Daily Archives: January 24, 2008

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Marriage Equality

The Let California Ring Open Letter: Sign on to tell Arnold we all deserve the freedom to marry

5 Comments

Full Disclosure: I would really like to marry my partner. For reals, though.

The good folks at Equality California have been working on their "Let California Ring" campaign for several months now. To the right, you'll see their video that they've been featuring on their website. It's pretty powerful. I would say very powerful, but they have "I Know" by Dianne Ferris, and that pretty much takes you out of the realm of "very powerful" in my book.  

Anyway, they are now sending an open letter to the Governator just in time for Valentine's Day next month. Here's the money quote from that letter:

 As a defendant in the marriage case before the California Supreme Court, you can change history. We are writing to request that you please tell the Court at oral arguments that you believe the current law is unconstitutional and that all loving couples deserve the freedom to marry.  

It’s that simple. Just say it: that all loving couples deserve the freedom to marry and the dignity, respect and understanding that come with it. You won’t be alone. Every one of us who have signed this letter has said it too.

The Supreme Court Case is coming up soon, and there is a fairly good chance that the freedom to marry will be upheld. While the circuit court struck down the trial court's opinion, there is a very strong argument for marriage equality and given the court's current makeup, we have a shot.  And a supreme court ruling in California might just be the domino that, after Massachusetts, brings marriage equality into reality.

So, sign onto the letter at Let California Ring, and help grant the freedom to marry to all Californians.  The EQCA email over the flip.  

Al Gore just said it. He supports the freedom to marry. Will you say it?                                

Last week, I told you about our letter to Governor Schwarzenegger asking him to tell the California Supreme Court that the current law banning marriage for lesbian and gay couples is unconstitutional and that all loving couples deserve the freedom to marry.

                                 

 

                               

It's bold. It's big. We need you. Will you join the 5,000 other people who stood up for the freedom to marry and add your name to the open letter to the Governor, right now?

                               

                                Here’s the background: This year, the California Supreme Court is expected to decide on the legal right for gay and lesbian couples to marry. We're making a big push between now and February 14th in order to be prepared and have an impact. We need to get as many Californians as possible to sign our open letter to the Governor—that way he’ll know where we the people stand. As the defendant in the case, Governor Schwarzenegger’s voice will be critical.

                               

 

                               

Your voice is critical too. In addition to asking the Governor to just say it—to tell the Court that all LGBT Californians should be able to marry the person they love, we’re asking you to just say it as well.

                                 

 

                               

Just say it to your friends and neighbors: “Everyone should be able to marry the person they love. I support the freedom to marry”. Say it to your family the next time you’re on the phone, and say it to your colleagues at the water cooler.

                               

 

                               

 

                                That’s Shumway, he’s one of the 5,000 people who not only signed the open letter—he just said it too, by personalizing the email and forwarding it to seven friends who hadn’t yet heard of the open letter to the Governor. Shumway said it, now it’s your turn.                                  

 

                               

With the Court’s ruling on gay and lesbian couples' legal right to marry expected this year, now is the time to double your impact, here’s how:

                               

  •                                    
     Sign the open letter to Governor Schwarzenegger.

                                         

  •                                    
     Just say it. Tell all your friends, family members and colleagues that you support the freedom to marry and ask them to join you in signing the open letter to the Governor.

                                       

                               

Thanks for taking action in support of California’s LGBT community,
                               
                                Sincerely,

                                 

 

                               


                                Geoff Kors
                                Let California Ring
                               
                                PS: Make your support for the freedom to marry seen and heard between now and February 14. Download our “I just said it. Your Turn” poster, or make your own, and then upload a picture of yourself changing hearts and minds by “just saying it.”
                                 

Uncategorized

ACLU-SC Board Passes Bush/Cheney Impeachment Resolution

The board of directors of the ACLU of Southern California has passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for their abuses of basic civil liberties.

“President Bush has violated his oath of office to ‘protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution,’ has subverted the system and structure of democratic government, and has otherwise engaged in a course of conduct that warrants removal from office,” the board’s resolution states.

The ACLU/SC board urges the House of Representatives to investigate impeachable offenses by the President and Vice President, including:

• Manipulating intelligence before the Iraq War and deceiving the American people about imminent threats they faced.

• Authorizing the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other military prisons and handing over suspects to other nations who tortured them (a practice known as “extraordinary rendition”).

• Authorizing the firing of federal prosecutors for political reasons and obstructing justice by defying Congressional subpoenas investigating the firing.

• Authorizing wiretaps on U.S. citizens without warrants and in violation of the Constitution, and concealing the program from Congress and the public.

• Conspiring to disclose the name of Valerie Plame, a covert agent in the Central Intelligence Agency. This action risked her life and the lives of her intelligence contacts.  

“This White House has broken American law and deceived the American people, not just once but again and again,” said ACLU/SC board president Alan Toy. “Congress has a duty to hold President Bush and Vice President Cheney responsible for their actions, and history certainly will.”

For more information, contact the ACLU of So Cal pressroom at (213)977-5252 or email [email protected]  

Uncategorized

John Edwards steps up on Feinstein and FISA

Full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign

FISA is grabbing national attention today as the debate rages on the floor of the Senate, and on the heels of Senator Feinstein’s response to Robert’s post at Courage, Senator John Edwards is calling for citizen pressure on Senators Boxer and Feinstein.  The heat is on and Edwards isn’t mincing words on this one- “It’s wrong for your government to spy on you.”  No kidding.

Senator Feinstein’s parsing position that would give away the keys to the store and validate immunity for Bush on this issue is a classic example of Democrats conceding the issue without a fight.  When Bismarck declared politics to be the art of the possible, it’s hard to imagine he meant the art of what is immediately possible.  Time and again, this administration has demonstrated that it is not only foolish but reckless to operate in “good faith” when the Constitution is involved, and moving constitutional judicial proceedings behind closed doors doesn’t inspire much good faith in me.  

Anyways, the leadership from John Edwards on this issue is much appreciated and a big boost to proponents of basic freedom.  It appears that Senator Clinton will not support the Dodd filibuster by returning to Washington and Obama has, so far as I know, not moved to add support either.  That’s disappointing but not entirely unexpected as the battle continues over every single Senator.

Keep up the pressuring phone calls to make sure that Senator Feinstein knows we’re serious about this one.

Check out the Edwards email on the flip.

When it comes to protecting the rule of law, words are not enough. We need action.

It’s wrong for your government to spy on you. That’s why I’m asking you to join me today in calling on Senate Democrats to filibuster revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would give “retroactive immunity” to the giant telecom companies for their role in aiding George W. Bush’s illegal eavesdropping on American citizens.

The Senate is debating this issue right now — which is why we must act right now. You can call your Senators here:

   Barbara Boxer, (D): (202) 224-3553

   Dianne Feinstein, (D): (202) 224-3841

Granting retroactive immunity is wrong. It will let corporate law-breakers off the hook. It will hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush’s illegal spying program. And it will flip on its head a core principle that has guided our nation since our founding: the belief that no one, no matter how well connected or what office they hold, is above the law.

But in Washington today, the telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press for retroactive immunity. George Bush and Dick Cheney are doing everything in their power to ensure it passes. And too many Senate Democrats are ready to give the lobbyists and the Bush administration exactly what they want.

Please join me in calling on every Senate Democrat to do everything in their power — including joining Senator Dodd’s efforts to filibuster this legislation — to stop retroactive immunity and stand up for the rule of law. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price.

Thank you for taking action.

John Edwards

January 24, 2008

Environment

Duct Tape

2 Comments

Do check out Sean Siperstein at Warming Law’s liveblog of today’s events in the Senate Environment Committee, where Barbara Boxer and others made EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson squirm for quite a while this morning.

The background, including Boxer’s finding that the EPA staff favored the granting to California of the waiver for them to regulate tailpipe emissions, is here and here.  More on today’s session is here and here, including the hilarious admission that the EPA used duct tape to redact documents about their decision-making process.

BOXER: Colleagues, this is the tape, this is the tape that was put over – finally the administration had a way to use duct tape. This administration, this is what they did to us. They put this white tape over the documents and staff had to stand here. It’s just unbelievable. […]

I mean what a waste of our time. This isn’t national security. This isn’t classified information, colleagues. This is information the people deserve to have. And this is not the way we should run the greatest government in the world. It does not befit us. So that’s why I’m worked up about it and think we have been treated in a very shabby way.

Even Lieberman was laying into Johnson on this one.  What an embarrassment.

Uncategorized

Will progressives defeat Prop 93 in a fit of pique?

13 Comments

The latest Field poll reveals that Prop 93 is trailing in the Bay Area. That seems to mean that many progressives, disgusted with Speaker Nunez and President Pro Tem Perata are willing to throw away the best chance to reform term limits we have had since that pernicious “reform” was enacted in 1990.  There is much to complain about where Nunez and Perata are concerned, and yes, this does help them remain in office.  But are we really so childish that we are willing to eschew a much-needed reform of a very bad public policy, one that prevents legislators from remaining in office long enough to become effective at their job, simply because it also benefits two corrupt politicians?  

Progressives will cement the current system of term limits for the forseeable future if they defeat Prop 93 out of frustration with two individuals.  Unless we get behind Prop 93, we are likely to regret it when we lament the defeat of public financing of elections and meaningful health insurance reform, to name just a few items on our agenda.

San Diego

A Progressive City Attorney

Warning: Super-nerdy wonkishness ahead

Last night I attended the inaugural event by the San Diego chapter of the American Constitution Society; a panel exploring What Is a Progressive View of the City Attorney’s Office?  Since I don’t know enough about the inner workings, hopes and fears of the current city attorney’s race (just that it’s likely to be an 18-way slapfight), it seemed like a good place to start getting geared up.  If the streets are going to run with the blood of the nonbelievers, I should be prepared.  And prepared I am now approaching.

It got pretty deep into the wonky legal weeds of theory, so occasionally I was out of my depth on jargon or tangents, but I think the fundamental discussion can be broken down pretty simply.  Essentially the question is whether, by nature, the “public interest” can be served by a city attorney.  Given that the public interest means different things to different people, does the pursuit of such service inherently lead to the office being overtly and entirely political as the city attorney picks which version of “public interest” will be served?  The argument put forth by one of the panelists- Professor David McGowan- that a city attorney should “aim low” for a role cleaning up messes but not being proactive about policy seemed to be the most ripe as a jumping off point as it seems to lay bare all the apparent contradictions in how the city attorney position has been conceived in the first place.

Cross posted at San Diego Politico

The construct of the city attorney’s office in San Diego names the City of San Diego as the “client.”  That is, in inelegant corporate terms (and I suppose at least partly in my opinion), the city attorney protects the brand name- not necessarily the employees of the company (government officials) or necessarily the customers (citizens).  Given that the role of the city attorney is not directly to serve the general public (and sometimes to work directly against them presumably), this would seem to make the city attorney unique among other elected offices.  From President to State Assembly to Judge and Sheriff, every other elected official is put into the job directly in service to the people.  Keep them safe from crime or injustice in the non-political aspects, direct policy that protects life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on the legislative and executive side.  But the city attorney does not exist to serve the public as an inherent or necessary function of the job.

So how should voters be utilizing the city attorney when weighing candidates?  It seems to me that the notion of aiming low and cleaning up the messes as they come can be extrapolated into a notion that the city attorney should strive to be as apolitical as possible.  A proactive, politicized city attorney, the argument goes, puts policy discretion in inappropriate hands.  But the inappropriate-ness seems to be a semantic issue.  The simple title of “mayor” or “councilmember” or “city attorney” carry no inherent value- it is what people make it out to be.  And certainly one thing we’ve seen at the national, state and local levels over the past decade is that the balance of power is fluid.  The relative power of executive, legislative and judicial branches within any political unit is in a constant state of motion and relative ascendancy/decendancy.  Some units might have a strong mayor now after a strong legislature four years ago; some might be going the other direction.  So as long as the city attorney is an elected position serving an autonomous role in the city government, it seems to me that the office is an element of the power structure that voters must use to maintain the desired balance of power.

None of this really gets to the question of what is a progressive view of the City Attorney’s office?  The underpinning of the notion of a City Attorney seems to be that a healthy civic brand is the unifying public interest of a community.  That is, by protecting the integrity of the city as an entity all the competing political views within are enabled to healthily and properly work themselves out.  And the progressive in me certainly likes that notion.  So how does a city attorney actually do that in practice?  I’m wary of the notion that being apolitical is progressive, although I don’t think that progressivism is inherently ideological in itself.  I have a difficult time with the notion that removing oneself from the political process can help to bring about a particular sort of political end.  Minimizing influence as a way of maximizing influence the notion would be, and I’m just not ready to buy onto that theoretical train.

So that leaves me with a progressive role that’s about as close to clearly defined and uncontroversial as any political role can be.  Not just clean, but open government.  This isn’t meant to be the only role of the City Attorney.  Rather the only political role of the City Attorney.  Ensuring no closed doors, no unreasonably restricted public commentary, no string of last-minute location changes for charter review committee meetings (cough), and when feasible, working to ensure a healthy adversarial relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government.  The City Attorney ought not to have a direct role in determining the conception or the application of policy, but in certain respects the public most certainly should.

Part of protecting the “brand” of the city is ensuring a vital and functional government, and it just so happens to also serve the collective public interest (by keeping their government in front of their noses) and progressive interests (hamstringing attempts at runaway concentration of power).

Diaries & Misc.

Feinstein: Good Faith is Enough for Telecom Immunity (Updated)

Disclosure: I have done work for Courage Campaign on this issue.

Crossposted  at Daily Kos

As the FISA debate unfolds today one of California’s senators finds herself at its center. Dianne Feinstein has offered two amendments to the odious Senate Intelligence Committee bill, one of which would have the FISA court itself determine whether telecoms are eligible for immunity. Over at the Courage Campaign I have explained why her approach is so deeply flawed.

It’s bad enough that she wants a secret court, which average Americans like you and I don’t have the right to access, to determine whether our basic legal rights and privacy protections are valid. What’s worse is the underlying reasoning she is using. Feinstein believes that all the telecoms and the Bush administration have to show the FISA court would be that they acted in “good faith” – and voila, the telecoms are immune.

As the senator herself has explained, Feinstein’s amendment would kick the whole issue of telecom immunity to the FISA court. In her press release, she details her immunity amendment more clearly. It would lay out a series of three tests that the FISA court would use to determine whether immunity should be granted. Quoting from her explanation of the second test:

The FISA Court would examine whether companies that provided assistance to the government without a certification did so in good faith and pursuant to an objectively reasonable belief that its compliance was legal.

 

Although the first test asks whether the telecoms’ assistance to the NSA “met the legal requirements,” under Feinstein’s amendment immunity could be granted if it passes the second test – “good faith” – even if the telecom in question did not pass the first test. As the senator explains (italics mine):

If the FISA Court determines that the company did not provide assistance, or that the assistance provided met the legal requirements or was reasonable and in good faith, the immunity provision would apply.

Not “and,” but “or.” In other words, “good faith” would be sufficient for FISA to grant immunity.

We already knew that this amendment was unacceptable because it gave a secret court, which the public has no limited ability to access* (see update below), the power to determine whether our basic legal rights will be upheld. Now we learn that under Feinstein’s amendment it will be very easy for the FISA court, which virtually never turns down a government wiretap request, to grant telecom immunity. The telecoms will have every reason to claim they acted in good faith, and we know that the Bush Administration will back them up. This amendment is a recipe for immunity through the back door – or more accurately, through a secret court.

Robert Reich agrees. On a recent NPR commentary he had this to say about “good faith” immunity:

(The telecom companies said) they were only following orders. Only following orders? What if the government told telecoms to use their technologies to spy on American bedrooms, or turn over our bank accounts, or our personal photographs, home videos, anything else we store on computers or transmit through cables or over the Internet? The “only following orders” excuse would make telecoms extensions of our spy agencies.

Feinstein’s amendment sets a very, very bad precedent. It would allow lawbreaking by telecom companies merely because they followed a presidential order, regardless of whether the order was lawful. It denies Americans their fundamental legal rights to defend their rights in a public court. And it potentially would give Bush himself immunity, not just the telecoms.

If you haven’t contact Senator Feinstein and tell her these amendments are a bad, bad idea. Instead she should stand alongside Dodd in defense of our Constitution and our basic rights.

[Update] Under the Feinstein amendment, those already in litigation would be able to appear before the FISA court to argue against immunity – but the rest of us, who have not yet filed and may not even be aware of the extent to which our rights were violated, would not only be unable to appear before FISA, but if immunity were granted to the telecoms, we would never be able to seek redress for illegal violations of our right to privacy.

Uncategorized

Proposition Polling from Field

6 Comments

Field released their polling data on Props 93 (Brian’s Disclosure) and 94-97. PDF here.  Supporters and Opponents of these propositions still have quite a bit of work to do before February 5, as voter awareness is still hovering around the 2/3 mark for both and undecideds around 20-25% even after poll education. Also, Field seems to have not polled Prop 92 again.

Let’s get to the details over the flip.

On Proposition 93, the vote is evenly split between yes (39%) and No (39%). Awareness of the initiative has increased to 65% from 25% in last month’s poll, after new ads (Yes ads here) and a recent surge in spending by Republican insurance commissioner and all-around Rich Uncle Pennybags Steve Poizner. Yet even with the higher awareness, undecideds are still hanging at 22%.  Interestingly, 28% of Democrats are undecided, while only 16% of Republicans are undecided.

Democrats tend to break late in polling. And, wearing my Yes on 93 hat for a minute, that’s not a bad thing. With an impressive endorsement list, including the Sierra Club, the California Democratic Party, Equality California, and the SEIU state council, hopes are high that many of these Democratic voters will break Yes. Of course, the Governor’s endorsement, who is also strangely popular, could also help tilt some undecideds. Also, the endorsement of La Opinión (English here) should help considerably. With the bulk of Vote-by-mail ballots outstanding, likely due to the close presidential races, there are a lot of votes out there yet.

On Props 94-97, the Native American gambling casino slot machine initiatives, Yes slightly leads 42-37.  Awareness is at 70%, likely due to the millions upon millions being poured into the ads by the four tribes who stand to make billions of dollars off these compacts.

The yes ads, which you can see in our own ad section (along with a no ad), continue to trumpet the billions of dollars coming to the state. (What they don’t trumpet as loudly is that these billions come over 20 years. Oh, and the state isn’t actually guaranteed that money.)

The yes side on the casino compacts has one other problem. The votes are confusing. If you want to overrule the legislature, you must vote NO. If you want to allow the casinos, you must vote YES. But either way, this is confusing. And when voters are confused, No is the traditional response. With less than two weeks until February 5, expect a whole flurry of activity from all participants.

Uncategorized

FISA Heads to the Floor: Call Sen. Feinstein

5 Comments

(full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign)

The Senate once again is moving to take up FISA and retroactive immunity for law breaking telecom companies. The vote may come as early as tonight.  The only thing that is really effective at this point are phone calls into Senators offices.  The Courage Campaign, as did CREDO, went to our lists today and asked our members to call Senator Feinstein.

Give her a call right now:

202-224-3841 (Washington, DC)

310-914-7300 (Los Angeles)

415-393-0707 (San Francisco)

619-231-9712 (San Diego)

559-485-7430 (Fresno)

Go to the flip for more information on FISA and Feinstein’s unacceptable amendments.

Robert in Monterey wrote-up a long detailed take-down of Feinstein’s “compromise” amendments.  The first one as Robert notes is not particularly objectionable.  The second one on the other hand…

2. The “compromise” does not provide sufficient safeguards for the public’s rights and for the rule of law.

Even if the “compromise” Feinstein amendment on immunity – kicking it to the FISA court – were viable and could be signed into law, it’s not an approach that civil libertarians endorse. The ACLU has been vocal in their opposition to both the Feinstein and the Specter amendments:

“Unless Congress wholly rejects [the] executive privilege or state secrets claims, there are legal hurdles that could prevent the full hearing of the matter in federal court,” said Tim Sparapani, ACLU senior legislative counsel. “We also oppose having the FISA court making the good faith determination unless outside parties are allowed to argue in front of the secret court, which has never happened before. Otherwise, only one side is represented.”2

FISA is a secret court. Of the many thousands of requests for wiretaps that it has considered over the last 30 years, it has rejected a small handful – perhaps as few as five. This is not the same as a court of law, where the public has the right to examine evidence and file their own claims. FISA courts do not provide for the protection of basic rights. And to allow the FISA courts to determine the legitimacy of telecom actions is to take this crucial decision out of the hands of the courts, therefore undermining the rule of law. Feinstein’s proposal should be rejected on principle alone.

No on the Feinstein amendment and no immunity for law breaking telecom companies.

Senator Boxer has already stated her support for Senator Dodd’s filibuster, however it is a great idea to give her a call thanking her for her support.  Bringing up the Feinstein amendment would be useful:

(202) 224-3553

We need our Senators to know we are paying attention to this bill, as obscure as it sounds to many people.  It is a crucial privacy and constitutional issue and we cannot allow President Bush or these telecom companies to get away with breaking the law.

Uncategorized

Real Eminent Domain Reform Qualifies for June Ballot

6 Comments

The Homeowner’s Protection Act has now qualified for the June 2008 ballot. It is a real reform of eminent domain that doesn’t have any hidden agendas. If passed by voters, the Homeowners Protection Act will prevent governments from using eminent domain to take an owner-occupied home to transfer to a private party. The measure is a direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo v. the City of New London decision from 2005.

The measure will appearon the June ballot, alongside the Hidden Agendas Measure, backed by the right-wing Howard Jarvis group. That measure would eliminate rent control, reduce affordable housing and have wide-raning effects for the state and local regulations of property.  Nan Brasmer, president of the California Alliance for Retired Americans said, “The Hidden Agendas Scheme is nothing more than a trick by wealthy landlords. We’re confident voters who are serious about eminent domain reform will support our measure, the Homeowners Protection Act, and see through the deceptive agenda of the Hidden Agendas Scheme campaign.”

To your right, you see video (or will soon) from the Save Rent Control Meeting in SF last Saturday.