Flawed Measure Ignites New Flap
Problem was known for a week before disclosure of redistricting ballot glitch.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration knew about legal problems with the proposed redistricting ballot initiative at least a week before the secretary of state's office was contacted and the matter was publicly disclosed.
That and other disclosures Thursday by officials of the Governor's Office and by leaders of the initiative campaign were seized upon by opponents as evidence that Schwarzenegger was playing behind-the-scenes, partisan politics with a cornerstone of his government reform package.
Lance Olson, attorney for Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, said the governor had a moral responsibility to disclose the legal defect before Secretary of State Bruce McPherson certified the measure June 10 and the governor called a special election three days later.
"I don't know if they had a legal obligation, but they had an ethical obligation," Olson said.
Peter Siggins, the governor's legal affairs secretary, countered that the administration acted ethically and that his first impulse, upon learning of the legal problem, was to learn what he could do about the issue rather than react in haste.
Siggins said he would not have done anything differently.
"I'm not impetuous that way," he said. "I'm more careful. I felt it very important to understand the legal ramifications of what happened and be able to more thoroughly discuss it."
Siggins said that nobody intentionally waited until after McPherson certified the redistricting measure for the Nov. 8 special election ballot.
"It kind of caught us by surprise," Siggins said of McPherson's June 10 announcement that the proposal to overhaul how California draws boundaries for legislative, congressional and Board of Equalization seats had qualified for the ballot.
McPherson's office learned of the problem on June 13, but did not seek advice from Attorney General Bill Lockyer until July 1.
Lockyer filed a lawsuit last week seeking to disqualify the measure because the document sent to the attorney general's office to launch the petition drive was not identical to the one used to collect voter signatures.
Lockyer, through a spokesman, blasted the Governor's Office and leaders of the initiative drive for untimely disclosure.
"If true, these new revelations are very disturbing," said Tom Dresslar, Lockyer's spokesman. "It's particularly disturbing that the proponents and other parties knew about this problem and let the secretary of state certify this measure for the ballot. That's outrageous."
Officials in Governor's Office were personally involved in the ultimate disclosure.
Siggins and Daniel Kolkey, an attorney for the proponents, said they together met with Undersecretary William Wood on June 13 to notify the secretary of state's office about the two differing initiative documents.
The two also agree on the following chain of events leading up to that day:
* Both Siggins and Kolkey learned about the legal problem at the same time through a joint telephone conversation with officials of Citizens to Save California, a business-oriented group formed to support Schwarzenegger's agenda.
* Kolkey spent the next week, perhaps two, crafting a 10-page memorandum addressing legal issues related to the case and concluding that differences between the two documents were minor and that McPherson should place the initiative on the ballot.
* Kolkey and Siggins discussed issues involving the memo before it was finished, but neither remembers how often that occurred.
* When Kolkey finished the memo, the evening of June 10, he e-mailed it to Siggins and to a representative of Citizens to Save California. He said the purpose was to notify them, not to seek approval or to solicit changes.
After informing the secretary of state's office about the legal glitch, but before McPherson decided to contact the attorney general's office on July 1, Siggins and Wood discussed issues surrounding the initiative.
Wood said the two - who are both lawyers - discussed the matter "a couple of times." He also conversed with Kolkey, Wood said.
"They were urging that (Kolkey's) memo was a correct interpretation of the law," Wood said.
Siggins said only that, at some point, they shared "what our respective impressions of how significant the (documents') changes were."
McPherson said that Wood and a handful of attorneys and executives of his office researched the redistricting problem, and did not inform him of the problem, until perhaps June 27 or 28 - only a few days before he contacted the attorney general's office for a legal opinion.
Kolkey said the Governor's Office acted with integrity throughout the process.
"Mr. Siggins was very adamant that this ought to be disclosed to the secretary of state," he said. "They acted with the utmost professionalism."
Siggins said there was nothing unusual or unethical about his discussions with Wood, particularly since they occurred at a time when potential alternatives to the redistricting measure were being discussed with lawmakers.
"I would think the people of California expect that lawyers at the highest levels of government talk to each other," he said.