Common Cause Supports Der Grope Redistricting Plan....

[Helga Scow Stern]

Just heard they had endorsed it yesterday during his DC visit.

:shrug:

Redistricting may be called for, LATER, after the census, but how anyone would think it should be in his hands is beyond me....

Edit to ad....just heard it on NPR's report about him being "the Collectinator" in DC.

[Helga Scow Stern]

1. Arianna Huffington's latest column about der Grope as a big liar...

Arnold And Eisner: Pathological Peas In A Pod
February 16, 2005

snip--
That's when it hit me: Eisner is the Disneyland doppelganger of Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's all right there: the unremitting duplicity; the penchant for saying one thing, then doing another; the gift for irrational invective; the way both men forge personal bonds with others, then turn around and stab them in the back--often just hours later.

Mouseketeer Mike and the Governator are pathological peas in a pod.

"DisneyWar" is a laundry list of Eisner's lies and deceptions. We get chapter and verse on his infamous two-faced handling of best friend Michael Ovitz, protégé Jeffrey Katzenberg, and heir apparent Robert Iger--as well as the dishonesty-drenched disintegration of his relationships with the Weinstein brothers at Miramax and Steve Jobs at Pixar.

There is the same sad, monotonous predictability to Arnold's serial betrayals. Except that Arnold's victims have fewer resources with which to fight back. In the last few months alone, Schwarzenegger has reneged on well-publicized commitments made to educators, environmentalists, public servants--and voters.

He promised teachers and students last spring that if they agreed not to fight his plan to withhold $2 billion owed to them, he would never again dip into money earmarked for schools to balance his budget. "Trust me," he said. "Over my dead body," he guaranteed. But at a time when a recent Rand Corporation study reports that California ranks near the bottom nationally in both school funding and student performance, Schwarzenegger's new budget gives schools $2.8 billion less than they are owed.

--snip

http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/column.php?id=759

[Gloria]

2. Pelosi said yesterday at her press conference that that LOCAL

Common Cause is opposing, but the national is supporting it! She said it was an "internal" thing....she said she had no problem with all this except she was wondering if it was going to be another Texas.

She was so low key and "friendly" that I wonder what the heck is going on! I didn't feel real good about what she was saying.

This was on CSpan last night, btw

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. This is a scam!

[Helga Scow Stern]

4. It's being hyped as necessary for decent reform.

It may well be that CA needs to be un-redistricted, since only one of its congressional races is contested, but for Schwarzennegger to be in charge of it, when he is clearly part of a neocon takeover scheme at the direction of Grover Norquist?????

Are they CRAZY?

Why can't this wait until the next census?

[Helga Scow Stern]

5. Maybe Pelosi has been assured of her continued district....

would make sense, get the support of key dems by assuring them their seat, which is guaranteed as it is....

[Helga Scow Stern]

6. Here is their statement about it....

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=186966

February 17, 2005: Common Cause and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today announce that they are joining forces to put an end to California's failed system for drawing congressional and state legislative boundaries, a process known as redistricting. Gov. Schwarzenegger and Common Cause President Chellie Pingree called on California legislators to support a plan to establish an independent redistricting panel of nonpartisan judges and to create fair criteria that will lead to more electoral competition and more accountability to the voters.



"This system is democracy turned on its head," Pingree said. "We can't have fair districts when elected officials choose the voters that they want to represent. It's supposed to work the other way around, where voters choose those they want to represent them. The results in California, where elected officials are virtually assured of re-election, show that the system is broken. We need to put the power to draw political lines in California, and across the country, in the hands of truly independent commissions and we need to put the power of the vote back in the hands of the voter."



"In the November elections, 153 California Congressional and Legislative seats were up for grabs, and not one changed parties, that is not a democracy," said Governor Schwarzenegger. "It is time to make our representatives more responsive to the people who elect them. I welcome the support of Common Cause and look forward to working with them to put trust and fairness back into our elections."



For Common Cause, the partnership with Gov. Schwarzenegger and the California reform effort mark the beginning of a national campaign to take the redistricting process out of the hands of state legislators and to entrust independent commissions with the task. As the New York Times noted last week, redistricting legislation and ballot initiatives have been introduced or have come under consideration in at least a dozen states. And Common Cause is aggressively pushing for reform in several states in addition to California, including, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Texas.

Our work on redistricting is guided by the following principles:

* The Creation of Nonpartisan Independent Redistricting Commissions
* Fair Criteria for Congressional and Legislative Districts
* Public Participation and Transparency
* Frequency
* Judicial Review

Voters know there is a problem. Astute political figures, like Governor Schwarzenegger know there is a problem. And in a Monday editorial, USA Today called on the states to create similar commissions and to establish fair criteria for drawing district lines.



By pushing for truly independent commissions and taking other steps to ensure that the redistricting process is fair, we can create legislative and congressional districts that are representative of the population and districting plans that result in more competitive congressional and legislative elections.

Yeah Right....I really trust the state's redistricting to be in the hands of der Grope and his new Secretary of State. Of course he and Norquist have our best interests at heart.

[Helga Scow Stern]

7. Here is how they think it will be such a fair process....

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=368187

Summary of ACA 3, to be amended as agreed
An Amendment to Article XXI of the California Constitution

Sponsor: Rep. McCarthy



Common Cause strongly urges the California legislature to refer ACA 3 to the ballot so that the voters of California have the opportunity to support this important reform.



Section 1. Establishment of an Independent Redistricting Commission

* Establishes a five-member panel of retired state judges to prepare the district plans for the state Senate, Assembly, congressional and Board of Equalization districts in the State of California following each decennial census.
* The amendment also ensures that panelists are nonpartisan (cannot have held partisan public office, political party office, or served as a registered lobbyist) and have no ambition to serve in partisan political office for at least five years.
* Creates a diverse pool of qualified judges, who are selected at random to serve on the panel.
* Ensures equal representation of the major political parties and that at least one member of the panel will be from neither major political party.
* Requires public hearings throughout the state, substantial public input and involvement in the process, an open redistricting process and restricts ex-parte communications.
* Requires that the panel seek input from independent experts to evaluate the plan.
* Requires that the panel's final plan be approved by four of the five members of the panel.
* Allows for a one-time mid-census redistricting prior to the 2006 General Election.



Section 2. Fair Redistricting Criteria



* Establishes criteria ensuring that the population of all districts is equal, that all districts are drawn in accordance with the United States Constitution and all federal laws, including the Federal Voting Rights Act.
* Requires that district boundaries conform to existing political boundaries and preserve communities of interest.
* Every district shall be contiguous and compact.
* Creates "nested" districts, wherein each Board of Equalization district would be comprised of 10 contiguous Senate districts and each Senate district would be comprised of two contiguous Assembly districts.
* Prohibits the use of party registration and voting history data in the initial phase of the mapping process but allows the panel of independent experts provided for in Section 1 to test maps for compliance with competitiveness goals.
* Prohibits the panel from identifying or considering the places of residence of incumbents or candidates in creating district boundaries.
* Requires the panel to create competitive districts where possible.



Sections 3 and 4. Judicial Review and Severability

Establish the California Supreme Court as the court of jurisdiction and provides that if any provision is found to be unconstitutional the remainder of the bill is in full effect.



They also held a really questionable, lame post-election symposium, as I recall, about election fraud. They invited the wrong people--no one who was on the right side, or truly objective, about the problem.

This just makes me furious.

[Helga Scow Stern]

8. I guess we had BETTER GET BUSY writing our legislators in CA....

Please, since this affects the whole country, and world, for that matter, everyone should write. I'll come up with contacts in a minute.

This is clearly a very orchestrated campaign, complete with setup with articles in LA Times and NY Times, now being quoted as "evidence", when in fact they totally sidestep the issue that der Grope, who is a liar who is looting and ruining our state at a rapid rate at the direction of Norquist and most likely Rove, has no business being in charge of or suggesting such a plan.

[Helga Scow Stern]

9. Describes the process in more detail...

http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/articles/20050208.cfm

snip--
The Governor's plan would remove from elected officials, and confer on retired judges, the power to redraw district lines. The parties would submit the names of judges who would then be selected by lot, with each major party assured of at least one seat on a three-judge panel. The panel would redraw lines to control the next following election—under the Governor's plan, in 2006—but the voters would have opportunity, in that same election, to disapprove them. Voter rejection would require the panel of judges to redraw the lines for the next election, allowing the voters—who would have selected representatives under the new, revised lines—to again express approval or disapproval.

The drawing of district lines is not possibly cleansed of its political dimension. No assumption can be brought to the drawing of these lines that is not, in some sense, "political," even if it is not overtly partisan. Plans like Schwarzenegger's are designed to obscure the point by relying on some image of sturdy incorruptibility stirred to mind by the term "retired judges." These ladies and gentlemen are "judges" after all: now, too, they are "retired," with no conflicting commitments, nothing more at stake that their principled passion to do the right thing. By building a plan around "judges," redistricting reform proponents are sneering at "politics" and promising, in a sense, to do away with it.

Or as Governor Schwarzenegger stated the case: "Ignore the Politics." He argues that by "ignoring politics," we can "trust the people." This is slick, but it gets things backward: the people are hardly trusted by the suggestion that they are the witless victims of a massive fraud through which self-interested politicians and parties deny them competitive, meaningful politics. It is not obvious that they enjoy "trust" when their elected representatives are shunted to one side, in favor of "retired judges" who know better how to design "good elections"—elections engineered to be appropriately competitive. The voters can approve or disapprove the handiwork of the judges, of course, while still, in that same election, being bound by it; but they will know little of the processes and complex criteria by which the "better elections" are designed. They will largely have to "trust the judges."

Elections are sometimes competitive and sometimes not, and there is no question that politicians and parties will prefer the landslide to the close election, the safe to the marginal seat. But in the end, politics, not judges, will most often, most reliably achieve representative government. Reform politics is, of course, a kind of politics, but its politics is not particularly democratic and the government it aims to produce—reform government—is not necessarily representative.

[Helga Scow Stern]

10. Report critical of Schwarz plan:

While CA Common Cause is now going along with their parent org., they also support these recommendations.

http://www.demos-usa.org/pubs/caredisreport.pdf

From Press release:

A new report, Drawing Lines: A Public Interest Guide to Real Redistricting Reform, released today by Demos and the Center for Governmental Studies, shows that current legislation and proposed initiatives on redistricting all fail to sufficiently address the needs of the public, and suggests clear guidelines for much fairer redistricting. The report responds to the California State Legislature and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who are considering sweeping changes to the way California draws electoral district boundaries with its consideration of several new proposals that would give redistricting authority to an "Independent Redistricting Commission," and take it away from partisan legislative control.

Drawing Lines recommends criteria for selection of Independent Redistricting Commission members, key components to be included in any redistricting plan, and analyzes the major features of each current proposal against the recommendations. The report finds that each one falls short of assuring fair representation of California's population.

"In California's 2004 legislative and congressional elections, none of the 153 seats changed party hands, even in districts where no incumbent was running," noted Bob Stern, CGS President. "This lack of competition is due significantly to the legislature's decision to redraw electoral districts to protect party boundaries."

Drawing Lines shows that, while redistricting should be conducted by an Independent Commission, none of the various proposals under current consideration does enough to encourage the creation of more competitive districts or better representation of communities of color, the areas where California is most in need of improvement.

"A number of states are considering Independent Redistricting Commissions. This is an opportunity for California to draft model legislation that other states can use to end decades of limited minority representation and partisan cronyism," said Steven Carbó, Director of Demos'Democracy Program.

[Peace Patriot]

11. Christ. n/t

nix n/t

There had to be a big fight from the grass roots inside League of Women Voters on electronic voting. Grass roots won. Need to stir the Common Cause grass roots. Maybe Arnebeck could help. CC joined his lawsuit. (Arnebeck is Alliance for Democracy.)

How can good people be so blind? Or, as we discussed in another forum...naw.

Not Common Cause, TOO.

New thought: It could have to do with social moderate Republicans wanting to get a griphold to oust Armageddonists? Maybe. Calif. would certainly be a good place to try to do it. But that doesn't account for Scharwz/Enron connection. Or maybe that's how Bush Cartel is working it--fooling even the moderate Repubs.

Byzantium II.

Fear. Blackmail. Poisonings. Backstabbings. Ruinations. Assassinations. Torture. Mass slaughter. Massive theft. And lies, lies, lies. Deep disorder in the realm.

-----

The redistricting is untimely--as with Texas. Let us get our right to vote back first. THEN we will do a lot of housecleaning.

That's the argument for Common Cause.

No redistricting with Wally O'Dell and H. Ahmanson counting the votes in secret! Nor with Schwarz as Gov.

[Helga Scow Stern]

12. I would like to think this is well-intended, but with Norquist

so close to der Grope's heart, I don't trust it one bit!

And der Schwarz is being seen as a sociopathic liar, who has no trouble presenting a charming, conciliatory front, and then doing the exact opposite behind your back. From what I hear, this is par for the course with many in Hollywood.

[rumpel]

13. Here is an interesting lawblog on election, redistricting and such issues

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/2005_02.html

[Helga Scow Stern]

14. That is a good site. Thanks, rumpel. n/t

[Helga Scow Stern]

15. Op-ed in NYTimes: redistricting no longer effective...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/19/opinion/19hill.html

snip--
Governor Schwarzenegger and others are proposing that redistricting be taken out of the hands of the incumbents and given to an independent body, like a panel of impartial retired judges. Yet several states already use independent commissions, and the results are not encouraging.

For instance, in Arizona, where an independent panel delineates districts, all eight Congressional incumbents won re-election last year with an average margin of victory of 34 percent. In the State Senate, none of the 30 seats were competitive; in fact, more than half of the seats were uncontested by one of the two major parties (even though Arizona has public financing of elections, which should encourage more candidates). Other states that use independent or bipartisan redistricting commissions of one kind or another, like Iowa, New Jersey and Washington, also had mostly noncompetitive Congressional elections in 2004.

The problem is not who draws the legislative lines - it's where people live. Take a look at a map of California that shows which areas voted for John Kerry and which voted for President Bush. It looks the same as the map for Al Gore and Mr. Bush four years earlier. It will look much the same for the Republican and Democratic candidates in 2008.

As they have in many states, regional partisan leanings in California have become entrenched over the past 20 years, with the heavily populated coastal areas and cities dominated by Democrats and the more sparsely populated interior dominated by Republicans. It's a statewide version of the national political map.
--snip