Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Restridictionary
I'll be voting for Prop 77 because the term "special masters" is so funny. Apparently, though, there's also an aspect that has to do with redistricting.
None of California's 153 state legislative or congressional seats changed party hands in the November 2004 election-a statistic supporters of Proposition 77 said could change if the measure, aimed at revamping the way legislative districts are drawn, passes on Nov. 8.
But that's not the only statistic mentioned in the article. Why, if you look down a few paragraphs, you can find this impressive statistic:
In the November 2004 general election, no assembly, state senate, or U.S. congressional seat changed parties.
Can you believe it? They're both true!
While many critics agreed that a change in the redistricting process is ultimately necessary, they are wary that the proposition would result in an amendment to the state constitution, which would be difficult for future legislatures to change.
Uh... isn't that sort of the point?
Other opponents of the proposition said the panel of three retired judges will not be representative of California, as the bulk of retired judges are older white males.
"We too would have liked to see a more diverse panel," said Steve Blackledge, legislative director for CalPIRG, a California public interest group which has endorsed the proposition. "Are we better off with an independent panel with retired judges or are we better off with legislators drawing the lines?"
That's an interesting question, which people will vote on. Unless Mr. Blackledge actually had a point to make about which one we really would be better off with, you wonder why they'd even mention it. Also note that they have followed an "other opponents say..." comment with a comment from a supporter, as we've come to expect from The Daily Cal.
. . .
|
. . .
|
