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
After years of abuse, Judith finally separated from her husband. In retaliation, he broke into her apartment, wrote obscenities on the walls, tore apart furniture, and smeared excrement all over Judith's belongings. The following week, the property manager of Judith's apartment building told her she was being evicted for damaging the unit. Even after learning what happened, the manager still evicted Judith and her baby from the apartment.
Judith's experience is not unique. Across the state, domestic violence victims face eviction for the disturbances that result from their abuse. Landlords have relied upon the nuisance clause of standard rental agreements to evict victims and their families. The problem with this practice is that, in addition to suffering abuse, when they lose their homes, domestic violence victims are pushed further into isolation and instability. In California, domestic violence is one of the leading causes of homelessness for women and families. The children of evicted victims suffer perhaps the greatest consequences, including trauma, poor school performance, and other health and social issues.
UC-Davis will be hosting a debate between Attorney General candidates Steve Cooley and Kamala Harris. As you may know, I'm on the Harris campaign, but I think the debate will be interesting even without that fact. A recent poll showed Harris with a lead within the margin, and that's pretty much where the race has been throughout.
But for those of you that haven't been following the race all that closely, let me give you a progressive perspective on the race in a tweet worthy form:
Noon: CA-AG Debate http://twt.mx/R9VE GOP Cooley will defend prop 8, no position on 23, & wants to sue over health care. Vote @kamalaharris
Of course, there is a lot about SF DA Kamala Harris that I couldn't get in there. Like her work to keep elementary school kids in school, and her work to reduce the recidivism rate by working with the business and labor communities to get young non-violent first time offenders the education and opportunities they need to get a good job.
Hi. I'm sure if you're reading this site, your e-mail box must be stuffed by now with pleas to volunteer for the election. But I want to let you know about one more volunteer opportunity that I think is really important, just in case it's a good fit for you.
I volunteer with Equality California, the group trying to repeal Proposition 8 and bring marriage equality back to California. I want to let you know that every weekend until the election Equality California will be holding phonebanks at each of its statewide offices doing get-out-the-vote calls for pro-LGBT candidates like Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris-- and we have a huge need for volunteers right now.
Until recently there were a lot of things I didn’t know about the role of the state Attorney General (AG). In particular I had no idea how much control that office has over my uterus.
For example, the AG plays a key part in framing and enforcing laws concerning reproductive rights, including responsibility for enforcing the F.A.C.E (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) Act, for privacy protection and for bringing or not bringing lawsuits against those involved with reproductive rights.
Or the Oklahoma law, defended by Attorney General Drew Edmonson, forcing women to have ultrasounds (an exam not normally done that early in a pregnancy) explained to them in great detail before they are allowed to have an abortion.
In short, the Attorney General has the power to harass (or protect) abortion providers, enact laws forcing us to have procedures we may not want and to invade (or protect) our privacy.
I'll be taking questions tomorrow at 7AM for the Washington Post live on video. Fortunately, I'm a morning person. You can watch it here.
Well, it's here. Today's the day that we see if Props 16&17 were good investments for their corporate backers. We see which Republican in the Governor and Senate races will try to desperately walk back all the crazy of the last few months. Good Luck on that.
On a more personal note, you may already know that I'm working for Kamala Harris in the AG's race. I'm pretty proud of the fact that I have been able to work exclusively for candidates and campaigns that I believe in. Candidates like Mark Leno and Lois Wolk; I'm glad to say that Kamala fits right in there. I truly believe that she is the best candidate for the job. She works incredibly hard, and will continue to do so through the general and beyond. She's already been tested by what amounts to a Republican attack campaign with far more firepower than any of the Republican candidates will be able to muster. She handled it with grace, when I'm not sure that I would be able to do the same. While others want to stick to failed policies of yesterday, Kamala is working to create innovative initiatives that tackle the root cause of our problems in the justice system.
Continuing the personal theme, I'd like to talk about Chris Garland in the 9th AD. I'm not going to analyze this from an electoral perspective, but what I will say is what I know of Chris. I was fortunate enough to work with him in the progressive campaign against Prop 1A last spring. Chris, who worked for the California Faculty Association at the time, was critical to that campaign. He worked extremely hard to show that Californians were upset not just about the taxes, as the Jarvis-ites would have you believe, but also about the crazy spending cap. He is a progressive that will fight for progressive values. More than just being a good vote, he will be an outspoken voice for his constituents and for the California that we all believe in.
No matter who you vote for in any of the primary battles, be sure to vote. The propositions are too important to ignore. Thank you.
Never let bad policy get in the way of good politics. That's the cynical motto of the growing class of political copycats bent on replicating Arizona's controversial new immigration law in other states, including California.
Arizona's law, SB 1070, requires local police to act as federal immigration agents. Now police officers in Arizona can detain someone if there is a "reasonable suspicion" that she's an illegal immigrant.
Despite a broad, national backlash, the urge to score political points on the fringe seems irresistible. Last week, a California Assembly candidate promised to introduce an Arizona-style immigration law if he's elected. And in ten more states--Georgia, Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah, Ohio, Missouri, South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, and Maryland--politicians looking for a boost have called for laws that would mirror Arizona's law.
California cannot afford an Arizona-style immigration law. It is bad policy and the worst kind of politics. (More in the extended entry.)
More than six weeks after the Department of Justice released disturbing statistics about the increase in San Francisco's crime rates during SF DA Kamala Harris' tenure as District Attorney, Harris continues to run scared from her record. With Friday's release of a video comprised of TV news footage showing local outrage at Harris' revolving door system of justice, her failure to pursue the death penalty against a hardened cop-killer, and her dropping of prosecutions related to the San Francisco crime lab scandal, Harris still has provided no answers to the people of San Francisco or to California voters.
In the video, one police officer expresses his anger and disappointment about Kamala Harris' refusal to seek the death penalty against a convicted cop killer:
"The people of San Francisco should be outraged by this. These...criminals know in San Francisco if you want to commit a crime, you come here, you do it, you plead it down. The next thing you know you do three months when you should be doing 12 years in state prison for it."
Those aren't the Kelly campaign's words. They are the words of a San Francisco police officer on the evening news.
Instead of responding to these damaging news reports, Harris' campaign has again resorted to personally attacking Attorney General candidate Chris Kelly and manipulating statistics to hide her abysmal record on crime.
Harris fails to acknowledge that the video itself is a compilation of actual news reports from Bay Area television stations, including responses from law enforcement and regular citizens about the rising crime rates in San Francisco. And their effect is devastating.
Watch this short web video of recent news media reports about Kamala Harris' job performance as District Attorney.
Facebook chief privacy officer Chris Kelly has launched a Karl Rove-style attack against Kamala Harris, the San Francisco District Attorney who has raised conviction rates in SF to the highest level in 15 years.
The San Francisco Examiner takes a closer look at Chris Kelly's latest false claims in his new video, which Chris Kelly has surely expertly placed on your Facebook homepage, Google searches, email inbox, or all three in recent days.
According to the Examiner, Kelly's attacks are just plain wrong.
then Kelly's ad claims, "Under Harris SF Homicide is Up 32%" and "SF has the highest homicide rate in the state."
Whoa! That's news to this city crime reporter.
While homicides were the highest they'd been in more than a decade in 2008 - there were 98 - that's nowhere near the tally in Oakland, where there were 124 homicides in a smaller population.
And Kelly uses statistics from the state Department of Justice, which are only complete through 2008. If he considers 2009, then that 32 percent number goes way down. There were only 45 homicides last year, the lowest tally in five decades. (SF Examiner)
As of today, Kelly has contributed $4 million-and-counting of his own Facebook bucks in an attempt to become the first-ever candidate for Attorney General to successfully buy the office. While Kelly has thus far demonstrated an impressive ability to churn out platform papers that coincidentally read like a checklist of Kamala Harris's actual accomplishments, he has so far stuck to attacking Kamala rather than explaining why Democratic voters should make him our nominee.
Disclosure: I work for Kamala Harris, but all opinions are entirely my own.
It is not a headline we would expect to see, but that is exactly what is happening in our state as we speak.
In 2006, the California Legislature passed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. The Governor then signed this law to make our state the leader in fighting greenhouse gas pollution. I hope you will consider joining me in working to ensure that Big Oil does not get its way in California by eviscerating our landmark climate change legislation.
California's Attorney General is uniquely positioned to stand up for strong, effective enforcement of our state's environmental laws. That is why I am calling on each and every candidate for California Attorney General -- Democratic and Republican -- to denounce this effort by Big Oil to slash through our state's environmental protections for their own corporate gain.
This week we celebrate President Obama's signing of landmark health care reform legislation into law. Thanks to this historic bill, 32 million Americans will gain access to health insurance, health care will become more affordable, and no American will ever again be denied coverage when they get sick or because of pre-existing conditions.
But before the ink was even dry on President Obama's signature, the attorneys general of 13 states -- led by Florida Republican AG Bill McCollum, trying to score political points in his campaign for governor -- immediately filed a lawsuit to try to block the new law in the courts. One of my Republican opponents, Tom Harman, is even encouraging current California Attorney General Jerry Brown to join them.
Protecting kids from online predators has always been one of my highest priorities.
While serving as chief counsel for Facebook, I worked with Attorneys General across the nation to help build a safer internet -- and I've seen some of the ideas I've championed enacted into law.
One of those ideas I championed was requiring convicted sex offenders to provide their online identifiers as part of their registrations, and as a result, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was able to announce that more than 3,500 registered New York sex offenders were removed from MySpace and Facebook under the state's "e-STOP" law that we crafted together.
On Tuesday, San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris held a public media event to introduce a bill she is sponsoring in the legislature that purports to keep online predators off social networking sites, including Facebook and MySpace.
As we close out Black History month, I wanted to share this article I wrote for the L.A. Watts Times. Our office has been working very hard to ensure that truant students return to school. Truant students become dropout students, who become future crime victims and crime perpetrators. Cutting this cycle off early can really make a difference. For more information about my campaign to be California's first African-American Attorney General, please see KamalaHarris.org. You can also support us on Facebook.
Many of the landmark battles of our Civil Rights Movement hinged on the right to an education. We all remember the images - the Little Rock Nine escorted to school by federal troops, or a deadly firefight between U.S. Marshals, soldiers and rioting segregationists intent on blocking James Meredith's enrollment at the University of Mississippi.
Adults and children lost their lives so that African American students could enter America's school houses. Under the law, our battle was won. But today, in many respects, we are losing the war.
African American children are dropping out of school at alarming rates, with nearly half failing to finish high school. The pattern starts young and begins with chronic school absences. Many urban school districts across the country report that literally thousands of students are absent without an excuse each day. Often, more than 40 percent of these missing students are in elementary school.
(Consistent with our policy of bumping elected officials, here is a post from SF DA Kamala Harris. Disclosure: I am doing some work for her campaign for Attorney General. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. By that measure, our current approach to criminal justice may need a shrink--and a new way of doing business.
The old approach to fighting crime is well-known. Police and prosecutors are deluged with low-level drug cases, and the public spends billions on prisons to house these offenders. And, every year, prisons release hundreds of thousands of these offenders back into our communities. They're sent back with a bus ticket and a little cash in hand--and that's about it. They have no plan, no skills, nowhere to go, and no other changed circumstances. They pick up right where they left off; within three years of release, seven out of ten California prisoners will re-offend and return to prison.
After decades of this sad cycle, our prisons are swollen beyond capacity and our budgets maxed. Across the country, leaders are acknowledging that we've been missing a crucial opportunity all along. Perhaps the most crucial step in the criminal justice process is the most often ignored--what happens after the conviction and prison sentence, when the prisoner comes home.
Education, public safety, and the economy: three vastly complex issue areas that time and again are proven to be inextricably linked.
By doing what it takes to keep kids in school in every corner of our state, we can save literally billions of dollars in public resources and greatly improve public safety.
Most of us in law enforcement have known this for many years. As San Francisco's District Attorney, I see the direct impact of what happens when kids don't stay in school; young lives are lost to street violence or prison at an appalling rate, our state loses more resources and our communities are less safe.
In a decision that won't necessarily score her political points, SF District Attorney Kamala Harris's office yesterday declined to seek the death penalty for Edwin Ramos. Ramos is accused of murdering Tony Bologna and his two sons last year.
Friday in court, prosecutor Harry Dorfman made this surprise announcement.
The District Attorney has decided to seek the special circumstances penalty of life without parole; we will not seek the death penalty in this case," he said.
Since Ramos was charged with multiple murders and two other special circumstance offenses, Harris could have asked for the death penalty. But Harris is an opponent of capital punishment and she told reporters her decision fits the crime.
"We have thoroughly reviewed the facts and laws in this case and arrived at a decision based on that review," Harris said. (KGO 9/10/09)
Harris is opposed to the death penalty. She has said in the past that she would consider each case on its own merits, but certainly her own morality must come into play.
This is a position of personal integrity. She is sticking to what she said when she defeated Terrence Hallinan way back in 2003. While the death penalty may have support in California as a whole, that is not the case in San Francisco. Surely, there will be ads, or whisper campaigns, or whatever, made about this during a campaign for Attorney General.
But you can say one thing about Kamala Harris, she has a spine. And in this race, that gives her a leg up in my book.
Say what you will about her, but Harris has done more to create innovative programs and solution to both our crime problems and our prison crisis than all but a handful of DAs nationwide. In a state with a repeat offender rate of about 70%, substantially above the national recidivism rate, we should be looking for new ways to treat crime. Rather than simply packing more people in jail until they get out, and almost inevitably end up back in the criminal justice system, we should attempt to find ways to reintegrate people into the
Back on Track has lowered recidivism rates among the participating drug offenders to less than 10 percent as compared to statewide recidivism rates of more than 50 percent among the same population. All of the nearly 100 current participants are employed and/or in school, and 90 percent of participants with child support obligations are in good standing and making their required payments. Defendants are not eligible if they have histories of gang involvement, gun possession or violence.
Those are really good statistics, and we should be applauding this data. But, as with any program in this population, there are going to be people who go astray from the program. The LA Times found such a story yesterday (which was then dutifully rewritten by the Chronicle) about an unfortunate victim of a mugging in San Francisco.
A stranger, later identified as Alexander Izaguirre, snatched her purse and hopped into an SUV, police say. The driver sped forward to run Kiefer down. Terrified, she leaped onto the hood and saw Izaguirre and the driver laughing. The driver slammed on the brakes, propelling Kiefer to the pavement. Her skull fractured. Blood oozed from her ear.
Only after the July 2008 attack did Kiefer learn of the crime's political ramifications. Izaguirre, police told her, was an illegal immigrant who had pleaded guilty four months earlier to a drug felony for selling cocaine in the seedy Tenderloin area.
He had avoided prison when he was picked for a jobs program run by San Francisco Dist. Atty. Kamala Harris, now a candidate for California's top law enforcement post. In effect, Harris' office had been allowing Izaguirre and other illegal immigrants to stay out of prison by training them for jobs they cannot legally hold.(LAT 6/22/09)
Is this unfortunate? Yes, certainly. Is it a reason to shut down the Back on Track Program? Definitely not.
Izaguirre is an interesting case because he is an undocumented immigrant. So, there is a touch of nativism, and "ship them out of here" to this case. Now, it is an outstanding question as to whether he should have been deported. There is a real case for that. However, it should not be the duty of local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. In theory, that is what ICE should be doing.
You could make an argument that there be some reporting system of felonies to ICE,but that is a question of federal, not local law. And bringing up this seperate question in the context of Back On Track preys on the fears of the public without actually helping the problem.
Let's try this thought experiment: In Oakland, a parolee murdered two sisters in their hotel room. Is that a tragedy? Absolutely, but we cannot simply use that tragedy as an excuse to end all parole.
In our society, and pretty much every modern society, we have chosen to live with a low level of crime. I know, I know, we aren't supposed to say that, but it's the price of living in a society with civil rights. If we didn't mind police cameras in our living rooms, we could probably reduce crime substantially, but then we are living under the watchful eye of Big Brother. We've opted to keep Big Brother shackled in most areas of our lives, and so we must deal with the occasional crime.
Kamala Harris may not be perfect, after all she is a politician. However, this program is a valuable attempt to cut the ToughOnCrimeTM crap that Republicans like George Runner are peddling. In fact, Tom Harman, a Republican state Senator from the OC who is also running for AG, even got a link to his press release on the front page of the Chronicle's SFGate.com site. (A quick note to the Chronicle's web people and really everybody else: PR "Newswire" is just a stream of press releases. Linking to it as a "newswire" is rather deceptive.)
We need to address the really serious questions in our criminal justice system, and providing successful rehabilitation programs is a win-win-win. It's good for the offender, it's good for the state as it is cheaper, and it is good for the public safety. There will be failures in all of these programs, but they will always get outsized coverage. I guess the successful rehabilitation of a drug dealer doesn't make for as interesting of a story. But the success stories are extremely important for the future of our state.
(I want to welcome SF's District Attorney Kamala Harris. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
States across our country are facing budget deficits. California is projected to begin next fiscal year with a deficit of nearly 25 billion dollars, equaling one fourth of the state's entire general fund. Over 10 billion of that general fund supports corrections and law enforcement. In this fiscal crisis, there is no denying the facts: tough budget times are here for public safety agencies. As the District Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, I am personally familiar with the difficult circumstances we face. Without a significant shift in local and state practices, we can predict that shrinking law enforcement and corrections funding will result in higher crime rates, less support for victims, and fewer offenders being held accountable. If ever there was a time to think outside the box and break with the failed approaches of the past, the time is now. We need to do something different.
In San Francisco, I have developed a smart on crime approach: we must be tough on serious and violent offenders while we get just as tough on the root causes of crime. In my office, we have raised felony conviction rates and sent more violent offenders to state prison, at the same time we have launched innovative, cost effective approaches to reduce recidivism, truancy, and childhood trauma. With a genuine investment in breaking cycles of crime, we can improve public safety at the same time that we save precious public resources.
Today, Chief Privacy Officer at Facebook Chris Kelly announced an exploratory committee for the race for California Attorney General. He joins a field that includes Assemblymembers Ted Lieu, Pedro Nava and Alberto Torrico; San Francisco DA Kamala Harris, and Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo. In his statement, which you can find at his website, Kelly talked about efficienct and effective government, Internet safety, proper training and equipment for law enforcement, and stopping trafficking. The words "prisons," "jails," "corrections" or "parole" was not mentioned.
Our prison system is a mess. We have the highest recidivism rate in the country, mostly because 2/3 of our prisoners returning to jail go there because of technical violations of their parole. This turns jails into giant holding pens instead of areas for rehabilitation and treatment, as well as colleges for nonviolent offenders on how to get involved in violent crime. The overstuffed prisons cost more money to staff and service as they become more dangerous, leading to the state spending more on incarceration than higher education. Despite all this spending, conditions in the prisons are medieval, with the ACLU proposing the closure of the LA County Men's Central Jail. Prison officials are discussing release of 8,000 nonviolent and terminally ill offenders, but that's a drop in the bucket. We also have denied prisoners their Constitutional right to health care, and have a federal receiver now remedying that situation, taking it out of the hands of the legislature. The "tough on crime" mantra that has ruled the thinking of both parties on this issue has utterly and completely failed.
And yet, our Attorney General candidates and our gubernatorial candidates view this absolute crisis as just another check on their list, instead of the serious problem it is. Gavin Newsom didn't bring it up in his speech, though I did ask him about it in the blogger meeting afterwards. He talked about how we need a re-entry strategy better than the failed parole system, and cited some re-entry reforms in San Francisco that have helped matters. And he stated that having the courts step in to fix the problem presents an opportunity for real reform. With respect to the drug war, which lies at the heart of this, he expressed his support for drug courts and mental health courts and the kind of options that wouldn't consign nonviolent offenders to the rigors of overcrowded prison life when they need medical treatment. And he vowed to have more detailed programs available soon. But when it counted, on stage, he said nothing. Jerry Brown did tackle the issue, but his non-stop fight against the prison health care receiver and sensible steps like Prop. 5 destroy any credibility he may have had on the issue.
I have appreciated Greg Lucas' interviews with some of the candidates in the Attorney General's race, and I have paid particular attention to their views on the prison crisis. (over)
Friend of Calitics Ted Lieu has shown a lot of leadership during the housing crisis, attempting time and again to hold the mortgage brokers responsible and get sensible legislation passed that protects homeowners. It's been his signature issue the past two years. Now he's going to run for Attorney General.
Democratic Assemblyman Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, filed paperwork this week to run for attorney general in 2010.
Lieu is the third Democrat to make the move, following San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who announced she was exploring a run in mid-November, and former Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla, who filed in July.
Harris and Lieu and Canciamilla can answer one question for me that would help me in my decision for 2010. Do they feel they can keep stonewalling the Federal Prison Receiver, as Jerry Brown has, and refusing to comply with providing prisoners an environment that doesn't violate their Constitutional rights, or do they feel that the failure in leadership over 30 years of wrong-way sentencing and "tough on crime" nonsense needs to be stopped. Solving the prison crisis ought to be the foremost issue for the state's top cop.
Cross-posted on 
