[EL] FW: CRC asks Attorney General to Change "Misleading and Inaccurate" Referendum Language

Mon Aug 29 14:06:27 PDT 2011

The California Citizens Redistricting Commission has just petitioned the CA AG to stop signature gathering for the referendum against the State Senate maps (see below).  That's interesting by itself, but as part of their petition they're arguing that the law constrains the potential maps the CA Supreme Court could draw as relief, should the Court end up hearing the case.  As I read it, the commission is saying that the Court is required to treat the commission's maps as the baseline, and to adjust them only enough to correct any legal problems that might be identified.

Can anyone on the list comment on this interpretation of the law?  Is the Court in fact constrained in this way?

Cheers,
Eric

Eric McGhee  |  Research Fellow  |  PPIC  |  415-291-4439

Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the Public Policy Institute of California.

From: California Citizens Redistricting Commission [mailto:rob.wilcox at crc.ca.gov]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 12:40 PM
To: Eric McGhee
Subject: CRC asks Attorney General to Change "Misleading and Inaccurate" Referendum Language

Having trouble viewing this email? Click here <http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=zx6dkreab&v=001AwKjSTzc577SrdOjln6cJ6GEEfriIXlRrjM8OFNSWl_aoDOIoRQUr9U1HvSk1kpgRypc1VEmHpcoq9fJegoC342J-yEVCft3QcEjOahUZX4%3D>

[http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_left.png]

[http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_fb.png]<http://s.rs6.net/t?e=Cu7MwoYdvd4&c=1&r=1>

[http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_twit.png]<http://s.rs6.net/t?e=Cu7MwoYdvd4&c=3&r=1>

[http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_linked.png]<http://s.rs6.net/t?e=Cu7MwoYdvd4&c=4&r=1>

[http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_divider.png]

[http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_more.png]<http://s.rs6.net/t?e=Cu7MwoYdvd4&c=5&r=1>

[http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_right.png]

[http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_btn_like_sm.png]<http://myemail.constantcontact.com/CRC-asks-Attorney-General-to-Change--Misleading-and-Inaccurate--Referendum-Language.html?soid=1104387634937&aid=Cu7MwoYdvd4#fblike>

[CRC Header]

Press Release

August 29, 2011

For Immediate Release
Contact: Rob Wilcox

Communications Director

916-709-6358

California Citizens Redistricting Commission

Citizens Redistricting Commission

Asks Attorney General to Change

"Misleading and Inaccurate" Language in the

Proposed Referendum on the Commission's State Senate Maps

Sacramento, CA (August 29, 2011) --

The California Citizens Redistricting Commission has asked the state's Attorney General to correct misleading and inaccurate information contained in a proposed referendum on the Commission's final certified State Senate maps. The Commission has also requested the proponents of the referendum to hold off on gathering signatures for a short period until the Attorney General fixes the summary language. The Commission also has asked the Secretary of State to wait for the Attorney General's revised summary before notifying and providing copies of the summary to county election officials.

"The Summary represents a misunderstanding of Article XXI of the California Constitution. In order to avoid misleading and confusing the voters during the referendum process, and to avert the inevitable inefficiencies and needless costs that would result if the referendum summary is later found to be invalid, we respectfully request that your office revise and reissue the Summary to accurately reflect California law," wrote the Commission's litigation counsel George H. Brown and James Brosnahan in a letter to the office of the state Attorney General.

The letters from the Commission point out two problems with the summary of the proposed referendum that would be used by the proponents to gather signatures. First, the summary states that the referendum petition, "if signed by the required number of voters," will "[p]lace the revised State Senate boundaries on the ballot and prevent them from taking effect unless approved by the voters at the next statewide election." This is misleading because even if the referendum qualifies and the voters reject the Commission's Senate maps in the next statewide election, there is no reason to believe that the Senate maps as drawn by the Commission will not ultimately go into effect. In particular, the Voters First Act specifically amended the California Constitution to provide that if voters reject the Commission's maps in a referendum, the California Supreme Court may appoint special masters to "adjust" the Commission's maps - not start over from a blank slate - and only to the extent necessary to comply with the redistricting criteria set forth in the Constitution. But the Commission scrupulously adhered to these criteria when drawing the maps in the first instance. Accordingly, even if the voters ultimately reject the Commission's Senate maps, the California Supreme Court would be required to allow all of the maps to become effective, unless special masters found specific instances of non-compliance with the redistricting criteria.

Second, the Attorney General's summary states that a referendum petition successfully filed with the Secretary of State will "[r]equire court-appointed officials to set interim boundaries for use in the next statewide election." This is wrong. Even if the California Supreme Court exercised its discretion to hear an action concerning interim boundaries for the next election (which is by no means certain), there is no requirement for the Court to appoint special masters or any other officials to assist in this task. More important, there would be no requirement for the Court to "set" boundaries that were any different from the Commission's Senate maps. To the contrary, in analogous circumstances, the California Supreme Court in 1982 allowed the newly drawn maps to apply in the next election, even though a referendum had already qualified and was to be voted on in that same election.

For these reasons, the Commission believes that the summary of the proposed referendum is misleading, fails to reflect California law, and brings needless uncertainty to the referendum process. The Commission hopes that the Attorney General will take these issues into account and will promptly revise the summary, and that the proponents refrain from collecting signatures from voters using a misleading petition, which would ultimately prove to be a waste of time and effort.

The Commission's letters to the Attorney General, the referendum's proponents and the Secretary of State can be found at the Commission's website at www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=zx6dkreab&et=1107377338500&s=1093&e=001qfcrHR9lDF5sfjcxkfSmAwGUhq5eanEvWqsYg9PQB12wwSUDq1ENgosIUyyLJMZ4MJK8R9ocC_eLVuwu6Y_e5n31nAAuoNW61BeZb2hTRj9nWA02ZCHGnEa-GPOkOADN>.

 #     #     #     #

Follow the Commission on Twitter [Follow us on Twitter] <http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=zx6dkreab&et=1107377338500&s=1093&e=001qfcrHR9lDF5hJj4orbV7DtG35sjNMPkXXy4np1yao6JdYZuZFAsRhDABtAnU6E2UX8wXsa8MFgnY0BJZz4M3v3NxFg9DOxUXxPE7VR64bmbpawdq6DqR4TaygZf5zmq0>  and on Facebook at the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

California's first Citizens Redistricting Commission is a new 14-member Commission charged with redrawing California's Senate, Assembly, State Board of Equalization, and Congressional districts based on information gathered during the 2010 census. The Commission must draw the State Senate, Assembly, State Board of Equalization, and Congressional districts in conformity with strict, nonpartisan rules designed to create districts of relatively equal population that will provide fair representation for all Californians.

Forward email<http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?llr=zx6dkreab&m=1104387634937&ea=mcghee%40ppic.org&a=1107377338500>
[http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/SafeUnsubscribe_Footer_Logo_New.png]<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&mse=001BsnXZ3B2sYr1NNSZz_39AQTDwTuxvM7N&t=001jUIIQ055R9fqdRgmrZZF1A%3D%3D&llr=zx6dkreab>

[http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/CC_Footer_Logo_New.png]<http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=TEM_Press_200>

This email was sent to mcghee at ppic.org<mailto:mcghee at ppic.org> by rob.wilcox at crc.ca.gov<mailto:rob.wilcox at crc.ca.gov> |
Update Profile/Email Address<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&mse=001BsnXZ3B2sYr1NNSZz_39AQTDwTuxvM7N&t=001jUIIQ055R9fqdRgmrZZF1A%3D%3D&llr=zx6dkreab> | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&mse=001BsnXZ3B2sYr1NNSZz_39AQTDwTuxvM7N&t=001jUIIQ055R9fqdRgmrZZF1A%3D%3D&llr=zx6dkreab>(tm) | Privacy Policy<http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp>.

California Citizens Redistricting Commission | 1130 K Street, Suite 101 | Sacramento | CA | 95814

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110829/f8deadde/attachment.html>