Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sore losers again, repubs just won't give up

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sore losers again, repubs just won't give up

    Well, if disenfranchising voters doesn't work, playing legal maneuvers, or just plain cheating doesn't work there is always a legal way of getting what you want.

    Republicans trying to split California Electoral Vote
    A well-connected California Republican law firm is pushing a ballot initiative that would split the state's Electoral Votes according to Congressional districts won

    Election chicanery -- aka voter fraud --is as American as lead-laden Mattel toys, air polluting "clean skies" initiatives, and closeted Republican Party politicians. In recent years, GOP partisans have cleansed voter rolls of legitimate voters; hatched schemes to disenfranchise thousands of minority voters; mastered the art of push polls and robo calls, and supported the use of voting machines with no paper trail.

    While counting votes has on occasion become more art than science in recent years, a new ballot initiative being pushed by California Republicans would apportion the state's electoral votes according to congressional districts won, instead of the current winner-take-all system. Only two small states, Nebraska and Maine, allow the splitting of electoral votes, although in practice a division has never happened. In recent years Democrats have had a near lock on California's 55 Electoral Votes.

    A high-powered California-based Republican Party-connected legal outfit with ties to a Texas homebuilder/GOP donor who gave significant amounts of money to finance attacks on Democrat John Kerry's Vietnam War record in the 2004 presidential campaign is promoting the ballot initiative called the Presidential Electors Initiative.

    According to the New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg, "one of the most important Republican lawyers in Sacramento [has] quietly filed a ballot initiative that would end the practice of granting all fifty-five of California's electoral votes to the statewide winner. Instead, it would award two of them to the statewide winner and the rest, one by one, to the winner in each congressional district."

    The initiative is sponsored by a group calling itself Californians for Equal Representation. "But that's just a letterhead -- there's no such organization," writes Hertzberg. "Its address is the office suite of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, the law firm for the California Republican Party, and its covering letter is signed by Thomas W. Hiltachk, the firm's managing partner and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's personal lawyer for election matters."

    "What can be more fair than this?" said Kevin Eckery, spokesman for Californians for Equal Representation. "Everyone's voice is going to be heard. It could even help third-party candidates, like the Green Party, in a place like San Francisco."

    On Wednesday, September 5, the offices of the secretary of state and the attorney general-- now run by former California Governor and former Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown -- approved the language of the initiative. Californians for Equal Representation has until February 4 to gather the nearly 434,000 signatures from registered voters necessary to place it on the June 2008 primary election ballot. It is estimated that the signature gathering process will cost more than $1 million.

    Phony Electoral College reform
    In late-August the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a Field Poll found that while "California voters are inclined to support" the "proposed ballot initiative ... they're not yet sold on the idea."

    Clearly, many voters are fed up with the Electoral College and would like to see it changed: At Slate, Jamin Raskin, a professor of constitutional law at American University and a Democratic state senator in Maryland representing Silver Spring and Takoma Park, wrote that "as it works today, the Electoral College undermines American democracy ... in three fundamental ways":

    First, it betrays the principle of majority rule, threatening every four years to deliver the White House to the popular-vote loser.
    Second, it reduces the general election contest to a matter of what happens in Ohio, Florida, and a handful of other swing states, leaving most Americans (who live in forsaken 'red' and 'blue' states) on the sidelines. This in turn depresses turnout and helps give us one of the worst rates of voter participation on earth.
    Third, because of its proven pliability, the Electoral College invites partisan operatives, legislators, secretaries of state and even Supreme Court justices to engage in constant strategic mischief and manipulation at the state level.
    The San Francisco Chronicle recently editorialized: The Electoral College is "unwieldy, it seems anti-democratic and it has given rise to one of the more despicable facts of modern presidential campaigning: rather than addressing the concerns of the entire country, major-party candidates choose to do most of their post-primary campaigning in just a few battleground states - Ohio and Florida happen to be the most popular ones right now."

    The Chronicle noted that Democrats tried to do a similar thing in Colorado in 2004 -- which was rejected by that state's voters -- in the hopes of giving John Kerry an advantage, and concluded that the proposed California initiative "is nothing but dirty politics."

    "Colorado voters, who initially supported the measure, realized a couple of things that Californians must come to recognize should No. 07-0032 make it onto our June 3 ballot:"

    Splitting the number of electoral votes a candidate can win from any one state is highly unlikely to motivate them to spend more time here, and
    Measures such as this are useless and, usually, highly partisan, unless the entire country adopts them.
    A recent New York Times editorial titled "Stacking the Electoral Deck" maintained that the initiative proposed by a "shadowy group" of California Republicans will "do serious damage to our democracy."

    Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP
    According to its website, Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP "specializes in campaign, election and administrative law and litigation at all levels of government."

    In early September, the Associated Press reported that the law firm "is one of the most politically involved law firms in the state .... [and] [a]ccording to a news story on its Web site, Bell keeps a life-sized cardboard image of President Bush in his office."

    The "law firm banked nearly $65,000 in fees from a California-based political committee funded almost solely by Bob J. Perry that targeted Democrats in 2006," AP reported. "Perry, a major Republican donor, contributed nearly $4.5 million to the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that made unsubstantiated but damaging attacks on Kerry three years ago."

    The initiative's success, AP pointed out, "could hinge on whether ... [it] get[s] the financial backing to collect" the necessary "petition signatures." Although "Perry has not donated to" the ballot initiative campaign, "his wealth and connections make him a potential financier for a drive that could cost more than $1 million. Running a statewide campaign would cost millions more."

    Hiltachk's official bio, posted at the law firm's website, points out that he "specializes in drafting complex tax and constitutional measures and counsels on qualification efforts for ballot measure campaigns as well as all aspects of election campaigning related to such measures. He litigates ballot and ballot pamphlet language issues and advises nonprofit corporations and associations on formation and tax exemption issues."

    Kevin Eckery, the spokesperson for Californians for Equal Representation, told the AP that Perry was not connected to the new group and "as far as I know, Perry has not been solicited for any donations."

    Eckery is the head of the Sacramento-based Eckery Associates. At its still-to-be-developed website, the firm claims that it is "A full-service strategic communications, crisis management and public affairs firm dedicated to serving client needs in California and around the world."

    According to Frank D. Russo of the California Progress Report, Eckery "criticized the initiative process as a representative of the Timber Association of California and is mentioned in a book 'Green Backlash: The History and Politics of the Environmental Opposition in the U.S.' As former Republican Governor Pete Wilson's press contact, he is listed in the release announcing the recall election date for then California Senate President pro Tem David Roberti." (Roberti was the target of a failed recall campaign in his Senate district, that was tied to his authorship of the state's assault weapons ban. However, many observers believe that the recall succeeded in draining his campaign coffers, making him a less than viable candidate in his losing the Democratic primary for State Treasurer.)

    In late August, Eckery appeared in the news as a spokesman for the beleaguered Catholic Diocese of Sacramento. According to the Sacramento Bee, leaders of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) , a victims rights group, "criticized the Catholic Diocese of Sacramento Tuesday for suing an alleged clergy abuse victim, but church officials say they are just trying to clarify the law." The newspaper reported that "The diocese is challenging the legal standing of a Texas man trying to sue for alleged sexual abuse more than two decades ago."

    Eckery told the Bee that the suit "has nothing to do with intimidating a victim and everything to do with getting everybody into the same court."

    Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP also specializes in representing an assortment of front groups reports SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy. Perry laid out $5 million to fund the Economic Freedom Fund (EFF). EFF lists its contact as Charles Bell, who is general counsel to the California Republican Party, is Vice Chairman of the Federalist Society's free speech and election law practice group, and is active in the Republican National Lawyers Association.

    The firm's client list has included:

    The California Tribal Business Alliance--"an 'Indian Gaming' organization" whose mission statement is "to safeguard and enhance the success of the business enterprises of our tribal government members" ... and "'will foster business development and coalition building with like minded government and business leaders in California."
    Californians for Paycheck Protection which sponsored a California anti-union ballot initiative, and whose major funders in 2005 included the Chamber of Commerce and the California Republican Party.
    Former California Congressman Richard Pombo.
    According to SourceWatch, BM& H has also worked with:

    Californians for Schwarzenegger, "a committee formed to promote the election of Governor Schwarzenegger during the recall election of 2003."
    Chico Greenline Coalition, with Thomas W. Hiltachk as Treasurer.
    Citizens Against Measure R, a California group "sponsored by and with Major Funding provided by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.", used Bell's Sacramento office address in 2005. Note: The LA Voice reported September 7, 2006, that "Judge Robert H. O'Brien ordered that Measure R - the term limits extension/ethics revision package - be removed from the November ballot because it improperly combines multiple subjects in a single question." Charles H. Bell Jr. "called the judge's decision a win for voters."
    Californians For A Fair Business Policy, a "Tobacco Institute-created front group in California" at BM&H's Santa Monica address fought "local efforts to enact smoke-free bans in California in the early 1990s" and "Conducted referenda on existing bans."
    Employees of Northrop Grumman PAC, using BM&H's Santa Monica address, contributed to Sen. Bill McCollum's Florida campaign in 2000.
    First Federal Bank of California PAC, which received termination approval in January 2006, received two contributions in 2003 and 2004 at BM&H's Santa Monica address.
    Global Crossing Development Corporation PAC used the Santa Monica address 1997 through 2005 to make contributions, including $10,000 in 2001 to George W. Bush's "President's Dinner Committee"
    and a number of current and former political candidates, including George Allen, John Ashcroft, Sherrod Brown, Sam Brownback, Conrad Burns, Eric Cantor, Maria Cantwell, Max Cleland, Tom Davis, Harold Ford, Jr., Chuck Grassley, Judd Gregg, Dennis Hastert, Daniel Inouye, Rick Lazio, Carl Levin, Bill Luther, John McCain, Zell Miller, Jim Nussle, Charles W. Pickering, Jack Reed, Tom Reynolds, Jay Rockefeller, Chuck Schumer, Louise Slaughter, Billy Tauzin, Henry A. Waxman, and Heather Wilson.
    Democratic Party leaders are taking the challenge seriously. In a conference call with California Senator Barbara Boxer and Howard Dean, head of the Democratic National Committee, Dean blasted the initiative. "This is not reform. It's just another Republican attempt to rig an election."

    Does the initiative stand a chance of passing? The June primary will likely have a lower than usual turnout; a turnout that is often dominated by initiative enthusiasts. However, a recent polling memo shows voters becoming less enamored with the ballot measure as they learn more about it. What may have seemed like "fairness," now looks like crass base politics.

    In early September, after a number of editorials in major newspapers nixed the idea, and reports in the blogosphere exposed BM& H's linkages to highly partisan GOP campaigns and operatives, Jason Kinney of the California Majority Report ("Red Meat for a Blue State") reported that a August 31 memo prepared by Paul Maslin and Jonathan Brown, of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates, found that the measure was starting to lose public support:

    "The measure starts off below 40%. In California, initiatives that start off below majority support almost never pass."
    "The more voters learn basic, factual information about the measure the more likely they are to oppose it."
    "Opposition already appears to have increased over the last several weeks."

  • #2
    you got to give the republicans credit on this one - pretty smart tactic. I wish our dirty trick guys would get off their asses. Unfortunately, there really isn't a comparable red state, it will have to be a new trick.

    You can't imagine that it will actually pass, tho. This referendum next June would effectively amount to the presidential election! The media attention and debate would be intense - bigger than OJ! The people of California wouldn't pass it after careful consideration. Right now it is riding on smoke & mirrors.

    A local radio talk guy in Madison has been thumping on this topic for a month. It is damn interesting.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Sore losers again, repubs just won't give up

      Originally posted by Tyrone Bigguns
      The Chronicle noted that Democrats tried to do a similar thing in Colorado in 2004 -- which was rejected by that state's voters -- in the hopes of giving John Kerry an advantage
      Payback is a bitch, I guess.
      "There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted Thompson

      Comment


      • #4
        I'll admit, I'm far far too lazy to fully comprehend all that so I'll just ask the experts.

        What is so bad about this idea? I mean other than the fact that it's the reds paying for it in a blue state instead of blues paying for it in a red state.

        Were you just as outraged when this was attempted by Dems in Colorado?


        I'm all for a system like this being implemented nation-wide, but until someone big like Cali steps up and shows it can be done, we'll be stuck with tens of millions of presidential votes that are simply tossed out the window on both sides.
        "You're all very smart, and I'm very dumb." - Partial

        Comment


        • #5
          There really is no point.

          I'm just posting like kiwon does. Stupid.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Tyrone Bigguns
            I'm just posting like kiwon does. Stupid.
            we need to cleanse this forum of all ethnics. starting with kiwon, of course, but Tyrone high on the list. And I don't care if you really are "ethnic", the avatar is bad enough.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SkinBasket
              I'll admit, I'm far far too lazy to fully comprehend all that so I'll just ask the experts.

              What is so bad about this idea? I mean other than the fact that it's the reds paying for it in a blue state instead of blues paying for it in a red state.

              Were you just as outraged when this was attempted by Dems in Colorado?


              I'm all for a system like this being implemented nation-wide, but until someone big like Cali steps up and shows it can be done, we'll be stuck with tens of millions of presidential votes that are simply tossed out the window on both sides.
              You're never going to get all 50 states to individually agree to do this. If California goes along with this, why would solid Republican states reciprocate, thereby giving back what they would have just gained? To do it nationally would likely require a constitutional amendment because the constitution allows each state to choose its electors however they choose.
              I can't run no more
              With that lawless crowd
              While the killers in high places
              Say their prayers out loud
              But they've summoned, they've summoned up
              A thundercloud
              They're going to hear from me - Leonard Cohen

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Joemailman
                You're never going to get all 50 states to individually agree to do this. If California goes along with this, why would solid Republican states reciprocate, thereby giving back what they would have just gained? To do it nationally would likely require a constitutional amendment because the constitution allows each state to choose its electors however they choose.
                The other way I've heard of is that it would be done state by state, but would not go into effect until all (most?) of states had signed on.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Joemailman
                  Originally posted by SkinBasket
                  I'll admit, I'm far far too lazy to fully comprehend all that so I'll just ask the experts.

                  What is so bad about this idea? I mean other than the fact that it's the reds paying for it in a blue state instead of blues paying for it in a red state.

                  Were you just as outraged when this was attempted by Dems in Colorado?


                  I'm all for a system like this being implemented nation-wide, but until someone big like Cali steps up and shows it can be done, we'll be stuck with tens of millions of presidential votes that are simply tossed out the window on both sides.
                  You're never going to get all 50 states to individually agree to do this. If California goes along with this, why would solid Republican states reciprocate, thereby giving back what they would have just gained? To do it nationally would likely require a constitutional amendment because the constitution allows each state to choose its electors however they choose.
                  ...and that is what needs to be done. Of course it will take some serious nut and tit twisting to get the Congress to take it up.
                  C.H.U.D.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Freak Out
                    ...and that is what needs to be done. Of course it will take some serious nut and tit twisting to get the Congress to take it up.
                    just forget it.

                    Ummmm, the state-by-state approach has at least some chance. If that succeeded, then the electoral college would become mute, or nearly so.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      This just in..........

                      Its in the Constitution to split electorial votes by congressional
                      district.

                      Its not done due to winner take all.

                      Cali is just too large a number for the electorial college


                      Well if the split happens; then Cali should switch to
                      Die Bold Election Brand machines that are owned by Carl Rove.

                      Oh what sweet justice.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by sooner6600
                        Its in the Constitution to split electorial votes by congressional district.
                        I think constitution just specifies that each state gets one elector for each congressman and senator. (which gives the small states extra representation )

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Harlan Huckleby
                          Originally posted by Tyrone Bigguns
                          I'm just posting like kiwon does. Stupid.
                          we need to cleanse this forum of all ethnics. starting with kiwon, of course, but Tyrone high on the list. And I don't care if you really are "ethnic", the avatar is bad enough.
                          Ethnic. LOL. I'm pretty far from being black.

                          Avatar: What is wrong with Dave Chappelle?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            If you leave it up to the individual state district I agree that it could lead to problems with proper voting protocol. It is after all a federal election. At the same time I could see issues that arise in such places like Milwaukee where transportation is damaged people are bribed for their vote and so on and so forth to win the state, well we all know that the congresional districts taht make up Milwaukee County always go democratic so in that case there should be less voter fraud same can be said for districts in St Croix County and Waukesha County that are almost always 90% republican. It is the swing districts that become a problem say like Kenosha or Racine.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tyrone Bigguns
                              I'm pretty far from being black.

                              No way!

                              What about the crack? Was that all a lie too?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X