Arnie has aligned himself with this lunatic Ted Costa who initiated the recall against Gray Davis to put forward a major plank of his "reform" agenda: redistricting.
These incompetents had to pay signature gatherers up to $5 a signature to qualify this abomination to the ballot. However, in true Ted Costa/CA GOP form, they gave one petition to the AG to certify and circulated another with different text. DING! Illegal under CA law. They knew they had done it, but circulated it anyway, only telling the AG after the initiative had qualified. More...
The AG, a good Dem, but a better lawyer, went to court to have the initiative removed and won. Of course Costa appealed and the appeals court ruled 2-1 that the initiative was off. Costa will appeal to the CA Supreme Court, but I doubt he'll win.
Regardless of what you think about redistricting, Arnie is only doing this to weaken the CA Dem party and bench. As soon as Texas, Florida and Ohio redistrict under a "non-partisan" system, we can consider it here but until then, Arnie can go inject himself.
An approval rating in the 30's, his campaign committees for his "year of reform" broke, and a continuous crowd of protesters anywhere he goes. Is it any wonder why Maria is begging him not to run again?
http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/13381797p-14223367c.html
SACRAMENTO (AP) - A state appeals court on Tuesday refused to put Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's redistricting initiative back on November's special election ballot, saying supporters' use of two versions to qualify the measure was a "clear violation" of the constitution.
"The petitioners could easily have avoided or discovered and corrected the problem of different versions before the circulation of petitions...," the 3rd District Court of Appeal said in a decision by Justices Coleman Blease and M. Kathleen Butz.
MLS
"Their failure to make a public disclosure (before the measure qualified for the ballot) has tainted ... the ballot pamphlet review process."
Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland dissented, saying the measure's constitutional issues should be decided after the election. He noted the Supreme Court's decision last month reinstating Proposition 80, the energy re-regulation initiative, to the ballot after the appeals court removed it.
The Supreme Court said any constitutional problems could be addressed if voters approve the energy proposition. Scotland said the same standard should apply to the redistricting measure, known as Proposition 77. If it were to pass, Scotland said "there will be ample time to consider its validity."
Schwarzenegger said Tuesday's ruling "ignored the will of nearly one million Californians who signed petitions demanding redistricting reform. Those voters knew they were signing petitions in support of reform and they deserve to get it."
<Snip>
The redistricting proposal would remove state lawmakers' power to draw districts for Congress, the Legislature and the state Board of Equalization, giving that responsibility instead to a panel of retired judges.
The measure, one of three Schwarzenegger endorsed for the Nov. 8 ballot, is a cornerstone of his "year of reform" package to remake state government. He also wants a state spending cap and to increase the amount of time new teachers spend on probation.
The redistricting proposal ran into legal problems after supporters said they had inadvertently used two versions of the initiative during the qualification process. The version that was presented on voter petitions was different from the one submitted to the attorney general's office for preparation of a title and summary to go on the petitions and ballot.
The attorney general's office said that violated a clear-cut constitutional requirement that the same version of the initiative sent to the attorney general's office be used on petitions.
The requirement is designed to prevent initiative proponents from using "bait and switch tactics" to make changes in initiatives after they have been cleared to gather signatures, the office said.
"The proponents caused the problem in this case by their own negligence in circulating a different version of the initiative measure than that submitted to the attorney general," the majority ruling said. "They exacerbated the problem by concealing it until after the secretary of state had certified the initiative measure for the ballot and failing to make any public disclosure."
The measure's supporters said the differences between the two versions were mainly "stylistic." They argued that they had met a "substantial compliance" test to qualify for the ballot. Scotland agreed.
"In the real world, the differences in wording (in the two versions) were insignificant and would not have misled voters who signed the petitions," the justice said. "Since courts have a duty to protect the people's right to initiative, we must liberally construe the laws to preserve its spirit as well."
But Blease and Butz said there were too many problems with the initiative to say it had substantially complied with ballot qualification requirements.
"The amount and degree of variation between the two versions ... is beyond the pale of no difference in meaning," they said. "It also, by virtue of the nature and magnitude of the variation, sows confusion."
<Snip>
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian ruled last month that differences between the two versions were too great to allow it on the ballot, prompting the initiative's supporters to file their appeal.
Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the appellate court's ruling protects the integrity of California's initiative process.
"I'm gratified the court found that when it comes to complying with constitutional mandates designed to safeguard the integrity of our elections, it's not good enough to be in the ballpark," he said in a statement. "You have to play by the rules."