AP reported California GOP "endorsed" Electoral College measure, but not that top GOP lawyer initiated it
SUMMARY: An Associated Press article on the California Republican Party state convention
reported that "Republicans at the convention also endorsed a proposed ballot
initiative to change the way the state awards electoral votes in presidential
contests," but did not note that the initiative was originally proposed by a
lawyer with deep ties to the state GOP or report any Democratic criticism of the
proposed initiative.
In a September 9 Associated Press article on the California Republican Party state convention, AP political writer Michael R. Blood reported that "Republicans at the convention also endorsed a proposed ballot initiative to change the way the state awards electoral votes in presidential contests," but he did not note that the initiative was originally proposed by a lawyer with deep ties to the state GOP. Blood also did not report any Democratic criticism of the proposed initiative, which, as he noted, would award two electoral votes to the winner of the statewide vote and divide the rest among the winners of California's congressional districts.
Sacramento attorney Thomas Hiltachk, the managing partner of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, submitted the ballot measure to the California attorney general's office on July 17. Hiltachk has served as legal counsel to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), and Bell McAndrews' senior partner, Charles H. Bell Jr., is general counsel to the California Republican Party.
Hiltachk has played a role in several Republican campaigns to pass ballot initiatives that would benefit that party. He served as counsel to Ted Costa, the former chairman of the Sacramento County Republican Central Committee who filed the petition seeking the 2003 recall of Gov. Gray Davis (D). Hiltachk also represented and served as a spokesman for Rescue California, a ballot-measure committee that spent $3.6 million promoting the recall initiative. The Sacramento Bee reported in a July 1, 2004, article that Rescue California "gathered 1.3 million of the signatures that got the measure on the October 2003 ballot." On October 7, 2003, Davis was recalled from office and replaced by Schwarzenegger. Hiltachk also served as treasurer of Governor Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team, a ballot-initiative committee that supported measures to mandate judicial redistricting of California's congressional districts and require employee consent for the use of union dues for political purposes.
Blood has previously reported that Hiltachk proposed the initiative and has ties to the state GOP. For example, in a September 6 AP article, Blood reported: "The Presidential Election Reform Act, as it's dubbed, is being pushed by Thomas Hiltachk, a lawyer in a Sacramento firm that represents the California Republican Party and has worked with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger."
While Blood did not report any Democratic criticism of the measure in his September 9 article, in his September 6 report, he wrote:
Democrats determined to block a California ballot proposal that could help elect a Republican president in 2008 are launching radio ads to urge voters to snub what they call a "partisan power grab," campaign officials said Thursday.
The 60-second ads, to begin running in Los Angeles and Sacramento on Friday, say the plan to change the way the state's electoral votes are awarded in presidential contests would deplete the state's clout in Washington while helping elect a Republican who would extend the Iraq war.
[...]
"The simple fact is that the GOP's efforts to rig the presidential election, if successful, would lead to a continued Republican failure to end the War in Iraq," said Chris Lehane, a spokesman for the group [Californians for Fair Election Reform, a group supported by Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and other leading Democrats that was established to block the proposal]. "What's more, this initiative would lead to a dramatic dilution of California's political power nationally."
From the September 9 AP article:
[State Sen. Tom] McClintock's [R] speech capped a weekend convention that spotlighted deep divisions between the party's conservative and moderate wings. On Saturday, party Chairman Ron Nehring steered around questions on Schwarzenegger's assessment of the party's future.
Republicans at the convention also endorsed a proposed ballot initiative to change the way the state awards electoral votes in presidential contests, a plan the governor has questioned.
Like most states, California awards all its electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections. Under the ballot proposal, the statewide winner would get only two electoral votes. The rest would be distributed to the winning candidate in each of the state's congressional districts.
That would create 53 races, each with one electoral vote up for grabs. President Bush carried 22 of those districts in 2004, while losing the statewide vote by double digits.
The so-called Presidential Election Reform Act, if it qualifies for the ballot and is approved by voters, could shift those votes into the GOP column in 2008 and potentially alter the outcome of the race.
Only Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral votes by congressional district.
Isn't it time we amend the constiution, do away with this whole electoral college nonsense, elect our president by popular vote, and remove this maneuvarable system so politicians can do our business and stop trying to tinker this to their advantage?
Yes it is.
No, it is not
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But in mine it is LONG past time to get rid of the electoral college. Let the popular vote decide who is to be president.
Long live the 220 year's wisdom, of our Founding Fathers.
LONG live it.
Let's see what panic and idiocy can do, against the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, and the Constitution they wrote for us.
So far, the idiots and fools have lost...
...against 220 years of wisdom.
You mean our founding fathers, many of whom owned slaves, who only gave the right to vote to rich white guys--the wisdom of those people?
Look, our founding fathers started a nice country, but they weren't gods, and they would probably not like the way we think the constitution is some kind of oracle. It is meant to change. Times change.
What do slaves and gods have to to do with the Constitutionally-mandated way we elect our president?
Why not not find specific fault with the "electoral college"...
...why rest on the faults of men, for owning slaves and not being gods?
I think I have stated what I think the fault was in other posts.
It is simple: in 2000, Bush became the president though Gore won the popular vote. That is undemocratic. In addition, the GOP California initiative may rig the election, in this can happen because of the electoral college.
You mentioned the genius of our founding fathers. If they were such geniuses, why did they only allow rich white men to vote?
>>...why rest on the faults of men, for owning slaves and not being gods?
Don't you think that is mischaracterizing my argument? You argue that our founding fathers were geniuses. If you had argued they were mathmatical geniuses, then their owning slaves and not being gods would mean nothing.
But if they are geniuses in setting up the way we vote, and they established a system in which only rich white men could vote, and in fact thought so little of true equality that many owned slaves, then one should really stop treating their framework as sacred. How can you be a genius and set up such a flawed system?
in their wisdom, the founding fathers crafted a method to amend the constitution. it's not easy, 2/3 vote of congress and 3/4 of state legislatures, but the "idiots and fools" have done it seventeen times.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amend1.htm
Unnecessary & would take too long. All that is needed is for every state to proportionally distribute their Electoral College votes based on the percentages earned by the candidates. The problem isn't the Electoral College...it's the "winner take all" system of distribution.
That would certainly be a major improvement. Of course, that would basically be the same as a popular vote, just slightly skewed for rounding purposes. Wouldn't it take the same sort of action to put that into effect?
I agree, good points. And it still takes many states out of play and the "battleground" states are heavily campaigned in disproportionately, especially late in the campaign. And if you live in California, or Mississippi, to vote another color is a waste - not to mention it could affect state and local races due to low turnout.
I wonder if the idea above would minimize recounts?
I'm sure it would. In 2000, imagine if the electoral votes in Florida had been split 13-12 in favor of Bush. There's no need for a recount, because Gore doesn't need the single extra vote. He would have already won.
Yeah, but aren't you assuming that all other state's electoral votes would remain as is? If they all were split, Florida may or may not be so important. You'd have to look at each state and how they would be allocated to Bush and Gore, right?
I think that's what is called a long shot. But come to think of it, we may see more recounts depending on how close it is. I could see several counties being contested.
Yes, that was assumed for the sake of the point. But if they were all split, then it's likely that Gore would be in an advantageous position under that scenario as well, considering his 500,000+ popular vote lead. If he's leading by as much as two votes from that half a million in popular votes, then all the recounts are irrelevant.
Gore would have won the election if states had proportionally distributed their Electoral College votes. I made a spreadsheet of it right after the election. And it took into account rounding up the Electoral College vote that was split.
Thankfully, our founding fathers realized the dangers of electing the president by popular vote, and I hope and pray that we are wise enough to do the same.
The only vote I waste is the ones I cast on cadidates I dont believe in.
I am speaking theoretically, if you live in say, New York, isn't your vote for the (R) candidate in essence, a waste? Since all the electoral votes, under the current system, are going to go to the Democratic candidate? Why bother, really?
Hey, Tommy. That thinking always bothers me. Considering the amount of research and scrutinizing that goes into studying elections, I think it's important for anybody who is informed and involved in the process to vote.
I know people personally who don't vote due to a perceived "lost cause". What does that accomplish, except to give the other side a landslide, and what they see as a mandate.
HBL, I am not saying I agree with it at all.....I believe if you don't vote, then shut-up about what you don't like. But in reality, it happens. And the way the system is doesn't make it any more motivating to go to the polls if you know your presidential vote is essentially worthless.
Tommy, what I'm saying is, even with the present winner-take-all system, you don't think a winning candidate (not to mention future campaigns) is affected by the difference between a blowout or just squeaking by with a win?
I think it's good to let them know, even if they've won, that it wasn't by as much as they expected.
Not voting , in my opinion, also sends another message. Contrary to those non-voters who imagine they're showing their disgust by not voting, I think most politicians interpret it as "We don't care, keep doing what you're doing".
If nothing else, showing up to vote, at the very least, lets the winning jackasses know you're watching them.Especially if you voted for the losing jackass.
I think you're talking at cross purposes. Of course there's always a reason to make your voice heard, but when a certain number of people know that their vote isn't going have any effect on the actual outcome, then some of them won't bother. That's human nature.
Theoretically, everyone should, but realistically that is not the case. And that's understandable.
If everyone in Texas voted, we'd be a Democratic state instead of a Republican one. That's right, beleive it or not. In fact if Democrats everywhere actually voted instead of staying home, Democrats would win a lot more. There are more Democrats than Republicans for good reason. But they don't vote enough. It could be because they feel disenfranchised or they're poor or any number of reasons. But low voter turnout favors Republicans. Always.
JJ, you are absolutely right about that. It is very relevant, and proved time and time again by the AfricanAmerican community who generally have a huge turnout percentage, and always vote for Democrats.
The problem is to get those who are indifferent to go to the polls. And the facts are--if everyone voted according to their economic standings, the Republican party would be extinct.
Of course, that's probably true. But that scenario is part of the mindset already, and that's the problem. Eliminating the electoral college would surely change that for the better.
See my proposal below. If enough states adopt it, then if you are a Repub in NY, then you know your vote will matter.
Interestingly, one comment on the article where I read this proposal stated something like "Then my vote wouldn't even count." But the opposite is true. Theoretically the president could win by one vote, and that vote could be yours.
I know what you meant, my difference with what you said if philosophical and basic. You act like I WASTED my vote unless I voted for the winner. The same guy that my STATE casts its electoral votes for. I dont see it that way. I voiced my opinion win or lose. I WASTE my vote when I compromise and vote for someone I dont believe in for reasons of practicality. Now as usual it isnt that simple. There are times one candidate is SO bad that voting against him overwhelms all other concerns, that is STILL voting what I believe in. When my vote isnt one way or another what I believe in THAT is a wasted vote
"Wouldn't it take the same sort of action to put that into effect?"
No, it wouldn't. Getting rid of the EC altogether would require a Constitutional amendment...a long drawn-out process. But the allocation of the EC votes is a "states right" and getting it changed at the state level COULD be done in a blitz...hitting all 50 states at the same time.
But if enough states are willing to change to the proportionate system to make it effective, then there should be enough to vote for an amendment as well.
Doesn't it really only make sense if every state works under the same system anyway? Imagine California, New York, and a handful of small red states going to the proportionate system, but nobody else. That wouldn't work out too well, would it?
>>Unnecessary & would take too long. All that is needed is for every state to proportionally distribute their Electoral College votes based on the percentages earned by the candidates.
You would think so, but states would tend to apportion votes by representative districts (as the California proposal wants to do). Most districts are gerrymandered so bad that a presidential candidate wouldn't even bother trying to get the vote in them. I've read that only 7% of the rep. districts are in play.
I think what Doggone is saying would be the electoral votes percentage given to each candidate would mirror the percentage of votes they received in that state, in totality - it wouldn't be by representative district.
It is an improvement but Brab lays out why it's just rounding off the popular votes, in essence.
Right. I understand what he is proposing, but just keep in mind that the California initiative is not doing this, and other states may follow suit. We don't want each state to adopt the California GOP initiative model.
There is an even better proposal which I'll post below.
Why don't we ask the Republicans who, in November and December 2000, were screaming about leaving the Electoral College the way it is and to "quit cheating, you sore losers"?
I believe electoral votes should be made on a statewide basis. To do otherwise would seemingly give too great an advantage to the GOP. Anyway, breaking it out by congressional district would under-represent urban areas, correct?
Congressional districts are based upon population not square area.
Only Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral votes by congressional district
Why not the rest of the nation then? It seems like a good idea to me. Besides I am so fed up with the "Electoral College"
It only further subdivides the puzzle more than it is already. When the last few weeks of a national election are fought over in a couple of counties in Ohio, with both candidates spending every waking moment there, it is obsolete - not to mention a vote wasted in very red or very blue states, if your vote is of a different color.
Sounds like more of a way for the GOP to cook the books in California, ala Tom Delay and company in Texas with congressional redistricting. They may not have control of the California state legislature but I could see this affecting local redistricting as well.
Mind you, I feel the Electoral College system is obsolete and should be done away with as well. I hope this initiative is investigated thoroughly (at the very least to see if there is any national level GOP/Bush administration lackey involvement.
Sure - as long as the RepubliKKKans agree to do it every state.
Just did a search, looks like i was a bit slow on inquiring about any investigations into this.
Attorney Seeks Probe
I hope this comes to pass, just to make sure initiative is on the "up and up"
oops - that should be "to make sure that this initiative is on the "up and up""
Your link requires a sign up. Could you summarize? Thanks
What is it Rush Limbaugh likes to say..."Conservatives always win on the issues..."?
Yeah, sure they do.
I agree that it is time to elect the President by popular vote.
Thom Hartmann had people calling in last Friday giving their vote for president. Over half said Edwards, Obama was a distant second, and there were a few for Kucinich. Hillary got 1 vote during the time I listened which was maybe 25 calls.
Interesting that she has such a big lead according to the polls since so few seem to embrace her.
Bruce, I'd bet that Hartman's audience is generally better informed than a nationwide survey of Democrats.Probably more liberal too.(well, I guess that follows logically ;0) )
I wonder how this fits in with El Rushbo's warnings of the radical leftist Hillary?
Limbaugh is secretly hoping for an HRC Presidency. You and I both know it.
Absolutely. You, and I, and anyone with a brain.
Of course Rush wants Hillary to win, it is the only way he will regain any popularity and growth in his wallet. The guy makes money and becomes more of a voice when he is on the other end like he did in the 90s with his books and TV Show. All of these guys are frauds.
Exactly. Rush's business is Rush himself. He promotes his business and increases his relevancy when he is the anti-administration, instead of the rubberstamp voice.
I don't know about Rush "increasing his relevancy", but he could reduce his workload by having his staff take 8 years of his old shows from the 90s, and editing "Hillary" into every time he said "Bill".His core audience probably wouldn't notice.
You all realize that if this initiative gets passed, there essentially won't be a November election for president? With this new way of counting the votes, it will be impossible for a Democrat to win. The president will be determined in June 5 in California, if the initiative passes, and US citizens will be disenfranchised.
Schwarzenagger is against this initiative, stating that in essence the Repubs are admitting defeat in advance and changing the rules in the middle of the game.
If this initiative passes, it could really shock the country. We might see real electoral reform. If a Dem wins the popular vote because of this measure, and then is not president again because of this vote rigging, we will see a really weakened president. It was one thing when Gore lost the presidency but won the popular vote in 2000 simply because of an imperfection in the system. It will be another thing if a group of Republican intentionally exploit the flaws of the electoral college beforehand.
The Repubs should gets tons and tons of criticism for endorsing this measure. We should continue to remind the public that the are seeking to steal an election.
Here's a good idea for reform
There is an initiative going around in which states wold band together and agree to give *all* their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote on the national level. So if a Dem wins the popular US vote by 1 million votes, Texas would give all of its electoral votes to the popular winner, regardless if a Repub won Texas. I have read that only ten states need to agree to this in order for the popular vote to determine the winner. It is a matter of getting states to pass state laws, so much easier to do then a constitutional amendment.
The state in California adopted such a law, but Schwarzenegger vetoed. It. There is also a referendum for this procedure to counter the GOP referendum.
California 55 Texas 34 New York 31 Florida 27 Pennsylvania 21 Illinois 21 Ohio 20 Michigan 17 New Jersey 15 North Carolina 15 = 283 electoral votes. Ten states would, in fact, do the trick. Now if we could get them to actually do it, that would be a terrific solution.
Interesting idea. Is it consitutional?
I mean considering it basically makes the electoral college a figurehead, and reverts back to popular vote elections, does it not?
It probably is constitutional, since the constitution leaves it up to the states on how they choose their electors.
I think Maryland and one other state (?) have already passed this.
MMFA has a thread on this very issue that is posted a bit ago.
Florida can assign split eloectorate, they just never do because they never have.
"There is an initiative going around in which states wold band together and agree to give *all* their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote on the national level."
I can't see it happening in MY lifetime. The loudest voices against it would simply shout "do YOU want someone in ANOTHER STATE deciding who gets YOUR states EC votes?" and it will fail in the majority of states.
I think proportional allocation has a better chance of being adopted and succeeding, but it won't happen before the next election ...that's for sure.
I wouldn't be so skeptical. California Dems passed it, and it wold be law in California except for a Repub governor. Maryland, I think, already passed it. And you are not giving up how your state votes according to other states, but by popular vote, how many people think the system works already.
How many dishonest, unfair, and unconstitutional "measures" do these crooks have to pass before you cynical bigmouths are ready for revolution? As America goes down in flames, you can all comfort yourselves with the knowledge that you knew ahead of time just how f*cked we were going to be.
This measure CANNOT be allowed to pass. If it does, it is tantamount to a rigged election.
It's a stinking shame that the Media doesn't report the connections between like this lawyer and this iniatitive. Why, I've had to spend the better part of the past several evenings trying to find out that 9 - 10 of those caught in the NJ scandal were D's.
Could you be straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel?
I don't think so, Mary, The vast majority of the posters on this website feel the media is dominated by the Right. Therefore, for the media to not post the political affiliation of the NJ 12 must be conservative misinformation, don't you think?