Proposition 77
Redistricting. Another Constitutional Amendment. This one is being referred to as The Bipartisan Voter Empowerment Solution. It would amend the Constitution so that redistricting plans would be decided by a panel of retired judges. Currently, redistricting plans are included in the legislation and become law after passing the Legislature and receiving the Governor's signature. If the Governor and the Legislature are unable to come to an agreement with regard to redistricting plans, the California Supreme Court oversees the process.
Proponents say Proposition 77 will put the matter back into the hands of the voters. They base this on the fact that Prop. 77, if passed, will require that all redistricting plans be voted on. If the voters reject a redistricting plan, according to Prop. 77, another panel would be appointed to create a new plan. Proponents of Prop. 77 also say that the legislators who are currently responsible for redistricting have too much control over the process. To prove their point, they cite the fact that in November 2004, not a single district switched parties.
Opponents of Proposition 77 say that the process is already in the hands of our elected representatives in the California Legislature. They worry that the panel of judges who will ultimately design future redistricting plans might be prone to the influence of special interests. They are also concerned about the money that will be spent designing and implementing plans that might not pass--not to mention the cost of the elections themselves. And, like me, they are reluctant to amend the state Constitution for something that appears to be motivated by self-interest.
One of the biggest flaws in this proposed initiative is that it allows redistricting plans that have not yet been voted upon, to be implemented. That seems a little backward, doesn't it? If the idea is to put the planning process back into the hands of the voters, but the initiative promising to do that allows plans to be implemented prior to approval, how are voters' gaining control? And what if the plan is implemented and then voted down? There will be costs associated with the failed plan on both ends--neither of which would be the case if plans were not carried out until after they had been approved by voters.
Opponents of Prop. 77 also point out that politicians will be appointing the judges who will design the redistricting plans. Therefore, the suggestion that Prop. 77 takes special interests out of the redistricting process is one many, myself included, find a little hard to believe.
--Laurie
Proponents say Proposition 77 will put the matter back into the hands of the voters. They base this on the fact that Prop. 77, if passed, will require that all redistricting plans be voted on. If the voters reject a redistricting plan, according to Prop. 77, another panel would be appointed to create a new plan. Proponents of Prop. 77 also say that the legislators who are currently responsible for redistricting have too much control over the process. To prove their point, they cite the fact that in November 2004, not a single district switched parties.
Opponents of Proposition 77 say that the process is already in the hands of our elected representatives in the California Legislature. They worry that the panel of judges who will ultimately design future redistricting plans might be prone to the influence of special interests. They are also concerned about the money that will be spent designing and implementing plans that might not pass--not to mention the cost of the elections themselves. And, like me, they are reluctant to amend the state Constitution for something that appears to be motivated by self-interest.
One of the biggest flaws in this proposed initiative is that it allows redistricting plans that have not yet been voted upon, to be implemented. That seems a little backward, doesn't it? If the idea is to put the planning process back into the hands of the voters, but the initiative promising to do that allows plans to be implemented prior to approval, how are voters' gaining control? And what if the plan is implemented and then voted down? There will be costs associated with the failed plan on both ends--neither of which would be the case if plans were not carried out until after they had been approved by voters.
Opponents of Prop. 77 also point out that politicians will be appointing the judges who will design the redistricting plans. Therefore, the suggestion that Prop. 77 takes special interests out of the redistricting process is one many, myself included, find a little hard to believe.
--Laurie
posted by LA Fosner at 4:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home