Gray Davis

Davis Opposes Arnold Recall

Joe Mathews — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:18:00 -0400

Former Gov. Gray Davis, recalled in 2003, explains why to Rick Orlov of the Daily News.

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.

Elias: California No Better Off Because of 2003 Recall

Joe Mathews — Fri, 30 May 2008 17:02:00 -0400

Tom Elias is an independent columnist who was the first journalist to write about the possibility of a recall of then-California Gov. Gray Davis. He weighs in with a new column in which he says that for all the interest and excitement the recall and Davis' susccessor Arnold Schwarzenegger have sparked, the state is no better off than it would have been without the recall.

Elias: Budget Plan Would Make California Governors 'Budget Dictators'

Joe Mathews — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:30:00 -0400

In California, Thomas Elias may be the most important voice you've never heard of. Elias, an independent journalist whose column in appears mostly in smaller papers over the state, was arguably the first person to circulate the notion of a recall of then Gov. Gray Davis just after his re-election in 2002. (Other folks took it and ran from there).

Elias reports and thinks deeply, and gets into the guts of the issue. Now, almost alone, he offers a column not about the politics of Gov. Schwarzeneggger and his reform efforts (the preoccupation of Sacramento) but about the substance of the governor's proposals. Today, Elias looks at budget reform, and he raises important points. His main problem is that Schwarzenegger's budget plans, which have only been loosely outlined, would give far too much power to the governor's office. Governors could make mid-year cuts, set aside money for reserves and in some cases, suspend laws all by themselves. Elias sees this as dictatorship. Having sat through legislative budget hearings, your blogger wonders if a little bit of dictatorship in making budget adjustments might not be such a bad idea. Whatever the case, Elias deserves credit for trying to spark a debate on the nuts and bolts of this. California voters, after all, may have vote on a "reform" plan of some kind this November--six months away.