Several weeks ago I posted a diary on behalf of Norma Amsterdam, a nurse leader at SEIU 1199-United Healthcare Workers East. She wrote about how the Alameda County Superior Court quickly overturned a temporary restraining order against SEIU once it was evident that the move was just another CNA publicity stunt. Yesterday, the court sided with SEIU again, issuing a tentative ruling that found no “credible claim of violence or threat of violence” for CNA to have filed the petition. Because such efforts to suppress free speech are a violation of the “SLAPP” statutue SEIU is now entitled to recover attorney’s fees associated with its defense.

Today, delegates at the SEIU Convention in Puerto Rico recognized the harm the CNA vs. SEIU struggle is having on workers and unanimously passed a resolution calling for more unity and alliances among labor organizations, particularly within the health care industry.

To find out more about the resolution go to www.shameonCNA.com.

~Karen, SEIU

Your next Assemblyman from the 80th District:

Coachella, CA – Early this morning Manuel Perez declared victory in the Democratic primary in the 80th Assembly District. Perez won an overwhelming victory by building a strong multi-ethnic and diverse coalition in Riverside County and Imperial County.

“People power made the difference in this election,” declared Democratic nominee Manuel Perez. “My message of hope and values resonated across both counties as voters yearned for new leadership, new energy and common values.”

Progressives around the state could really learn from this guy.  I met Manuel Perez almost a year ago and was really thrilled by the transformative nature of his candidacy, someone who understands the issues facing California but can also put together the progressive argument in a broad and powerful way.  Plus he can reach out and help build a new generation of Hispanic leadership in the desert area that will leave its mark long after he’s out of the picture.  Mark my words, there’s a leadership position in this guy’s future, sooner rather than later.

The great thing is that the best chance we have for a pickup in November is not a Lou Correa-type Democrat but a real fighter for progressive values.  You don’t have to be afraid of your beliefs, you can speak to them and win.  That’s what Perez’ victory signifies.

(and a little labor money didn’t hurt either)

I think the results of yesterday’s primaries had some good news and some bad, and also brought to light the depressing realities of California politics.

• Turnout was horrendous.  These numbers will go up, but with all precincts reporting we’re looking at 22% turnout, the lowest in recent memory, far lower than 2006 and 2004.  There still is not much of a real political culture in California with respect to state politics, and I think that’s something we have to recognize.  I saw a lot of activism and citizen-led activity leading up to these primaries which made me somewhat hopeful, but it did not translate at the ballot box.  Of course, with so many uncontested primaries there was little at stake.  But as a measure of intensity of the electorate, there wasn’t much.

• IE campaigns win elections.  The outsized influence of IE campaigns is something we have to understand and work with.  Even the races where, as Robert said, progressives won in state legislature primaries, there were in general a lot of IEs, funded mostly by labor, on their behalf.  Rod Wright basically bought a seat in SD-25, with well over a million dollars of independent expenditures funded mostly by tobacco and business interests.  And the size of Bob Blumenfield’s victory in AD-40 suggests the importance of IEs.  There isn’t going to be a lot of appetite for reforming this from a set of state legislators who have IEs to thank for their positions in office.  Clean money elections is obviously the killer app, and I’m glad Loni Hancock will be in the State Senate to carry the bill, but it’s pretty depressing how easily these seats can be bought, particularly in low-turnout primaries where almost nobodyis paying attention.

• Measuring Congressional intensity.  Looking at turnout numbers in the primaries isn’t really a great measure of how the candidates will do in the general elections, but it’s a good benchmark of base support.  Among the winners were Bill Durston (within 8,000 votes of Dan Lungren) and Charlie Brown (just nipped by Tom McClintock in raw votes, but he got 42,000-plus out to vote for him in one of the highest-turnout elections anywhere).  Among the losers?  Well, pretty much everyone else.  But Nick Leibham can’t be happy about his totals, and he has a MAJOR activist support problem in the 50th district that he has to recognize and fix.  Russ Warner did sort of in the middle, well enough but with the need for improvement.  Considering she faced two challengers, Julie Bornstein didn’t do too badly either.

• Incumbency can be defeated, but it’s tough.  Carole Migden is something like the first incumbent to be beaten in a primary in California in a dozen years.  Mervyn Dymally was a sitting Assemblyman and something of a legendary figure so I’ll call him a sort-of beaten incumbent.  But it took lots of money to unseat these two and they had their share of political scandal.  Otherwise, it’s just real hard to get your message out.

• PDA is less than worthless.  I love and respect my friends in Progressive Democrats of America for their advocacy of progressive causes.  As an electoral engine, they are simply not a legitimate organization.  Only Cheryl Ede can hold her head up high as a PDA-backed candidate, and honestly I think that had more to do with Leibham than her.  Mary Pallant had PDA backing, more resources than the other two candidates in the race, and was thrashed by someone who suspended her candidacy and came back just weeks before the vote.  It takes more than screaming about the system and emailing frantically back and forth and writing resolutions to build a power base, and PDA needs to learn in a hurry.

• The legislative battlegrounds.  I’m very excited by Manuel Perez’ win in AD-80, where he was the only candidate to show strength in all parts of the district (he actually finished a close second in both Riverside and Imperial Counties).  He has a lot of momentum going into November against Gary Jeandron, the former sheriff of Palm Springs.  And Democrats got about 5,000 more votes than Republicans in that seat.  If Perez can unify the factions, he wins.  AD-78 looks good, too.  Marty Block squeaked out a win, and overall Democrats got over 8,000 more votes.  Joan Buchanan did well in AD-15 and has a decent base of support – this will be a close race against Abram Wilson.  I like what Alyson Huber did in AD-10, getting more votes than anyone on the ballot, Republican or Democratic.  In AD-26, John Eisenhut, a farmer, got almost as many votes in his unopposed primary as Republican Bill Berryhill did in his.  Ferial Masry is a longshot in AD-37, but the Democratic vote was within 5,000 of Republican Audra Strickland’s total.  Those are the 6 races that get us to 2/3.

In the State Senate, we’ll see what becomes of the Morris write-in.  But the good news was in SD-19, where Hannah-Beth Jackson got 47,000-plus votes to Tony Strickland’s 50,000-plus.  That’s relative parity, and a good place to be.  Because of the coattails Barack Obama will bring, I don’t mind some deficit between Democratic and Republican numbers in the primary, because there will be lots and lots of new voters coming out to support the nominee in the fall who will pull the lever for downticket candidates.  

That’s what I’ve got for now, I’m sure we’ll all be poring over the numbers in the days to come.

(Low-turnout primaries are really tricky things.  And it’s so hard to run a traditional grassroots campaign in California.  This is a pretty amazing story, and ties in to what I was talking about below. – promoted by David Dayen)

Well, one thing’s for sure: Democrats are tired of big business and the insurance industry.  So much so, in fact, that Democrats in CA-24 elected to vote in landslide numbers for Marta Jorgensen, a candidate who did little traditional campaigning to speak of–including, apparently, not even purchasing the state voter file–simply on the basis of the ballot designation “educator”.

The Democratic primary race in CA-24 to challenge perennial do-nothing Republican Elton Gallegly was a 3-way contest between progressive favorite Mary Pallant, the previous Democratic contestant Jill Martinez, and political neophyte Marta Jorgensen.

The outcome of this race is difficult for me to write about, as I was very enthusiastic about Mary’s campaign: her progressive stances on issues from Iraq to healthcare to accountability for the Bush Administration are all very attractive, and of the three candidates, she is by far the most charismatic and hard-nosed.  She also knows exactly what it takes to run a good campaign, and it was something of an open secret in the local political scene that Elton Gallegly was very nervous about having to face her in November.  I was so impressed with Mary (and still am) that I signed on to become to her volunteer Netroots Outreach Coordinator.  But in a low-turnout election, the strangest things can happen.

The three candidates were contrasts in styles.  Of the three, Mary had by far the best campaign organization, ground game, and persuasion–the sorts of nuts-and-bolts messaging and GOTV politics that anyone who has been to DFA training courses like I have (or Camp Wellstone training, as Mary has) knows are supposed to win you elections if done right.  Mary raised tens of thousands of dollars, and spent them in the most effective way that could have been advised: on robocalling and direct mail.  Her team of volunteers spent countless hours phonebanking, securing thousands of “definitely yes” voters, and we had a decent earned media campaign of local appearances, fundraisers, and letters to the editor.  Mary also secured the endorsements of many progrsesive figures and organizations, including Sheila Kuehl, the Progressive Democrats of America and the California Nurses Assocation.

Jill Martinez, by contrast, ran what could best be described as the “Hillary Clinton” campaign: as the previous Democratic nominee, she ran as a the candidate of inevitability and the establishment: the nose-to-the-grindstone Democrat who had always worked hard in the district, and would continue to work hard for it.  Unfortunately for Martinez, she was still over $80,000 in debt from her 2006 campaign (nor was she exactly forthcoming about that fact, to put it mildly), and thus did not put in place any serious kind of ground game in terms of phonebanking, mailers or other nuts-and-bolts politics–preferring instead to appear at as many events as possible to get earned media, and boost name recognition through yard signs.

Marta Jorgensen, meanwhile, is from the northernmost part of the district (traditionally underserved by the more centrally-focused representation of Gallegly), and essentially entered the race late as a spoiler looking to highlight the issues of that portion of the district.  She had no campaign apparatus to speak of, attended few events, and had no significant endorsements to speak of.  On April 24th, Marta Jorgensen quit the race and endorsed Martinez.  Then, on May 19th, she re-entered the race–again due to a perceived slight to her part of the district:

“I was just getting used to the idea of not being in the race but I had some people contact me this week who were really getting upset that they lived in the central valley up here, the Lompoc valley, Orcutt, andparts of Santa Maria,” Jorgensen said. “They felt like the candidates were never coming up here to campaign. I’d never seen them so I really helped what they were doing.”

After re-entering, Jorgensen did not do any significant campaigning–and yet, come election day Jorgensen cruised to an easy victory with 46.1% of the vote in a 3-way race.  Martinez, meanwhile, carried 31.6% to Pallant’s 22.3%.  How was this possible?

Apparently, the ballot designations overrode any other political concerns: Democrats far preferred to vote for an “educator” over a “businesswoman (Martinez).  And they sure as hell weren’t going to vote for an “insurance agent” (Pallant), no matter how progressive her positions or effective her ground game and GOTV.  The results were shocking to everyone–not least of all to Jorgensen, who wasn’t even apparently tracking the results on election night.  As the Ventura County Star reports:

Apparently powered by the appeal of the word “educator,” a teacher and former nurse from Solvang appeared headed to an unexpected win in the three-way race for the Democratic nomination in the 24th Congressional District.

Marta Jorgensen, reached by phone Tuesday evening and informed of the early returns, was incredulous. “You’re kidding! That’s a pretty amazing thing.”

For three weeks during the campaign, Jorgensen had suspended campaigning and announced she was supporting Jill Martinez, a developer of affordable housing and the Democratic nominee from two years ago.

But, saying she thought Martinez and Oak Park insurance agent Mary Pallant were not paying enough attention to Santa Barbara County voters, Jorgensen jumped back in.

“I was certain I had shot myself in the foot on that,” she said. “I thought maybe I’d get 8 or 10 percent.”

As the article goes on to point out, the ballot designations were the key:

The key to Jorgensen’s apparent victory was likely her ballot designation: “Educator.”

In a race in which none of the candidates spent much money to introduce themselves to voters, many Democrats apparently preferred that designation to those listed on the ballot below Martinez (“Businesswoman/Housing Developer”) and Pallant (“Insurance Agent”).

Jorgensen teaches computer classes in her home, and last year taught technology and journalism to third-, fourth- and fifth-graders at a private school in the Santa Ynez Valley.

And evidently, “businesswoman/housing developer” was significantly more attractive than “insurance agent.”

Unfortunately, Jorgensen’s victory means that this race is effectively off the map for Democrats, since it’s unlikely that Jorgensen will be able to command the sort of fundraising, institutional support and visibility necessary to make a serious run at Gallegly.  While I commend her on her victory over both Jill and Mary and hope she puts together an effective race, either of the latter two candidates would have made a serious run at Gallegly forcing him to sweat, and even in defeat would have helped build the local Democratic Party and leverage significant volunteer efforts.  Now it appears that we will have to wait for another two years for a higher-turnout election and an even bluer district demographic for a serious challenge to Gallegly’s awful representation here.

Nevertheless, let this be a lesson for many Democrats currently considering elected office: among the many other considerations in an election season, don’t overlook the power of a progressive-sounding ballot designation that shies away from anything having to do with business, housing development, insurance or the like.  Democrats are fed up with anything related to Republican-sounding industries and are looking for a change–even if they do sometimes look for it in the most shallow ways.

And that, it must be admitted, is actually a good thing.

An interesting trend in the primary results is that the more progressive candidates tended to win the state legislative races – Yamada over Cabaldon in AD-08, Leno over Nation in SD-03, to give just a few examples – but the more moderate candidates had success in the Congressional races.

It’s hard to make a direct comparison, because many of the contested legislative races were usually not in the same places as the contested Congressional races. The legislative fights tended to be in safe Democratic districts (with AD-80 being a notable exception) whereas the Congressional fights were of necessity in those districts where Republicans currently hold the seat.

It may be that in those purplish districts moderates outnumber progressives among Democratic voters, and though candidates like Cheryl Ede and Vickie Butcher got a respectable 40% each, it suggests that progressives still have a lot of work to do in those red-to-blue districts. There may also be a presumption that a moderate Dem has a better shot at beating a Republican incumbent and even if that’s a true assessment, it suggests the continuing uphill climb progressives face on the frontiers of California congressional battles.

The progressive trend in state legislative races was clearer and more widespread. Industry-funded candidates like Gina Papan and Chris Cabaldon went down to a narrow defeat at the hands of more progressive challengers, while in other primary races, such as AD-14, AD-27, and SD-23, a field of progressive candidates fought to show voters who had the stronger left-of-center credentials. A similar dynamic even showed up in AD-80, where two different kinds of progressives – Greg Pettis and Manuel Perez – battled for the right to shift the seat from red to blue.

There does seem to be a very clear progressive trend happening within the California Democratic Party and its state legislative seats. It’s a welcome sign, especially as term limits provides new leadership in Sacramento. Democrats want a state government that addresses their needs – health care, education, transportation, the environment, and they now believe progressive Democrats are the most likely to deliver it.

It’s now on to the November elections, where we will aim for a 2/3 majority in both houses to consolidate progressive gains and finally start governing California effectively and sensibly.