Take action now:

Proposition 77: both versions side-by-side

As previously discussed, a Superior Court judge has ordered that Prop. 77 be removed from the ballot, based on a suit brought by Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

Based on the comparison provided by the LAT, here are the two versions side-by-side. Note that this is just from one section; what differences there are between other sections is not known:

Version Lockyer got Version that got 950,000 petition signatures
Our Legislature should be responsive to the demands of the voters, but existing law places the power to draw the very districts, in which legislators are elected, in the hands of incumbent state legislators, who then choose their voters, which is a conflict of interest. Our Legislature should be responsive to the demands of the citizens of the State of California, and not the self-interests of individual legislators or the partisan interests of political parties.
The Legislature's self-interest in drawing its members' districts has resulted in partisan gerrymandering, uncompetitive districts, ideological polarization, and a growing division between the interests of the People of California and their elected representatives. Self-interest and partisan gerrymandering have resulted in uncompetitive districts, ideological polarizations in our institutions of representative democracy, and a disconnect between the interests of the People of California and their elected representatives.
The redistricting plans adopted by the California Legislature in 2001 produced an unprecedented number of uncompetitive districts, serve incumbents and not the People, and are repugnant to the People. The gerrymandered districts of 2001 resulted in not a single change in the partisan composition of the California Legislature or the California congressional delegation in the 2004 elections. These districts should be replaced as soon as possible and never used again. The redistricting plans adopted by the California Legislature in 2001 serve incumbents, not the People, are repugnant to the People and are in direct opposition to the People's interest in fair and competitive elections. They should not be used again.
The experience of the 1970's and 1990's demonstrates that impartial special masters, who are retired judges independent of partisan politics and the Legislature, can draw fair and competitive districts by virtue of their judicial training and judicial temperament. [removed]
We demand that our representative system of government assure that the voters choose their representatives, rather than their representatives choose their voters, that it be open to public scrutiny and free of conflicts of interest, and that the system embody the principle that government derives its power from the consent of the governed. Therefore, the People of the State of California hereby adopt the "Redistricting Reform: The Voter Empowerment Act." We demand that our representative system of government be fair to all, open to public scrutiny, free of conflicts of interest, and dedicated to the principle that government derives its power from the consent of the governed. Therefore, the People of the State of California hereby adopt the "Redistricting Reform: The Voter Empowerment Act."

UPDATE: I made it clear that this is just from one section.

California · Fri, 07/22/2005 - 13:12 · Importance: 1

Sat, 07/23/2005 - 22:42
Richard M. Mathews
www.alumni.caltech.edu/~richard/

What claims to be a complete list of the changes appears beginning on page 22 of the PDF file at

http://www.ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/2005/05-053a.pdf

This list was prepared by the attorney representing the initiative's proponents (as stated on page 11 of the PDF).

The LA Times did a great disservice by printing a selection of differences that included none of the ones that actually affect the text of the law being enacted. It took me a few minutes to find this list -- the "investigative" reporters at the Times should have been able to come up with something better than they did (assuming they had any desire to do so).

Fri, 07/22/2005 - 13:59
aphrael

These are just the differences in the preamble, right? Numerous sources have reported an off-by-one error in the dates, which isn't quoted above.