( – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

[Even though I was planning to take a break from blogging for a while, something has been nagging me at the back of my mind about Six Californias. Since a brief email exchange I had with Mr. Draper indicates he may try again – which is why I have “Is” in the title – I decided I should post my concerns.]

According to the story of the Trojan Horse, the Greek army wanted to invade Troy but couldn’t breach Troy’s well-defended walls. So they pretended to give up, and built a giant wooden horse as an appeasement gift. The Trojans saw the Greeks sail away, leaving the wooden horse just outside the walls, so in their joy at their apparent victory the Trojans opened their gates and brought the horse inside.

Unbeknownst to the Trojans, the Greeks had left a small band of their best soldiers inside the horse. In the middle of the night, as the Trojans, exhausted from their day-long victory celebration, slept soundly, the Greeks left the horse via a trap door  and opened the gates so that the rest of the Greek army, which had sailed back, could enter Troy and take the city.

Thus the expression “Trojan Horse” refers to anything that looks attractive but has something malevolent buried inside.

(The incident also gave birth to that other expression, “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.” However, it is not related to the expression “Never look a gift horse in the mouth“; that has a different origin.)

Attractive free software that contains malware is a modern-day example of a Trojan Horse. But so are initiatives that seem to do one thing but have something else buried inside of them.

I’m referring to Section 4 of Six Californias, that would add Section 4.5 to Article XI of the California Constitution:

SECTION 4. COUNTY AND REGIONAL POWER DURING INTERIM PERIOD OF TRANSFORMATION

Article XI of the California Constitution is amended to add section 4.5 to read:

Sec. 4.5(a) Upon enactment of this section, it shall be competent in any county charter to provide that the county governed thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to other matters they shall be subject to general laws. County charters adopted pursuant to this Constitution shall supersede any existing charter, and with respect to municipal affairs shall supersede all laws inconsistent therewith.

(b) A county charter may provide for the delegation of authority in respect to municipal affairs, by way of compact, or other agreement, to a regional association of counties, consisting of the other counties within the boundaries of the new states provided for in section 2.5 of Article II, during the interim period of time before Congressional approval of the new states.

(c) For purposes of this section, any law intended by the Legislature to be a general law or matter of statewide concern that supersedes the authority of a county over its municipal affairs and also requires an annual subvention of funds to reimburse the county for the costs of the program or service pursuant to section 6 of Article XIIIB, shall require an annual transfer of funds from the state treasury to a county treasury, as needed, and in the absence of such reimbursement, the county shall have no obligation to enforce the law. The state shall have no power to incur debt owed to a county pursuant to this subdivision.

This amendment to California’s Constitution would have gone into effect if Six Californias had made it to the ballot and was passed by the voters, and would have remained in effect even if Congress never approved the division of California into six new states. I suppose one could call it the initiative’s “Plan B”, but since (as far as I can tell) most political observers expect that Congress would never approve of such a division (and Mr. Draper must know that) perhaps it is the initiative’s true “Plan A”?

I do note that the initiative is upfront about Section 4; Section 2(A)(5) even says one purpose is to “Provide interim relief to the people by empowering local government and promoting regional cooperation in recognition of the new states proposed herein.”. But note its use of the word “interim”, implying something temporary, not permanent. In some sense Section 4 is “hiding in plain sight“, and for that reason the initiative may have been a Trojan Horse.

After all, a ballot measure to establish regional governments, or at least allow for them, is pretty boring. It’d be hard to get people to sign such a petition, and it’s so wonky that it might be difficult to get people to vote for it. But a measure to divide the state six ways, now that’s sexy! That will generate buzz, and no one will notice the wonky little provision tucked into the fine print.

Note that I am not taking a position on the merits of the proposed Section 4.5 of Article XI. Perhaps it would be good for California, perhaps not. But I’m sure that, if Six Californias or a future incarnation of it appeared on the ballot, most if not all of the media attention would be given to the debate about the division into six states, and little or none would be given to the implications and lasting effects of Section 4.5 of Article XI. And that does make me suspicious of it.

–Steve Chessin

President, Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER)

www.cfer.org

The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of CfER.

You’ve probably heard by now that Six Californias failed to qualify for the ballot. You can read about it on the SoS website temporarily here and here, and more permanently here. The official announcement that went out to the County Clerks and Registrars of Voters can be downloaded from here.

Given all that, this will be my final report on the signature qualification effort of Six Californias. It will contain more information than you will read in the media.

The last five counties reported their random sampling results in Friday’s final update: Inyo (validity rate 80.7%; they did a full count), Los Angeles (61.4%), Mariposa (67.0%), San Benito (63.1%; full count), and Trinity (66.7%). Raw counts were changed for Plumas County (an increase of 33) and Trinity (a loss of 15), for a net increase of 18 signatures, bringing the final raw count to 1,137,844 (was 1,137,826). In addition, Yuba corrected their duplicate count from 2 to 8, reducing their validity rate from 58.8% to 51.1%.

Also, the date in which Alpine County submitted their random count was corrected to August 4th (was incorrectly reported as August 14th), and the typo I reported in Report #8 in Ventura County’s random count submission date was corrected to August 15th (was July 18th, before the July 30th date when they submitted their raw count).

The overall validity rate went down to 66.15% (was 67.96%), for a projected valid signature count of 752,685, a whopping 14,550 short of what was needed to qualify for a full count. (Another way of looking at it is they had 93% of what they needed for the ballot, not the 95% needed to qualify for a full count.)

As I stated in my previous report, if Los Angeles came in under 65.7%, Six Californias would not qualify. Los Angeles came in at 61.4%, and the initiative did not.

I hope you’ve enjoyed this series. I had fun writing it. (To those of you who suggested I go into journalism, thanks, but no thanks. I’m keeping my day job.) I’ll respond to comments to this and previous diary entries as time permits, but I have no plans to do this sort of thing again, at least not until another initiative catches my interest.

I do invite you to check out Californians for Electoral Reform. We are a non-partisan (more accurately, multi-partisan) organization that does educational and advocacy work around instant runoff voting and proportional representation, as we believe these electoral reforms will result in better representation for all Californians than top-two primaries in single-member districts with independent redistricting can provide. We are an all-volunteer organization (no paid staff), so our strength is in our membership (dues are only $25/year). You might enjoy reading the answers to our questionnaire submitted by all the Secretary of State candidates prior to the June primary. Of course, you’ll be most interested in the answers of (in alphabetical order) Alex Padilla and Pete Peterson.

–Steve Chessin

President, Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER)

www.cfer.org

The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of CfER.

Two counties reported their random sampling results in Wednesday’s update: Fresno (validity rate 75.1%) and Tuolumne (73.3%). In addition, Tuolumne (which actually did a full count, not a random sample) found an additional 29 raw signatures, bringing the total raw count up slightly to 1,137,826. The overall validity rate is up slightly to 67.96% (was 67.58%, for a projected valid signature count of 768,923, a comfortable 1,688 more than needed to qualify for a full count.

Five counties still have to complete their random sampling. They are (in order of the number of raw signatures they reported) Los Angeles (311,924 raw signatures), Mariposa (945), Trinity (779), Inyo (616), and San Benito (350). Los Angeles has to check 3% of their signatures and San Benito has to check all 350; the other three have to check 500 (unless they want to check them all).

With the Fresno and Tuolumne numbers in, Los Angeles only needs to have a not unreasonable 66.6% validity rate for Six Californias to qualify for a full count without reports from the other four counties. On the other hand, if Los Angeles has less than a 65.7% validity rate, then Six Californias will not qualify for a full count no matter what the other four counties report. This substantially narrows the range where the reports from Mariposa, Trinity, Inyo, and San Benito would matter.

Thirty-three counties had a validity rate of 66.6% or greater, while only seventeen had a validity rate less than 65.7%. We won’t know if Six Californias will qualify for a full count until Los Angeles County reports their numbers; when they do, we’ll also know if we need to get the reports from the other four counties.

–Steve Chessin

President, Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER)

www.cfer.org

The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of CfER.

Five(!) counties reported their random sampling results Tuesday: El Dorado (validity rate 76.8%), Glenn (70.1%), Humboldt (60.3%), Lassen (65.9%), and Nevada (72.7%). In addition, El Dorado reported eight fewer signatures in their raw count than they had initially, and Nevada County reported an additional signature, bringing the total raw count down slightly to 1,137,797. The overall validity rate is up slightly to 67.58% (was 67.48%, for a projected valid signature count of 768,923, a comfortable 1,688 more than needed to qualify for a full count.

Seven counties still have to complete their random sampling. They are (in order of the number of raw signatures they reported) Los Angeles (311,924 raw signatures), Fresno (38,382), Tuolumne (4,732), Mariposa (945), Trinity (779), Inyo (616), and San Benito (350). Los Angeles and Fresno have to check 3% of their signatures, and San Benito has to check all 350; the others have to check 500 (unless they want to check them all). I hope we don’t have to wait until Friday for them all to report.

My feeling is much of it boils down to Los Angeles. While I don’t think Los Angeles by itself will put them over the number they need to qualify for a full count (for that it would have to have a remarkably high 77.0% or better validity rate), it could make it mathematically impossible for the rest of the counties to put them over. That is, if the validity rate from Los Angeles ends up less than about 62.3%, then even if the other counties had 100% valid signatures Six Californias would not qualify for a full count and would not make it to the ballot. (At this point it is mathematically impossible for Six Californias to qualify for the ballot based on random sampling alone, even if Los Angeles had a 100% projected validity rate.)

I note that only three counties had a validity rate of 77.0% or greater. On the other hand, thirteen counties had a validity rate of 62.3% or lower. It’s likely that Los Angeles will have a validity rate somewhere in between those extremes, meaning we’ll need reports from at least Fresno and Tuolumne counties, if not all of them, to learn if Six Californias will get a full count.

–Steve Chessin

President, Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER)

www.cfer.org

The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of CfER.

Two more counties reported their random sampling results Monday: San Luis Obispo (validity rate 60.2%) and Yuba (57.2%). (San Luis Obispo County also found another raw signature, bringing the total raw count to 1,137,804.) The overall validity rate is down slightly to 67.48% (was 67.6%, for a projected valid signature count of 767,790, just 555 more than needed to qualify for a full count. (I had been rounding the overall validity rate to three significant digits, but as Six Californias is so close to the threshold I’ll begin reporting it to four significant digits as the Secretary of State does.)

Twelve counties still have to complete their random sampling, which by law they must do by Friday. They are (in order of the number of raw signatures they reported) Los Angeles (311,924 raw signatures), Fresno (38,382), El Dorado (11,649), Humboldt (7,230), Tuolumne (4,732), Nevada (4,322), Lassen (2,066), Glenn (1,910), Mariposa (945), Trinity (779), Inyo (616), and San Benito (350). Los Angeles and Fresno have to check 3% of their signatures, and San Benito has to check all 350; the others have to check 500 (unless they want to check them all).

Given how close to the threshold for a full count Six Californias is, if the smaller counties were hoping Six Californias would either qualify or fail to qualify without their numbers, so they could skip verifying signatures, they might have have to re-think that position. If I were them, and depending on how long it takes their offices to verify a signature, I wouldn’t wait until Friday morning to start verifying.

Updated September 9th: I had a typo in the raw count number in the first paragraph in the original version of this report. I had written 1,137,904 when it was 1,137,804. It is corrected above. The projected valid signature computation was made with the correct value.

–Steve Chessin

President, Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER)

www.cfer.org

The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of CfER.

Two more counties have finished their random sampling, according to today’s update from the Secretary of State’s office: one large (Orange County, with a validity rate of 67.9%), and one small (Amador County, 68.1%). The overall validity rate is unchanged at 67.6%, so with 769,154 projected valid signatures, Six Californias may be headed for a full count.

Fourteen counties still have to complete their random sampling, which by law they must do by next Friday. With Orange County having reported, the top ten (by the number of raw signatures they reported) are now Los Angeles (311,924 raw signatures), Fresno (38,382), San Luis Obispo (12,906), El Dorado (11,649), Humboldt (7,230), Tuolumne (4,732), Nevada (4,322), Yuba (3,720), Lassen (2,066), and Glenn (1,910). The top two have to check 3% of their signatures; the others have to check 500 (unless they want to check them all).

–Steve Chessin

President, Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER)

www.cfer.org

The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of CfER.

Two more counties have completed their random sampling according to today’s update from the Secretary of State’s office; one large (Riverside, with a validity rate of 73.3%), and one small (Santa Cruz, with a validity rate of 60.1%). I note that Riverside has a very high validity rate for a large county (74,478 raw signatures). No county with more raw signatures has a validity rate higher than 69.5%. (Of course, we still have to hear from Los Angeles County.) The largest county with a validity rate higher than 73.3% is Ventura (27,134 raw signatures, validity rate 82.2%).

The overall validity rate is 67.6%, up somewhat from the 67.0% validity rate in my previous report. That gives a projected valid signature count of 769,154 signatures, up sufficiently from the 762,328 in that previous report for Six Californias to qualify for a full count. This bodes well for Six Californias as long as the remaining counties average roughly a 67.3% or better validity count.

Sixteen counties still have to complete their random sampling. (According to the Secretary of State, they have to complete the process by September 12th, a week from this Friday.) The top ten (by the number of raw signatures they reported) are now Los Angeles (311,924 raw signatures), Orange (52,217), Fresno (38,382), San Luis Obispo (12,906), El Dorado (11,649), Humboldt (7,230), Tuolumne (4,732), Nevada (4,322), Yuba (3,720), and Lassen (2,066). The top three have to check 3% of their signatures; the others have to check 500 (unless they want to check them all).

(Note that I had made a mistake in Report #11, carried over in Report #12, where I had included Kern county in the list of uncompleted counties even though they had completed their random sampling. I have corrected those previous reports and triple-checked the list in this report.)

–Steve Chessin

President, Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER)

www.cfer.org

The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of CfER.

Thursday’s update included completed random samples from three more counties: Alameda (validity rate 67.6%), Calaveras (73.2%), and Tehama (66.9%). The overall validity rate is up slightly, from 66.9% to 67.0%, for a projected total valid signature count of 762,328 (up from 761,190 in my previous report), still not enough to qualify for a full count. That requires 767,235 projected valid signatures.

Eighteen counties still have to complete their random sampling. The top ten (by the number of raw signatures they reported) are now Los Angeles (311,924 raw signatures), Riverside (74,478), Orange (52,217), Fresno (38,382), San Luis Obispo (12,906), El Dorado (11,649), Humboldt (7,230), Tuolumne (4,732), Nevada (4,322), and Santa Cruz (3,742).

Jim Riley posted an interesting comment to Report #11. One of his points is (I think) that the estimate of duplicates has a wide variance, and this can cause an initiative to fail to qualify based on the sampling when a full count would show that it had sufficient signatures. It might be interesting to look at the qualification rules used by other states that have the initiative.

Updated September 3rd: I made a mistake in Report #11 (since fixed) where I counted Kern County in the top 10 unfinished counties when it had actually completed its random sampling. That mistake was carried over into the original version of this report. I have fixed it above by removing Kern and adding Santa Cruz.

–Steve Chessin

President, Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER)

www.cfer.org

The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of CfER.

Good news! Tuesday’s random sample update includes raw signature counts from Amador and Trinity counties! Amador reports 1,750 raw signatures, and Trinity reports 779 raw signatures. That would have brought the total raw signature count to 1,137,875, except that Kern County, which finished its sampling, reduced its raw count from 26,444 to 26,422, and Humboldt County, which hasn’t finished its sampling, reduced its raw count from 7,280 to 7,230. That brings the total raw signature count to 1,137,803. (I was going to say “final total raw signature count”, except as we have seen a county might change its report of raw signatures when it completes its sampling.)

In addition to Kern (validity rate of 74.9%), three other counties have also completed their random sampling. They are San Bernardino (61.4%), San Mateo (68.0%), and Siskiyou (71.2%). That brings the overall validity rate to 66.9%, down from the 67.5% in my previous report, and gives an overall estimate of 761,190 raw signatures, well below the 767,235 needed to qualify for a full count.

There are still 21 counties that need to finish their sampling (including Amador and Trinity). With both San Bernardino (it had been ranked second) and Kern (it had been ranked seventh) having reported, the top ten are now Los Angeles (311,924 raw signatures), Riverside (74,478), Orange (52,217), Alameda (51,366), Fresno (38,382), San Luis Obispo (12,906), El Dorado (11,649), Humboldt (7,230), Tehama (4,855), and Toulomne (4,732).

Updated September 3rd: In my original posting I listed Kern in the top ten unreported counties even though it had finished. I have corrected that above by removing Kern and adding Toulomne.

–Steve Chessin

President, Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER)

www.cfer.org

The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of CfER.

I apologize for getting behind; between my day job, family, and unrelated political activity I haven’t been able to post any reports since my previous report until today. So this is three reports in one.

The random sample update for Monday, August 18th, was released after hours; it had a time-stamp of 5:32pm. It reported completed random samplings from the following counties: Lake (65.8% valid), Marin (76.9%), Monterey (71.9%), Santa Clara (65.6%), Stanislaus (71.9%), Tulare (72.0%), and Ventura (82.2%). In addition, the date when Inyo County reported their raw count of 616 signatures was changed from 11 August to 6 August. That correction is balanced by the obvious typo that Ventura’s sampling was completed 18 July instead of 18 August. The above average validity rates of Marin, Monterey, and especially Stanislaus, Tulare, and Ventura counties brought the overall validity rate up from 66.9% to 69.2%. If the validity rate stays that high (but keep reading), Six Californias will qualify for a full count.

Another random sample update was released on Tuesday, August 19th. This had reports from four more counties: the small ones of Colusa (they did a full count, with a validity rate of 79.4%) and Del Norte (random sample, 59.2% valid), and the large ones of Sacramento (60.5%) and San Diego (69.5%). The overall validity rate dropped slightly to 68.3%, still high enough to qualify for a full count.

A third random sample update was released on Friday, August 22nd. This added two more counties as completing their random samples: Contra Costa County (validity rate 56.1%) and Imperial County (60.4%). That brings the overall validity rate down to 67.5%. Contra Costa County also discovered that they had 8 fewer raw signatures than they originally thought, bringing the total raw count down to 1,135,346 (was 1,135,354). Combining that with the lower validity rate gives a projected total of 766,359 valid signatures, 876 fewer than needed to qualify for a full count.

A total of 33 counties have completed their random sampling. We’re still waiting for the raw counts from Amador and Trinity counties. (Could it be that no signatures were collected there?) That leaves 23 still to report; the top ten are Los Angeles (311,924 raw signatures), San Bernardino (88,067), Riverside (74,478), Orange (52,217), Alameda (51,366), Fresno (38,382), Kern (26,444), San Luis Obispo (12,906), El Dorado (11,649), and Humboldt (7,280). I expect they will determine if Six Californias gets a full count.

In other news (and as President of an organization that believes in multi-party democracy I feel obligated to report this), the UCES’ Clowns (whoever they are) have announced their intention to qualify as a political party. If you would like to help them (I’m not necessarily advocating that you should, mind you), just fill out the online voter registration form and when you get to the part that asks “Do you want to disclose a political party preference?”, select “Yes”, then select “Other”, and then type “UCES’ Clowns” into the text box next to “Other”. They need to register a number of voters equal to 1 percent of the votes that will be cast in the upcoming November election in order for candidates to list them as their party preference in the June 2016 primary. 10,300,392 votes were cast in November 2010, making the previous qualification threshold 103,004, but turnout is expected to be lower this year so they’ll probably have a (slightly) easier time of it. In addition, the Veteran’s Party of America and the Constitution Party of California are also in the process of attempting to qualify as political parties.

–Steve Chessin

President, Californians for Electoral Reform (CfER)

www.cfer.org

The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of CfER.