"Some stalwart Irvine resident and lover of liberty ought to take it to court."

Allan Barlett is probably the biggest liberty lover in Irvine.

All this was, was another cynical attempt by Larry Agran to use against Christina Shea in the upcoming election for Mayor. He tried to use it last year and it failed and it will fail again this year. It's really Orwellian of Larry to keep harping on ethics in government when he is the one most sorely lacking in that quality.

This proves that the OC Vietnamese-American voters are smarter than the voters in Irvine. Viet voters refuse to be manipulated by Van Tran; Irvine voters have been led around the nose by Larry Agran for years.

I'm willing to bet that if challenged in court this measure will be struck down.

Jubal,

It was called "Measure H" not "Measure I."

Also, why do you all blame Agran & Krom, when Choi & Shea also voted to put it on the ballot? Shea & Choi also raised tens of thousands of dollars of developer money to run TV spots promoting Measure H and put out mailers in support.

In terms of the Constitutional arguments, there are many qualifiers for elected office. For example, one has to be 35 to run for president. I'm not 35, can I sue the feds and win? I think not.

Well all the haters were in the tiniest minorities, as the measure passed with over 80% support.

Todd:

Sorry - I mixed it up with Measure I in San Clemente.

I blame Agran and Krom because the idea originated with them. Whatever short-sighted reasons Shea and Choi had for supporting doesn't make it any less a bad idea. The primary blame should go to the creators of the referendum, not those who piled on afterward.

Yes, we have simple qualifiers for holding office like age and citizenship. the citizenship requirement is obvious, and age is to ensure candidates for federal office have certain level of experience and maturity.

But since those are in the Constitution, there's no "constitutional" issue with it. But that doesn't provide wholesale justification for prohibiting someone from holding office simply because of their chosen profession. Now that this precedent has been established in Irvine, there's no principled argument against to adding other professions unfavored with the powers-that-be to the list of those ineligible to hold office. Why not people who sell sub-prime mortgages to people who should be buying them?

And what's with the "haters" epithet? I have to smile in amusement when folks like you pull out that brain-dead insult and hurl it as a substitute for even rudimentary argumentation.

Bolsavik -- with due respect, I don't try to comment on the politics of Little Saigon because I don't live there. But for you to claim Irvine voters are led by the nose by Agran proves you don't know what you're talking about in my town. I put Irvine's negihborhoods, economy, crime rate and schools up against any in your neck of the woods anytime.

Matt -- Measure H was fully supported by Shea and Choi after both voted against it twice two years ago and offered an alternative measure that would approve the ethics ordiance without the restriction on lobbying. So its appears they've done a Romney-esqe flip flop on this issue.

For all the harping on Larry, no one gets more mud slung his way every election cycle than he does - even when he's not on the ballot.

Dan:

With all due respect, I knew you would respond with that diversion and try to turn it into an issue about Shea and Choi -- which doesn't respond to the meat of the matter.

I don't care one iota that Choi and Shea supported. That doesn't make it a good idea -- it just causes me to question their common sense for supporting such a bad idea.

Jubal,

Good point about the constitution. The restriction I noted is in the constitution, but many others exist. For example felons are not able to hold office in the huge majority of states. If someone wanted to pass a law saying no mortgage brokers, I can't think why that would be unconstitutional. BTW, Irvine's not the first, San Frasisco restricts the ability of lobbyists to serve on its Ethic Commission, no lawsuits so far challenging that. http://www.sfgov.org/site/ethics_page.asp?id=13976

As compared to your literary test example, literacy tests were never declared unconstitutional. Instead Congress passed the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 lowering the voting age to 18 and forbade the use of literacy tests in federal elections. The law was upheld in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, with the Supes finding that the law was not unconstitutional.

"And what's with the "haters" epithet? I have to smile in amusement when folks like you pull out that brain-dead insult and hurl it as a substitute for even rudimentary argumentation."

I was simply stating that it passed with 80% support. The use of the word hater was just meant to be jokey, no additional arguments or statements, other than saying the elections results were intended. I will make sure not to assume that you have any sense of humor of fun in the future.

In terms of failing to engage in even rudimentary argument, OK for some inexplainable reason you don't blame Shea & Choi for simply being taggers on, but they did raise a bunch of money (approx $30K) to put out mailers and tv commercials. Seems more like you are just interested in blaming Krom & Agran instead of advancing any sensible/rational argument about it being a bad idea.

For example felons are not able to hold office in the huge majority of states.

Yes, and a very defensible can be made for disenfranchising felons.

But why should a non-felon be prohibited from holding elected office purely on the basis of their occupation?

The use of the word hater was just meant to be jokey...

I have a sense of humor...but the humor, tone and inflection don't always transmit clearly via comments, e-mail, etc.

Seems more like you are just interested in blaming Krom & Agran instead of advancing any sensible/rational argument about it being a bad idea.

As compared to your literary test example, literacy tests were never declared unconstitutional.

My point is liberals like Agran find such things abhorrent, and yet he has no qualms about barring from office fellow citizens who pursue a profession he doesn't like -- or at least, not when his political opponents pursue it.

My post was about the idea. And if the idea is to bar a law-abiding citizen from holding elective office, the burden ought to be on the proponents, not on me to explain why its wrong.

Instead, it's mostly flak about "why don't you criticize Shea and Choi" more.

Jubal,

The extent that you attack Krom & Agran makes me question whether you are making an argument about the provision, or just using it as an excuse to play politics. Please notice that I didn't say you should attack Shea & Choi, just that your criticism of the majority was unjust in this circumstance. If you wanted to talk solely about why it was a bad idea, why mention two people when five voted to put it on the ballot?

You did a gotcha on me, correctly, for talking about the restriction of people under the age of 35 to hold president, while not really addressing the underlying values of my argument and while saying that I was trying to avoid "rudimentary argument." Why should I not point out the errors you have made in your legal argument? Or are you not interested in fair play.

My point has been that there are lots of restrictions on the ability to hold office or public posts, including at least one very similar restriction for lobbyists, all the legal arguments presented in here are just poppycock and whining.

Now you are well within your rights to think that lobbyists should be able to hold public office, but 80% of Irvine voters disagree with you. And again, you stating your difference with the huge majority of voters does not require trashing Agran & Krom.

"maybe someone can turn the tables on Larry and qualify local measure requiring Irvine Councilmembers to be gainfully employed. He certainly couldn't object on principle."

This criticism always cracks me up. So some council members devote themselves full time to a position which they are only required to serve at part time. How dare they use their own financial resources to support themselves while dedicating themselves to public service! The outrage! [Sarcasm in case you couldn't tell]

"But why should a non-felon be prohibited from holding elected office purely on the basis of their occupation?"

The idea behind Measure H, which the huge majority of the public agreed with, is that there is an inherent conflict of interest between representing special interests before the government and representing the public while a public servant.

You may not believe that there is an inherent conflict of interests, but don't act like the measure was just totally off the wall. They didn't restrict the ability of dog catchers or pastry chefs to serve, just those who take money from others to represent before government agencies. You're not a dumb guy, you must get he connection, even if you don't agree with it.

Tough issue to balance, but the voters are very tired of the influence lobbyists yield in government. Having a lobbyist hold office is like the "fox in the hen house".

Look for more reform in Orange County....particularly in County Government where it is like the "wild west" when it comes to gun slinging lobbyists on the 5th floor.

The provision won by a 4-to-1 margin. Sorry Matt,but Irvine isn't a purely red city; lots of folks spend time in the middle. Shea's former chief of staff worked for a lobbyist. There are restrictions on Irvine police officers from holding city council jobs. You seem to think being a council member is a right; it's a privilege extended to someone by the voters. And I know if bothers you immensely that Agram and Krom top the ticket in Irvine every election cycle. Its because they do good work.

The provision won by a 4-to-1 margin. Sorry Matt,but Irvine isn't a purely red city; lots of folks spend time in the middle.

That's completely beside the point of whether it is right or wrong. I'm not arguing that Measure H didn't pass, and popular majorities aren't ipso facto proof of an idea's virtue. Unless you think segregation was OK because most Southerners approved it, or communism and Nazism were OK because German voters gave them a combined majority in the 1933 Reichstag.

There are restrictions on Irvine police officers from holding city council jobs.

That's a conflict of issue deal, to avoid city government being governed by city employees. Apples and oranges.

You seem to think being a council member is a right; it's a privilege extended to someone by the voters.

That's a novel view, Dan. What other occupations should we next add to the list of those banned from elective office? If a conservative majority took over the Irvine Council, would you be so accommodating to an ordinance prohibiting trial lawyers, union officials and strip club owners from holding office?

"If a conservative majority took over the Irvine Council, would you be so accommodating to an ordinance prohibiting trial lawyers, union officials and strip club owners from holding office?"

I think the conservative majority would have done the exact same thing in banning lobbyists, assuming they vote the same.

You keep trying to make this be a liberal/conservative issue, using it as an excuse to bash the governing majority, but your guys did more to get this measure passed, raising $30K to promote it in TV & mailers. If you are really about talking against the ordinance itself, why keep twisting the truth about who supported and got this measure passed?

"That's completely beside the point of whether it is right or wrong. I'm not arguing that Measure H didn't pass, and popular majorities aren't ipso facto proof of an idea's virtue. Unless you think segregation was OK because most Southerners approved it, or communism and Nazism were OK because German voters gave them a combined majority in the 1933 Reichstag."

What's also completely beside the point of whether its right or wrong is who voted for it and whether its "liberal or conservative," but you raise those issues (in a highly selective way). As for your Nazi/Segregationist argument, you say I don't want to get involved in a "rudimentary" argument, LOL. I get that you may feel threatened because of your profession, that's something I can understand and respect and think you should speak your mind on, but to compare Measure H to segregation and Nazism, what a red herring. If you want to engage in intellectual debate, then do it, and stop throwing (dud) hand grenades.

Also, I don't read anyone saying it was right because it passed, but that the high percentage with which passed shows your opinion is in the minority. Of course the minority is sometimes right, but that's not the way direct democracy works.

I think the conservative majority would have done the exact same thing in banning lobbyists, assuming they vote the same.

There is no conservative majority, Todd.

You keep trying to make this be a liberal/conservative issue, using it as an excuse to bash the governing majority, but your guys did more to get this measure passed, raising $30K to promote it in TV & mailers.

Great. Then I blame them as well, for going along with and helping Larry annd beth's hare-brained scheme.

Does that make it easier for you to deal with the issue itself?

What's also completely beside the point of whether its right or wrong is who voted for it...

No, is extremely relevant whose idea it was, who proposed it, and who pushed it. You concede as much yourself a few sentences earlier by pointing out Shea' and Choi's role in passing it.

As for your Nazi/Segregationist argument, you say I don't want to get involved in a "rudimentary" argument, LOL.

"LOL"? That's your response?

...but to compare Measure H to segregation and Nazism, what a red herring.

You're kidding, right? Tell me you didn't completely miss that not-so-difficult to understand point and really, honestly cannot see it was not a comparison of Measure H to segregation and Nazism?

Also, I don't read anyone saying it was right because it passed, but that the high percentage with which passed shows your opinion is in the minority. Of course the minority is sometimes right, but that's not the way direct democracy works.

AGAIN, I'm not arguing that Measure H did not pass, nor am I claiming it did not pass by a wide margin.

You annd Dan tossing that one out is like responding to the statement, "I think hunting is wrong" by saying "Well, a lot of people hunt."

You know, critics of my post have tossed out red herrings, changed the subject and tried to distract the argument with side issues.

None have yet said, "Yes, I think it is good public policy to disqualify a citizen from holding public office strictly solely because of their occupation."

"There is no conservative majority, Todd."

Obviously I know that, from your line quoted right above it should be clear I was referring to your hypothetical majority. I didn't play dumb when you called in Measure I, why do you do it here?

"Does that make it easier for you to deal with the issue itself?"

If your point was ever to really deal with the issue, why mention only Agran & Krom? Why whine about 'self-styled "progressives?"' I did not politicize this issue, you did.

"No, is extremely relevant whose idea it was, who proposed it, and who pushed it. You concede as much yourself a few sentences earlier by pointing out Shea' and Choi's role in passing it."

No, I was pointing out your hipocracy in choosing to attack only the "liberals." Yours was not a statement on principal, but instead politics. And you chose to distort the factual record of who pushed to support your political attack.

"LOL"? That's your response?

Yes, I laughed out loud when I read what you wrote. I found it that ridiculous. That was my honest response.

"You're kidding, right? Tell me you didn't completely miss that not-so-difficult to understand point and really, honestly cannot see it was not a comparison of Measure H to segregation and Nazism?"

You said they were alike in that they were popular (at the time), but were in your opinion bad ideas. How is this not a comparison? This object shares properties with this other object. That's a comparison.

"None have yet said, "Yes, I think it is good public policy to disqualify a citizen from holding public office strictly solely because of their occupation."

Perhaps because that is not was Measure H does. You have never accurately stated what Measure H really says. It forbids sitting city councilmembers from engaging in lobbying activities within Orange County. Your profession would not disqualify you from holding office, you would just have to make a choice, you just can't do the both at the same time.

Now that it has been accurately described, yes, I support Measure H.

Todd, you seem to have trouble following a logical train of though, preferring high schoolish "gotcha" debate tactics.

Why don't you actually address Jubal's point, or even answered the question he posed above.

I was among the 20% of Irvine voters who opposed this measure.

The fact of the matter is that H originated with Agran and Krom as a political ploy, a wrench to throw at Shea. Shea was really damned if she didn't support H. If she outright opposed the measure and campaigned against it, Agran and Krom would hold it up as proof that Shea opposes ethics (implying Shea is unethical, instead of non-ethical - and there is a difference).

Yes, I'm a little disappointed in Shea for not having the gumption to continue to stand up to Agran and Krom - because she's all we have as Republicans in Irvine at the moment.

I voted against H because I always think it is laughable that politicians would lecture the voters about ethics or wave the banner of ethics to qualify their virtuous character.

I think it's wrong for there to be any restriction besides citizenship on who may serve in elected office - including term limits. Let the voters decide who should be their representatives. If they want Catholics, Jews, felons, Irish, Italians, kids, gays, women, men, blacks, Asians, Latinos or - shock! - lobbyists to be their representatives, so be it. You know what Mencken said about democracy?

The mail on Measure H was text heavy and ugly. If I weren't a political junkie, the only thing I would probably care to read about it was the headline about ethics. For this reason, I don't think voters made an informed or wise decision with H. It wouldn't be the first time I thought that though.