Supreme Court says redistricting measure was rightfully on ballot
San Jose Mercury News
February 17, 2006
SACRAMENTO - A failed ballot initiative seeking to change the way California's legislative districts are drawn was correctly allowed on last November's special election ballot, the state Supreme Court said Thursday.
Attorney General Bill Lockyer had sued over a wording dispute, arguing the Proposition 77 petition circulated for signatures was substantively different from the one approved for the Nov. 8 ballot.
Proposition 77, rejected by voters 59.8 percent to 40.2 percent, was one of four initiatives promoted by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to be defeated in the special election. While the defeat makes Thursday's ruling largely moot, the court said it wanted to set a precedent for future cases.
Lockyer had sued to remove the measure from the ballot, and a Sacramento County Superior Court and a state appellate court agreed. The state Supreme Court overturned the previous rulings before the election and on Thursday said the initiative's proponents had "substantially complied" with state requirements.
"Although the variance in the two versions constituted a constitutional and statutory defect, the inadvertent differences at issue here did not mislead the public or otherwise defeat or undermine the fundamental purposes" of state laws, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the 4-2 majority.
Proposition 77 sought to strip lawmakers' power to draw congressional and legislative boundaries in California and shift that responsibility to a panel of three retired judges.
The judges cited decisions dating to 1934, in which the court acknowledged it was impossible to completely avoid honest human errors in the initiative process and said it would be wrong to ignore the will of the thousands who signed the petition because of a technicality.
The second version was placed into circulation for signature-gathering after someone working for the group supporting the redistricting initiative copied the wrong version and sent it to the printer.
The judges said that was a clear mistake but cautioned others to avoid making similar errors in the future.
All six judges agreed that the court had the authority to review the issue before the election and agreed the proper test for weighing such a case was whether it "substantially complied" with the law.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Joyce Kennard agreed with Lockyer that changes to the wording were substantial.
Kennard said that when different versions are circulated and submitted, "the Attorney General becomes the unwitting agent of misinformation by disseminating the variant text throughout state and local government and to the public. The effects of this misinformation are difficult to trace and quantify, but may well be profound."
In Thursday's ruling, Judge Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote a separate dissenting opinion, saying the case was moot and the court should not have taken it up.
Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for Lockyer, said the case highlighted the need to clarify California 's initiative laws.
"We're prepared to engage in the process of trying to come up with the reforms that are needed to better enable this office and state and local officials to deal with this problem," Dresslar said.
Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, said she is working with Secretary of State Bruce McPherson to introduce related legislation next week.
---
ON THE NET
Read the decision at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S136294.PDF