prop

SACRAMENTO — Regardless of all the campaign jabber, Proposition 50 is not about saving democracy, stopping power grabs or veering off the moral high road. It’s about which political party controls Congress.

Or whether Republicans and Democrats share the power.

It’s also about exerting some control over unhinged President Trump. That would happen if voters across America next year flip the House of Representatives from Republican to Democrat, ending one-party rule of the federal government. Proposition 50 could help do that.

Does an obedient Republican Congress continue to allow Trump to walk all over it? Or does a new Democrat-led House exercise its constitutional duty to provide checks and balances over the executive branch?

This is what’s potentially at stake in California’s special election on Nov. 4. And it’s mostly what has motivated political donors to kick in an astronomical $128 million so far for the fight.

But let’s back up.

For many decades, state legislators drew their own districts — gerrymandering them to blatantly help themselves and their party win elections. And with some creative hands from California’s House delegation, Sacramento’s lawmakers also gerrymandered congressional districts.

It was unethical but perfectly legal. The final straw came in 2001 when legislators of both parties conspired to draw districts that protected every incumbent, whether Democrat or Republican.

California voters finally had enough and in 2008 banned gerrymandering. They assigned legislative redistricting to an independent bipartisan citizens’ commission. In 2010, voters also gave the panel responsibility for drawing House seats.

It has worked great. Politicians no longer get to choose their own voters. And the districts have become much more competitive.

District maps have always been drawn at the beginning of each decade after the decennial census — until now.

This time, Trump got worried that Republicans could lose the House in next year’s elections — a fate that has often befallen a president’s party during a midterm.

So Trump pressured Texas Gov. Greg Abbott into orchestrating a mid-decade legislative gerrymandering of his state’s House districts, with the aim of gaining five more Republican seats. The president has also been browbeating other red states to rig their congressional lines.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom quickly retaliated. He asked an eager Democrat-controlled Legislature to draw up new House maps designed to gain five new Democratic seats, neutralizing Texas’ action.

Democrats already outnumber Republicans in the California House delegation, 43 to 9. In Texas, Republicans hold 25 of the 38 House seats. Nationally, Democrats need to gain just three seats to retake House control.

Unlike in Texas, Newsom needs the voters’ permission to resume gerrymandering. That’s what Proposition 50 does, along with granting voter approval of proposed new weird-looking congressional maps drawn by Democratic lawmakers.

How weird? To make a new 2nd District Democrat-friendly, it was stretched hundreds of miles from the rural northeastern Oregon border southwestward into the urban San Francisco Bay Area.

Under the ballot measure, the independent commission would resume redistricting in 2031 after the next census. Proposition 50’s opponents contend Democrats can’t be trusted to keep the gerrymandering temporary.

And they’re hypocritically screaming about a “Newsom power grab” — without also pointing the finger at Trump and Abbott, who started this fight.

At its core, this is a brawl over raw political power. Forget any idealism.

Longtime Republican operative Jon Fleischman mixed his party’s principal talking point with reality in a recent blog:

“Prop. 50 is a naked power grab by Gavin Newsom,” he wrote.

“If it passes, five of nine safe GOP House seats in California will flip to safe Democrat, potentially flipping the House next year.”

In trying to rally Democratic voters — who outnumber Republicans by nearly 2 to 1 in California — Newsom frames Proposition 50 as essential for democracy.

“It’s all at stake,” the governor asserts, sounding a bit hyperbolic. “This is a profound and consequential moment in American history. We can lose this republic if we do not assert ourselves … and stand guard for the republic and our democracy.”

Come on, our republic will survive regardless of what happens to Newsom’s gerrymandering proposal — even if Trump does strain democracy.

Proposition 50 also is opposed on idealistic grounds — particularly by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and wealthy GOP donor Charles Munger Jr. Both were strong backers of creating the independent redistricting commission. Munger has contributed $33 million to the anti-50 effort.

“Gerrymanders are a cancer and mid-decade gerrymanders are metastasis,” Munger wrote in a New York Times op-ed last month.

If Democratic politicians gerrymander California, he asserted, “then they lose the moral high ground.”

Well, if this is the moral high ground we’re living in under the Trump regime, I’d like to move to another level.

My definition of a moral high ground doesn’t include a Congress that won’t push back against a bully president who cuts back millions in research aid to universities because he doesn’t like what they teach, who sics his own masked police force of unidentified agents on California residents, who sabotages our anti-pollution programs.

Isra Ahmad, a member of the independent commission, noted in a recent Los Angeles Times opinion piece that “California has embraced [redistricting] equity and transparency while states like Texas entrench partisan advantage.”

And she asked: “Does taking the high road matter when your opponents are willing to play dirty?”

The answer: We should all play by the same rules — even if it unfortunately requires temporary gerrymandering. After Trump leaves, we can return to the high road.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California voters were mailed inaccurate guides ahead of November special election
The interpersonal read: He’s a real pain for Gavin Newsom. And a rising Democratic star
The L.A. Times Special: In the biggest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history, some claim they were paid to sue

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Supporters of the November ballot measure to reconfigure California’s congressional districts — an effort led by Gov. Gavin Newsom to help Democrats win control of the U.S. House of Representatives next year — have far out-raised the opposition campaigns, according to fundraising disclosures filed with the state.

The primary group backing Proposition 50 raked in $77.5 million and spent $28.1 million through Sept. 20, according to a campaign finance report that was filed with the secretary of state’s office on Thursday.

The committee has $54.4 million in the bank for the final weeks of the campaign, so Californian should expect a blizzard of television ads, mailers, phone calls and other efforts to sway voters before the Nov. 4 special election.

The two main groups opposing the ballot measure have raised $35.3 million, spent $27.4 million and have roughly $8.8 million in the bank combined, campaign finance reports show.

Despite having an overwhelming financial advantage, the campaign supporting Proposition 50 has tried to portray itself as the underdog in a fight to raise money against opposition campaigns with ties to President Trump and his supporters.

“MAGA donors keep pouring millions into the campaign to stop Prop. 50 in the hopes of pleasing their ‘Dear Leader,’” said Hannah Milgrom, a spokesperson for the Yes on 50, the Election Rigging Response Act campaign. “We will not take our foot off the gas — Prop. 50 is America’s best chance to stop this reckless and dangerous president, and we will keep doing everything we can to ensure every Californian knows the stakes and is ready to vote yes on 50 this Nov. 4th.”

A spokesperson for one of the anti-Proposition 50 campaigns, which was sending mailers to voters even before the Democratic-led California Legislature placed Proposition 50 on the November ballot, said their priority was to help Californians understand the inappropriateness of redrawing congressional boundaries that had been created by a voter-approved, state independent commission.

“We started communicating with voters early about the consequences of having politicians draw their own lines,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for a coalition that opposes the ballot measure. “We are confident we’ll have the resources necessary to continue through election day.”

A spokesperson for the other main anti-Proposition 50 group agreed.

“When you’re selling a lemon, no amount of cash can change the taste. We’re confident in raising more than sufficient resources to expose Prop. 50 for the blatant political power grab that it is,” said Ellie Hockenbury, an advisor to the No on 50 – Stop Sacramento’s Power Grab campaign. Newsom “can’t change the fact that Prop. 50 is nothing more than a ploy for politicians to take the power of redistricting away from the voters and charge them for the privilege at a massive cost to taxpayers.”

The special election is expected to cost the state and the counties $282 million, according to the secretary of state’s office and the state department of finance.

If approved, Proposition 50 would have a major impact on California’s 2026 congressional elections, which will play a major role in determining whether Trump is able to continue enacting his agenda in the final two years of his tenure. The party that wins the White House frequently loses congressional seats two years later, and Republicans hold a razor-thin majority in the House.

After Trump urged GOP-led states, notably Texas, to redraw their congressional districts to increase the number of Republicans elected to Congress in next year’s midterm election, Newsom and other California Democrats responded by proposing a counter-effort to boost the ranks of their party in the legislative body.

California’s congressional districts are drawn once every decade after the U.S. Census by a voter-approved independent redistricting commission. So Democrats’ proposal to replace the districts with new boundaries proposed by state lawmakers must be approved by voters. The state Legislature voted in August to put the measure before voters in a special election on Nov. 4.

Polling about the proposition is not definitive. It’s an off-year election, which means turnout is likely to be low and the electorate is unpredictable. And relatively few Californians pay attention to redistricting, the esoteric process of redrawing congressional districts.

There are more than 30 campaign committees associated with Proposition 50 registered with the secretary of state’s office, but only three have raised large amounts of money.

Newsom’s pro-Proposition 50 effort has received several large donations since its launch, including $10 million from billionaire financier George Soros, $7.6 million from House Majority PAC (the Democrats’ congressional political arm) and $4.5 million from various Service Employees International Union groups. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and his wife have contributed $1 million to a separate committee supporting the proposition.

The opposition groups had few small-dollar donors and were largely funded by two sources — $30 million in loans from Charles Munger Jr., who for years has been a major Republican donor in California, and a $5-million donation from the Congressional Leadership Fund, the GOP political arm of House Republicans.

The multimillion-dollar jousting over redrawing California’s congressional districts to boost Democrats and counter President Trump was on full display in recent days, as both sides courted voters less than a month before ballots begin arriving in mailboxes.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, national Democratic leaders including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and a slew of political influencers held an hours-long virtual rally Tuesday afternoon, urging Californians to support Proposition 50 in the Nov. 4 special election. Speakers framed the stakes of the ballot measure as nothing short of existential — not just for Democratic interests, but also for democracy.

“It’s all at stake. This is a profound and consequential moment in American history. We can lose this republic if we do not assert ourselves and stand tall at this moment and stand guard to this republic and our democracy. I feel that in my bones,” Newsom said Tuesday afternoon.

If passed, Proposition 50 would gerrymander the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats, bolstering the fates of several Democrats in vulnerable swing districts and potentially cost Republicans up to five House seats.

California’s congressional districts are drawn by a voter-approved independent commission once a decade after the U.S. census. But Newsom and other state Democrats proposed a rare mid-decade redrawing of the districts to increase the number of Democrats in Congress in response to similar efforts in GOP-led states, notably Texas.

Tuesday’s virtual rally, which was emceed by progressive influencer Brian Tyler Cohen, was a cross between an old-school money-raising telethon and new media streaming session. Popular podcasters and YouTubers such as Crooked Media’s Jon Favreau and Tommy Vietor (alumni of former President Obama’s administration), Ben Meiselas of MeidasTouch and David Pakman shared the screen with political leaders, with an on-screen fundraising thermometer inching higher throughout.

Cohen argued that people like him had been “begging” Democrats to fight Trump. And now elected officials had done their part by getting Proposition 50 on the ballot, he said, urging viewers to donate to support the effort.

Warren argued that Trump was a “would-be king” — but if Democrats could retake control of either house of Congress, that would be stopped, she posited.

“And if we have both houses under Democratic control,” Warren continued, “now we are truly back in the game in terms of making our Constitution work again.”

The exhaustive list of speakers represented the spectrum of the modern left, with standard-bearers such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, alongside rising stars including Reps. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.). A number of California delegates, including Sen. Alex Padilla and Reps. Ted. Lieu, Robert Garcia, Pete Aguilar, Jimmy Gomez and Sydney Kamlager-Dove, also spoke.

The event had been scheduled to take place Sept. 10 but was postponed after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk earlier that day.

Jessica Millan Patterson, the former leader of the California Republican Party and chair of an anti-Proposition 50 committee, accused Newsom of “scrambling for out-of-touch messengers to sell his scheme.”

“For Gavin Newsom, it’s all distraction and deflection. Instead of addressing the $283 million price tag taxpayers are stuck with for his partisan power grab, he’s hosting a cringeworthy webinar packed with DC politicians, out-of-state influencers, and irrelevant podcasters, all lining up to applaud his gerrymandered maps,” Millan Patterson said in a statement Tuesday.

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the creation of the independent redistricting commission while in office and has campaigned to stop gerrymandering across the nation after his term ended, forcefully denounced Proposition 50 on Monday.

“They are trying to fight for democracy by getting rid of the democratic principles of California,” Schwarzenegger told hundreds of students at an event celebrating democracy at the University of Southern California. “It is insane to let that happen.”

The former governor, a Trump foe who has prioritized good governance at his institute at USC, said the effort to dismantle the independent commission’s congressional districts to counter Trump are anti-democratic.

“They want to get rid of it under the auspices of we have to fight Trump,” Schwarzenegger said. “It doesn’t make any sense to me because we have to fight Trump, [yet] we become Trump.”

And on the morning of Sept. 10, opponents of the ballot measure rallied in Orange County, speaking about how redrawing congressional districts would dilute the voice of communities around the state.

“We’re here because Prop. 50 poses a serious threat to Orange County’s voice, to our communities and to our taxpayers. This measure is not about fairness. It’s about power grab,” said Orange County Supervisor Janet Nguyen during a rally at the Asian Garden Mall in Little Saigon, a Vietnamese hub in Westminster. “And it comes at the expense of our taxpayers, our small businesses and our minority communities.”

She noted that Little Saigon would be grouped with Norwalk in Los Angeles County if the ballot measure passes.

“Ask anybody in this area if they even know where Norwalk is,” Nguyen said.

Cast members of a popular TV sitcom featuring two gay characters are stepping out of their fictional roles to deliver a real-life message, urging voters to defeat a March ballot initiative aimed at banning recognition of same-sex marriages in California.

The four stars of NBC’s hit show “Will and Grace,” which draws about 13 million viewers a week, have filmed a television ad charging that Proposition 22 would legalize discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Just under 30 seconds long, the ad will hit the airwaves in January in California’s biggest cities. Opponents of the initiative say that they will spend at least $1 million on television time for the spot.

“I think it’s a particularly ugly proposition, and while I don’t do a lot of preaching in front of the camera, with my series I’m blessed with the ability to make a difference in some way,” said Max Mutchnick, co-creator and co-executive producer of the offbeat comedy. “Fortunately, I’m surrounded by actors who feel as strongly about this as I do.”

It is not unusual for celebrities to champion a political cause. In recent years, actors have spoken publicly about everything from noisy leaf blowers to animal rights, famine relief and breast cancer research. NBC’s “The More You Know” campaign uses network stars to deliver all manner of pitches, from anti-drug warnings to advice on effective parenting.

But it is rare–and some say potentially risky–for the entire cast of a show to take a position on a specific ballot initiative, especially a controversial one.

“When Ted Danson talks about pollution in the ocean, no one is going to say, ‘How dare he,’ ” said Scott Seomin, entertainment media director of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. “But this is different. . . . It’s not a safe issue to speak against.”

Mutchnick, who wrote the ad, said he was moved to speak because he views the “rhetoric surrounding the initiative as very mean-spirited.” Although he could have written a large check for the opposition campaign, the producer said he wanted to “be a little more involved” and figured an ad was a natural fit.

As for the potential risk, Mutchnick was careful to point out that the network played no role in the ad: “We are not speaking for NBC in any way. This was my cost, my time and the actors’ time.”

NBC was quick to echo that: “This is something that the cast chose to do personally and does not reflect NBC’s beliefs at all,” said network spokeswoman Shirley Powell.

Opponents of Proposition 22 hailed the ad as a boon for their campaign, saying that it will help deliver their message to a younger audience whose votes they need to defeat the measure.

Mike Marshall, manager of the opposition campaign, said he hopes the ad will educate and motivate young voters, who are less likely than others to go to the polls–especially in a primary election like the one March 7.

“Will and Grace” has a “huge audience and is a very cutting-edge television show,” Marshall said. “The fact that all of the cast and the producer are willing to take a position on this initiative will help many people who are in the middle take a second look and figure out it’s unfair, divisive and discriminatory.”

A spokesman for the Protection of Marriage Committee, the initiative’s sponsoring group, called the ad a predictable use of “Hollywood liberals who have been attacking traditional family values for decades.”

The spokesman, Robert Glazier, also disputed the ad’s claim that the initiative is a discriminatory attack on “basic civil rights.” The measure is “not about discriminating against anybody,” he said. “It’s simply a reaffirmation of the importance of a man and a woman in marriage.”

Analysts said the use of celebrities in political campaigns can be helpful in putting an issue on the map. But they questioned how influential the spot would be.

“Initiatives usually succeed or fail based on the merits, the substance of the issue,” said Don Sipple, a veteran Republican media strategist. He added that although celebrities can give an issue recognition in the marketplace, they aren’t used extensively in political ads.

“That’s because the most effective spokesperson is usually someone who is viewed as credible on the issue,” Sipple said. “So the most they can hope for may be getting people’s attention.”

Now in its second season, “Will and Grace” chronicles the relationship between unattached, handsome, gay Manhattan attorney Will Truman (Eric McCormack) and single, beautiful, straight interior designer Grace Adler (Debra Messing). Thrown into the mix are Will’s flamboyantly gay pal Jack (Sean Hayes), and Grace’s sharp-tongued assistant, Karen (Megan Mullally).

The straightforward ad features a tight shot of all four actors, the men standing behind the women, in a studio. The script says that the vote on Proposition 22 is about basic civil rights and urges voters to “make a difference [and] . . . say no to discrimination by voting no on Knight.”

Knight is a reference to state Sen. William J. “Pete” Knight, author of the initiative that would bar legal recognition of marriage in California. No state now permits gay marriages, but court cases pending in several states could make it a reality soon. Initiative backers seek to ensure that gay and lesbian couples who might someday wed elsewhere cannot move to California and become eligible for property inheritance and other marital benefits.

Sponsors of the measure have yet to air any ads, and would not divulge their strategy. Glazier would say only that the television campaign will “emphasize the importance of keeping marriage as a union between a man and a woman.”

Proposition 89 is expected to win hands down. After all, so the reasoning goes, who is going to vote against a measure designed to keep murderers in prison?

Supporters and opponents alike predict a landslide victory Nov. 8 for the proposed state constitutional amendment that would give the governor the authority to cancel paroles granted to murderers.

Even the lineup of names on the official ballot arguments looks like a mismatch.

Listed in favor of the proposition are the politically powerful, or at least the well-connected: Gov. George Deukmejian, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner, Sen. Daniel E. Boatwright (D-Concord) and Assemblyman Gary A. Condit (D-Ceres).

There are a number of opponents of the measure, but the only one listed on the sample ballot is a Roman Catholic priest, Father Paul W. Comiskey, general counsel for an organization called the Prisoners Rights Union–not a name likely to reassure the mass of California voters in these days of fear.

Boatwright–who authored the legislative constitutional amendment and considers it a “measure of safety”–is predicting an 80% voter approval rate.

Comiskey, who says the amendment would politicize parole decisions, rates chances of defeating the measure as about equal to those of a “snowball in hell.”

Proposition 89 would give the governor 30 days in which to review decisions of state adult and youth parole boards regarding the release of prisoners serving life sentences for murder with the possibility of parole. In deciding whether to affirm, modify or reverse a parole board decision, the governor would be limited under the measure to considering only those factors that had been considered by the parole authorities. The measure would also require the governor to report to the state Legislature the pertinent facts of each parole decision reviewed.

This legislative initiative is not new. It has been floundering in the Legislature since 1983, born of the public furor over the release from prison of William Archie Fain, who was serving a life term for the 1967 shotgun murder of a teen-age boy in Stanislaus County, as well as the rape of two teen-age girls and a 43-year-old housewife. After Deukmejian found he could not legally cancel Fain’s parole, Boatwright introduced the legislative amendment to give the governor such authority in future cases.

But the measure languished in the Assembly Public Safety Committee until this year, said Boatwright, when pressure from the dissident “Gang of Five” Democrats (who oppose the leadership of Democratic Speaker Willie Brown of San Francisco) helped to give it a “fair hearing.”

The measure was overwhelmingly passed by both the Senate and the Assembly, and was placed on the Nov. 8 ballot. The proposition’s chances certainly were not hurt earlier this year when Fain, inspiration for the proposed amendment, was charged with a brutal attempted rape in Alameda County. He has pleaded not guilty.

Comiskey argues that the parole of Fain is a false issue because the convict’s release date had been set by the parole board years before Deukmejian became involved in the controversy and the proposed amendment would have given the governor only 30 days to reverse the decision from the day the release date was set.

If passed, Proposition 89 would seem not only to allow a conservative governor to reverse a decision granting a parole to a murderer, but would also allow a more liberal governor to grant such a release over the objections of a parole board.

But Boatwright argues that the governor already possesses the authority to commute a prisoner’s sentence and says that his amendment would provide the counterbalancing authority to prevent a release.

It would “provide an extra measure of safety to law-abiding citizens,” says a ballot argument by Deukmejian and Boatwright.

Fears Politicization

“Proposition 89 will politicize decisions about whether to grant or deny parole,” insists Comiskey in his ballot argument.

“I think it’s going to invite lawlessness in this whole area,” he told The Times. “It will result in a very chilling effect on anybody getting out on parole.”

“Boatwright has always been a convict-basher,” Comiskey said. “He’s a bully. He picks on people inside prisons.”

Boatwright eagerly embraced the accusation.

“I don’t like prisoners,” he proclaimed. “I was a deputy district attorney, and I saw what these people did to innocent families. And you’re right, I don’t like them.”

The Prisoners Rights Union is joined in its opposition to the measure by such diverse groups as the American Civil Liberties Union and the California Probation, Parole and Correctional Assn.

“The governor appoints all parole board members,” said Susan Cohen, executive director of the Probation, Parole and Correctional Assn. “And now this initiative seems to be a way to second-guess them. . . .

“This (amendment) does not reflect a professional point of view,” she continued. “Now you’re going to have a . . . politician . . . making decisions on who should or shouldn’t get out of prison.”

Boatwright counters that he is not concerned about the actions of the current parole authorities, most of whom have law enforcement backgrounds and all of whom were appointed by Deukmejian. It is what future parole boards might do that worries Boatwright.

“Basically it’s not necessary for now,” he said. “We’re looking out for a future situation where we might have a parole board that leans more to the defendant than to the public.”

But one of Boatwright’s ballot arguments in favor of Proposition 89 implicitly criticizes Deukmejian’s adult parole board for being too lenient.

“First-degree murderers who were paroled last year,” complains the ballot argument, “averaged less than 14 years in state prison.”

Despite the implicit criticism, the nine-member adult parole board–officially called the Board of Prison Terms–has endorsed the measure allowing the governor to reverse its decisions.

“I think the board feels that the governor has a right to review the board’s work,” said Robert Patterson, executive director of the Board of Prison Terms. “And I think the board feels the governor will approve of the actions taken by the board. . . . I don’t think he’ll ever have to use this law.”

Patterson pointed to figures from the second quarter of this year showing that board members had granted parole dates to only 2.5% of the 221 convicts who went before them. He said that murderers who were released last year with less than 14 years served had been imprisoned under a seven-years-to-life sentencing structure that was replaced by a ballot measure in 1982.

That measure requires first-degree murderers to serve 25 years to life and second-degree killers to serve 15 years to life. The minimum terms in both sentences can be reduced by work time and good behavior.

There are currently about 6,400 adult prisoners serving first- and second-degree terms in California, Patterson said. He did not know how many were sentenced under the new more stringent terms.

Parolee Murders

The ballot argument in favor of Proposition 89 also maintains that since 1978 in Sacramento County, eight paroled murderers killed new victims.

But Cohen of the parole and probation officers association contends that the constitutional amendment would have had no effect on those paroles unless they involved highly publicized cases.

“They only would have been kept in if there was some reason to draw them to the attention of the public to begin with,” she said. “If nothing in that wheel was squeaking, nothing would have prevented the release.”

WHAT PROPOSITION 89 WOULD DO Proposition 89 PAROLE REVIEW

Main Sponsor: Sen. Daniel E. Boatwright (D-Concord).

Other Supporters: Gov. George Deukmejian, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner, Assemblyman Gary A. Condit (D-Ceres).

Opponents: Father Paul W. Comiskey, SJ, general counsel for the Prisoners Rights Union; the American Civil Liberties Union, and the California Probation, Parole and Correctional Assn.

Key provisions of Proposition 89:

The proposition would amend the state Constitution to allow the governor 30 days in which to review decisions of state adult and youth parole boards regarding the release of prisoners serving life sentences for murder with the possibility of parole. In deciding whether to affirm, modify or reverse a parole board decision, the governor would be limited under the measure to considering only those factors that had been considered by the parole authorities. The measure also would require the governor to report the pertinent facts of each parole decision reviewed to the state Legislature.

SACRAMENTO — Voters’ approval Tuesday of an open primary system, combined with their 2008 decision to strip state lawmakers of the power to draw their own election districts, will reshape California politics. The question is: How?

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who backed both moves, is confident that state elections will become more daunting for the rigid partisans he says plague Sacramento. Other politicians and election strategists are not so sure.

The new system will put candidates of all political stripes on a single ballot, and all voters will be able to participate. The top two vote-getters in a given contest — regardless of political affiliation — will advance to the general election. Supporters say that once the system is in place and voting districts have been redrawn outside of the Legislature, candidates will have no choice but to move to the middle as they compete for voters who are more politically diverse.

“Coupled with redistricting, Proposition 14 will change the political landscape in California — finally giving voters the power to truly hold politicians accountable,” Schwarzenegger said after declaring victory late Tuesday. Proposition 14 passed with 54.2% of the vote.

But party leaders, as well as some political analysts and election experts — admittedly with a vested interest in the status quo — offer a number of reasons that Proposition 14 could do the opposite of what Schwarzenegger suggests.

They say it could push California back to the days when candidates were picked by party bosses in smoke-filled rooms and send the cost of campaigns sky-high, giving special interests more power and wealthy candidates more of an advantage. The new system could even further disenfranchise candidates who are trying to break free of the special interests that have a grip on government, they say.

“This is a process that lends itself to back-room dealing, to big decisions being made by small groups of people,” said California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring.

In cases where two strong Republicans are running against one another, he said, party leaders may pressure one of them out of the race to avoid any risk of splitting the vote and creating an opportunity for other candidates to advance.

“We’ll be forced to turn to nominating conventions,” Nehring said.

Under his scenario, instead of millions of registered Republicans choosing the GOP’s gubernatorial candidate, the task would fall to a relative handful of party loyalists.

Other opponents say the new system is possibly unconstitutional, and they are scrambling to assess their options to challenge it in court.

Elections expert Alan Clayton said open primaries will make some campaigns more costly. Currently, the winner of a partisan primary in a safely drawn district doesn’t face a big expense in the general election, Clayton said , and that scenario may no longer be possible in some districts.

A new emphasis on money could give an advantage to wealthy candidates and hurt minority contenders with more limited funds, said Clayton, who represented groups, including the Los Angeles County Chicano Employees Assn., in the redistricting process.

State Democratic Party Chairman John Burton said anything that requires more fundraising is not good for state politics: It “means there’s more money that will have to be raised, and that doesn’t come from little old ladies, that comes from special interests.”

The new process could also disenfranchise candidates from smaller political parties, so those groups are weighing a possible court challenge, said Cres Vellucci, a spokesman for the Green Party of California.

“We would not be on the November ballot in the top two, and that’s the election that counts,” Vellucci said. “People don’t vote in the primaries. They vote in the majors.”

An analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies concluded recently that more than a third of all state legislative and congressional races could produce runoffs between two members of the same party and that nearly all of those races would feature two Democrats.

The Los Angeles-based group said there may be some races in which a “top two, same party” general election contest could be close enough that voters from another party, or decline-to-state voters, could swing the election to the more moderate candidate.

Backers of the open primary measure said the current system promotes partisan bickering that caused last year’s state budget to be delayed by weeks, forcing officials to stop cash payments to vendors and issue IOUs.

“For too long, running for office in California has meant pandering to your party’s narrow base, and it’s just to win that primary, and then you are basically a shoo-in,” said Jeannine English, state leader with AARP. The result, she said, is “elected officials who are locked into inflexible ideological positions that make it impossible for them to work together for solutions to get California back on track.”

But, there is some skepticism among political scientists, including Jaime Regalado, executive director of the Edmund G. “Pat” Brown Institute of Public Affairs at Cal State L.A.

“I don’t think Proposition 14 is going to make a fundamental difference in candidates elected and whether there will be a less polarized Sacramento,” said Regalado, who foresees unions and political parties continuing to elect their favorites. But the effect could be magnified when combined with the change in redistricting.

Two years ago, state voters gave the job of drawing legislative districts to a panel of citizens: five Democrats, five Republicans and four members of neither main party. That panel is to be picked by year’s end.

[email protected]

[email protected]

Bordeaux-Begles prop Jefferson Poirot has been given a two-week ban for an altercation with Northampton’s Henry Pollock after the Champions Cup final.

Poirot was cited for grabbing the throat of the England and Lions flanker as tempers boiled over after the final whistle had blown to confirm his side’s 28-20 win at Cardiff’s Principality Stadium.

Poirot will miss the final two games of Bordeaux’s regular season.

Tournament organiser European Professional Club Rugby said Poirot “accepted that he had committed an act of foul play that warranted a red card”.

A statement added: “The independent disciplinary committee upheld the complaint and it determined that the offending was at the low-end of World Rugby’s sanctions and four weeks was selected as the appropriate entry point.

“Taking into account the player’s guilty plea, his good disciplinary record and his full co-operation with the disciplinary process, the committee decided to reduce the sanction by the maximum of 50% before imposing a two-week suspension.”

England and Leicester Tigers prop Dan Cole will retire at the end of season.

The 38-year-old is the second most capped men’s player in England history, having made 118 appearances for his country.

Cole, who also twice toured with the British and Irish Lions, came through Leicester’s academy and has played 340 senior games and won four Premiership titles with his boyhood club.

Cole said his decision to retire had been influenced by Ben Youngs, his long-time team-mate for club and country, who recently announced he would be hanging up his boots.

“As you get older, physically, it’s definitely harder to carry on and, looking around the changing room, I am 10 years older than most of the guys in there with me and that’s challenging as well,” Cole said.

“I don’t want to be the old guy, just sat around and hanging on to something for too long.”

Bell will return to Waratahs after his sabbatical, with his contract running through to the end of 2027.

Waratahs head coach Dan McKellar said the club were “supportive” of his decision to join Ulster to continue his “personal growth”.

“He’s a young man, who came straight out of school into the Waratahs system, and we think the time at Ulster will be good for his development on and off the field, which ultimately will help the Waratahs long term,” he said.

Bell’s arrival later this year will continue the trend of southern-hemisphere players joining Irish provinces on short-term deals.

New Zealand international Jordie Barrett is nearing the end of his stint with Leinster having joined in December, with his All Blacks team-mate Rieko Ioane set to arrive at the end of 2025.

The announcement of Bell’s short-term deal comes on the same day Ulster confirmed the departure of New Zealand-born fly-half Aidan Morgan by “mutual consent”.

Ulster have already signed South African back row Juarno Augustus from Northampton Saints before next season, while loose-head Andy Warwick was among several departures at the end of the 2024-25 campaign.

The province pulled off a major coup in 2022 when they landed South Africa’s World Cup-winning loose-head Steven Kitshoff, but he left after just one season.

Murphy’s side are hoping to bounce back after a miserable season in which they missed out on the United Rugby Championship (URC) play-offs and qualification for next season’s Investec Champions Cup.

SACRAMENTO — After nearly seven years of hibernation, a ballot initiative overwhelmingly approved by the voters is emerging from its slumber to challenge the way California governments spend the taxpayers’ money.

Designed by tax crusader Paul Gann to limit public spending, Proposition 4 was largely forgotten after it won passage in 1979. But now the measure’s spending curbs are on the verge of taking hold–offering the prospect of a tax rebate and the threat of deep program cuts.

When the new fiscal year begins July 1, the state will be within sneezing distance of the measure’s spending limit–just $95 million below the lid in a budget of nearly $37 billion. State analysts expect the limit to take effect by 1987, preventing the state from spending an estimated $900 million it will collect.

Possible Tax Refund

The awakening of the initiative has prompted Gov. George Deukmejian to suggest the possibility of a tax refund.

But others fear that the measure will ultimately put the brakes on economic growth in California by handicapping government’s ability to provide highways, schools and other necessary services.

Major business organizations, the education establishment and lobbyists for local governments have already begun searching for ways to divert money that would otherwise be returned to the taxpayers.

Three business groups that originally helped draft the initiative–the state Chamber of Commerce, the California Assn. of Realtors and the California Taxpayers Assn.–are leading a drive to alter Proposition 4 and free highway construction from the spending restriction.

And many of the state’s leading politicians, including state Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley and Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) have quietly come to the conclusion that the limit must be modified or repealed.

“Eventually, I think you’re going to have to repeal it because it’s a death sentence for the schools,” Honig said. “It will put the state in such a straitjacket that you’ll end up with a second-rate state–and I don’t think the people will stand for it.”

Proposition 4 began with a simple idea: Put a specific limit on the rate of growth in government spending.

Gann’s measure followed on the heels of Proposition 13, the 1978 property tax-cutting initiative and was dubbed “the spirit of 13” by its backers. The constitutional amendment drew a broad range of supporters that included then-Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr.

Overwhelming Approval

Voters, outraged by high taxes, double-digit inflation and dollar-a-gallon gasoline, approved the initiative with an amazing 74% of the vote.

Now, all levels of government–the state, counties, cities, school districts and special districts–can increase spending at a pace governed by a formula based on population growth and either the national inflation rate or the increase in per-capita income–whichever is lower.

The rate of inflation is calculated by using the U.S. Consumer Price Index.

Revenues collected above the limit must be returned to the taxpayers within two years, unless voters agree to raise the lid for a four-year period.

The measure is aimed primarily at government’s ongoing operations, including such programs as education, health, transportation, welfare, prisons, parks and road and school construction.

A variety of exceptions were built into the initiative that provide some protection for long-term capital improvements and programs that directly pay for themselves. Some sources of income are not subject to the restraint, including bonds, tidelands oil revenues, user fees collected to pay for a particular service and proceeds from the sale of land. Certain state expenditures also are exempt, including unrestricted payments to local governments, interest payments on loans and spending required by the federal government or a court.

In 1979, state analysts believed it would be many years before the state ever reached its spending restriction. But during the last several years, California has enjoyed both low inflation and economic growth, a combination that has pushed state revenues to the limit.

Lack of Flexibility Cited

“Over a period of four to five years, the limit will rise at a rate well below the growth of the state’s economy,” said former Legislative Analyst William G. Hamm. “The state would be put in the position of having to reduce services. Ultimately, the limit is just not flexible enough to stand up over a long period of time.”

Since Proposition 4 was approved, public resentment toward state taxes appears to have cooled off somewhat. A Los Angeles Times Poll in 1983 found that 71% of those surveyed said they were either satisfied or neutral about the level of California taxes they were paying.

During the last several years, 10 cities and counties have reached their own spending constraints and asked the voters to raise their limits. In all but one case, the voters agreed, local government officials report.

In a 1984 election in Santa Monica, for example, a measure to hike the spending lid by $4 million to pay for more police won 74% of the vote while a second measure to raise the cap by $3.5 million for public works won 69%.

Paradoxically, the initiative spawned during former Gov. Brown’s “era of limits” may make his successor, George Deukmejian, its biggest beneficiary.

Should the Republican governor win election to a second term in November, Proposition 4 offers him a golden opportunity to preside over a politically popular tax refund.

The governor hinted at that prospect earlier this year.

Speaks of Refund

“That might be a good possibility of happening,” he told reporters. “If we got more revenue in than we could legally spend, it would have to be returned. . . . You’re not going to be able to expand and have a mushrooming bureaucracy.”

Deukmejian, who has enlarged the state budget each year of his first term, could accomplish his longtime goal of cutting back the size of government. Armed with the Gann limit, he would have a powerful tool at his disposal to block legislative spending proposals and reduce social programs popular among Democrats.

At the same time, the limit would create a sizable surplus that could not be spent. This would allow the governor to propose a rebate without incurring criticism from the Legislature that he was hoarding funds needed for programs and services.

“We would enjoy the people’s will being carried out,” said Steven A. Merskamer, Deukmejian’s chief of staff.

Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy, who was a leading advocate of Proposition 4, worries now that the state could cut services and give money back to the taxpayers at the same time that it is unable to make up for large reductions in federal aid resulting from the Gramm-Rudman deficit-cutting measure.

A tax rebate could take many forms–especially since there is no requirement that the people who paid the taxes are the same ones who would receive a refund.

Selected Tax Breaks

The governor and lawmakers could use the opportunity to give tax breaks to selected groups, such as the multinational corporations that have long been seeking elimination of the unitary tax, one legislative staff member suggested.

Legislators have also begun looking at the possibility of developing creative methods of financing to make up for cuts in some state programs. For example, the state could offer tax credits to developers who carry out projects deemed desirable, such as construction of schools or low-income housing.

Already, business leaders, educators and local officials are angling for ways to divert money from a possible refund by taking advantage of loopholes in Proposition 4.

The proposal that has advanced the furthest is a constitutional amendment authored by Sen. John Foran (D-San Francisco) that would remove road and highway construction expenditures from the limit by declaring that the gasoline tax is a user fee, not a tax. The measure, which would be placed before the voters in November, cleared the Senate and is pending in the Assembly.

Deukmejian, in a rare break with the business community, opposes the measure.

“I strongly supported Proposition 4,” Deukmejian said in a speech last week. “I believe its limit on government growth is very reasonable, and I don’t agree with those who say we should do away with it so taxes can be raised.”

Gann said he also is against the Foran bill “simply because it kicks a hole in 4.”

Key Supporters

Among the bill’s backers are three people who helped Gann draft Proposition 4 in 1979: Dugald Gillies, lobbyist for the California Assn. of Realtors; James P. Kennedy, vice president of the California Chamber of Commerce, and Kirk West, then executive vice president of the California Taxpayers Assn. and now president of the Chamber of Commerce.

“Everything is made to be altered,” Gillies explained. “Even the 10 commandments are altered by interpretation. The Constitution is altered by interpretation. Gann was meant to be dealt with in the same context. The flexibility was built right into it.”

Gillies argued that the Gann limit will not restrict growth in California because voters have the option of raising the spending lid. But he said the spending restraint should be altered to exclude highways because of a tremendous need for new roads around the state.

Education has become another rallying point for opposition to the spending restrictions.

Honig predicts that unless the Proposition 4 limit is altered, California’s drive to improve education will eventually come to a standstill. Although school districts may not reach their limits for at least a year, Honig said, the spending lid would eventually halt efforts to reduce class size and institute other reforms.

“It is very shortsighted to limit the growth of schools by an arbitrary limit of inflation plus growth,” Honig said. “If Gann cuts in, we’ll never catch up with other industrial states. That’s going to put us at a competitive disadvantage.”

Bradley, Deukmejian’s Democratic rival in the gubernatorial race, also cites the need for more spending on education as the primary reason to alter Proposition 4.

Popular Vote

“The problem we face particularly in the field of education indicates to me there is a need for either repeal or modification that must be put before the people,” the Democratic candidate said in an interview.

One suggestion that is gaining popularity among opponents of the limit is to leave the concept of the spending restriction intact while changing the formula for calculating the spending cap.

Instead of a formula that would use either the Consumer Price Index or per-capita income in calculating the spending limit, the idea is to use only California’s per-capita income. Advocates of this change say personal income is a better indicator of the state’s economic growth.

Among those calling for modification of Proposition 4 are the Capitol lobbyists for city and county government.

“This has the potential of being a hell of a lot more destructive for public services than Proposition 13,” said Larry Naake, executive director of the County Supervisors Assn. of California. “At the same time that we’re talking about not letting the state appropriate money, we’ve got counties that are going under.”

Naake and other local government officials have begun lobbying to get a share of the money that the state would be prohibited from spending on its own programs. Such transfers–allowed under Proposition 4 as long as lawmakers do not place restrictions on the way the money can be used–would then count against the limits of the jurisdictions that spent the money.

Limits Will Be Reached

But even with that money, most cities and counties will reach their own limits sooner or later. When that happens, some officials predict, they will be unable to provide basic services as well as those needed for economic development at the local level.

“It certainly does inhibit our ability to finance growth in certain situations,” said Kenneth J. Emanuels, lobbyist for the League of California Cities. “It’s anti-growth in terms of business development. It certainly is not the situation that was envisioned.”

Despite the widespread perception of problems with Proposition 4, most advocates of altering the measure expect that the spending limits will have to take hold before the public will be willing to make major modifications.

Many politicians are reluctant to predict the worst–recalling how wrong they were in making dire predictions of financial disaster if Proposition 13 passed.

“I think it’s hard to change something like Proposition 4 before the problem is at our doorstep,” Emanuels said. “In the past, we haven’t been persuasive when we predicted problems. We’re going to have to experience some of this before there’s a consensus.”