Only in America.

Actually, only in Delaware.

The Court of Appeals blocked the intiative because the petitions voters signed had very big discrepancies from the language that was approved by the Sec. of State.

I couldn't pull up the exact article, because the L.A. Times search site was not linking to the articles listed when I tried, but one of these articles has a comparison of the approved language and the language submitted with the petitions. It was nearly a carte blanche re-write and should not be on the ballot and will be rejected by the California Supreme Court as well.

If I recall there were 11 differences that varied from changing a single word to omitting and adding entire sentences.

With a uniform system for registration and voting, with paper trails and enough machines for every precinct and all that jazz.

How many votes would one get for such an amendment in the (well-gerrymandered) House? Fingers of one hand. They'd be hollering states rights louder than John Calhoun himself!

If the will was there, it could be done. But it isn't, so it won't.

http://democracyguy.typepad.com/democracy_guy_grassroots_/2005/08/reform_ohio_now.html

i am happy to see that they went so far over the minimum to get it on the ballot.  that bodes well for its passage.

Nonetheless, it would force a mid-census redistricting, thus further eroding the traditional practice of redisticting once a census cycle, and creating more precedent for further, much more egregious shenanigans.  If there is good reason to think that districts are already drawn in an egregiously bad way, that's one thing. But this is quite another.  

Also, note that California is one of the initiative-happy states, where it is really a big business, and actually part of politics as usual. This is only true of a handful states, but where it is true one really cannot regard initiatives in the same light as those coming from the more restrained majority of states--though the bad influence is, indeed, spreading.

OTOH, there is a bipartisan redistricting bill working its way through the legislature, that would take effect after the next census. My State Senator, Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), is the original author, and he's secured a GOP co-sponsor from Bakersfield.  Lowenthal tried to work with Girlie Man--just as he tried to do on merit pay and tenure for public school teachers (he's on the education committee, and is a former Professor of Psychology).  

In both areas, Lowenthal said that Girlie Man was simply not serious in dealing with the legislature.  He never made serious, detailed proposals, and never provided evidence to support his claims, so that particular complaints could be examined, thus leading to well-crafted legislation.

The article includes a lot of sniveling about how terrible verified paper trail ballots are going to be.

The 7-0 decision, issued without comment, removes one obstacle in the path of Reform Ohio Now, a coalition of unions and public-policy groups that yesterday submitted 521,000 signatures for three election-related issues.

"That's one of the easiest victories I've ever had," said Donald J. McTigue, an election-law specialist representing Reform Ohio Now. The lawsuit was filed on Thursday.

RON submitted 521,000 signatures in support of the three measures, nearly 200,000 more than required.

McTigue expects he has not seen the last of legal challenges from Ohio First, an opposition group headed by former Senate President Richard H. Finan, a Cincinnati-area Republican, and incorporated as a religious nonprofit organization in the state of Delaware.

Ohio First is incorporated as a religious organization?  WTF is that about?

"We take the next step," Finan said after hearing of the court decision. "We'll now be looking at the signatures on the petitions."

Does Finan really think he can invalidate 38% of the over half million signatures submitted?

If the amendments make the ballot, the coalition is expected to face an onslaught of opposition from Republican-backed interests.

I wonder why?

"When we make it to the ballot, and I'm pretty confident that we will, we're going to be heavy underdogs," [Dr. Asher] said, noting that state GOP officials have said they will focus on defeating the amendments. "I doubt we'll be able to match them anywhere near dollar for dollar."

IMO, Dr. Asher is sandbagging.  Even if the Ohio GOP comes out against the measures, why would the people listen to a party mired in corruption?  Rep. Deborah Pryce (a Republican) said as much a few days ago, and she's right.

Reform Ohio Now's three amendments would create an independent board to draw competitive legislative and congressional districts; restrict campaign contributions; and create a state board of elections to run Ohio's voting process.

The goal, Asher said, is to make lawmakers more accountable to voters through competitive districts and fewer big contributions.

http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2005/08/10/20050810-B7-00.html&chck=t

http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2005/08/10/20050810-B7-01.html

Perhaps the great state of Ohio is waking up.