks spent on political ads or, say, classroom supplies.

Prop 76 will give more control to our elected officials to make sure that Sacramento doesn’t spend more money than it takes in.

…and so on. If the battle is Democrat versus Republican, the numbers are not in favor of the Governor’s reform agenda. But if each of us can convince a few Democrat friends that just one of the reform initiatives is worthy of their vote, the differences in Party registration will melt away. But we have to start talking about the issues–not the politics–to win the hearts and minds of our fellow Californians.

I couldn't have written it better myself.

Republicans will lose if Special Election is about Partisanship [BlogCabin California]

Cross-posted at BoiFromTroy

Posted by League Member at 11:57 AM | Comments (0)

Judge Tosses 77: What Next?

Posted by Ben Hoskins at Democracy Market

Judge Gail D. Ohanesian's tossed the redistricting initiative from the Nov. 8th ballot. Key statement.

"The differences are not simply typographical errors. They're not merely about the format of the measure. They are not simply technical. Instead they go to the substantive terms of the measure."

Ted Costa says they will appeal and if they lose will work to get it on the ballot again in a future election. I imagine he'll have to as CA Dems won't have much incentive to come up with a compromise - even one which extends term limit lengths.

When they do try again (assuming appeals fail) I hope they skip the mid-decade redraw. Even if it is legal, I worry that it makes the prop seem too partisan and gives the Dems something with which to rally the base against it. Which is sort of ironic because it is entirely plausible that fairer districts would result in more (though less certain) Democrat seats. This is a necessary structural reform that could provide more responsive representation for decades. There is no reason to risk getting it tossed out or losing at the polls over a couple of years. People have waited a long time for this reform - they can wait a couple more years to get it right and make it certain.

As always, the Bear Flag League is on this like Grey Davis on Public Employee Union dues.

Cross-posted at the Bear Flag League Special Election page.

Posted by League Member at 09:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Prop 77 is dead; long-live Fair Elections

Proposition 77 is dead, meaning voters will not get to decide whether they or their legislators should be the ones to choose who represents them. The failure of the Redistricting Reform is a major-league foul-up, and blame can be placed squarely at the feet of Ted Costa.

What happened was that Costa circulated a different petition from the one approved by the Attorney General. Even if substantively that would not change the Title and Summary, it is still a no-no, and the court is probably right to take the measure off the ballot. In light of that, I see four scenarios which could happen:

Which will happen and which should happen, I don't know, but it's time for Schwarzenegger to take his action hero act internally.

Cross-posted at Boi From Troy

Posted by League Member at 08:45 AM | Comments (0)

Proposition 77: Not a NICE Mistake

People's Advocate Chief Executive Ted Costa at the Bear Flag League Summer Conference last weekend.

Posted by Flap at the FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

Yesterday afternoon Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian ordered Secretary of State Bruce McPherson to not include Proposition 77 on the November Special Election Ballot.

Flap reported it here with links to the actual order of the court.

Now, the name calling and the excuses begin.

"It removes the underpinning of his most important reform proposal, and I use 'reform' in the broadest sense possible," said Lance Olson, an attorney for the No on Proposition 77 committee, which intervened in the case. "So now we're going to have a special election over whether teachers are entitled to a hearing after two years or five years. What a waste of taxpayer money."

He called Schwarzenegger's political team "the gang that can't shoot straight."

But, how Mr. Olson's union bosses would love to get rid of the Paycheck Protection Proposition 75 and the Teacher Tenure Proposition 76. The unions will have to spend millions to wage a perhaps futile media campaign to defeat these two measures. These are resources which could have been reserved for the 2006 election cycle in an attempt to win back the Governor's Mansion from the Republican Schwarzenegger.

Ted Costa has his laments, but Flap knows he will BE BACK in June 2006 with a redistricting initiative, if his appeal fails.

People's Advocate Chief Executive Ted Costa, whose office manager inadvertently sent the wrong version of the initiative to a printer, said he assumes all responsibility.

"It's not a nice mistake," he said. "We figure it was a legitimate mistake, an honest mistake, and we figure those differences are very small…. No voter was here saying they were misled by it.

"Reforms go on. We've been trying for 20 years to get good, fair districts so the people have a chance to take their government back.

"Next year or the year after, we will be working toward that goal regardless of what it takes, and tomorrow we'll be working on an appeal."

Flap asks:

Will the new redistricting measure (should Costa's appeal fail) for 2006 have a companion measure to change the term limits law?

Will the Democrat Legislative leaders circulate a competing redistricting measure as a poison pill?

Stay tuned.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Posted by League Member at 08:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 21, 2005

I will not vote

So, some folks think that there's a point to the November election without Prop 77. Think again.

I really have no great interest in any of the initiatives remaining on the November special election ballot. At this point in time, I probably won't bother voting, as it's cold in November and I don't have a dog in the race.

I expect that many Republicans feel the same. Abortion? Some court will overrule it anyway. Budget issues? Far too complicated and obscure. Besides, I've heard this all before. Didn't Arnold already fix this ? Why should this be the magic bullet? If he really wanted to do something about the deficit, he could have blue-pencilled about $17 billion in spending. Why does he need new powers when he won't use the ones he has? McClintock would have us in the black by now.

Union dues? Yawn. Don't belong to a union, so what interest is it of mine? Why should I tell some union folks what rules they need to use? Drugs? I hope they both lose, but if it isn't unconstitutional to impose a business model on someone else, it ought to be.

Let me know if we can vote on restoring free elections -- that I care about. Without that, everything else is just misdirection by the political insiders. Put 77 back on the ballot and maybe I'll vote on some of the others, but without Prop 77, it might as well be a junior college trustee runoff.

Cross posted to Interocitor

Posted by League Member at 11:57 PM | Comments (0)

Proposition 77: Judge Kicks the Measure Off the November Special Election Ballot

Posted by Flap at the FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian has ordered Proposition 77, the redistricting constitutional amendment off the November Special election ballot. She ruled that supporters violated California's constitution by using two versions of the initiative in the qualifying process.

"The differences are not simply typographical errors," Judge Gail Ohanesian said. "They're not merely about the format of the measure. They are not simply technical. Instead they go to the substantive terms of the measure."

The proposal, Proposition 77, is one of three initiatives that the Republican governor is supporting in the Nov. 8 special election. It would take the power to draw legislative and congressional districts away from the Legislature and give it to a panel of three retired judges.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer asked the judge to order the measure off the ballot because its supporters used two versions — one to gather voter signatures and another that they gave to him to prepare a title and summary of the proposal to use on petitions.

This ruling will undoubtedly be appealed, but the Governor has to tread very carefully. This initiative can be recirculated for either the June or November 2006 ballot. Would it be better to accept the judgment of the court, admit an error (albeit technical), recirculate an initiative petition and then run on the issue for re-election? Of course, Ted Costa and Bill Rundell have other motives, but the Governor must separate his own and Republican Party interests from theirs.

The ruling is a big setback for Schwarzenegger, whose ballot agenda has languished in the polls under almost constant criticism from rival Democrats and labor groups who are opposing his proposals.

If the judge's ruling stands, Schwarzenegger and his supporters will be forced to go before voters with just two ballot measures: a complex plan for imposing new limits on state spending and a proposal that would lengthen the probationary period for public school teachers before they are granted tenure.

Actually, the ruling is NOT a big setback for Schwarzenegger. Flap has pontificated before that the Governor has already won the special election, if he were to stay the course. Whether Proposition 77 is on the ballot, the Governor will be positioned well for 2006.

It is apparent that fears of conservatives that Schwarzenegger would deal away Prop. 77 for a change in term limits were unfounded. With today's ruling and the apparent delay in any appeal, and with the Democratic Party's decision to file a wide-ranging ethics complaint against the Governor this week it probably signaled the end to any chance of a bipartisan compromise on the fate of the November ballot initiatives.

Good! There are sufficient issues to be decided on the November election ballot..

Governor, the gloves are off.

Time to fight for your remaining initiatives, endorse the Paycheck Protection Measure, Proposition 75, and fight for budget restraint, Proposition 76. Teacher's tenure, Proposition 74 will pass without too much effort.

Proposition 73, Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Waiting Period and Parental Notification will bring the Christian Right to the polls and THEY will vote yes for 75 and 76.

Time to bring on the election.


Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Update #1

Eric Hogue has 'Prop 77' Tossed Off the Ballot by Judge. He concurs with Flap's opinion:

This is a slight setback for the governor, no doubt, but there are still major reform initiatives remaining on the ballot for November. The chances that there will be negotiations and legislation on Arnold's reform package items in the legislature is very, very remote now. There is no reward for the Democrats to negotiate and come to a compromise. Now the Democrats can lock horns with the power and influence of the Public Employee Unions, and spend millions to defeat Prop 75 (Paycheck Protection).

If the appeal process falls short, the governor should immediately embrace Prop 75, and add it to his remaining two initiatives, Prop 76 (Live Within Your Means), and Prop 74 (Teacher Tenure). There is a tomorrow, and there is a June 2006 Primary for the return of the re-districting initiative, the latest polls were showing a majority of support for those who understood its value for elections and campaigns in California.

Update #2

Jeff over at Southern California Law Blog has Proposition 77 Thrown Off November’s Ballot.

Interesting and related links:

Atrios calls Schwarzenegger a loser.

Posted by League Member at 06:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Judge Scraps Prop 77

Dan Weintraub reports that a Superior Court judge has ordered Prop 77 removed from the special election ballot, due to the alleged discrepancies. More to come...

Posted by Kevin Murphy

Posted by League Member at 05:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Lawsuit aims to take Energy Regulation out of voter hands

Generally in California, there is a bias to "let the people decide" but energy industry officials believe the matter is not appropriate to be in the hands of the voters.

Lawyers for an energy-industry trade group argued Wednesday before a state appeals court that Proposition 80 should be taken off the Nov. 8 special election ballot.

The Independent Energy Producers Association opposes the measure because it would limit retail power sales by non-utilities. The group is trying to get it thrown off the ballot on a legal technicality: The group's lawyers told the California 3rd District Court of Appeal that the measure should be written as an amendment to the state constitution rather than as just a change in state law.

Attorneys for The Utility Reform Network, the San Francisco-based consumer group that sponsored the initiative, argued that voters don't have to amend the state constitution to change the rules governing power sales.

It seems with ballot measures, be it on Energy Regulation or Redistricting, it's in many cases the judges, not the people, who decide.

Cross-posted to California Energy Blog

Posted by League Member at 12:49 PM | Comments (0)

CA Democrats to Hold Hearings on Redistricting Initiative

Posted by Ben Hoskins at Democracy Market

Democratic lawmakers will hold a joint Senate and Assembly hearing next month to ask what the governor's supporters knew about the problems with the redistricting initiative. The LAT reports:

Democratic lawmakers say they want to know whether the staffs of Schwarzenegger and Costa deliberately waited to tell Secretary of State Bruce McPherson of a potential problem with the initiative until after June 10, when his office cleared the measure to be included on the November ballot.

"Who knew it, when did they know it and what did they know," said Umberg.

The governor's legal secretary says they planned to tell the secretary of state about the discrepancies before the certification was complete but it was certified much earlier than they expected. The governor's spokeswoman called it a "political stunt." At around the same time the governor was jumping out of a fire truck in El Cajon, so I don't know how the governor's staff would be able to identify a political stunt.

The article also notes that in addition to the MALDEF suit filed in federal court in San Jose, "a separate lawsuit seeking to block Proposition 77 from the ballot was filed Wednesday by the William C. Velasquez Institute, a national Latino policy and research nonprofit group, and the Congress of Racial Equality of California Legal Defense and Education Fund, a branch of the national civil rights group."

Cross posted at the Bear Flag League Special Election Page

Posted by League Member at 11:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

MALDEF Files Suit Vs. Prop 77

Posted by Ben Hoskins at Democracy Market

Rick Hansen reports the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education League is filing a separate lawsuit against California's Prop 77. Quoting from the press release he received:

Proposition 77, the measure to change redistricting in California, is being improperly placed on the upcoming special election ballot, said MALDEF in a federal lawsuit filed today. MALDEF is calling for the state to hold off placing the measure on the Nov. 8 ballot until the state complies with the Federal Voting Rights Act. The lawsuit follows a separate state court action by the California Attorney General which also challenges the process by which petitioners gathered signatures for a version of the proposal that differed from the one approved by the Attorney General.

The lawsuit, Martinez v. Monterey County (United States District Court, Northern District, San Jose Division) asserts that the Secretary of State and County officials' certification and preparations for an election on Proposition 77 violates Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which is designed to protect minority voters. Under the Act, all changes to voting procedures in certain counties of California, including Monterey County, may not be implemented without first obtaining federal approval.

Proposition 77's proponents violated the California constitution and election code by filing one version of their ballot initiative to change the way congressional and state legislative districts are redrawn in California, but then collected signatures on another version, giving the state Attorney General no opportunity to review those changes" said MALDEF Attorney Steven J. Reyes. And by certifying Proposition 77 for a November 8 election, the Secretary of State has changed the rules for initiative ballot measures....

Earlier this month, MALDEF released their own "Model Redistricting Act." Their plan consisted of a 9 person panel and the first two principles listed were:

At Sunday's Bear Flag League Conference Ted Costa stated initiatives usually face half a dozen or so lawsuits. It now looks like he's getting that much closer on this one.

Cross-posted at the Bear Flag League Special Election Page


Posted by League Member at 09:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 20, 2005

Arnold: Raking in the CASH for Special Election

Posted by Flap at the FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is raking in the political contributions, Schwarzenegger Still Getting Big Donations.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may be slumping in the polls and beset by conflict-of-interest charges, but the governor's fund-raising team continues to bring in sizable donations, including a $1 million contribution this month.

Schwarzenegger said in January that he would need to raise at least $50 million to support his ballot initiatives in the upcoming Nov. 8 special election. The governor's top money manager said Wednesday the team is more than halfway to that goal.

"We are on track with what we said publicly we would do," said Marty Wilson, a senior Schwarzenegger campaign consultant who oversees fund-raising.

I remember Marty when he was an aide with former California Governor Pete Wilson.

The Governor will raise the money and make the Democrats WORK for every vote this November.

The largest of the contributions so far in July was $1 million given to Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team by B. Wayne Hughes, chairman of Glendale-based Public Storage Inc., which owns 1,400 storage facilities in 37 states.

Hughes is a major GOP donor, having contributed more than $600,000 to Republican political organizations in 2004.

The Governor will BE BACK.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Posted by League Member at 09:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

California Special Election: Deal Unlikely?

Posted by Flap at the FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

Do you think California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez is still laughing? The Sacramento Bee has Núñez: Ballot accord doubtful.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez said Tuesday he's "very, very skeptical" that Democrats can reach a compromise with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on a package of ballot measures for the November election.

The Los Angeles Democrat, who last month said he was optimistic "a deal on the whole enchilada can still be worked out," told reporters that negotiations are deadlocked over Schwarzenegger's so-called "Live Within Our Means" budget proposal.

"We are seas apart of where we need to be on Live Within Our Means," Núñez said at a Capitol press conference. "The type of power the governor is looking for here is the power that no democratic leader in any democratic society currently has, and it's too difficult to get there."

Among other things, the measure would allow California governors to make unilateral budget cuts in times of economic crisis. Democrats have said they fear Schwarzenegger would cripple social programs, health care and other services if the measure passed. They also oppose provisions they believe would erode the Proposition 98 funding guarantee for schools.

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, who later in the day joined Núñez for a meeting on the issue in Schwarzenegger's office, agreed that there appears to be little hope for a deal.

"I told the governor I would like to continue working on this ... but there's no way we could do this fast enough," Perata said after the meeting in Schwarzenegger's office.

Conservatives have worried that Governor Arnold was getting squishy and would sell out already qualified ballot initiatives or cancel the election entirely. But, has this been a ruse to increase popularity? And is Schwarzenegger backing the legislative leaders into a corner?


Margita Thompson, Schwarzenegger's press secretary, agreed with the two Democrats that talks have stalled. But she said it's up to the legislators to decide whether the budget needs reform.

"There's a sticking point," Thompson said. "They need to decide if they want to move forward. The governor always remains helpful, and the governor remains at the table and will provide the leadership for whatever is necessary to forge a bipartisan solution."


Arnold Schwarzenegger has won if he stays the course and allows the voters decide on his reform agenda this November. California voters want government and fiscal reform. The Governinator will deliver it.

Flap is happy that he is not a GIRLIE-MAN.

Cross-posted to the Bear Flag League Special Election Page

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Posted by League Member at 08:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 19, 2005

Lockyer's Judgment

Attorney General Lockyer is suing to get Prop 77 off the ballot, due to a few minor mistakes in the submission process. Fair's fair, and perhaps we should sue the attorney general to get him off the 2006 ballot due to a large mistake in his thinking process .... or whatever you call this hanging in his office lobby:

Lockyer_flag.jpg

Looks like the American flag in the toilet from this angle. Bad enough, but it also looks like the use of official office space for partisan purposes. Isn't that a crime?

(posted by Interocitor, related post here)

(Hat tip: California Insider)

Posted by League Member at 03:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 18, 2005

California Insider: Bear Flag League Special Election Blog

Posted by Flap at FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

Dan Weintraub, a columnist and blogger with the Sacramento Bee gives the Bear Flag League Special Election Page a special mention.

The Bear Flag League of bloggers, which I will feature in my column on Tuesday, has kicked off a meta-blog focused on the Nov. 8 special election. You can find it here.

Thanks for the mention, Dan.

Posted by League Member at 11:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

CTA Unplugged

Cross-posted at Miller's Time

In June, Barbara Kerr and the CTA issued a statement on the upcoming special election that deserves examination.

The 335,000-member California Teachers Association strongly condemns the $80 million November special election that Governor Schwarzenegger is almost certain to declare later today as a waste of taxpayer dollars.

First off, it is impressive that 335,000 people could unanimously agree on anything, let alone an election. I know when I go to the movies with more that three people it is difficult to decide what to see. Secondly, the $80 million claim is way off as many local governments already have elections scheduled for that day.

"The governor is wasting taxpayer money to hold an election that nobody wants and to push an agenda that will hurt our public schools, kids and local communities," said CTA President Barbara E. Kerr. "And the plan announced by his advisors to use the election to create a 'phenomenon of anger' against teachers, nurses, firefighters and other public employees breaks his promise to unite our state for the public good."

If nobody wants this election, how did proponents of eight ballot initiatives get hundreds of thousands of Californians to sign petitions for each one?  Furthermore, how on earth will redistricting, teacher tenure and paycheck protection reform hurt schools, kids or communities?  Sure, kids will be devastated if legislators have to run in competitive districts, teachers have to wait another three years to achieve tenure and union members will no longer be obligated to support politicians they don't agree with.

Regarding the "phenomenon of anger" comment, while it makes a good talking point, the quote seems to be taken out of context.  There is a big difference between going after unions (and their leadership) and going after rank and file union members.

Recent statewide polls show 62 percent of voters oppose the special election.

Wait, I thought NOBODY wanted this election. Which is it, nobody, or 38% of those polled?

At a time when California ranks 44th in the nation in per-pupil education spending, the $80 million cost of the special election would pay for reduced class sizes in nearly 6,000 classrooms, or 4 million new textbooks, or more than 2,300 new teachers.

I'll bet they all have bumper stickers that state "It will be a good day when schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber." Unfortunately, this is not how real life budgets work. Besides, California schools received $3 billion more in funding this year.

Governor Schwarzenegger's deceitful "Live Within Our Means Act" would gut the voter-approved education funding requirements in Proposition 98 and would give him new powers to cut school funding even more without consulting anyone else.

As noted in the article linked above, school funding has not been cut. Perhaps it is time that school districts start "living within their means."

Other initiatives that have qualified for the expected special election ballot would make it harder to recruit and retain quality teachers...

I discussed teacher tenure a couple of months ago, but in a nutshell, teaching is one of the very few positions where someone could get a job for life, and adding three years to that process will help ensure that only qualified teachers are in the classrooms with our kids.

...and would silence the voices of public employees in the political process.

Actually, it would give voice to those members who disagree with their leadership.

The CTA has been so dead set against any kind of reform, so it is no wonder they are now clashing with the Governor.  Like the Democrats they support in the Legislature, the CTA's only option is the status quo.  This is sad, because the status quo will drive California into third world status.

Posted by League Member at 08:47 PM | Comments (0)

Proposition 77 is Shaking the Halls of Sacramento

[Cross-posted at The Southern California Law Blog.]

This morning's opinion journal from the Wall Street Journal comments about Proposition 77, Bill Lockyer's lawsuit to prevent the People of California from voting on the redistricting initiative this November and the rumored proposal by California lawmakers to concede on the redistricting issue for a roll back of term limits. The Opinion concludes:

Some 80 citizen initiatives have been filed with California's Secretary of State this year, not all of them helpful. But Californians keep resorting to direct democracy because their politicians are shielded from voter accountability. Mr. Schwarzenegger's determination to challenge this cozy status quo has made him the target of tens of millions of dollars in union-financed attack ads and his approval rating has fallen as a result. Taking reform to the voters is risky, but in doing so Arnold is simply keeping his word. If California wanted a risk-averse Governor, it would have stuck with Gray Davis.
The entire piece is well worth the read. The Journal was kind enough to post my response to the piece:
The lawsuit by Bill Lockyer to remove proposition 77 from November's election demonstrates the same arrogance that permeates the entire legislative branch of California. Even if the lawsuit succeeds, it will only delay the inevitable. After an election where no seats changed parties, even California's apathetic voters will understand that the time for redistricting reform is here.

[Cross-posted at The Southern California Law Blog.]

Posted by League Member at 06:51 PM | Comments (0)

California Biotechnology Companies Worry About California Special Election

Posted by Flap at the FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

California Biotchnology companies worry about the impact of the California Special Election Propositions 78 and 79 on their business prospects. The San Francisco Business Times has this piece, Biotechs worry about ballot's side effects.

Biotechnology executives are worried about unwanted side effects from what's expected to be an $80 million campaign the pharmaceutical industry is readying over competing initiatives on California's November ballot.

Pharmaceutical companies have raised more than $54 million, with Pfizer, Merck & Co. and GlaxoSmithKline each contributing $9.8 million. But with the exception of $4.6 million from Thousand Oaks-based Amgen Inc. and a handful of smaller donations, biotechs are staying on the sidelines.

This is understandable.

Why should emerging technology companies who constantly battle these major pharmaceutical companies for their very lives (fight off take-overs and hostile recruitment of employees and management) put themselves out there to be beat up in the public arena?

Several executives expressed fear that joining with big pharma's campaign will put them in the middle of a potentially ugly fight with a heavy-handed partner -- one not interested in reaching a political compromise but looking to do whatever it takes to defeat its opponents.

The sheer size of the campaign led by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, is unfathomable to many biotechnology executives. The planned $80 million expenditure would be enough to fund the entire operations of PhRMA's counterpart, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, for two years.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization has not taken a position on either proposition. BayBio, the Bay Area's biotechnology association, has not taken a position on the ballot measures. It previously supported legislation with language identical to Prop. 78.

Though it's likely the biotechnology industry will be forced to take a stand on the ballot measures by the fall, it is unclear how active a role it will take in the campaign.

Some executives are holding out hope that a compromise can be reached for a legislative solution that will spare them from being thrown into a bruising battle.

The legislature is on recess and the capital is abuzz with deal rumors.

PhRMA looks well financed for a fight. And.... biotechnology will join by Labor Day.

Stay tuned.


Posted by League Member at 11:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 17, 2005

New Prop 77 Lawsuit?

(cross-posted at Interocitor)

Ted Costa remarked at today's Bear-Flag Conference that there is another lawsuit to be filed shortly against Prop 77. He also said that suits against his propositions were pretty common but usually were dismissed fairly quickly. Then again, it only takes one, as happened with the redistricting initiative struck from the March 2000 ballot.

Posted by League Member at 09:05 PM | Comments (0)

Our Current Redistricting Process Is a Joke

Posted by Jordan Cunningham at Democracy Market

The Interocitor has a great post (with snazzy graphics no less) on the lunacy of our current redistricting system and the consequent need to pass Prop 77 in order to reform it. It includes "before/after" maps of two districts, showing what they looked like before the latest redistricting hatchet job, and what they look like now. A brief glance at the before/after maps indicates something is awry. Electoral districts should not look like squished bugs on a windshield.

Notice one key thing: Each of the two districts Interocitor highlights was formerly competitive. But thanks to our gerrymander-happy, protect-their-own-ass, incumbency-friendly Legislature, competitive districts no longer exist in California. Yes, you read that correctly. They have gone the way of the dinosaur. In the last election of 153 seats not a single one changed party hands. Not. One.

Is it not just a blatant conflict of interest to have politicians drawing their own political districts? Isn't that like having CEO's stack the Board that elects them? Or having the auditors on the payroll? Don't voters realize that politicians exercise total unfettered control over the very process that is supposed to keep them accountable? The recent (depressing) poll numbers suggest not. Can someone explain this disconnect to me?

The Interocitor states that he will walk barefoot in the snow to vote for Prop 77. I will be right behind him.

Cross-posted at the Bear Flag League Special Election Page

Posted by League Member at 07:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 16, 2005

Was Secretary of State Bruce McPherson Duped into Certifying Prop. 77?

Posted by Flap at the FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

A FLAP has begun with the disclosure that California Governor Arnold Swarzenegger's Administration and proponents of Proposition 77, the redistrcting initiative, knew about legal problems with the measure more than a week before they were disclosed.

Though the legal tactics varied, the bottom line was much the same: a concern that Secretary of State Bruce McPherson might have been duped into certifying Proposition 77 for the ballot by untimely notification of its legal glitch.

"As I'm sure you can appreciate, it is absolutely essential that the secretary of state be perceived as fair and impartial in his conduct relating to elections," attorney Lance Olson, representing a group opposing Proposition 77, said in a letter Friday to McPherson.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office called circumstances surrounding the case "extremely troubling" and asked proponents Friday to voluntarily provide documents that could shed light on the chain of events leading to the controversy.

Sounds like political posturing for public consumption while behind the scenes negotiations are occuring between the Speaker and the Governor's office to make a deal/trade of redistricting for a modification of term limits.

Friday's legal wrangling was ignited, in part, by disclosure Thursday that the Republican governor's legal affairs secretary, Peter Siggins, and an attorney for the measure's proponents, Daniel Kolkey, knew about the legal glitch but did not report it until after McPherson certified the measure.

Olson claims that timely notification could have stopped Proposition 77 in its tracks, but that the legal burden shifts once a measure is officially certified as having attracted an adequate number of voter signatures.

McPherson contends he has a legal obligation to place onto the ballot any certified measure.

Opponents also seized Friday on a disclosure by Siggins and Kolkey that they talked with each other about the issue before notifying McPherson's office, and that they later talked individually with a high-ranking member of the secretary of state's staff, Undersecretary Bill Wood.

And, of course, their intention was to certify this measure for the ballot at any cost. This is an initiative to benefit the voter?

Please!

Siggins and Kolkey said Thursday that they did not intentionally wait until after certification to notify the secretary of state's office, but that they needed some time to research legal issues regarding the differences in text, which they contend are minor and immaterial.

The duo also claimed there was nothing unethical about their conversations with each other about Proposition 77 and that they exerted no pressure on the secretary of state's office.

Gale Kaufman, a political consultant to Assembly Democrats, said she fears that the initiative process has been abused.

"People are hiding what was really going on. They delayed the process, and now their excuse is, 'It's really inconsequential,' " she said. "I think it's very consequential."

Olson's letter to McPherson on Friday asked the latter to reconsider his decision to place Proposition 77 on the ballot in light of the disclosures by Siggins and Kolkey.

All political banter..... wait until the hearing on the 21st.

McPherson, through an attorney, responded in writing to Olson, saying that he is seeking judicial guidance on how to proceed.

"Whatever the court decides, (he) will implement without reservation," wrote the attorney, Angela Schrimp de la Vergne.

Lockyer's office, in a separate letter Friday to Kolkey, questioned whether the textual differences in Proposition 77's documents were an "intentional rewrite" rather than a simple mistake, as claimed by the proponents.

Ahhhhh arguments for next Thursday.

Lockyer noted that proponents did not promptly notify McPherson about potential legal problems, and that the attorney general's office was not alerted until an additional 18 days had passed.

The leader of the initiative drive, Ted Costa, contacted the attorney general's office on June 21 seeking a title and summary for Proposition 77 to be placed on the ballot. But he failed to mention the legal glitch, the attorney general claimed.

"These facts are extremely troubling, and they raise serious questions about the chain of events involved," wrote Richard M. Frank, chief deputy attorney general for legal affairs.

Kolkey, contacted Friday evening, said he had just received Frank's letter and had not yet read it. Costa was unavailable for comment.

It appears that Lockyer is blathering in the press because his legal case is weak.

Flap handicaps a very very likely chance that the measure will proceed to the ballot, but wonders if it will be traded away for other modified propositions, stipulating a change in redistricting process, but also changing the term limit law, Prop. 140.

Ted Costa will have to enlighten us at the Bear Flag League Summer Conference tomorrow.

Technorati tags: , , ,

Posted by League Member at 10:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 15, 2005

Flawed Prop. 77 Ignites New FLAP

Posted by Flap at the FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

What did California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger know and when did he know it? There is a new FLAP about the California Governor and the Sacramento Bee has, Flawed measure ignites new flap: Problem was known for a week before disclosure of redistricting ballot glitch.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration knew about legal problems with the proposed redistricting ballot initiative at least a week before the secretary of state's office was contacted and the matter was publicly disclosed.

That and other disclosures Thursday by officials of the Governor's Office and by leaders of the initiative campaign were seized upon by opponents as evidence that Schwarzenegger was playing behind-the-scenes, partisan politics with a cornerstone of his government reform package.

Why, of course, he was and the Assembly Speaker and Senate Pro Tem are NOT? Please!

Lance Olson, attorney for Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, said the governor had a moral responsibility to disclose the legal defect before Secretary of State Bruce McPherson certified the measure June 10 and the governor called a special election three days later.

"I don't know if they had a legal obligation, but they had an ethical obligation," Olson said.

Peter Siggins, the governor's legal affairs secretary, countered that the administration acted ethically and that his first impulse, upon learning of the legal problem, was to learn what he could do about the issue rather than react in haste.

Siggins said he would not have done anything differently.

"I'm not impetuous that way," he said. "I'm more careful. I felt it very important to understand the legal ramifications of what happened and be able to more thoroughly discuss it."

Siggins said that nobody intentionally waited until after McPherson certified the redistricting measure for the Nov. 8 special election ballot.

"It kind of caught us by surprise," Siggins said of McPherson's June 10 announcement that the proposal to overhaul how California draws boundaries for legislative, congressional and Board of Equalization seats had qualified for the ballot.

McPherson's office learned of the problem on June 13, but did not seek advice from Attorney General Bill Lockyer until July 1.


And what importance does the time-frame make in any case? The California Attorney General's lawsuit is frivolous at best and even the Los Angeles Times has urged its rejection.

Lockyer, through a spokesman, blasted the Governor's Office and leaders of the initiative drive for untimely disclosure.

"If true, these new revelations are very disturbing," said Tom Dresslar, Lockyer's spokesman. "It's particularly disturbing that the proponents and other parties knew about this problem and let the secretary of state certify this measure for the ballot. That's outrageous."

But, the Governor's legal opinion was that the defects in the measure were MINOR.

Officials in Governor's Office were personally involved in the ultimate disclosure.

Siggins and Daniel Kolkey, an attorney for the proponents, said they together met with Undersecretary William Wood on June 13 to notify the secretary of state's office about the two differing initia