For those readers living in California to encourage you in the strongest possible terms to vote 'no' on Prop 93, the Term Limits Reform Act.
In and of itself, I have no objections to the Act; I actually think the reforms proposed are moderate and reasonable.
But I've believed for some time that reform of redistricting in California is hostage to entrenched political actors, who will have to be blasted out of their gerrymandered districts with a firehose.
A reasonable redistricting proposal was defeated two years ago, in no small part because the Democratic legislative leadership swore - swore! - that they would do a better job Right Away. That better job has never shown up, and shows no signs of showing up. I'm not sure why I was so shocked at being lied to by pistol-packin Perata and Ab-Fab Nunez; even at my advanced age hope is still a powerful force. The Governator's cave-in on this issue was shameful as well.
But given the California political leadership's history of lies on this critical issue, the only lever we have over them is term limits, and to hand that lever away for another empty set of promises seems foolish, even by California political standards (which are pretty low).
So let's vote this down, and see if we can lever the legislative leadership into acting on gerrymandering, in concert with reforming term limits.
I agree on 93. My general rule with complex initiatives: when in doubt, vote no. Especially if the Legislature is involved; after all, its glorious leadership and cozy relationship with bureaucrat unions has given us a $14B deficit.
I'm not sure what will fix the problem, but taxes ain't it: we already pay way too much state taxes already and get little for them. We've got a classic Democratic party machine that needs to be blasted apart.
Unfortunately, the state Republican Party is dominated by bible-thumpers and "conservative activists" who are more concerned with "purity of vision" than they are about actually winning. The sad thing is that California is, in general, quite receptive to Republicans who are socially liberal and economically rational. Such Republicans exist, but rarely make it out of state conventions.
One hopes that getting rid of gerrymandering could help to fix these problems by forcing a march toward the middle by both sides.
In related (bad) news, Ted Costa's attempt to qualify a new ballot initiative to reform redistricting has failed.
:{
AL-
I know this is off topic but I HAD to share:
N.M. Tax Would Target TVs, Video Games
I see your stupid Governator and raise you a stupid, lying Governor ex-Presidential candidate. Bill Richardson is probably the most dishonest rascal on the block in NM.
That scumbags like Fabian Nunez who routinely spend campaign funds on extravagant trips abroad without so much as a slap on the wrist from State "ethics" committees, or much of any in depth coverage from the LATimes.
Its really sad that the biggest paper in the state refuses to even attempt to point out how horrible the place has become because of the gerrymandered districs. How else does someone as corrupt as Maxine Waters continue to hold office.
I agree with the sentiment behind this post, but not it's prescription. I'm a reluctant Yes on 93, as I don't believe the Perfect should be the enemy of the Good, and I have a feeling that if the legislature does attempt to tie redistricting reform to term limit reform, the future term limit "reform" will be pretty much gut the current law. But I'm not going to lose a minute's sleep if the initiative goes down in flames, as it probably will.
Personally, I'm wondering if we shouldn't just abolish the Legislature completely and have a drawing for its members. We wouldn't do any worse than the lot of careerists and crooks we've got now.
Prop 93 is being pushed by Nunez because he's going to be termed out of the Assembly. Nunez wants to run for Los Angeles mayor when the current mayor runs for governor. Since Nunez wants to be in a position of power before he runs for mayor (once he's out of the Assembly, he's going to be out-of-sight-out-of-mind), he needs the term limits extended.
It's also the main reason the primaries were moved to February 5.
How do I know all these? A little Senate snitch/insider told me.
I already voted no on 93.
As a California escapee, having sought and received political asylum in Missouri 4 years ago, I have felt for years that the Calif. legislature needs to be returned to part time status with low pay and no perks AND term limits.
If they are so interested in "serving the people of California", let them prove it.
I'm a "No" but for another reason. Buried in the small print is the fact that current lawmakers are grandfathered in; no term limits for them.