Team Giuliani backs California scheme — and breaks election law?

By now, you’ve probably all heard about the Republican electoral-vote scheme in California. If you’re just joining us, it’s quite a clever little scam: the state GOP, far-right activists, and Swiftboat financiers, under the guise of “fairness,” want to split California’s 55 electoral votes by congressional district, as opposed to the current winner-take-all system. There’s no real mystery behind the effort — the goal is to deny Dems about 20 fairly reliable electoral votes, making it extremely difficult for the party to win a presidential election.

As of a month ago, the initiative was in deep trouble, and apparently dead. Its two key organizers quit; the campaign was out of money; and proponents were nowhere near close to collecting the necessary number of signatures to get the scheme on the state ballot. “‘Shambles’ is the wrong word,” said strategist Marty Wilson, who curtailed his fundraising efforts weeks ago. “The campaign never got off the ground.”

This week, the measure was poised to rear its ugly head again, with new backers anxious to relaunch.

And who are these new players? The old financiers were Swiftboaters; new ones are part of Team Giuliani.

We have noted before that one of the main bankrollers for Giuliani’s presidential campaign, Paul Singer, heavily financed the initial push to get on the state’s ballot an initiative that could help a Republican win the White House next year. Also, Anne Dunsmore, who until September was Giuliani’s deputy campaign manager in charge for fundraising, recently took over money chores for the ballot measure.

Friday, the Giuliani link to the initiative grew stronger. A key backer of the measure to alter California’s winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes sent an e-mail urging Giuliani backers to sign petitions to place it on the ballot.

The missive, obtained by The Times’ Dan Morain, is addressed, “Hello Fellow Rudy Supporter!” Its author, Tony Andrade, is a Republican activist who helped draft the electoral college initiative. Previously, he was among those who helped place the ultimately successful recall of Gov. Gray Davis on the ballot in 2003.

As it turns out, this might be a violation of federal election law.

Democrats battling the electoral college measure already have filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission and U.S. Justice Department alleging the Giuliani campaign is behind the initiative. If true, that would be a violation of federal election law, which prohibits such coordination.

Chris Lehane, a Democratic activist who is organizing the campaign to block the measure, said of the Andrade e-mail: “It sounds like something that the Federal Election Commission and Department of Justice will be very interested in seeing.” […]

Andrade did not respond to requests for comment Friday about the e-mail in which he invokes Giuliani’s name. But some of his allies in the fight for the ballot measure clearly were uncomfortable with his tactic.

Veteran GOP strategist Ed Rollins, who is overseeing the attempt to put the initiative before voters, distanced himself from Andrade’s note.

“None of us has anything to do with any [presidential] campaign; we understand the law very, very well,” Rollins said. Pledging to try to “make sure that [the e-mail] gets stomped,” Rollins added, “We need to be very sensitive to the fact that people have speculated that this is part of the Giuliani campaign.”

That would be speculation driven by direct claims made by people on the Giuliani campaign.

Stay tuned; this should be interesting. And if you’re new to the story and want to get a sense of the problem with the initiative itself, Jamin Raskin recently had a good piece on this, as did the NYT.

I hope so…It clearly shows that Guiliani would stoop to any level to gain power.

  • Doesn’t it say something that, ever since Reagan (of unhappy memory on many dimensions), the Republicans feel (correctly) that the only way they can win is to go over, under, around or through the law?

    What creeps. In grammar school we’d have beat them up once the teacher’s back was turned. Maybe it’s time to Reid and Pelosi to turn their backs for a minute.

  • Giuliani should be asked for the record whether he thinks splitting up state’s delegates during the primary process, just as his campaign is pursuing for the presidential election, is something he favors as well and whether he would be willing to do this for all 50 states. My bet is we’d see more waffling than at an IHOP.

  • Such a measure would only be fair if it were imposed in every state, of course. That would be getting close to a popular presidential election. I don’t understand why there is no mechanism that would prevent this from happening in a single state. But apparently there isn’t.

    Another thing I don’t understand is this: I have read that the voters in California would approve the measure. Why would the same people who provide for the Democratic majority in presidential elections turn around and vote for a measure that would in effect disenfranchise them? I don’t get it. Why wouldn’t they just vote this thing down? Why would people who vote for a Democratic president vote for a measure that ensures that a Democrat will probably never win the presidency again?

  • We will vote it down if it doesn’t have a provision to wait until the majority of states have this function.

    The majority in the state support the idea, if not the implementation here.

  • The message to take from this is two-fold: one, people like to feel their votes count for something, and in order for that to happen, the system has to change and, two, Giuliani will do anything to win, and this seems to represent a perfect opportunity.

  • The proposal to divide California’s electoral votes by congressional district feeds on everyone’s frustration with the current system of electing the President.

    The district approach is worse than the current system, even if were applied in all 50 states.

    The proposed ballot measure would not, as claimed, make California relevant in presidential elections. The presidential race is a foregone conclusion in 50 of the state’s 53 congressional districts. Candidates would have no incentive to pay any more attention than they do now to the remaining 50 districts.

    Even if the proposed district system were used by all 50 states, there are only 41 congressional districts (out of 435 in the country) that are competitive in presidential races. Over 90% of the people would be left out of the presidential election because they happen to live in non-competitive districts. This would be even worse than the current system, where two-thirds are left out.

    A district system would make it far more likely to elect a candidate who loses the national popular vote. In 2004, Bush’s won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. In 2000, the current system gave Bush 271 electoral votes (with 270 needed to win), but Bush won 55% of the districts.

    A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equally important, and to guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The National Popular Vote bill has 364 legislative sponsors in 47 states. It has been signed into law in Maryland. Since its introduction in February 2006, the bill has passed by 11 legislative houses (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, and North Carolina, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and California).

    The National Popular Vote bill would not take effect piecemeal, but only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

  • I don’t know why so few people point this out, but the California initiative almost certainly will be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. The method for selecting electors is spelled out in Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 2: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .”

    Unless the Assembly goes for the plan, and they won’t go for it, it’s not going to matter even if the voters approve it, which they won’t. This is nothing to worry about.

  • s & could make LA county with over 8 million people, worth the same as some small Joerko was absolutely correct when he said “the proposed ballot measure would not, as claimed, make California relevant in presidential elections”. …Exactly.Last election in CA. all but TWO districts were close (under 3%), every other district was decided by 6% or greater..All this proposal does is give the party (Republicans) that’s sure to lose the state, 20+ electoral votes they don’t deserve….

    If electoral votes were going to be split, to have any integrity, it’s something that has to be done from Maine to Hawaii & all points in between….Also, the only fair way to split EV is based upon the % of the state won, NOT by districts won…With gerrymandering, splitting EV by district is a joke…Also, splitting by districts punishes large urban areadistrict w/2,500 people, which is nonsense…

    Back to this dreadful initiative in California, a UC law professor wrote a great piece (attached below) on how this proposal is seriously (constitutionally speaking) challenged…If by some miracle, this initiative would make it to the ballot, Democrats should be able to tie up this partsian proposal in court, as that’s where it belongs, tied up in court, it should NEVER make the June 08 ballot….

    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20070817.html

  • My original post somehow got messed up in translation (after I hit submit comment) combining the 1st. & 2nd. paragrpahs, etc..

    But what I tried to say in first part was this initiative does NOT make races more competitive….In 2004, in CA., only 2 districts were decided by 3% or less, while the others were won by 6% or greater….This proposal only gives the losing party in CA. (likely Republicans in 2008) electoral votes they don’t deserve..

    The other point was awarding by districts can make some small rural area with 2,500 people worth the same as some large county which has millions of people…The only way to fairly split EV’s is by a % won, & it has to be done in the entire country, not just in CA…

    Third paragraph posted ok..

  • We invite stunts like what Rudee’s campaign is trying to pull by having such thoroughly ineffectual election laws.

    Even in what we are used to regarding as backward countries, they recognize that penalties for violating election law have to be extreme, because the idea must be to make sure no one violates the law (instead of making sure violators are duly prosecuted and made to pay fines that are a small price to pay for successful election tampering).

    In India, for example, back in the day when they were really quite backward, prime minister Indira Gandhi was convicted of a relatively minor election offense, and would have been forced to relinquish office. That’s when she decided to suspend democracy instead, and declared the equivalent of martial law.

    Any and all violations must invalidate your election if you end up winning. That keeps elections surprisingly clean.

    What we do is simply offer crooked politicians a price list for election tampering. And that’s why you get shit like the phone jamming scandal in the 2002 New Hampshire Senate election. Crooked politicians find the current price list quite a bargain.

  • ““… ; we understand the law very, very well,” Rollins said.”

    Wasn’t Rollins the Christine Whitman gubernatorial campaign campaign consultant who doled out “walk-around” money to African-American clergy to suppress the black vote in her first election? Or am I thinking of someone else?

    Either way, I’m sure he understands the law very well… and how to skirt it.

  • Dunno. But if Chris Lehane is in on this then you’ve arguably got the most able pit bull in all of Democraticdom on the case. I imagine Republicans will be hard pressed in an election year to find anyone available who can out-evil that guy. So we’ve got that going for us.

  • I think Chris Lehane can successfully block this campaign if we put up a vigorous campaign against it now before November 13, 2007 – when the signatures are due.

    If we fail now we should fight it in the June 2008 ballot. And we should have our own November 2008 ballot initiative which would clarify that the electoral reform, for purposes of fairness to California voters, would not take place until all other 49 states have instituted similar electoral reform. This would help increase voter turn out for the November election (like Bush’s 2000 push in California did) and possibly cause the loss of a Republican congressional district.

    Another option is to amend the California constitution to state, following the US constitution, the California legislature shall determine the electoral votes for the state and shall directed to vote, upon similar action by all the other of the US states, to have the electoral votes divided upon popular vote.

    We could also challenge it the courts, as the US constitution states, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” However, the final say on this will be the US Supremes, as it is US constitution matter. And I think the Roberts court will not hesitate for a second to pull another Bush v. Gore opinion.

    So our options: (1) Fight it now before Nov. 13, 2007 to keep it off the June 2008 ballot. (2) If we fail, fight it on the June 2008 ballot. (3) While we fight it, we have our own November 2008 ballot initiative which will make the electoral reform fair for Californian’s. It would only take place upon all other 49 states enacting similar reform

  • Having a November 2008 ballot option is really preserving fairness for California voters. Why should California unilaterally give up it electoral votes, while red states keep all theirs? We are, after all, one nation indivisible under God.

    A November 2008 ballot initiative delaying any reform until all other states have initiated similar reform is not only a matter of fairness to California. It is a matter of the nation’s soul. Divide and conquer shall not be used to pit one state against the other.

  • Apart from the obvious fact that California should not change its Electoral College selection until everyone else does, I think its interesting that the change they are asking for will nearly guarantee that whichever party wins the House of Representatives will always win the White House.

    If you assume that the Senate seats will always divide between 50-50 and 60-40, and that the two non-district votes per state will divide similarly, every presidential election will be fought almost entirely on the same lines as the vote for the House.

    I think it’s obvious that the Republicans haven’t thought about the long term consequences of this, but it is interesting to note that the worst problem about the country’s government is that (as a previous poster said) 90% of the congressional seats in any election are not properly contested. Linking them to the white house vote will virtually guarantee that both parties will move to start contesting them and that could end up marginalizing political factions whose support is necessary in one district and the kiss of death in another – such as the “religious right”.

    Alternatively, if the parties cede control of different regions to each other (so that the House is almost always deadlocked), then the election will end up being decided by how many states each party wins, which currently favours the Republicans. Possibly that’s what they are banking on.

  • “Giuliani should be asked for the record whether he thinks splitting up state’s delegates during the primary process, just as his campaign is pursuing for the presidential election, is something he favors as well and whether he would be willing to do this for all 50 states. My bet is we’d see more waffling than at an IHOP.”

    Naturally. But do you want to place bets on how likely that is to happen? Has Giuliani registered an opinion on the firings of the U.S. attorneys? It might be interesting to know what he thinks, considering he’s the only candidate to previously hold that position.

  • Former Senator Fred Thompson is the only candidate that gets it. He makes decisions based on principles. Principles don’t change. You have to stand for something and not change who you are based on the polls. That is what Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have done and all of the Democrats do it. Give me a leader that will stand by his principles anyday versus someone that stands for everything.

    I know many Republicans and conservatives that will stay home if Rudy Giuliani is the candidate. He does not represent our values as conservatives, and never will. Millionaire Mitt Romney is a Republican-in-name-only (RINO ) that simply has everything else and nothing to do. “I guess I’ll just try to buy the presidency”. The White House isn’t for sale! Conservatives will simply stay home and the Democrats will pick up additional seats in the House and probably get the 60 seats in the Senate they need to completely destroy our Country. Nice picture huh?

    However, I think Fred can bring America back together, if that’s even possible. America needs a rebirth of patriotism and honor. Republicans also need a rebirth. President Reagan was our last rebirth and he can never be duplicated. Fred Thompson will bring his own down-to-earth common sense to this country. If a conservative runs as a conservative, he will win!

    Think of it this way: Eight years of another Clinton White House? Now if that is not a sufficient enough reason to pull together as a nation, and fight this socialist liberal takeover of our government, what is?

    Folks, we are in for the fight of our lives, just as our young men and women are fighting for our freedoms in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must fight for our nation right here and now! I truly believe Fred Thompson is the one man who can pull this nation back together! Rudy Giuliani will just tear us apart.

    Fred on the Issues (from http://www.Fred08.com)

    National Security
    The first responsibility of government is to protect the American people, the homeland, and our way of life. Today we face the urgent threat of radical Islamic terrorists. Al Qaeda is committed to attacking us here at home, and wants to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to kill millions. We must never give them that opportunity. We must defeat the terrorists abroad, and that begins in Iraq and Afghanistan—the central fronts in this global war. We must show the world we have the will to fight and win. A weakened America – or an America that appears weaker – will only encourage further attacks. We must persevere. As Commander-in-Chief, the president must ensure the United States has the means to achieve victory. Presidential leadership requires talking to the American people about these stakes, mapping out a clear vision for success, and devising a comprehensive strategy for achieving it. I am committed to:
    A larger, more capable, and more modern military that can defeat terrorists, deter adversaries, and defend the U.S. and our interests.
    A missile defense system that can protect the U.S. and our allies from long-range ballistic missiles.
    An enhanced intelligence community, with robust human-intelligence capabilities, focused on terrorism and proliferation.
    A robust approach to homeland security that will protect our nation from terrorists and WMD, regardless of where they come from.
    A strengthened system of global alliances to better combat terrorists, proliferators, and traditional threats to our interests.
    A judicial system that deals with the realities of terrorists and unlawful enemy combatants.
    Federal Budget and Spending/Budgetary Reform
    In a few short years—not a generation from now—a fiscal tsunami that could imperil our security and economic prosperity will hit our nation and place an unfair burden of debt on our children and grandchildren. The tens of trillions of dollars in debt that will be accumulated over the next few decades will do immense harm to our economy. This burden is now estimated at $170,000 per person and $440,000 per family. Time is running out to address this looming crisis. We need market-based approaches to reform that guarantee benefits for those who need them and embrace personal responsibility and cost-effectiveness without raising taxes. Given the scope and urgency of this problem, and the burden it will place on our children, reform is not only an economic necessity, it is a moral imperative that requires action now. I am committed to:
    Opening the government’s fiscal books on this looming crisis for all to see and understand.
    Working with individuals of all political persuasions to develop a comprehensive solution to the pending fiscal crisis.
    Leading and making the hard choices necessary, to include cutting wasteful government spending, to safeguard our security, promote our prosperity, and protect our children and grandchildren from fiscal calamity.
    Tax Reform
    The U.S. tax code is broken and a burden on U.S. taxpayers and businesses, large and small. Today’s tax code is particularly hostile to savings and investment, and it shows. To make matters worse, its complexity is a drag on our productivity and economic growth. Moreover, taxpayers spend billions of dollars and untold hours each year filling out complicated tax returns, just so they can send more money to Washington, much of it for wasteful programs and the pet projects of special interests. We need lower taxes, and we need to let taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned dollars—they know best where and how to spend them. And we need to make the system simpler and fairer for all. To ensure America’s long term prosperity and economic security, I am committed to:
    Fundamental tax reform built on the principles of simplicity, fairness, and growth.
    A new tax code that gets the government out of our citizens’ pocketbooks, while enhancing U.S. competitiveness abroad.
    Dissolution of the IRS as we know it.
    Healthcare
    Americans have the best healthcare in the world. Some, however, choose not be insured; others cannot afford it. Every American should be able to get health insurance coverage that is affordable, fully accessible, and portable. Coverage should meet their individual needs and put them in control. Those who propose a one-size-fits-all Washington-controlled program ignore the cost, inefficiency, and inadequate care that such a system offers. Access to affordable, portable health care can be made available for all Americans without imposing new mandates or raising taxes. Current government programs must also be streamlined and improved so that those who truly need help can get the health care they need. I am committed to a healthcare system that:
    Realigns programs and creates a system around individual consumers and patients by providing more information and more opportunities to choose affordable health care options that best meet their needs and those of their families.
    Improves the individual health of all Americans by shifting to a system that promotes cost-effective prevention, chronic-care management, and personal responsibility
    Modernizes delivery and administration of care by encouraging the widespread use of clinical best practices, medical information technology, and other innovations.
    Increases competition and consumer choice while streamlining regulations through free-market solutions that benefit individuals and reduce costs for employers.
    Promotes and speeds medical research and life-sciences innovation.
    Government Effectiveness
    Our government is outdated, inefficient, and wasteful. It is often unable to perform even the most basic tasks our citizens expect. It is no longer enough just to want limited government; the American people deserve more effective government. Given today’s challenges, we cannot afford—and shouldn’t accept—anything less than a nimble, effective, and efficient government that is able to focus its resources on the important issues facing our country. It must be able act on behalf of the American people and our national interests in a timely manner. The key to competent government is strong, committed leadership from the top. The key to good government is good people who are well-managed and put the national interest first. I am committed to:
    Attracting and rewarding the best Americans to serve in government and ensuring they have the authority and resources needed to get the job done.
    Fixing government accounting so tax dollars are properly spent and the American people know exactly what they are being spent on.
    Improving government performance by making agencies accountable for accomplishing their missions on time and within budget.
    Ensuring information technology systems are secure and that they give our government the capacity and effectiveness to get the job done.
    Building Strong Families
    Strong families are the bedrock of our nation and our culture. They are built around the sanctity of life and the institution of marriage, which is the union of a man and a woman. To counter coarseness in today’s culture that oftentimes victimizes our children and undermines the traditional values parents want to instill, we must not only protect but strengthen the institutions of family and marriage. I am committed to:
    Using the Presidency to encourage policies that promote a culture of life, strengthen the institution of marriage and traditional families, and advance freedom of religion.
    Returning authority to the levels of government closest to families and communities—the states—and then protecting states from further intrusion by the federal government, the judiciary, and other states.
    Combating the spread of obscenity over TV and other media by making sure parents can better exercise their responsibilities.
    Immigration
    The United States is a nation of immigrants. Throughout our history, legal immigrants have brought energy, ideas, strength, and diversity to our country, our economy, and our culture. This must continue. But in the post-9/11 world, immigration is more of a national security issue. A government that cannot secure its borders and determine who may enter and who may not, abrogates a fundamental responsibility. I am committed to:
    Securing our borders and enforcing immigration laws. Amnesty is not an option and the toleration of “sanctuary cities” must end.
    Reviewing our immigration laws and policies to ensure they advance our national interests.
    Uniting Americans by welcoming legal immigrants willing to learn English, assimilate into our communities, and become productive citizens.
    Education
    A well-educated citizenry is vital to our security, our economy, and our democracy. Despite the tens of billions of dollars spent on education by Washington each year, and the hundreds of federal education programs now in place, our children are still falling behind, particularly in subjects crucial to the global economy in which we live. At a time when America is behind other developed countries in education excellence, the federal role in education is too intrusive and too bureaucratic, and has become part of the problem. State and local governments are closest to the parents, the kids, and the schools, and best situated to implement changes and innovations that best educate children. I am committed to:
    Giving parents more choices in education and schools less bureaucracy.
    Reviewing federal programs for cost-effectiveness, reducing federal mandates, returning education money to the states, and empowering parents by promoting voucher programs, charter schools, and other innovations that enhance education excellence through competition and choice.
    Encouraging students and teachers to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math—fields that are crucial to our security, competitiveness, and prosperity.
    Promoting transparency to assess performance, promote accountability, and share innovations in education at all levels.
    Appointing Judges Faithful To Our Constitution
    Activist judges across the country seem intent on legislating from the bench to promote a culture of abortion, redefine marriage, and undermine families—in effect re-shaping the values of our entire society without the consent of the people. We need judges who recognize their role in our democracy is to interpret, not make, the law. I am committed to:
    Appointing strict constructionist judges who will interpret the law, not impose their views on us by legislating from the bench.
    Energy Security
    The energy challenges our nation faces today are real and significant. Our dependence on foreign sources of oil threatens our national security and puts our economic prosperity at risk. America must rise to the challenge and take the steps necessary to become more energy independent before this becomes a crisis. No one solution will solve the energy challenges we face; all ideas must be on the table. Greater energy security will enhance our ability to pursue our foreign policy and national security objectives. Increasing our energy independence and investing in alternative energy sources will also produce a healthier environment. And while we don’t know for certain how or why climate change is occurring, it makes sense to take reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions without harming our economy. Overall, I am committed to:
    A balanced approach to energy security that increases domestic supplies, reduces demand for oil and gas, and promotes alternative fuels and other diverse energy sources.
    Investing in renewable and alternative fuels to promote greater energy independence and a cleaner environment.
    An energy policy that invests in the advanced technologies of tomorrow and places more emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency.
    Conducting research and development into technologies that improve the environment, especially the reduction of CO2 emissions.
    Second Amendment
    I strongly support the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is touted as a major crime-control measure. But some of the places with the strictest gun-control laws also have high violent-crime rates. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not prevent crime. The answer to violent crime is smart, effective, and aggressive law enforcement. The real effect of these gun-control measures is to place onerous restrictions on law-abiding citizens who use firearms for such legal activities as self-defense, sport-shooting, hunting, and collecting. I am committed to:
    Strictly enforcing existing laws and severely punishing violent criminals.
    Protecting the rights individual Americans enjoy under the Second Amendment.

  • Comments are closed.