Prop. 77 suit: Process v. Expediency

Last Friday, the Attorney General filed suit to have Proposition 77 - a measure changing the way California's political boundaries are drawn – removed from the ballot.

At issue is the initiative circulated by Peoples Advocate differed from the one they submitted to the Attorney General for review.

You can read more about the lawsuit and petition differences here, here and here.

The conflict can be bolied down to expediency versus process.

The argument made for expediency is these differences are minor and should not be allowed to thwart the will of the more than 900,000 petition signers. Supporters of Prop. 77 would tell you the meaning of “selected” versus “nominated” doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Several newspaper editorials over the weekend supported this view.

On the other hand, process may win the day. In his statement announcing the suit, Attorney General Lockyer said any differences should not be tolerated.

“By opting to collect signatures on a ballot measure different from the text reviewed and approved by the Attorney General, the proponents violated state law and deceived voters. Allowing access to the ballot for initiative proponents who switch or modify text during the signature gathering phase would defeat existing laws designed to protect the integrity of state elections and would corrupt the people's initiative process.”

Supporters may argue the differences are meaningless, but they ignore the larger issue: What kind of precedent would this set?

Sacramento Bee columnist Daniel Weintraub wrote:

“If they let the initiative stand, despite the mistakes, the courts will set a precedent that could lead to greater abuses down the road.”

Exactly.

Expect the Democratic Leadership to hammer “protecting the integrity of the process” for the next few days.