Dafydd: Only a Brief Respite
UPDATE: See the update below.
NOTE: This post is not by Patterico; it is by Dafydd ab Hugh. Do not accuse Patterico of supporting traditional marriage. Do not address comments here to Patterico. Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate Patterico; that is my job.
Two great issues divide the state. But they are inextricably linked together… and for those of us who support a California ruled by the people, not by professional liberals, it is vital that we win on both of them.
Traditional Marriage
With Gov. Schwarzenegger’s announcement that he will veto the same-sex marriage bill — greased through the legislature by the underhanded Democrats, while real Americans were distracted by the devastation of Hurricane Katrina — we have some breathing room. But make no mistake: this is not victory for those who support keeping the traditional definition of marriage (that would be about 63% of the electorate); it’s only a brief reprieve.
Odds are high that Arnold is going to lose reelection in 2006 (if he even runs); the Democratic nominee will be the new governor.
California is not fundamentally a liberal state; but it’s a split state with the Democrats stronger than the Republicans. And the California Republican Party is in such disarray — probably the worst in the country — that Democrats consistently win all statewide offices. Add that to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s abysmal job-approval numbers (unfair in my opinion, but my opinion is irrelevant), and the stage is set for the governorship to return to the party of Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi.
Make no mistake: the moment a Democrat is in the governor’s mansion, the state senate and assembly will immediately (like on the first day of the new session) repass same-sex marriage, and to hell with the voters. The bill will quickly be signed by the new Democratic governor. There will be a donnybrook in the courts; maybe we’ll win… maybe we won’t.
So for anyone who believes it’s important to stop the recognition of same-sex marriage, it is now more important than ever before to enact a traditional definition of marriage into the state constitution in the 2006 election (primary or general, depends on when the initiative petitions are filed).
That still will not protect us from the numerous “Thelton Hendersons” infesting the state and the 9th Circus Court of Appeals. For that, we need a strong and conservative Supreme Court (“conservative” in the sense of ruling on the basis of what the Constitution says, not what they wish it said). But it will protect us from rampaging state judges, who tend to be far more numerous and aggressively prejudiced.
UPDATE 8 September 2005: Commenter Aphrael notes that the three petitions that have either been qualified or are still being considered all (he says) also ban domestic partnerships; XRLQ isn’t so sure about one of them. Aphrael wants to know why I oppose domestic partnerships. My answer is here.
Proposition 77 – Fair Redistricting
It is also vital to change the redistricting rules (per prop 77) to have the lines drawn not by the state legislature but by retired judges.
Under ordinary circumstances, I would be on the other side; I don’t like judges intruding into the democratic process. Alas, the California state legislature is so mind-bogglingly partisan, patrician, and pandering, that we no longer have a democratic process in this state. The legislature is under the complete dominance of the Democrats… and they have used their majority to lock in the gerrymander to end all gerrymanders. It is currently impossible for the Republicans to make any gains, no matter how close the parties grow… and indeed, even if the Republicans were to become the majority party, the Democrats would remain the majority in the legislature — and would therefore control redistricting in 2010, as well.
That is why the Democrats are so willing to spit in the faces of the California voters: they know they are immune. There is virtually nothing voters can do about them, because the election process itself has been rigged. So long as the Dems pander to their überleft base, Republicans are locked out. And the Democrats have shown, time and again, that whenever they have the power to draw the lines, they will gerrymander to the fullest extent.
Therefore, that power must be taken out of their hands. Paradoxically, we must shift it to the undemocratic decision of retired judges in order to restore democracy.
Anatomy of a Gerrymander
How does a gerrymander work? Simple example. Let’s say a state has 1,000,000 residents. And let’s say each resident either votes Democratic or Republican. 530,000 are registered Democrats, and 470,000 are registered Republicans. Assume 80% of each party always vote for their guy, while 20% of each comprises swing voters who might vote either way.
Now, this is a 53 to 47 split, fairly close; if there are ten districts, 100,000 residents each, you would expect to find 5 Democrats in the legislature, 4 Republicans, and one seat that is usually D but sometimes R. (Assume a unicameral legislature, just for simplicity.)
But check this out; the Democrats get a chance to redistrict, and they create the following districts:
- 69,000 Ds and 31,000 Rs;
- 69,000 Ds and 31,000 Rs;
- 69,000 Ds and 31,000 Rs;
- 69,000 Ds and 31,000 Rs;
- 69,000 Ds and 31,000 Rs;
- 69,000 Ds and 31,000 Rs;
- 69,000 Ds and 31,000 Rs;
- 15,000 Ds and 85,000 Rs;
- 15,000 Ds and 85,000 Rs;
- 17,000 Ds and 83,000 Rs;
Since 80% (loyal Democrats) of 69,000 is 55,200, which is 55.2% of the vote, the Ds are guaranteed to win 7 of the 10 seats, even if the 20% of swing voters defect. Whatever the Ds want passes the state legislature every single time… and they even have more than 2/3rds, enough to override the governor’s veto, if they must. So a tiny advantage is converted into total and eternal domination, all by clever use of their redistricting powers.
Actually, it’s even worse: suppose Democrats go absolutely off their rockers, and this results in the Republican Party growing stronger. Let’s say that 5000 Democratic residents of each district convert to the Republican Party. Then each of the seven Democratic districts would have 64,000 Ds and 36,000 Rs, while each of the three Republican districts would have 10,000 Ds and 90,000 Rs (actually, one would have 12,000 Ds and 88,000 Rs, but that’s not important).
In this case, Republicans would outnumber Democrats statewide by 520,000 to 480,000, almost the reverse of the first example… yet the Democrats would still control those same 7 out of 10 districts. This is exactly what happened in Texas, resulting in a strong majority of Republican voters — but an equally strong majority of Democratic legislators. It took political dynamite (and a powder-monkey named Tom DeLay plus many years of fighting) to finally correct that ludicrous situation.
Although this is a simplified example, this is basically the situation we’re in right now, except the Democrats don’t quite have enough guaranteed seats to override a veto, thank goodness.
Thus, even though the Dems would still have a legislative majority under fair districts, it wouldn’t be as overwhelming as it is now… and it would be much harder to enact insane, hard-left legislation, because there would be a lot more districts whose voters were moderate and could flip either way. Seats would flip from Democratic to Republican, and that itself will force moderation on the Democratic Party.
In most other states, I agree the legislature should draw the district lines; but when the majority proves itself to be functionally incapable of behaving in a democratic fashion, they should not have the power to predetermine the results of the very elections that are the only way to redistribute power. It’s like electing a party whose main platform is to abolish all future elections; if you do it, you’re sunk.
Linked Rings
As riding herd on the yahoos at the Los Angeles Times is Patterico’s special purview, I know what mine are going to be over the next year plus: rescuing traditional marriage from those who would, if they could, abolish it altogether; and taking redistricting out of the hands of those who have already proven that they inevitably abuse the process.
The two quests are tied together, because if we don’t fix the shattered redistricting process, we’ll have to face the same challenges over and over, ad nauseum. And if we allow same-sex marriage to be crammed down Californians’ throats, then there will be such bitterness and disgust within the Republican base that many will just drop out of politics altogether — which is exactly what the Democrats hope for. (I would say pray for, but, you know — Democrats:prayer :: Superman:Kryptonite.)
We need unassailable victories on both fronts. We need to win both of these for the Gipper.
Ummm … that’s Prop 77, dafydd
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 9/8/2005 @ 9:14 amThe petitions currently being circulated not only enact a traditional definition of marriage, they prevent the state from recognizing same-sex unions in any way.
Is there any particular reason why gay couples should not be able to obtain some level of legal protection?
aphrael (6b0647) — 9/8/2005 @ 9:51 amDafydd,
You are making a strategic error by combining the two issues. Stick to the no-gerrymandering and leave it at that. By instead combining the two, you dilute your support in each. Those who support gay-marriage, for example, will now oppose redistricting, even if they might also have favor the latter on a stand-alone basis.
The gay-marriage issue will only be properly resolved – whatever that ends up meaning, according to the people – in an electorally fair California. I.E. Solve the gerrymandering and the rest takes care of itself anyway.
Build the foundation first.
ras (f9de13) — 9/8/2005 @ 11:09 amAphrael, do you have a URL for the text of the petitions? I’d likely support an initiative that did nothing but constitutionalize Prop 22, but am more than a little reluctant to support anything that goes beyond that, especially if it does so under false pretenses.
Xrlq (e2795d) — 9/8/2005 @ 11:24 amSure. There are currently three circulating. Summaries are available here:
SA2005RF0077: “voids and restricts registered domestic partner rights and obligations”;
SA2005RF0082: “Bars domestic partnerships from being valid or recognized”;
SA2005RF0083: “Amends the California Constitution to provide that only a man and a woman in a lawful marriage shall have the legal status of married spouses.”
Now, since we know Lockyer has played with the summaries in the past, these may not be indicative of what’s really there. Texts are available on the AG’s website, though, so:
RF0077: “Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency, initiative statute, local government, or government official shall … bestow statutory rights or incidents of marriage on unmarried persons, or require private entitites to offer or provide rights or incidents of marriage to unmarried persons.” That fairly clearly prohibits civil unions or domestic partnerships which provide the rights or incidents of marriage to something other than a married couple.
RF0082: “A marriage between a man and a woman is the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” That pretty clearly prohibits any sort of state-recognized union of persons that are not marriages.
RF0083: “Only a man and a woman in a lawful marriage shall have the legal status of married spouses in California.” That one is ambiguous; does the DP law which grants domestic partnerships something very similar to the status of married spouses violate this initiative? Possibly yes, possibly not; it’s not clear.
aphrael (6b0647) — 9/8/2005 @ 11:44 amWarning, all three are PDFs.
aphrael (6b0647) — 9/8/2005 @ 11:44 amI agree RF0082 would clearly prohibit domestic partnershipsm, and can see how RF0077 might, as well. I think we can be pretty confident RF0083 would not, however, for the same reasons the Court of Appeal held that Prop 22 did not bar domestic partnerships.
If RF0082 passes, it’s only a matter of time until some plaintiff lawyer argues that corporations, limited partnerships and LLCs are unconstitutional.
Xrlq (5ffe06) — 9/8/2005 @ 3:18 pmGee, Patterico, didn’t you know that the redistricting initiative is Prop 77, not Prop 79? I mean, seriously, Patterico, you’re a lawyer and really should know better than that, Patterico. Worst of all, Patterico, you even tried to cover your tracks and put some other guy’s name at the top of this message. Patterico, that’s pretty low. I’m very disappointed in you, Patterico.
Xrlq (e2795d) — 9/8/2005 @ 3:22 pmAt least you didn’t accuse me of supporting traditional marriage.
Patterico (22db50) — 9/8/2005 @ 3:37 pmXRLQ – Aye. I’d vote against any of them, of course, but of the three, RF0083 seems like the one least likely to upend domestic partnerships. And I agree about RF0082’s potential for upending corporate law.
A good reason to hope it doesn’t qualify. 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/8/2005 @ 4:00 pmKevin Murphy:
Thanks, Kevin! I correct it.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 9/8/2005 @ 4:48 pmXRLQ:
What’s interesting is that Patterico happened to be visiting here when I wrote that post. When I came to that section, nature called, and I asked him to carry out the simple task of typing a simple headline and (simple) sentence from my previously recorded oral dictation.
Predictably, the simpleton messed it up.
Oh well; what can you say about a guy who goes to a German restaurant and orders the teeniest, tiniest glass of beer they serve… and then can’t even finish it?
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 9/8/2005 @ 5:01 pmDafydd – in the area near Cologne, beer comes in 2 deciliter glasses.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/8/2005 @ 5:06 pmA nitpicking correction: none of these have currently qualified for the ballot. They have been approved for signature collection.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/8/2005 @ 5:14 pmin re nancy pelosi and barbara boxer
how can you even tell them apart anymore?
in a few years they will be indistigueshable from Michael Jackson too!
We won’t know which one of the three will be running the state!!
By the way, you guys are funny! I met you by accident, but I like reading here : )
theloneRepinMarin (b67eed) — 9/8/2005 @ 10:23 pmAphrael:
And I didn’t say that any had, did I? (Oh, and that should be “none of these has,” not “have.” Singular. Hah.)
If you want to make a nitpicking correction, you could correct my incorrect spelling of corrected.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 9/8/2005 @ 10:25 pmi do see the marriage issue becoming a problem for the DEMS too.
As the majority minority increases, they are stanch Catholics and primarily Dems. They do NOT want gay marriage.
note: I am neither a Dem or in the majority minority, just an outside observer on this on in a straight marriage thank you very much!
theloneRepinMarin (b67eed) — 9/8/2005 @ 10:27 pmAnd today, the Democrats in the assembly enacted a bill to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants… again! (The state senate version is slightly different, but close enough that it will almost certainly be passed and sent along to the governator.)
Now, this bill is a lot better than the Gray Davis version; the licenses will supposedly be distinct in appearance from those for legal residents, so that they can’t be used for identification. But the point is that this was one of the really big, hotbutton issues that fed the recall election of Governor Davis.
I don’t think many voters are going to stop, puff their pipes, and calmly weigh the pros and cons of this proposal, vice the earlier monstrosity; they’re just going to react by saying “not again!”
So why are the Democrats so determined to remind everybody in the state why we recalled the last Democratic governor, and how Arnold Schwarzenegger got into the governor’s mansion in the first place?
I mean, this is a no-brainer: Congress just passed legislation requiring the Bush administration to implement drivers-license security measures, to prevent terrorists from using easy-to-obtain state licenses to stay in the country illegally. It’s going to be months before the administration can do so (something about a storm, I think), so there is nothing that California can do about licenses for illegal immigrants until then anyway.
Therefore, there is no reason not to simply wait for the new regulations before passing a bill; this one, even if Schwarzenegger signed it, would almost certainly have to be changed anyway. And of course, he’ll just veto it… and end up being the guy looking out for the average Joe in the state (right before a special election in which he has several initiatives on the ballot).
So why the big rush to pass it today? The obvious conclusion voters will draw is that it’s really, really urgent to the Democrats that illegals get licenses… more urgent than any other piece of state business — except “gay marriage,” of course.
Democrats sure know their constituents: illegal immigrants and advocates of an extreme gay-rights agenda. All that’s missing is a bill explicitly allowing partial-birth abortion until ten minutes after delivery!
Maybe I spoke too soon about Schwarzenegger being unreelectable. If the Democratic lege keeps handing him issues like these on a silver skewer, he may have a legitimate shot at the title after all.
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 9/9/2005 @ 5:03 amDafydd – no, you said that I’d said something which could be construed as meaning that. 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/9/2005 @ 11:49 amCalifornia Linking Rings
Two great issues divide the most populous state in the Union: redistricting and the defense of traditional marriage. They seem distinct but are inextricably linked by the philosophy of governance. They will both be a central fixture on Big Lizards.
Big Lizards (fe7c9d) — 9/19/2005 @ 5:14 am