Okay, so I was wrong about Prop. 77
Eagle-eyed reader Andrew read my earlier post about Prop. 77 and didn't care at all for my reading of the initiative. He pointed out that, in my tirade, I omitted the portion of Prop. 77 that people object to -- the part that allows a redistricting plan to go into effect before the voters can decide on it:
(g) The final redistricting plan shall be approved by a single resolution adopted unanimously by the Special Masters and shall become effective upon its filing with the Secretary of State for use at the next statewide primary and general elections, and, if adopted by initiative pursuant to subdivision (h), for succeeding elections until the next adjustment of boundaries is required pursuant to this article.
So, it appears I was completely wrong. Upon being approved by the Special Masters, a redistricting plan becomes law, temporarily, for the next election. For it to become permanent until the next census, it must be approved by the voters. Section (i) of the initiative says that anyone elected under a redistricting plan that is approved by the Special Masters but rejected by the voters shall serve out his full term "notwithstanding the voters’ disapproval of the plan for use in succeeding primary and general elections."
In the face of this startling new information (which would not have been so startling if I knew how to read), I'm changing my mind: VOTE NO ON PROP. 77.
Comments
Dude, that's a minor and temporary issue.
You're rejecting the entire major and desperately needed reform because of that?
Posted by: WC Varones | October 30, 2005 8:34 PM
Yes, I'm willing to reject the whole thing because of that one provision. The whole point of Prop. 77 is that it is more "democratic" than the current districting system. Yet, there exists within the legislation a very un-democratic provision that allows the redistricting plan to be implemented in spite of its rejection by the voters. If there's going to be reform, I don't want it to be half-assed. Plus, this is a constitutional amendment, and that's a very big deal, especially when there's such a glaring flaw in the legislation. Reform for reform's sake is a terrible idea. You cannot say, "Oh, well, most of the legislation is okay, anyway." Nope. All of it has to be okay, and in this case, it isn't.
Posted by: Mark | October 30, 2005 10:26 PM