Proposition 77 Off Ballot
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.
Sheesh. Why the **** won’t the press – or, for that matter, either the AG’s office or the SS’s office – put the two versions up so that the citizenry can see what the differences are?
aphrael (6b0647) — 7/22/2005 @ 7:53 amIt is interesting to note that the LA Times’ ran the major differences in the PREAMBLE as it’s only examples. While the introductory justifications indeed used very different words, both said much the same thing. ANd neither had anything to do much with the actual law, the versions of which the Times did not care to compare.
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 7/22/2005 @ 8:40 amYou would think that someone would have a copy of the Prop 77 signature form….
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 7/22/2005 @ 8:43 amThis is the lamest thing I’ve ever heard. Who is responsible for this goofup? LA Times is salivating at doing another “job performance” poll in light of the Gov. Arnold not even being able to get his Prop 77 paperwork correct.
Shredstar (91b3b2) — 7/22/2005 @ 8:47 amCosta’s people accept the blame. Yes, it is a screw-up, but considering how the state accepts all kinds of dog-ate-my-homework excuses on legislative campaign finance filings, I wonder how much this is selective rule enforcement.
Kevin Murphy (9982dd) — 7/22/2005 @ 12:53 pm*Of course* it’s selective rule enforcement. That doesn’t make the screwup any less stupid.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 7/22/2005 @ 4:20 pmI e-mailed Daniel Weintraub, author of the Sacramento Bee-Blog California Insider, bugging him to put the two versions up on the site, as he promised. He has now done so, and you can read it here.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 7/22/2005 @ 5:13 pmaphrael–
No, but it doesn’t make the court look too good either. Usually a court will try to find a way to honor the voter’s wish.
This isn’t like Prop 80, which was “invalid on its face”, being a statute trying to change the constitution.
Kevin Murphy (9982dd) — 7/22/2005 @ 5:32 pm