Tag: California

The Big California Redistricting Scheme

California’s state legislature recently came up with a proposed redistricting plan, which is spearheaded by Governor Gavin Newsom.

Democrats are taking a democracy-destroying approach in order to supposedly save democracy. Wobbly-headed, but after all, this is the Left Coast.

The whole thing is a dangerous step backwards for the state, and even more importantly, for the nation at large.

Here’s the skinny. In 2008 and 2010, California voters decisively approved Propositions 11 and 20, creating the Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC). The goal was to draw fair and impartial district lines for future state and congressional elections.

The bipartisan citizen-led body was designed to remove the taint of political self-interest from the redistricting process. The CRC’s maps, drawn after extensive public input and certified in 2021, were crafted to reflect California’s diverse population and to ensure competitive representative districts.

Polls indicate that Californians overwhelmingly support the independent commission, with 64% favoring its continued authority over line-drawing as compared to only 36% that back legislative control.

The results of the poll make sense because the voters themselves created the CRC to keep the hands of politicians off congressional maps.

With the backing of former President Barack Obama and other Democrat figures, California Democrats moved full steam ahead, opting to dismantle the system and sideline the CRC in order to allow Dem lawmakers to draw new congressional maps that favor their own party.

It is a blatant underhanded way to bypass the current system. Here’s how the whole thing went down.

Democrats introduced a constitutional amendment that would suspend the CRC’s authority, ostensibly temporarily.

Then they proceeded to draft maps behind closed doors, without any public hearings and minus the all-important input from the community.

With political dissecting tools in hand, they split counties a hefty 16 times, and cities over 100 times.

The map will only take effect if voters approve it in a special election that is scheduled for November 4, 2025.

The election will be a referendum on whether Californians are going to value their own democratic reforms and protect the independent CRC, or whether they will fall prey to the same partisan gamesmanship they once rejected.

Ironically, implementation of the Dem’s plan will end up shredding the very democratic reforms that Californians fought so hard for. Adding insult to injury, the purported tab for the financially-strapped state may run as high as $250 million.

The tortured redistricting approach is a complete betrayal of voter intent. In addition, it is a logistical and ethical nightmare.

Here’s why. The design requires that a constitutional amendment be passed, which would have to be rushed through via a questionable legislative tactic that would bypass the state’s 30-day public review rule.

Republican lawmakers have already filed a lawsuit, which contends that the legislative process violates California’s constitutional requirement that bills be in circulation for at least 30 days prior to a vote by the legislature.

The plaintiffs also contend in the lawsuit that the new map was drawn in secret without meaningful public input, which undermines transparency and democratic participation.

There are broader legal concerns as well, due to a 1983 California Supreme Court ruling that prohibits mid-decade redistricting. It is this prohibition that Democrats seek to override via a new amendment to the state constitution.

The Dem’s game plan is likely to face additional legal challenges. The National Republican Congressional Committee has vowed to fight it “in the courts and at the ballot box.” Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, is launching a “legal war” against it as well.

Dems have enlisted some support from former President Obama, who has chimed in, endorsing the plan and characterizing it as a “responsible approach” and a “smart, measured approach.”

Proponents argue that it is a necessary counter to Republican redistricting in Texas. By overriding the CRC, the new maps will eliminate five Republican seats, tilting California’s already left-wing legislature even further to the left, creating a hyper-partisan map that stifles competition and marginalizes voters.

So it looks as though the scheme may actually kick off a redistricting war nationwide, inviting both parties to manipulate congressional maps to the max. This is a game that Republicans will likely win, since most blue states have already been highly distorted by previous gerrymandering.

In truth, the California Democrat plan doesn’t really deserve to succeed. Internal polling shows a thin 52% level of voter support, which is likely to sink even lower due to a well-funded information campaign backed by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican donors, and a coalition of groups that includes Common Cause.

But the more important reason it doesn’t deserve to succeed is because it’s one more in a series of schemes, courtesy of a party that just can’t bring itself to even want to win elections on merit.

A party that is top-heavy with members who are way too busy admiring themselves in the mirror to notice their constituents have left the room.

Death by Doctor

Suicide Is Painless

(Theme from the 1970 film M*A*S*H)

Through early morning fog I see
Visions of the things to be
The pains that are withheld for me
I realize and I can see
That suicide is painless
It brings on many changes
And I can take or leave it
If I please…

Lyrics by Michael Altman and music by Johnny Mandel

The Golden State, known for its beaches, mountains, theme parks, and entertainment industry, may soon become the go-to destination for anyone who would like a swift death, courtesy of a doctor.

California already allows people to end their own lives on the conditions that they have the mental capacity to decide, are expected to die within six months due to a terminal disease, and willingly administer the lethal dose themselves.

Back when California’s assisted suicide law was first implemented the public was assured that the vulnerable would be protected from undue influence or manipulation, which might persuade a person to take the life-ending option.

Additionally, doctors that refused to be involved in the deliberate snuffing out of human life were allowed to opt out.

However, left-wing legislators chipped away at the safeguards that were in place, and eventually conscience provisions that allowed physicians to avoid participation in the killing of patients were stripped away.

Now new legislation has been proposed by a California state senator that will allow an individual to choose to undergo doctor-assisted suicide without having had a terminal diagnosis.

The bill would permit individuals with various conditions and maladies to choose the life-ending alternative, even if potentially effective treatments are available.

It would also allow lethal drugs to be delivered intravenously, thereby eliminating the previous requirement that the lethal drugs had to be self-administered.

And here’s the topper. The proposed legislation would also permit those who are not California residents to hurry on over to the state and schedule their very own personal demise.

Sadly, California’s Democratic supermajority in the legislature gives the proposed bill a good chance of becoming law.

Despite being the antithesis of the Hippocratic Oath, leftist advocates of the so-called right-to-die ideology consider death by doctor to somehow be “health care.”

For those desiring assistance with the self-killing process, the previous requirements of having a terminal disease and possessing the appropriate mental capacity, needed to be struck; this according to a so-called fact sheet released by the sponsor of the proposed legislation.

The fact sheet also describes assisted suicide in a most Orwellian way, calling it “aid-in-dying medicine.”

As Europe and Canada have demonstrated, when the facilitation of death becomes a supposed treatment, it gives insurers, both private and public, a perverse incentive to deny health care and promote self-exit.

There have been numerous instances of individuals being coerced, convinced, and even guilted into opting for assisted death.

In an episode of the iconic TV series “The Twilight Zone” called “The Obsolete Man,”

a librarian is determined by the futuristic totalitarian state to be obsolete.

His occupation and his belief in God are enough justification to end his life.

In trademark fashion, host Rod Serling narrates the following at the beginning of the episode:

“You walk into this room at your own risk, because it leads to the future, not a future that will be, but one that might be. This is not a new world, it is simply an extension of what began in the old one. It has patterned itself after every dictator who has ever planted the ripping imprint of a boot on the pages of history since the beginning of time. It has refinements, technological advances, and a more sophisticated approach to the destruction of human freedom…”

The death by doctor procedure obliterates the precept that life is sacred.

When life is no longer considered sacred, a utilitarian society in which individuals are disposable at the whim of the state can be ushered in.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you your life isn’t worth living.

The One who made you and loves you says it is.

California’s San Bernadino County to Vote on Secession from State

There is no doubt that a political divide has occurred in our nation, one that is greater than most folks could have anticipated and more confounding than mere humans can comprehend.

It has been, to say the least, quite distressing to a people whose longstanding traditions have incorporated the esteemed societal values of unity, equality, and harmony.

To compound matters, folks are additionally experiencing a sense of alienation from political, legal, educational, cultural, and religious institutions, which had previously been relied upon by society as well as individuals for both external and internal stability and cohesion.

Here on the Left Coast, one county in California is considering whether or not to segment off into a smaller state.

The Golden State is presently the most populous state in the nation and has (since its admission to the Union in 1850) been the subject of hundreds of proposals to section it off into multiple states.

For decades, residents of rural California have looked at distant state and federal governments as being less than beneficial to them.

A movement to secede actually sprung up during the 1940s, as did a proposed name for the future site, the State of Jefferson. The new state was to be a combination of counties in Northern California and Southern Oregon. There was even a proposed state flag that had a green and yellow design with two X’s that symbolized the renunciation of state governments located in Sacramento, California and Salem, Oregon.

Six California counties officially backed the idea, and the proposal is still being promoted.

Many people have used the idea of secession in a symbolic way as a means to bring attention to regional disparities. But nowadays things appear to be different. Unprecedented actions by governments and corporations over the past two years have moved the subject of succession in the Golden State front and center.

Geographically, San Bernardino County is the largest county in the entire country. It is larger than 9 U.S. states, and it contains more land than the states of Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, and Rhode Island combined.

Located east of the city of Los Angeles, San Bernardino County has a population of 2.1 million people.

This significant chunk of California is in the process of placing a measure on the upcoming November ballot that would allow the San Bernardino County supervisors to explore the concept of secession of the county from the state.

After the issue had been raised at several board meetings, the county’s Board of Supervisors voted unanimously (4-0) to put the secession measure on the 2022 ballot. The mayors of the cities of Upland and Fontana expressed support for the idea.

Regarding the proposed measure, voters would be given the choice to vote Yes or No on the following question:

“Do the citizens of San Bernardino County want the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors to study all options to obtain its fair share of state and federal resources, up to and including secession?”

This upcoming week the board will be holding a second and final reading and an additional vote to finalize the ballot initiative.

“I was surprised by the idea, and I don’t believe it’s feasible politically or financially to secede from California,” Supervisor Janice Rutherford said. “However, I absolutely join with my constituents who have a growing, palpable anger about everything from high gas prices to burdensome taxes.”

If the measure were to be approved by voters, it would have several more hoops to jump through.

Article IV, Section III of the Constitution states, “No new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

This means that for San Bernardino County to able to secede it must have the approval of the California Legislature and the U.S. Congress.

If the county’s secession from California were constitutionally approved, then San Bernadino County would be able to seek to become its own state or take steps to become a part of a neighboring state.

The scenario that San Bernardino County is contemplating was actually accomplished in the creation of West Virginia back in 1863.

West Virginia was the only state in the Union to separate from a Confederate state during the Civil War. The region that now constitutes West Virginia successfully broke away from the Commonwealth of Virginia to become a separated Mountain State.

We find ourselves at an unusual time in history, one in which many Americans believe that the federal government no longer represents their interests. Additionally, many perceive that state governments are equally unable to handle the geographic and cultural differences and/or meet the diverse needs of constituents.

As the societal chasm continues to grow, so do the possibilities that something like secession could actually take root.

However, infused into the American people is a steadfast determination to forever seek solutions.

This is where hope springs eternal.

Lessons from the Left Coast Primaries

On the minds of Left Coast voters are some major concerns, which happened to be revealed in California’s recent primary elections.

It’s been said, “As California goes, so goes the nation,” so it may be that California’s primaries are also a foreshadowing of things to come in November’s general midterm elections.

Democratic Party turnout in the Golden State was dismal this time around. It may be an indication that liberal and even moderate Dems are experiencing a lack of enthusiasm.

At the same time, the primary election results showed that Republicans and Independents are deeply concerned over rising crime rates, exorbitant gas prices, and soaring food and housing costs.

Two of the Left Coast’s largest cities let their electoral voices be heard loud and clear.

In San Francisco, a far-left prosecutor was actually recalled. The electoral earthquake occurred when voters overwhelmingly chose to terminate District Attorney Chesa Boudin’s job right in the middle of his first term.

Boudin, a public defender-turned-district attorney was fired via a recall election, primarily for his policies of non-prosecution of criminal activity, lenient sentencing of criminals, and abolishment of cash bail, all of which resulted in a horrific spike in violent crime.

The ousting of Boudin should serve as a warning signal for politicians and government officials, apart from political affiliations. Those who promote, pursue, and implement policies that de-fund law enforcement agencies, reduce sentences of convicted felons, release back into society those who have not yet completed their prison time, eliminate cash bail, and abuse prosecutorial discretion may be in for a day of reckoning.

Boudin’s removal may also be a predictor for another elected official, one in Los Angeles County. A campaign is underway to recall District Attorney George Gascón, who appears to be cut from the same left-leaning political cloth as the aforementioned San Francisco prosecutor.

Before Gascón set his sights on destroying the criminal justice system in Los Angeles, he was Boudin’s predecessor as the district attorney of San Francisco.

The primary elections in Los Angeles were illuminating, particularly when it came to the mayoral race. Real estate developer Rick Caruso, a former Republican, came in first, with Democratic Congresswoman Karen Bass finishing second. The two are set to face one another in November, and right now Caruso appears to have an edge in the upcoming race.

Caruso left the Republican Party in 2019 and registered as a Democrat in 2022. He ran a campaign that emphasized a tough on crime position and a determination to address the homeless crisis.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, who survived a recall vote in 2021, was able to avoid any serious competition in the recent primary election, partially due to the unusual manner in which the state currently conducts its primaries. This November, Newsom will face the second-place primary election finisher, GOP state lawmaker Brian Dahle.

A whole lot of voters who participated in the Golden State’s primary were understandably confused by the ballot. What they saw, in addition to the incumbent Newsom’s name, was a dizzying array of 27 gubernatorial candidates, 14 of which were labeled as Republicans. Those who, prior to casting their votes, researched the candidates’ qualifications and positions on issues had quite a difficult and time-consuming challenge.

It wasn’t always like this. Years ago, via a ballot initiative, voters eliminated conventional closed primaries and replaced them with a so-called blanket primary system. Consequently, all candidates appeared on the same ballot in the form of a list. The top vote-getter from each party advanced to the general election.

The Supreme Court actually struck down this system, saying that it violated a political party’s First Amendment right of association. However, with a push from then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, California voters passed a new electoral initiative for something called the “top-two” open primary system.

In this system, all candidates on the list from all political parties, along with non-affiliated candidates, appear on the same ballot, with the top two finishers, regardless of party, advancing to the November general election.

This system and other types of open primaries frequently have unintended consequences that seriously undermine the main purpose of primary elections – to afford political parties the opportunity to pick their own candidates.

The conventional closed primary limits participation strictly to those who are designated party members. This concept relates to the previously mentioned right of free association contained in the Constitution.

Open primary laws violate the freedom of association of a political party, because they force a party to allow outsiders to select its candidates, a patently unfair and non-representative construct. Such primaries enable members of opposing political parties to subvert the nominating process.

Additionally, the California top-two primary system and similar designs oftentimes create circumstances that are disturbingly disenfranchising to voters.

In 2016, listed on the primary ballot in a run for U.S. Senate were 34 candidates. The top two finishers ended up being members of the same Democratic Party.

The top two vote-getters happened to be Loretta Sanchez and the now-Vice President Kamala Harris. Both emerged from the Senate primary as the lone candidates listed on the general election ballot. Their political parties, ideological positions, and policy proposals were, for the most part, identical.

This left voters with no real choice. However, Harris had the party backing, and she ended up winning the senate seat in a low turnout election.

The top-two primary system hasn’t delivered the increase in voter turnout that its proponents promised either. Since 2012, when the top-two rules took effect, turnout in primaries has averaged just 37.6% of registered voters.

In the recent primary, only 16% of the roughly 22 million mail-in ballots sent to voters were cast, and based on the count thus far experts believe the final turnout will be a record low.

Conversely, in a conventional closed primary system the top vote-getter from each partymoves on to the general election, thereby giving voters a bona fide choice.

This is what a functioning republic looks like.

Maybe it’s time for another visit to the Supreme Court.

California Bill Flies in the Face of James Madison

James Madison was a giant of a man.

Born on a Virginia tobacco plantation in March of 1751, he was the eldest boy in a family of twelve children.

Being smaller of stature and suffering from ill health, he would be unable to see battle during The Revolutionary War. But fight for his country he would in more ways than he could ever have imagined.

Young Madison attended the College of New Jersey, which would eventually become more famously known as Princeton University. At the time, the institution was actually an evangelical seminary.

A protégé of sorts, he studied directly under the tutelage of the college president, Reverend John Witherspoon. This would be where young Madison would develop an untold appreciation for individual rights, limited government, and, most importantly, the freedom to worship.

Reverend Witherspoon was attune to the importance of the development of an internal moral sense, an ethical compass, if you will, which he viewed as being instilled in all human beings by God.

As destiny would have it, Reverend Witherspoon would not only influence young Madison, but he himself would go on to be the only active clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence.

One time during his travels in Virginia, Madison came across a jail in which a group of Baptist preachers were being detained. The ministers had been arrested as a result of their open expression of their religious beliefs.

Madison was so deeply affected by the injustice he had witnessed, he rushed off a prayer request to his friend William Bradford “for Liberty and Conscience to revive among us.” The experience would further spur him on to become a fierce advocate of religious liberty.

He expressed his passion for religious freedom in his involvement with the new constitution that was being written for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Strengthening a clause that was written by George Mason, he transformed the language of the text from a government grant to an inalienable right.

Over the next decade Madison would be involved in various other religious liberty battles. And in 1785, he would pen one of the most powerful defenses of religious liberty ever written, the “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments.”

After the Constitution, as Madison wrote it, was ratified by Congress in 1788 and came into effect in 1789, many leaders wanted to add additional material containing the fundamental rights with which government could not interfere. However, the Constitution itself specifies that the adding of such material can only be done through amendments.

Madison initially opposed the idea of putting additional amendments into the Constitution. As the author of the Constitution, he considered his work so complete that no additional amendments were thought to be needed.

He and his colleagues believed that the Constitution placed enough limits on government, via the separation of powers, to safeguard individual rights.

Madison was also concerned that listing some freedoms in amendments, but not others, would lead government officials to believe that they could do whatever was not explicitly forbidden by the document.

It was providential that Madison had a friendship and political alliance with Thomas Jefferson. He actually served as the third president’s secretary of state.

Jefferson had written a series of letters from Paris, France, attempting to persuade his friend to change his mind about the Bill of Rights. Madison did eventually come to believe that amendments setting forth our rights might impress upon the nation the importance of placing limitations on state power.

Madison became the point man for the Bill of Rights, taking on the mantle not only of drafting the amendments, but of also shepherding the founding document through the legislative process. Drawing on Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights and Britain’s Magna Carta, he wrote the Bill of Rights and presented it to Congress in June of 1789.

The Bill of Rights, which of course includes our cherished First Amendment, was ratified on December 15, 1791.

Among myriad other amazing accomplishments, Madison served as secretary of state in the Jefferson administration. Then following in the presidential footsteps of his friend, he became the fourth president of the United States in March of 1809 and served until March of 1817.

President Madison would be cut to the core if he were here to witness what is currently being proposed in California – a bill that would actually dismiss from service those members of law enforcement who hold certain religious and/or political beliefs.

Under the pretext of seeking the elimination of “hate speech,” the proposed law would virtually place the government in the position of denying police officers the ability to be employed or to remain employed, based on their Christian beliefs and/or conservative principles.

The legislation’s name is a misleading one, the California Law Enforcement Accountability Reform Act. It would require law enforcement agencies to determine if potential hires are guilty of thought crimes. It would also allow existing officers, who are subjectively determined to hold incorrect or unapproved beliefs, to be fired.

The California Assembly Public Safety Committee is scheduled to consider the piece of legislation on April 6. But its language is so broad and ambiguous it stands as a textbook violation of the protections of religious liberty and freedom of speech, which are engraved in the First Amendment.

While our First Amendment rights weren’t specifically enumerated in the original text of the Constitution, Madison ensured that the rights would be enshrined within the amendment process.

He authored the inspired words of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Read it and weep California. Madison is.