Prop 11 is a solution in search of a problem - and a bad solution at that. At a time when our state's budget crisis ought to remind us that the real problem is the ridiculous 2/3 rule, Broderist columnists like the LA Times' George Skelton are trying to put in one last pitch for Prop 11.

In doing so all they accomplish is highlighting the absurdity of their proposal and their cynical approach to politics - assuming that California voters are animated by blind rage and a desire to smash a broken government instead of thinking intelligently about how to fix it.

The interesting thing is that Skelton doesn't even attempt his usual efforts to argue why Prop 11 is needed. The "competitive elections" argument has been proved false by the six or seven competitive races in the Assembly, most of them in districts drawn to favor Republicans. Nor does Skelton attempt to say Prop 11 will solve the budget deficit. He merely assumes it to be a good idea.

Skelton lists "good government" organizations like Common Cause and LWV to suggest that Prop 11 isn't a Republican power grab - never mind the fact that Arnold and other right-wingers are dumping money into it. Nowhere does he explain the real purpose here: to keep Democrats away from a 2/3 majority in the Legislature.

He also gets the details wrong, claiming:

Under the proposal, any frequent voter could apply to be a redistricting commissioner -- as long as the person had no political connections. Prop. 11 drafters really wanted to ensure that commissioners had no partisan agendas.

But as Brian pointed out last night a drafting error *excludes* frequent voters. This vaunted "independent commission" will include infrequent and uninformed voters - which is fitting given that this proposal speaks primarily to such an audience.

More below.   Read More »