Dafydd: Question… Is Dafydd Just Too Stupid?
[Posted by Dafydd ab Hugh]
UPDATED; see bottom.
Okay, I know I’m not a lawyer. And I hate having to play one… but the courts seem determined to force me to do so.
The appellate court just bounced Proposition 77, redistricting reform, agreeing with California AG Bill Lockyer that there was substantial difference between the version of the proposition submitted for inclusion on the ballot, and the version on the petition circulated to voters… which nearly a million California voters signed.
I don’t understand this at all. Let’s suppose that Ted Costa and his group, Fair Districts Now, were negligent in submitting an altered version of the proposition for review. Let’s even agree they should be punished. But throwing the proposition off the ballot is not just punishing FDN… it’s also punishing over 900,000 California voters who did nothing wrong — including me.
Don’t the voters have rights? Don’t we have the God damned right to vote on ballot propositions that we properly approved for the God damned ballot? How do the subsequent actions of Ted Costa retroactively delegitimize the signatures of 900,000 voters? Where the hell do these black-robed jagoffs get the right to spit in our faces and grab for a technicality to throw our amendment off the ballot? It doesn’t belong to Ted Costa… it belongs to us!
These black-robed legal priests of the High Church of Fundamentalist Krytocracy would presumably argue that it wasn’t a “technicality,” that there was “substantial non-compliance.” But I’ll tell you why it’s a technicality — speaking as a regular person, not some abnormal alien geek of a lawyer (no offense meant to AAGLs who are also regular people in real life, like our kindly host here… but plenty of offense offered to AAGLs who are that way on and off the court, and I’ve met plenty): it’s a technicality because it would be as freaking easy as pie to fix this problem by just putting the exact version we signed onto the damned ballot, that’s why!
How hard could that be? For God’s sake, it would take about ten minutes to change the bad version into the good version. As I noted, they don’t even have to read through and identify the changes, because the Secretary of State already did that (or else someone else did and gave it to him).
What the hell is going on? Am I simply too stupid to understand why it’s somehow impossible to just put the right version, the signature-gathering version, on the ballot instead of the slightly rewritten version? Is this some lawyer thing that I would understand if I were so brilliant that I had gone to law school for three years, instead of being a feeble-minded mathematician who could only manage to attend some dinky mathematics graduate school at UC for three years?
Can some lawyer explain to me in simple terms, in words that even a bonehead mathematician with a scant eighteen published novels can comprehend, why it’s a better solution for two out of three judges to unzip and relieve themselves on the voters, yanking the entire proposition off the ballot, instead of just ordering Bruce McPherson to make the changes on the document he already has to turn it into the one that was circulated — and ordering Fair Districts Now to pay for the costs of doing so?
Am I just an idiot? Enquiring minds want to know — even if they’re not up to the level of intellectual rationalization of some godlike judge.
UPDATE AND BUMP: One indication of how differences between the two versions might have affected signers is to look at the two different ballot titles and summaries prepared by Attorney General Bill Lockyer. An alert commenter, Nels Nelson, found links to both: the summary of the version originally submitted to Lockyer is here, while the summary Lockyer has just written for the version actually circulated for signatures is here.
As Nelson noted, the only difference is that in the new version, Lockyer changed a single word in the title from “reapportionment” to “redistricting.” And this change, by the way, does not come from any differences between the two versions. Both versions use the term “redistricting;” neither says “reapportionment.” That term came from Bill Lockyer’s own head — not from anything in either version of the initiative.
In other words, neglecting the purely stylistic and cosmetic change in the title that Lockyer took the opportunity to make, the two summaries are word-for-word identical, despite the supposed “numerous substantive differences” to which Lockyer makes reference in his press release about the case he filed to remove the measure from the ballot (in which Lockyer won the first two rounds; everyone now awaits action by the state Supreme Court).
Well, I can certainly see how that must have affected signatures.
Voters don’t have rights only the judges do.
In case after case the judges show the public who is in charge. Take the latest emminetn domain case — Constitution what Constitution, we don’t see no stinking Constitution.
I think in this case, there might be a tiny shred of truth, the judge is likely saying the ignorant voters may have signed one thing and voted for another.
I guess we are all going to have to start playing lawyer, else we loose the whole country to the robed oligarchy.
bill (26027c) — 8/10/2005 @ 4:37 pmWhile also not a lawyer, but always being open for a challenge, let me tackle Dafydd’s question….
For better or worse, California has its rules (but please don’t ask me to explain or defend them). Our society is based on the rule of law, which focuses more on ensuring the integrity of the process than achieving the ‘proper’ end result. That means we have to follow the rules – as they are written and not as we would like them to have been written. We don’t yell ‘technicality’ or ‘do-over’ when it’s shown that we failed to follow the rules. Nor do we ask judges to ignore the rules as written and give us what we want because of some claim that is what the ‘people’ would want.
For all the complaining that we do when judges go and ignore the law as written and make things up as they go along in order to rationalize their decisions, we should applaud the judges who, at least this time, followed the rules.
It would be nice, however, if they were to follow the rules all the time and not only when doing so screws those on our side of the ideological aisle…
How’s that?
steve sturm (d3e296) — 8/10/2005 @ 5:07 pmWhy aren’t you attacking Lockyer and the Legislature, who had wide discretion to not take this to the courts? Are you really thinking long-term when you ask that judges be free to decide which cases warrant exemptions from the rules?
Nels Nelson (741fd5) — 8/10/2005 @ 5:42 pmsteve–
Yes, we have rules. But often a case comes under about 20 rules, some of which conflict. Such as the Right to Petition; the right to fair elections; and the rules for petitioning.
In this case the rule is “substantial compliance” and there is no serious argument that ANYONE WAS HARMED by the incorrect copy that the AG got. THere is obvious harm by keeping the initiative off the ballot, and that harm extends AT LEAST to 900,000 registered voters. If you consider a gerrymander to offend the basic priciples of a republic, then there is even greater harm in suppressing the petition due to technical errors.
So, it’s not “the rules” but “which rules.” The judges have chosen to choose those rules that further the interests of their masters, the Democrat machine.
It’s a pig no matter how you dress it up.
Kevin Murphy (9982dd) — 8/10/2005 @ 6:19 pmSteve Sturm:
For all the complaining that we do when judges go and ignore the law as written and make things up as they go along in order to rationalize their decisions, we should applaud the judges who, at least this time, followed the rules.
Yeah, Steve Sturm? What about this law:
Maybe I’m still being stupid and illiterate… but I don’t see anything in there that says “…unless the group circulating an initiative makes a stupid mistake after the petition has been approved and files the wrong document with the Secretary of State, in which case, nevermind!”
There were slightly fewer than 8,655,000 votes cast for governor in the 2003 special election; 8% of that total is 692,400.
If you don’t want to count the special election, then in the last regular gubernatorial election, there were slightly fewer than 7,477,000 votes cast; 8% of that total is 598,160.
This initiative garnered more than 900,000 sigatures.
So what the hell happened to this clause of the California constitution, Steve?
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 8/10/2005 @ 6:30 pmKeep going a little farther down, to Article 2, Sec. 10(d) and the following:
“Prior to circulation of an initiative or referendum petition for signatures, a copy shall be submitted to the Attorney General who shall prepare a title and summary of the measure as provided by law.”
Nels Nelson (741fd5) — 8/10/2005 @ 7:00 pmDafydd – I don’t understand your characterization of the group’s mistake. The appeals court decision makes it quite clear that the order of events was:
(a) costa’s group submitted a version to the AG for preparation;
(b) costa’s group sent an earlier version to the printer;
(c) the AG sent the ballot title and summary;
(d) costa’s group affixed that title and summary to the earlier version;
(e) costa’s group circulated the earlier version;
(f) costa’s group submitted the version circulated to the SoS.
the mistake was (b) and (e), both of which happened before the petition was circulated.
aphrael (3bacf3) — 8/10/2005 @ 7:01 pmI want to emphasize something. The preamble to this clause of the California constitution says the following:
Nothing in there about the power of those people or groups circulating the initiative, or even the power of those judges hearing tendentious lawsuits filed by our smarmy Attorney General. It is “the power of the electors,” that is, the power of the people of the state of California (the ones who vote, anyway) that is supposed to be protected here.
Our initiative. Our vote. Our choice!
Here is what I presume the judges hung their robes on.
I have no idea when this incorrect version was submitted to Lockyer; maybe it was before the initiative was circulated. But this is a requirement placed upon the circulators… and if they fail in their duty, they should suffer some sort of consequences. In this case, however, the “consequences” are visited by the judges upon the electors themselves, not the circulators!
Obviously, whatever the consequences for Fair Districts Now, it cannot include removing the initiative from the ballot — because that would flagrantly violate the exact general right guaranteed by the entirety of 2-8. And there is nothing in the constitution that says the proper punishment for failing to submit a correct copy of the petition is the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of California voters who signed the petition in good faith.
This is madness. Is there any part of Article 2, Section 8 that is all that difficult to understand? For normal people — anybody but a judge and the AG — I mean. The petition was approved. It was circulated. It was signed by half again as many voters as necessary. It was certified as having been properly circulated and signed. But then it was yanked away by two Democratic judges (I’m sure that’s just a coincidence) when there was a perfectly easy fix that would have satisfied both constitutional requirements… but which wouldn’t have satisfied the urgent need to prevent the people of California from voting on redistricting reform.
It seems pretty clear to me. But then, I didn’t go to law school.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 8/10/2005 @ 7:04 pmDafydd, here is the only rationale I can think of based on the series of events outlined in aphrael’s comment (full disclosure, I’m a lawyer):
The petition circulated and signed by 900,000 people like you had two things on it – the actual text of the proposed initiative and a summary prepared by the AG’s office. The summary was based on the text of the initiative given to the AG’s office beforehand, which was different than the text of the initiative as it appeared on the petition you signed. Thus, 900,000 people were duped into signing a petition based on the AG’s summary, thinking they were signing a petition for an initiative that was different from what was on the petition. The conflict is that there were two mutually incompatible things on the petition – the text of the initiative and a summary of a different initiative. This would be meaningless if the two initiatives were substantively the same, but I guess the Court of Appeal found that they weren’t. Thus, we cannot know what the 900,000 people wanted when they signed the petition – the summary version or the text version.
How’d I do?
Ben Pugh (1527b3) — 8/10/2005 @ 7:21 pmAphrael:
I don’t understand your characterization of the group’s mistake…. the mistake was (b) and (e), both of which happened before the petition was circulated.
I don’t understand your argument, Aphrael: are you really claiming that if FDN had given the correct version (the one later circulated) to the Attorney General, that he wouldn’t have approved it? Where do you get such an idea?
But if he would have approved it, then the fact that it was circulated, signed, and certified should still put the initiative on the ballot — because whatever the consequences to Fair Districts Now for being stupid, there is no reason to disenfranchise nine hundred thousand Californian voters.
That is just absurdly disproportionate to the error. What you are saying is that dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s is much more important than the basic right of the people to place initiatives on the ballot by petition. That is simply ludicrous!
The bureaucracy exists to enfranchise the people; the franchise does not exist in order to pay homage to the bureaucracy.
This is structurally identical to the position argued by supporters of Al Gore in Florida, when they wanted judges in Martin and Seminole Counties to literally disenfranchise the entire absentee vote in those two counties — 25,000 people — because the GOP made a mistake in printing, not the ballot, but the form for obtaining the ballot. The judges there ruled that the mistake of the GOP should not be visited upon the voters, that voters had a right to vote that was sacred in a democracy and not dependent upon error-free printing by a political party.
But you want to argue, with Gore’s buddies, that in fact the right to vote is exactly dependent upon error-free printing by, in this case, a tiny group… so dependent, in fact, that if the tiny group makes a printing error, all nine hundred and some-odd thousand voters who signed the petition can be told “too bad! no petition rights for you!”
(And by the way, when Lockyer actually did prepare a title and summary of the version that was actually circulated — it was almost identical to the one he prepared for the “wrong” version. So where is the harm in any case?)
Stop all this PC nonsense, Aphrael: you know damned well why the two Democratic appointees ruled the way they did, and indeed why the Democratic attorney general filed the case in the first place: because fairly drawn districts would result in many fewer Democrats in the legislature than the carefully gerrymandered districts we have now. This politically corrupt decision stinks to high heaven, and there is no defense for it: the right to vote is infinitely more important than the duty to file an exact copy at a particular time.
The AG had the petition that was actually being circulated in plenty of time to prepare the title and summary. Do you deny it?
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 8/10/2005 @ 7:23 pmYou can bet that if it were an issue they cared about, such as stealing an election for the Dems — hint: 2004 Washington governor’s race or Florida 2000 presidential election — the judges would stand on their heads to ensure the “rights of the voters” were given paramount consideration over procedural technicalities.
capitano (f6cfb0) — 8/10/2005 @ 7:28 pmDafydd – I am certainly not claiming that if FDN had given the correct version to the AG, it wouldn’t have been approved. Such a move would have been an extraordinary act on the AG’s part and would have been grounds for impeachment or recall. Nor am I making any comment whatsoever at this time about the merits of the decision.
I am merely disputing your claim that FDN’s procedural misfire came after the petitions had been signed. It was a procedural error *in preparing the petitions*, made before the petitions were circulated.
If that’s “PC nonsense” to you, then I would submit that you’re reacting to a projection of what you expect me to say, rather than to what i’m actually saying.
aphrael (3bacf3) — 8/10/2005 @ 7:40 pmRather than exit gracefully, I’ll wade in a little deeper..
Kevin(4): our side does take it on the chin when judges consistently resolve conflicting rules in favor of the liberals. My solution is not to stoop to their level by bringing in judges who are just as biased, but from the other direction, nor to demand that they flip coins in order to resolve discrepencies, but for recall/removal of judges who tick off enough people enough of the time… which, unfortunately, isn’t isn’t always an option.
Dafyyd: as one non-election law attorney to another, your argument keeps coming back to wanting judges to dictate an easy fix. That’s not their job.
There are rules that govern the process beyond the broad language you pasted from the state Constitution – rules, for example, that prohibit paying people to sign, from forcing people to sign at gunpoint, and which govern the process under which signatures are collected and then certified. Break one of these rules and the vote doesn’t take place. That seems to be what happened here.
And there are many situations where clients get screwed because of the incompetence of their agent/attorney. Sometimes the process allows for a do-over, sometimes not. This seems to be a case of the latter. Is there anything explicit in the state Constitution or election law that provides for a never-mind in situations such as this?
And just because a bonehead mathematician has what he thinks of as the perfect solution doesn’t mean that everybody will agree with him.
BTW, I’m curious: is this the first time a petition that has been rejected for technical reasons? If not, were you up in arms then as well as now?
steve sturm (d3e296) — 8/10/2005 @ 7:57 pmBen Pugh:
You might have a point if the summary as shown unfairly characterized the actual initiative. But here is the complete summary:
The only description of the effect of the initiative is what I have bolded above; and this requirement — that three retired judges be selected by the leaders of the legislature to draw the district lines — is identical in both versions of the initiative. This requirement is not one of the changes. (Nor were there any differences between the two versions on which type of districts were affected.)
Therefore, if Lockyer’s summary above is properly written for the version he saw, it is therefore equally properly written for the version that was circulated, because they do not differ on the lone point that Lockyer singled out for his summary.
So since the summary Lockyer wrote for the version he saw works equally well for the version circulated, what does that do to your argument, Ben?
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 8/10/2005 @ 7:57 pmSteve Sturm:
BTW, I’m curious: is this the first time a petition that has been rejected for technical reasons? If not, were you up in arms then as well as now?
I would be if I knew about it. This is the first one I’ve become aware of.
Look, I’m totally opposed to same-sex marriage. But if a petition were circulated to legitimize SSM in California, and if 900,000 people signed it (highly likely — you could probably get that many in SF and LA together), and if it were abruptly bumped from the ballot for the same sort of asinine reason as Prop. 77 was, then yes, I by God would be just as outraged: voting is a sacred right not to be tossed lightly aside.
In this case, there is no possible harm to the voting process by the dumb mistake of FDN, because the title and summary would literally be word-for-word identical between the two versions.
But there is terrible and possibly irreparable harm to the voting process when voters are told, without ambiguity, that if the powers-that-be don’t like an initiative that has qualified for the ballot, they will move heaven and earth to remove it… so don’t bother even trying, peons!
This is not me “wanting judges to dictate an easy fix.” This is the demand that our right to vote not be taken away for trivial reasons that couldn’t possibly have affected the signing of the petition. There is a way to fix the error that does not require disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters, thirty-six times as many as would have been disenfranchised in Florida if the Gore lawyers had their way.
The judges in those two Florida cases rightly ruled that the right to vote trumps the bureaucratic rules, and they tossed out those suits. The judges in California ruled the opposite, that the most important thing is that the bureaucratic nonsense be followed — and to hell with the voters.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 8/10/2005 @ 8:11 pmSteve, Dafydd – this is the first initiative that i’m aware of that has been struck down on these grounds. I do not know, however, if that means that it is the first initiative to suffer from this procedural defect.
It is, however, fairly common (as in, 2-3 times a decade) for initiatives to be stricken down before the election on the grounds that they violate the single-subject rule (eg, you can’t have initiatives which logroll different things together, such as “the punishment for child molestation shall be death AND the legislature’s salary shall be cut by 10%”, but occasionally initiatives are circulated which violate this rule, and the state supreme court tosses them out).
aphrael (3bacf3) — 8/10/2005 @ 8:14 pmDafydd – if I may inject a partial non-sequiter, what was your opinion of the several thousand *write-in ballots* in San Diego’s mayor election last year which were disqualified because the voter had not filled in the bubble next to where they wrote in the name of their write-in candidate? (A number of votes which, had they been counted, might have been sufficient to cause the write-in candidate to win the election)?
aphrael (3bacf3) — 8/10/2005 @ 8:17 pmDafydd,
Can you post both the original summary and the follow-up? With links if possible.
Patterico (756436) — 8/10/2005 @ 10:05 pmPatterico:
Can you post both the original summary and the follow-up? With links if possible.
I think I might have been mistaken when I wrote this:
Shortly after writing that, but before you posted your request, I went looking for it; I didn’t find it where I thought I had read it, and I did find an oldish (nine days old, just like the pease-porridge) post on Election Law Blog that implied Lockyer hadn’t written it yet at the time of that post… so now I don’t know whether he did yet.
I still think I read somewhere that he had, and they were substantively identical; but I don’t know where I read that, so can’t cite it.
But Patterico, here is the entire title and summary that Lockyer wrote for the original version he had:
This same title and summary can be used verbatim for the new version, as every single thing it says is just as true for the circulated version as for the submitted version.
Hence my point: if the only purpose of handing the initiative to the AG is so he can write a title and summary, and if the title/summary he wrote is in fact just as accurate with the circulated petition as with the filed version, then what possible difference could it make to the voters signing the petition? The summary they see is just as reflective of the petition they’re signing as it is of the other one — no more, no less.
Aphrael:
On this sort of thing, it depends upon how clear it is. If any reasonable man would understand he had to fill in the blank marked “other” if he’s writing in a candidate, then if he didn’t do so, I don’t mind if his vote isn’t counted. Same if somebody fills in the blanks with pastel blue pencil, and the machine can’t read it.
I don’t mind people being held accountable for doing stupid things; that’s why I would have no problem with Fair Districts Now, the group, being socked with some sort of penalty for filing the wrong document. What I don’t like is penalizing Dafydd ab Hugh (and Sachiko Yamada, and 900,000+ other signers) for Ted Costa being a dumbass.
If the San Diego ballot instructions were unclear, then I’m totally on the side of the voters. I don’t know, because I don’t reside there; the instructions in LA County are very clear and easy to follow.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 8/10/2005 @ 11:58 pmPatterico:
Here, this is priceless. It’s from Lockyer’s own press release on July 8th:
…And if you’ll look to my comment just above, you will note that exactly none of this appears in either the title or the summary that Lockyer prepared!
So even he admits that no changes are required to “switch” to the circulated petition.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 8/11/2005 @ 12:05 amDafydd, having now read the old and the new summaries, I see your point: Lockyer changed a single word: “Reapportionment” to “Redistricting”.
I do wonder about one thing mentioned in that press release, though: “a copy of the proposed initiative is made available on the Attorney General’s website”. Many initiatives are listed on the AG’s site, including Prop 77, but they are scans of the original submissions, and consequently what the AG has posted is substantially different from that found on the FDN site, as would be expected considering an old version was given to the AG. Is it not quite possible that some signers to the petition first researched it online, wanting to read the full text rather than just a summary, and in visiting different sites – the AG’s and FDN’s – read different versions from one another, and that it therefore cannot be said what any individual signature supports?
Nels Nelson (e88b48) — 8/11/2005 @ 1:53 amYou’ve got a compelling argument there. Hopefully the California Supreme Court will see it. I tend to think they will.
Patterico (756436) — 8/11/2005 @ 6:11 amIs that Daffyd same as poster Daffyd? There have been articles with Daffyd, and finally I like to satisfy my curiosity of the connection if any between that Daffyd and this Daffyd 🙂
Blue berry (67553d) — 8/11/2005 @ 7:03 amDaffyd,
Can we get someone to write an amicus brief based on this analysis?
RiverRat (f64620) — 8/11/2005 @ 8:15 amRiver – you might be able to, but you’ll have to act fast.
Electionlawblog has posted Costa’s petition to the Supreme Court here. It indicates that the AG issued a new title and summary for the circulated version on July 29, and that the summary was identical (but the word ‘reapportionment’ was changed to ‘redistricting’ in the summary).
Costa is asking for expedited review. The statutory deadline for the ballot pamphlet to go to the printer is Monday; the stay of the lower court order removing Proposition 77 expires Sunday.
aphrael (3bacf3) — 8/11/2005 @ 8:55 amDafydd, I vote for idiot or more charitably blinded by partisanship, like the sport fan (short for fanatic) who yells “kill the ump” whenever a call goes against his team. Here you have a perfectly reasonable and straightforward procedural requirement which so far as I know no one else has had any trouble complying with. Perhaps I would rule differently but it is not outrageous for a judge to be a stickler for the rules.
Your comments about the rights of the petition signers ignore what is really going on. The initiative backers have no desire to actually pass it, they just want to use it as a bargaining chip to obtain concessions from the Democrats. If they had made a deal with the Democrats before filing the petitions they could have put the petitions with the 900000 signatures in a dumpster. If you actually care about reapportionment reform you should organize a group of likeminded people and circulate your own petitions. Otherwise you risk being played for a sucker by people who will sell out reform in a second in exchange for other concessions.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 8/11/2005 @ 10:04 amI bet Lockyer changed the word just to forestall claims that the summary would have come out exactly the same. Putz.
Patterico (19e407) — 8/11/2005 @ 12:33 pmAphrael, et al:
Electionlawblog has posted Costa’s petition to the Supreme Court here. It indicates that the AG issued a new title and summary for the circulated version on July 29, and that the summary was identical (but the word ‘reapportionment’ was changed to ‘redistricting’ in the summary).
In the title, not the summary. And this is a change, by the way, that does not come from any differences between the two versions. Both versions use the term “redistricting;” neither says “reapportionment.” That term came from Bill Lockyer’s own head — not from anything in either version of the initiative.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 8/11/2005 @ 2:56 pmDafydd – oh, on this I agree with you; the change in the title is absurd.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/11/2005 @ 3:13 pmaphrael–
See if I can get this accross; why are we so angry?
1) The politicians, of both parties, arranged to make districted elections meaningless.
2) The legislature and California’s members of Congress have effectively extended their terms until 2012, subject only to term limits, if any.
3) About 12% of the people took the time to sign IDENTICAL forms requesting an election to restore their right to multiparty elections and a meaningful vote.
4) There is no question that all the forms were the same and all of them had essentially the same proposal as received by the AG — only some words were different. Again 900,000 people signed them.
5) Two judges, appointed by the party that rigged the elections, decided that those 900,000 voters should be ignored because ONE CLERICAL WORKER made a harmless error. The T was not crossed and some I’s were not dotted.
Or think of it another way: assume that these weren’t Republicans (and many were not, BTW). Assume they were African-Americans petitioning for their right to vote for an African-American candidate, and being told what we are being told.
Burn, baby, burn.
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 8/11/2005 @ 8:37 pmI want to amplify a point Kevin Murphy just made: the gerrymander was approved by the legislators of both major parties.
That is, the Republican bastards in the lege were perfectly happy to go along with creating a totally stagnant legislature — with them perpetually in the deep minority — so long as they got to be Legislators For Life (and I don’t mean about abortion). I am as disgusted with them as I am with the Democrats; perhaps moreso… at least the Dems were corruptly making themselves automatic winners; the GOPs were making themselves automatic losers for every election! The individual assemblymen, senators, and representatives would win, but only at the expense of their party and their constituents.
I will be just as overjoyed to see a bunch of those corrupt Republicans shown the gate as I will seeing the back of the equally corrupt Democrats. The elections are for “we, the people” — not for the benefit of “them, the permanent governing class.”
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 8/12/2005 @ 4:24 amHow does changing the authority to redistrict “congressional” districts square with Article 1 Section 4 of the US Constitution which generally the time, place and manner of electing representatives “shall be prescibed by the Legislature thereof”.
Richard (e6a8b9) — 8/12/2005 @ 9:36 amFrankly, this is the sort of petite tyranny that makes whichever party engages in it look really bad. That the Democrats have to resort to these types of maneuvers rather than taking their chances before the voters says volumes. Not being familiar with the California Supremes, I am uncertain whether they will rule based upon the clear direction of the CA Constitution: ALL political power resides with the voters.
One thing I wonder, is the actual text of the Proposition on the petition, or otherwise available? If so, then any discrepancies in the summary are meaningless unless one takes the position that those who’ve signed are idiots.
But hey, California’s political establishment has a strong tradition over the last 30 years of ignoring its voters. The shenanigans in attempting to derail the recall come to mind. Consider also the civil union law the Legislature just passed, even though the voters resoundingly refuted gay marriage. (If anybody can demonstrate substantive differences between civil unions and marriage, have at it…)
Bikerdad (a548c0) — 8/12/2005 @ 10:21 amKevin – I understand why you are angry. I find it in some ways ironic (if you believe that judges can be forced to answer to political paymasters, then why do you think they’ll do a better job at redistricting?), but I think politics is altogether laced with irony anyhow.
What I am perplexed by, however, is this: given that the original redistricting was a bipartisan incumbent protection deal in which, essentially, the political leadership of both parties decided to screw the voters and democracy, why is so much of the rhetorical vitriol directed at *one party*?
In this conversation alone, I see you saying that “the judges have chosen to choose those rules that further the interests of their masters, the Democrat machine”; Dafydd asserting that a fair redistricting would result in ‘many fewer Democrats in the legislature’ (something that is at best a matter for debate) and implying that the judges are trying to stop that result; Bikerdad asserting that it’s Democrats resorting to these manuevers, etc.
If the complaint is that it’s a bipartisan scheme by the political class to disenfranchise the voters – a complaint which I have a great deal of sympathy for – then why the *partisan* attacks?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/12/2005 @ 11:42 amaphrael–
It’s partisan because the Democrat officeholders have locked themselves in as winners and their rank-and-file approves. THe Republican rank-and-file doesn’t.
This is why gerrymanders have lasted over 200 years when they are — in a rational world — repugnant. One party has a current benefit and they resist immediate reform. When they are “out”, it’s horrible, of course.
It will take until the people who favor the current “ins” decide to place integrity of elections before immediate gain. Sadly, we are still waiting for that. It was to be hoped that the utter cynicism of the situation would allow this to happen, but it seems not.
Kevin Murphy (9982dd) — 8/12/2005 @ 2:19 pmAphrael:
1) Many fewer Democrats will be elected because the gerrymander benefits the Democrats by shoving all the Republicans into a few districts (there’s one legislative district that is about four or five hundred miles long, as I recall, stretching from central Cal all the way down to southern Cal, in some places just a mile or so across). The Republican legislators went along with this because these bantustans, tiny as they are, are so heavily Republican (going almost house-to-house to get all the Republicans into a single district) that they are guaranteed seats for the few Republicans remaining.
2. The person who brought the absurd lawsuit to throw the initiative off the ballot for trivial reasons is a partisan Democrat, Bill Lockyer.
3. I can’t find out for sure, but the first judge to hear the case, superior court Judge Gail Ohanesian, seems to be to the left, based upon comments I saw attributed to her shortly after her verdict. But count this as a “maybe,” not as a certainty.
4. However, the two appellate-court judges who voted to uphold her verdict and keep the initiative off the ballot, Coleman Blease and M. Kathleen Butz, were definitely both Democratic appointees, hence committed Democrats: Blease was appointed by Jerry Brown and Butz by Gray Davis (about a week before he was recalled by the voters). The lone Republican appointee, Arthur Scotland (Deukmeijian), dissented.
5. Not a single Democratic office holder that I have seen has come out against the gerrymander; but many Republican office holders, including Tom Campbell, have supported the initiative.
You failed for some inexplicable reason to note that I actually pointed out myself that many of the Republicans in office were complicit in approving the gerrymander; I’m sure that was simply an oversight on your part. But there is no question that those Republicans were simply accessories before the fact; the real driver here is the California Democratic Party.
Alas, the California Republican Party is a sick joke on the voters here; it is such a limp reed that it could not even scrounge up a candidate to defeat Gray Davis at the polls less than a year before he was recalled!
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 8/12/2005 @ 3:24 pmDaffdd: I completely agree with your rebuttal to my argument. Hopefully I came across as playing devil’s advocate, since I personally believe that the Court of Appeal was wrong and that the dissenting justice was right. I also didn’t read the summaries. I was merely pontificating the only possible rational explanation for not puting the initiative on the ballot. It turns out that the only possible explanation does not have factual support.
But guess what? The California Supreme Court just threw out the Court of Appeal’s injunction and ordered Proposition 77 back on the ballot. Check my blog for details.
Ben Pugh (1527b3) — 8/12/2005 @ 6:19 pmDafydd, you claim the gerrymander benefits the Democrats but in the 2000 elections the Senate went 26D-14R and the Assembly went 50D-30R. In the 2002 elections the Senate went 25D-15R and the Assembly went 48D-32R. So where is the big benefit to the Democrats from the gerrymander?
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 8/12/2005 @ 7:49 pmThis is a tough case.
I would decide as follows:
At least one mistake was made in qualifying the initiative. But there is no evidence the voters will be mislead when they vote. They will all vote on the same text.
Without evidence that the voters will be misled, or that the initiative is flawed, there is no reason not to vote on the initiative.
K (ce24d7) — 8/12/2005 @ 10:08 pmJames B. Shearer:
Dafydd, you claim the gerrymander benefits the Democrats but in the 2000 elections the Senate went 26D-14R and the Assembly went 50D-30R. In the 2002 elections the Senate went 25D-15R and the Assembly went 48D-32R. So where is the big benefit to the Democrats from the gerrymander?
Hm, interesting question. But before I answer, can you tell me how the parties did in the 1994, 1996, and 1998 elections and in the 2004 election?
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 8/13/2005 @ 3:43 pmDafydd, 2004 and 1998 were the same as 2002, Senate 25D-15R, Assembly 48D-32R. For 1996 and 1994 I can’t find a summary, immediately before the 1998 election the compositions were Senate 23D-16R-1I, Assembly 43D-37R.
By the way a good partisan Democratic gerrymander does not stick all the Republicans in Republican districts, it sticks as many as possible in Democratic districts where their votes will be wasted (while also trying to keep as many Democrats as possible out of Republican districts so every Democratic vote counts). If done right the Republicans will win a few seats by large margins while the Democrats win a lot of seats by small margins. This means the Democratic districts become less safe which the incumbent Democrats tend to be unenthusiastic about even if it is for the greater good of the party. Note one of the effects of the DeLay gerrymander in Texas was to make Delay’s own seat considerably less safe (as DeLay set an example for his troops).
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 8/13/2005 @ 6:39 pmTo amplify my previous post, in 2004 I count 9 Assembly districts where the Democrat won with 80%+ of the vote as compared to 0 Assembly districts where the Republican won by 80%+. This is not the way to maximize Democratic wins.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 8/13/2005 @ 6:55 pmJames B. Shearer:
The point, James, is not to “maximize Democratic wins;” they already have an overwhelming majority in both houses.
The point is to lock those majorities into place by freezing the entire legislature and the congressional delegation in situ.
Take a look at the history of the last few congressional delegations — whose makeup is considerably easier to research than that of the Assemly and State Senate.
In 1980, the Democrats controlled the California State Senate and the Assembly. Assemblyman Richard Alatorre essentially drew the map for the reapportionment after 1980:
The result was exactly what one would expect. Looking at the California congressional delegation from the 98th Congress (the first election with the new district map) through the 102nd (the last), we see the following:
Dem Rep Dem gain or loss1982: 26 17 --
1984: 27 18 +1
1986: 27 18 0
1988: 27 18 0
1990: 26 19 -1
Mean flux: 0.5 seats/election
(I hope these tables come out; I’m using the “CODE” style, which is supposed to put it into monospace… if not, you can probably figure out how it’s supposed to look, so you can understand the numbers.)
The point to note is the incredibly static nature of the delegation: in four elections only two seats changed hands total. The Democrats had locked in their huge majority.
But in 1990, the California Supreme Court ordered a group of “special masters” to draw the district boundaries instead of the legislature.
Looking at the congressional delegation, we see a sudden upsurge in electoral volatility, strikingly different from the preceding decade:
Dem Rep Dem gain or loss1992: 30 22 +1 (delegation +7)
1994: 27 25 -3
1996: 29 23 +2
1998: 27 25 -2
2000: 32 20 +5
Mean flux: 3.0 seats/election
Note also the closeness of the delegation; the Democratic advantage went from 8 down to 2, up to 6, down to 2 and finally up to 12. It changed with the political fortunes of the Democrats.
But then in 2000, we went back to the legislature drawing the district boundaries (under the new majority by the Democrats)… and again, the result has been predictable:
Dem Rep Dem gain or loss2002: 33 20 +1 (delegation +1)
2004: 34 19 +1
Mean flux: 1.0 seats/election
(It’s currently 34 Dems and 18 Reps because of the resignation of Chris Cox to become SEC chairman; a special election is planned.)
The point, as I hope you can see, is that when the legislature draws the district boundaries, the majority party locks in their gains, and there is very little flux — that is, no room for the minority party to make any gains because of gerrymandering. But when “special masters” who are not members of legislature (and not running for office) draw the boundaries, there is a great deal of movement back and forth between the parties, and the minority has the chance to make gains at the expense of the majority — as when the Republicans briefly captured the Assembly in 1994, followed by the Democrats recapturing it in 1996.
That is the whole point, James.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 8/14/2005 @ 3:29 pmI am not disputing that the 2000 redistricting reduced the number of competitive districts. The number of Assembly districts with a margin of 10% or less went from 8 in 2000 to 4 in 2004. I am disputing that the number of Republican seats was reduced in the process. It is true that it is now harder for the Republicans to make gains but it is also harder for the Democrats to make gains. It is not in fact true that the Democratic majorities are overwhelming. In particular they lack the 2/3 needed to pass a budget.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 8/14/2005 @ 5:04 pmJames B. Shearer:
I am trying to say this as plainly as I can. The purpose of this gerrymander is not to make vast gains for the Democratic Party; therefore, it’s non-responsive for you to keep noting that it isn’t going to do that.
Its purpose is to lock in the huge gain they already made in the 2000 election. They took advantage of the fact that they had a Democratic majority and a Democratic governor to try to “hold the line” for ten years.
And dude, they’re not that far off of the 2/3 they need: if they pick up two seats in the Senate, they’ll have 27 to 13 (67.5%). They’re farther away in the Assembly (they have 48, they need 54)… but if they manage to pass an amendment to lower the budgetary requirement to 55%, as they tried to do in the past, they will already be above that mark.
And then it’s “Katie bar the door.” California state income taxes could rise higher than federal taxes, and the entire California budget could collapse… if all the Democratic budget proposals actually passed, instead of dying due to that need to get 67%.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 8/15/2005 @ 4:48 amDafydd, you said above (in post 36):
1) Many fewer Democrats will be elected because the gerrymander benefits the Democrats by shoving all the Republicans into a few districts (there’s one legislative district that is about four or five hundred miles long, as I recall, stretching from central Cal all the way down to southern Cal, in some places just a mile or so across). The Republican legislators went along with this because these bantustans, tiny as they are, are so heavily Republican (going almost house-to-house to get all the Republicans into a single district) that they are guaranteed seats for the few Republicans remaining.
Are you withdrawing this statement?
As for the Democrats being close to 2/3 that is the point. Locking in the 2000 results is not one-sided as it makes it harder for the Democrats to get to the 2/3 they need for full control.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 8/16/2005 @ 12:26 pm