Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the Redistricting category.

California Senate maps will go before voters in November


PNP comment: Wow that was a lot of legitimate signatures. Good job grass roots, Tea Parties and Republicans.  — Editor Liz Bowen

FRESH from Capitol Alert

Feb. 24, 2012

A Republican-backed referendum to overthrow California’s newly drawn Senate districts qualified Friday for the November statewide ballot.

The secretary of state’s office announced that 511,457 of the 711,307 referendum signatures submitted by the group were those of registered voters, more than the 504,760 needed to qualify.

Because legislative primary elections will be held before November ballots are cast, however, the Supreme Court ruled last month that the contested Senate districts will be used in this year’s balloting.

Twenty of the Senate’s 40 districts are up for grabs this year in districts drawn by an independent citizens commission consisting of five Democrats, five Republicans and four independent or minor-party voters.

Republican leaders contend that the new districts give Democrats a good chance of capturing the two seats necessary to gain a two-thirds supermajority, the margin needed to approve tax or fee increases in that house.

Political analysts of both parties say the lines are not likely to result in a two-thirds majority in the Assembly, so Republicans conceivably could block tax increases there and keep them from reaching the governor’s desk.

Nonetheless, a Democratic supermajority in the upper house would significantly increase that party’s leverage in the Legislature.

The referendum drive by a group calling itself Fairness and Accountability in Redistricting (FAIR) raised about $2.2 million for the drive, much of it from the California Republican Party or from current or former GOP state senators, records show.

Dave Gilliard, a Republican political strategist who led the referendum drive, contends that the new state Senate boundary lines dilute Latino voting clout in parts of the state and violate criteria established by voters in a 2008 ballot measure that created the redistricting commission.

In pushing to kill the new districts at the ballot box, Gilliard’s group hoped to force the state Supreme Court to appoint special masters to draw Senate district lines for use in the 2014 legislative elections.

The strategy conceivably could backfire if the high court drew lines that jeopardized even more GOP seats in the Senate. Gilliard dismissed that possibility Friday.

“I don’t think they could be much worse,” Gilliard said of the commission-drawn lines.

California Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro declined to say Friday whether the party will finance a November campaign.

“What we’re going to do is look at our resources, look at the issues in front of us, like the spending cap, and over the next sixth months, we are going to decide on exactly how far we should push each individual thing we’re facing,” he said.

Supporting candidates and initiatives that are perceived as popular with voters, such as a proposed spending cap, will be the top priorities, Del Beccaro said.

“The referendum may or may not be tied into that effort,” he said.

* Bee staff writer Torey Van Oot contributed to this report.

Read more here:


No Comments

Comment from Erin Ryan on Senate Redistricting in CA


We have all been waiting to figure out which candidates to invite to debates with the senate referendum up in the air.  For now our candidates for State Senate in Shasta and Siskiyou Counties are Ted Gaines and Les Baugh.  Doug LaMalfa’s district will be Tehama County and south.  Trinity and Del Norte are in with the coast.

I’m not sure what happens if the signatures are valid and the referendum goes through but will let you know when I hear anything.

(Scroll down 2 posts to the article about the State Supreme Court denying the challenge against the 2011 redistricting.)

No Comments

California Supreme Court Denies Challenge of Senate Maps

Politicians & agencies, Redistricting

The California Supreme Court ruled today that state Senate maps drawn by a citizens commission will be used in this year’s elections, despite a pending referendum to overturn them.

The issue came before the High Court after a Republican-backed group, Fairness and Accountability in Redistricting, filed more than 711,000 signatures with county elections offices in a referendum to overturn Senate maps drawn by a 14-member citizens commission.

Californians will decide the fate of the newly drawn Senate districts in November if 504,760 of the signatures are from valid voters. Legislative candidates must file and run their campaigns before then, however, so justices needed to identify district maps to be in effect immediately.

County elections offices face a Feb. 24 deadline for certifying FAIR’s referendum signatures. Thus far, they have verified 57,761 of 80,127 signatures checked. If the percentage of valid signatures holds steady, 72 percent, the referendum would qualify for the ballot.

Twenty Senate seats are up for grabs this year – and the results carry high-stakes politically.

GOP officials contend that the new, commission drawn lines would give Democrats a strong chance of gaining two additional seats in the Senate, enough to gain the two-thirds supermajority needed to raise taxes or fees.

“If the current redistricting lines hold with regard to the Senate, the Republicans are going to have an enormously difficult time staying above the one-third threshold,” California Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro told The Bee this week.

“We’re going to fight like the dickens to do it,” he said, “which is in part why, of course, we went ahead with the referendum process. But it will be enormously difficult.”

The Supreme Court previously rejected a FAIR lawsuit that contended the commission’s Senate maps illegally dilute Latino voting clout in parts of the state and violate criteria established by voters in a 2008 ballot measure.

The redistricting commission consistently has defended the legality and the soundness of its maps, saying they were drawn after consideration of testimony from dozens of public hearings and from thousands of written comments.

Read more here:


No Comments

Rick Bosetti running for CA. Assembly District 1

Politicians & agencies, Redistricting, Rick Bosetti

In November and December, Shasta County resident Rick Bosetti, began campaigning for the newly-created Assembly District 1 — from the Redistricting of the State last June. Shasta and Siskiyou Counties were taken from a central strip of North State Counties and will be in with the Eastern-Sierra counties.

Above Bosetti, left, visited with Don Baird and Louse Gliatto, from Yreka, during a meet and greet in Fort Jones of Siskiyou County in November.

Bosetti is currently a councilman for the City of Redding, the county seat of Shasta County. He served as mayor in 2009. Redding has twice the population of Siskiyou County — our population is 43,000. Bosetti is a conservative, who led the City of Redding back into the black.

In the past several months, Bosetti quickly learned of the issues threatening Siskiyou County, from the removal of four perfectly well-functioning Klamath dams to water rights issues facing landowners and agriculture. He is supporting property rights, individual rights, water rights and stands on the Constitution as the law of the land.

Rick was born in Redding in 1953 and raised in Anderson. He was graduated from Anderson High in 1971 as class president. While attending Shasta College in January of 1973, he was drafted by the Philadelphia Phillies and played major-league baseball for several teams. After retiring from baseball, Rick returned to Redding and operated several businesses; now coaches baseball for Simpson College. His wife, Patti (Burgans) attended Etna Elementary School and the couple owns property on the Scott River in Scott Valley. Rick is a Republican.


No Comments

Democrats secretly influenced redistricting plan


(PNP comment: We totally agree. In June, when Siskiyou County was divided into a coastal district and the Eastern portion of the county into a different district, we realized there were Greenie and Liberal forces at work to divide us. We fought hard and won. Our county is now whole in both the State Assembly and State Senate Districts. — Editor Liz Bowen)

Tactics proved successful, with party expected to add up to 7 congressional seats


Press Democrat

Published: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 at 3:00 a.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 at 10:45 p.m.

California’s congressional Democrats ran a secret effort this year to manipulate the independent citizens panel that drew the state’s new political districts, foiling the intent of those who sought to remove the redistricting process from the control of party bosses.

Democrats met behind closed doors at the party’s Washington headquarters, hired consultants, drew their ideal districts and presented maps to the panel through proxies who never disclosed their party ties or “public interest” groups created specifically for the purpose. In many cases, the panel responded by doing just what the Democrats wanted.

The New York-based nonprofit investigative foundation ProPublica released findings Wednesday from a months-long reconstruction of the Democrats’ stealth redistricting strategy, relying on internal memos, emails, interviews and map analysis.

The success of the strategy has Democrats projecting they may pick up as many as seven congressional seats in 2012 under new district boundaries adopted last summer, far more than had been first expected.

“Every member of the Northern California Democratic Caucus has a ticket back to D.C.,” crowed one internal memo. “This is a huge accomplishment that should be celebrated by advocates throughout the region.”

Bay Area Democrats, with one exception, were safe no matter how the new district lines were drawn because of the Democrats’ overwhelming advantage in voter registration, said David McCuan, a Sonoma State University political scientist. Only Rep. Jerry McNerney of Pleasanton was in a “marginal Democratic district,” he said.

There’s no surprise in the revelation that “political machinations” were involved in the redistricting process, nor did the Democrats break any laws, he said.



No Comments

Newest on Redistricting boundaries in California


A referendum has been filed to overturn the new congressional districts created by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, the attorney general’s office reported today.

The effort joins one already under way to undo the maps the commission drew for state Senate districts.

Filing the referendum with the attorney general is the first step in the process that ultimately requires the collection of 504,760 valid voter signatures within about three months to halt implementation of the maps until voters decide their fate on the June 2012 ballot. If the referendum qualifies for the ballot, the state Supreme Court would draw new maps or decide which maps to use in the upcoming political races.

The measure was filed by Julie Vandermost, an Orange County development and environmental consultant, and Charles Bell, a prominent Sacramento lawyer for Republican causes. Neither could be immediately reached for comment.

Categories: Congress, Redistricting

Posted by Dan Smith

Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/08/referendum-filed-to-overturn-c.html#ixzz1WaHKioX9

No Comments

Claire McNames responds to redistricting


Citizens Redistricting Commission
901 P Street, Suite 154-A
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Commission Members,

We believe you have made an error in your attempted drawing of new district lines for Northern California.  You have a difficult task and many issues to balance however the lines you have drawn for the North State are fatally flawed.

You have drafted districts that may meet the population guidelines but they violate everything that is truly important in Propositions 11 and 20.  You have lumped portions of the far northern reaches of the state with Sacramento- why?  Simply adding population from Sacramento into a district primarily comprised of rural agricultural counties is not a constant community of interest.

You have received hundreds of comments from the north state and the message is simple: keep us away from the coast and the delta and draft districts based on our major economic connections of transportation infrastructure.   There should be an I-5, Hwy 395 and a Hwy 101 district.  The North State should not stretch into Yolo or Sacramento Counties if it can be helped.

Major flaws exist in your maps published on July 11th, yet there are simple ways to alter the drawn districts that will be more consistent with regard to communities of interest and simply more logical.

State Senate:

Please remove Siskiyou County, Shasta County, the City of Lincoln, the City of Rocklin as well as surrounding rural agricultural areas of Placer County from the Mt. Cap district and place them in the more appropriate Yuba District.  Next, remove Roseville, Rancho Cordova, Citrus Heights, Carmichael and as much Sacramento County as possible from the Yuba District and place them in the Mt. Cap district.

These changes only affect the Yuba and the Mt. Cap districts and have no effect on any other lines.  Yet these changes create a much more logical and community minded district layout.  By keeping the I-5 communities together and removing large suburban and urban areas from the Yuba District you are creating a more balanced agriculturally consistent and economically similar district.  Additionally, by shifting Roseville and Sacramento Counties to the Mt. Cap district you keep established communities together in Sacramento and the very important Roseville/ Sacramento infrastructure link consolidated in one district.

State Assembly:

Shasta County should be located in the Yuba District and populations should be shifted in Butte to make this accommodation.  The economic connections created by the I-5 corridor are very important and are a significant link between our communities.  Siskiyou County would also be a very logical addition to this district but since the commission has decided that Yuba County must be linked with Sutter County the populations cannot work.

These are very simple changes and are truly the most logical choices for creating districts.  Those of us who have lived here for decades know the basis of our communities and work together to improve our lives.  Please don’t split our well-established regions. We hope you will grant us this easy change and improve upon the work you have done.


Claire McNames

4333 Island Rd

Etna, Ca 96027

No Comments

Redistricting map doesn’t look good

Politicians & agencies, POW, Redistricting

This just in from Erin Ryan, staff for Senator Doug LaMalfa.  The final maps for the statewide redistricted boundaries for Assembly districts, Senate districts and Congressional districts will be final on July 28.

Right now Siskiyou and Shasta Counties are out of the coastal districts, but will likely not be in Senator LaMalfa or Assemblyman Nielsen’s districts.  Erin is bummed as am I. Assemblyman Nielsen and Senator LaMalfa have went to bat against state agencies for Scott Valley POW and Siskiyou Water Users Assoc.

There could be litigation over this redistricting issue, which may change things before the 2014 election — at least for the Senate district.

— Editor Liz Bowen



No Comments

Now Shasta County is in with the coastal district – craziness continues by the Citizens Redistricting Commision


If you have not submitted comments to the redistricting commission … NOW IS THE TIME!!!!  Those in Shasta County who considered their district “safe” need to view the attached map proposal.  You will see that Shasta County has been pulled into the coast.  Very few comments are on line from Shasta County so we have become a flexible unit for them to balance the districts.

PLEASE take a few minutes and let them know we are part of the I-5 corridor community and we DO NOT want to be part of the coast.  We have NOTHING in common with them and our representation will be diminished if we are put in their district.

Comments do not have to be complicated.  Simply state your reason for wanting to be part of the I-5 district group for Assembly/Senate/Congress.

DO NOT identify yourself as part of ANY group.  Your comments will have LESS weight!!!!

File your comments on their page here:



Email your comments to:


Detail on the .pdf attachment of the map proposing Shasta County as part of the coastal district.


Send this to others who will also be impacted by the redistricting and encourage them to comment!!!!  This commission really listens to the concerns of the people.  Let them hear YOU!!!!


1 Comment

Redistricting problem is far from over — another letter to the Citizens Redistricting Commission


To:  The Honorable Members of the California Redistricting Commission

The recently published re-drawn maps for the political districts for Northern California’s interior counties continues to isolate this region from its geographically located neighbors that were first drawn many, many years ago.  (Most recently after the 1990 census.)

1.  I again reiterate, that the east-west connection is not culturally connected with lifestyle nor the customs and culture of the interior counties.  (The I-5 corridor remains and  maintains the connectivity of these counties.)

2. The rather dry climate of the interior is very different that the cool, wet coastal counties.  This climatic difference lends to a greater diversity of interests, employment opportunities, cultural and customs.

3. As stated in the law, numbers alone should not set the parameters for these districts .  (Communities of interests, culture, customs, connectivity, and natural trading partners are only a partial list.)

I urge the Commission the return to the 1990 districts maps for a more accurate division to meet the requirements of the law.

Frank Tallerico

Yreka, Siskiyou County, CA.


No Comments
« Older Posts