You may or may not remember Howard Rich, but I have had many opportunities to grow to despise the man. He seemingly funds every bad government deform proposition on our ballot. He funded the term limits measure back in the 90s, and still heads US Term Limits. Oh, and despite the fact that he doesn't even live in California, he provided almost all of the funds to get Prop 90 on the ballot. That measure, you may recall, would have required that the state pay for any little regulation of property in the state.
Well, Howie Rich has a new fun activity: harassing Democratic donors by accusing them of the murky charge of "voter fraud." Matt Stoller acquired a copy of the letter, which you will find over the flip.
The part that is most interesting to me is that this comes from the guy who won't reveal the donors to US Term Limits, despite the fact that the body gave $1.5 million to fight Prop 93, citing privacy or other such nonsense. I suppose it is ok for him to threaten donors, but not the other way around.
Of course, Rich can't actually do anything legally to these donors, but he is probably doing a fair job of scaring a few donors away.
Given that George Skelton has written the opposing view in today's L.A. Times, I thought readers would enjoy my opinion about California's early primary.
Remember when California moved up its presidential primary from June to February - so that we'd have a "bigger impact"? We ended up sharing February 5th with 21 other states - and so had almost no effect on the nomination. Barack Obama lost to Hillary Clinton because he didn't have enough time to introduce himself to voters in such a large state, but made up for that loss by racking up huge victories elsewhere. Now California has a state primary on June 3rd - where turnout is expected to be very low, so the right-wing Proposition 98 to end rent control could pass. If we had kept the primary at a later date, we would have affected the nomination - and Prop 98 would have gone down in flames. But the Democratic leaders in Sacramento pushed a February primary to extend their term limits - in a gambit that failed.
In the aftermath of the failure of Prop 93 on Tuesday, most attention seemed to be focused on the leadership contests in Sacramento. But Prop 93's failure has sparked a whole series of contests to replace outgoing lawmakers. With the June primary four months away, potential candidates are scrambling to get their names out there in the public eye, raise money, and rally supporters. These contests will help determine the future of the Democratic legislature and progressive politics in the state, and so it's time we looked at some of these in greater detail.
Here in the Monterey Bay area, in AD-27, we're faced with the task of replacing the incomparable John Laird, one of the most knowledgeable legislators on the budget and a strong progressive. The Yes on 93 campaign won Santa Cruz and Monterey counties with an effective "Yes on 93 - Keep John Laird" appeal, but it wasn't enough. Laird's future is uncertain - like the equally talented Fred Keeley, who represented the district before he was termed out in 2002, Laird does not live in SD-15, the long coastal state senate district currently represented by Republican Abel Maldonado. Most of us here would love Laird to move a few miles east and run in SD-15, one of the most winnable Senate districts in the state (Dems now have a lead in registration), but Laird has not announced his intentions.
Five candidates have declared for the Democratic primary here in AD-27. Emily Reilly is a member of the Santa Cruz City Council and last year served as the city's mayor. She's visited Calitics before - in December she wrote an excellent piece attacking the "design-build" concept that Arnold is so much in love with, and I personally support her in the race to replace Laird. She has strong progressive credentials on issues from health care to sustainability and climate change, and has also demonstrated significant fundraising prowess - she raised nearly $120,000 from over 300 small donors in Q4 2007, even before it was known whether she would actually be a candidate for AD-27 (she, like most in the race, promised to withdraw if Prop 93 passed).
Bill Monning is another experienced entrant into the race. Monning is a Monterey attorney, and has challenged for this seat before - in 1994 he was the Democratic nominee, but lost to Bruce McPherson in that year's Republican tide. Monning, like Reilly, emphasizes his strong progressive credentials, and is especially interested in action on climate change. According to the Monterey Herald Monning has $60,000 in the bank, but plans to raise $480,000 for the primary.
Over the flip I discuss the other announced candidates for the seat...
As Brian noted below, the propositions are pretty much a done deal. 92 lost (though by a much closer margin than earlier in the night, suggesting Obama supporters went for 92), as did 93. The Indian gaming compacts all won by healthy margins.
The common factor that explains all six outcomes is the state budget deficit. It now looms over state politics like nothing else. Sure, there were reasons specific to each measure that influenced the outcome, but looked at as a whole, voters appear to have seen these ballot measures through the lens of the state's dire fiscal situation.
Prop 92, which was seen by some as squeezing the budget to help community colleges, failed. Props 94-97, which the barrage of ads claimed (questionably) would raise $4 billion for the state, passed. And Prop 93, which would have reformed term limits and given current legislators more time in office, failed - voters seem to have held them responsible for the budget crisis.
The lesson here is that it is long past time for state legislators to help craft a permanent budget solution. A 30-year succession of one-time and short-term fixes haven't gotten us any closer to a stable budget, or to fixing the structural revenue shortage. As a result, community colleges are now facing budget cuts without any protections, four of the state's largest casinos now can operate without strong unionization rules, and 120 legislators are looking at an early end to their terms in office.
Add to that toll the Núñez-Schwarzenegger health care plan (which I opposed, but was still primarily a victim of the budget crisis) and the possibility of future programs getting axed, like the high speed rail bonds on the November ballot, and it should now be clear that the state budget crisis isn't just a fiscal problem but a major political obstacle.
Term limit reform will be back. We likely haven't seen the last battle over Indian gaming and labor rights. Public education at all levels is still hurting and growing less accessible. The health care crisis continues, and we badly need 21st century, sustainable transportation solutions. But until the state budget crisis gets a permanent solution, it's going to be very difficult to move forward on any of that.
Tomorrow, we'll get the numbers that really matter, but for today we are awash in polls, polls, and more polls. We have national polls, which might actually have some meaning this time around as around half the nation will be going to the polls today. We have state polls, and they all seem to vary a lot.
I have a hunch about this. Turnout will be mysterious this election cycle. Field and other pollsters are used to presidential elections, used to primary elections, but this is different. This is the first time that there will be real GOTV operations trying to get people to the polls. There were doubts about past and present Field Polls overestimating Latino vote or underestimating youth vote, yada yada. The thing is that this is mostly an experiment in guesswork. Sure, I think Field has played these kinds of games before, especially with the 2005 special election, but this is all still educated guess work. In fact, if you dig down in my archive (Diary # 199 to be exact, we're over 5000 now) you can find some data on the 2005 election accuracy.
Let's look at the presidential candidates first. Zogby has Obama with a 46-40 lead over Senator Clinton. That's just barely within the margin of error, but quite different from Field who has Clinton leading by two points. Rasmussen has Obama leading by 1: 45-44. What does this mean? Well, if I'm running either campaign, I'm going all out on GOTV efforts, especially in the odd-delegate districts where you can pick up an extra delegate.
One more word on how this is going to work for us, delegate wise. And, I'm completely open to correction if you think I'm wrong, as it's entirely possible. But as I understand it, the big pot (around 130) of statewide delegates get doled out based on proportional voting statewide. Then the Congressional Districts all have between 3 and 6 Delegates depending on the Democratic turnout in the district. But, any candidate who gets 15% gets one delegate. To get a 3-1 split in 4-delegate districts, the winner would need well over 60%. So, the odd # districts are going to be crucially important. Strange stuff.
And to the propositions, (Brian's Disclosure) well, the polling is all over the place on those too. The Field poll just came out with No leading on 93 and Yes on 94-97, but just last week, the LA Times came out with their poll showing 93 up 50-46. (They didn't poll 94-97, methinks).
We're going to be dealing with this election for a while because of the Diebold issues, but it will be nice to have some real numbers. After the election, I'll compile lots of the polling data and see how the pollsters did. Until then, you have your choice of burying yourself in polls or doing GOTV work for your favorite cause or candidate. Have fun!
The latest Field Poll is out and though the news is not good for Prop 93 supporters or opponents of the gaming compacts, the most important thing may be the number of voters still undecided here on the eve of the election. In the table numbers in Parentheses are early Jan #s and December #s.
Prop/Response
Prop 93
Props 94-97
Yes
33 (39 50)
47 (42 39)
No
46 (39 32)
34 (37 33)
Undecided
21 (22 18)
19 (21 28)
And 80% of voters have heard of Prop 93, compared up from 65% earlier in January and from 25% in December.
Interestingly, the recent Field presidential poll also showed a substantial number of voters still undecided. But for 93 to pass and 94-97 to fail, those undecideds will have to break heavily in one direction. And the trendlines are not favorable for 93 supporters and 94-97 opponents.
Kevin Drum, the progressive blogger extraordinaire at Washington Monthly, yesterday endorsed Proposition 93 in his Political Animal blog. In his brief post he called Prop 93 "one of those rare initiatives I'm in favor of."
From my point of view, there's an easy one and a hard one. The easy one is Prop 93, which changes our term limits law. Currently, you're limited to 14 years: three terms (6 years) in the assembly and two terms (8 years) in the senate. The problem with this is that a limit of three terms in the assembly, for example, means that the Speaker of the Assembly never has more than four years of experience before taking over the top spot. This is dumb. The point of a term limits law should be to prevent people from making careers out of a single political office, not doing away with experience altogether.
The new law is simpler: it limits service to 12 years total, in either house. This is how I would have written the law in the first place, and it's a good compromise between limiting legislative service while still allowing politicians to gain enough experience to know how to run things. This is one of those rare initiatives I'm in favor of.
In addition, the campaign organized a press conference at the LGBT Center here in San Francisco with (L->R) Mark Leno (who stands to lose 4 years if Prop 93 is passed) and Asms. Ruskin, along with SF Democratic Party Chair Scott Weiner.
Incidentally, the "tough one" for him was 94-97. He seemed to lean towards yes, based primarily on his feeling that the legislature and the governor should get to run the state.
In the last few days, Prop 93 has gotten a bunch of surprising endorsements. In the past few weeks, besides the Governator, Prop 93 was endorsed by such varying personalities as Chris "Darth" Norby and Fred Keeley. You don't get much different than those two. However, as I'm loath to link to something from the John and Ken Show, I'll go with former Asm. Keeley:
By making this modification, voters would be re-establishing the balance of powers among and between the three branches of state government. It would also retain the best aspects of term limits, while improving the utility of this tool for problem solving. Of course, for our community it would permit our outstanding Assembly member John Laird to remain in the Assembly for a bit longer. (Santa Cruz Sentinel 1/20/08)
These endorsements are not isolated, as people are gradually able to separate distinct arguments and look at the details of Prop 93. Recently, the Desert Sun endorsed Prop 93 on fairly similar ground
Proposition 93 is needed because:
• The Legislature lacks experience. In our attempt to move away from powerful career politicians, we now have a Legislature where one-third of the members are termed out every two years.
• Voters should recognize that there is a learning curve when new lawmakers join the legislature. Lobbyists spend years in Sacramento. Our representatives come and go so quickly, they hardly have what it takes to stand up to such power.
• We want new, fresh ideas in the legislature, but we also need experienced leaders representing us on complex issues like water, healthcare, global warming, schools and the budget. (Desert Sun 1/20/08)
Proposition 93 strikes the balance the California Legislature needs. The Term Limits and Legislative Reform Act would reduce the number of years members serve in the Legislature from 14 to 12. But all the time can be served in one house or the other, or a combination of the two.
Conservative and progressive editorial boards are echoing a similar statement: Prop 93 is better than the status quo.
The latest poll out, the LA Times poll released today, shows Prop 93 leading 50%-46%. Obviously, this is still a close race, in fact, a "toss-up" as the LA Times calls it. However, Prop 93 has been gaining momentum as the campaign nears its crescendo
After the recent rash of endorsements, a rise in polls should be expected. This was highlighted in the most recent Prop 93 ad, which featured endorsements from the LA Times, California Common Cause, and the California Small Business Roundtable. Oh, and some guy with an Austrian accent:
With a week left to go, there are still plenty of viewpoints out there. You can find opinions in every direction. But the underlying question that voters should be asking themselves should be whether California is better off after this reform. But taking the long view, this reform enables better governance for California, or, as jsw puts it, even ugly babies need love
Remember when Democrats were pushing George Bush on the War in Iraq? Remember when presidential candidates were getting heat for having supported the War - or their being wishy-washy about getting us out? With California's presidential primary in just two weeks, we were supposed to have a Proposition on the February ballot - making it official policy that the people of California support withdrawal. State Senate President Don Perata championed the issue and the legislature voted to put it on the ballot, but then Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it. If Democrats were serious, however, they could have gathered signatures to put it on the ballot - regardless of what Arnold did. Doing so would have boosted Democratic turnout, kept the issue alive and held all presidential candidates accountable. Instead, we have allowed Iraq to slip from the consciousness of politicians - eluding a golden opportunity to help end this quagmire.
The latest Field poll reveals that Prop 93 is trailing in the Bay Area. That seems to mean that many progressives, disgusted with Speaker Nunez and President Pro Tem Perata are willing to throw away the best chance to reform term limits we have had since that pernicious "reform" was enacted in 1990. There is much to complain about where Nunez and Perata are concerned, and yes, this does help them remain in office. But are we really so childish that we are willing to eschew a much-needed reform of a very bad public policy, one that prevents legislators from remaining in office long enough to become effective at their job, simply because it also benefits two corrupt politicians?
Progressives will cement the current system of term limits for the forseeable future if they defeat Prop 93 out of frustration with two individuals. Unless we get behind Prop 93, we are likely to regret it when we lament the defeat of public financing of elections and meaningful health insurance reform, to name just a few items on our agenda.
Field released their polling data on Props 93 (Brian's Disclosure) and 94-97. PDF here. Supporters and Opponents of these propositions still have quite a bit of work to do before February 5, as voter awareness is still hovering around the 2/3 mark for both and undecideds around 20-25% even after poll education. Also, Field seems to have not polled Prop 92 again.
Today in the LA Times, the Editorial Board endorsed Proposition 93. In the end, it's not a huge deal. Newspaper endorsements have been gradually declining in importance over the last 20 years or so. That decline was seen starkly in the 2006 Democratic primary, where Steve Westly got 49 of the top 50 newspaper endorsements. (I think that's the right figure, but I could be wrong on the exact figures.)
Nonetheless, the Times editorial makes the argument that I've been (at least attempting) to make on Prop. 93 for a while. It's not perfect, but it puts California in a better position for the long run. From the Times editorial, over the flip.
Today, in somewhat of a last-minute fashion, Common Cause of California endorsed Proposition 93, the term limits reform measure. Common Cause is one of many groups who are opposed to term limits in their current structure on principle grounds, but they wanted to get redistricting reform at the same time. Nonetheless, they have endorsed Prop 93, along with a heavy dose of pimping for their redistricting measure that has been endorsed by the Governor.
The San Francisco Bay Guardian has long been considered the voice of progressives in the Bay Area. Publisher Bruce Brugmann has been working to give progressives a voice for a long, long time. (He even supplies the world with transcripts of Sup. Tom Ammiano's joke of the day voicemail message.) That the "Weekly" papers have now been brought under a larger corporate banner and have moved considerably to the center, their publication has become one of the most important reads for progressives in the state, if not the most important. (Save Calitics of course. ;) )
With that, I bring you the Bay Guardian's endorsements. As a good non-partisan paper they made endorsements in all three primaries by endorsing Obama, Ron Paul, and Cynthia McKinney. On California Propositions, they said yes on 92 & 93, and No on 91, and 94-97. As for the SF props, Yes on A&B, No on C.
See the flip for more discussion of the SFBG endorsements.
(This post (and the comment in the Arnold 93 diary) is from Mal Burnstein, who currently serves as the NorCal Co-chair of the Progressive Caucus of the CDP. His beliefs are, of course, his own rather than from any group that he is affiliated with. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Some of my progressive friends have come out against Prop 93, arguing that because it is really designed to save the jobs of some current legislators, it must be flawed. In my opinion that is a very short sighted way of looking at things, and it risks swamping the public policy baby with the self-interest bath water. The argument for Prop 93 is really very simple, to wit:
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez has one priority this February: pass Proposition 93 so that he can remain Speaker for another six years - even if it means betraying Democratic constituencies. When Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed budget cuts last week, the Governor had at least one good idea: release 22,000 of the state's non-violent offenders (most of whom are low-income people of color) who are overcrowding our prison system. But while Republicans predictably cried "betrayal," the big surprise was that Nunez backed them up - saying such a move would "put the public at risk." Did Nunez do this because the prison guards gave $100,000 to pass Prop 93?
If so, it won't be the first time that Fabian Nunez sold out to advance his career. A while back, the former union organizer allowed the 4 wealthiest Indian tribes in California to pass anti-labor gaming compacts - after they threatened to campaign against Prop 93. As voters consider Prop 93 in February, they should wonder what the price is to keep Nunez in power?
SF's NPR affiliate KQED is doing a show on Prop 93 right now. You can listen live here. They'll be doing the other props soon as well. You can find the Forum archive here.
UPDATE: The program is now over, and will be available in their archive in a couple of hours. In the meantime, check out PeteRates for an interesting take on the propositions. Pete usually does a pretty good job on analyzing the state props. This time he has an abstain on 91, no on 92, yes on 93, and no on 94-97.
Recently, I had the chance to sit down, errm, stand up, with former state controller (and former eBay exec, and former gubernatorial candidate, and current green venture capitalist) Steve Westly about proposition 93. Mr. Westly had an interesting take, which I think you'll see from these videos. You can play through all of them in a row, or watch just one by selecting a video from the playlist.
First, I want to make sure that everybody is clear that these endorsements come from the Calitics Editorial Board, not the community as a whole. The Calitics Editorial Board consists of Brian Leubitz, jsw, Julia Rosen, David Dayen, Lucas O'Connor & Robert in Monterey. We would have liked to endorse as a community, but there are tremendous problems with ballot stuffing that this software just can't deal with. That being said, all are welcome to agree, disagree, flame us, whatever, in the comments. I'll give you our endorsements here, and then briefly discuss them over the flip. An endorsement required 4 of the 6 votes. Furthermore, this post should not be considered of anybody specifically. Rather, it is the voice of the Editorial Board as a whole. So, without further adieu, here they are:
President: Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)
Proposition 91, Transportation Funding: No
Proposition 92, Community Colleges: Yes
Proposition 93, Term Limits Reform: Neutral/No Recommendation
Propositions 94-97, Native American Gambling Referenda: No
