All hail Dan Weintraub! He has posted links to the version of Proposition 77 submitted to Bill Lockyer, and the version signed by voters. (As it turns out, the latter is on Ted Costa’s web site, and is denoted the “text of the initiative.” Costa should make it clear that this is the version submitted to voters, and not the version submitted to the A.G.) You can now compare the two.
Now — does anyone have a copy of the court’s decision?
UPDATE: Yes, someone does, and thanks to Kevin Murphy in the comments, you can read it too.
I’ll see if I can look at this and render some kind of opinion tomorrow.
The L.A. Times has a correction this morning to an error I noted yesterday:
Supreme Court nominee — An article in Wednesday’s Section A profiling Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. said he was a member of the Federalist Society. Roberts has given speeches to the conservative group, but does not recall having been a member, a White House spokeswoman said.
However, The Times has not corrected its editorial, which made the ridiculous statement that Roberts was “a fixture in the Federalist Society.” Why is a separate correction necessary when the factual mistake was the same? There are two reasons:
First, part of the point of a correction is to acknowledge error. Today’s correction does not acknowledge the error in the editorial, which was sillier than the mistake in the news story because of the editorial’s hyperbolic phrasing.
Second, while The Times runs corrections of news stories on Page A2, where nobody sees them, the paper’s policy is to correct editorials on the editorial page. Running a correction in the same space where the error first appeared maximizes the chance that the correction will be seen by those who read the original erroneous assertion.
I have a note in to the Readers’ Rep to see if a separate correction will run regarding the error in the editorial. I rather doubt it; my guess is that I’ll be told that today’s correction covers the waterfront — despite the reasons I just gave you that it doesn’t.
Proposition 77 has been ordered off the ballot due to the contradictions between the version submitted to the Attorney General and the version shown to voters. The L.A. Times story once again fails to provide the original documents for comparison. Despite Ted Costa’s statement to me the other day that he would put the version submitted to voters up on his web site, so that we could compare it to the version submitted to the A.G., I can’t find it there. As a result, unfortunately, I can’t offer any meaningful commentary on whether the court got it right.
UPDATE: Kevin Murphy says this will depress voter turnout — including his own.
L.A. Observed reports that David Shaw has an inoperable brain tumor and is in very bad condition. Best wishes to his family at this difficult time.
Comments Off on David Shaw in Bad Health
Independent Sources attacks yesterday’s L.A. Times article about Judge Roberts’ wife and her “strong antiabortion views.”
Comments Off on Independent Sources on LAT Article on Roberts’s Wife