The California Supreme Court upheld the use of this redrawn map for the California state Senate race.

SAN FRANCISCO – Acting quickly to eliminate uncertainty and avoid a potential disruption of the 2012 election process, the California Supreme Court on Friday decided which state Senate district map should be used for statewide elections in 2012 in the event a proposed ballot referendum challenging the currently applicable district map is found to have sufficient valid signatures to qualify for submission to the voters.

The court’s decision, authored by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, directs election officials to use the state Senate map certified by the Citizens Redistricting Commission even if the referendum qualifies for the ballot.

The commission is a new constitutional entity established by the voters in 2008 (Proposition 11) and 2010 (Proposition 20) to draw political district boundaries instead of the Legislature.

Creation of new districts – “redistricting” – must be done every 10 years in light of population changes identified in the national census undertaken at the beginning of each decade.

In August 2011, the commission, after holding numerous public hearings throughout the state, certified new voting district maps for the state Senate, state Assembly, the United States Congress and the State Board of Equalization.

The secretary of state and county election officials have been using all four commission-certified maps since mid-August 2011 in preparation for the upcoming June and November 2012 elections.

Shortly after the commission certified its state Senate map, an entity began the process of attempting to qualify a referendum measure challenging the commission-certified state Senate map.

Proponents of the referendum obtained more than 710,000 signatures in support of the petition and submitted the petition to election officials on November 13, 2011.

County election officials and the secretary of state currently are determining whether the petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures to qualify for placement on the November 2012 ballot. Approximately 504,760 valid signatures are needed.

If it is determined that the petitions contain a sufficient number of valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, the currently applicable commission-certified state Senate map will be automatically stayed.

Anticipating that possibility, on Dec. 2, 2011, the official proponent of the referendum filed the current lawsuit – Vandermost v. Bowen – asking the California Supreme Court to decide what state Senate map should be used for the 2012 elections if the referendum qualifies for the ballot.

When the Vandermost petition was filed in the Supreme Court in early December 2011, the signature verification process was still in the early stages and it appeared to be a close question whether the proposed referendum would qualify.

In light of the time needed by election officials to review the signatures and the very tight schedule imposed by the impending 2012 June primary election, the Supreme Court, on Dec. 9, 2011, conditionally assumed jurisdiction in the case and established an extremely expedited briefing and oral argument schedule.

The court held a special televised and Webcast oral argument session on Jan. 10 (See http://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/3223).

In Friday’s decision, the court first addressed a threshold procedural issue and explained why the court properly assumed jurisdiction and why the case is appropriately “ripe” for decision even though election officials have not yet determined whether the proposed referendum contains sufficient valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.

On this procedural point, the majority opinion relied upon the court’s traditional authority under article VI, section 10 of the state Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to consider and issue “extraordinary writs” such as the present one.

A separate concurring opinion by Justice Liu, although agreeing that the court has jurisdiction in this case, interpreted article XXI, section (3), subdivision (b)(2) of the California Constitution to limit the court’s discretion to rule on the merits in such proceedings.

According to the concurring opinion, the court generally should not rule on the merits unless the proposed referendum is “likely to qualify” for the ballot.

Turning to the substantive question of what state Senate district map should be used in the event the proposed referendum qualifies, the court initially rejected petitioner’s contention that the court would be precluded from determining that the commission-certified map should be used for the interim elections if the referendum qualifies and automatically stays the commission-certified state Senate map.

Rather, the court explained, the court must properly consider all of the possible alternative maps that have been submitted to the court, including the commission-certified map, to determine which map best complies with the constitutionally-mandated criteria established by the federal and state Constitutions.

The court then analyzed the three alternative proposed maps submitted by petitioner as well as the commission-certified map, and unanimously concluded that, in light of the constitutional criteria, the commission-certified map was clearly the best alternative.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision denies the relief sought by petitioner and orders that if the proposed referendum qualifies for the ballot, the secretary of state and local election officials are directed to use the state Senate district map certified by the Citizens Redistricting Commission for the June 5, 2012, Primary Election and the November 6, 2012, General Election.

The court’s judgment is final immediately.

Legal briefs in the case are available at http://www.courts.ca.gov/16252.htm.

Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

012712 Vandermost v. Bowen

"States have begun to implement substantial portions of the Act, such as prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions, allowing States to better regulate insurance rates, and helping States establish high risk pools for their citizens,” the amicus brief stated.

“Today, these reforms are bringing real relief to States, medical providers, and families across the country,” the brief continued. “The reforms are also helping all States grapple with the serious problem of the high number of uninsured citizens. While the minimum coverage provision unquestionably advances the Congressional goal of comprehensive health care reform in general and private health insurance reform in particular, the minimum coverage provision operates independently of the vast majority of the Affordable Care Act.”

In August 2011, a divided United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's minimum coverage provision, which in 2014 will require that adults maintain adequate health insurance, is unconstitutional.

The United States government appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments in the matter in March.

Attorney General Harris, joined by 10 other attorneys general, argued in a brief filed today in the U.S. Supreme Court that the minimum coverage provision is constitutional.

If, however, the court decides the minimum coverage provision is unconstitutional, the remainder of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – including measures that have already been implemented – should remain intact.

Since March 2010, when the landmark federal health care law was enacted, Californians have received benefits from numerous reforms that have lowered costs and increased health care options.

For example, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to the state's 2.2 million children with pre-existing conditions, Harris’ office said. As a result of the federal reform, most young people in California can remain on their parent's insurance until their 26th birthday.

California was one of the first states to begin covering low-income adults, ages 19 to 64, who do not qualify for Medi-Cal. As of October 2011, more than 220,000 Californians were covered through the program, which also provides funds for hospital care and public health initiatives.

California also has received millions in grant funds, including $42.7 million to create a new fund to prevent illness and promote health.

"This important reform is comprehensive and wide-reaching across the health care industry. It does everything from encourage Americans to enter the nursing profession to improve the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries," Harris said. "Its real and lasting benefits have already taken effect in California and are making meaningful differences in the lives of millions of individuals."

Other states joining California in this brief are Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont. The brief is also joined by the District of Columbia and the Governor of Washington.

Attorney General Harris has vigorously defended the constitutionality of federal health care reform. Joined by other attorneys general, she has filed two briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court and five briefs in the federal appellate courts urging the courts to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

012712 AG Health Brief

Sgt. Martin Snyder reported that at 11:16 p.m. Lake County Sheriff Dispatch received a telephone call from an unknown subject at a payphone located on Old Highway 53.

The caller made a threat that an explosive device had been placed at the Clearlake Commons Apartments, located within the city of Clearlake. The caller gave an ultimatum and time frame in which the device would be detonated, Snyder said.

Officers with the Clearlake Police Department responded to the Ridge Lake Apartments, which was formally named the Clearlake Commons, located at the 3800 block of Old Highway 53, according to Snyder.

He said officers began a search of the apartment complex for any suspicious devices. During the search, officers located what appeared to be an improvised explosive device near a waste collection center located in the parking lot.

A mobile command center was established at the intersection of Austin Drive and Old Highway 53. Snyder said personnel with the Lake County Fire Protection District, Clearlake Police Department and Lake County Sheriff’s Office began an evacuation of the Ridge Lake Apartments.

Approximately 70 people were displaced from the apartment complex. Snyder said numerous buses from Lake County Transit and the American Red Cross responded to assist with the transportation and care of the displaced persons. The Highlands Senior Center was opened and used as a temporary shelter.

Additionally the Sonoma County Sheriff Department’s Bomb Squad was contacted for assistance, Snyder said.

The Sonoma County Bomb Squad arrived on scene several hours later. Snyder said the bomb Squad examined the device with the use of an advanced electronic robot, and the device was rendered safe by the bomb squad.

He said that upon further examination it was discovered the device contained no harmful or explosive chemicals.

The scene remained closed while Clearlake Police Department officer collected evidence, Snyder said.

On Friday at 4:02 a.m. the apartment complex was deemed safe and the tenants were allowed to return to their residences, according to Snyder.

He said the Clearlake Police Department would like to thank the Lake County Fire Protection District, Sonoma County Bomb Squad, the American Red Cross, Lake County Transit, and Deputies with the Lake County Sheriff’s department, and Linda Burton the Director of the Highlands Senior Center, for all of the various professional, services offered.

The caller who called in the bomb threat has not been identified as of yet however the case is still under investigation, Snyder said.

If anyone has any information regarding this incident they are encouraged to call the Clearlake Police Department, attention Officer Michael Ray, 707-884-8251.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Lakeport Police Department is investigating an acid bomb discovered Wednesday night.

Sgt. Kevin Odom said officers responded to the 2000 block of Hartley Street at 9 p.m. Wednesday on the report of a gunshot heard in the area.

When they arrived officers located the remains of what appeared to be a 2-liter plastic soda style-bottle that had apparently exploded, according to Odom.

Based on evidence at the scene the officers determined the remains of the bottle appeared to
have been a possible “acid bomb,” Odom said.

Radio reports from the scene Wednesday night indicated the acid was reacting with the roadway surface.

Odom said an acid bomb is a device in which chemical substances are mixed in a closed container and the resulting mixture creates enough pressure to cause the container to explode.

Officers were approached by a witness who reported seeing two male juveniles and a female juvenile along with a vehicle that drove through the area at the time of the incident, Odom said.

He said it’s believed those subjects seen may have been involved. No further description of the vehicle or subjects was available.

Odom said a search of the area revealed no other evidence or devices.

He said there appears to be no immediate threat to the public’s safety.

The incident remains under investigation, Odom said.

Anyone with information on the incident is encouraged to contact the Lakeport Police at 707-
263-5491.

Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

Charles Richard Goodrich, 65, of Lakeport was found deceased in the creek bed, according to Lakeport Police Chief Brad Rasmussen.

Rasmussen said Lakeport Police officers and Lakeport Fire Protection District paramedics were dispatched at 11:40 a.m. Tuesday to the 200 block of S. Brush Street on the report of a man down in the creek bed.

When they arrived they found Goodrich, who paramedics determined had died, Rasmussen said.

Rasmussen said Goodrich’s death appears to be accidental but the investigation is continuing.

He said an autopsy was scheduled for Wednesday.

Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .