As expected, the proponents of the redistricting initiative Proposition 77 have filed their appeal with the state Supreme Court to keep the measure alive.

Prop 77's backers are 0-2 so far in the courts. And a reading of the high court filing shows that once again, Prop 77 attorneys are arguing that even though more than one version of the measure was used, the initiative's backers met the test of what's called "substantial compliance."

Substantial compliance essentially means that an initiative's backers would have met all of the major legal requirements, even though they may have fumbled a few details that are deemed unimportant.

The Supreme Court filing also incorporates the argument handed to them in the appeals court dissent of Justice Arthur Scotland-- namely, that the high court reinstated Proposition 80 on the November ballot last month even though it may be unconstitutional. Why? Because the justices decided the voters should still get their say, and the courts could always strike down the measure after the election.

Prop 77's attorneys are saying if that standard applies to Prop 80, it should apply to their initiative.