Lockyer: Redistricting measure was "bait and switch"


Last week, we learned that Governor Schwarzenegger's Prop 77 (legislative redistricting) was under fire: Apparently, the version of the circulated on petitions to place the measure on the ballot wasn't the same as the version submitted to the Attorney General's office. (In other words, voters were signing petitions that described the measure differently than the way it would appear on the fall 2005 ballot).

Attorney General Bill Lockyer (a former 2006 gubernatorial hopeful who decided to run for Treasurer instead) is now taking the matter to court in an attempt to block the measure from appearing on the ballot at all:

AG sues to remove redistricting initiative from ballot
(San Diego Union-Tribune) Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed suit Friday to remove Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's redistricting initiative from the November ballot, saying supporters violated the state Constitution and opened the door to "bait and switch tactics" by significantly changing the measure's wording.

Lockyer filed the suit in Sacramento County Superior Court as the issue becomes increasingly politicized between the attorney general, a Democrat, and Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, a Republican appointed by Schwarzenegger. ...

"By opting to collect signatures on a ballot measure different from the text reviewed and approved by the attorney general, the proponents violated state law and deceived voters," Lockyer said in a statement.


Prop 77 advocates claim that the differences are so minor as to be irrelevant, and that the court action is simply a political tactic:
"The discrepancies are minimal, and the governor believes the people should be allowed to vote on the initiative," she said. "We believe the courts will uphold the rights of the over 900,000 people who signed the petition to have the initiative placed on the ballot."

However, Lockyer said there were numerous substantive changes, including "language emphasizing the unique ability of judges to draw competitive districts, altering the method used to identify line-drawers and modifying assorted deadlines." The differences were discovered by the measure's author, Ted Costa. On June 10, his lawyer alerted the secretary of state's office, which then called on Lockyer for advice. ...

"Every issue we've ever had we've been sued. Why would this be any different?" Costa said. "I guess they think this little error is their best shot."


Actually, Ted, our best shot is for Prop 77 to stand in a general election: As of the last polls, a majority of voters oppose it.

AG Lockyer's suit sounds totally reasonable to me -- the petitions are supposed to have accurate versions of the ballot measures, and if they don't, there's not a loophole that says it's OK if they're 99.5% accurate. As a matter of law, it seems straightforward that Prop 77 hasn't actually been approved for the ballot by voters, and that it shouldn't appear on the ballot.

I'm not sure, however, whether it passes the "partisan bias" test: If the situation were reversed, and a Democrat-sponsored initiative had been circulated in a version that differed substantively but not hugely from the officially sanctioned version, I'd probably stay silent, if not advocate loudly that the differences weren't a big deal. Then again, this depends heavily on the details.

So, homework for me: Find the exact text of the circulated and approved initiatives, and see for myself whether the differences justify removal of the measure from the ballot. This will take some legwork, though, so it won't happen this morning. I'll poke around and try to find the competing texts later today. (In the meantime, if anyone can find a link or a copy of the documents, let me know.)

Posted: Mon - July 11, 2005 at 08:00 AM   | Category:     |   |   | |


©
eXTReMe Tracker