Friday, September 30, 2005
Juuj
Prop 77 is about redistricting. It takes the decision and makes a panel of retired judges to make it for us.
+2 to hit. The judges on the panel will be called "Special Masters."
The influence!!! From the rebuttal to the for argument:
"2) The so-called independent redistricting judges are HAND-PICKED BY POLITICIANS."
While that does seem like a bit of a pain, I can't imagine it being worse than when the redistricting is done by the politicians themselves.
They'll cost themselves money!!! From the against argument:
"REQUIRES MULTIPLE COSTLY ELECTIONS
If voters reject redistricting plans, the entire process starts over - new judges, new plans, more elections, and more political bickering - wasting millions of tax dollars. This could go on indefinitely... with election after election... until voters approve... all at TAXPAYER EXPENSE!"
Wow! Those damn voters. They can keep rejecting these plans, and the taxpayers will have to pick up the tab. Do we really want taxpayers held hostage by the will of voters? Can't we find a better balance between taxpayers and voters?
Maybe we should hire an editor. From the rebuttal to the against argument:
"Prop. 77 is simple and straightforward:
A bipartisan panel of retired judges would establish new, fair district boundaries for the Legislature and Congress.
They want the politicians to continue protecting their special interests at the expense of California's working families."
Would it kill them to include antecedents? Because right now, that says something quite different than what they want it to say.
Redistrorsement? Hmmmmmmmm. I like the idea of having entities called "Special Masters" in our government. It has so many ties to controversy. It also focuses the whining and screaming during redistricting to a few people rather than the redistricting plan itself. So I think I'll vote YES, in the name of streamlining.
. . .
|
. . .
|
