Voters Cheated Again!
There are many things wrong in this world. We hear about them everyday. But recently this past Thursday, the 21st, the worst assault occurred to the rights of we the California voter.
As a representational democracy, this latest of voter atrocities is the single biggest blow to free elections, since civil rights legislation.
Proposition 77, The Redistricting Reform/Anti-Gerrymandering Initiative, was the single most important initiative on the ballot to reduce voter and governmental fraud, waste, and abuse by California state government.
This is the Redistricting Reform measure supported by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and intended to be on the November 8th special election ballot.
Yet again an activist judge in collusion with Attorney General Bill Lockyer has managed to unilaterally protect legislators at the State and Federal levels from being outed by their rightful constituency.
He and Sacramento Judge Gail D. Ohanesian's have managed to do the unthinkable, and obstruct and deny us from our constitutional elective rights.
The reason cited by Lockyer was a violation of the California Constitution by using two different versions of the Initiative 77 in the qualifying process. That is, two different versions of the initiative appeared on different signature petition forms used to gather signatures of registered voters.
These differences although only stylistic and not substantive, were enough of an excuse to wrongly disenfranchise we voters. A compromise so cowardice and self serving, it can not be believed.
This arbitrary Judicial Revocation is perhaps the single worst action taken against “We the People” in the history of our great Nation.
The measure deserved an up-or-down decision by we the voters. The drawing of new district lines after the 2000 census was so politically biased — with Republicans and Democrats in collusion — that not a single seat in the Assembly, the state Senate or in California's 53 congressional districts changed parties in the 2004 election.
The situation is so intolerable that this measure gathered considerable support from a public that usually yawns at such inside political matters.
We here in the 23rd Congressional District, know only too well the voter imprisonment we suffer in the world’s now best known and most infamous gerrymandered “Ribbon Of Shame District.”
This cannot stand if we are to survive as a Democracy.
Edited summary of a posting on: FraudFactor.com, 07/21/2005 5:53:08 PM PDT
Judge Removes Redistricting Reform Initiative from California Ballot
This is a major blow to California voters and tax payers who need relief from the massive political corruption and waste of tax dollars resulting from safe, non-competitive gerrymandered election districts that result when the incumbent politicians redraw their election district boundary lines.
The outcomes of the general election for most of California's 80 State Assembly seats, 20 of the 40 State Senate seats, and 53 Congressional seats are determined by the Primary Election, before the General Election, due to gerrymandered election district boundary lines. Also, the Democrat majority party ensures itself an artificially large super-majority due to gerrymandering.
Thus, California has suffered election theft every two years for many decades, and all voters of all parties suffer from nonresponsive entrenched politicians who instead cater to lobbyists and other special interests.
Safe gerrymandered election districts have allowed the Democrat super-majority in the California Legislature to maintain its majority grip on California. While safeguarding the minority Republican legislators, as well.
The money and time spent to qualify the initiative is lost.
For more information, click on these links: Proposition 77, gerrymandering, the text of initiative 77 as a web page and as a downloadable pdf file.
As a representational democracy, this latest of voter atrocities is the single biggest blow to free elections, since civil rights legislation.
Proposition 77, The Redistricting Reform/Anti-Gerrymandering Initiative, was the single most important initiative on the ballot to reduce voter and governmental fraud, waste, and abuse by California state government.
This is the Redistricting Reform measure supported by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and intended to be on the November 8th special election ballot.
Yet again an activist judge in collusion with Attorney General Bill Lockyer has managed to unilaterally protect legislators at the State and Federal levels from being outed by their rightful constituency.
He and Sacramento Judge Gail D. Ohanesian's have managed to do the unthinkable, and obstruct and deny us from our constitutional elective rights.
The reason cited by Lockyer was a violation of the California Constitution by using two different versions of the Initiative 77 in the qualifying process. That is, two different versions of the initiative appeared on different signature petition forms used to gather signatures of registered voters.
These differences although only stylistic and not substantive, were enough of an excuse to wrongly disenfranchise we voters. A compromise so cowardice and self serving, it can not be believed.
This arbitrary Judicial Revocation is perhaps the single worst action taken against “We the People” in the history of our great Nation.
The measure deserved an up-or-down decision by we the voters. The drawing of new district lines after the 2000 census was so politically biased — with Republicans and Democrats in collusion — that not a single seat in the Assembly, the state Senate or in California's 53 congressional districts changed parties in the 2004 election.
The situation is so intolerable that this measure gathered considerable support from a public that usually yawns at such inside political matters.
We here in the 23rd Congressional District, know only too well the voter imprisonment we suffer in the world’s now best known and most infamous gerrymandered “Ribbon Of Shame District.”
This cannot stand if we are to survive as a Democracy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited summary of a posting on: FraudFactor.com, 07/21/2005 5:53:08 PM PDT
Judge Removes Redistricting Reform Initiative from California Ballot
This is a major blow to California voters and tax payers who need relief from the massive political corruption and waste of tax dollars resulting from safe, non-competitive gerrymandered election districts that result when the incumbent politicians redraw their election district boundary lines.
The outcomes of the general election for most of California's 80 State Assembly seats, 20 of the 40 State Senate seats, and 53 Congressional seats are determined by the Primary Election, before the General Election, due to gerrymandered election district boundary lines. Also, the Democrat majority party ensures itself an artificially large super-majority due to gerrymandering.
Thus, California has suffered election theft every two years for many decades, and all voters of all parties suffer from nonresponsive entrenched politicians who instead cater to lobbyists and other special interests.
Safe gerrymandered election districts have allowed the Democrat super-majority in the California Legislature to maintain its majority grip on California. While safeguarding the minority Republican legislators, as well.
The money and time spent to qualify the initiative is lost.
For more information, click on these links: Proposition 77, gerrymandering, the text of initiative 77 as a web page and as a downloadable pdf file.
posted by don regan at 3:40 PM
9 Comments:
Mr. Regan. Good to see your post, but it seems to be almost hysterical in emotional tone. It also seems thin on the various rationales.
1) Please tell me exactly how leaving the Governor's redistricting initiative off the ballot constitutes a threat to our democracy?
2) Do you know how many initiatives don't qualify for the ballot vs those that do?
3) Considering the fact it costs millions of dollars to collect signatures for a ballot initiative, who but top fundraisers can afford the task? Are these the people in your phrase "we" the people?
3) Glad to see your empathy for the grassroots voters out there--you know, the believers who walk precincts and get out the vote. So, what do you think about the "voting irregularities" in Ohio this last presidential election?
4) When it comes to an assault on the rights of voters, have you seen the website about so-called black box voting? Have you read What Went Wrong in Ohio, Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee?
Dr. Don,
Ever wonder if "more competitive" legislative districts are a good idea? Isn't time to change from a "winner-take-all" system to a more fair proportional method?
"It may well be that California's electoral system, like the rest of America's, has reached its endgame. Our current politics are as good as they are going to be as long as we continue to use an antiquated method that is so ill suited for the new California and its wide range of attitudes, demographics and geographic regions.
We can't change where people choose to live, but we can begin using some type of proportional representation system. For example, California could use a system like that in Peoria, Ill., for municipal elections. Instead of electing 40 state senators from 40 districts, voters in 10 districts could elect four senators each. Any candidate who won at least a quarter of the vote would earn a seat. These districts would be far more likely to be bipartisan, even electing some urban Republicans and rural Democrats.
That's the path that the governor should pursue, if he is serious about reforming his state's politics. And it's a path the rest of the nation's governors should examine as well." --Steven Hill, a fellow at the New America Foundation
One more comment on initiatives as a voice of "we" the people.
Journalist David Broder of the Washington Post, wrote a book called "Democracy Derailed." Here's a review published May 2000 in Washington Monthly.
Broder "reminds us, initiative voters are not the legislators-for-a-day they think they are--they do not decide what gets voted on, they do not research the reaches of the legislation, they cannot amend it, they cannot compromise on it, and they will not be held responsible for it. The initiative process is a breezy simulacrum of democracy that, along with its crew of voters, has been coopted by the moneyed few."
Dear Annonymous ...
Truly ...
Hysterical I am not.
Concerned I am.
To your comments:
1.) Please tell me exactly how leaving the Governor's redistricting initiative off the ballot constitutes a threat to our democracy?
Answer: Without seeming trite or confrontational, it is incomprehnsible to me, that you are even asking this question. It seems so obvious, but suffice it to say, that in the current process we the voter / you ... have little voice, unless you are the incumbent Party, it is they the Party, who elect you the voter, and it is most difficult in the current process to
change that. Redistricting allows us to hope (and intentionally work) for more competive Districts. Districts in which vote
outcome is not predetermined. As you most probably know not one of the effected Districts in Calif. changed party representation. Currently we are soundly and roundly disenfranchised.
This by the way is hardly a partian issue, and goes to core of our rights as citizens. There is nothing more important than the right of we the citizens to be heard through our vote. That is called governing. It is the core of our democratic rights and our representational democracy. There is to me no argument about that.
2.)Do you know how many initiatives don't qualify for the ballot vs those that do?
Answer: Many,some, few?? What difference does that make? That doesn't make it right. In our State we are used to the Courts throwing out the baby with the bath water "AFTER" the voters have evidenced their will.
As the State Supreme Court said Wednesday in putting Prop 80 back on: ... it is more appropriate to review constitutional and other challenges to the ballot propositons or intiative measures after an election rather than to disrupt the electoral process by preventing the exercise of the peoples franchise.
3.) Considering the fact it costs millions of dollars to collect signatures for a ballot initiative, who but top fundraisers can afford the task? Are these the people in your phrase "we" the people?
Answer: Of course they are "WE", we are all we. I smell a bias on your part. Sounds like you would erroneously favor redistribution of individual earnings.
You're not suggesting that money is the measure of citizenship? I hopenot.
Access, possibly, but that is not the sole realm of money only in politics, that is the way of the world. Most of "we" the people would tell us that they all work very hard to earn and keep what they have.
4.)When it comes to an assault on the rights of voters, have you seen the website about so-called black box voting? Have you read What Went Wrong in Ohio, Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee?
Answer: And your point is? It's screwed up so we shouldn't vote? Or should we fix it?
5.)... Ever wonder if "more competitive" legislative districts are a good idea? Isn't time to change from a "winner-take-all" system to a more fair proportional method?
Proportional Representation(PR) has some good features, and often overly complicated. The underlying principle being that everyone should have the right to fair representation. There's nothing wrong with that goal. Getting there however is the trick, and redistricting is a concrete and necessary tool to do so. Perhaps not a final step, but certainly a reasonable first step, given the disinfranchisement we live in currently here, and nationally.
We had (PR) in this state when we had smaller numbers of people per District, but making them smaller, also presents many challenges, but also does not discredit that idea. The continuing need is to be sure that we indeed have: One person one vote, and that it is we the voter who elect our reprsentatives. Not the current Orwellian way that it is.
PS .. This is not the Governor's issue it is our issue WE THE VOTER. So, lets not blame people who can facilitate change from attempting to do so. Helping to change is way more effective than talk alone. And if you don't like it then you can vote against it. Assuming we still have the vote, which Prop 77 is all about. Making sure you have a vote and chance to use it effectively.
6.) ... Broder "reminds us, initiative voters are not the legislators-for-a-day they think they are--they do not decide what gets voted on, they do not research the reaches of the legislation, they cannot amend it, they cannot compromise on it, and they will not be held responsible for it. ...
Answer: Broder doens't live here in California, and his perspective is tainted by years in the Washington fish bowl. While I too very mcuh respect him, on many things, and consider him articulate, he is clearly missing the problem so pronounced here in our State. That problem is our legislative branch (And some/many would say the other branches as well.) is broken, it is a cauldron of confusion and special interests management. I agree that the initiative process has many limitations and concerns, but as nothing can be done within Sacramento /Washington what are we to do? If you can't fix it from the inside, by even electing those people you want there, then we are left to effect change on it from the outside in. Yes, it can be problematic, as we have often seen, but for the moment that is all we have.
Let me end now by saying: VOTING IS ALL WE HAVE, and as such it must be preserved and saved. Feel anyway you want about anything or anybody, but our representational Democracy demands we respect our Vote.
Thank You for replying to my blog. I hope you and others will continue.
Thank You ...
don Regan
Why should the districts be competitive at all from the standpoint of an equal number of registered voters from the two main parties. Have you ever thought the district may be composed of like minded people that have very similar views on issues. The focus then becomes the candidate's views on issues. Could equaling the number of registered voters along party lines produce even more extreme viewpoints among candidates given the type of people on both side of the aisle who actually contribute to a campaign. The debate on districting should be framed more around the boundries of the district itself. What does the Central Coast have in common with Bakersfield?. Not much, although folks come here every weekend to get out of the heat, even though the district extends into that region. It would make much more sense to develop districts along similar regional aspects than based upon make-up of political registrants.
Thank You again, Anonymous ... for keeping this interesting discussion moving forward. I enjoy talking with you. Your comments are most cogent, and informed.
But, as a similar self styled political profiler myself, it seems to me, only fair and the proper time, now for you to identify yourself. As you apparently know who I am, it seems only fair that I (and the other readers) should know who you are.
Otherwise it all seems so PolySci 101-ish?
Don't you agree?
I will briefly give you this regarding your suggestions and observations above and below, that indeed this District is already identical to that which you describe as a preferred circumstance, in your comments.
It is indeed a welcoming, vibrant, cohesive, thrivingly prosperous heterogeneous community of committed peoples for whom, I and my family feel an intimate and warmly received part of, throughout this incredibly lovely coastal district. Days like today, are incomparable.
We love living here, and love the people, and friends, all of whom we feel neighborly towards.
It is a community of like minded hard working individuals working each day to make their livings and support their families.
Opportunities abound.
This is no Partisan Driven nor innately divisive District. Nor should it ever be.
I look forward to continuing this discussion, and I am hopeful that you will feel comfortable identifying yourself, before going much further.
Thank You...
don
********************************
Why should the districts be competitive at all from the standpoint of an equal number of registered voters from the two main parties. Have you ever thought the district may be composed of like minded people that have very similar views on issues. The focus then becomes the candidate's views on issues. Could equaling the number of registered voters along party lines produce even more extreme viewpoints among candidates given the type of people on both side of the aisle who actually contribute to a campaign. The debate on districting should be framed more around the boundries of the district itself. What does the Central Coast have in common with Bakersfield?. Not much, although folks come here every weekend to get out of the heat, even though the district extends into that region. It would make much more sense to develop districts along similar regional aspects than based upon make-up of political registrants.
THANK YOU ...
Oh, I wrote the comments about the districts being drawn around similar regional aspects (ie. coastal zones, desert areas, metropolitan areas, mountain areas) and not designed based on getting a more equal number of registared party affiliated voters. I just posted anonymous because didn't feel like registering or anything. I didn't write the other comments. Brett Cross
Well Thank You Brett ...
I appreciate talking with you, and knowing your name. THANK YOU.
This issue is, as I have said, at least for me, probably if not the single most important, it is the most underestimated pernicious domestic issue facing us as Americans, as voters, and as activist citizens.
Yes, of course, when placed into perspective, the War, -- Tragedy and apparent bad judgement and acts of evil, all around us, as we remain vicitmized by the daily bombardment of the media looking to fill time -- It can be viewed as perhaps not the most important, but certainly it is maximally critical, and in a very real sense determines our REAL CITIZEN VOICE.
It determines whether we have any voice to change those things we want changed. Other than thru direct personal intervention and present and personal advocacy, we must cherish and protect our vote.
It is paramount to the representational process, we have been blessed with.
So, with that check out the website
http://www.fairdistricts.com/
There is so much more out there, to find and read, I can not list it here. I am sure you will find it, as you search personally. Feel free to share.
And while you search remember most of these current California elected Federal and State representatives each personally paid $20,000.00 in 2000, to secure their now individually protected seats, and insulate themselves from we the voters. They had hoped permanently. We can not allow that.
Again, Brett. Nice talking with you.
don
Post a Comment
<< Home