July 21, 2005

Schwarzenegger redistricting measure proposition 77: off the ballot

A Superior Court judge has ordered Arnold Schwarzenegger's redistricting measure (Proposition 77) to be removed from the ballot. Arnold may appeal.

The given reason is that there were differences between two versions of the measure used in the run up to it being placed on the ballot, and the judge says that this is a substantial issue and not just a technicality:

Attorney General Bill Lockyer asked the judge to order the measure off the ballot because its supporters used two versions - one to gather voter signatures and another that they gave to him to prepare a title and summary of the proposal to use on petitions.

Daniel Kolkey, an attorney representing the measure's author - Ted Costa - argued that the differences between the two versions were minor and mostly stylistic and due to a clerical error.

To show you just how far out to space Lockyer - and perhaps the judge - are, the Los Angeles Times thinks Prop. 77 should be on the ballot.

Yes, that's right, the Los Angeles Times. As they pointed out in "Prop. 77: No harm, no foul":

...the initiative required 598,105 valid petition signatures of registered voters to get on the ballot. In fact, the Costa campaign submitted 950,000 signatures. The problem is that the version submitted to Lockyer and the one circulated by petition-gatherers had different wording. A clerk gave the wrong copy to Lockyer, sponsors said. They called the differences stylistic and not of real substance.

Not so, argued Lockyer in suing Secretary of State Bruce McPherson to keep the measure off the ballot. The use of different petitions "cannot be condoned or tolerated," Lockyer argued, saying it could lead to bait-and-switch tactics someday. He's right, and officials need to guard against that possibility in the future. But there was no attempt to mislead signers in this case. The version of Proposition 77 on the petition signed by registered voters is the same as the one on the ballot...

UPDATE: The differences are highlighted here. There are a large number of differences, but I don't consider them overly substantial. Obviously, there should never have been two versions in the first place. I've created a table with the two versions here.

Posted to California at July 21, 2005 07:00 PM

Comments

This case is very important because these tactics of keeping petitions off the ballot by bringing up minor technicalities could be used later to nullify other "undesirable" propostitions.

For instance, if the California Border Police initiative were to gain enough signatures, open-borders politicians could try to derail it by bringing up minor technicalities.

Posted by: Eric at July 21, 2005 11:42 PM