If the special election last Tuesday taught us anything, it’s this: the people of California don’t care about the future of their state. We failed last week. We not only failed ourselves, we failed democracy as well as our great state. We failed as an electorate and we failed as citizens. We failed because we couldn’t see past the all the lies the special interests were masquerading as truth. We failed because we didn’t care enough to actually read the propositions for what they were, and not what people told us they were. We failed because most precincts had minimal voter turn out.

We failed. We failed. We failed.

But I shouldn’t really be surprised. We have been failing at democracy for some time now.

An informed populace is the lifeblood of democracy. But the American people are becoming less and less informed as the years pass, and it seems to be largely by choice. It just appears as if people don’t care as much as they used to. Politics has become one of those taboo discussion topics that polite people try to avoid.

Maybe that’s why people decided to listen to commercials spouting lies at every turn about the propositions rather than put in the time and effort to actually read them themselves or turn to a nonpartisan group like votesmarter.org to get summaries and arguments for and against the propositions. Maybe people are happier when pundits and spinsters tell them how to think. Maybe people just don’t care about how their state is run. Maybe people are just stupid.

Whatever the reasons, Californians decided that the truth was not important on Tuesday. The truth was propositions 74, 75, 76, and 77 were good for the state. Anyone who took the time to actually research these propositions would have known that. But most people did not do that. Most people saw commercials the Governor’s opposition had been airing since July and believed them. They saw the blatant distortions and out and out lies and accepted them without question. How could they not be true? They were on TV! Right? Right?!?

Wrong.

Politicians count on their constituents being lazy. They know that most people will believe anything they see on TV. The price of the truth is a few million dollars, and they are more than willing to pay it to get you to think what they want you to think. And that is exactly what they did in this special election.

They made people believe the governor was targeting teachers, cops, firefighters, and nurses instead of their unions. They wanted people to think the governor was trying to silence unions. They made people think that three retired judges would not be able to fairly redistrict California even though Prop. 77 had strict provisions that would ultimately make it nearly impossible for it to be unfair. They wanted people to believe the governor’s financial reform plan was merely a means to give the governor new and unchecked powers over our state. They wanted people to believe lies.

You know the sad part? They got what they wanted.

Every single one of the Gov. Schwarzenegger’s reforms was defeated. Every single proposition drafted to make California better was shot down. Why? Because a largely uninformed populace turned out in pathetic numbers to vote on propositions they did not understand. Their laughable grasp of the issues was drawn in large part by the lies spewed by special interests that propagated them for the sole purpose of keeping their cushy seats in Sacramento.

This is not democracy. This is madness. We fight wars to spread democracy around the world, and all the while, that tenet we all hold so dear is slowly dying at our doorstep.

So, what’s next for California? Now that we have failed to adopt any fiscal or educational reforms, what could possibly be next on the agenda for California? The answer is taxes, my friends. California is still spending more revenue than it produces and our budget deficit, although slightly reduced, is still quite large. The governor’s plan to reduce spending was handily defeated by us, the voters, but the problem remains. And now, on the heels of his defeat at the polls, the L.A. Times reports that the governor is looking to revamp his image by sponsoring a bi-partisan statewide public works program. This program may be financed by the largest bond sale in our state’s history – $50 billion dollars. A bond sale is a loan the state takes out to finance programs it needs immediately and pays back over time with interest, largely through taxes. With the prospect of new money in Sacramento, building and labor interests have already started lobbying. It seems we are back to where we were with Gray Davis – spending money without thinking of the consequences. We have come full circle, and we only have ourselves to blame.

If you only vote yes on one proposition today, make sure it is Prop. 77, the redistricting initiative. This may be the most important initiative on the ballot in terms of the actual and symbolic message it will send to the legislators of California. Prop. 77 will change the redistricting process for the state legislature, the state board of education, and the California members of the U.S. House of Representatives. The way redistricting works right now is every 10 years, after the census information has been collected, the legislators engage in a process known as gerrymandering. The legislators manipulate the established districts to group together a majority of their own constituents based on the census data in order to ensure the incumbents remain in power. This process is completely evident in our last statewide election where 133 congressional districts were up for grabs, but no incumbent lost their seat. How does that constitute democracy? What chance do we have when the legislators can rearrange their district every 10 years to best suit their needs, not ours?

The passing of this proposition will send them a message. It will be as louder and bolder than any message that has ever been sent to Sacramento. This proposition seeks to restore the democracy that these politicians have stolen from the voters. They have taken away our voice, and this proposition will give it back.

Don’t believe the commercials you see on TV. A lot of people have paid millions of dollars to maintain the status quo here in California because it directly benefits them. One such person is California State Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez. He has spoken openly about his opposition to Prop. 77. He has even contributed to the anti-77 commercials being shown on TV. You know the ones I’m talking about. The three old, white judges who can’t decide how to slice up California to form better districts. The commercial makes these judges seem incompetent, which is exactly how the anti-77 groups want people to see them. They want the average, uninformed voter to believe that we will lose our right to reject the redistricting plan. They want us to believe this process will cost us millions of dollars. They want us to believe that these judges will be unaccountable to anyone because they are not elected. They basically want us to believe lies.

Everything being said in these commercials is either a lie or a gross distortion of the truth. There are a great number of requirements for the members of the three judge panel that would redistrict California. One set of criteria is the judges must not have held any political office. They must not have changed their party affiliation since their judicial appointment. Finally, they must not have received any income over the past year from specified political sources. The Judicial Council randomly selects from all the qualified volunteers and forms a 24 person pool of judges. The two larges political parties must have equal representation in this pool. The legislators then go through a complicated process of selecting, voting on, and appointing a panel of three judges to develop a redistricting plan for California.

Once the panel is approved, they will begin creating a redistricting plan for California. In developing this plan, the panel must hold public hearings to receive input from the public and the Legislature. The panel must unanimously approve this plan. It will then be placed on the next general election ballot for the voters to decide on. If the plan passes it will be used until the next census is completed and redistricting is required again. If it doesn’t pass a new panel will be selected through the same process and they will prepare a new plan for the next general election.

So here are the facts: The judicial volunteers for the panel are subjected to a strict set of requirements to ensure nonpartisan participants; the two largest parties must have equal representation on the panel to ensure the fairness; and the plan developed by the panel must be approved by the voters before it is implemented. Another important tidbit that these commercials fail to mention is this redistricting plan would cost about half as much as it currently does when the politicians do it themselves. In 2001, legislators spent about $3 million to redistrict California. This proposition limits that amount to half that – about $1.5 million. There would also be a one time cost of about $1 million to redistrict California immediately following the election. But these are paltry sums in the grand scope of the California budget. If the cost of democracy is around $2.5 million, I’d gladly pay it. Democracy deserves better than what we are currently giving it. Vote yes on Prop. 77. Democracy belongs to the people, not the politicians.

It has only been a few days since President Bush nominated 3^rd District Appellate Court Justice Samuel Alito Jr. to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court that will be created once Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retires, but already the opposition is mounting. All the usual suspects are chiming in like clockwork. Sen. Ed Kennedy (D-Mass.) said, “Rather than selecting a nominee for the good of the nation and the court, President Bush has picked a nominee whom he hopes will stop the massive hemorrhaging of support on his right wing. This is a nomination based on weakness, not strength.” Most of the more outspoken members of the Democratic Party echo Sen. Kennedy’s sentiments. Both Senators Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) have expressed their disappointment in President Bush’s nomination.

On the other side of the argument are the Conservatives and Republicans. It appears the Republicans are nearly unanimous in their support of Alito’s nomination. They are highlighting his qualifications, which, as one may recall, was the cause of most of the controversy surrounding Harriet Miers’ nomination. And he is qualified. Maybe more so than any other justice sitting on the bench right now. He graduated from Princeton with a bachelor’s degree and went on to Yale Law School where he earned his law degree. After earning his degree, he went on to work as the assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States. In case you didn’t know, the Solicitor General argues the cases that go before the Supreme Court that involve the U.S. After serving with the Solicitor General for four years, he went on to serve as deputy assistant to the Attorney General for two years and then became the U.S. Attorney for the district of New Jersey. Finally, he has served on the 3^rd District Court of Appeals as a justice for the past 15 years. It should be noted that when George H.W. Bush nominated him to the Court of Appeals in 1990, a Democratic Senate majority unanimously confirmed him. Now, 15 years later, the same man is being criticized by a number of Democrats, some of whom probably confirmed him to the appellate court.

One major concern the Democrats raise is his stance on the landmark Roe v. Wade case. A number of sources have stated that Alito is opposed to abortion, which makes sense given his Italian Catholic upbringing. But I believe the opposition is hyping this issue beyond reasonable levels. Since when, in our country, has a person’s stance on abortion become the be all, end all of that person’s views? It is true that Samuel Alito is one of the most qualified people to be nominated to sit on the Supreme Court in a long time.

But that doesn’t seem to matter to most Democrats. All they seem to care about is the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade. They call upon images of coat hangers and back-alley abortion clinics that shock and disgust most decent people. But in reality, what would happen if Roe v. Wade were overturned? Does anyone ever think about that? If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, will that make abortions illegal throughout the U.S.? No. Not a chance. If Roe v. Wade is overturned then the states will be left to decide if abortion is legal or not. I guarantee abortion will never be illegal in California, or any other fairly liberal state for that matter. I don’t even think most conservative states would outlaw abortions. What I do think is too many people make far too big an issue over abortion without even thinking through what they’re saying.

Even in the face of his (supposed) viewpoints, Samuel Alito could still take each case on a case-by-case basis. Supreme Court justices are not supposed to be ideologues. They are not supposed to be advocates or activists. Their job is to interpret the law. Hardly anyone sitting on the bench now has had the experience interpreting law that Samuel Alito has, nor has anyone had as much experience in front of the Supreme Court. The support and opposition for his nomination are falling almost perfectly along party lines. We are in a sad state of affairs when the national dialogue in this country is so broken that opposing sides cannot agree on something they agreed 15 years ago. People need to stop concentrating on one aspect of Samuel Alito Jr. and look at the whole picture. He is an excellent choice for the Supreme Court and I support his nomination totally.