[EL] Haim Saban
Richard Winger
richardwinger at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 29 21:33:41 PDT 2015
according to wikipedia, Haim Saban then donated tens of millions of dollars to the initiative that would have repealed the independent redistricting commission. Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
From: Douglas Johnson <djohnson at ndcresearch.com>
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net; 'Fredric Woocher' <fwoocher at strumwooch.com>; 'Rick Hasen' <rhasen at law.uci.edu>; "'law-election at UCI.edu'" <law-election at uci.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: [EL] AZ commissions upheld 5-4
#yiv7974923617 #yiv7974923617 -- _filtered #yiv7974923617 {font-family:Courier;panose-1:2 7 4 9 2 2 5 2 4 4;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {font-family:Wingdings;panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {font-family:Wingdings;panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {font-family:Cambria;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv7974923617 #yiv7974923617 p.yiv7974923617MsoNormal, #yiv7974923617 li.yiv7974923617MsoNormal, #yiv7974923617 div.yiv7974923617MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;color:black;}#yiv7974923617 h2 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:18.0pt;color:black;font-weight:bold;}#yiv7974923617 a:link, #yiv7974923617 span.yiv7974923617MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7974923617 a:visited, #yiv7974923617 span.yiv7974923617MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7974923617 p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;color:black;}#yiv7974923617 pre {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;color:black;}#yiv7974923617 p.yiv7974923617MsoAcetate, #yiv7974923617 li.yiv7974923617MsoAcetate, #yiv7974923617 div.yiv7974923617MsoAcetate {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;color:black;}#yiv7974923617 p.yiv7974923617MsoListParagraph, #yiv7974923617 li.yiv7974923617MsoListParagraph, #yiv7974923617 div.yiv7974923617MsoListParagraph {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;color:black;}#yiv7974923617 span.yiv7974923617Heading2Char {color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;}#yiv7974923617 span.yiv7974923617HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;color:black;}#yiv7974923617 span.yiv7974923617BalloonTextChar {color:black;}#yiv7974923617 p.yiv7974923617emailquote, #yiv7974923617 li.yiv7974923617emailquote, #yiv7974923617 div.yiv7974923617emailquote {margin-right:0in;margin-left:1.0pt;font-size:12.0pt;color:black;}#yiv7974923617 span.yiv7974923617edit-link {}#yiv7974923617 span.yiv7974923617sep {}#yiv7974923617 span.yiv7974923617apple-converted-space {}#yiv7974923617 span.yiv7974923617by-author {}#yiv7974923617 span.yiv7974923617author {}#yiv7974923617 span.yiv7974923617EmailStyle29 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv7974923617 span.yiv7974923617EmailStyle30 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv7974923617 span.yiv7974923617EmailStyle31 {color:windowtext;}#yiv7974923617 span.yiv7974923617EmailStyle32 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv7974923617 span.yiv7974923617EmailStyle33 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv7974923617 span.yiv7974923617EmailStyle34 {color:windowtext;}#yiv7974923617 span.yiv7974923617EmailStyle35 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv7974923617 .yiv7974923617MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv7974923617 div.yiv7974923617WordSection1 {}#yiv7974923617 _filtered #yiv7974923617 {} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {margin-left:.25in;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {margin-left:.75in;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {margin-left:1.25in;font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {margin-left:1.75in;font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {margin-left:2.25in;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {margin-left:2.75in;font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {margin-left:3.25in;font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {margin-left:3.75in;} _filtered #yiv7974923617 {margin-left:4.25in;font-family:Wingdings;}#yiv7974923617 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv7974923617 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv7974923617 I may have demoted a former Governor and a future White House Chief of Staff and I should have said “at least mid-level”: Official endorsers of Proposition 11 included:· Leon Panetta. He was co-chair of California Forward when that organization took the lead on Prop 11.· Then-Sen., now-Member of Congress, Alan Lowenthal. · Former State Controller Steve Westly· Former Governor Gray Davis· Former Assembly Speaker (and now State Senator) Robert Hertzberg· Assemblymember Lois Wolk· An array of city and county elected officials including the then-Mayor of Berkeley, Tom Bates and the entire Pasadena City Council· ACLU of Southern California· NAACP (I realize there are various forms of NAACP in California and only one supported Prop 11, but the differences did not matter to the voters’ perceptions).· California Conference of Carpenters· California Democratic Council· And, yes, Common Cause (just because you disagree does not mean the voters do not consider them a liberal group more associated with the Dem’s than the Rep’s – just as the Chamber of Commerce is more closely associated with the Rep’s than the Dem’s). · The League of Women Voters· An array of ethnically affiliated groups – all of which had opposed previous efforts at redistricting reform. · Saving the best for last, at least for insiders like Larry and me: Haim Saban donated $100,000 to the Yes on 11 campaign! - Doug Douglas Johnson, FellowRose Institute of State and Local Governmentat Claremont McKenna College douglas.johnson at cmc.edu310-200-2058
From: Larry Levine [mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 8:57 PM
To: djohnson at NDCresearch.com; 'Fredric Woocher'; 'Rick Hasen'; 'law-election at UCI.edu'
Subject: RE: [EL] AZ commissions upheld 5-4 Who were the mid-level Democrats who supported the CA measure? I don’t recall any such people, unless you are stretching a convenient definition of mid-level. And what groups traditionally views as close the majority party do you reference? If you mean Common Cause, you are not correct. The only ones who identify them as close to the Dems are Reps. While individual Dems may support some of the Common Cause “reforms”, the party and the leadership generally oppose those measures.Larry From: Douglas Johnson [mailto:djohnson at ndcresearch.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 8:48 PM
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net; 'Fredric Woocher'; 'Rick Hasen'; 'law-election at UCI.edu'
Subject: RE: [EL] AZ commissions upheld 5-4 While you are correct that it’s the minority party that pushes hard for independent redistricting commissions, it’s been repeatedly true that a minority party push on its own is insufficient (for examples, see both the Ohio measures mentioned and the 5 failed California initiatives from 1980 to 2005). In both California and Arizona significant support from mid-level leaders of the majority party (and groups traditionally viewed as close to the majority party) was key to passage of the initiative. I can personally attest to this being the key for CA and AZ, including how CA’s Prop 77 in 2005, even though it failed, was the key to the eventual success of Prop 11 in 2008. And Nicholas Stephanopoulos wrote up a broader survey of redistricting initiatives: “Reforming Redistricting: Why Popular Initiatives to Establish Redistricting Commissions Succeed or Fail” [Journal of Law & Politics, Vol. XXIII:331, 2007]. - Doug Douglas Johnson, FellowRose Institute of State and Local Governmentat Claremont McKenna College douglas.johnson at cmc.edu310-200-2058 From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Levine
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 6:46 PM
To: 'Fredric Woocher'; 'Rick Hasen'; 'law-election at UCI.edu'
Subject: Re: [EL] AZ commissions upheld 5-4 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. WoocherStrumwasser & Woocher LLP10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000Los Angeles, CA 90024fwoocher at strumwooch.com(310) 576-1233From: Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 6:33 PM
To: Fredric Woocher; law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] AZ commissions upheld 5-4 I agree and posted this earlier this afternoon at ELB:
Edit
Small Error in Justice Ginsburg’s AZ Redistricting Decision
Posted on June 29, 2015 2:33 pm by Rick HasenA 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 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.77. See Cal. Const., Art. XXI, §2; Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §§8251–8253.6 (West Supp. 2015).
In fact, there is no referendum requirement in 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 pointed out an error in a Justice Ginsburg opinion, I noted it on the blog and the Justice quickly 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. WoocherStrumwasser & Woocher LLP10940 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2000Los Angeles, CA 90024fwoocher 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] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 7:30 AM
To: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: [EL] AZ commissions upheld 5-4 http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/az.pdf Analysis to come --Rick HasenChancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science UC Irvine School of Law401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org _______________________________________________Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-- Rick HasenChancellor's Professor of Law and Political ScienceUC Irvine School of Law401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150630/d0b8ab84/attachment.html>
View list directory