[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

Joe Mathews, author of "Party of One," a profile on Schwarzenegger's early years as governor, writes in the "Fox and Hounds" blog (one dominated by Arnold allies) that the Voters First initiative is "doomed to failure."
 
Writes Mathews: "The measure was doomed the moment the California Democratic Party opposed it last weekend. The Democrats will call it partisan, and it will go down in the Obama onslaught. To have any chance at succeeding, a redistricting initiative needs more than bipartisan support. It needs partisan acquiescence. And this measure doesn't have that."

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

Calling it a "fatally flawed initiative that does not accurately reflect the state's partisan diversity and similarly prejudices minorities and Democrats registration by using a biased ranking system that ensures an increased number of Republican legislative seats," the State's Building and Construction Trades Council unanimously has voted to defeat the Schwarzenegger/Republican/Common Cause "Voters First" redistricting initiative.
 
Labor's vote is seemingly a warning shot to any Democrats that may be lured to endorse the initiative by good government groups. The signature gathering, as noted here, has been financed nearly exclusively by large Republican donors and Republican business groups.

The resolution is over the flip...

by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

 (Brian's Disclosure)

Today in the LA Times, the Editorial Board endorsed Proposition 93. In the end, it's not a huge deal. Newspaper endorsements have been gradually declining in importance over the last 20 years or so. That decline was seen starkly in the 2006 Democratic primary, where Steve Westly got 49 of the top 50 newspaper endorsements. (I think that's the right figure, but I could be wrong on the exact figures.)

Nonetheless, the Times editorial makes the argument that I've been (at least attempting) to make on Prop. 93 for a while. It's not perfect, but it puts California in a better position for the long run. From the Times editorial, over the flip.

by David in Burbank [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

I am convinced that we will never fix the problems of our non-responsive California government though piecemeal changes. Term limits, which I voted for, have failed to produce the changes we wanted and have made it easier for money to dictate policy. All the measures we've passed to demand that money collected from certain taxes go only to certain projects have failed as well (and we face yet anther one of those in February.) Prop 13 has starved our treasury, but I can't afford to see it repealed. And all of these efforts have been an expression of our distrust in our government and were sold as the way to check their power.  For instance, no State run health care plan can ever pass public muster until we trust the politicians not to treat us badly as the insurance companies do.

Well, the solution is pretty obvious, but nearly impossible to achieve. We must be able to trust our government (and the public must perceive them as trustworthy.)  If we trusted them, we wouldn't need a super majority to increase taxes because we would be assured they would be spending it on something we needed. We could let our representatives have a career in their positions if the voters returned them to office and then benefit from their years of experience. And I am convinced that the only way to achieved that is to make a lot of changes all at once and have it sold by the people we trust most - ourselves!

Cont...

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

Cross-posted on Calitics. 

In yesterday's Fresno Bee, the editorial board takes a whack at Prop 93. Fair enough, I can handle a little criticism. But I'd like to go through this a little bit.

"Term limits should be changed. They haven't worked as well as voters once hoped. The net effect of term limits has been to reduce the experience level of those who serve in Sacramento, elevate the role of special interests and their lobbyists, and turn electoral cycles into an unending marathon on fundraising and focusing on the next job, rather than on California's increasingly serious problems."

Now that's something I can agree with, and something that I'm guessing most progressives would agree with. So, a reasonable start there. But then they get into their hang up: redistricting. Why are term limits and redistricting related? Why because the governor said so of course! Silly Californians. 

There's more...

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Bill Cavala
A veteran of over 30 years in Sacramento

The people have imposed qualifications on public office to make sure that those who run and win have the ability to do the job. Thus you must be an attorney to run for judge or district attorney. And all candidates must be registered voters, a fact that establishes citizenship and residency in a district. Candidates for partisan office must have been registered in their party for a year, and so on.

The latest redistricting initiative – backed by Republican Governor Schwarzenegger – takes the opposite tack. It would have a Commission draw political districts that has no qualifications. Rather, it would exclude everyone who had qualifications.

Commissioners would be chosen by three randomly selected certified auditors, none of whom would have any experience or knowledge of the redistricting process.

These unqualified screeners would then pick a pool of people chosen from those with no experience and with no relations with experience – going back 10 years.

These unqualified voters would be randomly reduced to 14. Ideologically extreme Minority Party Members or indifferent unaligned voters would hold the balance of power on the Commission. This group would choose the staff.

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision today to spearhead Common Cause's redistricting that excludes Congress won't make him any friends with Republicans in Washington, D.C. or Sacramento.
 
Yes, the same Governor Schwarzengger who told the Sacramento Bee on February 18, 2005:

"Behind closed doors on Capitol Hill, Schwarzenegger was vigorously questioned on his redistricting plan in a meeting with the state's 20 House Republicans, some of whom are worried about their own re-elections if their districts are redrawn by an independent panel to make them more competitive.
 
But Schwarzenegger said he will not entertain the thought of exempting congressional districts from the remapping. "It's non-negotiable," the governor said."

Congressman Kevin McCarthy, probably the most active redistricting proponent, has said he opposes any proposal that excludes Congress.

There's more...