On Wednesday the city council will take up again the question of whether to have a nativity scene in the Plaza at Christmas. For years this was a common occurrence until around 1990 when questions came up regarding the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution directing that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", and a vigorous and at times vitriolic debate consumed many in the Sonoma community. The opinions and positions grew so divisive that leaders in the religious community advised having the creche or other iconography relegated to church grounds, and leave the Plaza - local government property - unadorned of any religious symbols. It's commonly agreed that Xmas trees, Santa Claus, plastic reindeer and the like do not solely promote a religious message, and are more in keeping with traditional holiday symbols. In fact a result of the bitter divide among our populace was an establishment of a Plaza Display Policies regulating Plaza use for religious and other purposes.
Councilman Sebastiani has decided he wants to revisit the Plaza Use Policies regarding the holiday display policy, and he'll present his thoughts on the matter at the upcoming city council meeting on the 19th at the Vet's. Building. Early in his nascent career in local politics, Mr. Sebastiani expressed a fervent wish to reinstate the nativity scene on the Plaza at Xmas time, drudging up past feelings that wracked the community 17 years ago, and will probably reoccur this go around. Oddly, Sebastiani, who has steadfastly refused to consider national issues such as the Iraq war or immigration reform despite their having substantial and demonstrable local effects and impacts, is all too willing to take on a Constitutional issue that has been debated practically since its inception. How he has managed in his mind to tease this 1st Amendment directive, which is clearly an overarching issue of national scope, is a puzzle that the councilman will have to unravel for our edification at the meeting.
Here's my thoughts on the matter. First let’s begin with a little history lesson.
The birth of this nation ushered in a fundamental shift as to the purpose and the structure of government. It saw the end of monarchy and the flowering of democracy – a profound and radical departure. Under governance by monarchy or totalitarian dictate the people served the government. In a democracy the people were the government – elected and interchangeable by popular vote. The government became that which served the public interest.
The people who crafted the Constitution that would establish this new and ground-breaking form of government were well aware of the pitfalls of policy set by decree at the whim or pleasure of a single individual – a king or potentate – or policy set by powerful institutions such as the military or predominant religious groups to serve their particular interests. Therefore they constructed a document of laws that focused on individual freedoms, individual human rights, a press free to go wherever it wanted, and no religious restrictions or adoption of any religious belief by the government. They knew this was a key element in forming a union between disparate factions with differing objectives. They knew that church and state must stay separate for the sake of building a coherent though diverse populace, which is what they were then, and what we are now. And it’s a good thing.
A nativity scene cr̬che honoring the birth of Jesus Christ is Christian iconography of the highest order. It celebrates one religion Рone religious point of view among many others. If a particular religion can place its bedrock theological symbol on property owned by our government, and therefore owned in common by the public, it violates the Constitutional separation of church and state. In the words of James Madison, author of the First Amendment, "Religion flourishes in greater purity, without, than with, the aid of Government." From time to time religious groups have tried end-runs around the First Amendment's attempt to keep church and state separate by incorporating other religions symbols in conjunction with Christian ones on government property, in essence saying, "see, this isn't government holding one religion over any other, so it's not really unconstitutional." Nevertheless this is still an attempt to water down the very first directive of the Bill of Rights, wisely telling us to keep government and religion separate; for an intermingling of the two profound influences constructs the slipperiest of all slopes. As was said in one Supreme Court decision: "A union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion."
Contrary to the belief of some we are not a Christian nation. We are a nation comprised of a majority who believe in one form or another of Christianity, but we also have populations of people who think and believe differently, religiously and otherwise. If we impose the sanctity or value of one religion over another then we are in essence no different than Islamic fundamentalists who insist reality must be seen their way. There is no difference between a "Christian" nation or an "Islamic" state except except the divergent world views and ideologies. They are both religious governments based on religious ideals and exclusionary by their very nature. Is this what we envision for our country - to become religiously doctrinaire?
We are not a Christian nation. Our form of government is non-sectarian. Those chosen by the people to govern are of varying religious and even non- religious beliefs, as is our populace. In fact the form of our government borrowed heavily from Greek and Roman predecessors, not the bible. Welcome to the age of reason.
We must retain this basic, fundamental principle of democracy or we will lose that which set us apart at its inception from the other nations on Earth. We must maintain the separation of church and state so that all may choose to worship or not to worship a religious or non-sectarian belief or philosophy as they so wish – without sanction or interference by the government. I firmly believe that this is what the Constitutional framers had in mind, but interpretations have been debated for hundreds of years and obviously will continue. In his zeal to impose his views on the matter, Sebstiani has reopened this kettle of fish, so I expect this battle will rage on. And to what end really? There are plenty of churches in Sonoma and no dearth of creches, etc., adorn their properties. Or is this just more divisive behavior we've come to expect from the Republican religious right-wing who rejoice in driving ideological wedges between those who disagree with their aims? We'll see.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
A Republican Scam to Win the '08 Presidential Election
By Tom Martin
The Republicans under the banner of a committee misnamed "Californians for Equal Representation" are gathering signatures for an initiative for the June primary ballot that will do the following: Distribute California's electoral votes by the outcome in each Congressional District and statewide for the votes representing the U.S. Senators. This isn't a new idea, and it is present in Maine and Nebraska where the number of districts number nine (9) and the state uniformally votes one way in any event. However, in California if this were in place in 2000 and 2004 GW Bush would have gotten 20 additional electoral votes - equal to the total from the State of Ohio.
When in graduate school circa 1961-63 at UCSB in Gorden Baker's class, a colleague and friend of Gene Lee, we did a study of a variety of electoral "reform" ideas using data from the election of 1960. Nationwide, in the case of the division of electoral votes by CD and Senate seats, Nixon would have beaten Kennedy.
The same would have occurred if the electoral votes had been divided between candidates based on the percent of the popular vote received on a state by state basis.
In each case, however, Kennedy would still have received a larger popular vote than Nixon. These "reforms" carry over the bias of the Constitution towards small states in the E.C. The two senators from Montana represent a fraction of the population that a California, New York, Pennsylvania, or Texas senator does. However, their votes carry equal weight. Within states, the voice of the majority is often tempered by gerrymandering districts or natural pockets of contrary views. Simply look at the distribution of California's blue and red counties for proof.
The point is ... in the absence of a popular vote for President, the winner take all system in the electoral college more often reflects the popular will notwithstanding the theft of the Presidency in 2000 and two elections in the 19th Century. Democrats stand to lose in any reform other than a popular vote. Otherwise, why would the California State Republican Party be promoting Initiative No. 07-0032? The Law office of Bell, McAndrew, and Hiltachk - lawyers for the Cal. Rep. Party - is the address for "Californians for Equal Representation." Hiltachk is Schwarzenegger's personal lawyer for electoral matters and handled the recall election of the Governor!
Below is a copy of the New Yorker article.
----------
Votescam
By Hendrik Hertzberg
The New Yorker
At first glance, next year’s Presidential election looks like a blowout. But it might not be. Luckily for the incumbent party, neither George W. Bush nor Dick Cheney will be running; indeed, the election of 2008 will be the first since 1952 without a sitting President or Vice-President on the ballot. At the moment, survey research reflects a generic public preference for a Democratic victory next year. Still, despite everything, there are nearly as many polls showing particular Republicans beating particular Democrats as vice versa. So this election could be another close one. If it is, the winner may turn out to have been chosen not on November 4, 2008, but five months earlier, on June 3rd.
Two weeks ago, one of the most important Republican lawyers in Sacramento 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. Nineteen of the fifty-three districts are represented by Republicans, but Bush carried twenty-two districts in 2004. The bottom line is that the initiative, if passed, would spot the Republican ticket something in the neighborhood of twenty electoral votes—votes that it wouldn’t get under the rules prevailing in every other sizable state in the Union.
The Tuesday after the first Monday in June is California’s traditional Primary Day. But it’s not the one that everybody will be paying attention to. Five months ago, the legislature hastily moved the Presidential part up to February 5th, joining a stampede of states hoping to claim a piece of the early-state action previously reserved for Iowa and New Hampshire. June 3rd will be an altogether sleepier, low-turnout affair. There may be a few scattered contests for legislative nominations, but the only statewide items on the ballot will be initiatives. More than two dozen have been filed so far, ranging from a proposal to start a state-run Internet poker site to pay for filling potholes to a redundant slew of anti-gay-marriage measures. Few will make it to the ballot. Many are not even intended to; they’re a feint in some byzantine negotiation, or just a cheap attempt to get a little attention—for a two-hundred-dollar fee, anyone can file one. (Actually getting one on the ballot requires more than four hundred thousand signatures, and the outfits that collect them usually charge a dollar or two per signature.) Initiative No. 07-0032—the Presidential Election Reform Act—is different. It’s serious. Its backers have access to serious money. And it could pass.
Nominally, the sponsor of No. 07-0032 is Californians for Equal Representation. But that’s just a letterhead—there’s no such organization. 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. Hiltachk and his firm have been involved in many well-financed ballot initiatives before, including the recall that put Arnold in Sacramento. They specialize in initiatives that are the opposite of what they sound like—the Fair Pay Workplace Flexibility Act of 2006, for example. It would have raised the state minimum wage slightly—by a lesser amount than it has since been raised—and, in the fine print, would have made it impossible ever to raise it again except by a two-thirds vote in both houses of the legislature, while, for good measure, eliminating overtime for millions of workers.
“Equal Representation” sounds good, too. And the winner-take-all rule, which is in force in all but two states, does seem unfair on the face of it. (The two are Maine and Nebraska, which use congressional-district allocation. But they are so small—only five districts between them—and so homogeneous that neither has ever split its electoral votes.) It would be obviously unjust for a state to give all its legislative seats to the party that gets the most votes statewide. So why should Party A get a hundred per cent of that state’s electoral votes if forty per cent of its voters support Party B? No wonder Democrats and Republicans alike initially react to this proposal in a strongly positive way. To most people, the electoral-college status quo feels intuitively wrong. So does war. But that doesn’t make unilateral disarmament a no-brainer.
If California does what No. 07-0032 calls for while everybody else is still going with winner take all by state, the real-world result will be to give Party B (in this case the Republicans) an unearned, Ohio-size gift of electoral votes. In a narrow sense, that’s good if you like Party B, but not so good if you like Party A (in this case the Democrats). Or if you think that in a democracy everybody ought to play by roughly the same rules. Nor, by the way, is Party B the only offender. Last week, the Democratic-controlled legislature of North Carolina, a state that has gone Republican in every Presidential election since 1976, enthusiastically took up a bill to do the same mischief as the California initiative. The grab would be smaller—it would appropriate perhaps three or four of North Carolina’s fifteen electoral votes for the Democrats—but the hands would be just as dirty.
The California initiative flunks even the categorical-imperative test. Imagine, as a thought experiment, that all the states were to adopt this “reform” at once. Electoral votes would still be winner take all, only by congressional district rather than by state. Instead of ten battleground states and forty spectator states, we’d have thirty-five battleground districts and four hundred spectator districts. The red-blue map would be more mottled, and in some states more people might get to see campaign commercials, because media markets usually take in more than one district. But congressional districts are as gerrymandered as human ingenuity and computer power can make them. The electoral-vote result in ninety per cent of the country would still be a foregone conclusion, no matter how close the race.
California Initiative No. 07-0032 is an audacious power play packaged as a step forward for democratic fairness. It’s the lotusland equivalent of Tom DeLay’s 2003 midterm redistricting in Texas, except with a sweeter smell, a better disguise, and larger stakes. And the only way Californians will reject it is if they have a chance to think about it first.
The Republicans under the banner of a committee misnamed "Californians for Equal Representation" are gathering signatures for an initiative for the June primary ballot that will do the following: Distribute California's electoral votes by the outcome in each Congressional District and statewide for the votes representing the U.S. Senators. This isn't a new idea, and it is present in Maine and Nebraska where the number of districts number nine (9) and the state uniformally votes one way in any event. However, in California if this were in place in 2000 and 2004 GW Bush would have gotten 20 additional electoral votes - equal to the total from the State of Ohio.
When in graduate school circa 1961-63 at UCSB in Gorden Baker's class, a colleague and friend of Gene Lee, we did a study of a variety of electoral "reform" ideas using data from the election of 1960. Nationwide, in the case of the division of electoral votes by CD and Senate seats, Nixon would have beaten Kennedy.
The same would have occurred if the electoral votes had been divided between candidates based on the percent of the popular vote received on a state by state basis.
In each case, however, Kennedy would still have received a larger popular vote than Nixon. These "reforms" carry over the bias of the Constitution towards small states in the E.C. The two senators from Montana represent a fraction of the population that a California, New York, Pennsylvania, or Texas senator does. However, their votes carry equal weight. Within states, the voice of the majority is often tempered by gerrymandering districts or natural pockets of contrary views. Simply look at the distribution of California's blue and red counties for proof.
The point is ... in the absence of a popular vote for President, the winner take all system in the electoral college more often reflects the popular will notwithstanding the theft of the Presidency in 2000 and two elections in the 19th Century. Democrats stand to lose in any reform other than a popular vote. Otherwise, why would the California State Republican Party be promoting Initiative No. 07-0032? The Law office of Bell, McAndrew, and Hiltachk - lawyers for the Cal. Rep. Party - is the address for "Californians for Equal Representation." Hiltachk is Schwarzenegger's personal lawyer for electoral matters and handled the recall election of the Governor!
Below is a copy of the New Yorker article.
----------
Votescam
By Hendrik Hertzberg
The New Yorker
At first glance, next year’s Presidential election looks like a blowout. But it might not be. Luckily for the incumbent party, neither George W. Bush nor Dick Cheney will be running; indeed, the election of 2008 will be the first since 1952 without a sitting President or Vice-President on the ballot. At the moment, survey research reflects a generic public preference for a Democratic victory next year. Still, despite everything, there are nearly as many polls showing particular Republicans beating particular Democrats as vice versa. So this election could be another close one. If it is, the winner may turn out to have been chosen not on November 4, 2008, but five months earlier, on June 3rd.
Two weeks ago, one of the most important Republican lawyers in Sacramento 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. Nineteen of the fifty-three districts are represented by Republicans, but Bush carried twenty-two districts in 2004. The bottom line is that the initiative, if passed, would spot the Republican ticket something in the neighborhood of twenty electoral votes—votes that it wouldn’t get under the rules prevailing in every other sizable state in the Union.
The Tuesday after the first Monday in June is California’s traditional Primary Day. But it’s not the one that everybody will be paying attention to. Five months ago, the legislature hastily moved the Presidential part up to February 5th, joining a stampede of states hoping to claim a piece of the early-state action previously reserved for Iowa and New Hampshire. June 3rd will be an altogether sleepier, low-turnout affair. There may be a few scattered contests for legislative nominations, but the only statewide items on the ballot will be initiatives. More than two dozen have been filed so far, ranging from a proposal to start a state-run Internet poker site to pay for filling potholes to a redundant slew of anti-gay-marriage measures. Few will make it to the ballot. Many are not even intended to; they’re a feint in some byzantine negotiation, or just a cheap attempt to get a little attention—for a two-hundred-dollar fee, anyone can file one. (Actually getting one on the ballot requires more than four hundred thousand signatures, and the outfits that collect them usually charge a dollar or two per signature.) Initiative No. 07-0032—the Presidential Election Reform Act—is different. It’s serious. Its backers have access to serious money. And it could pass.
Nominally, the sponsor of No. 07-0032 is Californians for Equal Representation. But that’s just a letterhead—there’s no such organization. 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. Hiltachk and his firm have been involved in many well-financed ballot initiatives before, including the recall that put Arnold in Sacramento. They specialize in initiatives that are the opposite of what they sound like—the Fair Pay Workplace Flexibility Act of 2006, for example. It would have raised the state minimum wage slightly—by a lesser amount than it has since been raised—and, in the fine print, would have made it impossible ever to raise it again except by a two-thirds vote in both houses of the legislature, while, for good measure, eliminating overtime for millions of workers.
“Equal Representation” sounds good, too. And the winner-take-all rule, which is in force in all but two states, does seem unfair on the face of it. (The two are Maine and Nebraska, which use congressional-district allocation. But they are so small—only five districts between them—and so homogeneous that neither has ever split its electoral votes.) It would be obviously unjust for a state to give all its legislative seats to the party that gets the most votes statewide. So why should Party A get a hundred per cent of that state’s electoral votes if forty per cent of its voters support Party B? No wonder Democrats and Republicans alike initially react to this proposal in a strongly positive way. To most people, the electoral-college status quo feels intuitively wrong. So does war. But that doesn’t make unilateral disarmament a no-brainer.
If California does what No. 07-0032 calls for while everybody else is still going with winner take all by state, the real-world result will be to give Party B (in this case the Republicans) an unearned, Ohio-size gift of electoral votes. In a narrow sense, that’s good if you like Party B, but not so good if you like Party A (in this case the Democrats). Or if you think that in a democracy everybody ought to play by roughly the same rules. Nor, by the way, is Party B the only offender. Last week, the Democratic-controlled legislature of North Carolina, a state that has gone Republican in every Presidential election since 1976, enthusiastically took up a bill to do the same mischief as the California initiative. The grab would be smaller—it would appropriate perhaps three or four of North Carolina’s fifteen electoral votes for the Democrats—but the hands would be just as dirty.
The California initiative flunks even the categorical-imperative test. Imagine, as a thought experiment, that all the states were to adopt this “reform” at once. Electoral votes would still be winner take all, only by congressional district rather than by state. Instead of ten battleground states and forty spectator states, we’d have thirty-five battleground districts and four hundred spectator districts. The red-blue map would be more mottled, and in some states more people might get to see campaign commercials, because media markets usually take in more than one district. But congressional districts are as gerrymandered as human ingenuity and computer power can make them. The electoral-vote result in ninety per cent of the country would still be a foregone conclusion, no matter how close the race.
California Initiative No. 07-0032 is an audacious power play packaged as a step forward for democratic fairness. It’s the lotusland equivalent of Tom DeLay’s 2003 midterm redistricting in Texas, except with a sweeter smell, a better disguise, and larger stakes. And the only way Californians will reject it is if they have a chance to think about it first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
