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.

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!

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

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?

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.

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?