An amazing thing happened this week.  The Supreme Court, by a 7-2 margin, ruled that federal judges have the leeway to reduce sentences for possession of crack cocaine relative to powder.  The disparity in sentencing, which has significant racial overtones, has long been unconscionably unfair.  And get this: the US Sentencing Commission unanimously decided to make the guidelines retroactive which could result in thousands of convicts who were unfairly sentenced to be released.

See, there’s a national sentencing commission that reviews information and makes recommendations based on logic and common sense, taking the hot-button issue of sentencing out of the political sphere.  Yet here in California, we have been stymied at any effort to create such a sentencing commission, and all sentencing legislation moves in the direction of being more punitive rather than less.  This is how our jails have become clogged with so many nonviolent offenders, who in the overcrowded environment without proper treatment and rehabilitation often return to jail more violent than when they got there in the first place.  The executive branch of this state knows this, yet they refuse to reveal their documents and communications that would confirm it.  

States have the ability to break free from the “tough on crime” box and actually change the tilt in favor of jailing more and more citizens for longer and longer periods.  Heck, in New Jersey this week they voted to ban the death penalty.  But the only way to see any early prison releases in California is when the state miscalculates their sentences.

more…

Up to 33,000 prisoners in California may be entitled to release earlier than scheduled because the state has miscalculated their sentences, corrections officials said Wednesday.

For nearly two years, the overburdened state prison agency has failed to recalculate the sentences of those inmates despite a series of court rulings, including one by the California Supreme Court. The judges said the state applied the wrong formula when crediting certain inmates for good behavior behind bars.

Some inmates released in recent months almost certainly stayed longer in prison than they should have, said corrections officials, employees and advocates for prisoners. Some currently in prison most likely should be free, they said. But many whose sentences are too long are not scheduled to be released for months or years.

The inmates in question — 19% of the state prison population — are serving consecutive sentences for violent and nonviolent offenses. The sentencing errors range from a few days to several years.

Corrections officials say they have been unable to calculate the sentences properly because of staffing shortages and outdated computer systems that force analysts to do the complex work by hand.

This directly results from the overcrowding crisis.  An overburdened corrections industry cannot keep up with the processing given the meager resources they have.  This ends up costing the state more – approximately $26 million annually – than what it would cost to put the proper resources in place, particularly if you factor in the possibility of lawsuits from inmates, as we are now seeing in other respects.

Fixing miscalculations is a step.  But until you have the courage and fortitude to address the root causes and meet the same responsibilities that even the federal government has decided to meet, nothing will change.

P.S. There are pending mandatory minimum sentencing bills in the federal government, which would fix the crack/powder sentencing disparity even further.  It won’t surprise you at all that the version of the bill that Dianne Feinstein supports is completely insufficient to deal with the problem.

Cross posted from Sunlight Foundation

“We can never understand [a House member’s] Washington activity without also understating his perception of his various constituencies and the home style he uses to cultivate their support…” states Richard Fenno in Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Fenno understands that the work of members of Congress is more than committee meetings and votes but is also people they meet with from the district. The work in the district builds trust constituents need to send them to Washington and to accept the decisions they make there. Fenno’s makes the point that the work of lawmakers done in the district is not an exhibition but the yang to Washington’s Ying.

This trust that lawmakers create in the district extends to who they meet with in Washington. The Punch Clock motto has always been “Members of Congress work for us, and we should know what they do every day.” Fenno made this point a different way, “Trust is, however, a fragile relationship. It is not an overnight or one-time thing. It is hard to win; and it must be constantly renewed and rewon. ”

In this spirit, Sunlight has decided to help out by creating a trust-building tool. This tool, the Punch Clock Map, is a Google map mashup with corresponding RSS feeds that lets citizens see for themselves just how elected officials spend their time and how they serve their district’s needs.

Punch Clock Map provides a visual representation of the meetings detailed by the eight members of Congress who post their daily schedules online. Currently, that includes: Sen. Max Baucus,? Rep. Kathy Castor,? Rep. John Doolittle,? Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand,? Sen. Bill Nelson,? Rep. Denny Rehberg,? Rep. Jan Schakowsky? and Sen. Jon Tester.? (As Rep. Alcee Hastings? posts an abridged weekly schedule, his is not included.)

To let citizens monitor how their elected officials address their district’s needs, the maps mark the home-base location of the organization or individual who met with the lawmaker, not where the meeting occurred. If the lawmaker’s schedule provides a location, organization or individual (who can be easily identified), those meetings are plotted on the map. (The map does not include internal business meetings, committee hearings, meetings with constituents without easily identifiable addresses or location and meetings with other current members of Congress.)

The Punch Clock Map is an extension of the Punch Clock Campaign, an initiative the Sunlight Foundation began in 2006, which asked all candidates for congressional office – challengers and incumbents – to promise, if elected, to post their daily schedules on the Internet. Inspired by the 60 percent of Americans who ‘punch a clock’ to account for their time at work, Sunlight asked why members of Congress should not also account for their time to their employers: the citizens they represent.

Building trust is an essential part of the representative – constituent relationship. Posting a schedule helps maintain the trust that lawmakers go through such efforts to maintain and it also helps instill trust in the constituents who are always looking for ways to not trust their lawmakers.

Disclaimer: I am the outreach coordinator for the Sunlight Foundation

There a bunch of polling firms in the state, but two are most recognizable, Field and PPIC . Both release their data to the public. Well, most of it anyway. You can actually get Field's cross-tabulations on SacBee Capitol Alert site.Pretty cool if you're as big of a dork as me. But the two groups have very different takes on how best to time the release of their data. Field slowly trickles out each question of a poll. So you get these “Field Seasons” that last for two weeks every few months. First you get Bush's job approval, then you get some environmental question, then you get some initiave. So, they get a fair bit of press coverage from that. Not a bad route, PR speaking.

On the other hand, PPIC allows you to just gorge yourself on data. And this PPIC statewide survey is no different, we've received a tidal wave of data. I'll just take these in the order that they chose. They headline with economic data.  It's not pretty:

Most Californians have a negative outlook on the direction of the state (52%) and the economy (65%) for the next year, and on the impact of the current housing situation on their own finances (52%).

Call it a Big Shitpile, call it whatever you want, but people are scared where the state, and the nation, are headed. They are worried about their jobs, their children's future, oh and yeah keeping their houses.  But, of course, they have something else to be worried about: health care. And yup we Californians are worried about that, for ourselves and for our fellow Californians too:

Most California residents continue to believe that the number of people without health insurance is a big problem (76%).

There's a lot more over the flip.

There's actually a lot more specific data on both healthcare and the economy.  There's data about the mortgage crisis and who thinks they will get hurt by it (renters 62%, homeowners 46%). There's data about the future (65% of Californians think hard times are on the way).

And on health care, apparently 75% of Californians think an individual mandate is a good ides.  Interestingly, and perhaps tellingly, there was no question on single payer.  I find it hard to believe a poll can be complete if it only provides one policy alternative.  Why PPIC would neglect to ask a question on single payer baffles my mind, but perhaps not everybody in the state would be so interested in hearing the results.

On the sunny side, Californians apparently like their government more, Perhaps we're being charitable for the holidays, but the approval rating for the Governor jumped to 57% and the Legislature to 41%, with a more telling number for support of their particular representative at 51%. Mark Baldassare and the PPIC crew credit the discussions on health care for the rise. I credit  the fact that the news of the $14 billion deficit wasn't available at the time of these questions.

On the election, it seemed they only polled Prop 93 (disclosure) . 47 percent of likely voters say they support the measure, while 38 percent oppose it. Obviously the nudge below 50% is disappointing, but did I mention the John Laird Project? I'm sure we'll see more numbers on this as we get closer to Feb. 5. I'd still really like to see some numbers on Prop 92 (community colleges). There haven't been much in the way of polls for 92, and the initiave could have a profound effect our future capacity for innovation, our education funding, and our state budget.

On the presidential candidates, Democrats like their choices, Republicans don't. And as much as the hawks in both parties want the discussion to move off Iraq…it's not happening except perhaps in their own minds:

far more Democratic primary likely voters (71%) than Republican likely voters (54%) are satisfied with their choice of candidates. …  The top [issues] are immigration (20%), Iraq (19%), health care (14%), and the economy (10%).

Speaking of immigration, well, Brian Bilbray's rhetoric nothwithstanding, California's want a path to legaization. A full 72% of Californians  support a path to citizenship for those who have been here for at least 2 years. Not sure why they chose 2 years other than the fact that it seems to come up in some of these federal bills. Yet, despite that, there is still a wild logical inconsistency when the issue of drivers licenses come up. 52% do not want undocumented immigrants to be able to get drivers licenses. Because, you know, it's at all possible to work here without driving. So, we get people driving without licenses and without insurance. Sen. Cedillo, we still have work to do. But I'm sure Hillary Clinton and Eliot Spitzer could tell you a bit about that now too.

Finally, there's a bit of polling on the Dirty Trick. Apparently it's 44 yes – 41 No. But that's still without much Dem spending. If it's on the November ballot, it will be crushed.  Bad.

So, go gorge yourself with data, it's far more healthy than doing so with eggnog and latkes.

It appears the GOPigs “Steal the State” initiative will not be on the June 2008 ballot but it could still make it to the November 2008 ballot if it gets enough signatures, or a second version of it could be introduced after a low-turn-out June 2008 primary as a new but similar initiative.  A re-introduced initiative could require fewer signatures based on a low-turn-out election in June, if I understand the rules correctly.  So, either the initiative is dead or it isn’t.  Either it will be on the November 2008 ballot or it won’t.  Either it will pass in November or it won’t.   Either it will be challenging in court or it won’t.  Either it will be upheld or it won’t.  Either the final court decision will come before the electors cast their votes in December or it won’t.  

Well, I say “enough!”  We need to take the lead and not depend on or react to events beyond our control.  We need to quit responding to the GOPigs.  We need to make the GOPigs respond to us.

Follow me over the flip for an idea on how.  

As I understand it, the number of signatures needed to quality an initiative for the ballot is based on the percentage of voters who voted in the previous election.  If so, getting a favorable initiative on the November 2008 ballot should be easy if turnout in the June 2008 election is as low as expected.  We need to create and place an initiative on the November 2008 ballot that:

1) signs up California for the National Popular Vote and takes effect as soon enough other states that have 50 percent or more of the electoral votes do the same,

2) resets and retains the winner-take-all system in the meantime,

3) keeps the winner-take-all system in the event that the National Popular Vote and/or other portions of this initiative are ruled unconstitutional (the compact clause of Article I, Section 10, last sentence of the U. S. Constitution might apply),

4) repeals or overrides any other changes to the electoral college that may be made by the voters, such as the “Steal The State” initiative, and

5) has a severability clause if any portion is found to be unconstitutional.

The severability clause is important in the event both this proposed initiative and the “Steal The State” initiative pass and the National Popular Vote portion of this one is ruled unconstitutional.  

Doing this by initiative is important because Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the National Popular Vote passed by the California state legislature in 2006.  We need to sidestep a likely gubernatorial veto.  

An election with both a National Popular Vote initiative and a delayed “Steal the State” initiative on the ballot at the same time would make for a fun campaign.  A big argument being pushed in support of the “Steal the State” measure is “fairness.”  Well, what could be more fair than a national popular vote to determine the President?  It would be very hard to argue against a national popular vote while, at the same time, arguing in favor of casting votes based on Congressional districts.  Just imagine the amount of attention California would receive from the Presidential candidates!   And just imagine how this could echo through the rest of the nation if the GOPig nominee were to be against the National Popular Vote initiative.  

If the courts ultimately decide that an initiative measure to change the way electors are determined is a violation of the U. S. Constitution (Article II Section 1, Paragraph 2, 1st sentence) and therefore unconstitutional, we will have not lost anything.  In fact, we will have gained.  We will have shown that the majority of people of the State of California support electing the President of the United States by a national popular vote.  

So let’s draft a proposal to file with the Secretary of State’s office.  If we start now, we could begin circulating petitions the day after the June 2008 primary.  We could use the basic idea of Dr. Matsumura’s 2006 Save Cal Now effort to recall Governor Schwarzenegger as a model to distribute petitions for circulation.  

Thoughts?

We are 56 days from the California Presidential primary on February 5, and just a few weeks from opening early and absentee voting, and I think it’s reasonable to assess how the facts of the race thus far have met with the expectations, and even if it isn’t reasonable, I’m about to do it.  The entire rationale for moving up the primary to February, from people as varied as the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, even our friends at the Courage Campaign, was that this would bring new attention to California in the Presidential race and would allow the state a say in the picking of a nominee.

How’s that goin’?

Monday was one of the first days in months and months where the two top contenders on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, were in California at the same time.  They were both here for fundraisers, and both by accident – there was supposed to be a debate on CBS in Los Angeles that day, but a pending WGA action and the unwillingness for the candidates to cross the picket line forced cancellation.  Obama’s fundraiser, granted, was a low-dollar event at the Gibson Ampitheatre in Universal City – a combination rock concert/political rally.  In similar rallies in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, fans saw Oprah: in Hollywood, home of the stars, we got Nick Cannon and the Goo Goo Dolls.  Indeed, the last public, no-money-needed appearance by any viable candidate in California fades into the back of the memory.  There just haven’t been any.

Last night I sat in on a conference call with supporters of John Edwards and the national campaign.  It was billed as a dialogue about how Edwards supporters in Southern California can best help their preferred candidate.  The unequivocal message from the campaign was that these activists can best help them by “adopting Nevada,” home to one of the earlier caucuses, on January 19.  They touted road trips to Las Vegas for phone banking and canvassing.  This was extremely redolent of work I did with the Dean campaign in 2004 on their “Southwest Victory Tour” into Arizona and New Mexico.  Four years later, absolutely nothing has changed.

This is not a slam on the top three campaigns.  They are ignoring California, so to speak, because they are making the calculation that victories in the early states will lead to a momentum build that will be impossible to stop.  And this is precisely the dynamic of the race.  It’s clear to anyone that is paying attention that Iowa, and to a lesser extent New Hampshire, have been made MORE decisive as a result of the truncated primary.  There are dozens of examples I can cite.  Edwards supporter and California Assemblyman Anthony Portantino was on the conference call.  He wasn’t whipping up support in his district, he was calling in from Iowa.  Fabian Nuñez recently took a trip out to Iowa.  A few weeks ago we had the executive board meeting of the CDP – the largest gathering of activists you’re going to see until the primary.  That inviting target attracted – well, it attracted Dennis Kucinich.  There have been no TV ads run in California and exactly one mailer, by Clinton, in a small enough quantity to get the attention of the political press and nobody else.  The public polling on the California race, at least on the Democratic side, has mirrored the national polling to a T, because all we’re getting out here is the national race.    The national primary is fictional, and so is the California primary, for all intents and purposes.

People in this state that supported this move, and it was broadly popular, were simply sold a bill of goods.  It was blindingly obvious that the only way to change the primary system and allow it to have a diversity of voices was to actually change it, by removing the dominance of Iowa and New Hampshire.  I am hopeful that, as a result of this ridiculous front-loading, that will happen in 2012.  But clearly, California’s move, which was the first of the non-early states and essentially broke the dike, causing 20 or so other states to move up in order to keep pace, EXACERBATED the problem.

And in so doing, the move enabled not only the ballot initiatives that we see on February 5, but the potential for all sorts of Republican mischief in the low-turnout June primary.  Frankly, to suggest that a group of lawmakers who wished to change term limits just happened to pick a day before the deadline for filing in the June primary to hold an election which could have that on the ballot is beyond naive.  In so doing, the June election became initiative bait, susceptible to all sorts of right-wing ballot measures.  We may have dodged a bullet with the Dirty Tricks thing, but there will be others, as you all know (starting with the Hidden Agenda initiative about eminent domain “reform”).

In point of fact, the only time that California has ever been a factor in the Presidential primaries is… when they held them in June, in the 1968 and 1972 races (the tragic death of RFK changed what would have been a decisive election in ’68, obviously).  I’m certainly not saying that history would have repeated itself in 2008 if California only retained its position, but I am saying that absolutely nothing good could have come from moving up, and still potentially something pretty bad could happen as a consequence.

Oh how I love bullet points:

• The LA Times launched a cute little interactive primary calendar along with a presidential primary blog. Oh, and a message to Rudy. If there's a story about how you're arguing with Alan-freaking-Keyes, well, you might as well fold up shop.
• Anthony Wright is one of the most astute observers of the health care industry. The dude just understands it in ways that I'm pretty sure I never will. Well, yesterday he had a great post on the topic of the individual mandate at the national level.  Edwards and Clinton include one in their health care plans, and Obama has recently indicated that he'd be willing to include one. Although I suggest you mosey on over there to read the whole thing in its entirety, the post centers around the concept of a mandate as a challenge not to just the citizenry but also to the government to ensure affordability. But if the government fails, as is happening in Massachusetts, what then?

  Wright sums the argument up concisely: “The mandate muddle masks the real question: how much actual help does the health plan provide people?”

• For the time being, the Arnold Prison Papers are being held back from our prying eyes. The 3 judge panel stayed the order to the Governator to relase the papers pending a hearing tomorrow. These papers could be quite interesting.
• You want more words from smart people? Well, Peter Schrag fits that mold. In his column today he talks about the real story behind the PPIC forum in Sacramento with Willie Brown, Pete Wilson, Jim Brulte, and Fabian Nunez. Read it. He's smart.
• Somehow I forgot to mention that Warren Furutani won the special election to replace Laura Richardson in the Assembly. However he missed the 50% by 134 votes. That's actually a bigger number than it sounds as only 17507 votes were cast. That's just about 10% turnout. He'll face the American Independent Party winner and the Libertarian winner in the February 5 runoff whereupon he will become the next Assemblyman from the 55th District.