Prop 40 proponents acknowledge failure, orphan measure
by Brian Leubitz
Earlier in the cycle, Senate Republicans, and the state GOP (along with a few wealthy donors) decided that putting a referendum on the ballot to reject the senate district lines would be a good use of money. Of course, Republicans (in particular Schwarzeneger)were the main supporters of the original initiative to change the redistricting process, but never mind that.
They had intended to get the courts to toss out the old maps for the 2012 election, but during the court case didn’t actually provide a reason to do so. You can read more about the CASupCt’s decision in my summary of the opinion, but long story short the Commission map was just the easiest and most representative map to use. It complied with the equal representation requirement, took a lot of comment about the lines from the public and generally tried to meet the goals of the initiative.
That left the GOP with a very visible problem: what to do about Prop 40? If they actively tried to win on the referendum, we would have another set of maps for 2014. With voters already confused from the once-a-decade redistricting, that hardly seemed wise politically. Instead we got a ballot statement from the proponents of the referendum that basically said, we’re sorry, this is a waste of time, nothing to see here. In short, they left Prop 40 for dead, orphaning it on the ballot.
Joe Matthews looks at the eternal question of why orphaned/zombie initiatives stay on the ballot, but I’ll put in a point for keeping these measures on the ballot. Let’s say some other group thought that the senate referendum was a good idea, but they saw that the CAGOP was putting it on the ballot. They would have likely abandoned their own efforts. If we allowed the proponents to take measures off the ballot, we would just allow proponents to abandon other potential supporters. There is no hard and fast reason why some other group of supporters couldn’t come in and spend millions of dollars to help get the initiative passed.
IMHO, once the initiative is on the ballot, it belongs to the people. Colorado’s system of requiring both the Legislature and the proponents to agree makes a bit more sense, risks remain.
So, when you get to Prop 40, remember that pretty much nobody wants to see the referendum overturn the maps. But perhaps we get some interesting information on baseline yes/no percentages for referendums?
UPDATE from the comments: DavidT reminds us to vote YES on Prop 40 to keep the maps.
I’m not trying to be cute, or to criticize your spelling. I’m actually wondering if you meant to use waives, and were making a point about how convoluted the whole thing is. So are they somehow waiving the use of the White Flag in some roundabout way? Or, are they surrendering, in which case they are probably “waving” the White Flag, and it’s just a typo.
And it certainly is convoluted — and serves them right!
When referring to passing or defeating Prop 40, it’s important to remember that a “Yes” vote is a vote to uphold the current districts, as drawn by the citizens redistricting commission, and a “No” vote is to overturn those districts and have them replaced by districts drawn by special masters appointed by the supreme court.
This is a bit confusing, since the “proponents” of changing the maps would be seeking a “No.” But that’s how a referendum works. Prop 40 places the current maps on the ballot as if they were a bill, and the voters were the legislature. To keep the current law (current districts), you need to vote “Yes.” Don’t accidentally vote “No,” thinking you are defeating the overturning of the maps. A “No” would overturn the maps.