Jessica’s Law is Just Bad Policy

I will admit that I'm occasionally a bit of a policy wonk. Not always, but you know, I have a degree in the whole “policy field” and I sometimes like to talk policy (or write as the case may be). One policy that I know reeks of fear-based politics with little to show in return: Jessica's Law. Sure, it won easily, and even Phil Angelides endorsed it.  Really, only a very select few spoke out against it. Fear is a bad poliy basis, and there seemed to be little reason for this law other than FEAR. Sen. Jackie Speier's bill had already passed and provided most of the protections of Prop 83. And the provisions that it lacked were just plain bad policy.

 But, at this point, the law is on the books. There's still some question about its constitutionality, with the latest court wranglings seeing the law enforced on 850 sex offenders. But, as the AP points out, many have found a loophole: the “transient exemption.” AKA being homeless. If a sex offender is homeless, well it's hard to prohibit them from living under a bridge. And as I pointed out in the past, the 2000-foot rule (away from schools, parks, etc.) will keep people away from services they need, and from basically all metropolitan areas. So, you want to live in San Francisco? Sorry, but you're always within 2000 feet of one of those places, so, go try Yreka.

So, into this fray steps SD-03 candidate Joe Alioto-Veronese. He's raising a resolution at today's Police Commission hearing for stronger enforcement of Jessica's Law. He apparently doesn't want to charge all offenders with crimes, he just wants to know where these people are. The problem is that once you know where they are, the city/state is obliged to remove them from their location if it violates the law. Sure, we could just be lax on the enforcement part, I suppose, but that seems a strange study in contrasts. Furthermore, the resolution wants to a) find all these homeless people and demands that they respond or b) face jail time for parole violation if they don't respond.

This, at best, puts a bit of lipstick on a pig. It doesn't substantively address any of the problems that were recently raised, and it punishes the homeless. Mr. Alioto-Veronese recognizes the deficiencies of Jessica's Law, but when I asked him whether he supports the 2000-foot rule, all I got was that he supports “protecting our children from sexuasl predators.” 

UPDATE: One more thing. I should point out this map (PDF) from the California Senate. Take a look at San Francisco. Or LA, too. What do you see? The only places that offenders would be allowed to live in SF would be primarily minority areas concentrated in the Southeast of the City. Just one more reason why this law was wrong in the first place, and is still wrong.

UPDATE 2: Apparently, it seems that some are trying to take some sort of moral high ground, that they are more true defenders of children. But, I'll not yield that to anybody. I believe we must protect children, but we must do it sensibly. We must do it in a manner that actually works. I'll also point out that we require less of released murderers than we do of  “sex offenders” (an overly broad category by the way). Prop 83 was bad policy when it passed, and it still is. (Oh, and btw, SF was the only county to reject Prop 83) More from the Chronicle:

But despite its visceral appeal, Prop. 83 is a terrible initiative that does not stand up to close scrutiny. One of its most obvious flaws is the ban on sex offenders living within 2,000 feet of any school or park. What this will mean is that most urban areas in California will be placed off limits to sex offenders. They will instead be forced into living in rural areas — an unfair burden to those communities and a barrier for those ex-offenders who are making an effort to find employment and straighten out their lives. In addition, understaffed law enforcement and social service agencies in remote parts of the state might not have the resources to adequately monitor these individuals. Public safety may be endangered rather than enhanced.

***
Ideas that are presented as “tough on crime” are not necessarily the most effective against crime — especially when resources are limited. Vote no on 83.

Resolution over the flip

RESOLUTION REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ACTION TO IDENTIFY CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER LOCATIONS

 

 

Whereas the San Francisco Police Commission and the San Francisco Police Department are 100% committed to maintaining the safety of all children and families in our City; and,

 

Whereas Jessica’s law (Penal Code 3000.07 et. seq- named in honor of Jessica Lunsford)  was enacted in 2006 to protect California Children from child predators.  Jessica’s law requires certain registered sex offenders to report to law enforcement agencies their address of residence;

 

Whereas, knowing the exact address of residence and location of parolees subject to such registration is in the interest of protecting California children and further assists the San Francisco Police Department to this end;

 

Whereas, California Penal Code Section 3003(e)(1)(J) requires that the California Department of Corrections report to local law enforcement agencies certain identifying information of sex offender registrants including their (1) exact address of residence, and (2) A geographic coordinate for the parolee's residence.

 

Whereas, the California Department of Corrections issued policy 07-48 notifying parolees unable to secure housing compliant with prop 83 to declare transience in order to avoid incarceration.

 

Whereas, according to a recent report by the California Attorney General, up to 166 parolees have newly registered as transient or homeless.

 

Whereas the public deserves to know the true locations these offenders; and not knowing  such information poses a danger to the children of San Francisco;

 

Be it therefore resolved, that the San Francisco Police Commission shall issue a letter to the California Department of Correction condemning policy 07-48, as it relates to registering as transient or homeless; requesting that they comply with California Penal Code Section 3003.

 

Be it therefore resolved that the San Francisco Police Commission request the Chief of Police of San Francisco Police Department take immediate action to prevent and reverse the trend of sex offenders registering as “homeless” by:

 (1) No later that November 25, 2007, or within one week of the passage of this resolution (whichever is later), the Chief of Police of the San Francisco Police Department shall send a letter to all registrants notifying them that it is the Policy of the San Francisco Police Department to comply the registration components of Jessica’s law.  The letter shall give registrants one month to register their correct address.  For all registrants listed as “transient” notification shall be sent to their prior address.

(2) After one month following the dispatch of such letter, the San Francisco Police Department shall verify the “transient” status of all registered offenders residing in the City and County of San Francisco, by investigating the residential address and taking appropriate law enforcement action, including taking that person into custody in violation of parole conditions if transience is not confirmed;

 

Be it finally resolved that the Chief of Police and any staff directly involved in this important effort report the result back to the Police Commission during the weekly Chief’s report to the Police Commission.

Some Polls

The chooser:

For the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50% say they “strongly disapprove” of the president. Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48%, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974.

Not Alberto Gonzalez:

Asked whether they think waterboarding is a form of torture, more than two-thirds of respondents, or 69 percent, said yes; 29 percent said no.

I’d like to see a poll on whether people think Democrats should save the Constitution or save their powder…

Election day

(And in San Francisco, we have a coronation election for the Mayor! And please, please, please, if you know people in SF that haven’t voted yet, tell them to vote Yes on A, No on H. They could be two of the most important props in SF for quite some time. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

For a thousand local elections across California, today is election day.

School board, city councils, fire districts, water districts, and assorted local measures are on the ballot.

Where I am, we’ve got city council, school board, a hotel tax, and an advisory measure about building an emergency underground water storage tank under a local park. 

My precinct was quiet this morning.  I saw three poll workers, and no other voters when I dropped off my absentee ballot.  Almost as if nobody realizes that there is an election.

If your absentee ballot isn’t already in the mail, make sure you pay a visit to the polls.  People you disagree with will.

Looming Recession Update: Across-the-Board Emergency Budget Cuts Edition

“I made Kaleefornia a fantastic place for business!”

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday ordered all state departments to draft plans for deep spending cuts after receiving word that California’s budget is plunging further into the red — largely because of the troubled housing market […]

Economists say the state’s declining fortunes are due in large part to the shakeout in the housing market and a volatile revenue system overly reliant on income taxes […]

[Chris Thornberg, a principal with Beacon Economics] said the trouble in the housing sector is reverberating through the entire state economy, causing income and consumer spending to decline. He noted that unemployment is up a full percent since the beginning of the year, a jump that typically foreshadows recession.

“What’s happening right now is big in terms of the revenue hit,” he said. “The numbers are coming in way below where they should be.”

And don’t forget, one of the state’s top industries could be shut down for months. 

When you balance the budget on borrowing, have no flexibility in the budget structure, and then recession hits, there’s absolutely nowhere to go.  We have severe money gaps and no way to brek through the draconian 2/3 measure to increase revenue for vital services.  In this environment, the first order of business should be an immediate recalibration of the tax structure, not cutting a budget that’s already down to the bone.  But we all know that’s not going to happen.  It’s much better for the fortunes of those “leaders” who got us into this mess to tout an insurance company giveaway as “getting something done” so they can get themselves re-elected.

This state is in big trouble.

“California Counts” using DIRECT MAIL to gather signatures for Dirty Tricks!

I opened my mailbox this afternoon to find something truly amazing–and something I just knew couldn’t have been for a Democratic activist like myself: an envelope from California Counts, the organization funded by Darrell Issa to resurrect the Dirty Tricks Initiative from the dead.  It turns out that, yes, the envelope was in fact directed to whatever Republican apparently dared to inhabit my apartment before my girlfriend and I arrived to dispel the traces of the dark side that must have apparently been lingering there.

Regardless, I considered it a stroke of good fortune that this thing fell into my lap–not only because it allows me an opportunity to give some insight into what they’re up to, but also because it’s downright hilarious.  More below–including a picture!

First and foremost, I have to admit that what they’re doing is rather sophisticated–the envelope contains a fundraising letter from Darrell Issa, as well as a petition to sign.  So it seems organized in that regard, though a little bit on the expensive side–collecting petition signatures through direct mail can’t be that easy a process.

The fundraising solicitation is pretty boilerplate, with the usual talking points about how it’s not a partisan initiative because Michael Dukakis got 48% of the vote in 1988 but still didn’t get any electoral votes, and how candidates have no reason to come to California, etcetera, whereas the new initiative already in use in other states (namely, the powerhouses of Maine and Nebraska)

will lead candidates to campaign in every district of California.

Of course, why it will do that is still a mystery, give the fact that most CDs in California are hopelessly gerrymandered and even if you could find one that was still in play, it’s a lot easier to stay in the East Coast and campaign in New Hampshire and Maine for 4 votes a piece than to come all the way out here to see if maybe, just maybe, you can peel off one measly EV you might not otherwise have gotten.

But I get ahead of myself.  You see, the fundraising letter makes a big deal about how the initiative is non-partisan.  And yet for some reason Darrell Issa just has to mention that he helped organize the recall of Gray Davis, and that the “liberal media” wants to convince you that the initiative has a partisan purpose.

Even at that, I may have been willing to suspend my disbelief and assume for the sake of magnanimity that California Counts really did believe in their heart of hearts that the recall was purely about accountability, and that the Dirty Tricks Initiative really is non-partisan, and that the media is just inherently liberal in its reporting that the initiative has a partisan purpose, even though it is funded by Darrell Issa, the financiers of the Swift Boat Vets, Hitachk and other well-known GOP operatives.  But the envelope that the solicitation came in kind of burst my bubble a little bit:

So basically, it’s non-partisan, it really is, except for the fact that the liberal media doesn’t think so, it’s organized by the same guy who recalled Gray Davis, and Hillary Clinton doesn’t want you to open the letter.  So other than the fact that Republicans are pushing for it and it will hurt Democrats and the media thinks it’s a dishonest piece of crap–other than that, it’s non-partisan.

It’s funny in certain ways–but very sad and simultaneously very terrifying in others–that the Republicrooks can be so hypocritical that they will contradict themselves so repeatedly and so patently in fundraising solicitations to their own supporters.  I don’t know how they live with the logical disconnect.  But then again, that’s why I’m not a Republican.  As Bill Clinton said in his speech at the Empowerment Summit at UCLA over the weekend:

I spent a long time trying to get into the reality based world, and I like it here.

I’m right with you there, Mr. President.

BREAKING (Ca-Health): Picking the Pockets of the Middle Class

In California, a key Democratic leader has just announced he is caving to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “individual mandate” health proposal, where every person is required to purchase expensive private health insurance…or face fines. 

This concepts picks the pockets of the middle class and gives billions of dollars of public subsidies to the same insurance corporations that have wrecked our health care system so far, and will now have the opportunity to meddle in many more patient care decisions.

“While we have yet to see the full details, any deal that forces individuals to buy insurance is outrageous and disgraceful,” said CNA/NNOC Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro, referring to the deal announcedtoday by California Assembly speaker Fabian Nunez.

“It looks like the Democratic leadership has decided to join Gov. Schwarzenegger in picking the pockets of the middle class to make the insurance industry more wealthy.”

“This looks more like a PR stunt than healthcare reform,” said DeMoro.

“With no apparent minimum standards for coverage it would seem to ensure that Californians will end up being forced to buy junk insurance.  Criminalizing the uninsured is neither humane nor sound healthcare policy… and it doesn’t work,” DeMoro said.

In Massachusetts, which is the model for an individual mandate plan, only 3% of the uninsured who do not receive public subsidies have signed up for the forced insurance plans, DeMoro noted. “Essentially the only ones signing up are those who get it for free.”

For more information, visit us.

CRP Sending Out Dirty Trick Petition To All Members

Every now and then, thanks to my attendance at last year’s CA Republican Summer Convention, I receive mail from the beloved CRP. My favorite was a letter stating that they hadn’t received my membership donation for 2007 yet and included my FREE! membership card (one of those flimsy fake cards you get from credit card companies…) in anticipation of my forthcoming donation. I received another fundraising ask the other day but this time they were asking for more than money…this time they wanted my assistance in getting a certain initiative on the June 2008 ballot.

CRP Chairman Ron Nehring describes the Dirty Trick:

Since each state has the right to determine how their electoral votes are allocated we can change the way we select our presidential electors!

Instead of a winner-take-all approach, a referendum has been proposed that would allow California to cast its 55 electoral votes in 2008 based on the candidate who wins a majority of the popular vote in each of the state’s Congressional Districts, plus two votes would be awarded to the statewide winner.

This new process gives weight to the size and diversity of our great state.

But the letter didn’t merely promote the Dirty Trick Initiative, it was accompanied by an actual copy of the petition and urged recipients to sign, circulate and send it back.

More…

The ask reads as follows:

First, take the time right now to sign the attached petition supporting this new referendum and return it to our office today We must have the signatures back in the next week to qualify this referendum for the June 2008 ballot.

Second, in addition to your signing the enclosed petition, have your family and friends sign it as well.

Finally, I hope you will send as generous a contribution as possible along with the petition so we can make this critical effort a reality.


They went
In 2004 5.5 million Californians voted for President Bush, and he won 22 of the 53 congressional districts in our state. But due to the way the current process is structured, these votes did not count since he did not win the overall popular vote…As a result, our concerns and issues have not always been heard by the candidates.

Poizner Out of The Fire and Into the Politics?

The buzz around Sacramento is that the big announcement the No on 93 (term limits) folks are making tomorrow that uberrich State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner (he of the gubernatorial ambitions) will be backing the campaign with a significant contribution.  I guess he gave up on the whole dedication to recovery after the fire thing and is instead leaping headfirst into a pretty charged political battle.  CapWeekly:

Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, a Silicon Valley millionaire who has heavily bankrolled his own political races, has decided tofinance the campaign against a February ballot initiative that would allow the current crop of legislative leaders to stay in power for several more years, Capitol Weekly has learned.

A public announcement was expected Thursday at a Capitol news conference at which Poizner was expected to attend. On Wednesday evening, Kevin Spillane, a spokesman forthe No on Proposition 93 campaign, declined to confirm or deny Poizner’s role.

Note that Wayne Johnson, Poizner’s consultant is evidently serving as the media consultant for the No on 93 campaign.  This is well orchestrated to build the buzz and create interest in the announcement.

Dear, Progressives: We Need Your Vote Tonight!

The DFA Presidential Pulse Poll ends tonight at Midnight Eastern/9:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, which only gives us a few hours to cast our votes. So far, over 130,000 votes have been cast, making it the largest presidential poll of progressive activists this year. I am genuinely proud to write that Dennis Kucinich currently leads with over 30% of the vote.

However, as positive as a Kucinich victory is, simply finishing first is less important than our sending a clear message to America that, as Progressives, we have made a committment to pushing progressive values into the mainstream and elevating the voices that best represent those values. We must push Dennis Kucinich higher, we must cast our votes, for we know that he is the candidate that best represents these values. He proves it to us through his platform, at each debate, in every speech, and vote after vote in Congress.

Who is the only Democratic presidential candidate who campaigned against and voted against the war authorization resolution in 2002 and every supplemental appropriation since? Who is the only Democratic presidential candidate to vote against the unconstitutional and illegal U.S.A Patriot Act?

Who is the only candidate to come to terms with the Occupation of Iraq and speak out about the unjust privatization of Iraq’s national oil wealth?

Who is the only candidate to provide leadership and consistently speak out against agressive military action in Iran? Who is the only candidate willing to stand up to this Administration and its abuses by pursuing Impeachment?

Who is the only only Presidential candidate willing to challenge the private insurance and pharmaceuitcal companies with a truly universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care system to cover all Americans?

Who is the only candidate willing to address the causes of our massive trade deficit, millions of outsourced jobs, worker and human rights abuses, and environmental abuses? What other candidate is willing to look at these problems and take the action that needs to be done: withdrawing the U.S. from NAFTA/WTO?

Who is the only candidate to offer true equal rights to all Americans, supporting full marriage equality?

Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate willing to take a clear stand for progressive values and he is pushing this whole party through his leadership. It is Dennis Kucinich that opened the dialogue on the U.S. presence in Iraq that other candidates have moved to. It is Dennis Kucinich that introduced the power of the purse and Congress’ ability to end the war now, which we have heard other candidates begin to consider. It is Dennis Kucinich that first talked about diarmament and cutting the Pentagon budget, putting the money into domestic needs like education and infrastructure. Now other candidates are talking about the same things.

Dennis Kucinich is the candidate that is making our voices heard. Now it is up to us to make that voice stronger and more resonant. Please support the progressive candidate and cast your vote for Dennis Kucinich in the DFA poll here

Thank you.

CDP E-Board meeting and the Propositions

At the upcoming CDP e-board meeting, e-board members will be asked whether we want to endorse/oppose any of the 3 propositions that will be on the February ballot —

Prop 91 (Transportation Funding)

Prop 92 (Community Colleges Funding, Governance, and Fees)

Prop 93 (Limits on Legislators’ Terms in Office)

Four other props will also be on the ballot if signature verification goes as expected, and we’re going to be asked to endorse/oppose them as well. These four props each concern Native American Gambling.

I’m not one of those people who decides how to vote while I’m standing in the polling place, but I’m also not accustomed to making my voting decisions 3 months in advance. What do the rest of you, e-board members and others, think about these 7 measures? I have an idea how the e-board will vote on most of these, and I do have a few thoughts of my own, but I’m interested in hearing from others. Hit me.