California precinct index offers detailed political information. by Brian Leubitz
Geeks around California rejoice! David Latterman, who know works at USF's McCarthy Center has been known around San Francisco for his progressive precinct index. well, today he released his 2011 version of the California version. As you can see from the image to the right, much of the data is as you would expect it. There is a dark blue core around the coast, and red elsewhere. what that really translates to is that a fairly strong majority, as population, of somewhat progressive voters. Much of that red area exists in large, unpopulated districts. If you look closely, you will see a growing blue section in the central valley of progressive voters.
You can get the full details of Latterman's California 2011 Politcal Precinct Index at this PDF release.
With the news that Republican registration is falling again, perhaps it is of very little surprise that they also have very little money, especially when compared to the Democrats. But, that is the case.
One of the standouts in terms of limited dollars: the California Republican Party. The state GOP bet big on getting the referendum against the new Senate redistricting maps qualified for the November ballot (and the signatures are still being counted); overall, the party's report shows it raised $4.2 million in 2011. But the state GOP only had $439,000 in cash left on Dec. 31, and the fate of the redistricting effort still seems somewhat in doubt.
Meantime, the redistricting referendum campaign reported (PDF) having only $620.31 in the bank on the final day of 2011 and has reported no 2012 contributions. The campaign owes $214,000 in unpaid bills.
Compare that to California Democrats, who reported raising $11 million in 2011 and still sitting on a rather impressive $9.3 million in cash as of Dec. 31. That suggests Dems are well positioned for legislative and even ballot measure efforts in 2012, while Republicans will need a major infusion of cash... and in a hurry. (CapNotes)
As John Myers points out, the Senate district map referendum, while largely funded by Mercury Insurance CEO George Joseph, has still left them with emptier campaign coffers than they had before. While the Dems haven't spent nearly as much money, expect the Party to spend big time on the November ballot, with revenue and paycheck deception on the ballot.
At the same time, news from the June initiative front is also quite anemic. While the anti-tobacco groups will be kicking off their campaign to raise cigarette taxes by a $1/pack to pay for cancer research today at the State Capitol, they'll be doing it without a lot of cash. Same for the LA Labor Fed's term limits reform measure that made it on the ballot last year.
June's election will be fierce in a few competitive legislative and Congressional seats, but don't expect any big statewide push.
For the last decade, the big winner in party registration has been no party at all. Decline to state, now known as no party preference, has boomed from just under 13% in 1999 to 21.24% in the latest numbers released by the Sec. of State's office today. While Democratic numbers have fluctuated in the lower 40s, Republican numbers continue to creep downwards. If the trend continues, the GOP may fall below 30% in the very near future.
It is no surprise that the GOP is rapidly losing adherents, what with the far right extreme becoming dominant within the Party of Reagan (née Lincoln). But with district maps that require Republicans to compete for the middle, the question is whether they really can do that. These numbers certainly don't bode well for that.
While tax season is gearing up, the state government is now running low on cash reserves. Controller John Chiang announced today that without payment delays and other tactics, the state will run out of cash in March:
California will run out of cash by early March if the state does not take swift action to find $3.3 billion through payment delays and borrowing, according to a letter state Controller John Chiang sent to state lawmakers today.
The announcement is surprising since lawmakers previously believed the state had enough cash to last through the fiscal year that ends in June.
But Chiang said additional cash management solutions are needed because state tax revenues are $2.6 billion less than what Gov. Jerry Brown and state lawmakers assumed in their optimistic budget last year. Meanwhile, Chiang said, the state is spending $2.6 billion more than state leaders planned on. (SacBee)
To some extent this happens every year. Last year we had to borrow $10B to tide us over until tax revenues came in. And heck, Chiang thinks this year will only be $5.4billion. The world is getting better, hooray.
Unfortunately, with the continuing high demands on state services, this is really to be expected. And, Chiang, as he has always done, will have to find a way to balance the state's checkbook. Fun job, isn't it?
In Canada, the only way to see a doctor is to call one up and make an appointment. Or walk in to their office. In Britain, the only way you'll get surgery is if you actually need it. And yet State Senator Mark Leno and 44 co-sponsors want to bring this kind of healthcare system to everyone in California! Imagine.
In fact, the California legislature twice approved such a system, in which private providers carry on as independently as always but the public pays their bills directly (rather than indirectly as it does now, through a patchwork quilt of emergency care, programs to bring healthcare to the poorest and the elderly, and subsidies for insurance premiums.) Both times Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. But Senator Leno, a longtime campaigner for single-payer -- a.k.a. "Medicare-for-All" -- has brought the bill back again as SB 810. Last week, the bill fell just two votes shy of passage with a tally of 19-15 in favor. (It needs 21 to pass because it requires more than a simple majority.) Sen. Leno plans to push for another vote under Reconsideration, because several Democratic state senators abstained, but the deadline to win their support is today.
Asm. Calderon bill, AB 1208, would change the way courts are funded and work statewide
by Brian Leubitz
UPDATE: AB 1208 passed out of the Assembly yesterday and now moves on to the Senate.
Last year, I documented what was a mini cry of outrage about the pending disaster in court funding. The courts have taken quite the slashing in pretty much every round of budget cuts. Yet, beyond the Bar Associations and a few judges, few have really noticed. This has severe ramifications for both our efforts to maintain a speedy trial system on the criminal side as well as provide some sort of civil justice system. Because of the constitutional requirements, the civil side has been taking the brunt of the cuts, but our criminal justice system has certainly not been immune.
A group of lawyers mounted a protest on Jan 18, but I was unable to find any coverage of note in the media. But the issue is real, and there are a lot of different proposals on how to fix it. One consortium, most prominently backed by SEIU, who represents many of the court employees, is pushing AB 1208 in order to push power down from the state level and on to the county level courts.
As you may expect, that is not universally popular, as Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, many of the state trial courts, and defense and plaintiff's attorneys, are pushing against the bill. In order to proceed, the bill must emerge from its house of origin, the Assembly, today. You know it is getting nasty when the legal press is using terms like "the knives come out." Fun!
Except, that there are very real consequences. A group of "rebel" trial court judges has alleged that the statewide efforts, coordinated by the Judicial Council, have not spent money wisely and should be more accountable to the trial courts, a sentiment which is at the heart of AB 1208. The Chief Justice, has stated that she would be extremely concerned that the courts would not be able to fund any statewide projects, and that as few as two counties could veto projects, leaving the courts in a state of semi-paralysis. A state of paralysis that is familiar in the Legislature, who would now become more powerful in the funding of the Courts. (Raising a significant separation of powers question.)
While we may get some idea of where this legislation is going, the underlying problem, the massive underfunding of our court system will continue.
A quick, and probably wildly inaccurate, summary of the decision.
by Brian Leubitz
I read the decision very quickly (you can find it over the flip), so I likely missed many of the finer points. Nonetheless, I figured I wanted to get this up quickly, so, my apologies for any errors. At any rate, today the Court decided a few issues:
1) They have authority to intervene and provide a new map if a Redistricting map is challenged.
2) The Commission map is the best map to use in the interim, as it does the best job of adhering to the goals set forth in the redistricting initiative, even if the referendum gets on the ballot.
The discussion at the hearing was sort of meandering, but touched on all of these issues. Starting with the Commission's map, the entire Court agreed that it was the best map to use both for June and November. Interestingly, there were two semi-conflicting decisions from Supreme Court precedence to choose from. Legislature v. Reinecke held that the 1972 maps, which were vetoed by Gov. Reagan, could not be used. Rather, the previous maps based on 1960 census data should be used. The maps proposed by the 1972 Legislature had only been presented in a "truncated" Legislative process.
On the other hand, Assembly v Deukmejian held that the maps signed into law Gov. Jerry Brown and put to a referendum by the Republicans should go ahead in 1982. The Court reasoned that
Although the Constitution of our state grants the power to initiate a referendum to 5 percent of the voters, it does not require that the effect of that referendum be articulated in a manner that does such serious injury to conflicting and equally compelling constitutional mandates.
In other words, there were competing Constitutional interests. The right to a referendum, which is provided in the state Constitution, and the principle of "One person, One vote." (OPOV) Using the old maps would have meant that districts would be out of balance. In 1972, the Court held that the never really approved, because they were vetoed, maps could not be imposed, the principle of OPOV had to take a back seat because it would be far more destructive to impose the fake maps than it would be to just accept disproportionate districts for two more years. At the same time, because the 1972 district netted 2 Congressional seats, the Court let those be imposed on an interim basis. So, apparently they weren't so odious or destructive.
On the other hand, the legitimately passed 1982 maps were put in place, for reasons both of pragmatism and of principle. The maps had been duly passed by the Legislature. While the right of referendum was an important Constitutional right, it was not so important as to throw the system into chaos. This was a 4-3 decision, with the dissenters basically calling the decision a wholly political one.
And with that in mind, the Court ultimately decided that the Assembly v Deukmejian was more applicable in this instance. The referendum situation ultimately bearing more similarity to the newer case than the older.
The court considered several maps in the case the referendum is put on the ballot:
The 2002 maps. They would have resulted in districts that varied by nearly 40% from largest to smallest. The court ultimately dismissed this as varying too far from the OPOV and not complying with the standards set in the 2008 redistricting initiative.
"Nesting ADs" - The Republicans also suggested just nesting assembly districts, which I suppose might present them with somewhat better chances to get to 1/3 representation. However, these districts did not in any meaningful way meet the listed requirements of the 2008 initiative (now Article XXI) and would "defer" too many voters from their new districts for too long.
The GOP Dream Plan - Basically, Republicans hired Anthony Quinn, an advisor to the GOP redistricting efforts in 1971 and 1981( and author one of five co-editors of the California Target Book) to come up with a set of maps when they first challenged the maps for legality, and now they want to try it again. The Court said this would take too long and would not yield a better map than the final option.
The Commission map - The SoS and the Commission argued that the commission map best meets the goals of Art XXI, is ready to be implemented, and would cause the least amount of upheavel. Ultimately, the Court agreed, adding that any new plan would not be vetted by the public at all and yield additional hardship
Now, while seemingly less interesting, the question of authority seems to have been a more controversial question. In fact, Justice Liu wrote a concurring opinion, but pointed out that the Court did not need to come to a decision on whether they have the power to intercede in a situation where the referendum is only likely to succeed. I'll not dwell too long on this issue, but if you are interested, read the concurring opinion down there at the end of the decision.
To put it as succinctly as possible, Justice Liu feels that the majority could have come to the decision of using the Commission's map without deciding that "under California Constitution, article VI, section 10, this court is authorized to issue an order to show cause and decide which districts should be used in the event a proposed referendum directed at a Commission-certified redistricting map qualifies for the ballot, even in the absence of a showing that the proposed referendum is likely to qualify for the ballot."
He felt that the decision could have been arrived at simply by looking at the superiority of the Commission's map as an interim map. Legally, narrowly tailored decisions are preferred, so this one went too far. Perhaps Liu is right that at some point in the future this decision could be abused for political purposes, but ultimately it is a question that will bear more importance in the future than it does for the 2012 Senate maps.
And so, as they say, that is a quick summary of the case.
As I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court decided a few things on redistricting today. Obviously this is a major blow to the Republicans. Let the whining commence:
Republican State Sen. Mimi Walters of Laguna Niguel, a leader of the referendum drive, blasted the ruling as "shortsighted and disrespectful" of California voters who signed petitions and are awaiting the opportunity to vote on the commission's Senate maps.
"They kind of gutted the whole idea behind the referendum process," said Dave Gilliard, another leader of the drive to kill the maps.
Peter Yao, current chairman of the commission, countered that use of the commission maps is important to maintain electoral stability and that the challenge is based on "partisan self interest" that has "cost precious taxpayer dollars to defend."(SacBee)
Except that, as the court stated in the decision the power of referendum isn't the only constitutional right in question in this case. The power of referendum, which grants to 5 percent of the state's voters the power to put to a vote, does not override all other constitutional rights.
But whine as they may, the Commission's maps do present a very good Democratic opportunity to pick up that fateful 27th seat. With Sen. Blakeslee already saying he wouldn't run in the Commission's district, there are few routes for the Republicans to maintain 14 seats. Possible, certainly, but they'll need a pretty strong election cycle.
It is all rather ironic, really. Now that Schwarzenegger got his wish in the redistricting initiative, the Republicans are freaking out. While the Republicans (and ProPublica) whine that the system was gamed, six Republican appointees just finalized (mostly) the process.
As was said on Twitter by many Sacramento-watchers, what could the CRP have done with all the money they just wasted on this measure. It now seems rather hard to fathom that the CRP either has the resources to pass this measure, or would even want to. Who knows what other map is around the corner. This was really all about stalling the Commission maps for a cycle. It would have been expensive and unlikely that they could defeat the maps, and the CRP knew that. They were just hoping to hold on for one more cycle.
So much for that. I'll be posting a brief summary of the legal opinion shortly.
Court must decide how they want to intervene with impending referendum possible in June
by Brian Leubitz
UPDATE: Here is the decision in PDF. Basically the Court opted for the suggestion that I believe was made by Justice Liu to use the Commission's maps on an interim basis if the referendum does succeed in getting on the ballot. At the hearing, Justice Liu noted that it was at the very least one way of meeting all the goals of redistricting initiative. So, on that, we now know the maps we'll be voting on in June and November. More in a bit.
At the beginning of the month, the courts held a hearing on what do about the Senate maps. As you may recall, the Republicans spent a bunch of money, mostly from Mercury Insurance CEO George Joseph, to gather signatures to put the Senate map to a referendum. You see, the maps present something of an existential crisis for the Senate Republican caucus. While it isn't a sure thing that Democrats will exceed the necessary 27 Senators to attain 2/3 in the Senate, the new map presents an exceedingly good opportunity to do so. Heck, Sam Blakeslee has already said he wouldn't run again unless his district changes. After that, you basically only need to pick up one more seat from 2 or 3 lean-Dem opportunities.
And dipping below 1/3 of the Senate would basically mean that the swing vote would no longer be a Republican, but a conservative Democrat. It is a prospect that would dry up funding from lobbyists, as who really wants to lobby an irrelevant politician? Whatever power they do have through the supermajority revenue measure would do little for them. They claim they gathered sufficient signatures, but that is far from clear. As of right now, the status of the initiative is that it had enough signatures to not be bounced at the random check stage, but not enough that it didn't have to get a more thorough check. The more thorough check won't be decided until mid to late February.
The problem with that is that it would leave precious little time to come up with some other map to vote on for the June "primary" election. The Supreme Court's hearing thus addressed which of many map options they could use, what the meaning of "likely to qualify" is, and whether they could use the Commission's map instead of drawing their own.
While Brown works to cobble together a centrist coalition, the corpse of Howard Jarvis speaks.
by Brian Leubitz
Jerry Brown is putting together quite the interesting coalition for his tax revenue measure. He's got some labor support, of course, but he's been claiming support from some large companies that usually go by "Big" and followed by the name of some industry. He's got some Big Oil, some Big Healthcare, yada, yada.
Hearing this, the corpse of Howard Jarvis was none too pleased. So, they've gone ahead and begged their Big Business friends to resist Jerry Brown's "cajoling."
"We know that Governor Brown, just through the power of his office alone, can cajole and perhaps even threaten vulnerable businesses," the groups said in an open letter. "It is therefore not lost on us that, under certain circumstances, modest support to help the governor place his measure on the ballot might be viewed a lesser of two evils or, more likely, as an insurance payment. However, on behalf of citizen taxpayers and the small business community, we appeal to your sense of doing what is right for all of California." (SacBee)
This really is quite remarkable. Though HJTA didn't exactly get along with Gov. Schwarzenegger, they never really went this far with him. By this far, I mean insinuating that Brown is threatening companies in order to solicit funding for his revenue measure. Not that Arnold ever did that, because, special interests had no power on him. He could resist them with his massive musculature. Until he couldn't.
But this is more a sign of desperation than anything else. If Brown is able to pull significant resources and support from some of the traditional funders of anti-tax campaign, it will be an exceedingly difficult fall campaign for HJTA and its allies. Because you know you are doing well when you try to quote Benjamin Franklin about hanging together or hanging separately. (I say try because it is quite possible that Franklin didn't actually come up with the phrase.) The quote is even more out of touch considering the desperate state of many of Californians most needy who have been devastated by the continuous cuts to services.
Kamala Harris, whom I had the great privilege of helping to get elected, has been a leader on mortgage fraud since her SF DA days. She's continued that as California AG, and now she's showing just how important the closest California statewide election really was. The CA DoJ recently announced that the proposed nationwide settlement for the systemic mortgage fraud by the big banks was inadequate for Californians:
"We've reviewed the details of the latest settlement proposal from the banks, and we believe it is inadequate for California," Shum Preston, a spokesman for Harris, said in a statement. "Our state has been clear about what any multistate settlement must contain: transparency, relief going to the most distressed homeowners and meaningful enforcement that ensures accountability. At this point, this deal does not suffice for California."
While California isn't totally alone on this settlement, NY AG Eric Schneiderman has also shared some misgivings about signing on to anything that wouldn't allow him to fully pursue his investigations of the widespread fraud in the mortgage system during the bubble. For just some of the background on this story, see the 60 Minutes story embedded. The extent of the fraud has never really been uncovered.
The President, the banks, and many state AGs are looking to bring this to a close. However, AG Harris has declared that punishing those that committed the fraud and getting the best deal for Californians is her priority rather than simply getting a quick deal.
California voters are against cuts, mixed on taxes.
by Brian Leubitz
When the Republican realized that they could make some electoral gains from becoming the "Second Santa"with their tax cuts, they knew they were on to something. They didn't have to be the bad guys promoting spending cuts, and their tax cuts would somehow net just as much revenue because the magic "Laffer curve" would make everything better. And if it didn't work, well, the Democrats would have to cut spending and do the dirty work.
And, unsurprisingly, it worked. It has clearly worked in California, where Prop 13 and its anti-tax brethren have wreaked havoc on the state. For a few decades we were able to hide much of this through some huge bubbles and creative accounting, but that is a thing of the past. And so we have a huge deficit, a dysfunctional tax system, and a government that only allows cuts. What's a Republican to do to keep up his role as a second santa?
Well, blame it all on "waste, fraud, and abuse." It's a simple lie that, when repeated enough, becomes mantra to the media and, eventually, the general public. Take the latest PPIC poll and the latest finding:
Most Californians (59% adults, 55% likely voters) believe state government could cut spending and still provide the same level of services.
"There remains a strong belief that the state government could spend less and provide the same services even as Californians notice local service reductions from state spending cuts and show early support for a tax increase," says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO. (PPIC)
When the budget first got bad a few years back, perhaps there was a bit of fat to trim around the budget. Some unnecessary expenditures here and an unsuccessful program there. Not enough to fix the budget, but a few billion could be saved without fundamentally changing the role of government.
Those days are gone. Cuts to government expenditures mean direct cuts to services. There is simply no way to provide the same level of services for an ever decreasing amount of money. Go take a look at your local government offices and then compare it to the offices of your local bank corporate office. There are no fancy waterfalls and lavish breakrooms offering wide selections of Odwalla and Rice Krispies, there are just a dwindling level of state employees working ever harder to keep up. Teachers are spending large chunks of their paychecks to provide supplies for their classrooms and their students. Cuts to CalFire put firefighters in very real danger and mean more damage to California homes.
And yet, a strong majority of Californians are living in a world where we can somehow make painless cuts? Do they know of any of these painless cuts? Do the Republicans? Have they ever presented any of these so-called painless cuts?
But while 40 percent of adults and likely voters prefer closing the state's budget gap with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases-the approach Brown has proposed-similar proportions (35% adults, 41% likely voters) prefer closing it mainly through spending cuts. That being said, when read a summary, 72 percent of adults and 68 percent of likely voters favor Brown's initiative proposal.
Interestingly, the PPIC data also shows much stronger support for raising the highest income tax bracket(74% adults, 68% likely voters) than the sales tax. The sales tax is opposed by 69% of adults, 64% of likely voters. That particular question raises the specter of competing tax measures, the "Kardashian" tax and Brown's own measure. There is still a lot of time before signatures are due, and Brown has been working to shut down any other revenue measure. Whether he is successful or not will still take a while to know, but may end up dramatically changing the odds of his own measure.
While there have been efforts at public education on the budget by state politicians, it is a monstrous task, especially when there are players on the other side actively promoting misinformation. But, at every opportunity, progressives must be sure to emphasize the point that waste, fraud, and abuse is not an answer to all of our budget woes and to explain the real budget situation.
This week, the U.S. Department of Housing and Development (HUD) and the Big Banks teamed up to propose a multi-state settlement to address the foreclosure crisis. But based on the terms described in numerous media reports, the deal appears to be a settlement for the banks, not a settlement for the middle class. The people of California need real relief, not a quick settlement that lets the banks off the hook.
California is home to nine of the ten cities that were hardest hit by the foreclosure freefall. The two million working families we represent have been at the epicenter of this crisis. Millions have been devastated by the loss of their homes. Many more have watched their home values plummet and now nearly one in three California borrowers are underwater, owing more to the banks than their homes are worth. California has the second highest foreclosure rate in the country, surpassed only by Nevada. For these reasons, our stake in the outcome of the settlement talks is great. Our families, our communities, our government and our economy depend upon a fair outcome.
Taxpayers revived the Big Banks from their self-inflicted crash with a $700 billion bailout in 2009. With the infusion, banks were directed to help homeowners recover from the mortgage crisis they created. Instead, bank executives took the money in big bonuses. The greed boggles one’s mind. Some should go to jail. Instead they again want to pay pennies on the dollars they took while foreclosing on millions of California homes.
On every level, the proposed settlement is inadequate: The total settlement amount is expected to be just $25 billion dollars, while the nation has $750 billion in negative equity. $25 billion would not even cover the loss of home equity to California families, let alone all homeowners across the country. The settlement is expected to help a million homeowners, when more than 10 million are underwater and millions more have been wrongfully foreclosed upon. The settlement needs to be in the range of $200 -$400 billion, not $25 billion.
Even worse, we are concerned that the settlement may not even come from the pockets of those who engaged in the misconduct. If the settlement gives servicers credit for writing down the value of investor-owned mortgage-backed securities without requiring them to write down the mortgages and liens they own, it will be our public pension plans, not the banks, that will take the hit. That means the same working families who have already seen their life savings go up in smoke will now face losses in their retirement funds. Not only is this a great injustice, but it fails to enact any real penalty against the bad actors.
It is difficult to overstate the harm that has been inflicted on our economy by the financial institutions now seeking to pay a relatively small sum and receive broad immunity. Foreclosures destroy families financially and emotionally, and blighted, abandoned properties destroy our communities. Cities, counties, and the state are unable to meet the needs of our most vulnerable, while banks sit on record reserves.
A vote by San Francisco Assemblywoman Fiona Ma to kill a fellow Democrat's environmental bill has sparked questions about whether the move was a form of political payback.
Ma, D-San Francisco, voted against Assemblyman Das Williams' AB 1176, a bill that would have placed tighter regulations and controls on toxic pesticides.
Ma, the state Speaker Pro Tempore, was one of two Democrats who voted alongside Republicans against the bill on Jan. 11, at a meeting of the Agriculture Committee. Cathleen Galgiani, who represents the Central Valley, and who is running for a state Senate seat this year, voted against it.
Williams and representatives from the Ventura-based social justice group CAUSE are disappointed that Ma, a San Francisco lawmaker, would oppose the environmental bill.
The bill is important because it would have dramatically shortened the process for evaluating and regulating pesticides:
The bill would have required the Department of Pesticide Regulations on a more timely basis to develop control measures and evaluate the effects of pesticides that qualify as Toxic Air Contaminants.
That process can currently take up to eight years. Williams' bill would have required the state to develop control measures within two years of identifying a pesticide as a toxic air contaminant.
Why would Fiona Ma do this? Well, the circumstantial evidence suggests personal animus. She just got married to Jason Hodge, candidate for SD19 against Hannah-Beth Jackson, who is herself a close ally and mentor to Das Williams:
Ma is married to Jason Hodge, a firefighter and member of the Oxnard Harbor Commission, who is also running for state Senate against Hannah Beth-Jackson.
Williams supports Jackson, one of his mentors, and has been busy helping her in her campaign. Ma too has had an increasing presence in Santa Barbara politics. Ma gave former Santa Barbara City Council candidate Deborah Schwartz $5,000 in 2011.
Jackson and Hodge are tangled in a fierce battle for the 19th state Senate District seat. Although Jackson, a former assembly member, is deeply entrenched in Sacramento politics and has strong local ties to the Santa Barbara County Democratic Party, Hodge has racked up dozens of notable endorsements from labor associations.
It is curious that Ma would interject herself so personally into a feud that has been developing for years, at the expense of the health of all Californians. It's no secret to central coast Democrats that there has been bad blood between progressives in the Santa Barbara and Ventura County Democratic establishments, and certain factions of labor allied with Pedro Nava and his friends. While the first battles began somewhat beforehand, the conflict came fully into the open when then Santa Barbara city councilman Das Williams challenged Pedro Nava's wife Susan Jordan for AD35. Local progressive Democrats (including myself and Santa Barbara Dem Chair Daraka Larimore-Hall) and several labor unions quickly rallied around the more progressive Williams, while more conservative Tri-Counties Central Labor Council President Marilyn Valenzuela and her allies--including Jason Hodge--rallied behind Jordan. Mr. Williams won decisively. Since then, Pedro Nava has gone on a vendetta against local Democrats, endorsing and doing robocalls for DTS candidates against the endorsements of the Santa Barbara and Ventura County Democratic Parties. When I ran for Party Chair in Ventura County two years ago, Ms. Valenzuela and Mr. Hodge used every piece of leverage in their power to oppose me and the progressive faction, ultimately defeating me by one vote, but were unable to prevent a majority of the Executive Board from falling into progressive hands, including my own election as 1st Vice Chair.
Now, with Mr. Hodge running as a centrist against the more progressive Hannah-Beth Jackson, the feuding battle lines have deepened. Hannah-Beth Jackson won the pre-endorsement vote with approximately 74% against Mr. Hodge; nearly every grassroots vote went to Jackson, but votes from a single Dem club controlled by Ms. Valenzuela gave Hodge almost the entirety of his 26% after an aggressive dues-free membership drive to influence the process.
It is into this hornet's nest that Fiona Ma has voluntarily walked for her new husband. Fiona's defense of her vote is that it would create a burdensome new regulatory step:
"After numerous meetings with many stakeholders and educating myself on the list of chemicals in question, I ultimately agreed with the Analysis by the Environment/Safety and Toxic Committee that said: 'AB 1176 replaces the interdepartmental pesticide prioritization process initiated in 2004 by DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulations) with the Office of Environmental Health and Hazards Assessment and the Air Resources Board. This time consuming, unnecessary step would require significant staffing increases for all three agencies, especially for OEHHA and DPR to review pesticides that do not need or merit this review.'" [Emphasis added]
But there is no reason to believe that any of this is true. The bill is tightly written to speed the regulatory process; it's true that extra regulatory staff would probably be required to speed along the review process to ensure that dangerous contaminants are stopped within years, rather than decades. But complaining of needed extra staff is reminiscent of conservative arguments against every regulatory improvement, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It is particularly hard to believe that Ms. Ma is acting in good faith given that 1) she and her husband have both taken significant campaign contributions from pesticide companies ($1,500 from Monsanto and $2,500 from Trical to both Ma and Hodge, each) and given that her stated reasons for opposing the bill are almost directly drawn from the language of pesticide and big ag companies themselves against the bill. Compare this section quoted from a group letter signed by big ag advocates and the California Chamber of Commerce, to Ma's statement above:
AB1176 would require a mandatory review and written concurrence of every federal Hazardous Air Pollutant that is identified as a TAC, many of which have been removed from use or phased out. This time consuming, unnecessary step would require significant staffing increases for all three agencies, especially for OEHHA and DPR to review pesticides that do not need or merit this review. [[Emphasis added]
That group letter was penned in April/May 2011, when those organizations still opposed sections of the proposed law. Williams worked with the opposition to remove the objectionble portions while maintaining its intent, which is to be more responsive to protecting Californians' health. That same opposition group wrote a follow-up letter on Jan. 9 to the chair of the Ag Committee, of which Ma is a member, clearly removing their opposition. Yet she still quotes that earlier opposition, nearly verbatim, to support her Nay vote. I'm told by various sources that had she accepted one of three simple phone calls from Williams, the amendments that were made in May 2011 could have easily been explained to the Speaker Pro Tem.
But this is not the first time that Fiona Ma has taken curious stands against a popular bill by Williams. She also played a role in weakening Williams' AB438 against library privatization, and is rumored to be putting up obstacles to a Williams-authored farmworker bill currently in the works.
Californians deserve better than to have good legislation crucial to our collective health killed by influential politicians, in order to benefit campaign contributors and settle petty personal scores for their new spouse's political allies. That's behavior one would expect from Republicans, but not from Democrats.
Democratic endorsement process has a strange relationship with the grassroots
by Brian Leubitz
The pre-convention caucuses are one of the most grassroots friendly processes in California politics, while at the same time, there is a potential to game them from above. Last weekend, a number of competitive races, especially in Southern California where redistricting tossed a number of districts into chaos.
For casual political watchers, it may be hard to believe that small gatherings of diehard Democrats in January will decide who wins races for the Legislature or Congress come November. And yet, in some cases, that's exactly what could happen after this weekend. Welcome to the world of intraparty competition under California's new primary election rules. (KQED Capitol Notes)
Typically, the value of the CDP's endorsement is limited. You get to ask the party to work with you on mailers, and use their lower mail rate, which can save a few dollars. (It's like a coupon!) And the party can spend money on your race. But, traditionally, the party itself will likely spend very little, if any, on the endorsed candidates in the primary. But with Top-2, the word "primary" is something of a sketchy term, and candidates are labeled only as preferring one party or another. So, the state party's imprimatur could mean something more this cycle. The biggest thing is that this year, the sample ballot will include a listing of the endorsed candidate.
Since John Myers referred to the IKEA-instruction-like voting eligibility, I figured I would explain that as a way of explaining how thinks like Torie Osborn winning every Dem club endorsement but losing the Dem party happens. To that specific district, AD-50, it seems clear that Torie Osborn, a progressive grassroots rock star and organizer for the California Alliance, has the support of the grassroots Democrats. But Butler is getting support from the Assembly Democratic caucus. Why does that matter, you ask?
Well, here is how the voting eligibility works for the pre-convention caucus:
Democratic clubs get one vote for every 20 verified active members in the district.
Democratic County Central Committee members in the district get a vote.
Democratic State Central Committee members in the district get a vote. But this is where it gets complicated, as there are a number of ways you can become a delegate to the state party.
12 members per assembly district elected in January of every odd year.
Members appointed by the county central committee
Members appointed by legislators and executive office holders.
The last two is where it gets really dicey. The County chair usually appoints all of the central committee members to be delegates and in a county with an abundance of Democrats like LA, will have some left over. Those that are left over can be moved around into a district of need for endorsement. I don't know if that happened with LA County chairman Eric Bauman or not. (UPDATE: Most counties, including LA, elect their additional delegates, so it wouldn't really be possible to game the system this way.)
The bigger target of delegate movement is the legislators. Legislators can appoint half of their delegation outside of their own district, and those appointees get to vote in their own districts. Speaker John Perez has been pretty vocal in encouraging Ms. Osborn to "wait her turn" until Ms. Butler is termed out. The problem with that is that she had been waiting her turn for Asm. Mike Feuer to term out in 2012. Butler's district barely touched this new AD-50, in fact she represents less than 10% (CORRECTION: Less than 2%) of the new AD-50 now. However, as Butler decided not to run for the now more Republican friendly district that encompasses much of her new district, Osborn is now being told to wait again by the Assembly caucus. Except she is not waiting, and has continued to run her campaign.
As a result, Speaker Perez has been organizing a dump of delegates into the new district, tilting the balance from Osborn to Butler. At the convention, where the Democratic club members do not get to participate, this tilt of power towards legislators becomes more pronounced. If Butler is able to get 2/3 of the delegates in her column, the only way to remove the endorsement from the consent calendar is to get 2 members from the Pre-primary endorsement review panel (PERC) to agree to pull it off the consent calender for PERC review. If less than 2/3 support Butler, Osborn supporters will be able to gather 300 signatures to bring the endorsement to the floor.
(UPDATE: Note that the PERC consists of all DSCC executive board members in the district as well as the regional director, two e-board members appointed by the Chair and the state officers)
This process can happen in a few more districts around the state that are marked "caucus" on the PDF of all the races. If you are coming to San Diego, keep an eye out on that 2/3 threshhold in the district level caucuses.
