Sen-03: Mark Leno to Challenge Carole Migden?

Every few years, San Francisco’s political class demands an epic battle. With Mayor Newsom getting a walk in 2007, the next title fight may end up being for Carole Midgen’s senate seat. SF Assemblymember Mark Leno put a poll in the field to test the viability of a 2008 primary challenge.

This would be somewhat unfortunate, because many north bay civilians will face forced involvement. But as Clemenza once said, “This thing’s gotta happen every five years or so — ten years — helps to get rid of the bad blood.”

The B.A.R.:

Last weekend Leno paid for a poll that was conducted to test the waters of waging a possible run against Migden. The poll, according to several people who took it and then blogged about it, portrayed Migden’s negatives as her being difficult and a rude lawmaker, and Leno’s as being soft on crime and myopically focused on gay issues. The positive aspect for the two politicians was said to be that they are both effective representatives for their constituents.

Leno just won re-election to his third and final two-year term in the Assembly and has been scouting around for his next office to run for in 2008. Leno said this week he has not made any decision as to whether he will enter the race for Migden’s seat. He is waiting to receive the poll results first, and if encouraging, intends to consult with LGBT political leaders and Democratic Party officials. A decision would not come until early 2007, he said.

“Given the persistency of questions I received from people both in Sacramento and San Francisco on whether I was running for Senate in 2008, it seemed appropriate to ask voters what they were thinking,” said Leno.

Since the Leno/Britt race (where Migden ended up on the losing end), Leno has gone a long way towards earning the respect of progressives. And as the incoming Chair of Appropriations, he would have the resources necessary to compete.

One thing is for certain, if this happens it will be a hell of a battle.

—–
Migden’s third district is (roughly) the eastern half of San Francisco, Marin County, and a decent chunk of Sonoma.


Image from Migden’s website, better one at CalVoter (PDF)

Total Recall: The Courage Campaign Governor Watch – Prison Reform

(The prison system is a mess and there is not a lot of political will to fix it, thus the federal courts have stepped in. – promoted by juls)

Total Recall, a new series here at the Courage Campaign, examines a simple question.  How well has the governor kept his word and delivered on his promises?  As Mr. Schwarzenegger begins his first full term as governor, rest assured that we're watching Arnold like a time-traveler.  As news events warrant, we'll have a new installment here on the blog, looking at how Arnold's performance while governing lives up to his campaign promises.
This second installment of Total Recall focuses on prison reform.   Our first installment looked at health care.  Check back for posts on the environment, electoral reform, immigration, and more in the coming weeks.
Let's start by recalling Governor Schwarzenegger's promises on prison reform, and then we'll see how his actions so far have lived up to those promises.   To end on a hopeful note, we'll end by looking at prospects for change in the future. 

 

Recalling Arnold's Promises

 

Given the dire state of the prison system in California, it's no surprise that one of Arnold's top promises in 2003 during the Recall election was to provide prison reform.  Sure enough, on his second day in office, Arnold appointed a tough new leader of the department of corrections, and stated that "Corrections should correct."  It seemed that serious reform of the prison system was soon to follow.

 

Instead, little changed in the three years that followed.  The prison system got even worse.  But, during his 2006 reelection campaign, Arnold again stated that prison reform would be at the top of his agenda for his new term.  This time, Arnold gave some specifics.  Schwarzenegger:

 

  • Promised to create a new program to help people released from prison find counseling and life-skills training.
  • Promised to build two new prisons using "lease-revenue" bonds.
  • Promised to hire more correctional officers, to essentially make the bloated prison system even bigger.
  • Promised to use private prisons – for-profit, non-state facilities – to house some people sentenced in California.

 

What Arnold Has Done So Far

 

The need for urgent change in California prison system is extremely dire.

 

California's prisons are in an unprecedented crisis.  Experts note that California's prison system is the largest in the Western world, with more than 170,000 people in prisons designed for, at the very most, 90,000 people.  Overcrowding is so bad that 16,000 people (again: Sixteen Thousand People) held in the system don't have regular prison cells – they're given cots in hallways and gyms.  California has more people in prison than does Germany, Britain or France.  The system simply cannot cope with the surge of people given to it by the criminal justice system.

 

The problems at the prison system go far beyond finding enough beds.  The system's health care system is unable to provide basic service.  Conditions inside the prisons are often inhumane.  Deteriorating facilities, inadequate supplies, and the constant threat of violence keeps people in prison in a situation so close to "cruel and unusual," the courts are already monitoring nearly all aspects of the system's operations, and the entire system might soon come under direct control of the federal courts.

 

Fixing the prison system is a complex task that demands bold leadership.  Since taking office, Schwarzenegger's actions on prison reform have been spotty.

 

A federal investigator, John Hagar, specifically singled out Schwarzenegger's administration for failing to carry out reforms.  "Beginning January 2006… it appears that the requisite leadership has been absent from the governor's office," Hagar concluded.

 

The same investigator also heaps plenty of blame on the Correctional Officer's union.  But the real problem is severe overcrowding.  The union reports that almost 4,000 correctional officer jobs remain unfilled – because work conditions are so terrible they simply cannot find people to do the job.  Bold leadership – not pointing fingers at the people who dedicate their lives to public service in prisons – is required to solve our state's prison problems.

 

Arnold's boldest effort at reform didn't come until June 2006, when his reelection campaign was in full swing.  Arnold declared a state of emergency in the prison system, a move which gave emergency authority to the governor to take drastic action.  He then called for a special Session of the Legislature, to request nearly 6 billion emergency dollars.

 

Then, Arnold began to fulfill one of his campaign promises for reform.  He ordered the Department of Corrections to move some of the people in its custody to private jails in Tennessee and other far-away states.  This move has been criticized as expensive and at best a stop-gap measure.  Worse, the program provides no effective oversight for the private prisons outside of California.   Many critics say that this new program is probably unconstitutional.

 

In addition, Arnold has taken no action to deal with the systemic problems that underlie the severe overcrowding in our state's prisons.  The high recidivism rate – 2 out of 3 people released from California prisons are back in prison within three years – and the unreasonably long sentences given for minor offenses are the two most obvious systemic problems.

 

To date, Arnold has taken no action on creating the new rehabilitation programs he promised during the campaign.  These programs would reduce the unacceptable recidivism rate and are a necessary first step.

 

Arnold has also been silent on changing California's broken sentencing system, which might very well soon be declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.  The sentencing system in our state all too often demands unreasonably long sentences for very minor offenses.

 

 

 

The Future: Prospects for Change

 

Societies, the saying goes, will be judged on how they treat the young, the elderly, and the imprisoned.  Correctional facilities – prisons – are not supposed to be overflowing human warehouses.  We spend too much on prisons and not nearly enough on education.  California can do better.

 

Changing California's unreasonable sentencing laws must be step one in any real effort at reform.  Far, far too many people in California prisons are there for non-violent, victimless crimes like simple drug possession.  The "three-strikes law" means that many people end up sentenced to decades behind bars for trivial offenses.  Experts predict that if sentencing guidelines are left unchanged, the prison population in California will increase even further over the next five years to the tune of 21,000 more people.  This rate is astronomical and will defeat any prison-building plan.  California can do better.

 

It's hard to find a silver lining for this issue.  But the prison system is in such dire straits that the crisis itself might become a silver lining.  The situation demands immediate, drastic reforms.  If the Governor can provide bold leadership through this crisis, our correctional facilities might become something to be proud of.  As they are now, California's prisons are overcrowded, inhumane, cruel, and deadly.  We can do better.

 

Will the new Dem majority create more competitive seats?

(Oops, forgot the check box. Also, note the new subject, Election 2008. Please tag your diaries on 08 issues with that (or use the subject pull-down), so we’ll have a page for those issues. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Over at The Reality Based Community, Mark Kleiman looks into why Henry Bonilla actually had a lower percentage of the vote in the runoff than he did in the general election in TX-23:

It may be nothing more than increasing disgust with Bush and his imitation of either Captain Ahab or Captain Queeg with respect to Iraq. But it may also be that some voters who voted for Bonilla on the theory that the Republicans had pork to dole out decided to join the winning team. If that’s right, it bodes well for 2008. Perhaps the stability of the Republican majority in the House depended in large part on the fact that it was a majority, and some seats that were just out of reach this year may be takeable next time.

So, Kleiman is arguing that holding the majority creates opportunities, or a positive feedback loop.  So, the stronger you are, the stronger you’ll get.  Of course, this only has limited applicability, because some seats are too strong one way or the other. 

However, this could have a big impact in some seats in California.  Say…CA-04.  Will Doolittle be able to hold on in 2008 (assuming no indictments…which is a bit of a stretch) with less power to dole out pork? I’m a bit skeptical that a weakened John Doolittle, who has been pushed out of the GOP leadership, can continue to hold off another solid run by a legitimate (perhaps Charlie Brown) candidate.  Anybody have any other seats you think this might affect?