The rising levels of voter participation among the nation's youth continue to be challenged by the current voter registration system, perpetuating the difficulty of fostering lifelong voters. Some states are proposing to take this challenge into their own hands by making voter registration accessible to citizens as young as 16. Already widely accessible at schools and departments of motor vehicles, the move would allow future voters in some states to automatically be enrolled on the voter rolls on their 18th birthdays, a change that advocates say could "close the registry gap between young voters and the rest of the population."
CapAlert gets around to covering the issue we covered on Wednesday - how legislative vacancies on the Democratic side embolden the Yacht Party and make it more impossible to pass a decent budget. What amazes me is that they get a Yacht Party leader to go on the record about it:
To this day, Ridley-Thomas' seat remains unfilled. Democratic Assemblyman Curren Price of Inglewood finished first in the primary last week and is expected to take his place in the upper house after a May 19 runoff.
Of course, that will create a vacancy in the Assembly, which will likely last until early October by virtue of the state's election-scheduling laws.
"Every vote we pick up, it is exponential for the Republicans," said Assembly GOP leader Mike Villines. "It gives us a lot of ability to move the debate and navigate to issues that we care about."
This is Yacht Party logic - they actually think a vacancy is a PICK-UP for them. It's the logic of an extortionist. No sane person other than someone trying to exploit would agree that a less-than-full legislature for years on end makes sense from a public policy standpoint. That's why we could significantly reduce the time of the merry go-round AND save millions of dollars in special election costs by instituting Instant Runoff Voting for special election seats.
But the Yacht Party has no intention of fixing the policy. They want to laugh as they see legislators walk out the door.
In Northern California, Rep. Ellen Tauscher has accepted an Obama post in the state department, though still faces the confirmation process.
Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, has already declared for the seat, and Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo, is said to be considering a run.
"Joan Buchanan should run for Congress," said a laughing Villines, hoping for yet another vacancy in his house. "She'd be an excellent congresswoman."
"It creates a better dynamic than having the ability of the liberal-controlled Legislature to just steamroll its own desires," Villines said.
A better dynamic in the sense of being a fake dynamic, where the elected will of the voters is not reflected in the ability of the legislature. I can't think of a better argument to repeal two-thirds than these two quotes.
Assemblyman Ted Lieu, who joined us at Calitics yesterday for an online town hall, has an op-ed with Gautam Dutta of the New America Foundation arguing for an election reform he will soon combine with a bill, to institute instant runoff voting for all special elections in California.
Here's the root of the problem. On March 24, 2009 barely 6 percent of registered voters showed up for a special election to fill a vacancy for California's 26th Senate District. In an area with almost 1 million residents and 400,000 registered voters, only 23,000 civic-minded citizens decided who would replace former State Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas (newly elected to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors).
How much did this special election cost? A whopping $2.2 million of our tax dollars - nearly $100 per voter - according to the Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder / County Clerk.
Unfortunately, we're not even close to being finished. Since no candidate won a majority, we must hold a second election that will cost even more money. Because this is a heavily Democratic district, it is certain the Democratic nominee, Assemblymember Curren Price, will win. Yet Mr. Price must wait two months for a second election before he can be sworn in as State Senator.
Far from being "special", special runoff elections cost millions of tax dollars to administer - at a time when governments have been forced to lay off schoolteachers and workers.
Obviously, the Assemblyman is making the fiscal responsibility argument for combining low-turnout special elections through IRV. But there's another crucial argument to be made - the irresponsible delay in proper representation in the legislature. Mark Ridley-Thomas was elected to the LA County Board of Supervisors in November, and his replacement won't take office until May. That's unacceptable, and especially so in California, where the Yacht Party uses the conservative veto to hijack the budget process. With a faster resolution of the Ridley-Thomas seat, for example, Republicans would have one less vote to use as leverage for the budget.
And this is more acute in the case of special elections for Congress in CA-32 and CA-10. Imagine, for example, if Sen. Gil Cedillo wins the Solis seat. He could be replaced by a sitting Assemblymember, which is the logical scenario. Then THAT Assembly seat needs to be filled. By the time all the special elections and runoffs are complete, we're well into 2010.
Enough. Instant runoff voting is a perfectly acceptable way to divine the will of the people without the need for a separate runoff election. The aforementioned Mark Ridley-Thomas has called for a feasibility study into IRV for these special elections. Lieu and Dutta explain:
With IRV, voters get to rank their choices, 1, 2, 3. If your first choice cannot win, your vote automatically goes to your second (i.e., runoff) choice. It's like conducting a runoff election, but in a single election. If IRV had been used last night, the election for the Senate district would be finished.
IRV has already been adopted by San Francisco, Oakland, Minneapolis, Memphis, and Santa Fe. Currently, Louisiana, South Carolina and Arkansas all use IRV for overseas voters. A number of prominent leaders have endorsed IRV, including: President Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, California Controller John Chiang, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, and former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan. Influential civic groups also support IRV, including: Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, Los Angeles League of Women Voters, Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, Asian American Action Fund, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, and New America Foundation.
This is not only a budget issue, it's the right reform for California. Let's end the special election merry go-round.
Last night I was fortunate enough to be present at a small-group discussion with Secretary of State Debra Bowen hosted by the California League of Conservation Voters. Despite this being a hectic time for the Secretary of State (E-12, in her parlance), she took a couple hours to fill us in on efforts leading up to this year of three separate elections.
In the final two weeks for voters to be eligible for the February 5 primary, there was a surge of registration. At a "midnight registration drive" in Sacramento, over 1,500 citizens registered to vote in one day (sadly, registrars in places like Los Angeles County resisted efforts to do the same because it would be "inconvenient" for them to update their voter rolls). While she had no prediction on turnout in the primary, Bowen was confident that there will be a lot of excitement and potentially a good turnout. One drawback is the fact that decline-to-state voters have to opt-in to receive a ballot for the Democratic primary (they are shut out from the Republican primary). When I asked Bowen about this, she replied that counties are required to actually notify DTS voters of their rights, and that some precinct locations will have signage notifying them to that end, but that this is insufficient and her hands are tied by state law to some extent. The parties who want to welcome DTS voters into their primary have a big role to play in this. The Democratic Party, if they want to expand their base, should make a legitimate effort to let DTS voters know they can vote in the primary. It will have the effect of getting them in the habit of voting Democratic and give them a stake in the party. There are also legislative reforms, regarding mandatory signage inside the polling place, changes to the vote-by-mail process (nonpartisan voters must request a partisan ballot), that can be taken.
UPDATE: by Brian, I changed the title of this thread based on Christine's comment.
This email, originally from Christine Pelosi, was forwarded to me yesterday.
From: Christine Pelosi
Dear Everyone,
It's Veterans Day and here we are with the freedom to debate the future of our democracy thanks to the sacrifice of our service members. Thanks to all of them past and present.
On the issue of Prop 93, I have been reading the posts with great interest (and respect). FWIW, here are my thoughts:
We CA Democrats rightly opposed the term limits initiative - it was anti-progressive, pro-privatization - and in part it worked. It entrenched top-level insiders and lobbyists, and made incumbents more reliant on these entrenched interests to learn their way around the Capitol and get things done. We can't change this "imbalance of power" in our state government unless we remove artificial term limits and promote competitive election and ethics reform.
ARTIFICIAL TERM LIMITS break the pipeline of new people coming forth to serve and remove the people from the decision - if I want my legislator to serve 2 or 20 years that should be my choice as a voter.
Really fabulous write-up in Slate this morning about how the GOP proposition to change how our electors are determined (i.e. the plan to steal 20-22 electoral votes) is unconstitutional:
"In Article II, Section 1, the Constitution declares that electors shall be appointed by states "in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." That's legislature. California's could scrap its current winner-take-all approach and adopt a district-by-district system for allocating electors (as only Maine and Nebraska currently do). But the voters-whom the initiative supporters have turned to because they don't have the support of the Democratic-controlled legislature-cannot do this on their own."
The more people know this the more likely it is to die a final death. "You can vote for it but all you'll be doing is costing the state a lot in legal fees while it gets challenged all the way up to the supreme court!" is a pretty good argument against voting for it.
Today the New York Times weighs in with an editorial about the right-wing Electoral College power grab, and in fairly bold language excoriates it.
The Electoral College should be abolished, but there is a right way to do it and a wrong way. A prominent Republican lawyer in California is doing it the wrong way, promoting a sneaky initiative that, in the name of Electoral College reform, would rig elections in a way that would make it difficult for a Democrat to be elected president, no matter how the popular vote comes out. If the initiative passes, it would do serious damage to American democracy.
The editorial goes on to explain the damage this initiative would cause, rightly calling it a Republican power grab and explaining how their goal is to fool the public into giving away the election in the name of "reform." Obviously written before the news of the competing ballot initiative came to light, there's a perfunctory paragraph approving of the idea of the National Popular Vote. But the concluding paragraph calls out the Governor to show his true colors on this issue:
Leading Republicans, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, have been silent about the initiative to split California's electoral votes, but they should be speaking out against it. The fight isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats. It is about whether to twist the nation's system of electing presidents to give one party an unfair advantage. No principled elected official, or voter, of either party should support that.
Most Republican politicians aren't principled, but Arnold at least fashions himself to be. He should be asked about this at every opportunity until he gives a satisfactory answer.
A lot going on for a Tuesday in August. Dan Morain at the LAT has the latest story:
Democrats proposed an initiative today aimed at having California embrace the movement to elect presidents by popular vote.
The initiative also is designed to head off a Republican effort to wrest away California's electoral votes. Republican consultants are proposing a separate initiative to change California's winner-take-all system of awarding its 55 electoral votes. Under the Republican measure, electoral votes would be awarded based on how congressional districts vote, an idea that could benefit the Republican nominee.
If the competing Democratic and Republican measures make it to the ballot next June, California would become a battleground over the electoral college system. The state has 55 electoral votes, more than any other state, and more than 10% of the 538 electoral votes nationally.
Chris Lehane announced the competing initiative at a press conference today. And the initiative has been filed with the Attorney General.
I should add that there was another poll out today on this issue, by Rasmussen, which showed that the right-wing Electoral College power grab fails badly once people are given information about it's implications, but that polling on a national popular vote concept is pretty favorable. Numbers on the flip:
(Welcome Assemblyman! As per our policy of bumping diaries from electeds, up this goes. This issue is particularly important given SoS Bowen's recent revelations. I hope we can get this bill to Arnold, and get him to sign it. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
On November 4, 2008, millions of Californians will go to their polling places to cast their votes using electronic voting machines. By the end of that evening, we will know who will take office as our next President. What we will not know that night - what we may never know with certainty - is whether our votes were in fact properly counted by those electronic voting machines.
Debra Bowen is doing what we elected her to do. After her top-to-bottom review of the voting systems in California revealed serious flaws, she acted:
In a dramatic late-night press conference, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen decertified, and then recertified with conditions, all but one voting system used in the state. Her decisions, following her unprecedented, independent "Top-to-Bottom Review" of all certified electronic voting systems, came just under the wire to meet state requirements for changes in voting system certification.
Bowen announced that she will be disallowing the use of Direct Recording Electronic (DRE, usually touch-screen) voting systems made by the Diebold and Sequoia companies on Election Day, but for one DRE machine per polling place which may be used for disabled voters. The paper trails from votes cast on DREs manufactured by those two companies must be 100% manually counted after Election Day. DREs made by Hart-Intercivic are used in only one California county and will be allowed for use pending security upgrades.
The InkaVote Plus system, distributed by ES&S and used only in Los Angeles County has been decertified and not recertified for use after the company failed to submit the system source code in a timely manner to Bowen's office. LA County is larger than many states, and questions remain at this time as to what voting system they will use in the next election.
Read the whole thing. Bowen is going up against some really powerful forces and needs out support. The registrars are going to scream holy hell about this, and we'll hear that we don't have the money to up and change everything now. That dog shouldn't hunt. I think everyone in this state, or at least a vast majority, is willing to pay for the security of our democracy.
Where does Dianne Feinstein stand on “clean elections”? We’ll soon find out.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate’s Rules and Administration committee—chaired by Sen. Feinstein--will hold a hearing on a “Clean Elections” bill for the first time in over a decade. And this bill has some heft behind it: the sponsors of the Fair Elections Now Act (S.1285) are Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), no slouches.
But one big question is whether Sen. Feinstein will use her leadership to lend support to this bill, and ultimately to help shepherd it through the Senate. She’s been relatively mum so far—but here’s hoping she gets behind Fair Elections Now.
The LA Times gets downright progressive about voting reform, in the wake of the horrible turnout for Tuesday's school board runoff, where $9 million dollars in voting infrastructure and campaign expenditures yielded a 6% turnout.
A much better solution is to use instant runoff voting, an electoral method that elects a majority winner in a single election.
Here's how it works: Voters rank the candidates in their order of preference instead of just picking one candidate. If a candidate wins a majority of first rankings, the election is over, just like now. But if no candidate wins a majority of first rankings, voters' other rankings are used to determine the winner instantly. The candidate with the fewest first rankings is eliminated, and voters who ranked that candidate first can now have their second choice counted. All ballots are recounted in the "instant runoff," and the process of dropping the last-place candidate continues until one candidate has a majority of the votes [...]
Because this method of voting would save millions of tax dollars, part of that money could be used for an expansion of Los Angeles' public financing system, which might produce more candidates and more competition - which could induce higher voter turnout.
Los Angeles also could change to an all vote-by-mail system. Oregon votes this way, as does Burbank, and it has led to higher turnout in non-November elections. It also saves tax dollars by avoiding the high costs of setting up polling stations and hiring election workers.
Frank Russo has all the details about Fabian Nunez' redistricting proposal announced today. (It'd be nice if the Speaker would come around and announce it on this site himself, but hey, we do what we can.) Essentially it puts redrawing the state boundaries in the hands of the Little Hoover Commission, minus the legislators that normally sit on that panel. This would have to go before voters as an initiative once it passes the legislature with a 2/3 vote (it's a Constitutional amendment).
EDIT by Brian: The initiative that went our for signatures is not the same as ACA1, which the Speaker discussed yesterday. I discussed ACA 1 very briefly when the changes were first announced yesterday. Check out California Progress Report for more.
This is a somewhat interesting bill put forward by Loni Hancock, which will be brought to a vote in the Education Committee this week. It would allow students to be excused from school to work on a precinct board during Election Day, making that work "independent study." Here's how People For the American Way (which supports the proposal) describes the benefit:
Finding enough competent and reliable poll workers for California precincts (80,000 are necessary) is an enormous task for all counties. Student poll workers have proven to be vital to staffing polls throughout the state and most California counties have active student poll worker programs. However, under current law, when a student works at the polls, he or she receives an "excused absence" and the school loses state funding based on that absence. AB 466 would allow the student poll workers to be counted in their schools' attendance figures for purposes of state funding, as long as the students complete all assignments and tests they may have missed, as well as a report on their activities as poll workers.
Anything that encourages more people to work on Election Day should be encouraged. The average age of pollworkers can almost not be computed because the numbers are too high. Exposing students to the inner workings of democracy (not compelling, but giving the option) is part of the civic education that all Americans ought to have. If your Assemblymember is on the Education Committee, give them a call and ask that they support AB466.
We all know it's going to be a long, hard slog to get a Clean Money Bill through the California Legislature along the lines of what's been implemented in Arizona, Maine and Connecticut. Heck, the CDP took a neutral position on the Clean Money initiative in 2006. And it got obliterated at the polls.
But nevertheless, things are moving forward. This week Assemblywoman Loni Hancock has re-introduced AB 583, essentially the same bill as the one which passed the Assembly last session. So far there are 4 co-sponsors. You can read all about the bill here. It's a public financing system for all statewide elections for candidates of all parties, provided they show a base of support with a set number of $5 contributions.
What I thought was interesting was this, from the CA Clean Money Campaign's email:
Also exciting is the news that State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) will be introducing a pilot project bill to set up a Clean Money system for the Insurance Commissioner.
Interesting that they would pick the Insurance Commissioner race, no? I mean, considering that the current officeholder contributed $13.5 million of his own money to win the job. A pilot program may be the way to test the system that will be needed to prove its viability.
If anyone from the San Diego region is interested or if you know someone who might be, there's a petition now being circulated asking the CA Secretary of State to investigate a complaint about the election process in San Diego County.
EDITED: for space by Brian.The petition is over the flip:
San Francisco Board of Supervisors Committee meetings can be, well, how do I put this, uhhh, boring. And today's meeting of the Budget and Finance Meeting was exactly the same. A few conversations about a city car barn, and some greening on Alemany Blvd. The meeting picked up a bit when the topic of community choice aggregation came up. Several speakers from the Sierra Club told the Board that global warming is real. (Good point guys, but, let's not use Katrina as the right uses 9/11).
But the real reason I was there was an email from Democracy Action to get the Supes to force Sequoia to release their source code. As I said then, and I stick to now, I don't think that the city should be doling out about $9 million to provide business to a company that has already been shown to be unreliable. And by unreliable, I mean a recent report that computer scientists at Princeton have hacked Sequoia machines to flip votes from one candidate to another.
(I'll be heading to this meeting. Please consider sending an email. -Brian - promoted by eugene)
I just got an email from Democracy Action about a Valentine's Day hearing at City Hall. The SF Board of Supervisors Budget & Finance Committee will decide whether to approve a new Sequoia contract worth about $12.5 Million. While they may not go as far as I would (by rejecting any expenditures for Sequoia machines), they advocate a very reasonable postion: opening the code to scrutiny.
BradBlog recently reported that computer scientists successfully hacked into the Sequoia AVC Advantage machines. They were able to flip votes, for godsakes! And while SF has trustworthy elections officials, it is not acceptable to allow the purchase of hackable machines. So, if you can, attend the hearing at City Hall. If you can't please contact a Supervisor. The B&F Committee consists of Chris Daly, Bevan Dufty, and Tom Ammiano.
After the flip you will find the complete Democracy Action email on the subject.
