1. P.R. NOW

   Otherwise – Will gerrymander Civil WAR II start in CA ???

2. Once the petition qualifies, the district boundaries are suspended, just as if the legislature had passed a redistricting law. The SOS doesn’t have the authority to conduct elections without underlying districts.

   Given that the senate districts would deny 3.7 million Californians whose last opportunity to elect a senator was 2008, from electing another senator until 2014, it would be better to order the current odd-numbered districts be used for a two-year term, giving California an opportunity to develop a system that does not systematically disenfranchise million.

   If the voters approve the districts next November, then they could be used for all districts in 2014.

3. Jim Riley

   Thank you for explaining this one. If I get it correct,
   because two assembly districts equal one Senate District
   and 10 Senate Districts equal one Board of Equalization
   District they all will be going to the courts to make
   the district lines for the 2012 election. It is unclear how we get an assembly at all, unless the current people stay in office until they are replaced.

   Please go into more detail.
   Thank You.

   Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman,
   American INdependent Party.

   Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg

4. The assembly, senate, and SBOE plans are actually independent of each other. That the plans nest is to the “extent practicable” and is subordinate to most of the other criteria. The commission decided to a large extent that it was not generally practicable to next. See Article XXI of the California Constitution.

   http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/maps-final-drafts.html

   Appendix 5 has the nesting data. It is not uncommon for only about 70% of a senate district population to be contained in two assembly districts, with another 30% in other districts. I haven’t actually seen any maps of senate districts showing the relationship to assembly districts.

   Since the SBOE districts are so enormous, it is difficult not to have some senate districts entirely in an SBOE district, but it doesn’t look like they really paid much attention at the edges. Typically 10 senate districts constitute about 90% of an SBOE district. The PDF chart is messed off, and leaves off senate districts (17, 18); (20, 21); (33, 35); (39, 40), which are probably in SBOE districts 1,2,3,4 respectively. It is kind of hard to tell in some cases. For example SD 20 included Ontario and Fontana, but these are in different SBOE districts.

   In the 1970s, Ronald Reagan vetoed the redistricting plans drawn by the legislature. The California Supreme Court ordered that the congressional elections used the plans drawn by the legislature since they had the right number of districts; but ordered that the old assembly and senate districts be used (they weren’t that old since they had been redone after the one man, one vote decisions of the mid-1960s.

   In the 1980s, all the plans were subject to a referendum. In that case, the California Supreme Court used the legislature-drawn plans. It was a 7-0 decision to use the congressional plans, since California had gained representatives. It was a 4-3 decision on the plans for legislature districts. I’m pretty sure it was a partisan decision, since Rose Bird wrote the decision and the Democrats controlled the legislature, and Republicans were supporting the referendum. The plans were overturned in the referendum. In the next legislature they were passed again, but with an urgency clause, and signed by Governor Jerry Brown, the Younger. This meant that they were not subject to a referendum.

   It is conceivable that the Supreme Court will do the same thing this year, and order the plans drawn by the commission to be used. But there is reasonable case for using the old senate districts since it would at least mean everyone can vote for a senator.

   This has a chart showing how much of each district has moved between even and odd districts.

   http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/downloads/meeting_handouts_072011/handouts_20110728_q2_deferral.pdf

   Odd districts vote in presidential election years, while even district vote in gubernatorial election years. So someone who is moved from an odd to even district, will have voted in 2008, and will vote again until 2014. The worst case is in the West Coast of Los Angles from Palos Verdes up to Hollywood. Since the southern part was in the senate special election, and the 2010 general election, it must be the northern area that is disenfranchised.

   Someone who is moved from an even to odd district will get to vote in both 2010 and 2012. The most advantaged area is eastern San Francisco, but they’ll probably complain about ballot access.

5. What I find interesting about the referendum in the first place is that the Independent Redistricting Commission’s mandate was to NOT take party registration into account. YET, they were exceeding fastidious about packing many Districts with various ethnic groups. The most recent state-wide registration update was the normal odd-year update as of February 10th this year. By law, there will NOT be another update released until late January. SO WHO compiled the registration figures that the Republican Party is arguing dis-enfranchises them in the State Senate and Congressional maps?

   Also, although “technically” the Assembly seats are supposed to be nested 2 in each Senate seat that hasn’t always been the case. However, the BoE seats ARE supposed to contain ONLY 10 Senate seats. AND it is utterly unacceptable that none of the BoE seats was drawn to be entirely WITHIN Los Angeles County. Especially considering that the County’s population of over 9.8 million is still comfortably above 1/4th of California’s total population of roughly 37 1/4 million.

   Granted, it is relatively easy to add up Districts composed of entire cities and Counties. Each of the Secretary of State’s Office releases does include the current registration in each of California’s 480+ incorporated Cities and the remainder in the unincorporated area of each County. But when Districts are egregiously cutting through several neighboring incorporated cities to create some flawed idea of ethnic balance, coming up with an updated registration total for that District would take more time. The only way I see it possibly being done is to add together the individual precinct totals within each District’s newly drawn boundaries.

   So without the Secretary of State’s Office providing us with an official update of registration figures for the new Districts, we have ANOTHER example of the smaller parties being frozen out of information for determining WHERE they would consider which Districts to run their candidates. Even in spite of the idiocy of Prop. 14’s highly questionable Constitutional restrictions regarding the General Election ballot.

6. Jim Riley,

   Can you tell me if any of the the 40 Senate Districts have a total of
   of only two assemble districts, based on thec census blocks? That goes
   for the BoE districts of 10 Senate Districts, limiting the BoE districts
   to 10 Senate Districts. By having districts overlap it will increase the cost of elections, and take away the rights of equal population to
   each district by a deviation of one person per district.

   I agree that there should be one whole BoE District in Los Angeles County. If the Commission did not do that they were wrong. Also Districts number 1 of the Congressional, BoE, Senate, and Assembly should all have the total area of Siskiyou County, because the Northern burps on the California-Oregon border gives the most Northerly point in California a point within Siskiyou County.

   Therefore, was Siskiyou County totally in all four District # 1’s set by the Redistricting Commission?

   Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman,
   American Independent Party of California.

   P.S. Charles Deemer, one can get current registration figures from the
   different county elections officials and just add up the 58 totals.
   You can do that with four sheets of accounting paper or just e-mail the
   AIP for those numbers. We have been following the numbers of the AIP
   and Constitution Party (since last February 10th, 2011) [because of my
   interest if the registration was going to raise for the Constitution
   Party of 167 from February 10, 2011]. Constitution Party registration
   as been going south since February. That means Dr. Don Grundmann is not
   getting his message out, or maybe he has!

   Mr. Vincent May will be running for the United States Senate from the
   AIP. Ed Noonan and Wiley Drake are running for President of the United
   States. Also, Lawrence Beliz will run for House of Representives in
   San Francisco. Larry Beliz was one of the original members of AIP
   active party members in San Francisco back in the 1968 during the George
   C. Wallace campaign joining at a Wallace rally in Fresno. Larry Beliz
   won the AIP primary in 2010 against a former AIP Chairman.

   Sinceely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of California.

   P.S. Larry Beliz was even lionized by the late Robert Welch
   (founder of the John Birch Society)for his Americanist views. Mr. Beliz
   is an alumus of San Francsco State College (now known as San Francisco
   State University). He is a recovering Republican. At San Francisco State College, Mr. Beliz was associated with the BLUE BUTTON campaign
   to keep the campus open and free from a radical takeover of that Far Left, circa 1967 to 1969. Mr. Beliz was a Goldwater Republican in 1964.
   He was an active backer of Dr. Alan Keyes for President in 2008.

7. There are 8 senate districts that are mostly nested.

   Only 2 are 100%.

   SD-20 is comprised of AD-52 (Pomona, Ontario, Chino) and AD-47 (Fontana, Colton, Rialto).

   Cities are general area, the map I’m looking at has city names, but not city limits.

   SD-31 is comprised of AD 60 (Corona, Norco, Riverside) and AD 61 (Riverside, Moreno Valley)

   I think Riverside is split between assembly districts but in one senate district. IIRC, Riverside is not a particularly compact city.

   SD-11 (San Francisco, Daly City) is 100% covereded by AD-17 and AD-19, but AD-19 is not 100% in SD-11. Not really sure why.

   There are 4 others with 99%+ coverage, and one with 97%. But there are some others with around 70% coverage.

   SBOE 3, includes Ventura County. It actually makes a pretty good split, since SBOE 2, the coastal district stops at Santa Barbara. SBOE 4 is Orange, San Diego, Riverside, Imperial, and the southern edge of San Bernadino, including the city.

   SBOE 1 the inland district, includes most of the area of San Bernadino and population from the Apple Valley-Hesperia, and Ontario areas. In Los Angeles County it includes Lancaster, Palmdale, Santa Clarita, and the San Fernando Valley.

   So the boundary between SBOE 3 and 4 is pretty much right along the mountains.

   If the northernmost point is NW of Yreka and Mount Shasta, then it in District 1 on all4 maps.

8. Jim Riley,

   Thank you for the information on the four districts numbered 1. It was my
   suggestion that the note there was a burp on the Northern border. Therefore, they followed my suggest that the border was not a stright east west line.

   Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of CAlifornia

9. #8 it was surprising how large the bump is. I had no trouble finding it just zooming in on the maps.

   The districts appear to be based on the northernmost point of each district. This can make some surprising results. Imperial County is in a assembly district with Riverside County in a district that extends up through the Coachella Valley into Palm Springs. It is AD 56 (of 80), since it is “north” of many districts in Los Angeles and Orange county. It is a senate district with the southern part of San Diego County (Chula Vista, etc.) and is SD 40.

   The senate districts were placed in even or odd groups to reduce the number of disenfranchised voters, and then the two groups were numbered separately using the northernmost point rule. So SD 40 does not have the southernmost northern point, but rather the southernmost northern point among even numbered districts.

   CD 8 is in San Bernadino County, including the desert and Apple Valley, but extends northward in the Owen River Valley east of the Sierras to a point. It is just barely “south” of CD 6 and 7 in the Sacramento area, and clearly “north” of the Bay Area districts.

   San Francisco County (CACOSF) includes a portion of the bay that comes to a point between San Rafael and Richmond, so its senate district (12) is north of the senate district that includes Berkeley (13).

   In areas where there are a lot of districts such as in the Los Angeles area, the numbers jump around because numbering is not from one district to adjacent districts in sequence.

10. Tim Riley

    Nearly 162 years ago when the State created its first counties all the islands in the Pacific Ocean near California (mainland) were placed in
    Los Angeles County. The United States Government issued charts after
    California was admitted to the Union with the wrong county names on these
    charts. Then the UK and Spain got into the act by issuing charts showing
    certains of the off shore island as either Spainish or British.

    It fact in 1877 the diplomatic notes were going to the United States Department of State and to the Crown of Spain that the Island of St. James
    had been a British Island since Sir Francis Drake annexed it 1589 (sic., gave the wrong date in note, real date was 1579). I found this interesting claim in records of the Foreign Office between 1877 and 1880,
    at the National Archives in Kew, while I was a student at Cambridge University.

    On Black Friday, I purchased my first WII, because of the game LONDON TAXI
    RUSHOUR. This is now my first game. On the case it states “Choose from four different cabbies, each with their own unique official Austin FX4 London Taxi. Meet a variety of customers in an authentic recreation of
    London! Complete with famous landmarks and multiple routes. London is your playground as you speed through the streets to earn the best fares.”

    Reason for the game, It helps figure out how Stanley Ann and the baby “Barry” [Obama] got from the arrival port of S.S. Uganda at Tilbury
    Docks, of the Port of London on September 20, 1961, to the London Airport for the BOAC flight to Montreal, Canada. This because Stanley Ann was only
    18 years of age and was to young to pass United States Citizenship on to
    Barack H. Obama II, viz. Stanley Ann could not have spent five of the ten
    year residency requirements after the age of 14 in the United States at the
    time of the birth of Barack H. Obama II on the island Mombasa in the Indian Ocean. Remember Stanley Ann went into labor at the Port Ritz Airport, Protectorate of Kenya and was driven to the hospital on Mombasa
    Island nearly seven miles away to give birth. It should be noted that
    Mombasa is a sister city of Honolulu. At the time of Barack H. Obama II
    birth he became a Subject of the Sultan of Zanzabar and a British Protected Person under the terms of the Zanzabar Nationality Decree, 1919 and the British Nationality Act, 1948. This reminds me of the
    related issues of Mr. Arthur taking the office of Vice President and President when at birth he was a Subject of British Crown.

    If you are interested the current Sultan of Zanzibar lives in Portsmouth,
    England after the 1964 revolt. Zanzibar enter the United Nations as a member under this current Sultan Jamshid on December 16, 1963, prior to
    the Admission of Kenya into the United Nations.

    Does anyone have a photo of Barack H. Obama I in New York at a party on December 16, 1963?

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party

    by

11. Just caught the literal error above it should have stated Jim Riley and not
    Tim Riley. Sorry for that error.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.