SF Chronicle endorsed Prop 77

[davidinalameda]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/10/12/EDGQIF6HBC1.DTL

A SYSTEM THAT allows politicians to draw their own legislative and congressional districts is worse than absurd.

It's undemocratic.

The notion of allowing elected officials to artfully design their district boundaries was unfair back in 1812, when Gov. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts signed off on a redistricting plan that was so skewed to keep his party in power that one of the districts resembled the shape of a salamander.

[mitchtv]

1. only thing worse is giving a minority party(repuke)

parity with the majority.

[FrannyD]

2. The Chronicle is pure crap

I can't pin-point exactly when it happened, but all I know is I am not subscribing ever again! I used to love that paper, but I have seen the light. They are hacks!!!

[Moochy]

21. Agreed, they are a hacks

As to when it the Chronicle went to the darkside?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/08/07/MN58756.DTL

Hearst News ? "Give me the photographs and I'll give you your war" Hearst?

[pinto]

3. I'm voting yes on 77. One step away from the legislature is a good step.

While it's awkward to find myself supporting this proposition
(I generally don't like "government by proposition" and prefer the legislature to, you know, legislate) this is a good step at buffering fundamental constitutional voting rights - representation - from legislative wheeling and dealing.

Legislative redistricting done by the legislature is a farce. It's such an obvious conflict of interest. Removing it from legislative responsibility seems a good move.

The Republican redistricting (purchase) of Texas is a red flag we ought to acknowledge. That was a legislative action (purchase).

I've read and re-read the proposed amendment and think a panel of retired judges, with the limitations imposed by the amendment, would do a better job with redistricting than the legislature.

Though flawed, I'm going to vote for this one.

[genius]

5. So you want the GOP to draw the lines

A Republican governor gets to pick from a group that's 80% Republican which people will get to draw the lines. Good going.

[pinto]

8. I see your concern, but the Governator doesn't pick:

http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/prop77/title_summary.shtml

OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY
Prepared by the Attorney General

PROPOSITION 77

REDISTRICTING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Amends process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts.

Requires panel of three retired judges, selected by legislative leaders, to adopt new redistricting plan if measure passes and after each national census.

Panel must consider legislative, public comments/hold public hearings.

Redistricting plan effective when adopted by panel and filed with Secretary of State; governs next statewide primary/general elections even if voters reject plan.

If voters reject redistricting plan, process repeats, but officials elected under rejected plan serve full terms.

Allows 45 days to seek judicial review of adopted redistricting plan.


SUMMARY

Amends state Constitution’s process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts. Requires three-member panel of retired judges selected by legislative leaders. Fiscal Impact: One-time state redistricting costs totaling no more than $1.5 million and county costs in the range of $1 million. Potential reduction in future costs, but net impact would depend on decisions by voters.


WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES

A YES vote on this measure means: Boundaries for political districts would be drawn by retired judges and approved by voters at statewide elections. A redistricting plan would be developed for use following the measure’s approval and then following each future federal census.

NO

A NO vote on this measure means: Boundaries for political districts would continue to be drawn by the Legislature and approved by the Governor. A redistricting plan would be developed following each future federal census.


ARGUMENTS

PRO

PROPOSITION 77 MAKES POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE. Yes on Prop. 77 guarantees fair, competitive elections by ensuring voters have the final say on voting districts—not politicians. Prop. 77 reduces special interest influence and holds politicians accountable to their constituents. Fair Districts, Real Competition —Yes on 77.


CON

Sponsors want you to believe Prop. 77 makes government better. Don’t be fooled! Read the fine print: Voters lose their right to reject redistricting before it becomes effective; politicians pick judges to draw districts for them; it costs taxpayers millions; and is cemented into our Constitution. Vote No on 77!


FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

FOR

Edward J. Costa
People’s Advocate
3407 Arden Way
Sacramento, CA 95825
[phone]
[e-mail]


AGAINST

Californians for Fair Representation—No on 77
1127 11th Street, Suite 950
Sacramento, CA 95814
[phone]
www.noonproposition77.com


There's a PDF link at

http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/prop77/title_summary.shtml

for the complete CA voter guide.

[mitchtv]

15. Since when does the CA REP Party rate 50%

of the vote? it is a MINORITY party. Anyone who votes to give a 30% party , 50% of the votes isa traitor or a fool

[cascadiance]

6. You'd be far better off replacing incumbents with someone better...

by working hard to get "clean elections" campaign financing to go in your area. Here in San Diego, with all of the corruption that's been going on, they are going to work hard to get it on the 2006 ballot. I'll be looking to help them a lot with that. I'm convinced that getting campaign financing money clean is a helluva lot more of a way of getting better candidates than just redrawing district lines. What good does redistricting do if both parties only answer to groups that buy them off and not us!

Vote this turkey down and work to get the latter on ballots in your area. Hopefully we can get it on for a state proposition by 2008!

[jamesinca]

7. 77 is more of the same

People who are appointed by the elected officials will be drawing the lines, not the elected officials them self. It is more of the same and a waste of an election to advance nothing. 77 is merely a proposition so Arnold can say he did something, without doing anything. If he wanted to do something he would have a redistricting board elected by the people, not appointed by the Governor. No it is not fair and it does not accomplish anything except waste my tax dollars on an un-needed election. Arnold I think is trying to look busy so his poll numbers will come out of the basement.

[pinto]

9. I agree we need to keep redistricting as "clean" as possible.

The proposition doesn't enable Arnold to appoint the panel - That's a good thing.

An elected redistricting board sounds good, but isn't that what we have now - an elected (legislative) redistricting board (the State house)?

I'd like to see some movement away from partisan redistricting.

[jamesinca]

10. It would be better to have a computer do it

Something cold and unemotional to draw the lines. People can be bought off, power is very corrupting. There is a difference between a statewide office with no districts and running in a district. This position should be a statewide office.

When these people are appointed, they will be appointed by people that are in office, not the citizens of the state. Putting some body into office and having those in office appoint somebody will give you two different results I think.

It is not realistic to have all 33 million people in California submit a redistricting plan then vote on them.

This proposition does not fix the situation, it only changes who does the district line drawing. If this thing passes, lines will be drawn by people appointed by elected officials, and this will lead to more of the same thing that we have now. It is a waste of time and money and only gives the appearance of doing something. It is like rocking, it keeps you very busy without accomplishing a thing. If he would put up a serious proposition that actually addressed the issue, that would be something. This does not do anything.

[cascadiance]

11. Agree totally with this logic...

Also key is that if you do use a computer to decide these lines, that you come up with a determining algorithm that everyone feels is simple and fair. A computer algorithm can be used that is slanted to help one party's strengths more than another too. That set of rules should be argued and negotiated for some time before coming up with a final solution. We shouldn't do a "knee jerk" quick solution here.

The real goal for redistricting is to find a way to have representatives that are less interested in being self-serving and serving others than those who vote them into office. That they are accountable to US, and not to others, or a "manipulated minority" that control a given district. I still would argue that enacting "clean elections" campaign rules would do just as much, if not more to make them more accountable to us, by taking the "bribery money" out of campaigns that has them answer to others, and also reinforces more "lifetime" politicians that continue to serve a few that have that money. I think clean elections campaign legislation would do far more to help Democratic Party objectives than redistricting would as well, as its principles are more in line with those of the Democratic Party of representing everyone equally, not just those with more money and other powerful influence.

Let's vote this "knee jerk" and "cloaked" proposition down and work really hard on "clean elections" proposition for the near future in 2008, and then after we can really craft a more substantive redistricting proposition that is really well thought out and hopefully represents people of all parties and political persuasions fairly.

[pinto]

12. You make a good point. We don't *have* to do anything now, 2010 is the

next redistricting...I see the Greens are taking a "no position" stand on this one.

[AlGore-08.com]

20. You can't guarantee non-partisanship in the judges

Especially since the right has fought so hard to get their candidates appointed judges over the last twenty years.

I agree very strongly that clean elections laws would be a - - 77 is like term limits in that respect.

[IndyJones]

18. It has it's flaws, but I'm voting "yes" on this one, too.

153 seats were up in 2004 and none changed parties? I think they're too comfortable and I want to see politicians work for my vote - not just sit back and know they're not going anywhere.

[genius]

4. So they want Republican judges to dictate lines to Democrats.

[IndyJones]

19. No, that's not how it would work.

The article does a good job explaining how they are chosen.

[Tiggeroshii]

13. AS my Poli Sci teacher likes to say..

"You can get a TODDLER in a room and tell him to draw random shapes on the map and you'll get better districts than we have now!"

[democracyindanger]

17. Transfer out of the class.

[robertarctor]

14. Today's Chron = the old Hearst Examiner

Remember that Hearst sold the Examiner and bought the Chronicle a while back, from the de Young family. A lot of old Examiner hacks ended up moving to the Chron. And the paper's editorial board is more tilted right than the news coverage is.

And any paper that has wingnut hacks Deb Saunders and Jill Stewart writing columns is going to be fellating plenty of wood from the "Austrian oak" (as a certain Hawaiian-shirt-wearing police flack masquerading as a columnist in my hometown paper affectionately calls him).

[Moochy]

22. exactly!

Chronicle and the Examiner siwitched ideological positions when Hearst sold the examiner and bought the chronicle.

[mitchtv]

16. Chronicle to Dems

Unilaterally disarm, Give the republicans representation they can't achieve throug elections. Giv a 30% party parity eith the Dems. Don't look at Ohio Texas Penna., and all the other states where the dems have been gerrymandered to permanent minority status