SACRAMENTO — In another setback to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's "year of reform" agenda, an appeals court on Tuesday blocked his redistricting initiative from the November special election, ruling that supporters of the measure violated state election law in the way they put it on the ballot.
The ruling is a victory for state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, who sued last month to keep the measure off the ballot and now has won in two courts.
Supporters of the measure promised to appeal yet again, saying they would ask the California Supreme Court to review the case. The high court, which can choose not to act, would have to move quickly, because the state printer is scheduled to begin producing 12 million voter guides Monday.
Prop. 77 ruling -- An article in Wednesday's California section about an appeals court decision on the redistricting initiative said 3rd District Court of Appeal Justice Coleman A. Blease was appointed by former Gov. Gray Davis. He was appointed by former Gov. Jerry Brown.
Anticipating a Supreme Court review, the appeals court allowed the redistricting measure, Proposition 77, to be included in election materials now on public display until midnight Sunday.
The ballot initiative would strip the Legislature of the power to draw the boundaries of legislative and congressional districts and give it instead to a panel of retired judges. Schwarzenegger supports it -- one of three measures he backs for the November ballot -- because he says it would change a system in which incumbents are almost guaranteed reelection.
No legislative or congressional seats changed parties in the last election, and such lack of competitiveness, Schwarzenegger has said, "is not real democracy."
Making districts more competitive between Republicans and Democrats would allow moderates in both parties to hold more seats in the Legislature and Congress, some supporters say.
At issue in the court case is not the substance of the initiative, but the process that got it to the ballot. Supporters gave one version of the initiative to the attorney general's office for review and a different version to voters when they circulated it for signatures. The argument has turned on whether the discrepancies were serious enough to require supporters of the measure to repeat the process of gathering signatures.
Backers of the initiative say that the discrepancies resulted from an innocent mistake and that the differences were unimportant. A trial court in Sacramento rejected that argument earlier this month. Now, in a 2-1 vote, the 3rd District Court of Appeal has done so too.
- Schwarzenegger's Risky Scribble Feb 20, 2005
- Revisit Those Strange Lines in the Sand Dec 07, 2003
- The governor must retreat to advance Jul 23, 2005
