UPDATE: The bill was approved by the committee on a 5-2 vote, so it will move on to the Assembly Appropriations Committee before moving to the full Assembly.
Bills are supposed to have passed one house or another at this point, but being that this is Sacramento, there are always to get around such rules. For this one, SB 490, it was amended into a bill about reforming the inspector general of the prisons system or something like that. So, as for this actual bill, today's Assembly Public Safety Committee hearing will be the first legislative discussion.
Of course, it shouldn't really be so. New Mexico, abolished the death penalty in 2009, so talking about the subject shouldn't really be considered some sort of third rail. Yet, here in California, it still has some popularity. Just how popular it is, when people know all the facts, is up for quite a bit of debate.
The witness list is quite interesting for today's hearing:
· Judy Kerr, sister of a murder victim and Spokesperson for California Crime Victims for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.
From her bio:
"My brother, Robert James Kerr, was found lifeless, shirtless, barefoot and without identification on July 12, 2003 in Everett, Washington. He had been brutally beaten and strangled. ..My grief is raw and unremitting. But I am absolute in my conviction that another death will not serve me. Justice through execution is not the justice I need and it is not the justice I want in my country or my world. I have never and will never support the death penalty. I know now, more than ever, that killing is wrong. Revenge will not bring my brother back and it will not bring me peace. I honor my brother's life and my memory of him by standing against the death penalty."
· Jeanne Woodford, Former Warden of San Quentin State Prison, where she oversaw four executions, and former Undersecretary and Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Currently Executive Director, Death Penalty Focus; a national non-profit organization.
· Don Heller, the author of California's death-penalty law, Proposition 7 (1978), who now believes the law should be eliminated. He has been an active member of the New York Bar since 1969 and the California Bar since 1973.
· Senator Loni Hancock (D-Oakland), Chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee, and Chair, Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections (which oversees the state prison system budget).
As you can see from that list, the death penalty in this state has a very sordid history. It just hasn't ever really worked here (or anywhere really), and doesn't accomplish any of its stated goals. Violence is not deterred by violence, it's just a fact of nature. ANd spending billions of dollars on a procedure that is rarely, if ever, used seems like a poor use of resources in these scant times.
Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) isn't necessarily the go-along to get along type. During the budget week from hell, she was a thorn in the leadership's side. She has spent quite a bit of time to push for the repeal of 2/3. Today, she got a little support from some of her constituents who biked up to Sacramento.
Or rather, she helped out these parents, and local grassroots leaders. This video (h/t to Josh Richman), while not the most solid YouTube effort ever, does do a decent job of explaining the problem with the supermajority rules. My complaint is that the message is a bit hidden, it could be more direct.
If we are going to get 2/3 repealed, we can't let the struggles of February get forgotten. It must be present and visible and associated with the state's failures. See your kid's teacher getting cut? That was the 2/3 rules. See your elderly neighbor's in-home support services cut? That was the 2/3 rule. Same deal with the whole litany of disaster preparedness services. Supermajority rules lead directly to dysfunctional and inadequate government. In a land of wildfires and earthquakes, we simply cannot afford this dysfunction.
If we are to move forward in whatever new economy oozes out of the melting glacial ice of the 21st century, we can't be hamstrung by such inefficiencies.
The weekly Democratic radio address (which ought to be a YouTube address, come on guys) called for an end to the 2/3 requirement for budget and tax increases. This is the first time in my memory that so many lawmakers are openly talking about revising 2/3. It's not a new problem - 28 of the last 32 budgets have been late due to legislative squabbling, with the fights becoming more protracted than ever over the past decade. And every economic downturn, no matter how slight, sets off a crisis. Assemblyman John Perez made it clear:
The budget would not have taken so long and would have not included non-budget related issues like an open primary if California did not have the unusual requirement of a two thirds vote for budget approval.
Reforming this two-thirds requirement should be a priority for all Californians.
Perez did not reference whether the new requirement should be the arbitrary 55% number, which is what the current initiative being circulated states, or a simple democratic majority. We've learned where a number of Democrats stand this weekend:
• Darrell Steinberg decided not to mention 2/3 hardly at all in his op-ed in the Sacramento Bee. That's a lack of leadership. No elected official should be speaking in public and pass up the opportunity to advocate for majority vote. He instead opted for a Broderist call for working together and the awkward tag line "Smarter going forward."
In comments to David Greenwald, Steinberg did call for repeal, but failed to pick a side.
"The answer in my view is to take this two-thirds supermajority requirement. We are one of three states in the country that allows a small minority of members to hold up the progress.... It doesn't really work for California; it worked this time barely because of the magnitude of the crisis... We need to take the question this two-thirds supermajority to the ballot. I feel even stronger now than I did when I started on December 1."
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, has proposed one that would allow lawmakers to approve budgets with 55 percent majorities if they do it by June 15. After that, it would take two-thirds votes.
It's not necessarily that this kind of measure would definitely not pass because all the thrust of majority democratic rule is lost, but that's certainly a factor.
• In that same article, Loni Hancock calls for a simple majority:
Hancock has introduced a constitutional amendment that would require only simple majorities to approve budgets.
"California needs to have a normal democracy like every other state in the nation except Rhode Island and Arkansas," she said.
That's a talking point. 55% is mush.
The point is that we have the Democratic leadership finally talking about the main impediment to the perpetual budget crisis. Without two-thirds, you can fix a tax system that is too closely tied to boom-and-bust economic cycles. Without two-thirds, you can end the virtual bribery of Yacht Party and moderate lawmakers. Without two-thirds, you can end the Big Five process that facilitates official secrecy and backroom deals and use a deliberative process involving the committee structure and relying on the input of the entire caucus. And without 2/3, you won't have to hear from high Broderist windbags tinkering on the margins with proposals that make them feel good but will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. It's kind of hilarious that the LAST proposal in George "Can't We All Get Along" Skelton's long list in today's column is this:
* A simple majority vote for budget passage; 55% at most. Scrap the two-thirds vote requirement.
The Speaker's office has just issued a press release indicating there is some sort of vote happening today. Now, it's not clear that this will be the real deal. Either way, the Assembly is voting on something today. On the plus side, I don't see a spending cap in the release. On the minus side, well, this all appears to be a drill. The Republican votes don't appear to be there, barring some last-minute vote flips.
From the press release:
Budget Reform - The package includes a new constitutional amendment for the November ballot that increases the size of the state's "Rainy Day" Fund enacted in Prop 57/58 from five to 10 percent of General Fund revenues. It also provides more protection to the Fund by requiring any transfers from the Fund back to the General Fund to be in a stand-alone bill. It also creates a mechanism to transfer funds to the Rainy Day fund in strong revenue years. All of these provisions were recommended by the LAO.
These are all "reform" measures that won't break the state, but are somewhat reasonable measures. Yet, fortunately, that odious spending cap appears to be off the table for the time being. It should stay there. It is not an acceptable solution, and if it does, I hope, and expect, that a broad progressive coalition will be built to oppose such a measure.
The Repubs keep talking about how they want to make the difficult decisions, yet they refuse to even consider the disastrous consequences of their own prison mindset. Heck, they want to incarcerate more people for longer sentences.
Their next lie talks about the poor people who can't afford gasoline who face rising taxes. THe problem? The Democratic plan includes no taxes that would affect people who can't afford gas. The Governor wants the sales tax, not the Dems. Enough of the sob stories for non-existent problems. Dissembling and stretching the truth is unbecoming on the Assembly Floor.
Before we get into the next round of endorsements, we have a few comments in here about how we envision this working. The endorsements are the opinion of the board, not the community as a whole - we would hope they generate a good discussion about the various candidates in every district.
Furthermore, these are primary endorsements, so somebody is not going to be happy about them. We apologize for that, but if you don't like our opinions, you should let us know that. Write a comment here. Post a diary about the candidate of your choice. Let the community know why you think your preferred candidate is the best choice in the Democratic Primary. Unlike newspapers, this is a two-way medium. We not only accept comments on these endorsements, we encourage it. So, feel free to tell us how wrong we really are.
And with that said, here are the State Senate Endorsements. Explanations over the flip.
SD-03: Mark Leno SD-05: Lois Wolk (UPDATED) SD-09: Loni Hancock & Wilma Chan SD-12: Simon Salinas / Yes on Recall SD-15: Dennis Morris SD-19: Hannah-Beth Jackson SD-23: Lloyd Levine and Fran Pavley SD-25: No Endorsement SD-33: Gary Pritchard
The SF Bay Guardian released their endorsements for local races and state propositions. These tend to be some of the most influential endorsements in the City, and to a lesser extent, in the region. As always, they do a laudable job presenting a thorough analysis of each race and the relative merits of each position. Hats off to Tim Redmond and the crew at the SFBG. Here's a summary of their positions, and I'll discuss some of them over the flip.
Prop 98: No, No, No
Prop 99: Yes, Yes, Yes
SD-03: Mark Leno
SD-09: Loni Hancock
AD-13: Tom Ammiano
AD-14: Kriss Worthington
CA-08 (Pelosi): No Endorsement
In February, Californians will vote on Proposition 93 - which would modify the term limits law for the state legislature. Supporters claim that it will help legislators serve longer, but reducing the total length of time one can serve in the legislature (from 14 to 12 years) will cut short the career of some officials. In June, Assemblyman Mark Leno will challenge Senator Carole Migden in the 3rd District. If Prop 93 passes in February and Leno prevails in June, he could not run for another Senate term in 2012 - but Migden would be able to if she wins.
While Prop 93 would shorten Leno's career, the measure's drafters were eager to create loopholes for other legislators to avoid a similar pitfall. Under an earlier draft of the measure, State Senate President Don Perata would have been ineligible to run for another term; when the drafters of Prop 93 realized this, they promptly fixed the situation. Incumbents like Migden also got an escape clause so they can run again. Prop 93 is not about extending the term of all state legislators -just the ones who are currently in power.
They are having something of a launch party(More info.), too! (Which, of course, has a Calitics event listing) So, on Sunday from 1-3 PM, you can go haul yourself out to the Presidio (probably in a car, b/c public transport to the Presidio ain't the greatest), and see some of the following electeds: Representative Barbara Lee, State Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco), Assemblymember Loni Hancock (D - Berkeley), Assemblymember Mark Leno (D - San Francisco), Mayor Gavin Newsom.
Now, I would point out that all of these officials knows how to raise money the old-school way. Some are really, really adept at raising money, and some have less need for the skill. But, we should be congratulating all of these officials, no matter their backgrounds, for supporting Clean Money. After all, we work in the here and now, and work to make the future better. Clean Money is key to ensuring a more truly representative democracy.
Frank Russo predictably delivered with great coverage of yesterday's Assembly Natural Resources Committee hearing into political pressure from the Governor's Office on the California Air Resources Board. Just keep scrolling. The most shocking piece of news that Russo highlights, which was also in a couple news articles on the subject, was that the Administration flack sent to give the Governor's side of the story, Dan Skopec, ISN'T EVEN PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION ANYMORE.
Skopec no longer works for the Schwarzenegger Administration as of a week ago, and has started his own firm, "Climate & Energy Consulting" on Sacramento's K Street Mall, to serve clients he described as "emerging technologies companies that will take advantage of the changes in energy that will result from climate policies." Despite repeated questions from committee members, he refused to reveal who in the Administration had asked him to testify, who he had spoken to about the hearing, who had prepped him, and what he was told. Although he repeatedly testified about actions of the Schwarzenegger Administration using the word "we", he later apologized for the use of that word which he is accustomed to use. He later admitted that he was not speaking for the Schwarzenegger Administration, but was basically there as a private citizen.
They sent a lobbyist to defend the Governor. The hay that can be made from that decision is pretty clear. And this part could be even more damning:
Dr. Sawyer (the former CARB chief), in his testimony, complimented Catherine Witherspoon for resigning from her position as the Executive Officer of CARB since she serves in that position at the pleasure of the board itself. Despite the desire of Susan Kennedy, Schwarzenegger's Chief of Staff, to have her fired, this could not be accomplished directly by the Governor. Sawyer said he had been ordered to place this on the agenda and met with a subcommittee of the board only to find out that there was a consensus of fellow board members not to do so. It was feared that had Witherspoon remained in the position that individual board members would be removed until there was a majority willing to fire her.
Does this remind one of the Saturday massacre involving U.S. Attorney General Elliott Richardson and Archibald Cox during the Watergate scandal of the Nixon Administration?
Schwarzenegger is taking a beating in both the local and national press, as well he should. This reflects nothing more than an abuse of power.
I would like everyone reading this who lives in California to call their Assemblymember. They need to know that they will be supported in this effort to rein in the Schwarzenegger Administration and ensure that oversight is undertaken and the laws of the state are met. That includes subpoenas for top Schwarzenegger Administration officials if need be. The Senate also needs to hear from you; they will be meeting next week in the Rules Committee to confirm the new chair of the Board, Mary Nichols. That needs to be a legitimate confirmation hearing with tough questions about Nichols' independence and how she will implement the Global Warmings Solution Act. This is not a small issue; as I write, I'm watching the Live Earth concerts and seeing millions of people begging for action on climate change. Now, here we have one of the only legitimate pieces of legislation in this country addressing the issue, and it's being undermined by a Governor who wants to talk big on the environment while supporting his corporate buddies behind the scenes.
The first couple reports about today's Assembly Natural Resources Committee hearing into the politicization of the California Air Resources Board are starting to dribble out. The SacBee described a set of angry lawmakers sking pointed questions and threatening that their probe into how the Governor is trying to manipulate the board into adopting his favored implementation of anti-global warming laws would continue.
Assembly Democrats said Friday they will continue investigating whether Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger exerted "illegal and improper pressure" on the California Air Resources Board after they were dissatisfied with answers given by two lower-level representatives of the governor at a Capitol hearing.
I wouldn't have expected the national media to pick up on the story of the Governor's actions not matching his rhetoric when it comes to the environment, but the New York Times actually found some room for it in today's paper. They even highlight the governing-by-magazine-cover that has become a staple of this Administration.
In September, Mr. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, signed into law a landmark emissions-reduction measure and then drove a green bus during his easy, breezy re-election campaign. Since then, he has announced that he will buy offsets for his own personal carbon emissions, threatened to sue the Environmental Protection Agency over air quality and appeared on the cover of Newsweek spinning a globe on his finger [...]
But the Governator’s eco-friendly reputation may have taken a dent over the last week in a messy battle over the leadership of the California Air Resources Board, a science-geared agency that has traditionally operated with considerable autonomy, even though its 11 members are political appointees. Its most visible mandate is the nuts and bolts of putting the emissions law, known as AB 32, into effect [...]
“We have schizophrenia here,” said James Marston, a lobbyist for Environmental Defense who worked on passing the emissions law. “Even while we were doing AB 32, the Schwarzenegger administration was a little schizophrenic." [...]
“There’s an obvious difference to what he’s been saying and what his administration and other appointees have been doing,” said Don Perata, a Democrat who is president pro tempore of the State Senate. “There’s some real knuckle draggers over there.”
This is an absolutely enormous development. Clean Money got kind of lost in the shuffle at last weekend's CDP Convention, but Loni Hancock's AB 583 has been quietly making its way through the Assembly. It cleared the Assembly Elections Committee, and yesterday there was a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which was favorable. And now, the Senate President pro Tem has signed on to be a co-author. Considering that the CDP wouldn't take a position on Clean Money just a year ago, this is historic news. Susan Lerner writes in an email to supporters:
I want you to be among the first to hear the exciting news: California Senate President pro Tem Don Perata just became a co-author of AB 583, the Clean Money bill!
The President pro Tem joins an ever-growing list of Legislators who are co-authors of AB 583, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. Clean Money supporters in Senator Perata's Oakland district and throughout California should be proud because it was your calls, letters, and petitions that convinced him to sign on as a active Clean Money supporter.
Last Tuesday, California Assemblywoman Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) revitalized the push for clean money in California state elections. According to an Associated Press story that appeared in the Orange County Register, Hancock's bill is modeled after the systems of voluntary public financing already in place in Arizona and Maine.
Basically, candidates who choose to use public funds for their campaigns must first collect a specified number of "qualifying contributions," or $5 donations, in order to show substantial public support. This addresses one potential fear of publicly funded elections--that "fringe" candidates will receive tax payers' dollars to run a campaign. Hancock's bill didn't get a vote on Tuesday from the Elections, Redistricting and Constitutional Amendments Committee, but if approved by lawmakers and Governor Schwarzenegger, the bill would be up to the voters in June 2008.
After the failure of Proposition 89, California needs a good public financing initiative that follows the example of the law in two states where clean elections have been successful for the last three election cycles. Public financing is the only way to ensure that our representatives are elected on the merits of their ideas rather than their fundraising prowess and are beholden only to their constituents.
Matier and Ross mention Assemblywoman Loni Hancock and former members Wilma Chan and Johan Klehs have already formed exploratory committees to make bids for the open seat when Don Perata is termed out in 2008. The fundraising is on, expect this race to get expensive. Here is a map of SD-09 (PDF).
Add this with the battles for the Sen-03 and CA-10 and the bay area is going to have one helluva 2008 primary season.
