Proposition 27 advocates say re-districting should be in hands of state legislature



image

Listen to the audio story:

—–

It is why Daniel Lowenstein, University of California, Los Angeles law professor and former chairman of California for Fair Political Practices Commission, supports Proposition 27. If passed, the proposition would disband the independent commission that is currently scheduled to draw up state senate and assembly boundaries. Proposition 27 would also prevent the independent commission from drawing the United States congressional district lines.

Californians passed Proposition 11 in 2008, which originally established this commission to draw state lines. Proposition 20, on next Tuesday’s ballot, would extend the jurisdiction of the commission to include doing congressional lines.

Proposition 20 and Proposition 27 directly oppose each other.

Comments

  1. John Peterson says:

    The language of the argument in favor of Proposition 27 contained in California’s “Official Voter Information Guide” was written by Daniel H. Lowenstein, acting in behalf of the California Congressional delegation. It contains a number of distortions and outright falsehoods that need to be addressed.

    Lowenstein claims that the Citizens Redistricting Commission will be free to draw electoral district boundaries that can create a district that “could have almost a million more people than another.” FACT: The Commission is directed to adhere to the federal voting rights act, which requires all districts to be essentially equal in population. This is the #1 criterion they are required to follow!

    He describes the Commission as “a faceless group of amateurs.” FACT: The Commission members will probably all be better qualified than most of the incumbent politicians whose cozy careers are in danger! Anyone interested in seeing the qualifications of these people can go to http://www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov and see for themselves. The 60 finalists for the 14-person Commission are listed, and their qualifications can be reviewed by clicking on “Applicant Pool.” (Over 4,000 people applied to be Commissioners.)

    Lowenstein describes the Commission as “a bureaucracy with the power to decide who is to represent us.” FACT: The non-partisan Commission will only draw the boundaries of the electoral districts in which candidates for state office will run. The voters in those districts will decide who is to represent us!

    He claims the Commission “can make up to $1 million dollars from California taxpayers in cumulative salary.” FACT: They would all have to work full time for a year to do this, whereas they will start their work in January 2011 and are required to complete it no later than September 15, 2011 – less than nine months. And this is by no means a full-time job! The actual salary costs of the Commission are likely to be more in the range of $250,000 — lunch money for California politicians!

    He says that under the existing law, passed by the voters in 2008, “voters can be denied the right to pass a referendum” against the electoral district maps developed by the Commission. FACT: The existing law, passed by the voters as Proposition 11 in 2008, specifically states that the Commission’s maps “shall be subject to referendum,” and that “if voters disapprove a certified map in referendum” then the State Supreme Court shall appoint special masters to resolve the situation.

    In short, Lowenstein’s “Argument in Favor of Proposition 27” is a pack of deliberate lies! WHO is supporting Lowenstein and his Proposition 27? THE INCUMBENT POLITICIANS OF COURSE!

    Any other questions??? VOTE NO ON 27!!!

  2. Soquel by the Creek says:

    VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 27

    Why is Proposition 27 a bad idea? The California Legislature is dominated by one party with a nearly 2-to-1 majority. How fair do you think those political districts will be if drawn by the Legislature? Judging by the 2001 redistricting plan, the last time the Legislature drew the lines, not very fair or competitive.

    Every major California newspaper recommends NO on PROPOSITION 27.

    If you’re not familiar with Proposition 27, here’s a good video overview from public television KCET.
    http://www.kcet.org/shows/socal_connected/content/politics/between-the-lines.html

    Also, you can read the “rest of the story” here.
    http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_27,_Elimination_of_Citizen_Redistricting_Commission_(2010)

    Californians: VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 27. As expressed by one newspaper, “marking No on Proposition 27 might be the most important thing voters can do for California’s future.”
    http://www.sbsun.com/editorial/ci_16431791

    It is perhaps also telling that Professor Lowenstein failed to acknowledge his professional relationship with Michael Berman of Berman & D’Agostino Campaigns, a paid redistricting consultant for Democrats in the 2001 redistricting process. Professor Lowenstein has written multiple scholarly papers on Michael Berman and the two served together on the No on Proposition 77 campaign to defeat a prior reform effort. It should be noted that Michael Berman is the brother of U.S. Congressman Howard Berman, a contributor to Proposition 27.

Speak Your Mind

*