Friday, September 23, 2005

Skelton On 77

One I missed during my recent flu - a Skelton piece on why Prop 77 is crap, even though reform itself is still needed.

Some old points, a few new ones, mostly good - but not groundbreaking.

2 comments:

Tired of the bull said...

You want cr**? Perata's quote, "Our commitment, if 77 goes down, is to fashion a bipartisan solution in a thoughtful way and put it on the ballot next year. This can be done."

Now that's cr**! I think he's also selling a bridge and perhaps promising to cure cancer.

77 is far from perfect, but it's 77 or leave it in the hands of Perata and Nunez for a repeat of 2001.

Remember 2004? The first time in at least 30 years, and perhaps in CA history, when not a single Assembly, St. Senate, or Congressional seat changed party control? We're headed back to the 80's, when more State Senators went to prison than lost re-election campaigns.

jbl said...

I'm starting to believe that some type of redistricting reform needs to happen, though, after much research, I'm convinced that Prop. 77 is not the way to go.

I know that none of the 152 seats up for election last year changed parties, but I'm also not convinced that alone is reason for changing the system. Moreover, the 2001 redistricting could have been even worse for Republicans. Democrats probably could have picked up another 4 or 5 seats in the congressional delegation if they'd pushed it with a Dem majority in the statehouse and Davis in the horseshoe. Karl Rove is said to have signed off on the Berman plan that we have now.

There are huge problems with 77, including possible Voting Rights Act violations if they try and redistrict for 2006, as well as the fact that the whole thing might be unconstitutional (not substantial compliance, but rather as a constitutional revision as opposed to a simple amendment: revisions are beyond the power of the people to enact by initiative). I believe that MALDEF has already filed suit on the Voting Rights Act claims.

I guess I would propose stricter criteria for redistricting, but leave it in the hands of the legislature, with greater opportunity for the courts to review the plan and apply the districting criteria.