|
2008
Why Schwarzenegger's Redistricting Plan
Won't Work
California Majority Report.com
May 13, 2008
Tony Quinn: Redistricting Reform OK, But
It's Only A Start
Sacramento Bee
May 11, 2008
Governor May Face Donor Fatigue
Contra Costa Times
May 11, 2008
Dan Walters: Competing Proposals For Remap
Sacramento Bee
May 7, 2008
Initiative On Redistricting Closer To
Ballot
San Francisco Chronicle
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Nunez Pushes Ethics Plan As Rival Petitions
Are Filed
Sacramento Bee
May 7, 2008
To Get Leadership Reform, We First Need
Redistricting
Los Angeles Daily News
May 1, 2008
Good Intentions Could Harm Redistricting
Ballot Measure
Los Angeles Times
April 28, 2008
Redistricting On Track To Qualify,
Consultant Says
New America Foundation.com
April 23, 2008
Why Are GOP Contributors Putting Big Money
Into Redistricting Reform?
California Progress Report.com
April 19, 2008
Gov's
Giving To Remap Measure Tops $1 million
Sacramento Bee Capital Alert
April 21, 2008
‘Due
Process’ Democrats Have Their Heads Buried in the California Sand
California Progress Report.com
April 20, 2008
Opinion: Seeing The Light
Los Angeles Daily News
April 19, 2008
California
Voters FIRST Presents A Balanced And Bipartisan Effort For Redistricting
Reform
California Progress Report.com
April 17, 2008
Schwarzenegger's
Redistricting Plan Comes Under Fire
Contra Costa Times
April 17, 2008
Group Says Plan Will Put A Stop To
Gerrymandering
The Simi Valley Acron
April 4, 2008
The Need For Redistricting Reform From
This California Democrat’s Perspective
California Progress Report.com
April 4, 2008
Labor Says No To
Schwarzenegger/Republican/Common Cause Redistricting Measure
The California Majority Report.com
April 02, 2008
Revenge In Attack On Legislative
Redistricting?
California Progress Report.com
March 31, 2008
Weintraub: Governor Gets Another Shot At
Redistricting Reform
Sacramento Bee
March 30, 2008
Editorial: Can't Legislature Do Better Than
Bills On Dogs, Donkeys?
The Fresno Bee
March 30, 2008
Walters: Voters Irate At Budget Posturing
Sacramento Bee
March 28, 2008
New Foundation To Campaign For More Efficient
California Government
Sacramento Bee
March 27, 2008
Editorial: California Voters Should Support
Redistricting Ballot Measure
Fresno Bee
March 24, 2008
Editorial: Redraw the Map
Los Angeles Daily News
March 22, 2008
Walters: Court Ruling Offers Hope to
Dysfunctional California Politics
Sacramento Bee
March 19, 2008
Supreme Court to Hear Major Redistricting
Case
The Thicket at State Legislatures (ncsl.com)
March 18, 2008
Editorial: Let Citizens Redraw the Map
The Torrance Daily Breeze
March 17, 2008
Walters: Redistrict Reformers Miss Mark
Sacramento Bee
March 10, 2008
Let Citizens
Redraw Map
San Gabriel Valley Tribune
March 9, 2008
Governor Proposes Redistricting Ballot
Measure
North County Times
March 8, 2008
Redistricting Initiative Has Strong
Republican Backing
San Jose Mercury News
March 6, 2008
Governor Gathers Signatures to Qualify
Redistricting Measure
San Jose Mercury News
March 4, 2008
Manipulative Lawmakers Playing To The Crowd
Fresno Bee
February 14, 2008
State Voters Need To Do What Lawmakers
Won't
Los Angeles Daily News
February 14, 2008
Editorial: What We Need In Sacramento,
Redistricting, Not Retaliation
San Jose Mercury News
February 14, 2008
Redistricting Reform, Not Longer Terms, Is
The Answer
California Republic.org
February 12, 2008
The Buzz: A Hardball Tactic Could Ricochet
Sacramento Bee
February 11, 2008
Wake Up, Sacramento Media! Wake Up! Wake
Up! Wake Up!
San Diego Union Tribune
February 8, 2008
Editorial: Passive Aggressive Lawmakers
Just Play to the Crowd
Fresno Bee
February 8, 2008
Nunez Takes Blame For Prop. 93 Loss
Los Angeles Daily News
February 7, 2008
Weingand: Voters Got A Whiff and Said 'No'
Sacramento Bee
February 7, 2008
Lawmakers Believe In Term Limits But
Oppose The Measure
North County Times
February 4, 2008
Good For Us
Los Angeles Times
February 4, 2008
Commentary: A Conversation with Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger
Sacramento Bee
January 20, 2008
Walters: Two Party Structure Under Fire
Sacramento Bee
January 18, 2008
Walters: Governor's Brownian Flip-Flops
Sacramento Bee
January 16, 2008
Editorial: Corruption of a Good Idea
San Francisco Chronicle
January 15, 2008
Governor Supports Term Limit Measure
Sacramento Bee
January 15, 2008
A Deceptive Prop. 93
San Francisco Chronicle
January 10, 2008
Use Prop. 93 To Say 'No"
dailybreeze.com
January 3, 2008
more
|
 |
Editorial: Corruption of a Good Idea
San Francisco Chronicle
January 15, 2008
Proposition 93 is the Sacramento establishment's version of
term-limits reform. It starts, naturally, with the people in power
taking care of themselves.
Under current law, legislators are limited to 14 years: six in
the Assembly, eight in the Senate.
Proposition 93 would reduce the lifetime limit to 12 years, but
allow a legislator to serve it in a single house. The concept is
sound - slowing the revolving doors at the Capitol by giving
lawmakers more time to master the substance of issues and
intricacies of the process. The current 6-year cap in the Assembly
is particularly draconian; many members are positioning for a future
office from the day they arrive.
But here comes the self-serving fine print: The initiative
includes a "transition period" that would allow 34
otherwise termed-out legislators to run for re-election this year -
and another eight to do so in 2010. It does that by allowing an
incumbent to stay in his or her current house for a full 12 years,
regardless of previous service.
For example - and not an incidental one - both Assembly Speaker
Fabian Núñez, D-L.A., and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata,
D-Oakland, were set to be termed out this year. If Proposition 93
passes, however, each will be eligible to run for re-election in the
June primary - allowing Núñez to serve up to six more years in the
Assembly and Perata to serve an additional four years in the Senate,
giving the Oakland Democrat a total of 16 years in the Legislature.
Núñez, by the way, has been pressing members of his Democratic
caucus to contribute $50,000 each to the Yes on 93 campaign. It's
certainly a good deal for the special class of incumbents who could
get up to six more years in office because of the "transition
period."
We have long argued that the term limits passed by voters in 1990
were unduly restrictive. While term limits have opened the Capitol
doors to some bright newcomers - and increased the ethnic and gender
diversity of the Legislature - they also have forced incumbents to
spend far too much time raising money and not enough time delving
into long-term problems that don't generate press releases. This
measure might be worth considering if it were not so transparently
skewed by the people in power to benefit themselves.
Another example of the political establishment's "home
cooking" of the measure is the ballot title and summary
produced by Attorney General Jerry Brown's office. The title
"Limits on legislators' terms in office" is followed by a
summary that glosses over the "transition period" that
will allow some legislators who were elected after the 1990 term
limits took effect to stay in office up to 18 years. Sen. Tom
McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, would be eligible to serve up to 26
years in the Legislature when his pre-1990 service is included.
Also, the loosening of term limits should have been accompanied
by a measure to allow an independent commission - rather than the
legislators themselves - to draw the boundaries for Assembly and
Senate districts. The two ideas, if paired and written in a fair
way, would have advanced the same goal: Giving voters, rather than
Sacramento power brokers, more say in who represents them.
Both Núñez and Perata had promised to move a redistricting
reform bill to the desk of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a leading
advocate of the concept. But the redistricting measure stalled at
the end of last year's session. Once again, Núñez and Perata
delivered only excuses. The two leaders were either insincere or
ineffective. Either way, they lost their chance to put together a
solid package of reforms to advance democratic values.
The demise of redistricting reform combined with the crafting of
a self-serving Proposition 93 demonstrates a certain contempt for
the wisdom of the electorate.
On Feb. 5, however, voters get the last word. Vote no on 93.
THE REST: JUST VOTE NO
Here are excerpts of The Chronicle's recommendations on the other
state propositions on the Feb. 5 ballot. Links to the full text of
each editorial can be found at sfgate.com/endorsements.
91/NO. "The easiest decision for California voters on Feb. 5
will be Proposition 91. Even the original supporters of this
initiative have abandoned it. So why is it on the ballot? Simple. It
secured the required number of signatures, so it remained on the
ballot even though it has been superseded by events." (Dec. 19)
92/NO. "Passage of Proposition 92, which is on the Feb. 5
ballot, would layer dysfunction on top of dysfunction. It would
revise the constitutional formula for school funding to assure that
as the pool of potential community college students grows - based on
age demographics, plus the unemployment rate - the community
colleges would be guaranteed more money. The operative word is
potential enrollment; thus, the community colleges' funding would
not be tied to the number of students they actually serve."
(Dec. 17)
94, 95, 96, 97/NO. "These compacts (with four of the state's
wealthiest tribes) represent a huge leap from the concept of
reasonably scaled and well-controlled casino gambling that was sold
to California voters when they approved Proposition 1A in 2000. This
election may offer the last chance for California to contain the
explosion of gambling. Let there be no doubt: If this passes, many
of the tribes with more modest gambling operations will want and
expect the same deal. Is this what we want in our state: Pockets of
grand glitz that create wakes of despair?" (Jan. 13)
|
