By Brad Friedman from Denver, CO…
A late-night report from the Firedoglake blog last night indicated that a Republican-backed initiative to split California’s 55 electoral votes by Congressional district has been “withdrawn.” In fact, it has not, as The BRAD BLOG has confirmed this morning, with both the California Secretary of State’s office and the initial proponent of the original initiative. Democrats have regarded the ballot initiative as a dirty trick by Republicans desperate to hold on to the White House in the 2008 general election.
The current version of the initiative, which has raised millions of dollars, is said to have garnered some 400,000 signatures in support and continues to move forward as planned.
There had been two nearly identical initiatives in circulation attempting to gather enough signatures to qualify for the ballot in next June’s election in California. The original measure, known as “07-0016,” as filed by Anthony F. Andrade Jr., has indeed been withdrawn, according to the California Sec. of State website. But the version of the measure most likely to make its way onto the ballot next year, “07-0032,, barrels full steam ahead for the time being.
The BRAD BLOG has confirmed that point with two officials at the CA Sec. of State’s office. We have also confirmed it with Andrade himself, a colorful fellow with whom we spoke earlier today, who now supports the other, still-active, initiative.
Andrade, who says that he’s a BRAD BLOG reader himself, submitted the original initiative in May of this year. It was approved for signature circulation on July 3, before the nearly identical initiative, submitted by Thomas W. Hiltachk, a former associate of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, was filed on July 10.
Hiltachk’s initiative continues to gain momentum and money from Republican backers, while Andrade’s original proposal was finally withdrawn from circulation, officially, on November 27.
Andrade, who says he’s “a libertarian at heart,” told us that Hiltachk saw his original initiative and decided to file a version of his own.
“This asshole goes and reads my initiative, and says ‘Ah, I’m gonna file a duplicate,'” he told The BRAD BLOG this morning. “This asshole says he has $2 million,” and then it turned out he didn’t have a dime. “Perhaps the polite word is ‘flake,'” Andrade clarified later during the call.
The Hiltachk proposal was indeed pronounced dead by the LA Times several weeks ago after it was found to have been backed by Rudy Giuliani supporters. The measure has since found new sponsors, also reportedly tied to both Giuliani, as well as California’s 49th district U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa. There have also been subsequent allegations of fraud in the gathering of petitions for the measure.
Andrade believes the original backers of the proposal were looking at it as a way to raise money for themselves.
At first labeling the measure a “people’s initiative” (after we described it as a “Republican initiative”), Andrade admitted that, while he considers himself more of a libertarian and a Ron Paul supporter, he’s most interested in stopping Hillary Clinton from gaining the White House…
“I’m really an anti-Hillary supporter,” he told The BRAD BLOG. “I think Bill and her are lowlifes. It’s one of those things in life…they are very yuck.”
“Yuck?”, we asked.
“They’re yucky people. If you look at her record in her life, it’s been a record of conflict,” he explained before describing them as “fucking assholes” and “pricks.”
“That’s the reason I’m into this. I don’t like Hillary. I’m a libertarian at heart. I’m really a Ron Paul backer in truth,” he explained.
Surely, we asked, he could see how this initiative — which would only apply to California and would possibly hand dozens of Electoral College votes to the Republicans that they’d be unlikely to receive otherwise — would be seen as a partisan scheme meant to take the White House for the Republicans.
“I would agree with that statement,” Andrade admitted. “Though it works both ways,” he added, arguing that the idea gives more power to the majority, rather than the minority. “There’s pluses and minuses to this. You know, when we talk about Texas and New York. It goes back and forth.”
Neither Texas nor New York, however, are considering such a measure. So it’s only California whose Electoral College votes would go from winner-take-all to being split according to congressional district.
“If Schwarzenegger were to run for president, he would take California. So it’s not a dirty trick if you think about it. Because California is so fickle,” Andrade contends.
The Governor of California, however, is a foreign-born citizen and constitutionally barred from running for the office of the President of the United States.
Our discussion with Andrade revealed what seemed (to us, anyway) to be a number of interesting conflicts in his political positions. For example, he’s against government intrusion in the private lives of Americans, but doesn’t feel that a government ban on same-sex marriage is such an intrusion. Approximately seven initiatives that would do exactly that are currently in circulation for possible inclusion on next year’s ballot in California.
“Same sex marriage is different. It’s by culture. To sanction same sex marriage is to promote a lifestyle that is not really wholesome,” he told us, before his comments became a bit more disturbing.
“What do I mean by that? The people that are involved in that lifestyle have a lot of emotional problems. You know what I mean?” he asked. “Look, I don’t know if you’re gay or not, but the people that I know who are, who are involved in that, are a little bit loony, if you know what I mean.”
He says that government intrusion into marriage between two men or two women is not the same as intrusion into our private lives. He argues that it’s not a contradictory position from his avowed libertarianism.
“That’s the established policy, that marriage is between a man and a woman. If we look at it then, the government could go back and say marriage could be between people and animals.”
“But animals can’t consent to marriage,” we argued, “whereas two men or two woman can.” Andrade dismissed our argument before railing against Castro’s oppression of majority opinion in Cuba, and “political correctness” in this country, which he says “the black community has a lock on,” pointing to the recent Don Imus controversy.
Returning to the other, still-active version of the Electoral College initiative which Andrade has joined the effort to support, we wondered how he felt about the California Republican Party’s current fund-raising woes that could lead to layoffs of state staff, as The BRAD BLOG reported yesterday, while this initiative has reportedly succeeding in raising millions of dollars.
Andrade, who helped lead the effort to collect two million petitions in the drive to recall former California Gov. Gray Davis, doesn’t buy the argument.
“That issue is one that has to do with, you might say, internal politics and policy. The party gave us [the ballot measure] about $80,000, about three weeks ago,” he claimed, by way of shoring up his point that the state GOP is not as short of funds as they may be letting on.
“The Governor can raise millions of dollars. He can bail out the Republican party out in a minute.”
He suggests the email comments reported yesterday by CBS News and AP, indicating grave financial problems dogging the state GOP, may be simply smoke and mirrors intended to confuse Democrats.
“It could be psychological warfare where they are telling the Democrats ‘oh, poor us, poor us, poor us,'” he suggested.
Andrade’s website, ElectoralReformCalifornia.com, continues its support of the intiative, declaring their mission in large, bright-red letters: “We are going to change California politics and return the power to the people!”
If the Republican Party were winning California on a regular basis, it is a fact that Democrats would be pursuing the same changes… and for the same partisan reasons. Of course, the party that benefits from a winner-take-all system is going to fight any change to the system for obvious reasons.
Personally, I have no loyalty to either major party, as I see them as being too much alike and not representative of my views. With that said… I don’t see how any winner-take-all scheme can ever be fair. “Because other states do it” is a weak excuse. The electoral votes of a state should go to candidates in amounts proportional to the popular vote. Period.
Ron Paul is on his way to winning the Republican nomination. He has clearly surpassed John McCain and is now a “top tier” candidate. Ron Paul dominates in the Straw Polls, Debate Polls, Fund Raising, Web Traffic and Grass Roots Networking. I have created a website to support this statement.
Please visit http://www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge for yourself.
They can try this trick to their heart’s content. The constitution, however, is clear that matters pertaining to a state’s apportionment of its electoral votes are the clear and exclusive province of the state legislature. They are not, therefore, subject to the I&R process. Even should this obvious Republican attempt to steal another presidential election pass as an initiative, it will have no effect on the election. It will absolutely certainly be overturned.
Republicans cannot win fairly, so they must try to cheat. This, however, is an unusually pathetic attempt at it, and any money spent on it will clearly be wasted.
(ASIDE: Anyone who actually believes that Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination, well… I have this land in central Florida that would be JUST RIGHT for you to purchase. They don’t call ’em “Paultards” for nothin’!)
Woody,
Your post is an example of exactly what I am talking about.
“Republicans cannot win fairly”
Your position obviously comes from a partisan point of view. Let’s assume for a moment that California was not a winner-take-all state, and that Democrats were pushing to make it one. I sincerely doubt you’d be complaining about that. The bottom line is that both sides, neither of which I support, will try to change the rules in their favor. We shouldn’t be concerned about whether or not the winner-take-all system benefits your preferred party or not. We -should- be concerned about what makes the most sense in the interest of fairness to the voting public. I think every Californian wants his or her vote to be meaningful, regardless of whether they support a Democrat, a Republican, or something else altogether.
I no more support California’s winner-take-all system which always goes to the Democrat any more than I support Texas’s winner-take-all system which always goes to the Republican. None of it benefits the voters of this country.
If the concern was at all about the issue of fairness, this would be a national issue for this group trying to get this on the ballot of every state that allocates EC votes in this manner (all but Maine and Nebraska). In my searching, I could find no other attempts being made so I assume it’s just fine with them that 47 other states use this method. Funny, that doesn’t sound very fair to me.
I can’t comment on the group that is promoting this. They may be California based and interested in fairness for their state’s voters, or they may be nationally based and interested in furthering the goals of the Republican party.
I honestly don’t care one bit which it is. My position on the matter is that winner-take-all is wrong, so I support any move away from it regardless of who it benefits.
Presidential Election Fraud is a Felony! And it has been perpetrated by the GOP! I believe a lawsuit has already been filed with the States Election Committee to begin investigating these allegations of tricking signatures and funnelling money illegally from psuedo-CA based GOP organizations. Whoever is behind this beware, we’re on to you!
1st article
Dirty Tricks in the California Election Caught on Video
by E. Love Dailykos
Wednesday Nov 21st, 2007 6:45 PM
video
http://www.dailykos.com/storyon...1/21/183815/07
source
http://www.indybay.org/newsitem...1/18462695.php
more details here
http://news.google.com/news?hl=...ege+signatures
2nd article
NPR aired without challenging GOP misrepresentation of CA Electoral College initiative’s effect
Electoral Reform
http://mediamatters.org/items/2...260002?f=h_top
3rd article
The plot to rig the 2008 US election
http://comment.independent.co.u...00:00:01-00:00
Original scam derailed
Off The Bus >> Behind The GOP’s Dirty Tricks Campaign To Divide California’s Electoral Votes
Nov 4, 2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/p...n_b_71065.html
and the prior Sept 2007 GOP trickery, man do these guys EVER give up?
Republicans Give Up Scheme to Change Electoral College for California
By Frank D. Russo
September 27, 2007. comments. Topic:
The Los Angeles Times will be reporting tomorrow that the somewhat mysterious group that has been backing an initiative to change the Electoral College to split California’s votes along Congressional District lines are giving up the ghost on their drive to place the measure on the ballot. This, according to the LA Times blog, Top of the Ticket.
The Times says that Democrats and others opposing this change, which would have handed over 20 electoral votes to the Republican candidate for President, more or less the equivalent of the size of Ohio’s Electoral College vote, want to make sure that this monster is really dead.
Hat Tip to My DD, a national blog for spotting this just posted news from the L.A. Times.
The campaign for this initiative appears to have received its largest donation from out of state sources and there may be more interesting news about this as well. It appears that at least one of the entities whose name surfaced involving the laundering out of state donations in last year’s eminent domain ballot Prop 90 was also connected to this effort as well. We carried an article about the Prop 90 out of state donations last year.
Carla Marinucci of the San Francisco Chronicle broke a major story on the donations in today’s paper.
There were calls for California Republicans to denounce the ballot proposition, however, the state Republican Party recently endorsed the measure. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stated he had not seen the language and refused to take a position against the initiative, prompting blogger Julia Rosen to stage a bit of Guerilla Theater, showing up at the Governor’s office with over 2000 faxed copies of the initiative.
Art Torres, Chair of the California Democratic Party, challenged Republican candidate for President Rudy Giuliani in a statement issued earlier today, saying: “News reports today raised serious concerns about Rudy Giuliani’s involvement in the latest GOP attempt to steal the White House. It’s time for Rudy Giuliani and his backers in the Show Me State to ‘show me the money’ – more specifically, where the money behind this initiative is coming from and who is driving this effort. The so-called Presidential Election Reform Act is nothing more than a partisan power grab intended to rig the 2008 Presidential election.”
There may be ore fallout from this, but it is good news for the Democratic Presidential nominee, and good for a level playing field for next November’s election.
http://www.californiaprogressre...ng_news_r.html
GOP Abandons CA Electoral “Dirty Trick” Initiative
by lordmikethegreat, Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 01:06:29 AM EST
Great news! – Todd
According to the L.A.Times
Plagued by a lack of money, supporters of a statewide initiative drive to change the way California’s 55 electoral votes are apportioned, first revealed here by Top of the Ticket in July, are pulling the plug on that effort.
In an exclusive report to appear on this website late tonight and in Friday’s print editions, The Times’ Dan Morain reports that the proposal to change the winner-take-all electoral vote allocation to one by congressional district is virtually dead with the resignation of key supporters, internal disputes and a lack of funds.
They also are running out of time… needed to have signatures in by November for the June ballot. Democratic leaders will keep an eye out to make sure that this dirty trick doesn’t rear its ugly head again… the one concern, IMO, would be for them to try again and have it be on next year’s *November* ballot and somehow be retroactive…
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/9/28/02818/5341
BREAKING NEWS: Electoral initiative backers give up
Plagued by a lack of money, supporters of a statewide initiative drive to change the way California’s 55 electoral votes are apportioned, first revealed here by Top of the Ticket in July, are pulling the plug on that effort.
In an exclusive report to appear on this website late tonight and in Friday’s print editions, The Times’ Dan Morain reports that the proposal to change the winner-take-all electoral vote allocation to one by congressional district is virtually dead with the resignation of key supporters, internal disputes and a lack of funds.
The reality is hundreds of thousands of signatures must be gathered by the end of November to get the measure on the June 2008 ballot.
Although Maine (since 1972) and Nebraska (since 1996) award electoral votes to the popular vote winner in each congressional district, the California initiative ignited a national controversy with Democratic critics charging it was a power grab by Republicans who are regularly shut out of any California electoral votes by the current winner-take-all system. Democrats have won all the state’s 55 electoral votes in the last four presidential elections.
Nineteen of the state’s 53 congressional districts are currently held by Republicans, giving them a fair chance of winning those electoral votes in a presidential election. The remaining two electoral votes would still go to the state’s overall winner.
The initiative began in July with an air of mystery. Its text and paperwork were filed by a Republican law firm in Sacramento — Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk — but the actual identity of the backers was unknown. Observers noted the initiative would have helped independent candidates because its text specifically provided for third-party or independent candidates to win electoral votes by district.
Supporters said the initiative would increase California’s role in presidential politics and better represent the state’s diversity.
Opposition was led by Democratic consultant Chris Lehane who received financial backing from donors such as Stephen Bing, like Lehane a Hillary Clinton backer who saw any threat to keeping all of California’s electoral votes as unacceptable.
“We want to to make sure this is not the Freddy Krueger of initiatives,” Lehane said today, “that comes back to life. We’ll continue to monitor it.”
–Andrew Malcolm
08:22 PM, Sep 27 2007
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/
Electoral College Hijinks
By Kevin Drum
Sep 28, 2007
________________________________________
(Political Animal) ELECTORAL COLLEGE HIJINKS….Remember that cute little piece of skullduggery Republicans have been backing that would split California’s electoral votes by congressional district instead of awarding them all to a single candidate? Long story short, California is reliably blue and a Democratic presidential candidate could normally expect to win all 55 of the state’s votes. Under the new proposal they’d probably split about 35-20. Democrats would instantly lose 20 electoral votes.
So clever. So sly. So dead:
The Times’ Dan Morain reports that the proposal to change the winner-take-all electoral vote allocation to one by congressional district is virtually dead with the resignation of key supporters, internal disputes and a lack of funds.
….Opposition was lead by Democratic consultant Chris Lehane who received financial backing from donors such as Stephen Bing, like Lehane a Hillary Clinton backer who saw any threat to keeping all of California’s electoral votes as unacceptable.
“We want to to make sure this is not the Freddie Kruger of initiatives,” Lehane said today, “that comes back to life. We’ll continue to monitor it.”
The LA Times promises a full report on the debacle later tonight.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/...n3306598.shtml
… Scott said…
“I honestly don’t care one bit which it is. My position on the matter is that winner-take-all is wrong, so I support any move away from it regardless of who it benefits.”
Wrong.
The proposed changes in both 07-0016 and 07-0032 would suddenly switch the balance of power just before a truly major presidential election without giving the majority of voters or campaigners in any party a chance to digest, understand and take action regarding the fact that suddenly voting Republican in some districts will no longer be a purely symbolic gesture… but one that can actually make 4 more years of a Bush-Cheney equivalent happen.
If California wants to rewrite the rules then it should give voters and campaigners (and legislators and judges) at least one full election cycle to adjust to the changed circumstances. It must give all parties time to adjust to the new rules to be both just and fair.
Given the current backlash against the Republicans by the majority of Americans, of course, the Republican strategists will not want to give such advance warning of the coup to those pesky voters… even more of them would switch parties if only for the upcoming election.
As for the percieved injustice of the Electoral College system… if it’s going to be fixed then it cannot be fixed unilaterally just before a major election strictly in order to throw that particular election…
(which, despite the hemming and hawing upthread, is exactly what both 07-0016 and 07-0032 are designed to do)
… and it must give all intrested parties, including the voters, a breathing space to adjust to the new rules. And of course it would also be best paired with matching laws in red states.
But neither of those fair and just additions to the proposed changes will be accepted by the Republican strategists, of course. They are intent solely on gaming the California initiative system mercilessly and have no time for what’s right or wrong.
Evidence of the above non-partisan statement is and will continue to be amply supplied by the severe lack of Republican interest in any adjustment period for the proposed changes and an equal lack of Republican interest in equivalent changes to red state electoral laws.
No.
This is not the solution to the Electoral College dilemma.
Not just before the 2008 election.
The minimum fair timespan, I’d think, would be between now and the 2012 elections.
Yes, but Scott (comment #1)…why is it ALWAYS the Republicans? With anything to do with “dirty tricks”?
Which party is doing this? Are the Democrats trying to split the electoral votes in Texas? Answer: “NO”!
Which party disenfranchizes voters? The Republicans.
What’s the DOJ case about? The Republicans politicizing the DOJ to disenfrancize minority voters.
What’s the FAKE voter fraud and photo-id about? Republicans disenfranchizing voters.
Your comment makes it seem they’re “BOTH” doing these things…they aren’t. There’s no “balance”, as in “they’re both doing it”…NO THEY AREN’T!
Furthermore, I’ll believe this issue is dead…when it’s dead!
…and here’s “the deal” with these liars:
They want to restore power to the people…
…people = THEIR people!
I don’t see this guy in TEXAS, wanting to split up the electoral votes in TEXAS! If he REALLY meant “power to ALL the people”, he’d be in Texas, Alabama, etc…, too!
…but he wants to give the “power back to the people”…in California…and only Republicans…
Liars!
Partisan Scott said incorrectly:
The only “fact” here is that you are wrong. As Big Dan pointed out, there are states all over the country which do reliably Republican year after after and there are no Democratic initiatives on their ballot to split the electoral vote that I know of.
So your partisan “fact” is simply wrong and without merit.
And you are wrong again. It was the Democrats in the state house this year who passed their own amendment (a foolish one, I might add) to the state electoral college by awarding all electors to whoever wins the popular vote nationwide.
However, it would have only kicked in (had Arnold not vetoed it) after states compromising a majority of electoral votes passed similar laws.
There are a number of initiatives in circulation which would do the same thing, btw. Once again putting the lie to your partisan “facts”.
But sir, the electoral college in California is established policy. As for your comments on the Gays: you seem to have an acute insight into “loony”.
Aren’t all politicians assholes and pricks? Keep the”yucky people”out of office? Too late.
Funny how the Electoral College reform initiative is painted by Democratic operatives in California as a big Republican conspiracy to steal the presidential election when the Democrats have proposed the same idea in several other states.
In 2004, the Democratic Party backed an initiative in Colorado to do exactly what the initiative will do in California (unfortunately Colorado voters turned it down). This year Democrats were attempting something similar in North Carolina until Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean quietly convinced the North Carolina Democrats to stop, saying he “did not want to set a precedent Republicans could use to justify their efforts in California.†Perhaps Doctor Dean sensed that Democrats might gain as many as 7 electoral votes in North Carolina but could lose as many as 22 in California.
While we are at it, one of things we need to do is re-examine how the Electoral College votes are apportioned by the census which includes illegal aliens. The question we need to ask ourselves is should illegal aliens be counted in a census to determinable how many Electoral College votes each state is allocated.
If you eliminate the electoral college all-or-nothing in california, then it must also be eliminated from the likes of neocon’s turf (e.g. texas, florida, ohio) and all the rest of the 50 states so that the entire country has a level playing field, not just california…that way the neocons cannot steal an election just by tipping the scales in their favor in a single state where less than half the votes would equal that of other states, thus upsetting the delicate balance we have today.
That’s it pubs, it’s either ALL 50 states without the ‘all-or-nothing’ electoral votes, or ALL 50 states with the electoral college votes evenly split based on percentages for each of the parties.
Those are your only two choices, now give up these scams and fraudulent electoral schemes!
Ive been getting updates on this for awhile from the CDP, it seems the money guys in San Diego have ben behind this, San diego being the only real GOP base in the state at all, including home town of Pete Wilson!
This is a Hail Mary, last ditch half, a loaf is better than no loaf sort of GOP mentality if we cant beat em fair and square we’ll steal away what ever we can sort of thing isnt it?
But you see, the California voters have been duped!
They threw gary Davis under the bus for the unforseen fiscal impact of an event(s) like Enron’s energy machinations & 9-11 on the Cakifornia econmy and elcted Ahhhnnnnuuuullllddddddd the personality not the GOP favored cnadidate at all, and what did the tax payer get?
Maybe more important?
What the new GOP governor get?
A rejection of his very expnsive proposition ballot and every single one of its initiatives, and today?
A looming 10 Billion Dollar Budgetshortfall the likes of which’s new impact is a cyt across the board in gvt progrmas not seen since when, the Greata Depression?!!!
If any one thinks that now after the miserable state of the California budget under the GOP managed Titanic cruise, these very active and savy voters are going to hand over the state to the GOP so readily based on the preogatives of the cabal in S.D.?
Well, I for one am not so sure that Pig is going to fly, of course with enough thrust?
Even a Pig can fly, the problem is…you just can’t be sure where it will land?
One thing is for ceretain however, one need be careful as the Pig flys over head!
It’s unfortunate to see such a good idea getting caught up in partisan politics. Every state should have this system. It would make candidates actually show up in rural districts and small states once in a while, it would help improve democracy in some of this country’s “one-party” states. To eliminate all the partisan whining, just make it so the change would only take effect in the 2012 campaign season.
Actually, the closest (and only) thing resembling a “good idea” currently in play in this regard is the bipartisan National Popular Vote project.
And, of course, as the NPV initiative is actually bipartisan…
(and thus might have a chance at being considered just)
… and as it would take effect simultaneously in all states, red and blue, once the critical number of states sign on…
(and thus might even be said to be fair)
… well the Republican partisans behind the 07-0016 and 07-0032 initiatives aren’t having any part of the NPV compact.
What Republican partisans behind the 07-0016 and 07-0032 initiatives want is a last second vote grab, is all.
Golly, the folks in Sacramento near the old McClellan Air Force Base sure do post a lot of comments, under a lot of different names, at The BRAD BLOG these days.
And they’re all in favor of wingnut Republican stuff like the Electoral College Split initiative and ES&S voting machines.
Go figure.
I guess I don’t understand how -any- rational person can be behind any scheme that allows for “jerymandering”.. I just don’t understand people’s thought process (keeping in mind the goal is “fair” and “equitable”) that ends up in “let’s make it something that can be tweaked every year to allow “us” to win!..
The electoral college is outdated and irrelevant. It’s not a very “democratic” approach to an election, if you ask me. I suppose it made sense way back in the day, somehow.. but unless I’m missing something, a STRAIGHT vote is what we should be having. Winner take all, period.
Now, I understand how the Founding Fathers wanted someone to have a minimum of 50% of the vote (for any given local).. to make sure we didn’t have 1000 entrants and one win with 1/400th of the overall vote.. So, we have ways to do that.. we have ways to make sure we end up with a series of folks being voted on that makes it fair, and the will of the people based on what the people put forward (as opposed to what the “parties” want).
Saying it’s ok to make the game more complicated when that complication does NOTHING to “secure the will of the people” has to be seen as “politics”, and should be SHOT DOWN by the public.
now, if we could only get a non-ignorant public, we’d be set..
Another possible scheme to carve out electoral votes from various states involves a statutory attempt to enact the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act.” Instead of seeking a constitutional amendment or statehood to give D.C. a voting Representative, as seemingly required by Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, it seeks to achieve that end legislatively, by simple statute. The Senate version, SB 1257 sponsored by Senator Lieberman, was recently tabled for the current term but is positioned for reconsideration during the next term. The House version, HR 1905, was passed earlier this year.
If the proposed Act were to be somehow upheld by the courts, this seemingly well intentioned legislation could become a Trojan Horse that would potentially allow a controlling political party in Congress to create other new federal Districts in “…all Places purchased…for the erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings:” (see, Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 17).
It is absurd to think that the Constitution’s framers ever contemplated giving a controlling political party a power to undermine normal state representation and distribution of electoral votes by allowing Congress to statutorily give House representation to federal Districts rather than through constitutional amendment or statehood.
For more information, please see the concise and well reasoned constitutional analysis for SB 1257 provided on the impartial Library of Congress website, “Thomas.loc.gov”.
To give some specific examples illustrating possible ramifications:
1) Creating a new federal District having House representation out of the U.S. Marine Corps base at Camp Pendelton in California would carve out a Republican-leaning Representative and electoral vote in that conservative area from a state that has recently been giving all of its 55 electoral votes to the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee.
2) Creating a new federal District from the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado (which contains many large Air Force bases and the Air Force Academy) would allow that city, nicknamed the “Evangelical Vatican” because it has recently attracted large concentrations of persons having apocalyptic Christian/Dominionist religious viewpoints, to have its own Representative in the House and its own electoral vote.
Haven’t been here in awhile. Glad to get clarification on this. When I read the piece at FDL, and then checked the SoS site, it didn’t make sense to me. So, I contacted the author of the piece at FDL to see if I somehow misunderstood her, but got no response to my inquiry.
I love FDL, but when one of their contributors makes a mistake like that, there should be some sort of follow-up. It makes you wonder what else they get wrong and then don’t correct.
I hope that the signatures on this petition are checked, and that some of the signers from the day the problems occurred at UCSB are contacted to see if they intended to sign this petition. That should take care of the whole thing. If this doesn’t happen, then it will be on the June ballot, and you can bet it’ll be marketed as something it isn’t, and that more voters than not will vote for it, not understanding what they’re doing. Even though the courts wouldn’t like this, it’ll never get to that point in time to stop the impact it will have on the 2008 election.
I doubt this issue will get any more attention in the MSM. It’s not hopeless; it just needs to be stayed on.