SACRAMENTO — Delivering a substantial blow to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's "year of reform" agenda, a judge Thursday struck from the special election ballot an initiative that would have wrested away the Legislature's power to draw political districts.
Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian ruled that the initiative should not have been placed on the Nov. 8 ballot because the wording circulated on voter petitions had not been approved according to law.
The decision was a victory for Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, who had sued to block Proposition 77 after learning that backers had submitted one version to his office — the first stop in California's initiative process — but circulated a different one to the more than 950,000 voters who signed petitions to put it on the ballot.
The ruling, which Proposition 77 proponents vowed to appeal, seriously weakens the ambitious plan that Schwarzenegger spelled out in his January State of the State speech. Already the governor has dropped a public pension overhaul initiative because of errors in the way it was written.
Schwarzenegger had vowed to take away the Legislature's ability to shape its own voting districts, which Democrats and Republicans have both long used to maintain power and keep challengers at bay. But his move to put the redistricting task in the hands of independent judges annoyed politicians from both parties.
Removal of the measure would leave just two governor-backed initiatives for the special election that Schwarzenegger called at a cost now estimated to be at least $50 million: an initiative to curb spending in a way that would increase the governor's power to make budget cuts and one that would make it harder for public school teachers to earn tenure.
One more of these special initiatives are off the ballots. One aspect of Proposition 77 that I didn't realize was that the backers--the LA Times notes are "People's Advocate Inc., a Sacramento anti-tax group, with the help of Citizens to Save California, a committee backing Schwarzenegger's broad ballot agenda--had submitted one version to Lockyer, and circulated another version to the voters to sign the petitions. Excuse me? The petition that I'm signing for the ballot initiative is not the same as submitted to the attorney general? I also find it ironic that the Governator has also dropped a public pension overal initiative because of written errors.
So now there are only two initiatives for this November special election--an initiative to increase the governor's power to make budget cuts and curb spending, and an initiative to increase public school teachers probation from 2 years to 5 years, before they can gain tenure. And it is still going to cost the state $50 million for this election of two initiatives. What a waste of taxpayer money.
The LA Times continues saying:
[Judge] Ohanesian rejected the arguments of Proposition 77 proponents that the differences in the two texts were too insignificant to matter to voters.
"The procedures in question are clear and well known and easily followed," said the judge, who ruled from the bench after a 2 1/2 -hour hearing. "There is no good reason to put the courts in the position of having to decide what is good enough for qualifying an initiative measure for the ballot when actual compliance is easily attainable."
She also rejected the argument that disqualifying the initiative would "disenfranchise" the nearly 1 million people who signed petitions, saying that proponents still have time to properly qualify the initiative for the June 2006 ballot.
Her order bars Secretary of State Bruce McPherson from including Proposition 77 on the Nov. 8 ballot.
No comments:
Post a Comment