(Given the acrimony between the two Republican candidates, anything can happen in AD-72. Give it a look. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
I have been making a pain of myself elsewhere for the pastcoupleofweeks (and believe it or not, there are more diaries where those come from) on behalf of John MacMurray, the sole Democrat running in the AD-72 race for the seat once occupied by the man with two nicknames: "Hot Mike""Spanky" Duvall. (Is it cruel to continue to make sport of Duvall? Yes it is. Gotta problem with that?) I've been trying to get people from across the country to phone bank, and if you're amenable to spending some time over the next two days getting out the vote, your assistance would be most welcome. (Note: I am not formally affiliated with the campaign.) My hope has been both to help John do well in the race and to demonstrate that, when a special election comes down the pike, progressives and other Democrats can, conceivably, prove themselves to be a "rapid deployment force" from their own cell phones to help tip a race.
How that goes, we'll see. (Or, maybe when it comes to the latter proposition, we won't.) I come here not to cadge your support, but just to talk about the race -- because someone here should be doing so.
Over the past few days we have been talking about Washington State's Referendum 71, which was voted on this week. If passed, the Referendum will codify in law certain protections for same-sex couples.
In the first story of our three-part series we discussed Washington's unusual vote-by-mail system; in the second we examined the pre-election polling.
Today we talk about what happened Election Night at the R-71 event and where the vote count stands today...and where it might end up when we're all done.
We have lots of geeky electoral analysis ahead-and as a special bonus, we have video of the event, including an exclusive interview with Charlene Strong, the woman who became one of the icons of the pro-71 campaign.
It's a lot to cover, so we better get right to it.
We are often told that Californians will not vote to tax themselves. One would have thought after November 2008, where voters in four of the state's most populous counties (Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Sonoma and Marin) approved tax increases to pay for passenger rail with 2/3rds majorities, that such a meme would have died. But it did not; old assumptions die hard, especially when they challenge conventional wisdom and conservative truths.
Yesterday's election once again proved that, generally speaking, Californians are quite willing to tax themselves. Not every tax proposal passed, but in an extremely low turnout election (20% in Salinas, for example, a city which saw 80% turnout in November 2008) it's a sign of how open CA voters are to taxes that nearly 2/3rds of them are headed for approval.
As Michael Coleman demonstrates, 65% of local tax measures on yesterday's ballot are headed toward approval, putting to rest the notion that CA voters are inherently opposed to new taxes.
Granted, not every proposal passed. One common theme in yesterday's election was resistance to using the sales tax as a method of providing for local services. In an election defined by economic populism, voters in Salinas, Ventura, and San Carlos said they did not want a regressive tax to fund key services (though San Mateo and Gustine did pass those taxes). Voters would likely prefer more progressive taxes, those that ask the wealthy to pay their fair share. Unfortunately local governments don't generally have the power to levy those kind of taxes, and owing to Prop 13, have become dependent on the sales tax even against their own better judgement.
Some proposals easily cleared the 50% hurdle, but owing to the 2/3rds rule are going to "fail." In a vote that I find especially painful since it's the town just a few blocks away, Pacific Grove's library is likely to close because a parcel tax to keep it open received 65% of the vote, but not the 66.7% it needed to pass. There may be a few votes still out there to push this over the top, but it's a sign of how cruel and stupid the 2/3rds rule is, giving power to a small minority and disempowering the majority.
In some cases, local circumstances dictated the outcome. The Salinas sales tax proposal was dogged by concerns that the city council had misspent the funds from a 2005 sales tax increase, claims that have some merit. More significant in both Salinas and Ventura were low turnout; had the electorate more closely resembled that of November 2008 both measures might have passed.
What these measures do clearly show is that in an off-off-year election, where turnout is abysmal and favors conservatives, Californians are still willing to tax themselves to pay for government services. The notion that Californians are inherently opposed to taxes took another major hit yesterday. Let's see if Democrats learn the lesson.
There are a few lessons to take away from last night's elections. The main one is that Democrats should act like Democrats if they want Democrats to show up and vote. Low-turnout elections are base elections: you have to turn out your base or you will lose.
The US Congress is about to get a new - and very progressive - member. John Garamendi has been elected tonight to represent the 10th Congressional district. We always said the 10th could do better than Ellen Tauscher, and tonight Garamendi proved it. From a press release sent out by the Garamendi campaign:
"Today, the voters have spoken; they still have hope and still want change," Garamendi told a crowd of hundreds of enthusiastic supporters. "I will hit the ground running in Congress and look forward to casting a vote for comprehensive health care reform that includes the public option, helping to enact President Obama's vision for America."
Added Garamendi, "We stayed true to ourselves throughout this campaign, articulating a vision for the district and America that is bold and necessary. President Obama's federal stimulus package helped save us from the brink of economic ruin, but our work is not done. At this moment of crisis in America, we need leadership that will create green jobs and take on the powerful interests delaying reform. More than three decades in public service have prepared me for this moment, and you better believe I didn't run for this seat to be a backbencher."
The emphasis there is mine, and it's important. Garamendi isn't going to walk into Congress on Thursday (when he is likely to be sworn in) and take a quiet seat in the back. No, as one of California's leading progressives, he is going to take his decades of policy experience and leadership and start working immediately to produce better, more socially democratic outcomes in the House. I'm excited about Congressman John Garamendi.
If Garamendi is sworn in on Thursday, he will resign his seat as Lieutenant Governor the same day. No word yet on who Arnold plans to appoint to that seat.
As we keep a watch on some of the big races back east, including the Maine marriage equality battle that has turned out to be every bit the nailbiter we expected, we'll be using this as a thread to update some of the California races on today's ballot.
Also, have a look at Ballotpedia's list of CA local initiatives. We'll provide updates of some of the higher profile issues, including SF initiatives, Salinas Measure K (sales tax), Ventura Measure A (sales tax), among others.
Feel free to post updates from measures you're following in the comments.
Some of the stories we'll be following here at Calitics:
• CA-10 becomes a left-wing district. John Garamendi, one of the most progressive California politicians we have and a true leader on a broad range of issues, is going to get elected to Congress today. While the right thinks they have an upset potential here, it's simply not going to happen. Garamendi has a great GOTV operation and widespread support in the district. And whereas the right will spin whatever Harmer's vote total turns out to be as some sort of victory, the real story here is that CA-10, which as recently as 1996 was a red district, has now become a solidly progressive district. We always said the 10th could do better than Ellen Tauscher. Today John Garamendi is going to prove it.
• Californians will vote to tax themselves to support government spending. In cities across the state there are local tax measures on the ballot to help local governments survive the effects of the economic crisis and the theft of their funds by state government. Many of these will pass, and disprove the conventional wisdom that Californians won't tax themselves.
• The majority will be prevented from governing itself. Perhaps even more important than the number of tax measures that get 66.7% is the number that get 50%+1. Most of the local tax measures that will "fail" will have easily cleared the 50% mark. But thanks to the 2/3rds rule that gives conservatives veto power over virtually all local government decisions, the desire of the majority of Californians to preserve their parks, libraries, police and fire departments will be blocked.
• The battle between democracy and teabaggery. American politics is quickly returning to its pre-1950 state, where the centrist consensus is rendered impossible by economic insecurity that foregrounds the debate of whether we should use democracy to promote prosperity, or whether we should attack democracy and government as undermining the wealthy and the privileged. Most of the tax proposals revolve around this very question, but so do issues like whether the Carmel Valley will choose to incorporate or not. Supporters of incorporation espouse local control and democracy; opponents claim a Town of Carmel Valley will provide another layer of oppressive government and will raise people's taxes. (It's amusing watching them complain that a town won't be "financially viable" - by that logic the state of California should be dissolved and the USA disbanded.)
• The fight for equality. Both Maine and Washington are voting today on equal rights laws - Maine will vote on whether to keep marriage equality; Washington will vote on whether to keep domestic partnership rights (itself a test of whether WA will support full marriage equality). The outcome of both ballot questions will shed light on how we can reverse last year's injustice and repeal Proposition 8.
What stories will you be following? Tell us in the comments.
It is now Election Day around the US, and one ballot question that is attracting national attention is Washington State's Referendum 71.
Voting "yes" on the Referendum would codify in law various protections for same-sex domestic partners, and it is similar to a measure that the citizens of Maine are also voting on today.
We have polling data that is fairly fresh, so let's take this last chance to look at where we might be, and what you should be looking for over the next few days as you attempt to judge how this one is going.
We are now about two weeks away from the November election in Washington State, and one item on the ballot that has national attention is Referendum 71, the so-called "everything but marriage" proposal that would give same-sex couples more rights and protections than they have today.
There has been a lot of conversation about whether it will or won't pass--and a lot of conversation about whether it should pass.
I hope it does, and if you live here I encourage you to vote "yes" November 3rd.
But that said, you may not be aware that Washington has an electoral system in transition, and that as a result of the transition Washington has some idiosyncrasies that will make forecasting the results a bit tougher, and determining the results a bit slower.
We'll talk about that today, and by the time we're done you should have an appreciation of the odd way in which things can work out--and that, absent a landslide, we aren't likely to know the results on Election Day.
The road to lasting security and economic prosperity runs through America's universities, state colleges, community colleges and technical training schools.
Yet for an increasing number of Americans, the dream of the quality education they need to compete in the global economy of the 21st Century is out of reach.
(Some thoughts for Memorial Day from CA-10 Candidate Anthony Woods... - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
The willingness to make the "ultimate sacrifice" in defense of our country stands as the enduring value which binds every active duty serviceman, servicewoman, and every veteran of the United States military.
Each Memorial Day we are reminded---and rightly so---of the courageous Americans who have given their lives in defense of our nation--between 1 million and 1.3 million since the American Revolution, depending on whose numbers you read.
Indeed the willingness to make that sacrifice is the pre-requisite-along with adherence to a strict code of conduct and respect for the chain of command---to joining an impenetrable fellowship as diverse as the nation every veteran has pledged their lives to defending.
As the son of a veteran, a West Point Graduate and Iraq War Veteran, Memorial Day will always be a day of gratitude, of solemn reflection, and remembrance for me.
David Dayen mentioned this earlier today, but it is worth reproducing here.
Hooray! The outrageous propositions 1 A-E have been crushed by voters who just can't take any more.
California voters have rejected the nonfunctional minority-rule government that has bankrupted the state, along with the governor who led the state into bankruptcy.
The voters want a functional democracy, and that means majority rule. No more blackmail by a 1/3 plus 1 Republican minority.
In short, the voters have given the Democrats a new freedom - if they will only take it.
No doubt the spin doctor wing of the political consultancy will be working overtime tomorrow morning to try and "explain" what actually happened today, why people voted the way they did, and what signal it supposedly sends to the state government as it tries to pass some semblance of a state budget in the months to come. Already the Republicans (who can't seem to win more than just over a third of the state in presidential, senatorial or legislative elections) are claiming that this is a mandate for cuts, cuts, cuts, and no new taxes, even though there was nothing remotely close to either an "all-cuts" or a "tax-n-spend" alternative on the ballot. Elected Democrats are a bit less clear, message-wise, although the smarter ones are belatedly focusing their message on the need to fix the budget by going to a majority rule on budget and taxes. Schwarzeneggar, who has been an utter disaster even by his own standards, skipped town and hid behind Obama's skirts, pretending vainly like Californian environmental standards were somehow his idea, and not an existing political movement that he sort of posed next to when the cameras were rolling.
So why did the measures fail, what does it mean, and what do the voters of California want?
The answer? Yes, or almost certainly yes. The record, according to John Wildermuth, is 28%:
In the state's nonpresidential primary last June, nearly 60 percent of the votes came in by mail but total turnout was only 28 percent, the lowest ever for a statewide vote.(SF Chronicle 5/17/09)
From early turnout results, the numbers have been shockingly low. The last numbers I've heard had LA at 6% turnout, even with some municipal elections going on. Those numbers will certainly climb with the post-work rush, but I'm not expecting anything huge.
So...Congratulations Arnold, I'm sure you are very proud of that record.
And, more evidence of low turnout. From the LA Times:
By 4 p.m., voter turnout in Los Angeles County was 11.57%. In a comparable statewide election in 2005, turnout had reached 27% by the same time.(LA Times 5/19/09)
UPDATE 2: The thing about this extremely low turnout is that it says that the voters aren't all "enraged" about tax revolution. They just want the politicians to do their job, and they want the Governor to show some real leadership. In other words, they want a functioning government.
I am working for the No on 1A Campaign, however, I am not working for any other No campaign. My opinions should not be construed to be those of the campaign, especially when it comes to the remaining measures.
On Sunday, Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to find religion. No, not by opening his eyes to the reality surrounding him, but by "pleading" and "urging" for voters to pass his spending cap "rainy day fund"
The governor's visits to three African American churches in Los Angeles came as proponents and opponents of the ballot measures marshaled the last of the millions of dollars they have collected for the special election. Schwarzenegger said Sunday he had been told that about 25% of voters are expected to show up, a paltry percentage that underscores the difficulty of the quest for reliable voters.
***
But even among the church crowds who listened to the official pitch there was skepticism about the proposals. Jo Evelyn Payne, 62, a retired loan servicing assistant who lives in Inglewood, said she was wavering over the package. She said she had little faith in California ballot measures and also mistrusts Schwarzenegger. (LAT 5/18/09)
"Governor" Schwarzenegger has been a disastrous leader, and people are now seeing right through his charade, even when he shows up in their churches. The Governor is spinning wildly to get his spending cap passed, but nobody is buying it.
Meanwhile, money has been flowing into the Yes on 1C lottery securitization, perhaps as some Yes campaign folks heed Robert's advice to focus on Prop 1C. It has been getting terrible polling numbers, but as it is the one source of big money for this year's budget it is finally getting some attention. The CDP has put some money into Prop 1C, as has SEIU Local 99. This is late money, but for the yes team, it's better than no money I suppose.
The thing is, as OC Progressive pointed out, that it's quite likely that a rather substantial percentage of the electorate for this election has already voted by mail. Estimates have vote by mail percentage at anywhere from 55-75%, and those votes have already been filled out. So, we'll see the campaigning for the next 36 hours, but the bulk of the work should be done by now.
Finally, from the more humorous side, Steve Maviglio has planned a "tweet heard round the world" for Yes on 1A-F. The big plan is for all those enthusiastic Yes on 1A-F supporters on Twitter to simultaneously tweet something at 9:30 this morning. Normally these things are supposed to be something of a surprise, so people go "whoa, look at that." That didn't happen here, so as long as we know about it, how about a tweet at 9:30 opposing the measures. Here's a suggestion, but you can feel free to edit it:
I am working for the No on 1A Campaign, however, I am not working for any other No campaign. My opinions should not be construed to be those of the campaign, especially when it comes to the remaining measures.
I must admit that I was a bit surprised when I saw this editorial at the Tracy Press. It clearly lays out what can only be described as the progressive case against Proposition 1A:
This hastily drafted measure won't work.
Why? Proposition 1A has such rigid provisions, it would lock in a reduced level of public services without taking into account California's changing demographics, population growth and future policies. It would also give the future governors new power without legislative oversight.
1A isn't even a short-term patch on a long-term problem. Most of this measure's provisions wouldn't take effect for two years. In that time, we could repeal the two-thirds legislative vote requirement for budgets and tax increases - and we could work on real budget reform, without the permanent changes that 1A would make to the state's Constitution. (Tracy Press)
It's like reading something straight out of the virtual pages of Calitics.
In ad featuring the California PTA, foes of Prop 1D's efforts have attacked the attempts to grab the First 5 reserve fund. It's not a particularly innovative ad, but it goes right to the heart of the issue, funding for children. You can watch all of the No on 1D ads here.
The most recent poll on the May 19 election comes to us from SurveyUSA and it confirms what the recent PPIC poll showed - these things are going down.
In particular, the numbers for Props 1A-1C that SUSA found were very similar to those of PPIC - only a few points difference in most cases. Where SUSA differs is in finding much stronger opposition to Props 1D-1F. There's almost a 30 point swing against Prop 1F in the SUSA poll from the PPIC numbers, and about a 10-12 point swing against Props 1D and 1E. If SUSA's poll is accurate, it is now possible the whole rotten thing could collapse next Tuesday - especially since 38% of those they polled had already voted.
If there's any consolation to supporters, those who already voted seem a bit more inclined to support the initiatives, but not by much. Only Prop 1F holds a lead among those who have already voted.
Interestingly, SUSA's ideological and partisan breakdowns shows that "liberals" and Democrats support the initiatives, in some cases by large margins. I would caution against using that to assume that progressives and Democrats across the state hold this view - CA has a significant Democratic registration advantage, so if that support can't put these things over the top, it means there are a lot of Democrats and progressives who are voting with their feet and abstaining - not a ringing endorsement.
If anything it shows that progressives and Democrats really do want to help fix this state, and that if they are given solutions that would actually solve the budget mess without advancing a conservative agenda, there would be broad public support and activism for those solutions.
While we have officially opposed Prop 1C for a while now, we focused more on the bad public policy of borrowing for ongoing expenses. But anti-gambling advocates point out something else about where this money comes from:
The Rev. James Butler, executive director of the California Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, said expanding gambling, even in the form of a lottery, will invite social and economic ills.
Asking people to bet more of their money could lead to increased bankruptcies, homelessness, crime and unemployment, he said.
"It's built on the premise that Californians do not spend enough money on the lottery," Butler said. "It is a mistake." (SF Chronicle 5/7/2009)
Part of the problem with this argument lies with the fact that we already have Indian gaming across the state, where people can go and get a much more immediate gambling fix. If people want to ruin their lives, there are plenty of ways to do it. That being said, it is somewhat distressing for California to stake its future on what is essentially a tax on hope, or if you are more cynical, a tax on the failure to understand the concept of expected value.
While Prop 1C looks more important with every day to the "package" that the Legislature approved in February, as it by far provides the most immediate cash, by no means it is a sure bet. If our lottery revenues do not increase, we'll have to dig deeper into the general fund for education dollars going forward. And if they do increase, well, we've just increased the hope tax on players who are disproportionately poor.
UPDATE: The Riverside P-E has an article about who the lottery players are in the county. Lottery officials point out that there is no hard data to indicate that lottery players are disproportionately poor, and the P-E's investigation in the Inland Empire seems to tacitly agree with that statement. Still, the CA Lottery hasn't allowed data to be released. But in Texas, the state ordered a demographic study. It showed that lottery spending was generally skewed poor and undereducated:
Players making under $12,000 a year spent three times as much as those pulling in over $100,000 and nearly double those making between $75,000 and $100,000. ($19 a month for the under $12,000 respondents, vs. $6 a month for those over $100,000; and $10 for those earning between $75,000 and $100,000.
***
Here's the education breakdown:
Less than high school diploma: 16 median dollars spent per month
High school degree 15 median dollars spent per month
Some college 16.5 median dollars spent per month
College dgree 8.50 median dollars spent per month
Graduate degree 6 median dollars spent per month (Houston Chronicle 12/12/2008)
UPDATE 2: I missed data from the CA Budget Project's Report on 1C and a report out of UCLA that shows that California lottery players are both disproportionately poor and non-white.
Faced with collapsing support for the May 19 initiatives Arnold Schwarzenegger is going to try again to scare up support for the package of initiatives that, as far as I can tell, is being written off as dead by most of the state's politicos. This time Arnold's going to move up his May Revise to May 14, instead of after the election, ostensibly to propose insane cuts that will somehow scare voters into changing their minds and backing his slate:
"Whether they pass or fail, I think we have the responsibility to plan for either of the scenarios," Schwarzenegger said at the Culver City Senior Center today. "That's why we are doing now our May Revise. And when we do our May Revise this time, which we will announce on May 14, we will see two May Revises, so the people (see) what the difference is.
"If on May 19 it passes, here's one scenario ... if those initiatives don't pass, then here's the other scenario with the more severe cuts."
With Proposition 1C and its $5 billion solution trailing badly in the polls, the governor is making a last-ditch effort with his May Revise to convince voters that the pain will be significant next year unless they support Propositions 1C, 1D and 1E, though he also wants voters to pass 1A and 1B.
This isn't going to work. If anyone believes this will work, by all means speak up in the comments, I'm genuinely curious to hear how it will succeed where every other attempt to scare voters into voting Yes on May 19 has failed.
There are no groups of voters out there that will be swayed by this. Republicans will look at the proposed cuts and say "good! Now I'm definitely voting no." Democrats and progressives who are willing to back the initiatives might be motivated to ensure they get their Yes votes in on time, but they are a smaller number than the Dems and progressives who either reject the initiatives or aren't motivated to vote at all. And scaring people with threats is a poor way to motivate voters, as I have repeatedly argued.
Democrats now have an opening here to push an alternative set of solutions. Californians are starting to tune out their governor. They're ready to hear a bolder and more hopeful message, one that lays out the necessary and difficult path to walk ahead as the first steps of putting things right in California.
Sec. 35.10. (a) For purposes of subdivision (d) of Section 13308 of the Government Code, the Director of Finance shall provide to the Legislature, on June 8, 2009, or six calendar days after the next statewide election, whichever is later, instead of May 14, 2009, all of the following: (a) an estimate of General Fund revenues for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 fiscal years, (b) any proposals to reduce expenditures to reflect updated revenue estimates, and (c) all proposed adjustments that are necessary to reflect updated estimates of state funding required pursuant to Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution, or to reflect caseload enrollment or population changes.
Law, schmaw. Arnold Schwarzenegger sure won't let pesky laws get in the way of his plans to scare voters into accepting his budget-busting propositions. It will be interesting if he actually does move up the June Revise even though he signed his name to a bill saying he wouldn't.
The willingness to make the "ultimate sacrifice" in defense of our country stands as the enduring value which binds every active duty serviceman, servicewoman, and every veteran of the United States military.
