A second court has ruled that a Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger-backed measure to redraw legislative boundaries
should be erased from the November special election ballot because
the measure circulated to voters does not match the version
submitted to the state attorney general.
San Jose – A second court has ruled that a Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger-backed measure to redraw legislative boundaries should be erased from the November special election ballot because the measure circulated to voters does not match the version submitted to the state attorney general.
In a 2-to-1 decision, justices from the 3rd District Court of Appeal said the measure’s backers violated constitutional procedures for placing an initiative on the ballot and purposely delayed revealing the discrepancies to make it harder to challenge the measure in court.
“Their failure to make a public disclosure has tainted … the ballot pamphlet review process,” Justice Coleman Blease said in an opinion joined by Justice M. Kathleen Butz. “[The measure petition signed by voters] undeniably changes key provisions in the copy submitted to the attorney general.”
The measure, Proposition 77, would take away the power to redraw political districts from legislators and give it to a bipartisan panel of retired judges.
The proposition has received heavy support from Republicans and been decried by Democrats as a waste of taxpayer money because the districts would be redrawn before the 2010 census.
Ted Costa, a political activist who authored the measure and supported the 2003 recall election that brought Schwarzenegger to power, vowed to take his fight to the California Supreme Court.
“We’ll appeal [Wednesday],” Costa said. “No one’s been able to tell me that 950,000 voters did anything wrong. They signed the petition and they have a right to have the measure on the ballot.”
There are 11 differences in the two versions, most notably in regard to the selection process. In his dissent, Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland said that it’s doubtful that voters who signed the petition read the fine print of the initiative or feel deceived.
“There is no reasonable possibility that the voters were so misled,” Scotland wrote. “In the real world, the differences in wording were insignificant.”
Proposition 73, which would require minors to notify a parent before receiving an abortion, is also in court.
Friday, opponents of the measure sued to have some of the language supporting the measure struck from the voter information guide. Final rulings on both cases should come by the end of this month, lawyers have said.
