Be Wary of Special Election

[SoonerShankle]

Many of the propositions on the special election ballot are meant to give unchecked powers to the Governor.

For example:

Prop. 75 (the so-called "Paycheck Protection" Act) will give the Governor unlimited power to collect big money from big business while strangling public employees unions who are already outspent 24 to 1 by big business in the political arena.

Prop. 76 (which guts prop. 98 and school funding mechanisms) would give the governor power to cut any and all public budgets three times per year even though these entities have to present and prepare their annual budgets by July 1 each year. So for example, schools would hire teachers based on budgets set in July, then the governor could cut money up to three times after that so districts wouldn't have the funds to pay the teachers and class sizes would then have to increase (as if being dead last in the nation in class sizes, i.e. largest classes, isn't already enough....)

Prop. 77 (redistricting? Texas? sound familiar?) would allow the governor to appoint the board that would redistrict. Now I think many of us could agree that gerrymandering is not cool, but I also think many of us can smell this rat coalescing power behind the governor and his party.

Beware, fellow Californians! If you want more information check out the Alliance for a Better California at
http://www.allianceforabetterca.org/

[KeepItReal]

1. Don't forget we have a GOP Sec. of State (Ken Blackwell/Katherine Harris?)

Running the old Secretary of State Kevin Shelley outta Sacramento was a coup for the GOP. No way they could have gotten that office in a statewide election. Now a *Republican* will supervise all elections in this state...

I think Prop 77 to redistrict California is the real prize for Bush & Co - er - I mean Arnold.

[SoonerShankle]

2. I agree, but at least...

we have a dem with strong history in CA going after that seat. It's a sad day when the minority can stranglehold the majority. While many counties in CA are red, more people live in the blue areas. Voter turnout is essential to defeating the Governor's so-called "reforms".

[bemildred]

3. Let's send Ahnuld a message and vote all of his down. nt

[catzies]

19. Yes! "Vote NO in NOvember." NO on all of them (except 79 IIRC)

n/t

[Oerdin]

4. Not true.

"Prop. 77 (redistricting? Texas? sound familiar?) would allow the governor to appoint the board that would redistrict."

That is simply not true. Prop 77 calls for the creation of a 24 member panel which will be composed of 12 Democrats and 12 Republicans. All members must be agreed upon by the majority and minority leaders in the State Senate and State Assembly.

If you're going to critisize something then don't you think you should at least know the facts first?

[davidinalameda]

6. Ballot Argument Against Proposition 77

Proposition 77 Makes Things Worse

Every time they don’t get their way, politicians cook up new schemes to change the rules. They’ve tried sneaking redistricting schemes past voters four times over the last 25 years, and each time, VOTERS SAID NO!

This time, their plan will cost taxpayers millions, and three judges and two courts have ruled it was illegally qualified for the ballot.

Don’t be fooled! Read the fine print. This undemocratic and unfair redistricting scheme has huge loopholes.

BIG FLAWS:

1) VOTERS LOSE THEIR RIGHT to reject redistricting plans before they go into effect.

2) POLITICIANS SELECT THE JUDGES to draw their districts for them.

3) Prop 77 COSTS TAXPAYERS MILLIONS each time they reject redistricting plans.

4) Only 3 UNELECTED JUDGES WILL DECIDE EVERYTHING. That’s not fair or balanced.

5) This unworkable scheme will be CEMENTED INTO OUR CONSTITUTION!

PLANS TAKE EFFECT WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL

Redistricting plans made from Prop 77 automatically go into effect WITH NO APPROVAL FROM VOTERS. That’s backwards. Voters should approve plans BEFORE they take effect, not afterward. By the time voters have a say, the damage is done. Why won’t they let voters approve the plans first?

POLITICIANS STILL IN CONTROL

Under Prop 77, politicians in the Legislature choose the judges to draw their political districts. Politicians get the best of both worlds – they still pick their voters and now they can hide behind judges. There’s no accountability!

REQUIRES MULTIPLE COSTLY ELECTIONS

If voters reject redistricting plans, the entire process starts over – new judges, new plans, more elections, and more political bickering – wasting millions of tax dollars. This could go on indefinitely… with election after election… until voters finally approve… all at TAXPAYER EXPENSE!

GIVES TOO MUCH POWER TO JUST 3 UNACCOUNTABLE JUDGES

This redistricting scheme gives too much power to three retired judges to decide the future of 35 million Californians. These unelected judges have nothing to fear by upsetting the will of the voters.

NOT THE WAY TO CHANGE OUR CONSTITUTION

Prop 77 changes our Constitution. But the Constitution is not a place to experiment with California’s future. They’re playing political games with a sacred document.

MOST AREAS OF THE STATE UNREPRESENTED

Under Prop 77, all three judges could be from the same area. That’s not fair. For example, three Northern California judges could break up Southern California communities, or vice versa. Central Valley voters could have no redistricting panel representation at all!

What effect would this have on regional issues like WATER RIGHTS and TRANSPORTATION FUNDING?

WHY NOW? WHAT’S THEIR MOTIVE?

Redistricting isn’t scheduled to occur until 2011, after the Census gives an update on California’s population. Instead, special interests spent millions of dollars to rush this strange plan onto the special election ballot. What’s their motive?

We do need to reform our government, but Prop 77 isn’t the answer.

VOTE NO ON PROP 77. IT WON’T MAKE ANYTHING BETTER.

www.NoOnProposition77.com

[mitchtv]

11. since when do the Pukes dexerve equal number of reps on the Board?

Minority party
there is already another redistricting scheduled
It will cost DEMOCRATIC SEATS
Whose side are you on?
lets wait til we have an elected Governor and an elected SOS
You want "fairness" to Pukes? WTF?

[rinsd]

12. Sorry 100% re-election rates suck... (nt)

[mitchtv]

13. Just what Tom Delay and Karl Rove are hoping you'll say

Democracy will certainly be improved with more Pukes in Congress. Gays can watch their gains disappear with more Pukes in the Assembly.

[Oerdin]

14. Whose side are you on?

The side that's against gerrymandering and for fair play. Unfortunately, it seems some people in our party care more about winning at all costs instead of fighting the good fight. I hear stuff like this and I start to wonder what makes us different from the Republicans if we're willing to cheat just as often as they are.

[SoonerShankle]

15. Who picks the judges?

My understanding of not just prop. 77, but prop. 76 as well, is to give the governor more unchecked power, especially over the legislature.

Does reform need to happen? Yes. Is it going to be difficult? You bet. But as long as there are unchecked powers involved, don't count on folks just rolling over for the idea.

Gerrymandering is bad. And yes, CA dems are guilty of it. But I'm not so sure the ends justify the means here.

Esp. with prop. 76!!!

[Oerdin]

16. We have common ground.

Prop 76 is garbage and I haven't seen anyone supporting it. Basically it allows the governor to cut any budget item and there is nothing the legislature can do about it. I like our current constitutional process with a division of powers between the different branches and I don't 76 will get much traction.

77 is the one which I am currently supporting and you've asked who decides on the judges. The short anwser is the majority and the minority leaders of both the State Senate and the State Assembally must agree on the 24 judges though their are much stricter requirements about who they can agree on. All four have to agree on 12 Democrats and 12 Republicans who are retired judges who can never have held a partisan political office and who have never been employed by a political party. The judges also cannot have switched parties after becomeing a judge (this is to prevent one side declaring themselves to be members of the other party and then gerrymandering things)and the judges cannot run for any elected office for 5 years after taking part in the council.

Most of the actual redistricting methodology would be reduced to executing a serious of rules. All districts must have equal population to with in 1%, all districts must be contiguous (no more of these leap frog districts), districts must conform to city/county boundaries where ever possible (the order of importance is 1) create the most whole counties possible 2) create the fewest county fragments possible 3) create the most whole cities possible 4)create as few city fragments as possible), districts should be as geographically compact as possible (no more snake like districts like the one in western Santa Barbara and southern SLO counties), US census blocks must stay as united as possible. In addition, no consideration may be given to how the redistricting will effect political parties, past voting records of citizens may not be used while drawing up districts and party affiliation of voters may not be considered.

I won't be supporting any of the other props (except for possiblely 79) but I've given up on either party not gerrymandering and now I just want clear written rules about how it will be conducted instead of having politicians rig their districts and move the district lines right before every election. I just want an end to the cheating.

[Tiggeroshii]

17. I've been all for this from the beginning, but didn't know who picked

judges and had my doubts. When I looked at the prop once, it just said ''legislative leaders'' picked the judges. But who are these legislative leaders? If what you say is true, can you tell me a more raw source I could find it? Thanks.

[Patchuli]

5. I'm not only "wary" but we will start precinct-walking

in our little slice of Northern California. People MUST know what this SOB is trying to pull over on us! NO MORE! We have only TEN WEEKS to do this!

If you guys can do your best to inform your neighbors, friends and everyone who will listen and cares about our state, we can defeat the 'Terminator!' He's trying to Tom DeLay California!!

:grr:

[Tiggeroshii]

18. i disagree

i really don't see how this new redistricting plan is anything like the one in Texas. This will have a completely bipartisan effort put into the deciding of the judges who redistrict. How is this not fair?

[GuvWurld]

7. See both forest/trees; you can't vote to fix broken elections

June 15, 2005

Media Contact: Dave Berman, Voter Confidence Committee
707-845-3749
[e-mail]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Voter Confidence Committee Calls For Rejection of CA Special Election Results

The Voter Confidence Committee (VCC) of Humboldt County, California, an election reform and watchdog group, announced today it will not accept as conclusive any results from the special statewide election called for Nov. 8 by Governor Schwarzenegger. Citing the election reform platform of the Voter Confidence Resolution, the VCC maintains that this election will be held under conditions that do not ensure an outcome that is conclusive beyond all question and indicative of the will of California voters.

"Until corporate money is removed from elections, voting systems are no longer privatized, and vote counting is not done in secret, election results in America can't be seen as beyond question," said VCC principal Dave Berman. "And until these deficiencies are remedied in California, how can we possibly have a basis for confidence in election results?"

The Voting Systems and Procedures Panel is scheduled to meet in Sacramento on Thursday June 16th to rule on certification of voting equipment made by Diebold and Elections Systems and Software (ES&S). Diebold has been under heavy scrutiny for alleged employment of felons, internal memos discussing programming loopholes, partisan fundraising activities of executives and dozens of examples of vote tally discrepancies.

ES&S is partially owned by Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel. ES&S machines counted over 80% of the votes that first put Hagel in office in 1996. Combined, ES&S and Diebold count over 80% of the votes in U.S. national elections and are run by brothers Bob and Todd Urosevich.

"We can choose to allow these blatant conflicts of interest, or we can recognize that sensible laws prohibit them," says Berman. "Isn’t it bad enough that private corporations are counting our votes in secret? Does it make any sense to use these machines when they don't even meet requirements established by the state of California?"

In April, 2004 the CA Secretary of State's office issued a report stating that counties throughout the state, including Humboldt, were using machines lacking state certification, federal qualification, or in some cases both.

The Voter Confidence Committee is encouraging other public interest groups to support the Voter Confidence Resolution by lobbying their local City Council for its passage. "We must refuse to accept elections held under conditions that can't and don't ensure conclusive outcomes and a basis for confidence in the results reported," says Berman.

"When we begin to make this stand community by community, We The People will have begun the process of ensuring the Consent of the Governed," Berman added. "This doesn’t need to be controversial. Elections must be transparent, fairly executed, and lead to unanimous agreement about the outcome. The system must be beyond question, period.”

RELATED READING
Voter Confidence Committee website: http://www.voterconfidencecommittee.org
Voter Confidence Resolution - http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2005/04/voter-confidence-resolution.html
Facts on Diebold - http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/images/ovc_lit/Diebold_OVC.pdf
Facts on ES&S - http://www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx
Facts on corporate ownership of election machines - http://www.ecotalk.org/UrosevichBrothers.htm
April 2004 CA Secretary of State report - http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ks_dre_papers/randgsummary.pdf

[GuvWurld]

8. Since that press release was put out...

the City Council of Arcata, CA has become the first in the nation to adopt the Voter Confidence Resolution. See this thread for a call to action on next steps:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x388444

[WeHoldTheseTruths]

9. There is NO BASIS for confidence in our elections

You HAVE to listen to this!! Just do it.

These are audio links to Thom Hartmann and Paul Lehto's presentation in Portland on "The Corporate Takeover of America's Elections."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x388978

[GuvWurld]

10. YES. YES. Exact wording from resolution = no BASIS for confidence

http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2005/04/voter-confidence-resolution.html

THE VOTER CONFIDENCE RESOLUTION

BREAKING NEWS (7/21/05): Arcata, CA City Council becomes nation's first to adopt the Voter Confidence Resolution. Click HERE for the story and HERE for a scanned copy of the official resolution signed by Mayor Machi.

* * *
NOTE: The Voter Confidence Resolution is intended for City Councils across America. As unified communities make this collective declaration, they call to question: Has the Consent of the Governed been withdrawn, YET? The resolution is a template that should be customized locally through bridge-building, consensus-seeking teach-ins. For more on the strategy and talking points, please see the new Guide to the Voter Confidence Resolution. (6/11/05)

* * *
(v6.1, LAST UPDATED: 5/14/05 5pm)

Whereas an election is a competition for the privilege of representing the people; and

Whereas each voter is entitled to cast a single ballot to record his or her preferences for representation; and

Whereas the records of individual votes are the basis for counting and potentially re-counting a collective total and declaring a winner; and

Whereas an election's outcome is a matter of public record, based on a finite collection of immutable smaller records; and

Whereas a properly functioning election system should produce unanimous agreement about the results indicated by a fixed set of unchanging records; and

Whereas recent U.S. federal elections have been conducted under conditions that have not produced unanimous agreement about the outcome; and

Whereas future U.S. federal elections cannot possibly produce unanimous agreement as long as any condition permits an inconclusive count or re-count of votes; and

Whereas inconclusive counts and re-counts have occurred during recent U.S. federal elections due in part to electronic voting devices that do not produce a paper record of votes to be re -counted if necessary; and

Whereas inconclusive results have also been caused by election machines losing data, producing negative vote totals, showing more votes than there are registered voters, and persistently and automatically swapping a voter's vote from his or her chosen candidate to an opponent; and

Whereas inconclusive results make it impossible to measure the will of the people in their preferences for representation; and

Whereas the Declaration of Independence refers to the Consent of the Governed as the self-evident truth from which Government derives "just Power";

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

Because inconclusive results, by definition, mean that the true outcome of an election cannot be known, there is no basis for confidence in the results reported from U.S. federal elections; and

Be it also resolved:

The following is a comprehensive election reform platform likely to ensure conclusive election results and create a basis for confidence in U.S. federal elections:

1) voting processes owned and operated entirely in the public domain, and
2) clean money laws to keep all corporate funds out of campaign financing, and
3) a voter verified paper ballot for every vote cast and additional uniform standards determined by a non-partisan nationally recognized commission, and
4) declaring election day a national holiday, and
5) counting all votes publicly and locally in the presence of citizen witnesses and credentialed members of the media, and
6) equal time provisions to be restored by the media along with a measurable increase in local, public control of the airwaves, and
7) presidential debates containing a minimum of three candidates, run by a non-partisan commission comprised of representatives of publicly owned media outlets, and
8) preferential voting and proportional representation to replace the winner-take-all system for federal elections;

Be it further resolved:

When elections are conducted under conditions that prevent conclusive outcomes, the Consent of the Governed is not being sought. Absent this self-evident source of legitimacy, such Consent is not to be assumed or taken for granted.

***Endorsements

David Cobb, 2004 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Voter Confidence Committee
Green Party of Humboldt County, CA
Black Box Voting, Inc.
Velvet Revolution

Submit your group's endorsement or the version of the resolution that your City Council is considering: [e-mail]

***
The permalink for the Voter Confidence Resolution is:

http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2005/04/voter-confidence-resolution.html

The permalink for the Guide to the Voter Confidence Resolution is:

http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2005/06/guide-to-voter-confidence-resolution.html

***
An archive of related prior works can be found HERE.