damnum absque injuria » OK, Democrats, Justify This

7/10/2005

OK, Democrats, Justify This

Filed under:

California Politics

by Xrlq @ 11:42 pm

This is what Bill Lockyer is suing to keep you from voting on:

Hat tip: Kevin Murphy.

68 Responses to “OK, Democrats, Justify This”

mikem Says:
July 11th, 2005 at 12:40 am
LMAO. That is incredible. Gerrymandering is as old as the hills and done by both sides, but I did not know that it was so outrageously engineered. A hundred yards wide? LOL.
clark smith Says:
July 11th, 2005 at 2:07 am
Absolutely obscene (both the current cappymander and Lockyer’s suit).

This graphic should be on display everywhere 24/7 between now and special election day.
Kevin Murphy Says:
July 11th, 2005 at 2:53 am
What Eldrige Gerry would have done for a modern computer and voter database.
Flap Says:
July 11th, 2005 at 8:40 am
Actually, if you know the geography of the area then you can see how it is drawn.

I doubt you would draw the district to go in-land much since there is nothing there except a mountain range and ag land. And no not many Republicans among the cow population. But, it looks good on a map I suppose.

The Republicans can beat Lois Capps in a fair race, but Central coast and Santa Barbara County is heavy in Democrat registration.

With regards to Lockyer’s suit, it doesn’t matter much.

Read it here: California Attorney General Sues to Remove Proposition 77 from California Special Election Ballot
Patterico’s Pontifications » Server Issues Says:
July 11th, 2005 at 8:55 am
[...] Then go to Kevin Murphy’s to see a graphic depiction of why Arnold wants to redistrict. (Xrlq has challenged Democrats to justify this.) [...]
Tess Says:
July 11th, 2005 at 9:05 am
Something similar happened in Texas a few years ago, except this time it was the Republicans trying to configure districts in their favor.
Tess Says:
July 11th, 2005 at 9:07 am
Also, are you planning to post anything on the story of the weekend — Karl Rove leaking information?? It seems noteworthy to me.
Patterico Says:
July 11th, 2005 at 10:01 am
It’s the coastal district.
Xrlq Says:
July 11th, 2005 at 11:10 am
Also, are you planning to post anything on the story of the weekend - Karl Rove leaking information?? It seems noteworthy to me.

Probably not, as I haven’t been following that issue terribly closely, and in any event have nothing to say on the topic that hasn’t been said by countles others. All that could change, of course, in the unlikely event that Rove violated a law, or in the more likely event that all the same partisans who had long called for Cooper and Miller to be freed because there was “no underlying crime” suddenly switched gears and decided that since the alleged leaker was Karl Rove, then gee, maybe there was a crime buried in there somewhere after all. But none of this has happened yet, so rather than waste time blogging about all the stupid stuff some Democrats might start doing, I’d rather reserve comment until they actually do (or don’t).

Regardless of the merits of that issue, I’m not sure what it has to do with the topic of this post, which California’s obscenely drawn legislative districts. I also fail to see the relevance of your comment about Texas Republicans supposedly doing the same thing, an allegation which, even if true (and it isn’t), wouldn’t justify anything the Dems are doing here. Tuquoque is not a valid argument.
actus Says:
July 11th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
I would imagine that, were I on the coast, a coastal neighbor might have more in common with me than an inland neighbor. Even one far away. We would be of unity on things like zoning and environmental regulations, beach access, etc..Are there mountains nearby? Like, behind the right edge of the map?
James B. Shearer Says:
July 11th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
It should not be overlooked that the current districts also protect Republican incumbents. This is important because it means Republican support for the initiative may prove to be half-hearted.
Will Buczek Says:
July 11th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
Xrlq, if you wanted to find anything resembling gerrymandering in Texas (which I doubt), the things to check would 20-or-so year old records of school district lines, which enacted a kind of de facto segregation in some regions. Not the proudest part of our state history. Not sure where those lines stand now…

actus, there aren’t mountains behind the strip, but there are foothills (if I remember correctly from the first 18 years of my life). That fact is of no consequence, however, as congressional districting has no business taking into account whether or not you own (or more likely owe on) beachfront property.

Does it make sense to say that a person with beach access should only be grouped with others with beach access, and not grouped with the row of houses behind you which only share proximity to the beach but a view only of the back of another person’s house? It’s a big difference in property value, so does that justify different districting? Why not have a district exactly one house deep, then?

It’s not like anybody’s trying to group together Santa Barbara and Bakersfield in new redistricting (or so I hope). I mean, 100 yards, for God’s sake. There’s no good way to justify that.
Sweetie Says:
July 11th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
“were I on the coast, a coastal neighbor might have more in common with me than an inland neighbor. Even one far away”

Then there should be plenty of examples of coastal strips around the country that are similarly set up……………………….chirp chirp chirp

200 miles on the East Coast is, as an example, Portland Maine to Cape Cod. Draw a circle out 200 miles from where you live. For me in Contra Costa County, CA that would put Reno, NV in my district. And this is defended?
Flap Says:
July 11th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
Come on guys and gals, Flap believes in a fair apportionment but there are substantial geographic reasons for this gerrymander.

But, there are also substantial party registration ones as well, but more importantly demonstrated in legislative districts and other areas of California.

Perhaps the California legislature should have more districts? Read my post on this issue here:

Proposition 77: Does SIZE Really Matter?
Kevin Murphy Says:
July 11th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
Flap, actus –

This district used to includ a LOT more of santa barbara County — including inland. Lois Capp’s margins more than doubled after the seat was redrawn.

IF you argue “affinity” as the Democrat’s reasons, then how come nearly every district bordering South Central has seen Republican votes added into the black-majority districts — not so much as to endanger a Democrat, but enough to make the adjacent seats 60-40 in registration when they were 50-50.

Yes, there are places where there will always be uncompetitive seats (Newport Beach, Lynwood), but that doesn’t explain why Glendale or Culver City are suddenly in lopsided districts.

Given supercomputers, census, party registration and voting data at the precinct level, there’s almost no need for elections anymore. IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?
actus Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 5:32 am
“IF you argue “affinity” as the Democrat’s reasons, then how come nearly every district bordering South Central has seen Republican votes added into the black-majority districts”

I was giving reasons why this district might be the way it is: It makes sense for a coast to be treated as a coast, rather than lumped in with different inland areas.
Flap Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 10:12 am
Kevin,

I cannot recall Santa Barbara county ever been lumped together with inland districts. Ask Bill Thomas.

Where would you go Bakersfield? Taft? Shafter?

The geography defeats your argument here.

Now, with regards to central Los Angeles what areas are really Republican strongholds anyway? Perhaps twenty-thirty years ago but L.A. County is pretty much blue.

There is a need for a fair reapportionment but…. well you know my feelings on this.

BTW Kevin are the comment sections of your blog disabled?
Kevin Murphy Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 11:00 am
to which I say “OH YEAH” (updated to show old and new maps)
Kevin Murphy Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 11:01 am
Flap–

Had a server database issue, fixed now
Flap Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 11:55 am
Kevin,

It is obvious that you have never been to these areas.

Fair apportionment is important but not exaggerated arguments to support it.
Russ Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
I’m originally from Santa Barbara. The congressional district used to include most (if not all) of SB county (which includes the somewhat more conservative ranching country around Santa Maria.) The congressional seat was held for many years by Bob Lagomarsino, a Republican, until some jerk named Huffington decided he’d like to buy himself a seat in Congress.

Yes, that Huffington, curses be upon his head for inflicting Arianna on us.
Flap Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Yes, I remember Campaigning for Bob and attending quite a few of his events.

Now, Santa Maria is a growing area albeit not all of it is a Republican stronghold.

The ranches in and around Solvang, Buellton and Santa Maria make great event venues but yield few Republican voters unfortunately.

The new census will be helpful to CRP in 2010, no doubt.
Kevin Murphy Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Flap–

I live in one of them, and resent being taken out of a competitive district that I help fight for, and being put into Maxine Waters district — which is a lot like “taxation without representation.”

Maxine has never been at any event in this portion of the district in the 3 years she’s been “our” represetative. Too white for her or something. She doesn’t even send us a free mailer at election time, so little does she care.
Kevin Murphy Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
Flap–

BTW, the previous district seems to have included most of SLO and Santa Barbara counties — as state law suggests that districts do, if possible. The law actually says that districts are supposed to be compact and follow city and county boundaries. Obviously the new 23rd doesn’t come close.

GO HERE TO SEE THE OLD 22nd DISTRICT.
Flap Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
Kevin,

Urban Los Angeles is alot different than the Central Coast and Santa Barbara County. LOL…..

I looked at your maps and cannot quite make out your point.

There is no old district really since they are changed every 10 years. Maybe a previous district.

If you mean comparing the current district drawn by the Democrat Legislature and signed into law by Democrat Governor Gray Davis versus a district drawn previously when Wilson was Governor then I will stipulate that there is more of a Democrat gerrymander.

My point is, in this particular instance, this is a coastal district which even if drawn by the Republicans have a more favorable predisposition to vote blue.

Now, with regards to West Los Angeles or Los Angeles County, did you ever consider moving across the hills to Thousand Oaks? LOL….. Gallegly is not too bad!
Xrlq Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
I could have sworn I read somewhere that the last decade’s districts ended up being drawn by a panel of judges, and were therefore a lot less gerrymandered than the current ones across the board.
Kevin Murphy Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
xrlq–

A CA Supreme Court special master did it in 1970 & 1990, the legislature did it in 1980 and 2000. I remember the lasat 3.

See UC Berkely Institute of Governmental Studiesfor details.
Kevin Murphy Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
Flap–

Believe it or not, I like Los Angeles. I like it better when the powers-that-be don’t stack the deck. LA County is maybe 60-40 Democrat. Lose a few 100% Democrat areas and it’s a LOT more even than that. Yet even Republican areas have democrat reps — when a judicial remap had them running even.

You’d probably do better discussing this if you’d, like, paid attention the last few decades.
Flap Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
I was born in Santa Monica and was raised in El Segundo so I know the area quite well. And believe me conservative El Segundo has always been gerrymandered.

I was working in Manhattan Beach last week.

We studied the demographics when I was in high school in the 1960’s and the districts were not favorable for Republicans then for almost all of Los Angeles County. They are just blue areas.

Remember former Assembly Speaker Jess Unruh used to represent Inglewood.

With regards to me paying attention.

My friend, I was an elected member of the Ventura County Republican Central Committee throughout the 1980’s and was a member of the California Republican Party in the 1980’s and 1990’s - for many terms.

I know the districts quite well and have campaigned for many candidates within them.

So, what is your point?
Kevin Murphy Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
SOrry, but with that background, I’m surprised you thought that the 1990 map was a republican gerrymander, when in fact is was a judicial remap run, for once, under the actual compactness rules.

Probably the same kind of consclusion you made when youassumed I didn’t know there are mountains in Santa Barbara & SLO counties.
Kevin Murphy Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
Flap–

Is your oppostion to changing the congressional map based on a principle of not remapping mid-census, or is it the stated Republican congressional objection of “we like these districts” ?

You see, I consder the most important part of the initiative the ban on use of voter registration and other political prefefrence data — it’s offensive to a republic to have the representatives controlling the elections.

Sure some districts will always vote D or R, but that does NOT mean it’s OK to make them all that way on purpose.
Flap Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
It is obvious by your comments regarding the Capp’s district that you do not understand or recognize California geography and you never did answer if you had ever been there. Probably not.

Geogrpahy is important as are demographics in reapportionment efforts. Right? Or how else do you draw the maps?

The 1990 remapping when Pete Wilson was Governor was drawn by the court when the Republican and Democrats deadlocked on the maps.

Did I say that the 1990 remapping was a Republican gerrymander? Or did I say the 1990 districts more favorablly benefited Republican candidates than the 1980 remapping, written by a Democrat controlled legislature and redrafted and signed after a referendum vote by Jerry Brown?

It really doesn’t matter.
Flap Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
Kevin,

You said, “its offensive to a republic to have the representatives controlling the election.”

I disagree.

It should be up to the states, as Article I of the U.S. Constitution provides.

If California voters want to pass Prop. 77 so be it.

Remember this is POLITICS not about being FAIR.
Xrlq Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 7:45 pm
You said, “its offensive to a republic to have the representatives controlling the election.”

I disagree.

It should be up to the states, as Article I of the U.S. Constitution provides.

I’m not sure what you think Article I provides, given that it’s silent on this topic, but in any event you’re presenting a false choice. Just because state legislatures have the power to do something doesn’t mean that no use or abuse of that power can ever be considered offensive. No, I haven’t lived in that district. No, I don’t need to in order to know that there is something terribly wrong, and downright autocratic, about a legislative district stretched thin enough to reach all the way from Oxnard to any part of Monterey County.

Remember this is POLITICS not about being fair.

I don’t think the state or federal constitution says anything about “politics.” It does require the federal government to guarantee a republican form of government in every state, which I’d argue doesn’t exist when the legislature gets to choose the voters instead of vice-versa. Courts have been notoriously lackadaisical about enforcing this clause on their own, so maybe it’s time for Congress to set a few basic ground rules.
Flap Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 8:49 pm
This wasn’t the issue.

The issue was whether geography and demographics should be considered in drawing legislative and congressional districts. I say yes. What do you and Kevin say? What criteria should be used?

Section 4 of Article I provides:

” The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

And what is autocratic about a duly elected legislature passing a bill and the Governor signing it into law? If you did not like the districts you could have circulated a referendum petition, qualified it for the ballot and had a vote of the people.

But, did you, or Kevin or anyone for that matter do that? Ummm No! Autocratic….No way!

Speaking about Article IV, Section 4, in LUTHER v. BORDEN, 48 U.S. 1 (1849) the Supreme Court established the doctrine that questions arising under this section are political, not judicial, in character and that ”it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State . . . as well as its republican character.”

This is POLITICS (see I spelled it right the first time)

Congress can set the rules but will generally defer to each individual state. Can you imagine if the Congress tried to determine and micromanage the boundaries for every state legislative, county and even school districts?

So, is Prop 77 the answer? Is it more fair? Is it appropriate under the cirtcumstances?

The voters will get a chance to decide for themselves - provided the measure is not thrown off the November ballot which I handicap as 50-50 at this point.

As for other states, they can duke it out for themselves.
Xrlq Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 9:22 pm
Section 4 of Article I provides:

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

I know. That was my point. We’re talking about a district in the state Legislature, not the U.S. House and Senate which are the subjects of Article I.

And what is autocratic about a duly elected legislature passing a bill and the Governor signing it into law?

Nothing. You are confusing procedure with substance. That an autocratic policy arises by democratic means does not make it any less autocratic. What if our “duly” elected Legislature passed a law cancelling all future elections entirely, appointing themselves for life? OK if the governor signed it? How about if the last unduly (s)elected Legislature managed to rig the game far enough to give itself a permanent, unshakable, veto-proof majority?

Also, your claim that a “duly” elected Legislature created the boundaries is right only on a technicality. The only reason there was a “duly elected” Legislature around to draw today’s boundaries in 2000 is because the system you’re defending broke down in 1990, leaving it up to the courts. Not that this matters, anyway, unless your idea of democracy is “one man, one vote, once.”

But, did you, or Kevin or anyone for that matter do that? Ummm No! Autocratic…. No way!

Congratulations, you’ve just defined the word “autocratic” out of existence. Most states don’t even allow referenda. I presume that’s not autocratic, either, since they too have Legislatures to duly elect themselves.

Speaking about Article IV, Section 4, in LUTHER v. BORDEN, 48 U.S. 1 (1849) the Supreme Court established the doctrine that questions arising under this section are political, not judicial, in character and that “it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State . . . as well as its republican character.”

That was my point: courts refuse to apply the standard, leading elected officials to jump to the incorrect conclusion that there is no constitutional standard, rather than to the correct one, which is that the standard means what it says, but it is they, not the courts, who are responsible for ensuring compliance with it. Unless you think The “political question” doctrine has no basis in the written Constitution unless you think Marbury v. Madison was incorrectly decided, in which case everything is a political question. Courts simply made it up to avoid ruling on certain parts of the Constitution because, quite frankly, they didn’t feel like ruling on those parts of the Constitution. It is judicial slacktivism of the first degree.

I take that back; it’s second degree judicial slacktivism. The one redeeming trait of the political question doctrine is that while the court does allow a potentially unconstitutional act to stand, at least it admits it is refusing to rule on its constitutionality rather than blessing it as constitutional by upholding it outright. We saw the latter in Kelo, where the court purported to rule on what is or isn’t a “public use” of private land, but then proceded to defer to a local government’s own interpretation of what that meant. Which makes about as much sense as deferring to local police departments to decide what searches and seizures are or are not “unreasonable,” and deferring to judges, juries, prison guards and executioners to determine what punishments are or are not “cruel” or “unusual.”
Flap Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 10:15 pm
Pardon me!

The Capps district which we ae discussing is a Congressional district - like in the House of Representatives.

Your argument on the defintion of autocratic is absurd on its face. And your hypotethetical is deeply flawed. A democratically elected legislature passed a bill and it was signed by a democratically elected Governor. If it was so biased and absurd, like you allude, there are a number of different remedies in California, the referendum and a challenge in the state and federal courts. All of these remedies have been successful or not, depending upon the case and the decade.

And as far as other states, I stated let them duke it out. What is good for our state may not be good for another. What do other states do for their reapportionment? Some states have unicameral legislatures or part-time ones and have different primary election rules. Different states and different rules - all fine by me.

And thanks about making my point about politics. You said, “I don’t think the state or federal constitution says anything about “politics.” But, actually it does and thanks for pointing that out and arguing my point of view so eloquently.

So, do you think Prop 77 is a good measure? And why should anyone vote for it?

Or, should the California Republican Party stop whining, put up better candidates and just win more seats?
Kevin Murphy Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
Courts have been notoriously lackadaisical about enforcing this clause on their own, so maybe it’s time for Congress to set a few basic ground rules.

Or at least the folks in California.

WHat seems to be missing in this resort to legalism is that the system is broken and has been broken for decades. That “gerrymanders” are considered by many to be repugnant should be obvious to anyone who knows American history — they’re named for an 18th Century politician, for godssakes.

THe fact that something has been disfunctional since 1850 doesn’t mean it needs to stay that way. With modern computers the next gerrymander will be perfect — no seat will change hands for a decade.

AND PEOPLE WONDER WHY NO ONE VOTES! Why bother — it’s all been arranged in the back room.

The state says that districts should be compact and follow city and county lines. The 23rd does neither and the previous district represented by the same representative in the same population centers was quite able to do so — it followed county lines, not the portion of the county west of the coast range.

Yes I’ve been there, mostly traveling between San Jose and LA, but occasionally staying in SLO or some coastal getaway. I do know it’s a bitch to get to the eastern parts of several counties. HOWEVER, they still have those counties as they are, so why districts can’t be the same isn’t entirely clear.

But what the Hell. Maybe this is as Flap says — a bad example driven by geography. Then tell me — why are the statistics so very different between the 90’s and now? Why does nearly every district get decided in a landslide? Just luck? The AVERAGE winning percentage for Congress in California is about 30%.

Instead of competative districts we have a divided-up state of sigle-party districts. Hard to call this a Democratic Republic — more like Iran and the Guardian Council than most would like to admit.
Kevin Murphy Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 11:09 pm
A democratically elected legislature passed a bill and it was signed by a democratically elected Governor.

That’s the issue, isn’t it.

Or, should the California Republican Party stop whining, put up better candidates and just win more seats?

Obviously you intend to ignore reality here. I will make you a bet: no Congressional seat will change hands in 2006 in California. There is no second party in any district. The deal’s been made, the pols paid off, and the people just have to learn to like it.

I wrote this in 2003:

I’ve been doing some research on CA’s other problem (OK, one of the other problems) — the Gerrymander. A few quick notes:

* In 2002, the closest Congressional election (Gerry Condit’s open seat) had a spread of 7.9%.

* Fully 50 of the 53 Congressional seats had spreads in excess of 20%.

* The average 2-party spread per seat was a whopping 39%.

* The overall 2-party vote was 54-46. [Note: In computing this I lump G's with D's and L's with R's. Actual split 53.5 - 42.5 - 3.5(L) - 0.5]

* The seat split was 62%-38, which is not horribly out-of-line.

Now maybe that’s an aberation. So let’s look at the Assembly.

* Same overall 2-party vote (54-46)

* The average district spread was 38%.

* There *were* 3 close races (out of 80) (less that 5% spread)

* 71 out of 80 seats were won by spreads of 20% or more.

* The seat split here was 60%-40%

Classic case of an incumbent protection gerrymander — nearly every seat a safe one. Not so much a partisan gerrymander, as the seat split pretty fairly follows the vote split.

2004 didn’t prove me wrong. Neither will 2006.
Kevin Murphy Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 11:10 pm
Ooops. The link to that last is here
Xrlq Says:
July 12th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
The Capps district which we ae discussing is a Congressional district - like in the House of Representatives.

True, but do you really think the State Senate and Assembly Districts are any better? They draw their own districts, too, after all.

Your argument on the defintion of autocratic is absurd on its face. And your hypotethetical is deeply flawed. A democratically elected legislature passed a bill and it was signed by a democratically elected Governor.

Again, you are confusing substance with process. My hypothetical also involved a democratically elected Legislature voting democratically to abolish democracy, and either having the bill signed into law by a duly elected governor, or even more democratically passed over his veto by a super-democratic supermajority. You can’t rely on the fact that a democratic process was followed (assuming, of course, that it was) as evidence that the act itself wasn’t autocratic. Hitler was perhaps the best known democratically elected autocrat, but he’s by no means the only one, Hugo Chavez being a more current example.

And as far as other states, I stated let them duke it out. What is good for our state may not be good for another. What do other states do for their reapportionment? Some states have unicameral legislatures or part-time ones and have different primary election rules. Different states and different rules - all fine by me.

Not so fast. A few comments back, you were essentially arguing that the very fact that Prop 77 wasn’t passed by voter initiative or referendum a long time ago is proof that the existing system is not autocratic. Now you’re giving a pass to other states whose legislatures resort to similar stunts, but which do not have the voter initiative system and therefore offer voters no real hope of fixing the system. Are you saying that isn’t autocratic, either, or that autocracy is fine by you as long as it happens to someone else’s state?

So, do you think Prop 77 is a good measure? And why should anyone vote for it?

Yes, I think it is. And the reason I think it is, is because I think it would be far more democratic, and result in a Legislature far more legitimate, than the current system, which I find much too autocratic. Of course, I’ll never convince enough Californians to vote for it if too many of them assume that the status quo can’t be “autocratic” by definition solely because Prop 77 wasn’t enacted years ago!
Kevin Murphy Says:
July 13th, 2005 at 12:06 am
It should be noted that the last 2 times a reapportionment measure “qualified” for the ballot, the CA Supreme Court vote it off the ballot.

In 1982, the voters rejected, by referendum, the lines the legislature drew. The legislature then passed almost the same districts by supermajority, as “an emergency” measure. When a referrendum was again submitted to veto the “new” lines, the Rose Bird court declared the referrendum illegal, claiming the reapportionment was done the moment the emergency measure passed and only one reapportionemnt is allowed per census.

In 1999, there was a Costa redistricting initiative (prop 24) that qualified for the March 2000 ballot — well in time for the 2000 census. It had, however, the “defect” of also capping legislative pay, and the California Supreme Court used its inconsistantly-applied “two subject” rule to yank it off the ballot. [Consider Scalia's commetns about Lemon, but I digress.]

And again they sue, claiming some minor defect. I’ll bet you the fix is in again. See the student court scene in Animal House for the flavor of my response.
Xrlq Says:
July 13th, 2005 at 1:59 am
Ah, but you’re forgetting the basics. Remember, if the Legislature and/or the Governor sign on to it, it isn’t autocratic. If the courts bless it, well don’t you dare challenge the independence of the judiciary.
Flap Says:
July 13th, 2005 at 5:47 am
But, Xrlq and Kevin,

Please make the case as to why Prop. 77 with its NON-autocratic provisions? is any better than the current system?

Since there are legislative and judicial remedies to the current system how will that change with Prop. 77? They won’t! Referendum is still there and so is judicial review.

And how is a three judge panel appointed by legislative leaders not more autocratic than a vote of the legislature?
So, you both are arguing a three judge appointed panel with public hearings is less autocratic than a vote of the elected legislature and concurrence by the elected Governor. And I wish you luck trying to pursuade the voters.

Ridiculous.

And, Xrlq, the Congressional districts like Capp’s are different because of their population requirement - i.e. fewer seats.

Kevin, few congressional seats change every two years. Prop 77 won’t change that. Incumbents have a huge advantage and how many years was it that the Democrats had a lock on the House majority - 40 years or so? - until Clinton and Newt changed up the mix.

Ok, guys, make your case for Prop. 77.

You have a long way to go.
Xrlq Says:
July 13th, 2005 at 7:32 am
So, you both are arguing a three judge appointed panel with public hearings is less autocratic than a vote of the elected legislature and concurrence by the elected Governor.

Of course it is. Legislators draw boundaries to benefit a particular party and/or particular legislators, while judges generally don’t. It’s not a hard concept to grasp, really, once you move past your fixation on the fact that Legislators were elected (sort of). FWIW, so are judges.

Congressional districts are much larger, of course, but the Legislature’s boundaries are no better. I don’t doubt that there are several legislative districts that are every bit as ridiculous as Capp’s. If anything I’m more bothered by the idea of the legislature drawing up its own districts (or courts setting their own jurisdiction, or anyone but me fixing his own salary, etc.) than I am by the idea of one legislative body drawing up districts for a subset of another.
Flap Says:
July 13th, 2005 at 7:56 am
Of course legislators draw boundaries to benefit a particular party. This is POLITICS.

What you are asking in Prop. 77 is for legislative leaders to appoint 3 political hack judges who will do the dirty work for them. And you won’t be able to get rid of them, unlike the legilsators by either voting them out of office or using the referendum or recall.

And Judges are elected…… yes, but most are appointed and then confirmed in an election with no opponent most of the time.

And give me an example of legislative districts like Capp’s congressional district? Do you have any evidence or just using the excuse that Republicans cannot win elections because they run in gerrymandered districts, like Kevin. Falp tires of the 25 year old excuses and whining.

I have no problem with Prop. 77 if it is adopted by the voters. But the voters have had this type of measure presented to them at least three times since the 1980’s and they have rejected every one.

Remember Prop 14, 118 and 119?
Xrlq Says:
July 13th, 2005 at 9:39 am
Of course legislators draw boundaries to benefit a particular party. This is POLITICS.

Well, duh. That’s why anyone who doesn’t specifically want to benefit the Democrat Party at the expense of democracy generally should get behind Prop 77.

What you are asking in Prop. 77 is for legislative leaders to appoint 3 political hack judges who will do the dirty work for them.

No, I’m asking them to appoint three non-hack judges to do clean work that you yourself admit the Legislature itself would never do, and cannot be realistically expected to do.

And you won’t be able to get rid of them, unlike the legilsators by either voting them out of office or using the referendum or recall.

I don’t know what you are talking about. You can’t vote anyone out of office by referendum; referenda target legislation, not officials. Does Prop 77 contain a provision that makes legislative districts referendum-proof? I rather doubt that it does, but if it does, I promise to support Prop 77 1/2 to address that problem in the future.

As recall and tradtional non-reelection, I fail to see why you think it’s easier for voters to boot out legislators than it is to do the same to judges. Both are subject to re-election and recall, the main difference is that the individual Legislator got to hand-pick which voters will or will not have an opportunity to vote him out, making himself virtually election-proof unless he screwed up. The judge never had that luxury.

And Judges are elected…… yes, but most are appointed and then confirmed in an election with no opponent most of the time.

That’s because judges don’t generally do the scummy stuff you condone by calling it “politics.” The last time judges drew up our legislative districts, the lines weren’t perfect but they were an order of magnitude better than anything the Legislature has come up with before or since. As to the judges who do act like politicians in robes, do the names Rose Bird, Joseph Grodin and Cruz Reynoso ring any bells?

And give me an example of legislative districts like Capp’s congressional district?

I’ll have to get back to you on that one. My guess is that there are a few, but that they don’t look quite so ridiculous on the map.

I have no problem with Prop. 77 if it is adopted by the voters.

Then you should have a problem with Bill Lockyer suing to prevent voters from getting to vote on it at all.

But the voters have had this type of measure presented to them at least three times since the 1980’s and they have rejected every one. Remember Prop 14, 118 and 119?

Not off the top of my head, no, so I had to do a little Googling. After doing so, I must say that your description of the three initiatives as voters having an opportunity “at least three times since the 1980s” is a very strange way of saying “twice, in 1982 and 1990.”
Flap Says:
July 13th, 2005 at 11:13 am
Of course legislators draw boundaries to benefit a particular party. This is POLITICS.

Well, duh. That’s why anyone who doesn’t specifically want to benefit the Democrat Party at the expense of democracy generally should get behind Prop 77.

I thought we had a political system - oh excuse me prehaps you prefer a judicial system since you are a member of the bar. There is no expense of democracy here. If you do not like the maps that are drawn by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor then you have the referendum and/or the courts. This has been done before and will be done again.

What you are asking in Prop. 77 is for legislative leaders to appoint 3 political hack judges who will do the dirty work for them.

No, I’m asking them to appoint three non-hack judges to do clean work that you yourself admit the Legislature itself would never do, and cannot be realistically expected to do.

Oh Yeah right! And who do you think will appoint the retired judges? Oh… legislative leaders. You are trading one political system for another that is less accountable to the voters.

And you won’t be able to get rid of them, unlike the legilsators by either voting them out of office or using the referendum or recall.

I don’t know what you are talking about. You can’t vote anyone out of office by referendum; referenda target legislation, not officials. Does Prop 77 contain a provision that makes legislative districts referendum-proof? I rather doubt that it does, but if it does, I promise to support Prop 77 1/2 to address that problem in the future.

It is obvious that you don’t UNDERSTAND what I am discussing but don’t patronize me about the understanding of the difference between referndum and recall. The three judge panel will not be accountable to anyone and not subject to recall. There is simply not enough time for a practical matter and I do not beleive the measure, a constitutional amendment allows for it. And Prop. 77 allows for referenda on the judges decision….. so when one side or another is agrieved more court cases and special masters…. so why bother?

As recall and tradtional non-reelection, I fail to see why you think it’s easier for voters to boot out legislators than it is to do the same to judges. Both are subject to re-election and recall, the main difference is that the individual Legislator got to hand-pick which voters will or will not have an opportunity to vote him out, making himself virtually election-proof unless he screwed up. The judge never had that luxury.

I do remember recently a recall of a California Governor. Voters do not even know who the hell their judges are. What makes you think that unless they are a prevert that they will ever be recalled? A legislator is publically accountable and at least you can find their office and telephone number. Ever phone an appellate court judge lately? No Way - they are cloistered in their chambers like the monks.

And Judges are elected…… yes, but most are appointed and then confirmed in an election with no opponent most of the time.

That’s because judges don’t generally do the scummy stuff you condone by calling it “politics.” The last time judges drew up our legislative districts, the lines weren’t perfect but they were an order of magnitude better than anything the Legislature has come up with before or since. As to the judges who do act like politicians in robes, do the names Rose Bird, Joseph Grodin and Cruz Reynoso ring any bells?

I have known many scummy judges and even scummier attorneys…. scummy dentists for that matter. The last time a special master drew up the districts what effect did it have? Where the districts more fair? Do you have any evidence or just a “feeling” here. And, yes, I remember Rose Bird because I actively campaigned against her. But, what makes you think that the Democrats wil not appoint a Rose Bird type to the judicial panel drawing the districts. Prop. 77 is simply just another system.

And give me an example of legislative districts like Capp’s congressional district?

I’ll have to get back to you on that one. My guess is that there are a few, but that they don’t look quite so ridiculous on the map.

Lokking forward to it.

I have no problem with Prop. 77 if it is adopted by the voters.

Then you should have a problem with Bill Lockyer suing to prevent voters from getting to vote on it at all.

I will let a scummy judge decide that issue. It amazes me that Costa et. al. couldn’t get it right the first time. Clumsy play.

But the voters have had this type of measure presented to them at least three times since the 1980’s and they have rejected every one. Remember Prop 14, 118 and 119?

Not off the top of my head, no, so I had to do a little Googling. After doing so, I must say that your description of the three initiatives as voters having an opportunity “at least three times since the 1980s” is a very strange way of saying “twice, in 1982 and 1990.”

Yup, because the census and reapportionment is done every 10 years. And, in 2000, the Democrat controlled legislature passed a plan that Democrat Governor Gray Davis signed into law. Now the CRP and others (like Bill Mundell, who wants to ride this issue into the U.S. Senate vs Feinstein in 2006) want to change the rules. This is understandable but also partisan. Xrlq call it the way it is. It is a power grab back from the Democrats.

It is for the proponents of Prop. 77 to convince the voters that a change in the system will actually benefit them and not just the Republicans and the retired judges who need a part-time job.
Xrlq Says:
July 13th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
I thought we had a political system …

Of course we do, but some of us consider that more of a bug than a feature. There’s nothing I’d like more than to see Prop 77 debated by both sides on those terms. I don’t think you’ll get too much support for “politics” as an end in itself.

Oh Yeah right! And who do you think will appoint the retired judges? Oh… legislative leaders. You are trading one political system for another that is less accountable to the voters.

Judges sworn to uphold the law are a hell of a lot less political, and a lot more accountable than legislators picking which voters they will and won’t be “accountable” to.

The last time a special master drew up the districts what effect did it have? Where the districts more fair? Do you have any evidence or just a “feeling” here.

You’re the one arguing “feelings,” not me. There’s no question that several districts were more competitive in the 1990s than they are now. As recently as 1994, the Republicans even managed to gain a slim majority in one house and a tie in the other, only to lose both two years later. By contrast, perhaps you’d care to remind me exactly how many legislative districts in California changed hands in 2004, in either direction.

Xrlq call it the way it is. It is a power grab back from the Democrats.

The existing system was itself a power grab. I have no problem with grabbing the power back, and even less of a problem doing so in a way that aims at promoting democracy and fairness generally, not at benefitting any particular party, and certainly not as to any particular legislators. Incumbents on both sides of the aisle stand to lose if redistricting reforms are enacted. And if that means we have to spend a little money hiring neutral parties to act in the state’s best interest rather than rely on Legislators to act in their own, so be it. We wouldn’t tolerate that sort of self-dealing in a publicly traded company, so why on earth should we tolerate it from government?
Flap Says:
July 13th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
I thought we had a political system …

Of course we do, but some of us consider that more of a bug than a feature. There’s nothing I’d like more than to see Prop 77 debated by both sides on those terms. I don’t think you’ll get too much support for “politics” as an end in itself.

HUH? Want to bet the Governor and Democrats agree on a redistricting panel with a change in term limits as a competing measure to Prop. 77. And then what do you say about POLITICAL? Would you support a change in term limits in order to get your panel? Do you think either measure would then pass in November? NOT.

Oh Yeah right! And who do you think will appoint the retired judges? Oh… legislative leaders. You are trading one political system for another that is less accountable to the voters.

Judges sworn to uphold the law are a hell of a lot less political, and a lot more accountable than legislators picking which voters they will and won’t be “accountable” to.

Judges are neither less political nor more accountable. What courtrooms have you been frequenting and what opinions have you been reading? Judges just do not campaign overtly, but alot is done within their cloisters and the club of attorneys and the court - and every day.

The last time a special master drew up the districts what effect did it have? Where the districts more fair? Do you have any evidence or just a “feeling” here.

You’re the one arguing “feelings,” not me. There’s no question that several districts were more competitive in the 1990s than they are now. As recently as 1994, the Republicans even managed to gain a slim majority in one house and a tie in the other, only to lose both two years later. By contrast, perhaps you’d care to remind me exactly how many legislative districts in California changed hands in 2004, in either direction.

Your evidence is not compelling. Elections are dynamic and reflect the times. “No question”….sound like “feelings” to me or more like speculation. And the answer to your question is none and how many incumbent Presidents have been defeated for re-election - not many either - maybe a half dozen in 100 years. How many incumbent House seats changed up in 2004? A few, maybe. Incumbents are hard to beat, in any case.

Xrlq call it the way it is. It is a power grab back from the Democrats.

The existing system was itself a power grab. I have no problem with grabbing the power back, and even less of a problem doing so in a way that aims at promoting democracy and fairness generally, not at benefitting any particular party, and certainly not as to any particular legislators. Incumbents on both sides of the aisle stand to lose if redistricting reforms are enacted. And if that means we have to spend a little money hiring neutral parties to act in the state’s best interest rather than rely on Legislators to act in their own, so be it. We wouldn’t tolerate that sort of self-dealing in a publicly traded company, so why on earth should we tolerate it from government?

Glad you recognize Prop. 77 as a power grab. But, stop there. The argument that it promotes democracy, etc. falls flat with your admission that the measure is a reverse power grab. Thank you for making my argument and calling it like it really is - self-dealing from the Republican side of the aisle. Which I do not mind, by the way, but am honest in my arguments to admit it instead of relying on CRP talking points and worn-out cliches.

Watch the Governor deal away Prop. 77. Have you heard anything yet?
Xrlq Says:
July 13th, 2005 at 9:14 pm
Your evidence is not compelling. Elections are dynamic and reflect the times.

Oh, I see. Voting was “dynamic” in the 1990s, and such dynamism just “happened” to disappear at the turn of the century. That the last decade’s boundaries were drawn by individuals with no incentive to stack the deck in anybody’s favor while the current districts were drawn by the very same individuals who magically started “winning” every election since then is pure coincidence.

For one so eager to demand evidence of the other side, and one so eager to explain it away when provided with it, you’ve yet to offer any evidence at all to support yours. Here’s a good place to start: provide real, hard evidence that voting trends in California really are significantly less “dynamic” than they were in the 1990s, and that the complete lack of turnover is not due to the fact that the Legislature has engineered districts so election-proof as to render such dynamism meaningless (or, if you prefer, “meaningful” only in the sense that President Hussein occasionally has to settle for an 80%/20% re-election margin rather than the usual 100%/0%).

Glad you recognize Prop. 77 as a power grab. But, stop there. The argument that it promotes democracy, etc. falls flat with your admission that the measure is a reverse power grab.

No, it doesn’t. A “reverse power grab” in that sense would be to push for a law that allows Duf Sundheim to draw all the districts to give Republicans the same artificial advantages Democrats enjoy now. Busting up one party’s lock on power is not the same thing as handing a lock to the other party. To argue otherwise is no better than liberals arguing that anyone who doesn’t support affirmative action for blacks and Hispanics must privately support it for whites.

And the answer to your question is none and how many incumbent Presidents have been defeated for re-election - not many either - maybe a half dozen in 100 years. How many incumbent House seats changed up in 2004? A few, maybe. Incumbents are hard to beat, in any case.
Flap Says:
July 13th, 2005 at 9:40 pm
Your evidence is not compelling. Elections are dynamic and reflect the times.

Oh, I see. Voting was “dynamic” in the 1990s, and such dynamism just “happened” to disappear at the turn of the century. That the last decade’s boundaries were drawn by individuals with no incentive to stack the deck in anybody’s favor while the current districts were drawn by the very same individuals who magically started “winning” every election since then is pure coincidence.

Then why didn’t you file a referendum petition and throw such poorly and unfairly drawn districts back into the courts like in the 1990’s? You didn’t and neither did Costa and other Prop. 77 proponents because either:

1. Laziness

2. Acquiescence of status quo

3. Lack of resources

4. or the Districts were close enough anyway

For one so eager to demand evidence of the other side, and one so eager to explain it away when provided with it, you’ve yet to offer any evidence at all to support yours.

I am not a proponent of Prop. 77. However, you and Kevin have not provided a sufficient rationale to pursuade me to vote to change the California Constitution. It is your burden of proof.

Here’s a good place to start: provide real, hard evidence that voting trends in California really are significantly less “dynamic” than they were in the 1990s, and that the complete lack of turnover is not due to the fact that the Legislature has engineered districts so election-proof as to render such dynamism meaningless (or, if you prefer, “meaningful” only in the sense that President Hussein occasionally has to settle for an 80%/20% re-election margin rather than the usual 100%/0%).

But, remember these are 10 year plans. The census changes the dynamics as do the political office holders. so, how do you factor these variables into your argument?

Glad you recognize Prop. 77 as a power grab. But, stop there. The argument that it promotes democracy, etc. falls flat with your admission that the measure is a reverse power grab.

No, it doesn’t. A “reverse power grab” in that sense would be to push for a law that allows Duf Sundheim to draw all the districts to give Republicans the same artificial advantages Democrats enjoy now. Busting up one party’s lock on power is not the same thing as handing a lock to the other party. To argue otherwise is no better than liberals arguing that anyone who doesn’t support affirmative action for blacks and Hispanics must privately support it for whites.

Not a good analogy. But, since you admit Prop. 77 is a power grab that is enough. This is what the Democrats will argue and ask who has paid the enormous costs of circulating and processing the Prop. 77 initiative positions and why? What is Bill Mundell’s interest in spending hundreds of thousands of his own dollars. Answer: He wants to ride the election, boast his Republican name ID, win the Republican Primary and run against Feinstein in 2oo6. The election for Mundell is an individual power grab…. not an altruistic fair reapportionment. Sorry!

And the answer to your question is none and how many incumbent Presidents have been defeated for re-election - not many either - maybe a half dozen in 100 years. How many incumbent House seats changed up in 2004? A few, maybe. Incumbents are hard to beat, in any case.
triticale Says:
July 14th, 2005 at 9:23 am
The solution is trivially simply. District lines run due east-west. Spacing changes, every census, based on equal population, and thus, in California becomes wider as you travel north.
Xrlq Says:
July 14th, 2005 at 11:53 am
Then why didn’t you file a referendum petition and throw such poorly and unfairly drawn districts back into the courts like in the 1990’s?

I think you know as well as I do why I didn’t file a referendum petition back then, but Costa can speak for himself. Perhaps Costa had more important things to worry about, like determining who would end up in the White House, which was a pretty important issue in 2000 but a non-issue in 1990 - or figured that voters did. Or maybe he thought it best to let the new districts run through a few election cycles, thereby allowing him to prove rather than merely assert that they were election-proof. Or perhaps there was some other reason. It doesn’t matter. The mere fact that Prop 77 is being presented to voters now rather than 5 years ago is not evidence that it shouldn’t have been voted on years ago.

I am not a proponent of Prop. 77.

No one accused you of being a proponent. Obviously, you are an opponent, else there wouldn’t be anything to argue about here.

However, you and Kevin have not provided a sufficient rationale to pursuade me to vote to change the California Constitution. It is your burden of proof.

First, it’s persuade, not pursuade. I assumed it was a typo the first time, so I let it go. Now it’s starting to grate.

Second, and more importantly, you’re reading way too much into this burden of proof thing. This is a political discussion, not a trial, so both sides ought to be presenting their respective arguments, not one side making its case and the other relying entirely on “n’uh uh, I don’t like your evidence” and then claiming victory on a TKO.

Come to think of it, even real trials, civil ones at least, don’t work that way. To the extent this is a “trial,” Kevin and I are the plaintiffs and you’re the defendant. That meant the burden of proof was on us, initially, but we met that burden by providing some evidence in support of our positions. Now the burden shifts to you to present stronger, or at least equally strong, evidence in support of your contrary position. If the trial ends here, with us having presented less than a rock solid case while presented no case at all, we win.

Not a good analogy.

Only because you don’t like the conclusion. Otherwise, it’s a perfectly fine analogy, as the underlying issue is the same. In both cases, Law L systematically favors Group A over Group B. In both cases, it comes as no surprise that most members of Group A support L, while all but a few self-loathing suckers in Group B oppose it. Also, in both cases, members of Group A who like L realize they have no way to justify it on the merits, so their best argument is to muddy the waters and pretend any effort to abolish or reform L is really a just an underhanded effort to replace it with a law equally unfair to Group A. By leaving us with a false choice between favoring A over B or B or A, while leaving out the obviously better choice of favoring neither, A preserves L by persuading neutral party C that its preferred option (favoring no one) does not exist, and that the only choice is between two (im-)moral equivalents.

In the case of Prop 77, if A (the Dems) can con enough members of C (independents) into splitting on the issue 50-50, as Willie Brown managed to do in 1990, then they’ve got their majority, and Prop 77 will fail. But if everyone really understands the issue they are voting on, only those who support systematically favoring Democrats over Republicans or incumbents over non-incumbents will vote “no” on 77. Anyone who either favors reverse discrimination in Republicans’ or nonincumbents’ favor (which Prop 77 doesn’t do, but if that’s your objective, Prop 77 is the nearest viable option), or favors no discrimination in anybody’s favor (which is what Prop 77 does), should have little trouble figuring out what to do. The only Republicans who have a reason even to be conflicted on the issue are those who love protecting their incumbents more than they hate Democrats.

And the answer to your question is none and how many incumbent Presidents have been defeated for re-election - not many either - maybe a half dozen in 100 years.

Between that comment and your earlier characterization of two elections during an eight-year period in the 1980s as “at least three times since the 1980’s,” I have to hand it to you for your ability to use technically true language deceptively. Perhaps your real calling was as a trial lawyer rather than a dentist. A hundred years sounds like a long time, but we’re only talking about 25 elections, which is less than one-third the number we have every two years in the California Assembly alone. Of those 25, eight were for open seats, so re-electing or rejecting an incumbent was only possible 17 times, with four of those involving accidental incumbents who were completing someone else’s term. That leaves us with a whopping 13 elections in which a duly elected, sitting President even sought re-election, and two of those (FDR’s third and fourth elections) were unprecedented then and unconstitutional now.

Now that we’ve come down from that lofty phrase “100 years” to the more honest phrase “11 elections that mean anything by today’s standards,” let’s look at those 11 a little more closely (source):

1912 - Challenger Woodrow Wilson defeats incumbent William Howard Taft, who comes in as a distant third behind ex-incumbent Theodore Roosevelt.
1916 - Incumbent Wilson re-elected.
1932 - Challenger Franklin Roosevelt beats incumbent Herbert Hoover.
1936 - Incumbent Roosevelt re-elected.
1956 - Incumbent Dwight Eisenhower re-elected.
1972 - Incumbent Richard Nixon re-elected.
1980 - Challenger Ronald Reagan defeats incumbent / Nobel Laureate Jimmy Carter.
1984 - Incumbent Ronald Reagan Reelected.
1992 - Challenger Bill Clinton defeats incumbent George Herbert Walker Bush.
1996 - Incumbent Bill Clinton re-elected.
2004 - Incumbebt George Walker Bush re-elected.

What I wouldn’t give for a legislative districting reform that winnowed incumbent’s edge over challengers down to something as manageable as 7-4. If you think I should have included the accidental incumbents, fine. Throw in the “reelections” of unelected incumbent Coolidge in 1924, Truman in 1948 and Johnson in 1964, but then you also have to include Carter’s defeat of incumbent Ford in 1976, and should also count 1968 as an incumbent’s upset since Johnson’s only reason for not running was that he knew he had no chance of winning if he did. So my 7-4 ratio becomes a slightly more competitive 10-6. Even if you throw in the kitchen sink and FDR’s now unconstitutional (and therefore, now irrelevant) re-elections, the biggest incumbent edge you can tease out of that is 12-6, giving the average incumbent a straight 2:1 edge.

I defy you to produce a single example of a legislative district in California where incumbents currently enjoy only a 2 to 1 advantage over their challengers. There were a few districts like that in the 1990s; there aren’t anymore.
Flap Says:
July 14th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
Xrlq,

Thanks for going ad hominem about my spelling and I will stipulate my typing and proof-reading skills really leave alot to be desired So, I have made sure each of my four children received excellent instruction in keyboarding and typing.

Thank you, also, for the compliment about being a trial attorney, perhaps I will give it a whirl after my children finish law school. However, I enjoy treating patients and arguing with you either between patients, lunch or when I am out of the dental office.

Your analysis of the Presidential elections is impressive. But, California had a term limits initiative become law in 1990 with the first full effects im 1996 and 1998. All incumbents then changed and an increased dynamics of office holders switching seats from assembly to senate and vice versa. Of course, there are no term limits for the Congressional seats - wasn’t it the 9th Circuit and Reinhardt that invalidated that in 1997? Thus, the data is different from previous decades and your challenge to compare the decade of the 1990’s legislative seats to today’s seats will not be consistent. Also, remember it is not my position that the currently drawn districts are fair - because they are not. The Democrats drew the districts to their advantage - DUH! But, this is POLITICS.

There were remedies to you, Costa and the CRP in response to the 2000 census.

2000 California reapportionment

“The 2001 redistricting plan was enacted in two separate bills: AB632 covering Senate and Congressional districts, and SB802 covering Assembly and Board of Equalization districts.”

“The bills passed the legislature September 13, 2001, and were signed by the governor September 26, 2001.”

An excuse of the 2000 Presidential election really doesn’t hold water, since the bills passed almost a year AFTER that election.

A referendum petition could have been circulated but there was really no evidence that the districts were unfairly gerrymandered. In fact, since 2001, there have been only two legislative and congressional elections 2002 and 2004. There is not alot to compare, in any case.

So, since the statuatory time has run to file a referendum petition for the current redistricting plan, why not try an initiative to throw out the entire process and resurrect the judicial panel plan - which has been rejected twice at the polls in the past twenty years.

I am not an opponent of Prop.77, nor a proponent. I have stated my position on it at my blog and folks are welcome to go over there to read about it.

Xrlq, if you want voters to support this measure you will have to campaign for it. The burden is on you, Kevin and Costa to successfully argue the proposition. Flap doesn’t have to provide evidence against it, but will simply vote against any change if you do not make your case.
Xrlq Says:
July 14th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
I’m not sure why you think term limits would make voting trends any more “dynamic” in the 1990s than they were in the 00s. If anything, they should be more “dynamic” now, as the vast majority of Legislators in office in the 1990s were seasoned veterans who had had more experience playing the game than today’s Legislators do. Whatever psychological impact term limits may have had on voters should be similar, if not identical, as everyone knew the writing was on the wall from 1990 on.

You are correct that state term limits on Congressmen were held unconstitutional; however, that decision was made by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1995 case of U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, which originated in Arkansas. The Ninth Circuit case you are probably thinking of is Bates v. Jones, in which a three judge panel voted 2-1 (the 2 being well-known ultraliberal whackjobs Stephen Reinhardt and Betty Fletcher) ruled that state term limits were unconstitutional because voters in 1990 were too damned stoooopid to understand that term limits applied for life. That kooky decision was overruled a few months later by the Ninth Circuit itself, en banc.

Also, remember it is not my position that the currently drawn districts are fair - because they are not. The Democrats drew the districts to their advantage - DUH! But, this is POLITICS.

So what exactly is your position? That unfairness is good? Or that new legislative boundaries will be even less fair if they are drawn up by a disinterested group of individuals with no (known or suspected) aspirations to seek positions in the Legislature themselves, and who would in fact be prohibited by law from taking political data, voter history and incumbent addresses into account? The latter theory defies reason.

A referendum petition could have been circulated but there was really no evidence that the districts were unfairly gerrymandered. In fact, since 2001, there have been only two legislative and congressional elections 2002 and 2004. There is not alot to compare, in any case.

No, but if one suspected in 2001 that the legislative districts were bad, two election cycles with almost no turnover in first and none whatsoever in the second is something. It’s certainly stronger evidence than could have existed during the brief period in which a referendum was possible. If we waited another cycle or two, you could just as easily argue that it makes no sense to change the system this late in the game; why not wait and see if the Legislature will draw up better boundaries in 2011? Etc.

[W]hy not try an initiative to throw out the entire process and resurrect the judicial panel plan - which has been rejected twice at the polls in the past twenty years.

Ahem. That’s once in the past 20 years, thank you very much, and zero in the past 15. To suggest that the outcome of two ill-fated, dueling initiatives in the 1990 primary is any indication at all as to how Prop 77 would fare in a special election 15 1/2 years later is nonsense on stilts.

Flap doesn’t have to provide evidence against it, but will simply vote against any change if you do not make your case.

Great. So you’re one of those guys. If you really can’t see any advantage or disadvantage to a particular ballot initiative, the responsible thing to do is not to vote on it at all. To reflexively vote either “yes” or “no” by default makes no more sense than it would to reflexively vote for the candidate whose last name comes earlier (or later) in the alphabet - unless, of course, you’re satisfied that the other guy has “made his case.”
Flap Says:
July 14th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
[W]hy not try an initiative to throw out the entire process and resurrect the judicial panel plan - which has been rejected twice at the polls in the past twenty years.

Yes, I should have said three times in the past 25 years.

Prop 14., November 1982, asked voters to turn over redistricting to a 10-member commission.

“Democracy has no firmer foundation than free and fair elections,” read the argument in support, signed by former President Gerald Ford.

“Nothing does more damage to fair elections than allowing legislators to draw their own districts.”

Sounds familiar.

Californians voted Prop. 14 down

June 1990

Proposition 118 would have required redistricting plans to be approved by a two-thirds vote of lawmakers, rather than a simple majority.

The argument against that, signed by the chairman of Common Cause, said the measure “guarantees an incumbent protection gerrymander.”

Proposition 118 failed at the polls

June 1990

Prop. 119 proposed giving redistricting power to a 12-member commission, appointed by three retired appeals court justices.

The argument in favor, signed by the president of the California League of Women Voters, pointed out that “since California’s reapportionment a decade ago, of 580 legislative races, only 9 have seen incumbents defeated. The Legislature has become a self-protection club for both Republicans and Democrats.” Sound familiar?

Prop 119 was opposed by the CTA and other public employee unions and failed at the polls.

Now, the 1990 redistricting was drawn by a special master of the California Supreme Court when the Democrat legislature passed a redistrcting plan and Governor Wilson vetoed it.

The Democrats held control of the legislature and Governorship in 2000 and drew the current maps.

Term limits passed in 1990 and took first effect in 1996 and 1998.

Now, there is Prop. 77 which is similar to Prop 119.

Oh, Flap will vote on Prop. 77 and am still waiting for you and Kevin to make your case in favor of Prop. 77.
Xrlq Says:
July 14th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
Yes, I should have said three times in the past 25 years.

If you speak some strange dialect of English where June 5, 1990 and June 5, 1990 count as two separate “times,” then I suppose so. Maybe we shouldn’t have term limits since term limits failed more times than it passed, if you count the competing measures that were also on the November 1990 ballot.

The argument in favor, signed by the president of the California League of Women Voters, pointed out that “since California’s reapportionment a decade ago, of 580 legislative races, only 9 have seen incumbents defeated. The Legislature has become a self-protection club for both Republicans and Democrats.” Sound familiar?

It does, it should, for the same reason. The boundaries she was talking about, from 1980, were also drawn up by the Legislature. And surprise, surprise, they were undemocratic then, too. But of course you don’t care, since Kevin and I haven’t “made our case” that democracy is a good thing. Not that we can, really, as you have yet to elaborate as to what facts, if established, would constitute “making our case” in your book. Or, for that matter, why on earth anyone in his right mind would want to vote on an initiative, either for or against it, if he didn’t think either side had made whatever he considers a “case.”
Flap Says:
July 14th, 2005 at 7:50 pm
Yes, I should have said three times in the past 25 years.

Three propositions, but you know that already. I trust you read well, even though you claim I speak a strange dialect.

Persuade the voters to approve the measure (note I spelled it correctly this time). Persuade ol’ Flap.

Can you do this?
Xrlq Says:
July 14th, 2005 at 11:17 pm
In most dialects of English, “three times” means three separate occasions. Two dueling initiatives on a single ballot are not two separate occasions, even if both initiatives were bona fide, and neither was a cynical “trojan horse” initiative designed to undermine the other (as I suspect, though I can’t claim to know since I was out of the country in June of 1990).

Whether I can or cannot persuade old Flap depends on what facts, if established, would be sufficient to persuade old Flap. Most people I know don’t need to be persuaded that the average judge is less political than the average legislator, or that the average Joe (whether a judge, a legislator or anything else) is less likely to objective and fair when making decisions that directly affect his own bottom line than he is when making decisions that only affect other people’s bottom line. As to the other aspects of Prop 77, I’m not sure I can persuade you that political data, voter history or incumbents’ addresses should not be factors in determining district boundaries. If you think they should be, or that any law prohibiting them is doomed to fail, then I’m not sure anything will persuade you.
Flap Says:
July 15th, 2005 at 7:57 am
“In most dialects of English, “three times” means three separate occasions. Two dueling initiatives on a single ballot are not two separate occasions, even if both initiatives were bona fide, and neither was a cynical “trojan horse” initiative designed to undermine the other (as I suspect, though I can’t claim to know since I was out of the country in June of 1990).”

Three separate propostions means three separate votes no matter how YOU define occasions. Since I voted in California in 1990 (and you didn’t) I recall voting on each.
I, also voted in 1982. 1…2….3.

Since the maps drawn by the three panel of retired judges would be subject to a public hearing and judicial review after considering what the legislature recommends, Flap wants to know what criteria will be used to draw the redistricting lines.

To simply say the process and outcome is now flawed and thus we need to make a change is simply NOT good enough. So, Xrlq, what are the criteria for drawing the maps under Prop. 77?

Did you know that it is estimated that Republicans may lose two congressional seats, if Prop. 77 is adopted? I think I read that over at OC Blog.

Speculation? Who knows?
Xrlq Says:
July 15th, 2005 at 6:01 pm
Three separate propostions means three separate votes no matter how YOU define occasions.

Give me a break. Once again, here is your original quote:

I have no problem with Prop. 77 if it is adopted by the voters. But the voters have had this type of measure presented to them at least three times since the 1980’s and they have rejected every one.

Right there, in one measly sentence you have managed to mislead in the extreme on three different levels, to wit:
1. There were three propositions on the California ballot that were similar in nature to Prop 77. No, there were two. The other, Prop 118, was nothing like Prop 77.
2. These three propositions were presented on three separate occasions. That is the only plausible reading of “at least three times.” But there were only two times, 1982 and 1990.
3. These three initiatives appeared on the ballot between 1990 and 2005. Actually, two of them (one real one and one impostor) appeared in 1990, while the other appeared in the 1980s, and the early 1980s to boot.
Seriously, how many more Alice-in-Wonderland definitions are buried in there?

Since the maps drawn by the three panel of retired judges would be subject to a public hearing and judicial review after considering what the legislature recommends, Flap wants to know what criteria will be used to draw the redistricting lines.

Then maybe Flap should read the initiative to see what criteria it does and doesn’t allow.

Did you know that it is estimated that Republicans may lose two congressional seats, if Prop. 77 is adopted? I think I read that over at OC Blog.

I didn’t, but I also don’t care. I support democracy over partisan gamesmanship
Flap Says:
July 15th, 2005 at 6:37 pm
“In most dialects of English, “three times” means three separate occasions. Two dueling initiatives on a single ballot are not two separate occasions, even if both initiatives were bona fide, and neither was a cynical “trojan horse” initiative designed to undermine the other (as I suspect, though I can’t claim to know since I was out of the country in June of 1990).”

Thank you for your meaningless analysis - since you state you don’t claim to know. Obviously.

I voted three times on three separate measures related to apportionment and you were out of the country. WOW!

I have read the initiative but I wanted to hear about the criteria from you. I will include a link here Reapportionment. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

“I didn’t, but I also don’t care. I support democracy over partisan gamesmanship.”

Uh Huh!
Patterico Says:
July 17th, 2005 at 1:43 am
I’m just glad that you guys aren’t going to be in a room together anytime soon — D’OH!
aphrael Says:
July 18th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
XRLQ - i’m puzzled by the general presumption I see here that there is no merit to Lockyer’s suit. I haven’t seen a list of what the differences between the approved version and the circulated version are (BAD MEDIA), but surely there’s reason for concern if they are at all substantial?
Xrlq Says:
July 18th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
My understanding is that the substance is so trivial that the AG summary required no edits at all. Yesterday at the Bear Flag League conference, Patterico asked Dan Weintraub and Ted Costa about getting copies of both versions to display on the web. I’m hopeful that he’ll soon get them, and will of course link to them if he does.
aphrael Says:
July 18th, 2005 at 11:31 pm
That would be fantastic. The inability of the mainstream press to report on what the differences are - say, by providing side-by-side graphics or even bullet lists - is maddening.
Xrlq Says:
July 19th, 2005 at 9:17 am
Yup. Weintraub elaborated on that phenomenon the other day, which he attributes to the constant rush to meet deadlines, not a deliberate effort to conceal anything from the public. I don’t disagree; after all, if the intent were to always hide the documents or at least to hide the ones that don’t really bear out the news being reported, surely CBS would not have posted a particular memo about GWB’s TANG service on their site last year.

Still, it seems a bit old school. It’s all well and good to meet deadlines, but I can’t imagine a journalist saves all that much time by writing a long article telling us everything they consider important from a publicly available document, rather than writing a shorter summary and using (a fraction of) the time saved to prepare a web-viewable version of the document itself. Or they could hire a few starving students to work the graveyard shift and add supporting documents before most of us get up to read the virtual paper. The deadline for print news has to be early to all the printed paper to arrive everywhere on time, but there’s no good reason why the deadline for the web version has to be nearly that tight. Nor is there any reason they can’t run the story on the web as soon as it is ready, and then add the associated documents when they get around to it. I wouldn’t think it would be all that hard to find a few tech-savvy journalism students willing to do a job like that for peanuts, or even for nothing at all except the ability to put the name of a Really Important Newspaper on their résumés.

7/10/2005

OK, Democrats, Justify This

68 Responses to “OK, Democrats, Justify This”

Leave a Reply

Blogroll

Gun

Nuts