Also see below:     
George Skelton | GOP Trying to Rig the Presidential Election    [

    California Ballot Proposal's GOP Ties
    The Associated Press

    Tuesday 04 September 2007

    Los Angeles - Lawyers behind a California ballot proposal that could benefit the 2008 Republican presidential nominee have ties to a Texas homebuilder who financed attacks on Democrat John Kerry's Vietnam War record in the 2004 presidential campaign.

    Charles H. Bell and Thomas Hiltachk's law firm banked nearly $65,000 in fees from a California-based political committee funded almost solely by Bob J. Perry that targeted Democrats in 2006. Perry, a major Republican donor, contributed nearly $4.5 million to the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that made unsubstantiated but damaging attacks on Kerry three years ago.

    Hiltachk has been pushing a proposal to revamp the way California awards its electoral votes, a change Democrats claim would rig the 2008 race. He and Bell are the sole officers of a new political committee, Californians for Equal Representation, that is raising money to place the plan on the ballot in June.

    Their success could hinge on whether they get the financial backing to collect more than 400,000 petition signatures needed to qualify the proposal for the ballot. And while Perry has not donated to their cause, his wealth and connections make him a potential financier for a drive that could cost more than $1 million. Running a statewide campaign would cost millions more.

    Democrats are working to defeat the effort and already have lined up supporters such as Hollywood producer Stephen Bing.

    Supporters say the vote-change plan could open a new era of fairness in presidential contests. But the law firm's link to Perry and other Republican candidates and causes will make it difficult to separate the proposal from partisan politics.

    Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk is one of the most politically involved law firms in the state. According to a news story on its Web site, Bell keeps a life-sized cardboard image of President Bush in his office.

    The push to alter the division of electoral votes in California - a change with national implications - "is nothing more than an attempt by right-wing Republicans to change the rules in ways that benefits them," said the spokesman, Roger Salazar.

    The fight over California's electoral votes is shaping up as an important subplot in the national campaign.

    Like most states, California awards all 55 of its electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections - the largest single prize in the nation.

    Under the ballot proposal, the statewide winner would get only two electoral votes. The rest would be distributed to the winning candidate in each of the state's congressional districts.

    In effect that would create 53 races, each with one electoral vote up for grabs. President Bush carried 22 of those districts in 2004, while losing the statewide vote by double digits.

    Go to Original

    GOP Trying to Rig the Presidential Election
    By George Skelton
    The Los Angeles Times

    Monday 03 September 2007

    Sacramento - The chutzpah award for this summer has a runaway winner. It's the small team of Republican operatives trying to rig the 2008 presidential race.

    "Rig" means tilting the playing field to assure continued Republican occupancy of the White House - perhaps for a very long time.

    The GOP would do this by ending the winner-take-all system of parceling out electoral college votes in Democratic-leaning California. Instead of all 55 of California's electoral votes being awarded to the candidate who wins the popular vote statewide - presumably the Democrat - they'd be divvied up by congressional district. Whichever candidate carried a congressional district would get that district's one electoral vote.

    The 53 congressional districts are mostly Democratic, but at least 20 favor Republicans. In fact, President Bush carried 22 in 2004. So the GOP scheme would seize 20 or more electoral votes that otherwise would go to the Democratic nominee. That's tantamount to losing Ohio.

    The two other California electors, pegged to the two U.S. Senate seats, would be awarded to the winner of the statewide vote.

    Meanwhile, all other states - except midgets Maine and Nebraska - would continue to allot their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis. That includes Republican Texas.

    To put this in perspective, California's 55 electoral votes represent 20% of the total needed to win the presidency.

    "It would be virtually impossible for a Democrat to win the White House if we had to cede 22 votes in California," says strategist Chris Lehane, a veteran of presidential politics who's currently in the camp of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

    Indeed, the fight over the GOP ploy - embodied in a ballot initiative - could turn into a shootout between the prospective presidential nominees.

    The sponsors' goal is to qualify the measure for the June state primary ballot. By then, the nominations should be virtually settled. At stake in the initiative outcome for each potential nominee would be at least 20 electoral votes.

    So the GOP operatives - led by state party attorney Thomas Hiltachk of Sacramento - are seeking financial support from the bankrollers of Republican candidates.

    "A lot have expressed interest and a lot want to know more," says initiative spokesman Kevin Eckerly, a GOP consultant.

    Similarly, two big-bucks Clinton backers - Hollywood producer Stephen Bing and Farallon Capital Management hedge fund director Thomas F. Steyer - are committed to pouring millions into the opposition campaign.

    "Resources will not be an issue," says spokesman Peter Ragone, also a Clinton camper.

    A crucial decision period for initiative sponsors is nearing. Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown will complete his work on the measure Wednesday, fitting it with a ballot title and summary. Then the clock begins ticking for collection of voter signatures to qualify the proposal for the June ballot. Sponsors will have until around Christmas to gather 434,000 valid signatures. This will require money - about $2.5 million - that's not yet in the bank.

    "We're anticipating going forward," Eckerly says.

    They'll probably have to do it without the support of the Republican governor.

    Asked recently by a reporter for his position on the measure, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he didn't have one. But he obviously was not enthusiastic.

    "I don't really know exactly what it says," he replied. "But in principle, I would say that coming from the sports background ... I don't like to change the rules in the middle of the game."

    Whatever this is, it's brazen - a strategy based on the assumption of a low voter turnout that leans Republican while the electoral college measure slips under the Democratic radar.

    But I can envision just the opposite. I can see this initiative drawing a lot of media attention that awakens Democratic voters.

    "It's a 'wacky California' story," Ragone says. "Like in, 'Here they go again!'"

    Supporters say they're all about improving democracy.

    "There's no way the winner-take-all system can reflect California's diversity," Eckerly says. "We're offering a fair way of distributing California's electoral votes.

    "This has nothing to do with empowering parties. It has everything to do with empowering voters."

    Eckerly's a bright, likable guy whom I've known for years. I asked him - only half kidding - how people could promote this initiative with a straight face. He laughed, then caught himself. "It's not difficult at all. It makes a lot of sense."

    What would make sense is to completely shutter the archaic electoral college and elect the president by national popular vote. The argument that if it ain't broke, don't fix it was discredited in 2000 when the system did break. For the fourth time in history, the candidate who got the most citizen votes lost out in the electoral college. No need to recite the national consequences of that glitch.

    But before we can tear down the electoral college, Americans must get over the notion that states - not citizens - should elect the president. Whomever most people want to be president should be. That's how every other officeholder is elected in this land.

    The entire country should do this in unison, however. States acting on their own would tilt the playing field unfairly.

    Democratic opponents of the GOP gimmick have indicated that they might sponsor an alternative initiative: one that would move toward electing the president by national popular vote. California would sign an interstate compact agreeing to cast all its electoral votes for the candidate who won the popular vote nationwide. But the compact wouldn't take effect until states representing a majority of electoral votes agreed.

    That's hard to explain. So don't expect the Democrats to place it on the ballot. They don't want to confuse the issue. This is about an attempted Republican theft.

    There's a Democratic suspicion that the GOP operatives realize their rig job is doomed, but are moving ahead anyway to force Democrats to spend millions.

    But 2008 isn't exactly looking like a banner year for Republicans. You've got to wonder why they'd want to waste millions on a likely losing cause. Chutzpah can be costly.

    --------

    george.skelton@latimes.com