Dec 1 Open Thread

Redistricting requirements? (4.00 / 1)

Friends who were interested in applying for the commission told me that any prior political involvement disqualified you for consideration. Were they wrong? If not, how can an elected official be not only on the commission, but the chair?

---

by: cfinnie @ Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 04:02:19 AM UTC

I think it is because (0.00 / 0)

 as a city official he was not in a partisan political office but instead a local nonpartisan position. I am not saying that that is reasonable, but I believe that the prohibition is only against members of the Legislature or others elected as party nominees.

---

by: Zack from the SFV @ Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 05:05:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another hole in Prop 11 (0.00 / 0)

Among the many holes in the redistricting rules is that local elected officials, like city councilmembers, are allowed to serve (as long as they don't violate any other rules, like having run for the legislature), but not people who served, for instance, on a county party committee.  The idea that city elected officials are reliably unbiased is laughable.

---

by: DavidT @ Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 06:02:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

indeed. given the rationale for taking pols out of redistricting (2.00 / 1)

- that legislators would draw their own lines - it seems a serious oversight to let someone who could run for a legislative seat after redistricting to draw the lines.

---

by: wu ming @ Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 17:46:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is that constitutional (0.00 / 0)

Could panel members be limited legally from pursuing public office? I doubt it. They could sign a pledge, I guess.

---

by: duder @ Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 18:34:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, they are banned from running for state and federal office (4.00 / 1)

Under Prop 11, members of the committee are banned for 10 years from running for the districts that they draw.

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 21:33:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How can that be legal? (0.00 / 0)

Haven't there been cases indicating that state law cannot alter eligibility rules for Congress?  For example, states cannot adopt term limits for Congress, or establish age limits for US senators and representatives that are different from those in the Constitution.  If so, then a state law or proposition purporting to establish different eligibility rules -- for instance, prohibiting members of a commission from seeking federal office for 10 years -- is void.

Also, isn't it a principle of law that agreements to sell or trade away constitutional rights are void and unenforceable?  If someone entered a contract to not vote in exchange for $100, but later decided to vote, wouldn't the state refuse to enforce that contract?  

---

by: DavidT @ Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 05:02:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Grounds for Appeal (0.00 / 0)

I wonder if these people are even eligible to be on the citizen's commission.  Prop 11 was very poorly worded.  Specifically:

Each commission member shall have voted in two of the last three statewide general elections immediately preceding his or her application.

This is a bit ambiguous -- it does not say at least two of three.  Based on that oversight, one could argue that the wording requires the commission member to have missed voting in one of the last three statewide general elections...  Do you think a city councilman would set that kind of bad example?

---

by: CaliforniaCondor @ Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 20:20:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a two party system in this conutry (0.00 / 0)

The whining over a split between Reps and Dems on this panel is lame.  And once again the so-called protectors of the minority (You progressives) wants to tell 40% of the state that there opinions don't matter.

Tyranny of the majority indeed...

On one hand many of you have spoken about how the people have "self segregated" into there various enclaves.  If this is the case then having the commission draw more contiguous districts which may flip a seat or 2 should matter little.

What does matter is a more transparent and open process.  You guys are all for freedom of choice and fairness...

Until it will cost you politically.

Have you even considered that more moderate Republicans may be elected???  I guess that doesn't matter because you all hate those not of your progressive ilk.

Guess what??? Just like the far right wing, the sum of all your far left views here are shared by MAYBE 20% of the CA populace.

Most people are in the middle.  Deal with it.

Hi. I'm Charles.  I worked my way from homelessness to a business owner.  Be what you have it in you to be!

---

by: cjackson3 @ Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 18:43:54 PM UTC

We're talking about fairness (0.00 / 0)

As one comment said, anybody who has served as a volunteer on a county central committee is disqualified for this commission. So it seems unfair that a paid elected official could be appointed--no matter what their party affiliation. This does strike me as a "hole" in the requirements, as another commenter said.

I happen to agree that having more contiguous districts would be good. I hate being represented by somebody over the mountains in the next county. They know little of the issues here and care less because we're such a small part of their district.

I would also like to see more moderate Republicans elected. People like Lincoln Chaffee, Dwight Eisenhower, and others were intelligent, responsible elected officials who worked in concert with Democrats in the best interests of the country. I think our state needs representatives who can work together to solve some pretty big problems.

So you might want to consider that not all liberals fit your preconceived ideas. We agree on some things. We can talk about stuff without insults. And my question just had to do with a fair application of the requirements--not about party affiliation.  

---

by: cfinnie @ Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 20:11:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's the difference: (0.00 / 0)

Liberals are dedicated to protecting the rights of minorities.
Conservatives are devoted to protecting the privileges of minorities.

Think about it.

---

by: jjohnjj @ Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 21:23:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shouldn't that be (0.00 / 0)

Privileges of rich and/or well-off minorities?

---

by: SuperJoker @ Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 00:21:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

moderate CA republican = DTS who votes for democrats (0.00 / 0)

there aren't hardly any elected republicans in the state who aren't toeing a very hard right line, doesn't really matter what district. it would be nice if the old liberal republicans of yore made a comeback, but there's no way they'd win a GOP primary these days. that ship sailed a couple of decades ago.

---

by: wu ming @ Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 06:41:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

additionally, if most people were in the middle (0.00 / 0)

then the CA GOP would be winning more than two statewide races a decade. in california, the middle is way left of what the CA GOP is willing to countenance, and i would bet well left of what you think ought to be the middle.

the only way republicans will win a majority is if they adapt to where the people of california are.  

---

by: wu ming @ Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 06:45:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh good luck (0.00 / 0)

On that, If You aren't their core, When I was called by McKeon for one of His group type call ins, He'd listen and talk with the far right, But someone like Me? Who's disabled? They said the congressman has run out of time and the line would go click or It would simply go click. Basically they didn't mind If I listened, Just not to Me.

---

by: SuperJoker @ Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 17:38:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

oh, i know it (5.00 / 1)

i've been trying to point this out to my bewildered liberal republican parents for coming on two decades now. it's just starting to sink in.

but if the OP could do that, they would indeed be competitive. most californians don't love democrats so much as loathe right wing republicans.  

---

by: wu ming @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 06:09:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

d'oh. OP=GOP (0.00 / 0)

---

by: wu ming @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 06:10:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]