StoneColdGOP's Blog

Months Later

Yeah, once again I've been bad about keeping this thing updated. I plan to remedy that tomorrow, lots has gone on to update you folks about (OK - let me pretend someone other than I reads this.

For now, I give you Senator Tom McClintock's address to this past weekend's California Republican Party convention up in San Jose. Alas no, I could not attend.

California Republican Party State Convention
San Jose, California
February 25, 2006

“What are greater: the differences among us as Republicans or the difference between us and the Democrats?”

Three years ago, in one of the highest voter turnout elections in California history, the Republican candidates for governor received a combined 62 percent of the vote to the Democrats’ 31 percent – literally two votes to one.

Now that’s a fact. And it’s an important one, because it’s a fact that we have the opportunity to repeat – and then some – less than nine months from now.

Three years ago, Californians knew that their futures were on the line – they were paying rapt attention – they looked past party labels and actually listened to what each of the candidates had to say. And when they did, they abandoned the Democrats and flocked to our cause by a two-to-one margin.

And today, the same patterns are again emerging.

This year, the Democrats will nominate either Steve Westly, who is the emptiest suit I have ever encountered in a quarter century of California politics, or Phil Angelides, that self-anointed elitist who’s convinced that darn it, he’s just so good at running his own life that he’s now entitled to run everybody else’s.

Over the next 14 weeks, they are going to spend more than $40 million beating the political pulp out of each other. (Now, I know what you’re thinking – that’s going to be fun to watch on T.V. But folks, let’s not be a party of couch potatoes – that’s a sport we can ALL enjoy playing).

And by the time Westly and Angelides are done with each other, there are precisely three things that every Californian will know as absolute, undeniable, categorical, self-evident, gospel truth: the sun will always rise over the Sierras and set on the Pacific; Steve Westly ripped off millions of dollars through shady insider trading deals; and Phil Angelides ripped off millions of dollars by destroying the environment through shady development deals.

And while they’re doing their worst to tear each other apart, we need to do our best to come together, to showcase our Republican principles, and to take them to everyone who will listen -- especially those millions of Californians who have never thought of themselves as Republicans – but who believe as we believe and who share our values, our dreams and our vision for the future.

I have often heard it said that “well, principles are fine, but it’s the winning that matters.” And I do not entirely disassociate myself from those sentiments.

But we would do well to remember that when we have stood by our principles, ultimately, we have won. And in the end, if we don’t stand by our principles, what is the point of winning?

Great parties are built upon great principles, and they are judged by their devotion to those principles.

This party has every right and every duty to clearly and proudly define those principles upon which we stand – and to follow Ronald Reagan’s winning advice to paint these positions in bold colors and not hide them in pale pastels.

We have a duty to every voter who has trusted our party to take a strong stand for balanced and frugal budgets – and for a government that takes only what it needs and spends what it needs wisely.

We have a duty to take a strong stand for judges who will place themselves under the constitution – and not over it.

We have a duty to take a strong stand to preserve entry level jobs that the poor desperately need to get a foothold in life.

But if every candidate doesn’t agree on every issue, let us also remember Reagan’s wise words that, “anyone who is with you 80 percent of the time is your 80 percent friend – not your 20 percent enemy.”

I don’t agree with my wife on absolutely everything. But I still love her. And I don’t agree with this Governor on absolutely everything. But I still support him.

During the recall, Gov. Schwarzenegger and I differed on many things. But we united around basic principles of our party. Representing different Republican constituencies, we both campaigned to relieve the taxes that were crushing California’s working families; we both campaigned to roll back the regulations that were choking our economy and destroying our jobs, and we both campaigned to revive our state’s long-neglected public works.

And two thirds of California rose up and joined us.

That is the Republican vision for California, it is the destiny of California and with the support of the people it is the future of California as long as WE stay together and as long as WE stay the course.

So let the word go forth from this convention that on the basic principles and policies that defined the recall election and that brought about this administration – and upon the general direction set by this governor – there is solid and steadfast commitment throughout the wide base of our party.

And it doesn’t stop there – that support reaches deeply into Democratic and Independent constituencies as well.

Let us never forget that this is the governor who rescinded the Democrats’ illegal tripling of the car tax on the very first day of his administration.

This is the governor who repealed the law that had already given drivers licenses to illegal aliens.

This is the governor who pushed through the most significant workers compensation reform in our history.

This is the governor who vetoed the bill that would have destroyed the entire concept of traditional marriage.

This is the Governor who last year had the backbone to confront the most powerful special interest group that has ever wrapped its tentacles around our government – and who took unprecedented personal abuse in doing so.

And while we may differ on details, we can all applaud this governor for having the vision to challenge the “don’t-build-things-and-people-won’t-come” nonsense that has misguided our public policy and crippled our public works since the days of Jerry Brown.

Fellow Republicans, there are great issues afoot at this moment in history, and we need to keep focused on everything that is at stake. As Churchill said at the outset of the war, “We have differed and quarreled in the past, but now one cause unites us all.”

It is our task to rally the people of California to that cause this November. It is our task to remind them what this election means to their families and their futures in California.

And since they say that pocketbook issues are always the strongest, let’s take our pocketbooks out for a second. (No, this is not a fundraising pitch – think of it as practice.)

Start with your checkbook. Whatever you paid in car taxes last year, triple it and write out a check to the DMV. I guarantee you that you’ll be doing that for real next year if we lose the election THIS year.

On his first day in office, Gov. Schwarzenegger stopped that tax increase and the Democrats have viciously attacked him for doing so ever since. Does anyone doubt for a moment that on THEIR first day in office, Westly or Angelides will triple it once again?

Now take out your driver’s license and take a good look at it. Today it is proof that you are a legal resident of California and for that reason it’s accepted for everything from boarding an aircraft to cashing a check. The Democrats have worked fanatically to place these legal documents in the hands of every foreign national illegally in this state – making your drivers license meaningless as proof of legal residency.

Take a look at your credit cards. You’ll be using them a lot more. The Democrats are already pledged to rescind the workers compensation reforms that now save California commerce $15 billion a year. When those costs go back up, what do you think are the chances for your next raise?

And it won’t stop there. Governor Schwarzenegger has kept his promise not to raise taxes. The Democrats in the legislature are already talking about $10 billion of new taxes after the election. (That’s about $1,100 for an average family, but the way). And here’s the dirty little secret of state finance: there aren’t enough rich people in California to make a dent in the numbers they’re talking about. Most of the wealth is diffused across the middle class – and don’t kid yourselves, that’s who the Democrats are coming after.

Now let me ask you the central question of this convention: What do you think are greater – the differences among us as Republicans or the differences between us and the Democrats?

And here is the fine point of it all. Upon our united appeal to the people of California will hinge the future of this state for a generation to come. This is the election that will decide whether the recall was a fleeting curiosity or an historic turning point.

Last night, Gov. Schwarzenegger spoke of the Golden State that beckoned him from half a world away just a generation ago. I remember that state – so do you – it was real. We lived there. A generation ago, California was a shining beacon of opportunity: a fresh, dynamic land of economic freedom where taxes were low and jobs were plentiful. Affordable housing abounded at all income levels. Our public works were the envy of the world. Our children were secure in their homes; our families were secure in their property. We boasted the finest university system in the world and one of the finest public school systems in the country. Water and electricity were cheap and abundant. The future was unlimited.

The only thing that has changed between those days and these is public policy. In a period of three decades, the forces of the Left gradually gained dominance and ultimately, supremacy, over our legislature and our state’s bureaucracies.

And they have now delivered a fiscal paradox where, despite record levels of borrowing we have nothing to show for it; and despite record levels of spending, we can’t scrape together enough money to build a decent road system, or educate our kids, or protect our families from predators.

And upon us – my fellow Republicans – rests the question of whether our generation will restore the potential and the promise that California once stood for.

Never has the choice been clearer between the two parties in this state.

They offer the rationing of shortages. We propose a renaissance of new public works to restore the abundant water, clean electricity and open roads that we once took for granted.

They have handed control of our schools over to the unions. We propose to restore control of our classrooms to the teachers and control of our schools to the parents through local control and charter schools.

They offer stifling central planning to manage every aspect of our lives, they offer higher and higher taxes and more and more costly regulations. We offer freedom.

And that’s what’s really at stake in this election – freedom:

• The freedom to enjoy the fruit of our own labor – without endless tax increases to feed the insatiable appetites of union bosses;
• The freedom to work as hard as we want and go as far as our abilities and ambition take us – without an army of bureaucrats who seek to restrain, regulate and stultify every impulse of enterprise;
• The freedom to live where we wish – without central planners who would force our families into dense urban cores and condemn our children to ever spiraling housing prices;
• The freedom to be secure in our property – without local officials seizing our homes and shops for the private profit of their politically well-connected friends;
• In short, the freedom to live our lives according to our own best judgment without having to get the permission of the likes of a Phil Angelides or Steve Westly every day.

Let us here resolve to embark upon the greatest political crusade in California’s history – to restore the California of plenty; of opportunity; of abundance; and of freedom, that once was (and with God’s help and the people’s support) soon will be again.

Let us be forthright in painting our positions in bold colors and engaging every Californian in this campaign.

Let us be tireless in taking our message to every community in our state, especially those who don’t consider themselves as Republicans.

Let us have faith that our principles are sound; and that if we are true to them, and true to the people, we will ultimately prevail.

And let us be fortified in the absolute certainty that California is worth fighting for – no matter how long or hard that struggle might be.

Ladies and gentlemen, look around this hall. A day will come when all that you see will be gone, all the fury and passion of these times will be as quiet as the grave. And on that day, history alone will look back upon our generation to judge our stewardship of this state. And when it does, let it be said that our generation rose to the occasion; that we struggled and sacrificed and ultimately succeeded in restoring to our children that Golden State – that California of opportunity and plenty – that our parents once gave to us.

Book Review: Rubicon - The Last Years of the Roman Republic, by Tom Holland



Whenever the subject of going back to school for a masters comes up, people invariably ask what I would study. My answer is that I have a tough time choosing between American history, military and WWII history, and the ancient world. After reading this book, I have to say the idea of delving even deeper into Ancient Rome is enticing.

This isn't written like a dry textbook, rather in a sort of novel, storytelling style. Very colorfully done and attention-holding. It is a fascinating look at the world of the Roman Republic, founded after the ousting of a monarchy, and which lasted 460 years, many of them tumultuous, until at last it died and become an empire.

There's much to read about the colorful figures (Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great, Sulla, Cato, Crassus, Mark Antony, Cicero, Marius, Octavian, etc.), as well as their exploits in Rome's halls of power and on battlefields as far flung as Spain, Brittania, Africa and Syria.

You naturally begin to wonder about how it is that a free Republic (as it was to male, upperclass, wealthy Roman citizens) could devolve into an imperial power where freedom is no more. This book is an amazing chronicle of those events.

You also begin to wish that children would learn about these sorts of things in school.

Highly recommended!

Knock Me Over with a Feather...

The Los Angeles Times. Not exactly a bastion of common-sense, not quite dependable for accurate and un-biased reporting, and generally a wasteland for good journalism.

But I give them props for yesterday's editorial ENDORSING Proposition 77. Yes, 77, the redistricitng proposal. I had to see it with my own eyes before I could believe it. Read it for yourself below.

I am getting more and more encouraged about this one must-win proposition!

A new political landscape.

October 23, 2005

THE GREATEST POLITICAL SWINDLE of the last 50 years in California has been the conspiracy between Democrats and Republicans to protect their own hides by redrawing the state's legislative and congressional districts. Proposition 77, which would take the redistricting process out of the hands of politicians, offers voters a chance to prevent such mischief. Californians should vote yes on Proposition 77 on Nov. 8.

The current map results from a cynical deal that shows how badly the system is broken. The national GOP was worried that it would lose control of the U.S. House if California Democrats created more Democratic congressional districts after the 2000 census. So, in exchange for a guarantee that it could keep its current seats, the GOP agreed to a plan that assured Democrats a majority in the Legislature and the 53-member U.S. House delegation for a decade.

It was a great deal all around — except for the people of California.

The political hijacking of 2001 was so blatant that not a single one of the 153 legislative and congressional seats contested in the 2004 election changed party hands. Worse yet, scores of districts now are so solidly Republican or Democratic that only the most conservative of GOP candidates and most liberal Democrats can win them. The winner is whoever survives the party primary. This disenfranchises independents and those who would prefer to see more moderate candidates in both parties. The result is the increasing polarization of politics.

The only way to fix this problem is for voters to approve Proposition 77, which would take the power to draw new district lines away from the Legislature and give it to a panel of three retired judges.

The measure is far from perfect. It calls for new districts for the 2006 election rather than after the next census. Election officials say it's almost impossible to do the job in time for next June's primary, so the redrawing might have to be put off until 2008. But by then the 2000 census figures will be even more outdated. There also is a legal question. Through a clerical error, the wording of the initiative petition submitted to the attorney general's office differs from the wording of petitions that actually were circulated for voter signatures. The courts will have to decide if that is a fatal flaw.

Still, this may be the only chance for another decade to change this corrupt system. The politicians who like the system the way it is argue that redistricting is such an insider's game that the people either don't understand it or don't care. But that argument can be refuted by a quick look at the district maps now in effect for Assembly, state Senate and congressional districts. They sprawl across the countryside like so many stringy blobs — octopus arms reaching here and there, seemingly at random, in search of clots of Democratic or Republican votes needed to assure the outcome of the next election.

The state Constitution says that redistricting must respect "the geographical integrity of any city, county or of any geographical region" to the extent possible. But the plan drafted by the pols in 2001 laughs at the idea of local or regional integrity. The 21st Senate District, for example, sprawls from west of Tarzana to east of Pasadena, containing all or portions of eight Assembly districts.

Critics say that retired judges aren't free of bias. But the redistricting plans of the 1970s and 1990s were drafted under court supervision. Both were good plans — in fact, among the best ever. Besides, we already know that politicians cannot be trusted to draw fair districts.

Proposition 77 will restore some reason and moderation to the political process.

Welcome the Flash Report to the Web!



Friend and fellow politico Jon Fleischman (who was ED of the CRP when I ran for the Assembly) has been running an email digest for quite a while that disseminated news and opinion to quite a large number of email readers. I know I personally looked for it first every morning when I check my email.

Now, the Flash Report has gone onto the internet! Please check it out and explore all it has to offer. There is no better source online for California politics, news and information. Jon has tapped into his considerable base of resources to create something indispensible. Plus there are blogs featuring a number of well known political figures, including some who are friends of mine as well. Good stuff!

Commentary on Things Which I Missed Blogging on in the Past Month

Forgive me if I forget anything...

Juli Myers to head the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement: You know, Dubya might as well have nominated Vicente Fox for the job for all the good that will get done. And that's nothing. When you don't want a job done, put an obedient follower in the spot. She's 36 and totally unqualified, which is why Bush picked her. Oh, and she's married to her boss's (DHS Sec. Mike Chertoff) chief of staff, and niece of JCS Chairman Gen. Richard Myers. Nepotism and cronyism have no home like the Bush Administration...

Harriet Mier(sp?) to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: This nomination proves it. I don't care that she's never been a judge (wouldn't be the first time), I want her to be a justice in the mold of Rehnquist (RIP), Scalia and Thomas. But what pisses me off is that she's just another pal of Dubya that got picked for a plum job ONLY because she was his friend. Seriously, THIS was the best he could do? Bullshit.

Special Election in the 48th CD: It was held yesterday, and Jim Gilchrist did well pulling down John Campbell to below the 50% needed to avoid a runoff (Campbell 46%, Gilchrist 14%). Now, the tough work will be beating Campbell in the December runoff. Expect the GOP machine to play rough and dirty and do anything to win.

Special Election Statewide: I can't stand union TV ads. Everytime I see one I have to resist the urge to put something through the screen, which would suck since it's a brand new TV. All they do is lie and distort. Can anyone now seriously doubt why so many union members want and support Prop. 75 while their hack union bosses are so desperate to defeat it?

McClintock on the Special Election

No one in Sacramento has quite the ability to analyze and breakdown the goings-on of state government like Senator Tom McClintock, and this time he's true to form. Here's his take on the eight ballot measures we'll vote on November 8.

Tom McClintock on the Propositions

I've been getting calls about the various ballot propositions for the Special Election.

Here's how I see them:

Proposition 73: Parental Notification for Abortion. If parental consent is required for a child to use a tanning booth or get her ears pierced, shouldn’t parents at least be notified if she’s getting an abortion? YES. Whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, this should be the all-time no-brainer.

Proposition 74: Teacher Tenure. Do parents have a right to expect a higher level of competence before a teacher is granted life-time tenure? YES. This modest measure simply increases the teacher probation period from two years to five years.

Proposition 75: Public Employee Union Dues. Should public employees decide for themselves which candidates they will support with their own money? YES. This measure requires that before a public employee union can take money from that employee for political donations, it has to get the employee’s permission.

Proposition 76: State Spending. Should government live within its means? YES. This measure restores the authority that the governor of California had between 1939 and 1983 to make mid-year spending cuts whenever spending outpaces revenue without having to return to the legislature.

Proposition 77: Re-districting. Should voters choose their representatives in legislative districts that are drawn without regard to partisan advantage? YES. The most obvious conflict of interest in government is when politicians choose which voters will get to vote for them by drawing their own legislative district lines. This measure puts a stop to it.

Propositions 78 and 79: Prescription drug discounts. Do you want the same people who run the DMV to run your pharmacy? NO. These are rival measures, one supported by drug companies and the other by liberal activists – both of which purport to lower drug prices. What they really do is assure that one group of patients gets to pay higher prices to provide subsidized prices for others. There’s no such thing as a free Levitra.

Proposition 80. Electricity Regulation. Do you want the same people who run the DMV to run your electricity company? NO. This measure locks in monopoly control of your electricity by the bureaucratized utilities and forbids you from ever being able to shop around for the lowest-priced electricity available.

A GOOD Weekend!

After three years of having to miss Ozzfest for one reason or another (car trouble, last minute "emergencies", and plain old broke), I attended the 10th annual metal extravaganza this last Saturday at the Glen Helen pavilion outside San Bernardino.



FUCKING AWESOME. All the bands were great, but I was there to see Black Sabbath, and they certainly did not disappoint! Their set, so far as I recall, was different from the one they'd been playing for a few years, Ozzy noted in an interview in "Revolver" that some fans were tiring of the predictable set. So it was "NIB", "After Forever", "War Pigs", "Dirty Women", "Fairies Wear Boots", "Black Sabbath", "Electric Funeral", "Iron Man", "Paranoid", "Sleeping Village" and "Children of the Grave". I can't wait to see them again and hopefully I won't have to wait until next year.

The other bands were incredible too, Rob Zombie and Iron Maiden among them. This was my first time seeing Maiden and I was quite impressed (always having liked their music). This however ended up being Maiden's last stop on the tour, as evidently something of a disagreement surfaced in a rather ugly way between Maiden's singer Bruce Dickinson and tour manager Sharon Osbourne. Both the Ozzfest and Iron Maiden websites have dueling statements on events that took place, but what I recall seeing were eggs flying at Iron Maiden and the sound going out three times during their set. Not cool. The Orange County Register ran some dude's mostly accurate account as well.

Bad blood between bands and management aside, the event was fun! Rock on....

HA! It's Back on, Baby!

Supreme Court allows redistricting initiative on November ballot
- By DAVID KRAVETS, AP Legal Affairs Writer
Friday, August 12, 2005

(08-12) 17:20 PDT San Francisco (AP) --

The California Supreme Court ruled Friday that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's attempt to change the way legislative districts are drawn should be placed back on November's special election ballot.

The 4-2 decision overturns a state appellate court ruling that removed the measure because of a wording dispute.

In its ruling, the San Francisco-based court said it was unconvinced there were different meanings in the versions of the measure that were submitted to the attorney general for review and shown to registered voters for their signature to place it on the ballot.

"We conclude that it would not be appropriate to deny the electorate the opportunity to vote on Proposition 77 at the special election to be held on November 8, 2005, on the basis of such discrepancies," the majority wrote.

The decision is a victory for the Republican governor, who has made the redistricting initiative a centerpiece of his so-called "year of reform."

The initiative seeks to strip lawmakers' power to draw congressional and legislative boundaries in California and instead shift that responsibility to a panel of retired judges.

Supporters submitted enough signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot, but Attorney General Bill Lockyer sued to remove it after its backers disclosed that they used a different version of the initiative during the certification process.

A Sacramento County Superior Court judge ruled in Lockyer's favor, striking the measure from the ballot July 21. Earlier this week, the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento rejected an attempt by its backers to restore it.

The appellate court, in a 2-1 decision, said the proponents caused the problem "by their own negligence." Schwarzenegger said the earlier ruling "ignored the will of nearly one million Californians who signed petitions demanding redistricting reform."

Voting to overturn the Sacramento appeals court were Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Justice Marvin Baxter, Justice Ming Chen and Richard Aldrich, a Los Angeles appellate justice sitting on assignment.

Dissenting were justices Carlos Moreno and Joyce Kennard. Justice Kathryn Werdegar was unavailable and did not participate. The court normally has seven members, but Schwarzenegger has not yet replaced Janice Rogers Brown, who left last month to sit on a federal appeals court.

Schwarzenegger has been an outspoken critic of the system, which he has called unrepresentative and undemocratic.

After the 2000 census, lawmakers of both parties approved a redistricting scheme that allowed districts to be drawn in a way that heavily favored candidates of only one party. Of the 153 congressional and state legislative races in November 2004, not a single seat changed parties.

The last time a redistricting measure came before the justices was 1999, when it removed from the ballot a measure placing redistricting in the hands of the judiciary.

The justices invalidated the measure before the election because it contained a separate and unrelated question — how much lawmakers could earn. The justices said ballot initiatives must deal with only one subject at a time, as the California Constitution demands.

The case is Costa v. Superior Court, S136294.

Did Ya Hear?

Yes indeed, we've moved into a new home. No, we didn't buy, that would be damn near impossible with housing prices these days. But we're now renting a nice house with a great yard in a more-or-less blech neighborhood of Hawaiian Gardens, in between Long Beach and Lakewood. Most of the city is either gangs or illegals, but my street is mostly OK.

Keeping me much busier though, keeping the house and yard up and still getting everything done, plus working two jobs. Hence my rare opportunity to post to my blog. However I'm glad I am able to today.

For one:



Read this book, Founding Brothers by John J. Ellis. This is one of the most interesting histories I've read in a while. Basically it is an overview of the intertwining stories of the lives of several founding fathers (to us, contemporaries, hence brothers to themselves). The stories of Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Burr, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin are told in fascinating, informative, surprising and even humorous ways. It is, except for the opening chapter on Hamilton and Burr, mostly chronological beginning with the American Revolution and finishing with the deaths of Jefferson and Adams on July 4th, 1826.

Read it! Highly recommended.

OK OK - For 2006...

It is early, yes. But if anyone's interested in the best and most promising picks for the GOP primary in2006 (my choices are in bold):

Governor - Arnold Schwarzenegger (unopposed)
Lt. Governor - Tom McClintock, Mike Carona, Ken Maddox, Bill Morrow
Treasurer - Claude Parrish, Bill Simon, Ross Johnson, Keith Richman
Controller - Tony Strickland (unopposed?)
Secretary of State - Jim Brulte (unopposed?)
Attorney General - Chuck Poochigian, Gary Mendoza, Rod Pacheco
Insurance Commissioner - Phil Kurzner, Steve Poizner
BOE 3 - Michelle Park Steel
BOE 4 - Glen Forsch

The Special Election

I must hand it to the governer, he has well exceeded my expectations of late. So this November, California voters will head to the polls to decide the fate of a number of reform proposals and other ballot propositions. And yes, as some mournfully point out, it is the 42nd time this year that voters have been forced to endure a statewide election (or something like that). Oh the burdens of deciding your fate for yourself!

There are a great number of worthy initiatives on the ballot which will hopefully pass, Paycheck Protection certainly almost is or might be if the most important is indeed kicked off and kept off the ballot by the courts: Prop. 77, Redistricting.

I say it is far more important than all the other initiatives put together because it comes right to the heart of how the Legislature is made up. If we had a Senate and Assembly actually attentive and responsive to the needs of the state and its CITIZENS then much of the common-sense reform we have to try to pass around the capitol wouldn't be necessary. It is the most important proposition to come before the people of California since Prop. 13 in 1978. Yeah, it's THAT big.

And an amateur mistake from some of the best professionals in the business (Ted Costa & The Peoples' Advocate) might sink it all if Bill Lockyer gets his way in court.

Redistricting plan thrown off state ballot
Judge rules backers of measure presented two different versions
- John Wildermuth, Chronicle Political Writer
Friday, July 22, 2005

Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's attempt to take away the Legislature's power to draw the state's political boundaries was ordered off the November ballot Thursday by a Sacramento judge who ruled that its 900,000 signatures were collected illegally.

Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian said backers of Proposition 77 improperly gave one version of the measure to the state attorney general for preparation of the official title and summary and then used a slightly different version to collect signatures around the state.

The judge dismissed arguments by the initiative's backers, who said that despite the unintentional miscue, they still "substantially complied" with the initiative rules set out in the state Constitution.

Prop. 77's supporters have no one to blame but themselves for the problem, Ohanesian said, since the rules "are clear and well known and easily followed. "

"There is no good reason to put the courts in the position of having to decide what is good enough for qualifying an initiative measure for the ballot when actual compliance is easily attainable,'' she said.

Thursday's court decision was more bad news in what has been a rough week for the governor. Schwarzenegger already is under attack from Democrats and good government groups for a business deal with a pair of body-building magazines that brought him millions of dollars in outside income and exposed him to conflict of interest charges for his financial links to the nutritional supplement industry. He also has had to answer questions about $167,000 in rent payments he's collected from his own campaign organization.

With deadlines for the Nov. 8 ballot looming, Prop. 77's backers plan to go to the state Court of Appeal in Sacramento today or Monday in an attempt to get the initiative reinstated.

"This is just one round,'' said Daniel Kolkey, attorney for the Prop. 77 forces. "The appellate courts will make the final decision.''

The ruling was a victory for Democratic Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who challenged the initiative in court over the loud objections of Republican Secretary of State Bruce McPherson. While Lockyer has denied that partisan politics played any role in his decision, he was joined in the challenge by attorney Lance Olson. Olson was in court Thursday representing the "No on Proposition 77" committee, but he also serves as the attorney for the state Democratic Party, the Legislature's Democratic leadership and the Alliance for a Better California, a labor-backed effort to defeat Schwarzenegger's initiatives in November.

Schwarzenegger, appearing at a transportation-related event in suburban Sacramento Thursday morning before the ruling, characterized the court fight over the redistricting issue as just another attempt to block his reform plan for the state.

"Ever since we announced our reforms, there have been a lot of forces that believe in the status quo and want to hold things the way they are,'' he said. "They have tried to derail us.''

The loss of Prop. 77, combined with his decision last April to temporarily drop plans for an initiative to revise the pension plan for state employees, leaves Schwarzenegger with only two pieces of his California reform plan on the special election ballot in November. Schwarzenegger has endorsed both Prop. 76, a measure that would give the governor more power to make changes in the state budget, and Prop. 74, which would increase the length of time it takes for a teacher to receive tenure.

Ted Costa, whose People's Advocate group put together the redistricting plan Schwarzenegger backs, said the attack on Prop. 77 is just politics as usual.

"All the people who are opposing this have been against redistricting reform since time began,'' he said outside the courtroom. "If the other side had lost, they'd be getting ready to file an appeal.''

If the appellate courts keep Prop. 77 off the ballot, it will be an expensive loss for Costa, Schwarzenegger and their allies. Costa estimated that it cost $2.5 million to qualify the measure for the November ballot, and it could be equally expensive to try again on the June 2006 ballot.

During more than two hours of courtroom argument Thursday, Kolkey complained that the proposed punishment for a clerical error did not fit the crime.

"That clerical error is being turned into a constitutional confrontation that would disenfranchise more than half a million people who signed the petitions,'' he said.

The differences between the two versions includes about a half dozen word changes, a heavily rewritten "findings and purposes" section and two sections where the deadlines were changed for putting together the panel of retired judges that would do the redistricting.

"The differences are immaterial," Kolkey said, and aren't enough take away the people's right to put an initiative on the ballot.

But Deputy Attorney General Vicki Whitney argued that the dispute "is not a matter of wordsmithing" but instead deals with the constitutional requirement that the attorney general receive an exact copy of any initiative before it can be approved for circulation.

"Should the court create an exception to this requirement, where does the line get drawn after today?" she asked.

The fact that the attorney general, by law, provides a copy of every initiative to the state Department of Finance, the legislative analyst and the Legislature and then posts it on his department's Web site for public view is an important reason that he should have the one official version, the judge said.

"The public and the government officials are entitled to rely on that official version,'' Ohanesian said.

Schwarzenegger's troubles with the redistricting initiative are likely to extend past the court hearing. Legislators who head up the Assembly and Senate election committees have scheduled a hearing in August to examine the handling of the ballot measure.

Democratic State Sen. Debra Bowen, an announced candidate for secretary of state next year, has accused the governor's office and the secretary of state's office of working together to "put the legal concerns about the measure in an envelope and cram it under the mattress."

The accusation is based on assertions that backers of Prop. 77 notified the governor's office of the discrepancies, but the governor did not inform the secretary of state until after he certified the measure on June 10. The attorney general was not told about any potential problems with the initiative until July 1.

Kevin McCarthy, the Republican leader in the Assembly, criticized the August hearing as a "campaign event staged by power-hungry politicians who want to keep drawing districts that protect their political careers."

What Long Absence?

So I suppose I'll just jump right into it here. Suffice it to say that working one full time job, another part time job, the continuing process of fixing up the house we've moved into, and not having internet access (yet) at home leaves me little time of late to work on this blog.

I intend to fix that a bit here.

SO - What's been going on?

Evidently the U.S. Supreme Court has NO problem with the seizure of private property for private use. That's right. The little mom-and-pop store or someone's home could be seized to make way for Walmart. Not a school, or a prison, or a bridge or freeway or something that benefits the public, but rather that benefits a private party like Walmart and, oh so incidentally, could boost the sales tax coffers of a municipality ready to eminent domain away the rights of its citizens.

But don't take my word for it. Senator Tom McClintock, a candidate for Lieutenant Governor of California next year, is a far better orator on the subject than I.

Eminent Despotism
by Senator Tom McClintock
July 19, 2005



In the days of the old Republic, Americans lived secure in their homes safe in the knowledge that the fundamental responsibility of government was to protect their lives and property from anyone who threatened them – no matter how rich, powerful or well-connected. If a widow didn’t want to sell her home to a developer, she didn’t have to.

That was the end of the matter, unless the developer sent in thugs to beat her up. And government was there to protect her from the thugs.

Under the Kelo decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, government has become the thug. Americans’ property rights have been eroded for many years, but Kelo represented the final collapse. It is now entirely permissible for government to seize the home of one person for pennies on the dollar to give it to another – not for some vital over-arching public necessity, but simply because the new owner can pay more taxes than the old.

The decision completes the transition from the old America of individual rights to a collectivist society where government apportions property from those it doesn’t like to those it does. Stripped of all its sophistries and euphemisms, that is the underlying principle that has replaced the property protections in the Bill of Rights.

It now falls to the states to restore to their own citizens the fundamental right to property that the federal government has rescinded. In California, an amendment to the state constitution – SCA 15 – has been introduced in the state legislature with the bipartisan support of 45 Senate and Assembly co-authors. It restores the original property protections of the Bill of Rights, and specifically prohibits the seizure of one person’s property for the private gain of another.

The measure is opposed by the “California Redevelopment Association,” a group of local officials who are responsible for an epidemic of abusive property seizures across California. In Yolo County, for example, the Board of Supervisors has combined with the Rumsey Indian tribe to seize 17,000 acres of private land to be divvied up between the county and the tribe.

They argue additional protections are unnecessary because California law already requires that a property must be “blighted” before government can seize it. But “blight” is so broadly defined as to apply to any neighborhood in California.

Ask Mohammed Mohanna, who came to America from Iran 35 years ago seeking the promise of a free life in a free land. He became a flag-waving American who has spent three decades purchasing and remodeling small storefronts in downtown Sacramento with the aim of ultimately consolidating them into a gleaming new commercial complex. Recently a politically connected tycoon decided upon the same goal – but rather than going to the trouble of finding willing sellers the way Mr. Mohanna has done, he is using his political influence to seize Mohanna’s painstakingly assembled holdings instead.

Mohanna’s story is a common one. Governments today have the power to take the property of ordinary citizens to give to the rich and powerful – and are using that power. And thanks to the Supreme Court, the Bill of Rights no longer stands in their way.

SCA 15 still allows redevelopment officials to seize private property for a genuine public use such as a road or a school or a park.

It even allows them to acquire private property to give to a Walmart or a developer. The only difference is, in that case, they’re no longer allowed to use a gun. They have to do it the old-fashioned way, by negotiating a mutually agreeable price without making threats.

What can you do? Start by calling your local senator and assemblyman and find out if they are co-sponsors of SCA 15, and then let your friends and neighbors know. Because you can be sure of this: any public official who has no moral compunction of stealing your neighbor’s home or shop is also perfectly willing to steal yours.

Been a While? Yes, I know...

I have not forgotten you, the four people out there in cyberspace who mistakenly stumble onto my blog from time to time. But my time to post has been sorely lacking in the last month due to moving into a new home and all the things that go along with it.

So much to comment on, Michael Jackson, Iraq, the fall special election in CA, illegal immigration, the Supreme Court stomping on property rights... All sorts of stuff.

I pledge to TRY to get to some of all this NEXT week, after Monday's holiday when the work week is even more compressed....