One of the benefits of newly redrawn maps for me is the ability to vote for Fran Pavley, running for state Senate District 27. Recently, former speaker of the Assembly Bob Hertzberg has expressed interest in the race. His stated rationale: he's a moderate, the district is moderate, he's a Valley guy.
Cross-posted from the CA League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) blog,Groundswell.
By Mike Young and Beth Gunston
Late Wednesday, CLCV-endorsed candidate Assemblymember Bill Monning was greeted with some fantastic news: Senator Sam Blakeslee announced that he will not seek re-election. Despite being the incumbent, Blakeslee decided that defending his seat would not be worth the effort since decennial redistricting shifted this coastal district to a new 16% Democratic registration advantage. If that were not insurmountable enough, much of the new district that stretches from Santa Cruz to San Luis Obespo overlaps areas that Monning currently represents in the Assembly.
In 2010, it was largely argued that Blakeslee only won his race against Democrat candidate and environmental champion John Laird because then-Governor Schwarzenegger made that contest a special election where Democratic voters tend to have extremely low turnout. Whether that's true or not, Blakeslee felt he had no viable chance this time around. Without a serious primary challenger and with the incumbent ducking out, Monning is in a great position to essentially walk into the seat. This will be a big pick-up for the environment. Monning (100% CLCV score) will be a much needed breath of fresh air from Blakeslee (21% CLCV score), especially in the Senate where environmental priorities have had a much more difficult time passing. Monning is well regarded for his environmental health work around toxics and pesticides, and has been specifically outspoken about the recent introduction of methyl iodide in the state.
But while Monning’s expected win is a great for the environment, it's time to look this gift horse in the mouth. With little hope of a contender to pit against Monning, the polluter interests that helped Blakeslee win in 2010 will likely now spend their money to defeat a more vulnerable target: state Senator Fran Pavley. Pavley, an environmental leader who authored California's landmark global warming laws, has a much more difficult race this year as redistricting has put her in a Senate seat against Tony Strickland with a very narrow registration advantage. In 2008, despite his 2% record on the environment including countless votes against bills to increase renewable energy, Strickland reinvented himself as a renewable energy expert and narrowly won his current Senate seat. With environmental advocates just one seat away from a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate and environmental champion Fran Pavley potentially being ousted, you can bet big polluters will spend more heavily on this race than any others.
So while the prospects for Bill Monning look fantastic, the consequence may be that we will need to work even harder to protect Fran Pavley. Still, much can change between now and Election Day, and nobody quite knows how the top two primary system will change the political landscape. All we know for sure is that in 2012 we must remain vigilant and work towards electing an environmental majority in the Senate. That way we’ll be more likely to pass bold environmental laws along with a balanced budget, taxes, and fees to keep our state moving forward in the years to come.
The California Assembly's Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife will hold a hearing in the afternoon today (June 29) on a bill, SB 565, that would give the State Water Resources Control Board new penalty and investigative powers dealing with water rights.
SB 565 is sponsored by Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) and co-sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael. While it is supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, the bill opposed by Restore the Delta and other groups.
"This bill would increase the Board's fines for illegal diversions (which have not been updated in nearly 20 years) to keep pace with inflation," said Barry Nelson of NRDC. "It would provide other enforcement related tools as well. An effective enforcement program would increase the incentives to discourage illegal water diversions."
He added, "This, of course, would help the troubled Bay-Delta system and other degraded rivers. But it would also benefit legal diverters, who can face water shortages and increased regulatory burdens as a result of illegal pumping."
However, Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta, said the bill will reduce or eliminate existing due process and property rights protections for California water rights holders.
"This bill allows the State Water Board to review and revise any water right without cause, giving this agency new invasive power to inspect private property for vaguely defined purposes to ascertain whether the beneficial purposes of water use are being met," said Barrigan-Parrilla.
Barrigan-Parrilla said SB 565 "shifts the burden" of proving forfeiture of a water right to the water right holder - dramatically increasing the likelihood of a frivolous lawsuit being filed by a third party.
"The bill forces property owners to pay for the extremely costly engineering reports that will ultimately be used against them by third party litigants," said Barrigan-Parrilla. "It also increases exponentially the penalty to reflect the "market value" of water (regardless of the actual value of the water to the user)."
These provisions were considered for inclusion in last year's SBx7 5 on water rights enforcement, but were ultimately abandoned for lack of support.
"Many Delta farmers believe, and we concur, that these new authorities will be used to litigate Delta farmers out of existence," said Barrigan-Parrilla. "By keeping Delta farmers in a position of defense, those who want to usurp their water rights will keep the financial pressure on, forcing Delta farmers to "sell" the farm. This is a blatant attempt to rewrite the California water code to justify taking away the historical water rights held by Delta families."
She emphasized, "What is even more shameful about this proposed legislation is that it does not help to meet the long term environmental needs of the Delta, but actually sets the stage for even more water diversions."
The legislation is being considered at a time when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is campaigning for the construction of a peripheral canal and new dams. The canal is likely to result in the extinction of Sacramento River chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta smelt, green sturgeon and other collapsing species.
Today is the big day. The California Air Resources Board released the draft proposal for California's cap-and-trade program to allocate carbon emissions permits to large polluting companies. The program is the flagship proposal of the legislation and the principle legislative success Governor Schwarzenegger is clutching onto for his "environmental" legacy. It is also the remnant of former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez's legacy, who pushed the legislation through the legislture in 2006 with then Assembly member and now Senator Fran Pavley .
At stake is the environmental and economic future of the state. A recent report commissioned by the Natural Resource Defense Council on the American Clean Energy and Security Act which passed out of the House of Representatives earlier this year, identified $300 billion in investment that could be redirected to clean jobs. If California's emissions program is aggressive enough to stimulate the innovation and economic development of California's clean energy sector, California could reap the benefits and jobs that come from the federal effort. Even if the feds don't pass the legislation, California could see the economic boon from its own program.
The danger that remains to be seen is if the business community will be successful in securing free pollution permits under the program. The business lobby has been pushing hard and this program is the only bill the Governor has signed that the CA Chamber of Commerce has actively opposed. Known for broken promises and half hearted policy goals, this program could be the last hope for a Governor in search of a box office legacy.
California's system of government is designed to produce bad outcomes, no question about it. But that does not let Democratic lawmakers off the hook for their actions. The process denies the ability to budget in a sane manner, but nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to sign on to a budget that rips the social safety net to shreds. If progressive Democrats in the legislature were willing to say no a little more, they might gain a measure of respectability and have at least some of their demands met.
The problem is that it's very difficult to get a bead on who votes for and against a budget, given the state's process. There were 26 different budget trailer bills, and lawmakers had the opportunity to pick and choose where to take stands. Progressive activists need that information of who voted on what in order to make choices about their representatives. It's not the sum total of the equation - leadership can cut deals with individual lawmakers to vote no on trailer bills where their vote is not needed for passage and yes on others, and there's all manner of horse-trading that goes on. But in the end, all we have are the votes. And so we can judge our elected officials based on what votes they made.
Marty Omoto has helpfully strung together all the votes on the main budget bill and key trailer bills, and he will follow this up in subsequent posts. Have a look. Hone in on your representative. Did they vote in your interests? Did they take any notable stands? Or did they go along with the leadership? If so, is there any need for them to participate in the Legislature, or couldn't a lever pulled by the leadership work just as well?
I'm going to look at my two lawmakers, on the flip. By the way, I also have a list of all Assembly votes on almost all the budget trailer bills, ping me if you want a copy.
The region around SD-23 is getting hit really hard with some just atrocious mail. Not only do they get the mail for the "Collosal Waste of Paper" Race in SD-23, they also get mail from the "Even Bigger Waste of Paper" Race in AD-40. There are trees in Indonesia currently begging for mercy. Vote for Pavley or the Polar Bear Gets it? Maybe, but those trees already bit the dust.
The first ad is from Pavley's campaign, calling Levine the "King of the Luxury Junkets." I love the cute little crown hung from his head, but I gotta tell you, the ad just really doesn't do it for me. I'm not sure who this one convinces. I suppose you could get a few people concerned about "lobbyist money," but not
But, if that's the case, Levine's ad hits the mark. It's a simple explanation of who is paying for the Carbon-Free Pavley Ads. The answer is EdVoice, but the Carbon-Free Campaign has got to be one of the worst mail campaigns. Do the people doing those campaigns think voters aren't going to wonder about the carbon that it takes to print and mail the 7 mailers that get delivered talking about this magnificent carbon-free campaign.
Nonetheless, I doubt that too many of these "who paid for these" really get too far. It seems a bit insider baseball for people to really put the effort into sorting all these mailers out. In the end, all this mail ends up clogging landfills or just being recycled (hopefully).
It sure would be great if these IEs and the campaigns could at least send some worthwhile campaign crap. I know some campaigns are giving out potholders or other such useful items. I mean, if we are going to be spending all this money anyway, why not print the mailer up on, say a reusable shopping bag, or a roll of paper towels. (Of recycled paper and printed with soy ink, of course.)
Before we get into the next round of endorsements, we have a few comments in here about how we envision this working. The endorsements are the opinion of the board, not the community as a whole - we would hope they generate a good discussion about the various candidates in every district.
Furthermore, these are primary endorsements, so somebody is not going to be happy about them. We apologize for that, but if you don't like our opinions, you should let us know that. Write a comment here. Post a diary about the candidate of your choice. Let the community know why you think your preferred candidate is the best choice in the Democratic Primary. Unlike newspapers, this is a two-way medium. We not only accept comments on these endorsements, we encourage it. So, feel free to tell us how wrong we really are.
And with that said, here are the State Senate Endorsements. Explanations over the flip.
SD-03: Mark Leno SD-05: Lois Wolk (UPDATED) SD-09: Loni Hancock & Wilma Chan SD-12: Simon Salinas / Yes on Recall SD-15: Dennis Morris SD-19: Hannah-Beth Jackson SD-23: Lloyd Levine and Fran Pavley SD-25: No Endorsement SD-33: Gary Pritchard
I really like Fran Pavley, and have enormous respect for her. She's running in a tight race with Asm. Lloyd Levine for SD-23. And, fortunately, the former Assembly Leader doesn't have to take credit for this horrendous website and the accompanying mailers. This is an Independent Expenditure (IE) by EdVoice with the mailing address of a law firm up in Marin. I'm not totally sure what EdVoice, an education group is doing sending out environmental mail, but let's just go with it.
In short, the mailer says, you better vote for Fran Pavley or the Polar Bears are all going to die. The other mailers displayed on the website's "Gallery" are not so egregious, but they are all based upon this "carbon-free" concept. David Dayen, who lives in the district, points out that he's now received several mailers from the group, which undercuts the "Carbon-free" argument. Sending 5 mailers and offsetting one absentee vote. I'll let others think about the math on that one.
With this, and Arnold's Great Honor, it is really turning out to be a banner day in California politics. Oh, and Karen Bass is being sworn in today as the first African-American female Speaker in any of the United States.
I don't think that's the message Fran Pavley wanted to convey in this mailer (PDF), but that's pretty much what I'm getting out of it. The front page is a polar bear standing on a lonely block of ice after much of it has fallen away into the sea, looking forlorn. Accompanying the picture is the text "Save a Polar Bear, Vote Carbon Free For Fran Pavley." The inside of the mailer explains why; Pavley is an environmental leader, and fighting global warming will help save the polar bears, the reasoning goes.
Now, I've already explained once why this carbon-free voting idea is kind of a joke, particularly when it's being conveyed to the public by using multiple full-color mailers. I know from my mailbox that Pavley has been far more aggressive in direct mail than her opponent Lloyd Levine. The new information in this mailer is that Pavley's campaign has "purchased carbon offsets to cover every vote-by-mail ballot in the 23rd Senate district," but I'm not getting what the metric is. Does that cover the ballots? The constant stream of mailers? The carbon used by the post office to deliver the ballots? Does it cover the fact that carbon offsets are kind of an environmental shell game that assuages liberal guilt without taking the meaningful steps needed to reduce our carbon output?
Kind of unclear from this mailer.
UPDATE by Brian: I believe this is actually an Independent Expenditure by EdVoice with the mailing address of a law firm up in Marin. I'm not totally sure what EdVoice, an education group is doing sending out environmental mail, but let's just go with it.
Just a quick final reminder of the Calitics Show. You can stream it live on the Radio show home page or listen to a podcast there or at iTunes.
Assembly member Lloyd Levine and former Assembly member Fran Pavley will join us to talk about a number of California policy issues. I figure they might also mention the fact that they are both running for SD-23 as well.
(Don't forget the Calitics Show this afternoon! - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
I'm really proud of the growth and improvement of the Calitics Show. I like to think that the podcast is becoming an exciting new medium for some good Calitics content. We've interviewed candidates and elected officials from across the state, and covered some of the major issues and races in the state.
This Monday, we have another exciting show. We will have both candidates for SD-23 Assembly member Lloyd Levine and former Assembly member Fran Pavley LIVE! We want to use this as a chance to discuss important policy issues facing the state, such as our worsening budget situation, the challenges facing our environment, the energy crisis and whatever issues they or YOU care to bring up. We'll have time for just a few callers. The number is available at the Calitics Show Page. Also, if you have questions, feel free to leave them as comments to this post.
Post-Pennsylvania and... well, nothing much different actually. But next time, for sure! Meanwhile, here are some California-centric notes:
• The California School Employees Association made their endorsements for the June primary. In addition to Migden, they strike of an aversion to go out on a limb. They only endorsed one Congressional candidate in a Republican-held seat (Charlie Brown), and they opted out of a lot of contested primaries in the legislative seats as well. Manuel Perez did get the endorsement in the 80th AD, however (he is a school board member, so not a big shock).
• We don't get into a lot of rural issues on the site, probably because of the bias toward writers here in urban environments. But this salmon fishing ban is a big deal along the Mendocino coast. This actually goes back to the Klamath fish kill in the beginning of the decade and Darth Cheney's efforts to ensure that. I think there are going to be a lot of angry fishermen wanting answers this fall.
• I keep forgetting to write about the State Senate primary in my own backyard of SD-23, between Fran Pavley and Lloyd Levine. Here's some background on the race to succeed Sheila Kuehl. I actually attended an environmental forum with these two last week and found them both to be really solid, with different strengths. While Pavley is an astonishingly effective lawmaker - she probably has her name on more far-reaching climate change legislation than anyone in the entire country - Levine really seems to understand the nature of the fight in Sacramento and how best to bring about sweeping change. I'm not going to be disappointed on June 3, regardless of the winner. We're hoping to get both Pavley and Levine on a future Calitics Radio show.
• Here's a user-created video of our debate protest at ABC last week. We have our own video set for release as well.
• Adam Liptak in The New York Times today: "The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners."
Yet we must remain "tough on crime," even though rises and falls in the crime rate are not correlative to imprisoning people (Canada's rate goes up and down roughly at the same time ours does, without a corresponding increase in the prison population).
In a letter, Yoo's lawyer told Conyers he was "not authorized" by DOJ to discuss internal deliberations.
"We have been expressly advised by the Office of Legal Counsel of the United States Department of Justice that Professor Yoo is not authorized to discuss before your Committee any specific deliberative communications, including the substance of comments on opinions or policy questions, or the confidential predecisional advice, recommendations or other positions taken by individuals or entities of the Executive Branch," Yoo's lawyer, John C. Millian, wrote in a letter to Conyers.
As we all know, the executive branch can ignore subpoenas and prevent Congressional oversight. Why, Yoo wrote it in a memo! But he can't discuss it. Because the executive branch follows the law. That he wrote.
Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown went right to work Tuesday, preparing to sue the federal government "at the earliest possible moment" for the EPA's denial of a waiver to let California implement Fran Pavley's AB1493, the law regulating auto tailpipe emissions that was to begin with model year 2009. The regulations, which sought to control greenhouse gases and not just boost auto efficiency standards, would have had the effect of an increase in MPG to roughly 43, far above the 35MPG by 2020 just mandated in the federal energy bill. Indeed, the EPA in its decision noted the passage of the energy bill as a reason to deny California's request, claiming that there should be one standard and that the new bill pre-empted California's authority. So much for state's rights conservatives.
The lawsuit is about as close as you can get to a slam dunk. The case law is already enormously in favor of California. They have been granted every waiver they've ever requested from the EPA since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1963, and the "compelling and extraordinary conditions" of the state's topography, climate, and number of cars on the road has always been specifically cited. That hasn't changed. In addition, federal lawsuits in California and Vermont have upheld the standards set out in AB1493 as fully legal. And just this year, the Roberts Supreme Court has ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the federal government can regulate greenhouse gas emissions, writng that:
"Judged by any standard, U.S. motor-vehicle emissions make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations."
Sadly, it's true that the Bush Administration probably has the ability to put up enough of a fight in the courts to make implementation virtually impossible so long as he remains in office. And so this is likely to come down to a decision for the next President to make. So you would think that the media, knowing this, knowing the potential of global warming to impact all of our lives, would bother to ask a question about it. But so far in 2007, out of 2275 questions asked of the Presidential candidates on the Sunday chat shows, 3 mentioned global warming. Here's a news peg, Russert, Stephanopoulos, Blitzer, Wallace and Schieffer. Have at it!
Apparently, voting by mail is "carbon-free"! And to prove that point, the carbon-free voting people have sent me a four-page glossy mailer to tell me so. But it's printed on soy ink! And if you vote permanent absentee, you don't have to get in your car to get to your polling place! And anyway, they puchased carbon offsets to mitigate these campaign activities!
So what the hell is going on here? Why is an environmental group sending a mailer touting "carbon-free voting," which, um, pretty much doesn't exist? Well, that would be explained by the picture of Fran Pavley on the back.
Now, Fran's great. As Assemblywoman she authored the landmark global warming law that will hopefully become a model for the nation, AB32. But she's also running for State Senate to replace the termed-out Sheila Kuehl, and obviously she's interested in raising her profile. So everyone in the Senate district, my district, got this mailer. The LA Times ran a story on it.
The mailer is being derided by some, while others are questioning whether it is improperly trying to influence a state Senate election in the West L.A. area by prominently featuring one of the candidates, former Assemblywoman Fran Pavley.
"It looks dubious," said Tracy Westen, chief executive of the Center for Governmental Studies, a Los Angeles-based non-partisan group that promotes political reform in Los Angeles. "It's coordinated with her, it has her picture on it and it is going into that Senate district."
Her main foe in the race, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, wouldn't comment for the story.
There are about 500 good reasons for vote-by-mail, and since Republicans kind of have a head start on permanent absentee organization I'm happy to see someone on the left promoting it. But calling it "carbon-free" is a stretch. And using it as a cover to tout a Senate candidate is pretty suspect.
With respect to the Leno-Midgen battle royale, the most interesting State Senate primary may end up being in the 23rd District, replacing the termed-out Sheila Kuehl (who is likely to run for LA County Supervisor, as she wants to stay closer to home). Up until now, it was assumed that the race would be between former Assmblywoman Fran Pavley and current Assemblyman Lloyd Levine. Each has their base of support in different parts of the district, and that would be an interesting enough battle in and of itself. But now I hear that Santa Monica City Councilman Bobby Shriver, brother of Maria, is looking to possibly run for that seat. Shriver was elected to the City Council in 2004 (I remember getting robocalls from Ted Kennedy for a City Council race), has been a music and television executive, and co-founded the Debt AIDS Trade in Africa organization and the RED Initiative with Bono and others. His donor list reads like a Who's Who of Hollywood celebrity, and he wouldn't have any problem raising money (he spent more than $350,000 to win a City Council seat in a city of around 90,000).
However, there is a bit of tension between Shriver and the progressive grassroots community. The dynamic in Santa Monica is between the beachfront hotels, who want pro-business policies forwarded, and SMRR (Santa Monicans for Renters Rights), who are more in line with citizen concerns. The beachfront hotels went after Councilmember Kevin McKeown (easily the most progressive) in 2006 with an aggressive and vindictive campaign that included dishonest TV ads. SMRR wiped the floor with them, as McKeown grabbed the largest share of the votes.
That same group of business interests backed Shriver with huge dollars in 2004. Now, Shriver and McKeown don't vote all that differently, though McKeown is somewhat more progressive. But that perception, combined with the fact that Shriver really hasn't had much interest in engaging with the local grassroots, has strained relations. And Pavley is certainly their candidate in this race. The high name-ID of a Shriver throughout the district and his ability to bring in big money will be formidable, but the grassroots connections for both of the other candidates will be an obstacle. This is going to be an outstanding race.
