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.
Occupy Sacramento and members of SEIU and other unions marched on Governor Jerry Brown's loft home Saturday to call for an end to the epidemic of violence by law enforcement agencies against the Occupy movement, as exemplified in the shocking video of police brutally pepper spraying peaceful UC Davis students at a protest.
The video of the November 18 protest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4&utm_source=General&utm_campaign=f6cc05a348-Daily_Update_11_20_2011&utm_medium=email) has gone viral throughout the world.
After marching from the park, protesters gathered on the other side of 16th street from the Governor's loft, yelling, "We are the 99 percent," "The people united, will never be divided," "When do we want? Justice! - When do we want it? Now!"
Not surprisingly, Brown was not there to hear the pleas of the protesters. A media advisory that I received from the Governor's office on Saturday stated, "The Governor has left the state."
"Governor Brown, we challenge you to take up the fight with Occupy," said Kevin Carter of Occupy Sacramento. "We occupy for the First Amendment, free speech, peaceful assembly and the redress of grievances against the government. As the Governor, you should lead this fight."
"We are sick and tired of UC Davis students being maced and sprayed," said Carter. "We are sick and tired of UC Berkeley students engaged in nonviolent protest being pulverized and having batons shoved into their ribs by police. What gives the police the right to use this type of police brutality?"
Carter concluded, "We the people won't stand for this injustice. We ask you and the State Attorney General to take the lead to stop these police officers from abusing protesters while peacefully assembling."
In a similar vein, one of the protesters passionately read a letter from Nathan Brown, Assistant Professor in the Department of English Program in Critical Theory at the University of California at Davis, calling for Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehito to resign.
"Without any provocation whatsoever, other than the bodies of these students sitting where they were on the ground, with their arms linked, police pepper-sprayed students. Students remained on the ground, now writhing in pain, with their arms linked," Brown said
"Police used batons to try to push the students apart," Brown emphasized. "Those they could separate, they arrested, kneeling on their bodies and pushing their heads into the ground. Those they could not separate, they pepper-sprayed directly in the face, holding these students as they did so. When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats. Several of these students were hospitalized. Others are seriously injured. One of them, forty-five minutes after being pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood."
"This is what happened. You are responsible for it," stated Brown.
After rallying in front of Brown's loft, the Occupy Sacramento and union activists marched back to Cesar Chavez Park for a community lunch, teach-ins and the daily General Assembly.
Before the march, Occupy Sacramento co-hosted a jobs creation/putting America Back-To-Work Rally with SEIU at Cesar Chavez Park. A diverse group of teachers, nurses, public employees, laborers, students and the faith community called for job creation at time when California and the U.S. are in the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Sacramento Police, like the UC Davis police and other law enforcement agencies throughout the nation, have waged a campaign against the Occupy movement in what appears to be a coordinated strategy of repression in conjunction with Department of Homeland Security and other federal law enforcement agencies. The City of Sacramento has arrested 84 people at the park since October 6.
Misdemeanor charges were dismissed on Wednesday, November 16 by the City of Sacramento against nine Occupy Sacramento defendants arrested at Cesar Chavez Park over the last month. They were scheduled for full jury trials December 13, according to Cres Vellucci of Occupy Sacramento.
The City dismissed another 7 charges Friday. Another nine, including anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, will have charges tossed early this coming week. "In all, charges are expected to be dismissed or not filed against 40 individuals, the City has indicated to lawyers for Occupy Sacramento defendants," said Vellucci.
The City Attorney's Office confirmed the dismissal of charges in a statement released on November 16, although it vowed to continue prosecuting "defendants charged with multiple violations."
"On November 16, 2011, the City Attorney's Office, in the interest of justice, commenced dismissing a limited number of cases that arose out of violations of Sacramento City Code section 12.72.090 (remaining at the park after park hours) at the Cesar Chavez Park," according to the statement. "Each of the dismissed defendants was arrested and booked at the Sacramento County Jail where defendants spent up to one day in a jail cell."
"After evaluating the facts of each case and criminal history of each defendant, the City Attorney's office has determined that the arrest and jail time that each dismissed defendant served achieved the People of the State of California's demand for substantial justice. The City Attorney's Office will continue to prosecute those defendants charged with multiple violations of Sacramento City Code section 12.72.090 that occurred at Cesar Chavez Park," the statement concluded.
"This is a vindication not just for the individuals, but for our Constitution and freedom of assembly and speech," said Karen Bernal, after her charges were dismissed Wednesday. Bernal is the chair of the California Democratic Party Progressive Caucus.
For more information about Occupy Sacramento, contact: Cres Vellucci, 916-996-9170, http://www.occupysac.org.
In another setback for troubled bank, Attorneys look into possibly false claims
by Brian Leubitz
It's not easy being Bank of America these days. Oh sure, you get to have the pride of advertising on Hulu and well, everywhere, but are there people out there that don't hate you? You have those Occupy Wall Street folks, the people who hate you over the ridiculously greedy $5 debit card charge, and, oh right, their sketchy dealings in the foreclosure crisis.
Add a different (but related) worry onto the pile:
Investigators with the state attorney general's office have subpoenaed Bank of America Corp. in connection with the sale and marketing of troubled mortgage-backed securities to California investors, according to a person familiar with the probe.
The state is trying to determine whether the bank and its Countrywide Financial subsidiary sold investments backed by risky mortgages to institutional and private investors in California under false pretenses...
Harris has created a mortgage fraud strike force with a mandate of looking into all aspects of mortgage fraud, including securitization. Many of these investments plunged in value as the housing market collapsed. Under California's False Claims Act, which makes it a crime to defraud the state, damages of up to three times the amount of the claim can be awarded if the victim was an institutional investor, such as one of the state's pension funds.(LA Times)
It is possible this is part of the 3-dimensional chess being played with the foreclosure mess, but if the AG's office can prove that BofA made the false claims, we are talking about a lot of money for a bank that already has capitilization issues.
Amazon wants to overturn rules requiring they collect sales taxes, but is it possible through referendum?
by Brian Leubitz
The following provision of the California Constitution will get much scrutiny over the next few weeks (and months) as Amazon seeks to overturn the requirement that they collect sales taxes:
SEC. 9. (a) The referendum is the power of the electors to approve
or reject statutes or parts of statutes except urgency statutes,
statutes calling elections, and statutes providing for tax levies or
appropriations for usual current expenses of the State.
That's from Article II of the California Constitution. While a quick reading would indicate that Amazon could not, in fact, put the tax statute to a referendum, quick readings don't always win the day. And while Amazon's attorney, Steve Merksamer, spouts off about how the right to referendum is "sacrosanct," it isn't quite that simple either.
The measure is now in the capable hands of Attorney General Kamala Harris, who will determine whether it can proceed to the signature gathering phase. If she determines that it is not a valid referendum, then Amazon will likely sue. If she finds it is valid, well, expect a suit in the opposite direction, after all these are some high stakes:
Whichever way she rules, the losing side could end up suing.
"I'm sure there will be litigation on this," said Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon, D-Whittier.
Calderon, Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner and several area retailers crowded into Swanberg's on J, a small midtown clothier that specializes in Hawaiian shirts, to blast Amazon's sales tax stance. By not collecting the tax, Amazon is harming brick-and-mortar retailers, they said.
"It's a fairly big issue," said Swanberg's owner Lauren Lundsten, wearing shorts and a Hawaiian shirt.(SacBee)
The automatic 9% discount that Amazon gets is made any more fair through all of their machinations. They've blocked other avenues to charge sales tax on their products, so what choice is left?
We should hear sometime soon from the AG's office, and then shortly thereafter in the courts. But this is not a battle that should have to be fought for the sake of an unfair advantage for an out-of-state corporation.
As many of you already know, a recent Field Poll survey was released showing Senator Dianne Feinstein slipping in her approval rating. 43% of California voters surveyed approve of Sen. Feinstein, while 39% disapprove-- the highest disapproval rating she's had since first being elected to office in 1992. While these numbers don't necessarily spell trouble for California's senior senator, they do indicate that people are starting to think of a changing of the guards in the Golden State. It most certainly has crossed her mind as well.
There are always politicians and prominent Californians waiting in the wings for political jockeying. With Feinstein reaching 80 years of age soon, more and more elected officials are prepping their resumes and spending extra time coddling donors in preparation for the inevitable.
So it begs the speculative question, who would be ready and able to run a statewide campaign for the United States Senate in the event of Senator Dianne Feinstein's retirement? Who would make a great Senator? Who should make for a great race? Who would be an abysmal choice? In this "fantasy draft" diary, I've narrowed it down to the 13 most probable potential candidates who are at least thinking about a potential run from the Democratic side. All the apparent pros and cons will be listed, and your suggestions/comments are always welcome. And by all means, if you know of any Republicans that would seem likely, include those as well!
Just another reason to be glad we got that Democratic sweep:
Days after House Republicans voted to repeal last year's health care reforms, California Attorney General Kamala Harris kept a campaign pledge Friday by joining with other state attorneys general to file a brief in the Affordable Care Act's defense.
Harris and the Democratic attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, New York, Oregon and Vermont planned to file their friend-of-the-court brief with the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case brought by Thomas More Law Center. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the law's mandate that most people maintain a minimum level of health insurance coverage or else pay a tax penalty.
Harris -- a Democrat who defeated Republican rival Steve Cooley by less than 1 percent of the vote in last November's election -- said during a conference call Friday with Oregon Attorney General John Kroger and Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller that the spirit and intent of the Constitution and its Commerce Clause indicate such a mandate is a crucial and permissible exercise of Congress' power. (San Jose Mercury News)
During the campaign (on which I worked), Kamala Harris strongly and repeatedly voiced her support for health care reform. And, hey, look at that, she's following up on what she said.
Today, Governor Brown announced that he would be taking 48,000 cell phones away from state employees, in order to reduce costs. Chron:
"In the face of a multi-billion dollar budget deficit, a cell phone may not seem like a big expense. But spending $20 million, and perhaps far more than that, on cell phones can't be justified," he said.
You know what would save even more money? Repealing the death penalty.
That's exactly what the Illinois legislature did today. And what did they cite as the reason, beyond just innocent people being sentenced to death? The cost of killing people for their crimes. ABC News:
"Illinois has spent over $100 million in 10 years and hasn't put anyone to death," said a sponsor of the Illinois bill, State Rep. Karen Yarbrough, a Democrat. "It's time to put this barbaric practice to rest."
As states struggle to cope with major budget shortfalls and even the prospect of bankruptcy, they're confronting the fact that sentencing someone to death is extremely expensive.
In California, for example, a 2008 report showed that the $137 million annual cost of maintaining the criminal justice system would drop to just $11.5 million annually if the death sentence were abolished.
$125.5 million dollars is a whole heck of a lot more than $20 million from taking away cell phones from state workers and likely reducing their effectiveness.
What I want to know is how many kids will go without health care because the state wants to keep killing people?
As we wait to see what sort of pain the Governor's budget will bring, San Francisco made some news again yesterday. Rather than appointing one of the political types that have been bandied about, Mayor/LG Newsom, always one for a bit of the dramatic, went for the unexpected by selecting SF Police Chief George Gascón.
Now, Gascón has been pretty popular in SF since he arrived about a year and a half ago, but his name was never really mentioned in connection with the DA gig. There are a number of reasons for that. While he did graduate from Western State University College of the Law, he has never really practiced law. Instead, he's been a full-time cop, moving up the ladder in the LAPD (and serving as the Chief of Mesa,AZ).
Now, while he may not have the trial experience of a Kamala Harris, it is clear that the DA of a county like SF rarely actually litigates cases anymore. Rather, the job is more strategic, and that is what Harris excelled in. And so it is no surprise that he chose to praise that ability of his predecessor:
At his swearing-in ceremony a few hours later, Gascón said he planned to continue many of Harris' programs.
There will be one distinct change, however. Unlike Harris, Gascón said he had no objection to seeking the death penalty in cases that warrant it.(SF Chronicle)
Of course, in a city like San Francisco, the death penalty is neither popular nor particularly easy to get. Kamala Harris just didn't have a whole lot of opportunities to attempt to get the death penalty even had she wanted to, and Gascón is going to learn a bit about those feelings as he enters his new found career in San Francisco politics.
Speaking of those political issues, no word on whether this presents any changed circumstances for other announced candidates. Current DA Administrator Paul Henderson and Boalt Hall criminal justice expert David Onek have already announced their candidacies. Former prosecutor Jim Hammer is also rumored to be interested.
I'm heading up to Sacramento today to see the inauguration of Attorney General Kamala Harris. Working on the campaign for well over a year, it is the culmination of a lot of hard work. Truthfully, at some level, it hasn't really sunk in, so this will be a somewhat dramatic experience. However, I know she will do an absolutely amazing job for the State of California.
But, you know, there are other things going on today as well. The changing of the guard from the worst governor ever back to the more competent Jerry Brown will be a huge positive for the state, and perhaps we can start to recover from the shock doctrining of our Schwarzenegger years.
The rest of the Democratic slate, save Gavin Newsom, will also be inaugurated today. So, that means Tom Torlakson, Bill Lockyer, John Chiang, Dave Jones, Debra Bowen and the above mentioned Kamala Harris will also be inaugurated. And with Dave Jones joining John Chiang, we get our second Carl Sandburg High School (Orland Park, IL) alum in statewide office. What are the odds?
I'll admit, San Francisco is a pretty hard city to leave. On several occasions, I've made the decision to stay in town. Yet, then again, I didn't run for statewide office, while Gavin Newsom did. However, while all of the other statewide officers are being sworn in on Monday, he is going to wait until he's good and ready:
Mayor Gavin Newsom left Tuesday morning with wife Jennifer and daughter Montana to Los Cabos, Mexico, and will return from vacation Saturday. But he won't spend the weekend packing up for Sacramento - looks like he'll be here well beyond his lieutenant governor's Monday start date.
"He's going to leave at some point," assured Newsom's spokesman, Tony Winnicker. "He will assume the office of lieutenant governor in January."
Of course, there's the big reason that he wants the new Board of Supervisors, to be sworn in Jan. 8, to pick his replacement. But there are also a lot of loose ends to tie up - and Newsom, busy burnishing his legacy, wants full credit. {SF Gate)
Of course, some of those loose ends are in fact something of a big deal. However, I leave up to your judgment on whether it is a good idea or not to just cool your heels, and let the state linger. To me, it seems a bit bizarre. After all, he fought for the past couple of years to get out of SF for Sacramento, but now he can't seem to quit us.
As an aside, but the CW has the Mayor's race down to Board President David Chiu and SFPUC General Manager Ed Harrington at this point. I'm not entirely convinced that this delay really changes the calculus all that much, but there will likely be some machinations that could end up suprising the entire political community in San Francisco. Perhaps, Mayor Newsom has some play left up his sleeve worthy of the Triple Play.
In case you hadn't noticed, we are pretty much at the moment of perfect storm for the prisons. They are wildly overcrowded, and generally wild. They are the subject of Supreme litigation to release 40,000 prisoners. They are costing us more than we are spending on our higher education systems, and oh, yeah, there's the fact that we face about $30 Billion of debt.
So you would think that this would be a super fantastic opportunity to try to do something about the prison situation. For years, the voters and politicians of the state have been scared of doing anything other than trading on fear. Rather than working on new solutions was considered too risky. Thing is, while I was working for Kamala Harris' campaign, I learned that somebody forgot to tell her that. Instead, she has throughout her career as SF DA been willing to look at new ways to make this a safer world, rather than just the politically safe ways of locking up every offender and trying to keep the keys far away.
And perhaps we are seeing more Californians noticing that we, in fact, have a few problems here. From today's LA Times:
"Smart on Crime" is something of a Harris franchise, the name of her 2009 book. In it, and during her campaign, Harris argued that criminal justice money is wasted on the "revolving door" that prison has become as 70% of the 120,000 convicts released annually end up being caught committing new crimes.
She believes that prison should be the punishment for serious offenders and that greater pains should be taken to prod milder offenders with education, counseling, probation and other community-based support.
"I firmly believe in and advocate accountability and consequences when you are talking about rapists and murderers and child molesters - you've got to lock them up," she said. "But you've also got to look at the fact that crime is not monolithic." (LA Times)
However, we can't really think that whatever changes are going to be either quick or easy. At the same time this story (entitled "The time may be right for Kamala Harris") was published, we get a story of Jerry Brown's fealty to the prison guards union (CCPOA).
Jerry Brown is preparing to dance with the ones who brung him, specifically 31,000 members of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. ... In a speech that was closed to the public, Brown warned union members that there may not be much if any pay raise. But he also talked about his strong relationship with the union's leaders and declared that he intends to work out a labor pact with them once in office.
"He reached out to a large segment of his employees and gave them hope," said Chuck Alexander, the union's second in command. "It made people feel a little bit better."(SacBee)
CCPOA has been in a near constant war with Schwarzenegger. It occasionally was helpful, but more often what they were fighting was any attempt at reform. The target of their ire was sentencing reform primarily, as they would prefer to keep more people in prisons (and more guards in jobs). The relationship with Brown will certainly be different. That's probably a good think initially, but CCPOA is going to have to open up to reforms, or face some far more drastic options.
The court decision is still looming, but even a "victory" would only be a temporary for our prison and its history of letting people die in their own cesspools. Everybody is going to need to make some changes in their thinking if we are to really tackle the prisons issue. CCPOA is going to have to open up to reform. Politicians, particularly Harris and Brown, are going to have to get really friendly with that third rail in order to provide the leadership our state needs. And most importantly, our voters have to realize that their is a high cost of the "tough on crime" mantras, especially when not backed up with sensible rehabilitation procedures.
Big change is coming, but whether its delivered through democratic processes, through a court order, or some sort of disaster, well, who knows?
California will release an unprecedented number of prisoners back to their communities in the coming year, prodded by both the state budget crisis and the federal courts.
But those returning will be far less prepared to successfully re-enter society - due to severe cuts to rehabilitation programs in prison - and will be returning to counties that are far less prepared to assist them - due to massive budget deficits at the county level.
Many are concerned that this will lead to an increase in California's already astronomical recidivism rate of 70%, costing the state even more in corrections spending and leading to further victimization in our communities.
What to do?
A new report by the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice (BCCJ) points to a proven solution that will decrease recidivism and enhance public safety with significant cost savings to the state: increasing employment opportunities for people with prior convictions.
As BCCJ's Founding Executive Director, I was privileged to convene the wide-ranging project advisory board that developed the report's timely recommendations. The group consisted of an extremely diverse group of "unlikely allies" - with representatives from law enforcement, advocacy groups, employers, and other stakeholders from across the political spectrum and from all corners of the state. As advisory board member and East Palo Alto Police Chief Ron Davis recently said: "It was just an outstanding group, and it opened my eyes: it really showed me that even with the diverse group that was there, law enforcement to prosecutors to advocates for the formerly incarcerated, how closely aligned we were."
The BCCJ report points to solutions as simple as providing a California ID card to everyone leaving prison - a prerequisite for applying for most jobs. This low-cost measure has been passed by the legislature but was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. Governor-Elect Jerry Brown would be wise to call for and sign a new bill.
Other solutions do cost some money in the short run - but save many times that in the long run. Investing in prison vocational education programs has proven to save money: the Washington State Institute for Public Policy found that every dollar invested netted nearly twelve dollars in return. But California has gone in the opposite direction, cutting vocational education and other rehabilitation programs in prison by $250 million - close to half of the total rehabilitation budget. Governor-Elect Brown has said he wants to avoid quick fixes and budget gimmicks that save money in one fiscal year only to cost the state much more down the line. That's exactly what these recent cuts have done. Governor-Elect Brown should increase spending on vocational education and related programs and can count on future corrections savings as a result.
At the county level, the BCCJ report calls for the development of re-entry councils such as those begun in San Diego under the leadership of District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, a BCCJ project advisory board member, and in San Francisco under the leadership of Attorney General-elect Kamala Harris and others, to better coordinate re-entry services at the local level. The councils cost little but can have a big impact.
Simply put, a small investment in helping formerly incarcerated people find jobs will have a huge payoff in reduced corrections costs, reduced recidivism and reduced crime in our communities.
As the BCCJ report shows, law enforcement leaders, advocates, and enlightened employers all understand this. Here's hoping that our new Governor does too.
__
David Onek is a Senior Fellow at the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, Host of the Criminal Justice Conversations Podcast, and a former Commissioner on the San Francisco Police Commission.
By now, you may have heard that much of San Francisco's political leadership is moving on up in about a month or so. But just how San Francisco moves on from Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris (note: I worked on her campaign, but I have no inside details on this) is still up in the air. The Wall Street Journal has something of a primer on the issues. It's a decent enough start, portraying the various scenarios. For a more entertaining take, watch the Necessary Conversation video on your right. But as somebody who is pretty involved in local politics, these are the decision points, as it were, that I see:
1) When will Gavin Newsom switch gigs?
Officially, Abel Maldonado's term ends on January 3, like all other statewide officers. And that is the date that Gavin Newsom is supposed to be sworn in as LG. However, he is trying to push back that date a few days in order to get his replacement selected by the new Board of Supervisors that is sworn in on Jan 7.
Of course, if he is able to push back his inauguration date, the other thing that would bring him is the ability to appoint the interim DA. He's hinted that he would respect the opinion of Kamala Harris on that pick, but would, if he makes that call, be the one with the final decision on DA.
At this point it isn't totally clear whether he will push the date back, but, legally it looks like he might be able to do it. That has to give it a pretty good chance of happening, I'd say it's a 60% shot now.
2) Does anybody have 6 votes?
That is the big question, and right now, it seems that there are only a few people that could legitimately claim to have those votes. And one of them, Asm. Tom Ammiano, has said that he doesn't want the job. Sup. Chris Daly seems intent on twisting Ammiano's arm into taking the gig. State Sen. Mark Leno would probably have the votes as well, but as he was just appointed Senate Budget Chair, I'm not sure that he would want the gig either. Sen. Leland Yee really, really wants the job, but doesn't have the 6 votes. City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Assessor Phil Ting are also running for mayor, but don't appear to have the 6 votes necessary
Now, if nobody is able to get to 6 votes, the Board President automatically becomes acting mayor. Right now that is Sup. David Chiu. Chiu is also the favorite to retain that position on the new board, and would thus get the mayor's new gig. Now, that wouldn't make him "interim" mayor, but just acting. The big difference is that the acting mayor can be replaced by the board, whereas the interim mayor cannot. Chiu is also rumored to be considering a full run at the Mayor's office if he is named to be interim Mayor. And, running as something of an incumbent, he would at least be in a much stronger position than he is for that right now.
Oh, and just to make things more complicated, there have also been rumors that Chiu is interested in the DA position as well.
3) A care taker?
If the progressive bloc can't get something together to choose an interim mayor, Sheriff Mike Henessey and SFPUC General Manager Ed Harrington are rumored "caretaker" Mayors. The election is just 11 months away, so a caretaker mayor would allow the voters to actually choose the next Mayor.
There are really too many variables to consider, but hopefully this flood of information will somewhat valuable as we watch to see the dominoes fall in San Francisco.
With the belated victory of Kamala Harris as Attorney General, the full results of the 2010 election are in for California. There many things that progressives can be proud of - a sweep of statewide offices, picking up another Assembly seat, defeating prop 23 and passing prop 25. On the other hand, there are also some major disappointments - the defeat of prop 19 (marijuana legalization), the defeat of prop 21 (a VLF to fund the state parks), the defeat of prop 24 (rolling back corporate tax breaks), and the passage of prop 26 (2/3rds requirement for fees). Prop 26 especially complicates what this victory means for California.
Indeed, our situation is a lot like the national picture after the 2008 elections - we have an executive who straddles the line between the left and right wings of the Democratic Party, a big legislative majority, but not the ability to break the fiscal deadlock and really be able to govern our state.
If you've listened to the news on the radio today, you may have heard something about the California prison litigation at the Supreme Court. On one hand, it boils down to a relatively arcane bit of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which governs, well, how prison litigation happens in federal court. The state is arguing, amongst many things, that the federal court erred in not providing enough discretion on how to reduce prison population.
It's not that California's been ordered to provide Cadillac care; today, one inmate dies every eight days due to shoddy medical care. The suicide rate in California prisons is twice the national average.
Despite efforts by the state to improve the situation over two decades, it's still bad.
Last year, three federal judges ordered California to reduce the prison population. They decided that the only cure for the situation was to reduce overcrowding in California prisons; California prisons are packed to nearly double capacity.
They ordered California to release 46,000 inmates, about a third of the total, in the next two years. California appealed that order, and the U.S. Supreme Court hears that appeal today.
California says that the three federal judges overstepped their authority, violating a federal statute called the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That act says that the only way federal judges can order a prison reduction by a state is if the reduction is the only way to solve an ongoing violation; the ongoing violation in this case is the lack of medical and mental health care. It has to be the only solution to the problem. (SoCal Public Radio)
Of course, it isn't like the state has really done anything at all to reduce overcrowding in the last two years. Basically, we've been sitting back and focusing on fighting the litigation rather than the actual crux of the problem. I'm not sure that even in the best of circumstances it is possible to reduce the population in the two year window, but we didn't really try. The Bee ties this in with the recent victory of Kamala Harris in the AG race. (Notes: I worked on her campaign, and the Bee endorsed her opponent.)
She thinks there is a better way to hold nonviolent criminals accountable. She points to Back on Track, a San Francisco program that diverts nonviolent criminals, mostly drug dealers, to job training, community service, drug treatment and school, instead of prison or jail. She says the program saves San Francisco $1 million in jail costs for every 100 offenders who go through it, and twice that much in court costs, while reducing recidivism.
It is noteworthy that Harris will claim victory today at the Delancey Street Foundation in San Francisco, the rehabilitation facility which, as its website boasts, "has been teaching drug abusers, ex-convicts and others who have hit bottom to turn their lives around since 1971."
As attorney general, Harris will have no power to reduce sentences. She won't be able to alter how local prosecutors charge crimes. Nor will she be able to refuse to defend the state when federal judges challenge its overcrowded prison system.
But she can use the bully pulpit to push innovative approaches to the broken justice system. If it were smarter on crime, perhaps California wouldn't need a federal court order to cut prison population.(SacBee)
For many years, we've been beating ourselves up trying to get "Tougher" on Crime, as if there was some sort of choice on "Tough" vs. "Soft." But, that's one of the things that attracted my interest when Kamala was running for DA back in 2003, that she saw this as the false dichotomy that it is. Getting tough by simply applying the practices that got us into this mess will not solve anything, and it certainly won't make us safer. The way we become a safer, and more productive, state is to work to reintegrate those that have made the bad decisions that land them in our prison system, and work to get them back in a position to be productive citizens.
Obviously this doesn't work well for our violent criminals, but those are a minority in our prisons. We are locking up hundreds of non-violent offenders, and teaching them to be better criminals, and probably making them more violent at the same time. After all, prisons, especially overcrowded ones, are not really the best place to travel up Mazlow's hierarchy of needs.
Programs like Back on Track work because they recognize that not all criminals are created equal. We need to look for ways to not only punish, but also to do more for rehabilitation than Arnold's method of slapping the word on the end of the name of the department. We shouldn't be playing some sort of ridiculous multiple choice question, where we can have better public safety, lower expenditures, or lower prison populations. We can, and should, do all of the above.
If Kansas can get it, certainly California, the home of innovation, can do it as well.
In a press conference this morning, Steve Cooley conceded the race to Kamala Harris:
Steve Cooley conceded defeat today to Kamala Harris in the political slugfest for California attorney general, aides said.
Cooley's concession came 22 days after ballots were cast, with his Democratic opponent, left, holding a lead of about 51,500 votes, representing a lead of about a half percentage points in a race that also attracted four minor candidates.(SacBee)
As you may know, I worked on the Harris campaign. I am thrilled not only for our team, and her supporters, but also for the State of California. She really will be an outstanding Attorney General.
AKA California's Good Senator. Boxer is a reliable liberal in a senate full of utterly useless corporate centrists, and quite unafraid to make waves in the service of doing the right thing. In a career that has mostly been dominated by Republican control of the senate, Boxer has distinguished herself by pushing back against a decade of wingnuttery. By contrast, I knew about Fiorina's awful reputation in silicon valley a decade before she decided to make a vanity run for senate, just from techies I knew heaping scorn upon the CEO who drove HP into the ground and then walked away with millions. Thank goodness Boxer's a formidable campaigner, and Fiorina appears to be headed for the dusty place where all the gazillionaire right wing vanity candidates go after they lose, right next to Michael Huffington.
House of Representatives
CA-01 - Mike Thompson
Mike's generally a pretty good guy, and there have been no groaners like the credit card/bankruptcy bill. this time around. Mike's candidate-for-life in that district, but he does a good job representing his people, and I respect that.
CA-02 - Jim Reed
This district is so gerrymandered for Republicans it isn't funny, but I have to applaud Reed for making a serious hard run at the execrable Wally Herger, who isn't even bothering to campaign this time around, much less debate Reed.
CA-03 - Ami Bera
I am thrilled to see Democrats finally start to compete east of the Carquinez, and Bera is certainly giving Lungren a run for his money. As a once and possibly future denizen of the 3rd CD, I really hope Bera knocks off that right wing SoCal carpetbagger. The 80 corridor has changed, and deserves a good congressman.
There is a healthy amount of attention being paid to California’s systemic fiscal challenges this election cycle – with a new state budget apparently out of balance even before it was signed.
But as we debate how to restore fiscal sanity, we need to understand how the skyrocketing cost of our state’s criminal justice system is contributing to the downward spiral – and what we can do to reverse the fiscally unsustainable trend.
During last year’s budget, California spent 11% of its general fund on the state prison system and only 7.5% on higher education.
This level of spending on prisons requires raising taxes and fees while cutting other programs – and, ironically, the first targets are too often programs that help reduce crime. For example, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is slashing $250 million – almost 45% – of the $560 million it had allocated to rehabilitation this year alone.
We know that sending more kids to summer school lowers the drop-out rate, which is one of the single biggest predictors of future criminal activity. And, we also know that our state prison recidivism rate of nearly 70% could go even higher as proven prison rehabilitation programs continue to fall to the budget axe. And this recidivism rate has an immediate fiscal impact – with the cost of housing a single prisoner in California now reaching nearly $50,000 per year.
Fixing this difficult and systemic problem will take bold new ideas and leadership. And nowhere is this issue more important than in the Attorney General’s race, where San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris has the chance to bring her reform-minded, and cost effective, policies to Sacramento.
During Harris’ tenure, San Francisco has dramatically lowered crime rates by keeping more kids in school, teaching more young people job skills, creating living wage jobs and focusing police and prosecutorial resources on programs that make the most sense, not just programs that make for easy headlines.
The numbers prove the success of these policies. With a very small investment San Francisco has seen a significant 33% drop in elementary school truancy in just the past two years. Since keeping kids in school keeps young adults out of prison, this improvement will not only help protect San Francisco families, it will help protect California taxpayers.
One of the best examples of the effectiveness of the Smart on Crime approach is the Back on Track program Harris launched in San Francisco. The program directs non-violent, first-time drug offenders into job training and rehabilitation services. Since the program was launched, Back on Track graduates have just a 10% recidivism rate – a stark contrast to the typical 50% rate for similar offenders. This success, if it could be replicated statewide, would save hundreds of millions of tax dollars over the long term.
Prison sentences – long prison sentences – are a powerful tool and should be used whenever required to protect our communities. And in San Francisco, conviction rates are up as prosecutors focus on violent and serious crimes.
But the data show that by promoting a range of prevention and intervention programs, Harris has established a track record that can protect communities without bankrupting them.
We tend to think of the Attorney General’s race as focused on issues that are separate from other political contests in California. But with budgets so tight this year, we must embrace an Attorney General who understands how to keep us safe from crime while helping to restore fiscal sanity in Sacramento.
David Onek is a Senior Fellow at the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice, Host of the Criminal Justice Conversations Podcast and a Former Commissioner on the San Francisco Police Commission.
Yesterday, Ami Bera wrote about Karl Rove protecting Dan Lungren. Today he went statewide. A shadowy Virginia-based group funded by the oil industry, tobacco companies, and health insurance industry -- and run by Karl Rove -- is trying to sway the outcome of the race for California Attorney General. This is an unprecedented move in a down-ballot race, and the money is being used to create cynical commercials for political gain.
Rove's group, the "The Republican State Leadership Committee," has purchased $1.1 million of TV airtime to run vicious ads attacking our campaign. And who exactly is funding this group's attacks? The very polluters, cigarette manufacturers, and insurance industry giants who I will stand up to as Attorney General.
Of course we are going to stand up to this outside money. You can contribute online to help us fight back.
To be clear, these are many of the usual Republican suspects. Organizations that fight against environmental and consumer protections are lining up to come to the aid of Steve Cooley, because they know that Cooley will fall into line with their agenda. (There is more in the extended diary.)
Here I will cover the eight constitutional offices, three State Supreme Court justice confirmations, and nine ballot measures. In the second diary, I will cover the U.S. Senate race and the House races, and in the third the state legislature. I will also combine my regular registration updates within the diaries.
Speaking of registration updates, as you will see in the layout of the statewide registration numbers, Democrats are more pumped up here, adding almost half a million voters to their rolls since 2008. The Republicans in comparison added just 13,000 in the same amount of time. So if you are looking for a lethargic Democratic base, look elsewhere because you won't find it here!
Key: I will list the incumbent first, in boldface (in the case of open seats, the incumbent party first without boldface), and all minor parties after the two major parties.
D: Democratic
R: Republican
L: Libertarian
G: Green
AI: American Independent
PF: Peace and Freedom
NP: Nonpartisan
SW: Socialist Workers
Race Ratings Toss-up: Margin by less than 5%
Lean: Margin by 5-10%
Likely: Margin by 10-15%
Strong: Margin by 15-20%
Solid: Margin by more than 20%
Governor: Ex-eBay CEO Meg Whitman (R) vs. Attorney General Jerry Brown (D), Laura Wells (G), Dale Ogden (L), Chelene Nightingale (AI), Carlos Alvarez (PF), and Lea Sherman (SW-W/I)
Profile: I see no way Whitman can win. Running as an outsider when the current governor, who also ran as an outsider, is leaving office with 20% approval ratings, is a surefire losing strategy. And pissing voters off by running ads nonstop and spending nine-figure sums of money while they're forced to cut back is not going to help at all. Brown is leading by example, running on a shoestring budget and calling for everyone to sacrifice, meaning no sacred cows. Polls may not yet show it, but in my opinion I think Whitman is finished. In fact, I'll be very surprised if she even manages to make it a low-teen loss.
Outlook: Likely to Strong Brown (D pickup)
Lieutenant Governor: Interim Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado (R) vs. S.F. Mayor Gavin Newsom (D), Jimi Castillo (G), Pamela Brown (L), Jim King (AI), and C.T. Weber (PF)
Profile: Here we have quasi-incumbent Abel Maldonado, appointed after John Garamendi went to Congress, running to be elected in his own right against Newsom. While Maldonado is moderate for a Republican (though that is not saying much), being closely associated with Arnold is going to be a huge liability, which I do not think he will overcome.
Outlook: Lean Newsom (D pickup)
Attorney General: S.F. DA Kamala Harris (D) vs. L.A. DA Steve Cooley (R), Peter Allen (G), Timothy Hannan (L), Dianne Beall Templin (AI), and Robert J. Evans (PF)
Profile: This is the only statewide race in California I am worried about, and where my theory (that California has just become too Democratic for even a moderate Republican to win barring unusual circumstances) will be put to the test. Cooley is not that bad for a Republican, having had the audacity to stand against popular opinion of issues such as three strikes and Jessica's Law, though he is also against dispensaries for medical marijuana. Harris is a rising star in Democratic circles, and is a more formidable opponent than any of Cooley's challengers in the past. The wild card is the big enchilada of L.A. County, where Harris' name ID is low and she'd need to win by 18-20% to win statewide. I am of course pulling for Harris because I want our bench to stay nice and full for the inevitable retirements of DiFi probably in 2012, Boxer probably in 2016, and for the open governorship in 2014 or 2018; and also because she has courageously stood up to Prop 8, while Cooley pledges to defend it in court.
Outlook: Toss-Up
Secretary of State: SoS Debra Bowen (D) vs. businessman Damon Dunn (R), Ann Menasche (G), Christina Tobin (L), Merton D. Short (AI), and Marylou Cabral (PF)
Profile: Bowen is a lock for reelection.
Outlook: Solid Bowen
Treasurer: Treasurer Bill Lockyer (D) vs. State Senator Mimi Walters (R), Kit Crittenden (G), Edward Teyssier (L), Robert Lauten (AI), and Debra Reiger (PF)
Profile: Lockyer is a lock for reelection.
Outlook: Solid Lockyer
Controller: Controller John Chiang (D) vs. State Senator Tony Strickland (R), Ross Frankel (G), Andy Favor (L), Lawrence Beliz (AI), and Karen Martinez (PF)
Profile: A rematch from 2006, only with Democrats more pumped up, Chiang will win by a wider margin this time around.
Outlook: Strong to Solid Chiang
Insurance Commissioner: State Assemblyman Mike Villines (R) vs. State Assemblyman Dave Jones (D), William Balderston (G), Richard Bronstein (L), Clay Pedersen (AI), and Dina Padilla (PF)
Profile: In California, when a non-damaged Democrat is up against a generic Republican, the Democrat wins. Take it to the bank.
Outlook: Likely to Strong Jones (D pickup)
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Retired Superintendent Larry Aceves (NP) vs. State Assemblyman Tom Torlakson (NP)
Profile: Torlakson voted against Race to the Top and believes parents, teachers, students, and communities alike all need to come together to improve our schools, while Aceves believes that the problem with public schools is the teachers and hedge funds and billionaires should have more control over K-12 education. This will be a close one.
Outlook: Toss-Up
State Supreme Court confirmation - Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Voters are being asked whether to confirm Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Arnold's pick to replace Chief Justice Ron George. She is seen as uncontroversial, but likely to share Arnold's views on corporate power.
Outlook: Lean Confirm
State Supreme Court retention - Ming Chin: Chin was in the minority that voted to uphold the state's ban on marriage equality in 2008, and is one of the most right-wing justices on the state Supreme Court. I want to see him go, but it doesn't look likely.
Outlook: Likely Retention
State Supreme Court retention - Carlos Moreno: Moreno was the only justice who courageously voted to overturn Prop 8 at the State Supreme Court last year, and has been a reliable vote for equality and so should be voted to be retained.
Prop. 19 (Marijuana): If passed, this proposition would legalize the possession and growing of marijuana for personal use of adults 21 years and older, and allow state and local governments to regulate and tax related commercial activities. This proposition winning may make Washington reexamine its own policy towards marijuana, since what happens in California often makes it way to the other side of the country. Polls have shown Yes leading by single digits, so I'll call 19 a passing proposition.
My recommendation: YES! 10/21/2010 Outlook: Lean Pass
Prop. 20 (Redistricting Congressional Districts): This proposition would amend the state Constitution be amended to have the Citizens Redistricting Commission (prop 11 from 2008) redistrict for the U.S. House of Representatives seats. This initiative calls for each district being composed of people of the same income level and people with the same work opportunities, which to me feels like a backdoor to the old bygone Jim Crow ways. And passing this prop while giving free passes to Republican-controlled legislatures in Texas and Florida to gerrymander the hell out of those states is likely to put California at a disadvantage when competing for federal dollars. In addition, there is no way this commission can be held accountable.
My recommendation: NO! 10/21/2010 Outlook: Toss-up/Lean Fail
Prop. 21 (Vehicle License Surcharge): Establishes an $18 annual vehicle license surcharge to provide funds for maintaining the state parks and wildlife programs, and grants surcharged vehicles free admission to the state parks. Our cash-starved state parks could use the extra funds. In addition, the governor can't take funds from this coffer when other coffers are low. The tough economy may dampen the chances of this prop passing, though.
My recommendation: YES! 10/21/2010 Outlook: Toss-Up
Prop. 22 (Local Government Funds): Prohibits the state from taking funds used for local government services. It is well-intentioned but flawed. The cities and counties would get an immediate payment of over $1 billion, forcing further cuts to vital public services.
My recommendation: NO! 10/21/2010 Outlook: Toss-Up/Lean Fail
Prop. 23 (Suspension of AB 32): Backed by Texas oil interests, this prop would suspend AB 32 until unemployment dropped to an unrealistic 5.5% for a whole year and hurt the state's fledgling green jobs industry, doing the exact opposite of what its backers claim: it would actually kill more jobs than create more jobs. (Here in "business-friendly" Texas, the economic situation is also pretty bad, with unemployment here at its highest level since the late '80s [and me being unable to find a job to save my life] and an $18 billion deficit for the 2011 budget session, which will make 2003 look like the good old days.) Polls have shown a low double-digit lead for the No side.
My recommendation: NO! NO! NO! 10/21/2010 Outlook: Likely Fail
Prop. 24 (Corporate Loopholes): A long-overdue measure that would close corporate tax loopholes, reducing the budget deficit by $2 billion.
My recommendation: YES! 10/21/2010 Outlook: Toss-Up
Prop. 25 (Majority Vote on Budget): Another very long-overdue measure that eliminates the ridiculous 2/3rds rule to pass a budget in the state legislature. This prop is passing by double-digits in the polls.
My recommendation: YES! YES! YES! 10/21/2010 Outlook: Likely Pass
Prop. 26 (Two-Thirds Vote on Fees): Would require two-thirds vote approval for the imposition of certain state and local fees, including those on businesses that adversely impact the local community and environment. The last thing we need is higher vote thresholds.
My recommendation: NO! NO! NO! 10/21/2010 Outlook: Toss-Up
Prop. 27 (Redistricting Commission): This proposition eliminates the Citizens Redistricting Commission from Prop 11, which barely passed, suggesting some voters have some doubts about its effectiveness. This commission also gives Republicans much more power than their current share of the population.
My recommendation: YES! 10/21/2010 Outlook: Toss-Up
