PDA

View Full Version : Redistricting is going to be on the ballot!


chunger
08-12-2005, 10:21 PM
Hey,

I just watched the news, and it looks like redistricting is going to be on the ballot. So, I hear that's a good thing, but I don't fully understand how. . . I need to know so I can talk to my friends to vote!

Can anyone give me a bonehead explanation about how things have been operating, how they will operate if this proposition goes through, and how that effects gunowners, and other people?

Thanks,
'Chung

pre-aklon
08-13-2005, 12:01 AM
As it stands right now, the dominant political party gets to carve the state into so many voting districts based on population growth (or decline) as enumerated in the census taken every ten years.

As you can imagine, this allows politicians to "pick their voters". By outlining mostly "safe" districts for themselves (where their majority lives and votes), they assure themselves and their creatures automatic re-election time after time.

Redistricting takes the process away from those with a partisan interest and gives it over to a panel of retired judges who will determine the districts impartially - based on population.

No more safe districts, and real voter choice starts to happen.

Librarian
08-13-2005, 1:48 PM
See the web site (http://www.fairdistricts.com/) of the folks who brought us the proposition.

SunshineGlocker
08-13-2005, 2:29 PM
During the last redistricting (I think in 2001) both parties made a gentleman's agreement that they would district it in such a way that it would maintain the status quo. Guess what, it worked, in the last election not a single seat changed parties. When politicians can't lose there is NO accountability. That kind of deal is just as bad for us as stuffing ballot boxes, one party elections (like in China), that kind of thing.

With this new bill, districts will be drawn by a panel of retired judges. Retired judges tend to be conservative and they will not be drawing these gerrymandered districts. They will draw districts that look like districts, not like anorexic giraffes. This will be a tremendous victory for California gun owners. Right now we have ABSOLUTELY NO LEVERAGE. Our "represntatives" can behave as badly as they want to and they know that they'll still win the next election because they've used computer programs to design these districts. See my other post for a couple of maps that show this.

With competitive districts the assembly will get a lot more conservative and liberals there will have to actually compromise and worry about getting re-elected. California is not the land of fruits and nuts; it's just districted that way.

There are still some MAJOR hurdles before this thing happens:

1. It has to win with the voters. It has a good shot at it; I think there are a lot of people like me, who are silent, and who feel disenfranchised because there are never any candidates I can vote for who even remotely represent my views. Well, you can be sure I'm going to go out and vote on this special election, with a "yes" on everything the guv has proposed.

2. Even if it does win it will be challenged in court. The recent supreme court ruling just allowed the election to go ahead. Another court ruling could later say, "Yes, the voters voted for it but the summary was not written in the proper procedure so we're throwing it out."

If it passes 1. and 2., then it's law and we can look forward to CCW reform and AWB repeal in 2010.

As a side note, it does pi$$ me off that all these highly-paid lawyers, legislative assistants, etc, screwed up so badly that they couldn't manage to get identical text to Lockyer's office and to the printers. Huh? How hard can it be? With millions of dollars riding on it, you would think they could maybe double-check what they're doing. Even if it wins with the voters they're going to need to spend > $1mil more on lawyers to defend it afterwards. All because of some screw-up that should not have happened.

Silverback
08-13-2005, 3:50 PM
Even if it wins with the voters they're going to need to spend > $1mil more on lawyers to defend it afterwards. All because of some screw-up that should not have happened.

Not having a crystal ball or anything, I'm not so sure that will happen. Which court will they take it to? Kali Supreme Court has already approved it and I don't think the US Supeme Court will even touch it since it gives the people of Kali a vote.

bg
08-13-2005, 4:51 PM
This was the only issue I was waiting for far as
this special election was concerned. I'm voting
yea on this prop, and I hope all others who are
tired of the monkeying around up north will too.

SunshineGlocker
08-15-2005, 1:05 PM
Originally posted by Dispatcher:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even if it wins with the voters they're going to need to spend &gt; $1mil more on lawyers to defend it afterwards. All because of some screw-up that should not have happened.

Not having a crystal ball or anything, I'm not so sure that will happen. Which court will they take it to? Kali Supreme Court has already approved it and I don't think the US Supeme Court will even touch it since it gives the people of Kali a vote. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
They can take it back to the same courts. The court only ruled that the vote will go ahead. They didn't rule whether the whole thing was proper or not. They basically said, "Go ahead and vote on it, and we can dispute later if the proposition was valid or not." So the people could vote "yes" and then it could be thrown out by a court.

Don't let that impede you from voting on it. This is an extremely important proposition. I have a feeling that if this wins, the courts will uphold it. It's hard to argue that people don't understand what the proposition means. We've all got the web and lots of information these days.