It's voting day! Pit your state ballot measures

[madcossack]

@Dead Badger

Could someone who voted against Arnold’s redistricting proposition possibly explain why to me? I’m genuinely curious, as this seems like an almost unmitigatedly good idea, regardless of what you think of the Gubernator himself. Gerrymandering meant that of something like 150-odd congressional and legislative seats that underwent elections last year, not one changed hands. How can this be democratic? Check out the insane lengths gone to in order to ensure seats are safe from the dangerous vagaries of voter intention. Why was Prop 77 rejected? I realise that very few states in the US have independent districting committees, but surely this was a chance to genuinely improve the state of California’s politics.

I am quoting here from the California Voter’s Guide:
• Amends process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts.
• Requires panel of three retired judges, selected by legislative leaders, to adopt new redistricting plan if measure passes and after each national census.
• Panel must consider legislative, public comments/hold public hearings.
• Redistricting plan effective when adopted by panel and fi led with Secretary of State; governs next statewide primary/general elections even if voters reject plan.
• If voters reject redistricting plan, process repeats, but offi cials elected under rejected plan serve full terms.
• Allows 45 days to seek judicial review of adopted redistricting plan.
End Quote

Many people saw several problems with this set up (myself included).

1. The judges would be selected by legislative leaders. Why would this make things different than now? Handpicked officials are no different than gerrymandered districts.
2. Panel must consider hearings. How about must “hold” them? That might make people feel better about this. Don’t just consier it, do it!
3. Adopted plan governs next statewide election, even if voters reject the plan. So basically, even if there are hearings, and we don’t like them, they still go into effect.
4. Officials elected (through a lengthy process) under a rejected plan serve full terms. So if they suck at their jobs, they still stay on the panel?

What’s not to vote against?

To clarify, I am commenting on what a lot of people saw wrong with this Proposition, not just my thoughts. My comments are generalizations, and are meant to reflect my view of the current viewpoint against this ballot measure. I am sure that many, if not most, of the points I made above are factually incorrect or incomplete. Again, I am just commenting on how the public saw this.

One more point, probably the biggest. It was proposed and backed by the Governor, so it became very easy for the majority to vote against this measure by lumping it in with the other 3 he backed. It doesn’t take a lot of effort to just say no to all of them if you are generally opposed to his administration.

[Dead_Badger]

@kaylasdad99

No. There’s a lot of feel-good apparent decisiveness in the adage “Do something, even if it’s wrong.” But, largely because of the fact that the process makes it impossible for professional legislators to undo, or even repair, crappy mistakes that amateurs foist upon themselves (and the rest of us who still have to live with the results), the initiative process is not a tool that can be expected to produce positive solutions to complex problems.
…
Our initiative process is a freakin’ sledgehammer. The problems facing California are more akin to plastic pouches of ketchup from Carl’s Jr. than they are to huge slabs of concrete that need to be smashed up and taken away.

Again, I fully agree with you regarding the damage wreaked by the initiative process. Were I designing such a system, I think that at the very least I’d have expiry dates, a limit on the number of propositions per year, and the ability for the legislature to repeal Propositions with a super-majority. And again, I agree that of all the reasons for voting against independent districting, basic disapproval of the initiative process seems to me to be the soundest. I guess I just feel that the benefits would outweigh the concerns, but I do take your point about the irreversibility of any mistakes made at this point. So, thanks - good answer. Which leads on, I guess, to the question: what would it take to cure California of its Proposition addiction? Is this at all likely, d’you think?

@Der Trihs

What are the odds that a Republican backed measure will result in anthing other than a Republican gerrymandering of the state ? I don’t believe for a moment that Arnie and friends are even remotely well meaning; they would not have proposed this unless they thought it would slant things their way.

So you really think that it’s essentially impossible that a Republican could ever propose anything worthwhile? Even a relative moderate like Arnie? Don’t you think that’s a bit simplistic? This essentially means you’re giving up all your potential for rational political analysis, and letting the Democrats make your decisions. And you’ve already said you don’t trust them, either. I can understand a sort of world-weary cynicism as far as politics is concerned, but surely at some point you have to engage with it if it’s to get fixed. If the Democrats know they never have to compete (or even debate) to get your vote, where’s the incentive for them to perform?

madcossack, thanks for your response; my post’s already getting kind of long, so I hope you’ll forgive me if I respond without quoting you.

Regarding point 1, I feel that while the legislative body picking the panellists is not ideal, it’s a “least worst” solution. At some stage, someone has to pick them, and I think that in such a split partisan legislature, this is more likely to achieve balance on the panel than simply allowing the districts to be redrawn by whomever controls the appropriate legislature at a given time (the way the new selection process was written means that there would have been no advantage to the party in the majority). Additionally, the restrictions placed on candidates (notably can never have held partisan political office) ensures an extra layer of independence. I don’t think it can be claimed that this is ideal, but it’s hard to see how an objectively perfect independent body can be achieved at all. This certainly seems like an improvement to me.

Point 2, hearings: I think you might be mis-reading this here. In the analysis section of the voter’s guide it says that hearings have to be held, and that it is the views expressed therein that have to be considered (the public can submit full plans, should they desire). This seems fair enough; binding the panel further would force them to accept the views voiced at the hearing, which would remove the point of the panel completely. Another point to raise is that partisan considerations are specifically excluded from the reasoning behind boundaries, and the panel is instructed to avoid the sort of bizarre partitioning illustrated in the picture I linked to. So the panel does not have carte blanche to do what it likes. The panel must also unanimously agree the new plan.

Point 3, approval: Well, at some stage you do have to stop listening, as the alternative is deadlock. As it is, the plan gets voted on, and can be rejected by voters. As far as point 4 goes, I’m not sure you’re right about the result of a rejected plan - from my reading, in that event a new panel is selected and a new plan formed, and the old boundaries are used until a new plan can be agreed. This doesn’t seem unreasonable.

I do agree that quite a lot of people will have voted against this just to stick it to the guv’nor. I just view anti-gerrymandering measures as being about as difficult to oppose as puppies and ice cream for all, and wasn’t really willing to believe that people would reject something so seemingly beneficial for the sake of “sending a message”. Which I guess brings us back to kaylasdad99’s point about the danger of initiatives. Hey ho.

[madcossack]

Dead Badger,
I actually agree with most of your points. I copied out the info in my previous post from the Voter’s Guide from the 1st page of info on the proposition. The bulleted points.

My point was that many people probably only looked at those bulleted points (if at all) and made decisions based on them. I think I clearly illustrated how easy it is to have a limited viewpoint on the issue based on the information at hand.

Now, since this is the pit, and I feel like things have gotten WAY to civil around here:

The gov is a dick. I would vote against anything he came up with just to watch him backtrack and get mad. I know it’s juvenile, but I can’t stand his smarmy attitude. He’s a 2-bit hack of an actor who uses his “fame” to try and influence people. I truly beleive that he may be one of the most stupid people I have ever had the displeasure of listening to. He has no original ideas, and has surrounded himself with so many yes-men that he honestly thinks that skank of a wife is pretty. Skeletor herself may be the power behind the throne.

OK, that was fun. And all in f good fun in this wonderful country!*

*for the hypnotize never lies!

[Syntropy]

I would vote against anything he came up with just to watch him backtrack and get mad. I know it’s juvenile, but I can’t stand his smarmy attitude. He’s a 2-bit hack of an actor who uses his “fame” to try and influence people. I truly beleive that he may be one of the most stupid people I have ever had the displeasure of listening to. He has no original ideas, and has surrounded himself with so many yes-men that he honestly thinks that skank of a wife is pretty. Skeletor herself may be the power behind the throne.

'Zactly. And I would have voted against his stupid self serving bullshit propositions for that reason alone. Fortunately, they were all crap.

Maureen, nurse who resents being called “special interest group” by multi-billionaire asshole governor.

[kaylasdad99]

@Dead Badger

So, thanks - good answer. Which leads on, I guess, to the question: what would it take to cure California of its Proposition addiction? Is this at all likely, d’you think?

I honestly don’t know. Michael Hiltzik had a few things to say about the situation in this morning’s paper, including that conventional wisdom posits initiative addiction in its current form as a permanent fact of life, and that Tuesday’s results argue for CW being wrong.

What changes would my ideal initiative reform process include? I’d be happy to see initiatives being able to mandate an issue being placed on the legislative agenda during the upcoming session. The legislature’s results would need to be signed into law by the Governor, to go into effect upon ratification by citizen referendum. I’d like to see some effective prohibition on the kind of end-run shenanigans we’ve been subjected to in the past (setting competing proposals alongside each other, as was done with Props 78 and 79, for instance).

This could probably only be achieved through a state Constitutional convention. 'Cause I don’t think we’re going to adequately tweak this with propositions.

[jimpatro]

There may be hope for Texas yet. Maybe.
See, there was a 16% voter turnout. And 76% of them voted for the gay marriage ban amendment. So maybe, just maybe 84% of voters weren’t haters enough to get out and vote for it? Could be they just realized it’s illegal already. :dubious: