|
|
Search Our Site Communicate with other DFAOC members through
To join, e-mail Learn More About Legislation in Congress at:
Current
Thanks to Geek and Proud, Alan Penner Cost of the (JavaScript Error) |
Redistricting revelations spark furorLetters fly among political attorneys over differences in wording on Proposition 77.
By Jim Sanders -- Sacramento Bee Capitol Bureau Source: http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/13242641p-14085197c.html Disclosure that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration and proponents of a redistricting ballot initiative were aware of its legal problems more than a week before revealing them sparked a torrent of veiled accusations and legal wrangling Friday. Though the legal tactics varied, the bottom line was much the same: a concern that Secretary of State Bruce McPherson might have been duped into certifying Proposition 77 for the ballot by untimely notification of its legal glitch. "As I'm sure you can appreciate, it is absolutely essential that the secretary of state be perceived as fair and impartial in his conduct relating to elections," attorney Lance Olson, representing a group opposing Proposition 77, said in a letter Friday to McPherson. Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office called circumstances surrounding the case "extremely troubling" and asked proponents Friday to voluntarily provide documents that could shed light on the chain of events leading to the controversy. The dispute centers on a Schwarzenegger-supported measure that would take the drawing of legislative, congressional and Board of Equalization boundaries out of the Legislature's hands and give it to a panel of three retired state or federal judges. Lockyer has sued in Sacramento Superior Court seeking to remove Proposition 77 from the ballot because the text of a document used to launch the initiative differed slightly from wording on the petition used to gather signatures. Friday's legal wrangling was ignited, in part, by disclosure Thursday that the Republican governor's legal affairs secretary, Peter Siggins, and an attorney for the measure's proponents, Daniel Kolkey, knew about the legal glitch but did not report it until after McPherson certified the measure. Olson claims that timely notification could have stopped Proposition 77 in its tracks, but that the legal burden shifts once a measure is officially certified as having attracted an adequate number of voter signatures. McPherson contends he has a legal obligation to place onto the ballot any certified measure. Opponents also seized Friday on a disclosure by Siggins and Kolkey that they talked with each other about the issue before notifying McPherson's office, and that they later talked individually with a high-ranking member of the secretary of state's staff, Undersecretary Bill Wood. Siggins and Kolkey said Thursday that they did not intentionally wait until after certification to notify the secretary of state's office, but that they needed some time to research legal issues regarding the differences in text, which they contend are minor and immaterial. The duo also claimed there was nothing unethical about their conversations with each other about Proposition 77 and that they exerted no pressure on the secretary of state's office. Gale Kaufman, a political consultant to Assembly Democrats, said she fears that the initiative process has been abused. "People are hiding what was really going on. They delayed the process, and now their excuse is, 'It's really inconsequential,' " she said. "I think it's very consequential." Olson's letter to McPherson on Friday asked the latter to reconsider his decision to place Proposition 77 on the ballot in light of the disclosures by Siggins and Kolkey. Besides criticizing the untimely notification to McPherson, Olson wrote: "For the secretary's office to entertain legal arguments from the advocates of one side without making any attempt to elicit the opposing views is simply antithetical to the fair and impartial oversight of elections." Olson represents Californians for Fair Representation, organized to oppose Proposition 77. He also is an attorney for the Legislature's Democratic leaders, Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata. McPherson, through an attorney, responded in writing to Olson, saying that he is seeking judicial guidance on how to proceed. "Whatever the court decides, (he) will implement without reservation," wrote the attorney, Angela Schrimp de la Vergne. Lockyer's office, in a separate letter Friday to Kolkey, questioned whether the textual differences in Proposition 77's documents were an "intentional rewrite" rather than a simple mistake, as claimed by the proponents. Lockyer noted that proponents did not promptly notify McPherson about potential legal problems, and that the attorney general's office was not alerted until an additional 18 days had passed. The leader of the initiative drive, Ted Costa, contacted the attorney general's office on June 21 seeking a title and summary for Proposition 77 to be placed on the ballot. But he failed to mention the legal glitch, the attorney general claimed. "These facts are extremely troubling, and they raise serious questions about the chain of events involved," wrote Richard M. Frank, chief deputy attorney general for legal affairs. Kolkey, contacted Friday evening, said he had just received Frank's letter and had not yet read it. Costa was unavailable for comment. The California Democratic Party submitted a public records act request to Schwarzenegger's office Friday, seeking all letters, e-mail and other documents about meetings regarding Proposition 77 and its legal glitch. "I've made the request so we can clear the air," said Art Torres, party chairman. "I'm not making any accusations at this point." Schwarzenegger's office, through an aide, declined to comment. |
|
Copyright © 2004-2005, Democracy for America - Orange County, all rights reserved. |
