One of the biggest news out of the PPIC polling are the numbers on term limits. The voters like them and based on the question asked do not want to see them changed. The results are in sharp contrast to polling done by the respected Binder Research group. The differences can be explained by the questions asked.
PPIC (run: 3/20)
Under current term limits, a legislator is allowed to serve six years in the state assembly and eight years in the state senate. Would you favor or oppose a change in term limits that would allow members to serve up to 12 years of total legislative service in either branch?
31% Yes
64% No
DBR (run 1/31):
This initiative would change California’s law regulating term limits for members of the California State Assembly and State Senate. Currently, an individual is allowed by law to serve no more than six years in the State Assembly and no more than eight years in the State Senate – for a total of fourteen years. This initiative would reduce the total number of years a person can serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years and it would also allow legislators to serve all12 years in either the Assembly or the Senate as long as voters re-elect them for each term. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this initiative?
59% Yes
33% No
I don’t have the internals of the DBR to compare the sampling. The DBR poll is a much more thorough question. You would have to do the math in your head to notice the reduction of years with the PPIC question. The results show that any campaign around passing this initiative must succeed at penetrating to voters the 2 year reduction. Still, voters do like term limits and it will not be easy to get them to tinker with the system even without an well funded opposition.
The botched roll-out has not helped matters any. Passing initiatives is always more difficult than defeating them. They have their work cut out for them. This is not a simple change to explain. Don’t count out these consultants. They know what they are doing.
I am curious to hear what you think about the questions. Did DBR make this too favorable? Did PPIC not adequately explain the initiative? What do you think would be a fair question?
Say what you will about Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, but even if you disagree with him more often than not, you have to at least admit he’s not afraid to speak his mind.
And in these days of political polarization, it’s refreshing to still have an elected leader you can count on to tell you how he sees things and not just parrot party talking points.
Believe it or not, that’s what the Huntington Beach Independent has to say about Dana Rohrabacher in their editorial page today. So are they right? Does “CrazyDana” really make sense now? Follow me after the flip for more…
So why exactly is the HB Independent praising Dana Rohrabacher?
Remember last year when most Republicans were treating disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff the way Superman handles kryptonite?
Rohrabacher put his neck out to stick up for his friend, even writing a note to the judge asking for leniency.
A friend of two decades, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), defended Abramoff: “I think he’s been dealt a bad hand and the worst, rawest deal I’ve ever seen in my life. Words like bribery are being used to describe things that happened every day in Washington and are not bribes.”
Last week, Rohrabacher reared back and delivered one of his patented one-two verbal punches right straight to the guts of the White House.
It’s not what you’d expect in proudly Republican Orange County, where President Bush enjoyed lop-sided support in the past two elections.
But there was Rohrabacher calling on President Bush to fire his attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, and even saying the president ought to be impeached if two recently convicted Border Patrol agents are killed in prison.
We may not always agree with Rohrabacher, but we surely appreciate his independent nature and the courage he shows to speak his mind.
Well, maybe he is doing the right thing here… But is it for the right reason? Rohrabacher’s recent interview with Costa Mesa’s Daily Pilot should give us some insight here:
If it was just the U.S. attorneys, I would say we shouldn’t be calling the president’s appointee into question, but the fact is that the heavy-handed approach that the president used toward these U.S. attorneys reflects a pattern of arrogance in this administration, and those of us even in the Republican congress recognized a contempt of congressional oversight by this administration as compared to other administrations. We’ve seen an abuse of power by the FBI, we’ve seen an incredibly ruthless prosecution of [Border Patrol agents Ignacio] Ramos and [Jose] Compean. All of those things combined would signal that the president is not well served by having a very good buddy as attorney general rather than someone with a more professional focus. It is the job of the attorney general as the president’s legal counsel … to give direction and offer advice to the president and to make sure that what he’s doing is both politically and legally advantageous to the president and the president’s authority, and the president has not been well served by Gonzales.
The president has every right to fire U.S. attorneys – in fact, maybe he should have done so the first day of his administration, the way Bill Clinton did…. He has every right to throw the book at Border Patrol agents while pardoning drug dealers. The fact that these things are happening would suggest to me that you’ve got Mr. Gonzales not being forceful enough to advise the president that he’s on the wrong track. For all we know, they could be Mr. Gonzales’ policies.
Well, I guess it serves the larger purpose of bringing down Bush that Dana Rohrabacher is leading a mutiny in the Republican Party. I wish him the best on that. But will I ever start respecting him? No, especially since he’s still willing to give Bush “one last chance” to continue his miserable failure in Iraq. And oh yes, how can I respect someone who refuses to even accept reality on the looming climate change catastrophe?
I’ll cheer Dana on as he takes down his own party, but I certainly won’t cheer him on when he runs for reelection. He still makes no sense, and West Orange County and South LA County still deserve better.
If you are looking for that one reason to convince you to stop by the Calitics Candidates page and contribute to Jerry McNerney, look no further than how he responds when Karl Rove targets him as the 3rd most vulnerable Democrat in the country.
It’s official, Courage Campaign’s ATM Watch is live! With the help of Speaker Fabian Nunez, we’ve launched ATMWatch.org where all our blog posts and videos are aggregated and where there’s an opportunity for everyone to get in on the act.
What issues are on your mind? Ask the candidates a question HERE and we’ll get the questions to the candidates.
Have you seen a candidate and want to tell us about your experience? Blog it in our ATM Watch group HERE.
And of course, read the comings and goings of the candidates as they traverse California on the blog HERE. We update it every Friday.
Our goal is to start a dialogue between the candidates and every day Californians. In the coming months, we’ll be bringing you more live reports (which we’d like to be largely user-generated) and even video responses from the candidates and maybe even a townhall forum or two to really get the candidates in front of California voters. Gone are the days when California is merely an ATM for presidential candidates.
Two front page, above-the-fold, hit pieces on blogs in one week? Talk about belying fear.
Listen, we all know that February was the worst month ever for newspaper advertising and this month may be even worse. We also all know that at the same time blogs are only gaining in popularity. But just because craigslist had a direct effect on classified advertising doesn’t mean the blogs are responsible for the decline in print ad revenue. There is little to no correlation. There is however a correlation between good content and readers, so if the Phil Bronstein wants to use the front-page to go on the warpath against the culprit maybe he should be targeting his editors.
Bad Behavior in the Newsroom
Crappy assignment editors makes some wonder if they are bankrupting the news
I’d end this with how I’m canceling my subscription, but like most people I don’t subscribe. I’d like to, I love a nice crisp paper, the smell of the ink with my coffee in the morning. Give me a reason to subscribe. But right now the closest I come to a printed San Francisco Chronicle is seeing what is in the newstands. More often than not the front page makes me laugh.
I simply don’t get why the Chronicle doesn’t focus on what they do best. If they think trying to start flame wars with bloggers is what they do best then somebody should pre-write the Chron’s obituary now.
– The People Like Arnold a Little Less And Dislike the Leg a Little Less
56% of likely voters approve of Arnold’s performance as Governator. That’s down five points from January, but still OK for him. However, the Legislature is still becoming… Well, less unpopular. While only 39% of likely voters approve of the Legislature’s performance, that’s a big jump from only 23% approval (AND 65% DISAPPROVAL!!) a year ago.
– Sorry, Don Perata… Voters Like Term Limits As They Are…
68% of likely voters think terms limits have been good for California, and 64% “oppose a term limits reform initiative that proponents hope to put on the February 2008 primary ballot.”
The opposition is also widespread: 70% of Republicans, 61% of Democrats and 68% of independents say they oppose the initiative.
– … But They Do Want to Redo Redistricting
Now, we all know that the real strategy to get term limits changed is to tie it to redistricting reform. Well, I guess they’re kinda “halfway there”. Voters want to change the way that districts are drawn…:
– 66% of likely voters think the current redistricting system needs at least minor changes.
– 39% of likely voters think it needs major changes
– 66% of likely voters favor putting an independent citizen commission in change of drawing districts.
For more on what’s on Californians’ minds, and what this might mean for public policy this year, follow me after the flip for more…
Now 54% of likely voters view immigrants as a benefit to the state because of their hard work and job skills, meanwhile only 39% see immigrants as a burden because they use public services. It looks like most Californians don’t have a problem with immigrants… Except that 53% don’t want undocumented immigrants to have health care benefits.
– Health Care: What Do Californians Want?
Although health care is not a top priority, 71% of Californians are saying that health care is in need of major change. 82% of Democrats, 74% of Independents, and 58% of Republicans all feel that we need major changes in our health care system. 83& of likely voters are concerned about providing health care for all Californians. So what exactly are Californians supporting? What do they want to see done with health care?
65% of likely voters favor a plan “requiring all Californians to have health insurance, with costs shared by employers, health care providers, and individuals”. 69% of likely voters say it is a good idea to require all Californians to have health insurance, with programs available for the poor. 67% of likely voters feel that employers should be required to provide health insurance for their employers or pay a fee to the state to help cover the costs fo health insurance. Now with all these proposals, there’s pretty solid support among Democrats and Independents, but not so much among Republicans.
There’s a lot going on in election protection these days. I know for many the issue cooled once Debra Bowen was elected Secretary of State but while we can certainly breathe more easily now, there’s still plenty of work yet to be done.
“The review is designed to restore people’s confidence in the integrity of our electoral process…Every California voter has the right to have their vote counted as it was cast.”
Thanks again to Debra Bowen for headlining our public conference call earlier this month to discuss matters of election protection. If you missed it you can hear the entire thing HERE. And if this issue is of particular interest to you, please join our Election Protection California – Ask Debra Bowen group, which Debra Bowen’s office will be monitoring to gauge voters’ concerns.
Join me over the flip for a couple of updates from BradBlog whose new site design is mercifully, a lot less green.
Thanks to BradBlog for the heads up that this Friday, Harri Hursti of Hursti Hack fame will be appearing at Palm Desert City Hall council chambers for a public hearing where he will discuss, among other things:
issues of how an electronic voting (e-voting) system may be undetectably compromised and vote totals easily modified to completely change the outcome of the election. He will discuss how the “Red Team”/”Blue Team” approach of security hack testing of systems, as newly proposed last week by Secretary of State Debra Bowen would work in testing the Sequoia Edge II equipment now in use in Riverside County.
The hearing is Friday, March 30 at 9am at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, PALM DESERT, CA 92260-2524.
Gee, what a shocker, looks like the voting irregularity lawsuit filed down in CA-50 has been thrown out by an appeals court for being “moot” since Billbray has been serving in Congress for six months.
Speaking of CA-50, remember the ridiculously partisan San Diego County registrar of voters, Mikel Haas. He got promoted.
Before last year’s election, I had the opportunity to shoot some video of MyDD’s Matt Stoller interviewing Charlie Brown.
Brown came very close despite being virtually ignored by the CDP and DCCC. He is already campaigning hard to finish the job in 2008 and you can help him by contributing at the Calitics actblue page.
OK, I know that I shouldn’t be doing this…
But I just can’t help it! Total Buzz made me do it! ; )
Got a press release today saying that Assemblyman Van Tran, R-Garden Grove, will be in Santa Ana on Friday to promote the Earned Income Tax Credit — an income-tax benefit for the poor. Among those on hand will be Santa Ana Councilman Carlos Bustamante — who was among those running for supervisor this year against Tran’s candidate, Trung Nguyen — and the Legal Aid Society of Orange County, which is often finds Democrats more sympathetic to their causes. Former U.S. Treasurer and currently — take a breath — California State and Consumer Services Agency Secretary Rosario Marin will also be there.
For more on Van Tran, his new best friends, and what this all might mean, follow me after the flip…
Here’s some more from Martin Wisckol at Total Buzz:
More interesting to me was the new district representative for Tran who listed as the contact on the press release. Saulo Londono lead Lynn Daucher’s absentee ballot drive, which nearly led to an upset of Lou Correa in last year’s central county state Senate race. He then was campaign manager for Trung, and nearly pulled off an upset there after one of the most relentless and well-researched absentee voter drive I’ve seen. I’m not surprised Tran wants to keep Londono close at hand.
Hmmm… So one of the same guys who engineered Lynn Daucher’s near-win in SD 34 last year is now cozying up with Van Tran? I wonder why. Is he worried about something… Like possibly the next election, and the possibility that people might start to find out more about all the deliciousdirt that’s been hidden in his closet? Well, I guess there’s nothing like currying favor from other politicos to solidify your standing in time for the next election.
Sen. Leland Yee (D-SF) introduced SB 190 a while back. It brings a sense of transparency to the Executive Salary system. And a whole lot of sunshine. I’m not actually sure that I’m really that appalled by UC Executive Pay, but some sunshine would sure be welcome.
Over the flip, you can read the press release about the “faculty and students uniting to support SB190”. You know, I really love press releases. I mean, the language is always so grand. You just feel like the campuses are demanding this action. How much you want to bet that next time I go to Berkeley, that I could go around asking on campus all day about it, and nobody would have heard of this bill. Maybe a few will have heard of the executive pay “scandal”, but I bet most of those are concentrated in the polisci department and the student government. But sure, I’ll go with it: they united to support SB 190.
At any rate, flip it to let the sunshine in…
Faculty and Students Unite to Bring
Transparency to UC, CSU Executive Pay Scandals
Senate Education Committee to vote on Yee’s SB 190
SACRAMENTO – Just weeks after the both the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) handed out exorbitant executive compensation packages, the Senate Education Committee today approved legislation to bring greater transparency and public access to such actions.
Students, faculty, and public access advocates urged the committee to approve Senate Bill (SB) 190, legislation authored by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) that will require all executive compensation packages to be voted on in an open session of a subcommittee and the full board. The bill will also require full disclosure of the compensation package with accompanying rationale, public comment on the specific action item, and closes a loophole that allows UC Regents and CSU Trustees on advisory groups to circumvent open meetings law.
“We need to end the culture of secrecy at the UC and CSU governing boards,” said Yee. “SB 190 will bring much needed sunshine to these discussions, provide members of the media the democratic access they deserve, and help restore the public’s trust.”
SB 190 comes after a series of audits, lawsuits and other revelations have found that the UC and the CSU failed to get public approval from the Regents or Trustees for compensation packages and that some top executives were paid more than what was released to the public.
Last week, the CSU faculty announced that 94 percent of its members voted in favor of a strike. In addition to handing out two excessive executive compensation payouts, the Regents and Trustees also recently significantly increased student fees.
“It seems as if the students and faculty – the backbone of our university – are always left to the bear the burden, while high execs live high on the hog,” said Senator Yee. “As a graduate of both the UC and CSU, I want to make sure our higher education systems succeed. We should be investing in instruction, not creating a get-rich factory for executives.”
“SB 190 will give the public an open window into the secret and scandal-ridden compensation practices of the UC Regents and CSU Trustees,” said Tom Newton, General Counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association. “This legislation will not only shine some light on executive compensation discussions, but will allow the public to decide for itself whether UC and CSU pay practices are fair and appropriate.”
“Senator Yee’s legislation will make sure that the University lives up to its public purpose and is held accountable for their actions,” said Lakesha Harrison, President of AFSCME Local 3299. “This legislation is an important first step in ensuring the accountability of the University to the people of California.”
“Thousands of students turn to this university for the education they need to contribute to California,” said Susan Meisenhelder of the California Faculty Association. “Instead of helping students get an education, the administration caters to elite executives who get huge pay raises and golden parachutes.”
In addition to the California Faculty Association and AFSCME, SB 190 has already garnered the support of California Newspaper Publishers Association, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), University of California Student Association, Council of UC Faculty Associations, Associated Students of the University, California Nurses Association, Californians Aware, State Employee’s Trades Council, and California Federation of Teachers, as well as co-authors from both Democratic and Republican legislators.
SB 190 will also be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee before consideration by the entire Senate.
