[EL] AZ commissions upheld 5-4

Mon Jun 29 18:46:01 PDT 2015

So, the CA maps are not valid because they never were ratified by the
voters? Talk about a couple of words in the health care legislation. These
words are from the court. Next: CA legislature (Dems) and AZ legislature
(Rep) decide the current maps are not valid and go ahead and do a new
redistricting?

Fact the fact: it’s only the minority party that wants independent
redistricting commissions. At the same time the Dems were working to defeat
the measure on the CA ballot, Reps in Ohio were trying to put the measure on
the ballot in that state. 

Larry

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Fredric
Woocher
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 6:36 PM
To: Rick Hasen; law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] AZ commissions upheld 5-4

I am comforted to know that the analysis was correct, but I apologize for
not having seen that you had already pointed out the error.  That’s what I
get for waiting to read your blog until its entries are posted on the
list-serve later in the evening or the next morning!

Fredric D. Woocher

Strumwasser & Woocher LLP

10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000

Los Angeles, CA 90024

fwoocher at strumwooch.com <mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com> 

(310) 576-1233

From: Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu] 
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 6:33 PM
To: Fredric Woocher; law-election at UCI.edu <mailto:law-election at UCI.edu> 
Subject: Re: [EL] AZ commissions upheld 5-4

I agree and posted this earlier this afternoon at ELB:

 <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=73882&action=edit> 
Edit

 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73880> Small Error in Justice Ginsburg’s AZ
Redistricting Decision

Posted on  <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=73880> June 29, 2015 2:33 pm by
<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

A reader via email notes to me that Justice Ginsburg’s decision in the AZ
redistricting case contains a minor error of fact on page 8 of
<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/az.pdf> the slip opinion. The
opinion states:

The California Redistricting Commission, established by popular initiative,
develops redistricting plans which become effective if approved by public
referendum.7

7. See Cal. Const., Art. XXI, §2; Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §§8251–8253.6 (West
Supp. 2015).

In fact, there is no referendum requirement in
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_21> Art. XXI of the state
Constitution. Instead, the go into effect after being approved, but they are
subject to potential referendum under the usual rules for referenda of
legislative matters. See Cal. Consts. Art. XXI section 2(i):

(i) Each certified final map shall be subject to referendum in the same
manner that a statute is subject to referendum pursuant to Section 9 of
Article II. The date of certification of a final map to the Secretary of
State shall be deemed the enactment date forpurposes of Section 9 of Article
II.

The last time readers  <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67193> pointed out an
error in a Justice Ginsburg opinion, I noted it on the blog and the Justice
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67275> quickly
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=67566> corrected it.

On 6/29/15 6:29 PM, Fredric Woocher wrote:

In her opinion for the Court, Justice Ginsburg observes that a number of
other states, including California, have also established Citizen
Redistricting Commissions, and she describes California's system as follows:

"The California Redistricting Commission, established by popular initiative,
develops redistricting plans which become effective if approved by public
referendum.7"

That is not correct, however, is it?  In California, redistricting plans
adopted by the Commission are subject to referendum in the same way that any
statute passed by the Legislature would be subject to referendum (i.e., by
submitting a sufficient number of signatures in support of a referendum
petition), but the Commission's plans are not required to be approved by a
public referendum in order to become effective.  Perhaps I'm being picky,
but the opinion's wording suggests to me that the Commission's plans become
effective only if they are approved by a public vote, when I do not believe
that to be the case.

Fredric D. Woocher

Strumwasser & Woocher LLP

10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000

Los Angeles, CA 90024

fwoocher at strumwooch.com <mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com> 

(310) 576-1233

-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick
Hasen
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 7:30 AM
To: law-election at UCI.edu <mailto:law-election at UCI.edu> 
Subject: [EL] AZ commissions upheld 5-4

http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/az.pdf

Analysis to come

--

Rick Hasen

Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science UC Irvine School of Law

401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000

Irvine, CA 92697-8000

949.824.3072 - office

949.824.0495 - fax

rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> 

http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/

http://electionlawblog.org

_______________________________________________

Law-election mailing list

Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu> 

http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> 
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150629/beeee434/attachment.html>