California Special Election Voting Guide: YES on 77...Stop Gerrymandering!

[Clarkie1]

and NO on everything else!

EDITORIAL
THE CHRONICLE RECOMMENDS: PROP. 77
A fairer way to draw lines
Wednesday, October 12, 2005

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.

Today, computer programs that can use party registration and a slew of other data to show voters' predisposition with stunning precision -- even within city blocks -- have elevated "gerrymandering" from an art to a science.

California politicians used data from the 2000 census to protect their respective flanks in impressive fashion. In November 2004, 153 legislative and congressional seats were on the ballot. Not a single one changed party hands.

The system is a godsend for the legislators in power. It is not so helpful for candidates who want to break into the club, or voters who want to have a real choice in an election...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/12/EDGQIF6HBC1.DTL&hw=proposition+77&sn=009&sc=112

[CountAllVotes]

1. too late ...

voted NO on the whole SHITLOAD!!!! :grr:

[DaveinMD]

75. Democrats

who give up the power in redistrict in Dem states are unilaterally disarming and ceding the battlefield to the likes of Tom Delay. This is war and we need to act like it.

[hang a left]

2. Anything that comes from Arnold gets a no vote from me.

[kestrel91316]

4. Ditto. I hate that Nazi.

[gardenista]

5. Same here. nt

[dpl202]

26. Then that means your against the same issues in Ohio?

Were the rethugs have drawn up the districts in such a way that 99% of them are un-contestable? I'll bet you $100 Move-on.org is for the same issues in Ohio that it's against in California. Remember, hypocrisy is one of the things we loathe about ruthugs.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dpl202]

47. Thanks

for that thought provoking, reasonable reply. No wonder I hardly post here.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. I'll support "fair" redistricting in California when it's done in TEXAS

no sooner.

I find it a little specious that the most powerful, Democratic state in the Union NEEDS to be redistricted NOW, but for some reason people aren't up in arms about it in populous, powerful GOP states.

[Zynx]

76. And Florida. The Rethugs have a ridiculous number of seats down there.

[Gormy Cuss]

79. The proposals in Ohio and CA are similar on the surface.

The devil is in the details. Ohio allows for more transparency and adjusts to district boundaries based on communities of interest, for example.

The League of Women Voters supports the Ohio reform and does not support the California redistricting measure. Are they hypocrites?

The CA initiative requires immediate implementation in 2006 based on 2000 census data. In a state with growing and shifting population centers, that's just unacceptable.

The smartvoter.org site will link you to the LWV position papers.

[Yoda Yada]

3. Redistricting...just like Texas

No on 77 for me. The proposition would give three supposedly independent judges the authority to redisrict the entire state of California.

One excellent commercial against 77 shows three retired judges tearing, cutting and re-outlining a map of California.... when they show the wide shot of how they "re-districted" California, you see a map of the newly-drawn districts in the state of Texas! No thank you. It gives to much power to just three people.

[Clarkie1]

12. The system we have now gives too much power to incumbent politicians

whether they be Republican or Democrat.

Why even bother to have elections for our representatives?

[I_am_Spartacus]

31. Then vote for the candidate who won't gerrymander districts and

fight for campaign finance reform, which, IMO, is the real protector of incumbency.

Don't vote to remove one more activity of government farther from democratic hands.

[xxqqqzme]

46. then you need to vote NO

cuz this is NOT the way 2 do it.

[BlueCaliDem]

65. LOVED that Ad--And Voted NO on Props 73-78 Too...N/T

[JJackFlash]

6. No No and No

Democrats should NOT vote in favor of PROP. 77.

What it does is start with a pool of judges 50-50 Dems to repugs (bullshit right there - why are they entitled to an unelected 50% representation in the blue state of California?), who are then whittled down to three AT RANDOM. Two or even three of those judges decided on to be in charge of redistricting could be repugnican. Fuck that noise.
The last thing we need is to send more repugnicans to the US House of Reps as they did in Texas.

Whenever in doubt about a California proposition, VOTE NO!!

[cascadiance]

33. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, and NO, YES AND YES

Those are how one needs to vote on these props in order in this election!

[Zynx]

7. I support undoing gerrymandering, but not by Ahhhnuld.

I want to make certain regulations on the geographic consistency of districts to make sure that you have more than just a road connecting parts of a district.

[BlueCaliDem]

66. I'll Support Undoing "Gerrymandering" The Day HAVA Is...

...fully instituted, and our election system is completely overhauled WITH paper ballots!

Otherwise...too much room for vote stealing, imo.

[not systems]

8. Vote NO! on 77

It is even more undemocratic to have "retired" judges
read (old white guys) draw the lines.

Arnold wants to redraw to flip the state red with
his own Gerrymandering.

[Clarkie1]

13. That is absurb.

I'm a teacher, and we all hate Arnie!

However, to say that this measure would allow the governor to gerrymander is absurb and factually incorrect. What it will do is take power away from incumbent politicianns, regardless of political affiliation, to ensure their own re-election.

I'm not saying the measure is perfect, but it is certainly more pro-democracy than the status quo. And the redistricting would have to be approved by the voters.

After all aren't we the "democratic" Pary?

[Andromeda]

23. You are assuming too much.

Maybe you do hate Arnold but prop 77 is NOT more democratic because it puts too much power in the hands of people who are NOT elected by the voters.

Who's going to appoint these judges? Arnold, of course.

If you don't like the status quo, then encourage somebody else to run in your district. A fresh face is sometimes more appealing to voters if their current reps aren't doing their jobs.

We have a choice whether or not we send our representatives back to Sacramento.

How do we get rid of these retired judges if we don't like them?

[I_am_Spartacus]

34. Did you read above how judge panel is selected?

Firstly, it starts with a 50:50 pool, which gives the Republicans an equal voice from the start when they don't represent 50% of the population (where are the independents' and third party voice?).

And then they RANDOMLY select form that pool so that each pool has 1 in 8 chance of being all Republicans and 4 in 8 of being majority Republican and only 1 in 8 of having no Republicans, and this is in a state where the Republicans only represent probably less than 40% of the citizens.

This system guarantees that there's never a 50:50 panel so that no panel actually has to compromise. You get a 50:50 chance of being able to roll over the other party regardless of whether your party is more popular with the people.

Why don't we have a system which requires Republicans to actually change their policies in order to win support rather than systems which give Republicans a fighting chance to undemocratically continue their corporate-friendly anti-worker policies without having to respond to voters.

[PurityOfEssence]

37. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

First off, redistricting is based upon a recent census; anything done now would be based on completely obsolete data.

Secondly, if it passes, it'll probably be done by judges who are more conservative than not, regardless of the legislature picking them.

More than anything else, it's tampering with something that almost by definition will hurt the Democrats, and much as it's sweet and lovely to be totally lily-pure, we're in a fight for survival against assholes who totally disregard these rules. Texas fucked the entire nation with this, as did Mississippi. Colorado tried, but couldn't get away with it. In the face of cynical gerrymandering of the worst kind, why help them?

When a guy puts a gun in your face in an alley and asks how much money you've got, it's morally fair to lie. This is not a perfect world, and if realistic arguments like this bug you, then traipse merrily back up to my first point and accept that reality can't be properly served in this case regardless of one's motives; the census data at hand is out of date.

This is a transparent screw job, and it takes effect immediately.

You're playing into the hands of the Republicans. 'Twas a time (for most of the history of the country) that people abided by elections; those who held the state house in years ending in "0" got to draw the lines. Presidents and Governors, when elected were allowed to serve out their terms. This allowed for brief periods while people in government could actually do their jobs. Now, the asshole Republicans abide by nothing that doesn't suit them, and life is a constant political battle with recalls, impeachment, redistricting and a host of other attempts to not accept the will of the people.

If our districting is unfair, it's far less unfair than Texas', and yes, that is a legitimate argument.

[pinto]

48. You make a good argument. n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

74. The very premise is impossible

Even if it's an altruistic, doe-eyed desire for fairness that drives this bullshit, it simply can't be implemented. This is a huge state with a very dynamic population; the census information is so out of date that there's no way to fairly depict where the people are.

Okay, back to reality now: it's a cynical power play by Nazi-boy and his evil henchmen. Could it be any more obvious?

[Selatius]

9. This is too damn gimmicky. Why the hell don't they use proportional rep?

It would simply be so much easier to have a system based on proportional representation. I generally agree more with Democrats than Republicans, but the Democrats who gerrymandered California deserve as much condemnation as any Republican guilty of the same goddamn crime in Texas.

I would argue a system built on mathematical principles is infinitely more impartial than any system driven by judges whose bias may be questionable. Proportional representation at least ensures that seats are allocated to political parties based on how many votes they won, and it's not so easy to manipulate the process as it is with a system built on geographic representation.

I'm in favor of destroying gerrymandering as a phenomenon in the US, but there are alternatives to this proposal. This is a half-assed attempt at real reform.

[AndyTiedye]

10. NO! NO! NO! 77 WILL JUST TURN MORE SEATS REPUBLICAN!!!

The whole purpose of 77 is to turn Democratic seats into Republican seats.
It is being funded by the national Republican party.

WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE EVEN MORE SEATS TO REPUBLICAN GERRYMANDERING
OR WE WILL NEVER TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!!!

[Clarkie1]

11. Not necessarily....

From the S.F. Chronicle (a very liberal paper):

"We don't buy the argument that this mid-decade redistricting is some sort of Republican power grab, as some Democratic politicians suggest. One of the measure's strong points is the extent of its checks and balances against partisan meddling. A telling measure of its nonpartisan approach is the nervousness it has created at the Republican National Committee and among some Republicans in the state's congressional delegation, who are convinced their 20-member bloc could be imperiled under boundaries drawn without regard to incumbent protection."

In any case, this initiative has the support of every major newspaper in the state of California, as well as Common Cause. I hate Arnie, too, but this is better than the status quo and an improvement in our electoral process.

We have to stand for our principles, and put our principles above what we MAY PERCEIVE as our own self-interests if we ever expect to imporve the system and restore true Democracy to America. Common causes is campaigning for similar measures in Ohio and Florida.

[Selatius]

19. I agree with you

The problem is that politicians are Democrats or Republicans first instead of being American first. While it may be true such a system will erode the Democrats' majority in the state legislature, if it means you get a more accurate representation of the will of the people, I'd be for it.

However, having said that, I'd say I prefer proportional representation. You don't need a panel of judges to do that, just common sense mathematical skill, and there's no question about bias with mathematics.

[I_am_Spartacus]

35. The Chron says no on 79 & 80 and you say they're liberal?

[Warren DeMontague]

70. The Chron is liberal because they marginally support gay rights & choice

and to some people, that constitutes being "liberal". But they've been in Arnold's bag the whole time. They BURIED the stories about Enron and the "energy crisis".

[mitchtv]

43. wouldn't a computer program do a better job?

blinder, quicker. What you support is not better or more democratic You have fallen for a republican trojan horse. Since when should they get Parity ?

[Warren DeMontague]

69. This is the SAME SF Chronicle which refused to report on ENRON

Yet felt compelled to spend a whole week smearing Kevin Shelley (and thus ensuring we would have a Diebold-Friendly GOP SOS to oversee this turd of an election) on things like his cell phone and how he was a "mean boss".

WAKE UP. The SF Chronicle LOVES "Arnold", and their pretense of being "liberal" ends where their corporate masters say it does- when push comes to shove comes to the corporate $$$ bottom $$$ line.

They've been shilling for this shit from day one, and if they are "liberal" my cat is a nuclear physicist.

[flyarm]

16. look jeb did gerrymandering in fla before 2000 and we all

know the results!!

we are now in the process of getting enough signatures to bring up dumping jebbies gerrymandering in fla..it is a tough hill to climb to junk jebbies gerrymandering..and its nuts..they have one side of the street in one district and the other side in another district..it is ludicrous how the repubs sliced up fla!! we are sliced and diced..and the results..last year rethugs won almost every seat in the state!!

vote no..i promise you i don't care how it is packaged to you..it will never benefit dems..it will never benefit the middle class and it will never ever help the blacks or the latino's or any minority...they pull all the rich sections away from the rest to assure their republican seats...and they leave the poor areas un-represented!!

don't vote for it ..or you will pay for it severely..

trust me ..from fla...fly

[pinto]

49. Who did the reapportionment? The legislature?

[Czolgosz]

14. NO on everything (would be yes on 77 if it was nationwide and not just CA)

[Clarkie1]

15. But it can never be a national measure....

Districts are drawn by legislatures of the individual states. I guess you would have to have some sort of constitutional ammendment?

[Czolgosz]

17. I don't expect it would ever be a national measure. But the idea that only

Democratic states "take politics out of the system" is hogwash. When they agree to it in Texas, then let's consider it for California. Until then, let's keep the status quo.

[Kickin_Donkey]

25. You've just stated yourself why we should vote no on 77 ...

"Districts are drawn by legislatures of the individual states."

Indeed.

[kick_them_hard]

18. MoveOn.Org's Recommendations For Calif.

MoveOn Member Endorsements
PROP 73 NO
PROP 74 NO
PROP 75 NO
PROP 76 NO
PROP 77 NO
PROP 78 NO
PROP 79 YES
PROP 80 YES

Election Resources
Find your Polling Place
To look up your polling place, go here:
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_ppl.htm

[Kickin_Donkey]

24. That's exactly how I voted (by absentee) ...

but I didn't consult MoveOn. I looked at what the following groups recommended: California Democratic Party, League of Women Voters, Calpirg, Sierra Club, Alliance for California, Green Party.

I had to go against the Sacramento Bee, which is has an unabashedly liberal editorial board, and the S.F. Chronicle, which is more moderate, and vote no on Prop 77.

[Popol Vuh]

20. NO, NO!!

NO!

Please don't fall for the hype. Please don't help Schwarzenegger get re-elected.

PLEASE Vote NO on Schwarzenegger, vote NO! on Prop 77.



If you're a Democrat, the best order of vote is to vote NO on all but the last two propositions - that is yes only on Props 79 & 80.


:dem:

[Crazy Guggenheim]

21. I would never trust Ahnold!!

[Beaverhausen]

44. Exactly. If Ahnold is for it I'm against it

that means NO on 73-78 and yes on 79 and 80.

[Andromeda]

22. I'm voting NO.

Having retired judges redraw district boundaries is not fair at all. This is just another way for Arnold to gain more power.

Talk about gerrymandering!

This is just a power play for the Republicans. I sure don't want three old, rich, white retired judges sitting in a back room smoking cigars and making "deals" with Arnie.

There's too much at stake here. Don't fix something that's not broken.

[Democat]

27. Republicans support 77 so they can turn California into Texas

If you want California to turn into Texas, vote yes on 77.

If you want California to remain a Democratic state, then vote no.

The California media loves Arnold and they are owned by Republicans. The California media are the ones who got Arnold elected and now they want the state to turn Republican by cheating.

Vote no!

[sepia_steel]

28. I'm voting NO on that. nt

[I_am_Spartacus]

29. NO77 - it gives too much power to people you didn't elect who have

nothing to lose and are close to being able to pass their estates on almost tax free to their families.

If you want your ELECTED representatives to not try to protect incumbency through redistricting then (1) make an issue of it with them, and vote for the candidate who runs in an election saying they won't do that, and (2) fight for campaign finance reform which is the real protector of incumbency.

Anyway, here's the Green Party rec on 77:

NO POSITION/NO on Proposition 77 - Redistricting. 

The Green Party could not come to agreement on a position. NO and NO POSITION were the predominant votes.

This initiative would create a constitutional amendment requiring a three-member panel of retired judges to draw congressional and state legislative districts, rather than the members of the current legislature.  This would supposedly take the party politics out of redistricting. The redistricting would occur as soon as possible.

NO on 77 – Opposing this bill would put us in the same camp with Democrat and Republican incumbents who want to continue to run in their gerrymandered districts. This bill does nothing for Greens, and still makes it look like something is happening. No matter how they draw the districts, only the Republicrats can win due to the lock that corporate money and winner-take-all voting has put on elections.

NO POSITION on 77 – Other states have tried independent or bipartisan redistricting panels. These efforts did not result in a significant difference in which party gets elected in any given district. Passage of this proposition may bring some relief from the extremes of gerrymandering, but let's recognize that it will not be a significant improvement in democracy for Californians.
This is a distraction from real reform. The problem is single-member (one winner) districts using winner-take-all voting. There is no gerrymandering scheme that will accomplish fair and balanced representation of voters under such a system. The solution is multi-member districts using proportional representation voting. This provides majority rule and minority representation regardless of how boundaries are drawn.

http://www.cagreens.org/ccwg/05props.htm

And the Dems say no: http://www.cadem.org/site/c.jrLZK2PyHmF/b.1010965/k.A04B/Propositions.htm

[I_am_Spartacus]

30. YES on 79 & 80 -- NO on the rest!!!!

From the same links above, the Democratic party says yes on 79 and 80, and the Greens say:

YES on Proposition 79 - Prescription Drug Discounts (consumer version).

Health Access California, and other labor and consumer groups, sponsored Prop 79, which would use the purchasing power of the State of California to negotiate prescription-drug discounts for millions of Californians that now pay retail prices for these medications.  This measure is opposed by "Big Pharma," the prescription drug industry, which also sponsored a counter-measure, Prop 78.

The San Francisco Chronicle (July 13, 2005) ran a front-page story listing 12 drug companies which have contributed $43 million since June 16 for this battle.  Pfizer, Merck, and GlaxoSmithKline each contributed $8.5 million to their industry's "California Initiative Fund."

The Alliance for a Better California (the coalition of nurses, teachers, state employees, etc.) also worked to put Prop 79 on the ballot.  Much of the language came from a measure that passed the legislature last year but was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

The major difference between these Props is that Prop 79 is mandatory for the drug companies. Firms that don't provide medicines under this program for the same price they charge MediCal could be barred from selling to the State's MediCal program. Under Prop 78, drug company participation is voluntary.

NO/YES/NO POSITION on  Proposition 80 - Electric Service Providers. Regulation.

The Green Party could not come to agreement on a position.
This initiative stems from a bill passed in the CA legislature (AB 2006) in 2004 that would have required utilities and other power suppliers to plan rationally for the future by re-regulating energy in California. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it, preferring "competitively priced" electricity over regulated electricity, even if residential rates go up in the process. So, TURN (The Utility Reform Network) is taking the bill to the voters.

YES on 80 – Blackouts due to power shortages and market manipulation did not exist in California prior to deregulation (all previous blackouts resulted from transmission or distribution outages). This proposition re-establishes legal requirements that were abandoned during deregulation. “Integrated resource planning” prohibits large commercial customers from jumping back and forth between “direct access” (power from independent providers) and utility services, thus providing more certainty to utilities in their purchase planning. There are also requirements for “adequate reserves” to prevent blackouts due to power “shortages,” as well as restoring obligations on corporations supplying energy to California - PG&E, SCE and SDG&E - to serve California consumers rather than out-of-state energy suppliers.
Other favorable aspects of this initiative are the requirement for all retail electric sellers to increase renewable energy resource procurement by at least 1% each year, and moving up the date of the state's 20% renewable energy requirement from 2017 to 2010 (decreasing our dependence on expensive fossil fuels). Similarly, “first priority for energy efficiency” means efficiency programs will be pursued before new power plants are built.

NO and NO POSITION on 80 – It foolishly gives even more authority to the CPUC, an agency frequently criticized by consumer groups. It locks communities into long term energy contracts with private corporate energy providers. It does allow Community Choice Aggregation programs, but the language is not clear and comprehensive so it could seriously undermine a community’s ability to start a CCA.

[Yoda Yada]

41. Misinformation in advertising for 79 and 80

I have to look at these two more carefully, but I think you are right. Yes on 79 and 80. There has been a tremendous amount of advertising against 79. They started months ago.....lots of $$$money$$$. They might sneak through because they know Californians might just vote across the board "NO". for everything.

Remember, Republicans are masters at deception. Make sure you know EXACTLY what you are voting for.

[cascadiance]

32. YES on "Clean Elections" in 2006/2008! No to 77 Gerrymandering in 2005!

THAT is the way to solve problems of lack of representation that this proposition claims to try to solve.

It's a problem of accountability, not trying to reset demographic or geographic formulas! Solve the fundamental problem! Don't make the complexibility greater for the Enron/Texas Redistricting machine to play their submarine tactics!

NO on 77!

[flyarm]

36. this is whats happening in fla to turn back gerrymandering

what ever you do californians..DO NOT VOTE FOR GERYYMANDERING!!!

i do not care what they tell you...they are lying..( the rethugs..)
we are fighting our asses off to change back our voting districts in florida from the rape the rethuglicans did under jebbie..before the 2000 election...you know the results of that elelction...but you haven't been told how much worse it was in 2004!!
we have a movement by Betty Castor who ran for the senate to turn back the clock on the Gerrymandering and rape Jeb did to us...

if you want to throw your vote away ..vote for gerrymandering..but if you want your vote to count...

DO NOT VOTE FOR GERRYMANDERING!!

i am serious...very serious...

i lived in L>A> valley for many years...and i can assure you..CALIFORNIANS ..PROTECT YOUR VOTE!!

I CAN NOT SAY IT LOUD ENOUGH...

from a past resident of sherman oaks,ca..who hasn't seen my vote count in florida..and very sad about it...

fly

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

i just got this from Betty Castor ..we are trying to turn back the gerrymandering the rethugs did in fla..we have to get 750,000 petitions signed just to have them put it on a ballot to turn it back..dems can not get anyone elected with the way the rethugs gerrymandered...

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

this from Betty Castor on our efforts to turn it back !!

Redistricting Update


The petition drive is gaining momentum and moving closer to the goal of 750,000 petitions! The Committee for Fair Elections reports that with more than two months remaining 531,519 Floridians have signed the petitions. However, legislative leaders have begun to use their official positions, and taxpayer dollars, to try to block the effort.


Click below to read what columnists are saying:


Don’t Use Our Money to Oppose Our Rights
Howard Troxler, St. Pete Times

Don't Spend Public Money To Defeat Ballot Initiatives
Tampa Tribune Editorial


http://www.sptimes.com/2005/10/30/Columns/Don_t_use_our_money_t.shtml

http://www.tampatrib.com/News/MGBGTK7V8FE.html


Together we can make a difference!


Betty Castor
Founder and President
Campaign for Florida’s Future

[Toots]

38. The idea is intriguing but becaue Ahnold put it on the ballot there must b

something I don't recognize in it to benefit Republicans. I am sick to death of Politicians gerrymandering their states into unrecoganizable districts for political gain. I think the districts should be done by non partisans and I can think of no better group of people than retired judges. As long as the judges had never been appointed, but elected. In most states judges are elected and never ever run as partisans. They never have a D or R after their names. Unlike Bush* and Delay I do trust the judges. I have to believe in the good will of the majority of the people in America or what's the use?:shrug: Since I do not live in California though I have no say so hope they do what is best for the people.

[rinsd]

50. I feel very similar...I like the spirit but not the sponsor.

100% re-election last election. For a state that is in the toilet, it's damn near unbelievible.

[Clarkie1]

It's not only unbelievable, it's undemocratic.

That's why I'm voting YES on Proposition 77.

No, it's not perfect, but it's much more democratic than what we have now.

[Clarkie1]

54. It's not only unbelievable, it's undemocratic.

That's why I'm voting YES on Proposition 77.

No, it's not perfect, but it's much more democratic than what we have now.

[Boo Boo]

39. Any CA Democrat that votes for this ballot measure (redistricting)

deserves to have the word "SUCKER" tattooed across their forehead.

Hasn't watching Republicans operate over the last five years taught you anything? They cheat. You are not going to get fairness, or above board play from Schwarzenegger. This is the guy that flies to Washington to meet with K. Rove and Grover Norquist. These guys are not the least bit confused about what they are trying to do. They are trying to create a permanent Republican majority---any goddamn way they can. If Republicans controlled the CA legislature, they would not be trying to pass this measure. Instead, they'd be screwing Democrats the way they did in Texas.

I think I'm going to puke.

No wonder Dems lose.

Prediction: if this measure passes, you will see Democrat members of Congress (not the CA legislature, but the U.S. Congress) lose their seats.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

40. From the REAL liberal local paper...

Sadly, SF Chronicle is not the liberal bastion it used to be when it was the Examiner. For a truly liberal point of view on the ballot measures you must look to the Bay Guardian:

http://www.sfbg.com/40/05/news_clip.html

Ballot measures

Proposition 73 NO, NO, NO

Proposition 74 NO

Proposition 75 NO, NO, NO

Proposition 76 NO, NO, NO

Proposition 77 NO

Proposition 78 NO

Proposition 79 YES

Proposition 80 YES

[AntiFascist]

45. VOTE NO ON 77 !!!!!!!!

Haven't you been listening to Judge Wapner (in the No on 77 commercial)? Three retired judges selected by Arnold would be responsible for redestricting and it would favor Republican interests. My Central Coast district is often cited by Repugs as the worst example of gerrymandering simply because it is a long and narrow district. This is a STUPID argument. The central coast extends from Monterey to well below Santa Barbara. This is not a district artificially created to connect Democratic voters, it is a valid political entity representing valid and connected central coast interests. What will become artificial is when it is broken up and extended into areas that have nothing to do with coastal interests. Consider the environmental consequences when more coastal development is allowed and offshore oil development is expanded.

[AntiFascist]

52. AND FURTHERMORE......

appararently Texas legislators have been pointing to the Central Coast district calling it the "ribbon of shame" and using it as an example of gerrymandering in California. I would suggest that these Texas legislators do not understand either the meaning of the words "gerrymandering" or "shame" for that matter.

As I recall from Social Studies in high school, a gerrymandered district is one that meanders around, much like the puzzle pieces one finds in Texas. Congressional district 23 in California, on the other hand, is a straightforward area connected by the primary indistries of the wine industry, vacation industry, oil, and higher education. If it were truly gerrymandered it would have skipped around largely conservative areas that are included within it.

[Clarkie1]

56. CHECK OUT CALIFORNIA CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 11!

California is gerrymandered beyond belief!

[AntiFascist]

57. Maybe that Republican district has problems....

and it does seem to be a better example of gerrymandering. But Repugs are rabidly going after my district and all I'm saying is just because my district is long and narrow does not mean that there aren't geographical and industrial reasons for it being shaped that way which cut across BOTH political parties.

[pinto]

51. I have been on the fence on this one for a while, but am voting No.

Basically I've some to see the "backroom" deals of a legislative panel handling their own redistricting as a better choice, for now, than the possibility of unintended consequences with a judicial panel doing the job.

At least the wheeling and dealing that goes with a legislative redistricting has a public component...

I still feel strongly that the process needs to be changed, tho.

[Overseas]

53. NO NO NO TO ARNOLD !! Don't trust him . EOM.

[Clarkie1]

55. Why I'm voting YES on 77.

Last year I lived in a district that was screwed over by Democratic legislators protecting their own districts. It is California District 11, and if you look at a map you will see how extremely Gerrymandered it is. I lived in an area that is liberal to moderate in the S.F. bay area, but extreme gerrymandering made the district strech out all the way into a conservative and heavily populated area of the Central Valley to a community that has absolutey NOTHING in common with my community. There was no way the Democratic candidate could possibly win, but I campaigned heavily for the Democratic candidate regaradless.

Basically, I and other people in my area were "sacrificed" by the majority Democrats in a deal to protect the incumbent Republican seat in order that they could protect their Democratic seats. Republicans and Democrats have one thing in common: they all want to protect their asses over anything else, and will work together if necessary to do so.

Fuck that.

I am sick of uncompetitive elections. It's destroying our democracy. No, prop. 77 isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than allowing incumbents to protect their own asses with 0% turnover during an election cycle.

[Democat]

62. You are going to turn over the state to Republicans so you can have a Dem?

That is short sighted and not strategic.

You are either voting to let Arnold gerrymander California or you are voting against letting him gerrymander California.

Regardless of your reasoning, allowing a Republican minority to gerrmander California is a bad idea.

[Clarkie1]

67. That is absurb.

California is already gerrymandered, and there is nothing in this initiative that gives power to the governor to gerrymander.

[knight_of_the_star]

58. Here's something the proponents aren't talking about

That for a judge to be eligible they must have NEVER changed their political affiliation since retirement and that it would be required for each of California's two biggest political parties must get one representative on said panel. Sounds like it won't change much of anything huh.

[AntiFascist]

61. How bipartisan can it be with 3 (odd number) judges? nt

[twin_peaks_nikki]

59. Vote No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just say no to all of Arnold's proposals, yes to 79 and 80 only.

[Zorro]

60. Prop 77 is just mischief-making

It will only create more problems in the end if passed. There's no reason to trust any Schwartzenburger-supported proposals.

Judge Wapner is right. "No No No" on 77.

[THUNDER HANDS]

63. whatever happened to standing on principle?

personally, I hate gerrymandering. If it was abolished in all states I'm sure Democrats would come out on top.

I think in principle its a good idea, even if we lose a few seats in California.

I just disagree with the whole 3 judge panel deciding them, idea.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. I'll stand on principle when we find out why Ken Lay isn't in jail

and why the "liberal" SF Chronicle gave Enron a free pass yet railroaded Kevin Shelley.

This is another step in a systematic process of screwing California for not voting for the GOP. Enron, the Recall, Kevin Shelley's bogus removal and MacPherson's approval of the Diebold machines that Shelley put a stop to.. This is not "fairness" and it's been planned from the beginning.

If we're going to do away with gerrymandering, lets do it nationwide, one system, fairly, for everyone. None of this "we immediately NEED to redistrict California - the biggest Democratic Stronghold in the Nation- fairly, but Tom DeLay can keep his lock on Texas's districts"

[SoCalDemGrrl]

64. VOTE NO ACROSS THE BOARD Defeat Arnold!!

NO MORE wasted taxpayer money on special elections.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. FUCK THAT. GOP POWER GRAB, PURE AND SIMPLE.

Yeah, lets make sure the GOP can pick up a few more seats, in the interests of "fairness".

We redistrict when Texas redistricts under the exact same process- NO FUCKING SOONER.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. So WHY do we have a thread endorsing a Republican Proposal

put on the ballot using misleading language and phony signature-gathering by a REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR shoehorned in there on the heels of a bogus "energy crisis" manufactured by REPUBLICAN BUSINESS INTERESTS?

Again, do we really need to be promoting a Republican Power Grab here?

This is Democratic Underground, right? Just wondering.

[realFedUp]

77. Jackie Goldberg's answer

"Then, of course there is the redrawing of district election lines. No state uses retired judges. In fact almost all of them do it the way we in California currently do it. That is the legislature, with the signature of the Governor, writes a plan every ten years. Both sides have to agree. When they cannot agree, a lawsuit puts it into court, and then an active judge will make the changes necessary to make it fair. Think about retired judges. Currently almost all of them are going to be Anglo males, largely drawn from the men appointed by Governors Wilson and Deukmejian. This does not sound "non-partisan" to me."

[realFedUp]

78. Jim Dean, DFA says no

"First, the special election in California is vitally important. It is critical that we do everything we can to restore the credibility of democracy in California, insure a level playing field in California politics, help working families, and especially preserve women's rights by voting NO on propositions 73-78."