Ted Costa

PPIC Poll Shows Five Of Six California Measures In Trouble

Joe Mathews — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:33:00 -0400

Here's a link to the poll, which shows five of the six measures on the May 19 special election ballot with less than 50 percent support. Here's pollster Mark Baldassare's take on the results in the Sacramento Bee. And here's my upbeat prediction, via Fox & Hounds Daily.

That optimism is based on the fact that opposition to the measures is poorly funded, disorganized and late to the game. The Sacramento Bee, in this news story, suggests the opponents are coming together to fight Prop 1A, the spending limit. But the opposition is forming too late to make much difference on its own. The real problem is that people don't understand much about the measure other than its link to taxes. As Ted Costa, the anti-tax activist who is co-chair of one of the campaigns against 1A, said on a conference call yesterday, "We can beat this with just robocalls." 1A likely loses even without a campaign against it.

Backer of 2003 Recall Says He Could Support Arnold Recall

Joe Mathews — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:13:00 -0400

Just got off the phone with Ted Costa, the original proponent of the 2003 recall of Gov. Gray Davis that put Schwarzenegger in the governor's office.

Costa, who runs a small taxpayer group called The People's Advocate, hasn't made any decisions, but he expressed interest in the recall and said he had left a message for prison guards' union official Lance Corcoran offering to meet with CCPOA. When I asked him if he would support the recall of Schwarzenegger, Costa replied: "Anything's possible, including me support a recall. That's all possible. Yes it is."

Costa thinks that if a recall qualified for the ballot, Schwarzenegger could be in real trouble. Costa said he would expect potential successors who are planning runs for 2010 to run to succeed Schwarzenegger if he's recalled. "All they have to do is turn the signatures in, and the governor has to get more than 50 percent of the vote to stay in office. The other candidates only need to beat each other," Costa said. "You could get four or five candidates, you could wear them down."

"By no means do I see this as a slam dunk for the governor," Costa added. "He's pissed off everybody."

Costa said he thought the prison guards' union might have done better to wait a little before making public their interest in a recall. "They should have covered their bases before they went public, and maybe built a coalition," he said.

There's irony in that comment. Costa himself was strongly advised to wait before filing his own recall petition against Davis in early 2003 -- but went ahead anyway.

Redistricting Initiative "Is A Power Grab," Says Supporter of Redistricting Reform

Joe Mathews — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:52:00 -0400

Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Weintraub writes today that politicians will lie to beat the redistricting reform initiative on the November ballot. But if Ted Costa's views are heard, they may not need to do much.

Ted Costa was the original proponent of both the recall of Gov. Gray Davis and of Prop 77, the failed redistricting initiative in 2005. In an email, he blasts the new initiative, Prop 11, as a "power grab," matching the rhetoric -- if not meaning -- of the measure's opponents.

Democrats and legislators have constituted most of the opposition to this point. But Costa is a Republican, and his argument, if it gets heard over the din of the presidential election and the gay marriage ban, could peel Republicans off the measure. Costa also betrays his own personal frustration with Common Cause and other backers of the measure; he's spent years trying to work with them on redistricting, and doesn't like their approach, from how the lines are drawn to the fact that Congressional districts aren't included. The measure only covers state legislative districts, and the districts for California's Board of Equalization.

Here's Ted's email:

"In a funny way the initiative opponents are right. The redistricting initiative IS a power grab! But not a power grab by Republicans.

This initiative is a power grab by the left wing interest groups who drafted it like Common Cause, and AARP, and those who've endorsed it (ACLU) to seize control of the redistricting process from the incumbents like Perata. The interest groups want a more liberal legislature that will be more likely to give then a 2/3 vote to raise taxes..

Fairness and accountability have little to do with this initiative.

It's all about shifting power from incumbents to special interests!

If it were truly reform, there would have been real instead of misleadingly phony criteria to keep cities and counties from being divided, and there would have been actual language to promote competitive districts. But there is none. The left vetoed such language.

There would have been strong conflict of interest provisions, to keep employers of lobbyists (not just lobbyists) and former legislative consultants (not just former legislative employees) off the Commission.

There would have been some minimal safeguards like better disclosure of who recruited applicants, or a jury-like random invitation process to prevent special interests from recruiting hidden ringers for the Commission. But there are no safeguards.

In fact, this measure is precisely tailored to put public interest group liberals like Common Cause, AARP, and ACLU allies, and perhaps even their Board members on the Commission with no restraints on their ability to gerrymander the state.

And a liberal gerrymander by this Commission would APPEAR biparstisan, because no one may ever know who or if hidden ringers are really working for some incumbent or special interest, instead of the interets of the Party in which they happen to be registered.

If the Mafia could recruit potential jury panelists to pack a jury pool, how would we ever be sure the prosecutor found them all and that the trial was honest? If the Mafia could write rules to allow them to pack the jury pool, would we adopt them?

And if a jury, once selected, could write its own rules of evidence (its "criteria"), instead of following the law, would we have any confidence in the result? Why would we give any jury such unlimited power?

This initiative is a mockery of reform!

Unless the "reform" you want is a tax increase and a MORE liberal legislature.

Under today's Rules at least Republicans can:

1. Elect a Republican Governor to force a fair plan OR

2. Referend a partisan gerrymander OR.

3. Use the threat of a referendum to force at least an incumbent protection gerrymander that blocks the 2/3 majority the left needs for a tax increase.

4. Count on the greed of Democrat incumbents to create a safe district Democratic majority instead of the incumbent-threatening gerrymander it would take to get a 2/3 liberal tax-raising majority.

5. Perhaps even propose and pass real redistricting reform that would protect cities and counties, and guard against special interests planting phony Republicans on the Commission

The left has, under the current system, so far failed to get a 2/3 vote for a tax increase....

Redistricting, and Unintended Consequences

Joe Mathews — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:03:00 -0400

Ted Costa, the Sacramento anti-tax activist best known as the original proponent of the 2003 recall of California Gov. Gray Davis, once told me that the recall was his second choice. He wanted to pass an initiative to strip California's state legislators of the power to draw their own districts. But the courts knocked a measure he drafted off the ballot. With the money he had raised for redistricting, he decided to launch the recall effort.

In 2006, looking back at all the political change his recall had produced, Costa looked back and said, "I would trade it all for a fair redistricting." Well, another redistricting initiative is headed to the ballot in California this November. And Costa doesn't like it at all.