"In reality when you rush all this stuff and you clearly are not paying attention to the substance of what you are doing, a judge is going to throw them out," Kaufman added.

If the decision stands, it would mean that only two measures currently backed by the Republican governor — a complex plan for imposing new limits on state spending and a proposal that would lengthen the probationary period for new public school teachers — would remain on the ballot.

Earlier this year, the governor was forced to withdraw another ballot proposal aimed at cutting state support for public employee pensions after flaws were discovered in the initiative's language.

There are other initiatives set for the special election ballot that Schwarzenegger has not yet taken a position on. They include measures that would require minors seeking an abortion to get permission from a parent or judge, re-regulate the state's electricity market, lower prescription drug costs and force public employee unions to get written consent from their members before using dues for campaign donations.

The redistricting measure, Proposition 77, would take away the Legislature's power to draw legislative and congressional districts and give it to a panel of retired judges.

Margita Thompson, spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger, said the governor was disappointed in the decision and hoped that it would be overturned on appeal.

Daniel Kolkey, an attorney representing the redistricting measure's author — Ted Costa — argued that the differences between the two versions were minor and mostly stylistic and due to a clerical error.

Kolkey said that holding initiative proponents to a requirement that there be no differences between what is submitted to the attorney general for review and what is circulated to voters could invalidate a measure for a simple printing error.

"The touchstone here is, were any voters misled [during signature gathering], and no voters were misled," he said.

But Ohanesian said the differences in the two versions were too great to rule that its supporters had adequately complied with constitutional requirements to submit a final version of an initiative to the attorney general before it is circulated for signatures.

"The differences are not simply typographical errors," she said. "They're not merely about the format of the measure. They are not simply technical. Instead they go to the substantive terms of the measure."

Kolkey said he would appeal the ruling to the 3rd District Court of Appeal. "We knew this matter would have to be decided by the appellate courts," he said.

Deputy Attorney General Vickie Whitney said the decision would make it tougher for supporters to get the proposal back on the ballot in time for the November election, particularly if appeals take it all the way to the state Supreme Court.

"We've got to take it one step at a time," Kolkey said. "Certainly, there's enough time for the Court of Appeals to make a decision."

Deborah Caplan, an attorney representing the initiative's opponents, said the measure's backers knew for almost a month about the discrepancies and didn't disclose them until after the secretary of state's office had certified the measure for the ballot.

"If you read the declarations carefully ... the proponents deliberately ran the clock out" to make sure it made the ballot, she said.

Kolkey said criticism about the timing of the disclosure was a "red herring" and that the initiative's supporters had done their "civil duty" by disclosing the discrepancies.

Ohanesian said the initiative's supporters could still try to qualify the measure for the June 2006 primary election ballot.

But Kolkey said supporters shouldn't have to go through signature-gathering again.

"We have already gotten sufficient signatures to put this measure on the ballot," he said. "Why should proponents have to expend the money [to collect signatures] when they've got a perfectly valid initiative that ought to go on the November special election ballot?"

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, said the proposition's supporters "should have known they were misleading the people. Their 'bait and switch' tactics undermined the integrity of the initiative process."

But Assembly Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, said the decision "goes against common sense."

"This allows one person to thwart what a million people have signed," he said. "Back-room politics won today. Now politicians in the back room have now used the court system to keep their power in Sacramento."

© 2005 Associated Press.

Editor's note:
Dick Morris Reveals Schwarzenegger’s "Bold Agenda" – Click Here Now
Get Rick Santorum’s new book FREE – Click Here Now
Buffett and Templeton agree: Market troubles ahead – Click Here Now