This will be brief. It is with amusement that I read from Capitol Weekly's Twitter feed that Senator Gil Cedillo is intent on challenging John Perez for his Assembly seat now that he is termed out of the State Senate--even if Perez is elected as speaker, which is an outcome that is looking increasingly likely.
Keep in mind that last time we saw Gil Cedillo, he was engaged in a mean-spirited, borderline racist, and completely mendacious campaign for the 32nd Congressional District against newcomer Emanuel Pleitez and current Congresswoman and former Board of Equalization Chair Judy Chu.
There are a couple of things that really stand out to me about this. First, I was under the impression that Senator Cedillo had already served his terms in the Assembly from 1997 until 2002. If he's contemplating running, he obviously has some eligibility left, but how could it extend beyond one term? I would appreciate enlightenment on this issue. (UPDATE by Robert: According to Capitol Weekly, Cedillo has 1 term left - he replaced Louis Caldera in 1997 when Caldera became Army Secretary under Clinton.)
Second--challenging a sitting Speaker of the Assembly who is also a Latino with roots in the labor movement to move to the lower house? Whose support, endorsements or fundraising does he really think he's going to get if he pulls a move like that? He certainly won't get the support of the CDP, or the prominent members of the local party.
And lastly, after the hit that the Senator's reputation took in light of his disastrous campaign for Congress, why would he want to follow that up by challenging a sitting Speaker when we have an opportunity to have several uninterrupted years of continuous leadership in that position due to the fact that we'll apparently have a Speaker who isn't in his last term?
Sometimes, I guess, the thirst for an office convinces people to do things they probably shouldn't. This is one of those cases.
The weekly Democratic radio address (which ought to be a YouTube address, come on guys) called for an end to the 2/3 requirement for budget and tax increases. This is the first time in my memory that so many lawmakers are openly talking about revising 2/3. It's not a new problem - 28 of the last 32 budgets have been late due to legislative squabbling, with the fights becoming more protracted than ever over the past decade. And every economic downturn, no matter how slight, sets off a crisis. Assemblyman John Perez made it clear:
The budget would not have taken so long and would have not included non-budget related issues like an open primary if California did not have the unusual requirement of a two thirds vote for budget approval.
Reforming this two-thirds requirement should be a priority for all Californians.
Perez did not reference whether the new requirement should be the arbitrary 55% number, which is what the current initiative being circulated states, or a simple democratic majority. We've learned where a number of Democrats stand this weekend:
• Darrell Steinberg decided not to mention 2/3 hardly at all in his op-ed in the Sacramento Bee. That's a lack of leadership. No elected official should be speaking in public and pass up the opportunity to advocate for majority vote. He instead opted for a Broderist call for working together and the awkward tag line "Smarter going forward."
In comments to David Greenwald, Steinberg did call for repeal, but failed to pick a side.
"The answer in my view is to take this two-thirds supermajority requirement. We are one of three states in the country that allows a small minority of members to hold up the progress.... It doesn't really work for California; it worked this time barely because of the magnitude of the crisis... We need to take the question this two-thirds supermajority to the ballot. I feel even stronger now than I did when I started on December 1."
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, has proposed one that would allow lawmakers to approve budgets with 55 percent majorities if they do it by June 15. After that, it would take two-thirds votes.
It's not necessarily that this kind of measure would definitely not pass because all the thrust of majority democratic rule is lost, but that's certainly a factor.
• In that same article, Loni Hancock calls for a simple majority:
Hancock has introduced a constitutional amendment that would require only simple majorities to approve budgets.
"California needs to have a normal democracy like every other state in the nation except Rhode Island and Arkansas," she said.
That's a talking point. 55% is mush.
The point is that we have the Democratic leadership finally talking about the main impediment to the perpetual budget crisis. Without two-thirds, you can fix a tax system that is too closely tied to boom-and-bust economic cycles. Without two-thirds, you can end the virtual bribery of Yacht Party and moderate lawmakers. Without two-thirds, you can end the Big Five process that facilitates official secrecy and backroom deals and use a deliberative process involving the committee structure and relying on the input of the entire caucus. And without 2/3, you won't have to hear from high Broderist windbags tinkering on the margins with proposals that make them feel good but will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. It's kind of hilarious that the LAST proposal in George "Can't We All Get Along" Skelton's long list in today's column is this:
* A simple majority vote for budget passage; 55% at most. Scrap the two-thirds vote requirement.
Eric Bauman is going to raise $1 million dollars for 2008. The best part is how he's going to spend it.
Last night, members of the Los Angeles County Central Committee raised their hands to take an oath of office from Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, and took to electing Party officers. Among them was Chairman Eric Bauman, unanimously re-elected to a fifth term.
I'm told that's a record. From his words last night, it's easy to see why.
Bauman has been singled out here as someone who speaks his mind and knows the mechanics of electioneering, even when his opinions and techniques run against the grain of some Democratic leaders.
He showed what he's made of in thanking the Central Committee and looking ahead to 2008 - and perhaps beyond:
Now is the time to rebuild, refresh and reassemble the mosaic that comprises our Democratic Party for it is only through unity, strength and shared purpose that we can be successful this fall.
As we work to build unity however, we must take seriously our responsibility to remind those we have elected or put in positions of power of their obligation to do the right thing by our Party and our people.
Whether it is protecting those most at-risk from harsh budget cuts or standing up for our Constitution or avoiding situations and actions that have the appearance of impropriety, as leaders of our Party, we must not fear holding feet to the fire and speaking truth to power.
If we truly are leaders, we must act like it: respectfully, responsibly, but fearlessly.
Who else senses a little tough love in there?
What I find interesting about Bauman's leadership of the LACDP is not just his (sadly uncommon) willingness to speak truth to power, but how he marshalls forces and resources on the ground to help candidates up and down the ballot, even in those districts often written off as unwinnable.
After the jump I'll share what I heard last night (and from Bauman separately), and what I've seen him do to build and strengthen the Democratic Party in Los Angeles County.
