Last night I was fortunate enough to be present at a small-group discussion with Secretary of State Debra Bowen hosted by the California League of Conservation Voters.  Despite this being a hectic time for the Secretary of State (E-12, in her parlance), she took a couple hours to fill us in on efforts leading up to this year of three separate elections.

In the final two weeks for voters to be eligible for the February 5 primary, there was a surge of registration.  At a “midnight registration drive” in Sacramento, over 1,500 citizens registered to vote in one day (sadly, registrars in places like Los Angeles County resisted efforts to do the same because it would be “inconvenient” for them to update their voter rolls).  While she had no prediction on turnout in the primary, Bowen was confident that there will be a lot of excitement and potentially a good turnout.  One drawback is the fact that decline-to-state voters have to opt-in to receive a ballot for the Democratic primary (they are shut out from the Republican primary).  When I asked Bowen about this, she replied that counties are required to actually notify DTS voters of their rights, and that some precinct locations will have signage notifying them to that end, but that this is insufficient and her hands are tied by state law to some extent.  The parties who want to welcome DTS voters into their primary have a big role to play in this.  The Democratic Party, if they want to expand their base, should make a legitimate effort to let DTS voters know they can vote in the primary.  It will have the effect of getting them in the habit of voting Democratic and give them a stake in the party.  There are also legislative reforms, regarding mandatory signage inside the polling place, changes to the vote-by-mail process (nonpartisan voters must request a partisan ballot), that can be taken.

more…

Bowen’s great achievements since taking over the Secretary of State’s office include an insistence on voter security, and outreach to young voters.  On the security front, despite the howls of protest from county registrars, Bowen will be limiting precincts to one touch-screen voting machine (for disabled voters) and will be undergoing increased security and auditing procedures.  A lot of these measures will be behind the scenes, like delivering voting equipment in tamper-proof bags so that evidence of changes to the equipment will be obvious.  And the auditing procedures, with an open testing process, may delay voting results, but are crucial to maintain confidence in the vote.  A court recently ruled in favor of Bowen and against San Diego County in implementing these changes, but she expects an appeal.  As Bowen said, “Since cavemen put black stones on one side and white stones on the other, people have tried to affect election results.”  But she is doing whatever possible to make sure those efforts will be supremely difficult in California.  None of her provisions so far are slam-dunks; it’s hard to create something foolproof, considering that memory cards for many machines can fit in your pocket, and so many machines are hackable.  But Bowen is making an excellent start.

Bowen was cool to this idea of voter fraud, which has been pushed by conservatives for years.  She described that there has only been one documented case of voter fraud in recent history, and that it’s a high-work, low-reward strategy for cheating.  Efforts to stop this non-existent problem include voter ID laws, expected to get a boost with the Supreme Court likely to allow the one in Indiana to go forward, despite Constitutional concerns.  While Bowen deflected many attempts to get voter ID laws enacted in California while on the Elections Committee in the Senate, she believed that such attempts would never pass this Legislature.

As far as reaching out to young voters, we all know about Bowen’s use of MySpace and Facebook to keep young voters informed (and yes, she also reads Calitics).  But one measure she talked about last night struck me.  On February 5, over 140,000 California high school students will engage in a mock election, featuring a Presidential primary and three mock ballot initiatives: 1) should the vehicle license fee be ties to auto emissions, 2) should voting be mandatory, and 3) should government do more to stop bullying on social networking sites.  This is an ingenious way to get people interested and excited in politics at an early age, and sounds like a model program.

We have a long way to go on national election reform; Bowen noted that only three Secretaries of State (her, and the two in Ohio and Minnesota) agree that there needs to be a federal standard for national elections.  What we need to do is elect more competent professionals like Debra Bowen and keep pushing the debate in the direction of reform and voter confidence.

This is truly excellent news.  For the first time in 25 years the percentage of the workforce who are union members has increased year over year.  Naturally it is a Friday news dump, but these are significant figures.  Ezra has a great write-up.

Some good news today as fresh numbers come out showing, for the first time in 25 years, union density actually increased over the previous year, inching up from 12 percent to 12.1 percent. The gains were concentrated among white women and black men, in the West (the story here is partially large gains in California outweighing declines as manufacturing continues to collapse throughout the Midwest), and in the construction, health, education, and retail sectors.

We have a strong and vibrant union movement here in California. It is no surprise to see that we are outpacing the rest of the country.

Manufacturing, amazingly, has been so decimated that your average manufacturing employee is less likely to be unionized than another American worker picked at random. Given that the manufacturing sector was once the backbone of the union economy, that’s real testament to how ruined the old order is, and how impressive even these small gains are. Now, one year does not a trend make, and the uptick is unquestionably minor. But still: Gains for the first time in 25 years. And centered around the fast-growing, immigrant-heavy economies of the West. That’s meaningful, and may suggest that Labor is finally figuring out a new model they can use to move forward. In celebration, here’s a link to Chris Hayes’ beautiful essay, “In Search of Solidarity.“

A strong labor movement is crucial to the progressive movement.  California once again is leading the way for the rest of the country.  May this year be the first of many.

I just wrote about Jeff Denham a couple of hours ago, but apparently Shane Goldmacher at CapAlert did a bit more digging on the Senator from the Central Valley. It seems that Mr. Denham loves taking credit for cutting his own salary, but still likes the money. You see but he puts some nice spin on it. He eats the cake from the back of the freezer, and keeps the new one for later.  Want me to break off the metaphors?

Ok, so here’s what’s up. The general theory of how Denham played these games is that he would, very publicly, refuse a pay raise. Then a month or two later, he would accept an earlier pay raise. Very sly you see. He stays just one pay raise behind the scale. A few thou a year, nothing too big. And he gets the good press for rejecting the pay raises. All very smooth, unless you have some meddling reporter following your acceptance of these pay raises. So, he gets to complain how awful those other legislators are, and how bad the budget is, all at the same time.  

Unfortunately, someone caught him.  Darn that meddling Goldmacher! Anyway, FYI, the Recall committee has now spent over $200K getting the recall going. Looks like it might actually happen.

Mr. Goldmacher even provided a handy timetable, check it over the flip…

2002

Denham is elected to the state Senate and accepts a voluntary 5 percent pay cut. “At the time, that’s what my Republican caucus was saying, we needed to cut five percent across the board,” Denham said in an interview about why he slashed his own salary to $94,286.

2005

The independent citizens panel that sets salaries for lawmakers voted to approve a 12 percent raise, the first pay increase for legislators in seven years. Denham declines the raise. He tells the Bee in September 2005, “State employees and other Californians are facing tough times right now. We’ve seen state budget deficits over the last several years. The timing for a legislative pay increase isn’t right.”

As for fellow lawmakers who accepted the raise, he said, “That’s something they’ll have to live with. That’s a decision they’ll have to make. I don’t want to be critical of my colleagues.”

2006

The independent panel raises lawmakers’ salaries for the second year in a row, this time by 2 percent. Denham declines the most recent raise.

In a July newsletter to his constituents, Denham’s office reports, “Jeff is the lowest paid member of the Legislature. When he first took office in December 2002, he actually took a voluntary legislative pay cut of 5%. At that time, the state was facing a deficit of over $30 billion. He also rejected a 12% pay raise last year.”

In November, Denham wins reelection to the Senate with almost 60 percent of the vote. In December, he accepts the previous year’s 12 percent raise and rescinds his voluntary 5 percent reduction effective Jan. 1, 2007. His salary rises from $94,286 to $110,880, according to the state controller’s office.

2007

On Nov. 29, Denham writes the state controller’s office to decline the latest 2.75 percent raise approved by the independent salary commission. Less than a month later, on Dec. 27, he again writes the controller’s office, accepting the 2 percent pay raise approved in 2006. His salary is currently $113,098. That is below the full $116,208 many of his colleagues earn. (CapAlert 1/25/08)

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

Remember when Democrats were pushing George Bush on the War in Iraq?  Remember when presidential candidates were getting heat for having supported the War – or their being wishy-washy about getting us out?  With California’s presidential primary in just two weeks, we were supposed to have a Proposition on the February ballot – making it official policy that the people of California support withdrawal.  State Senate President Don Perata championed the issue and the legislature voted to put it on the ballot, but then Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it.  If Democrats were serious, however, they could have gathered signatures to put it on the ballot – regardless of what Arnold did.  Doing so would have boosted Democratic turnout, kept the issue alive and held all presidential candidates accountable.  Instead, we have allowed Iraq to slip from the consciousness of politicians – eluding a golden opportunity to help end this quagmire.

It’s no secret why Senate President Don Perata wanted to put this measure on the ballot – the same reason why he and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez championed moving up California’s presidential primary to February.  They want to extend term limits to keep their jobs longer – and Proposition 93 has been their priority all year long.  If a high-profile issue like the Iraq War were on the state ballot, it would boost Democratic turnout.  Most of these voters were inclined to support Prop 93.

Four months ago, the two Democratic houses of the state legislature passed SB 924 – which calls upon the people to vote on whether the President should get our troops out of Iraq.  It was technically an “advisory measure”- but putting it on the same ballot as the presidential primary would have had a political impact.  California voters strongly oppose the War, forcing the issue on the mind of candidates.  San Francisco voters passed a similar measure in 2004.

In September, Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it – so it failed to get on the ballot.  Not that his veto was much of a surprise.  The Republican Governor has always supported the War, and SB 924 passed the legislature on a party-line basis.  The California Constitution says that state propositions can either be placed on the ballot: (a) by the state legislature and the Governor, or (b) by collecting signatures from a certain percentage of voters.  If the Governor’s veto was predictable, why wasn’t the latter option pursued?

Of course, Arnold’s veto gave Democrats a chance to do some political grandstanding.  “The self-proclaimed ‘People’s Governor’ owed nothing less to the people of California and our troops overseas,” said State Party Chairman Art Torres, “than to let the voice of the voters be heard on this disastrous war in Iraq.”  But besides that, they just let the issue die.  Now we continue to hemorrhage American lives, American dollars and America’s standing in the world every day – when California had the opportunity to speak loudly.

Granted, it costs a lot of money to gather the necessary signatures to put a proposition on the ballot.  But it can be done.  Community college advocates put Prop 92 on the ballot by petition signatures.  Unions put Props 94-97 on the ballot by petition signatures, in order to repeal the anti-labor gaming compacts.  And the Democratic leadership – yes, the same people who said they want us out of Iraq – put Prop 93 on the ballot by petition signatures.

Nunez and Perata were willing to put in the money to collect signatures for a proposition that will extend their terms in office – but would not do the same for an albeit symbolic measure that would keep the most important issue facing America today in the minds of politicians who want California’s support.  Polling for the measure was sky-high: Californians supported it by a 2-1 margin, and among Democrats it was 10-1.

In April, when Perata and Nunez were still trumpeting the idea of putting this on the ballot, all the Democratic presidential candidates came to the state party convention.  Iraq was on everyone’s mind, and we had the time to hear from candidates about how they will get us out.  But now that they’re coming back to ask for our vote, it is less of an issue.  Beltway pundits are now proclaiming that the presidential race is less about Iraq, and more about the economy.

Why was this not a priority?  Could it be that Nunez and Perata, along with U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein and the bulk of California’s Democratic establishment, have endorsed Hillary Clinton?  Senator Clinton voted for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002 while Barack Obama opposed it – and if Iraq becomes the central issue for California Democrats when they pick a candidate, she could be in trouble.  Maybe they just didn’t want to embarrass Clinton, and lose patronage in the next Democratic Administration.

Our leaders in Sacramento told us that an early California primary meant that we would have more “clout” in picking the next President.  In the minds of most voters, that would mean holding candidates accountable on issues – like the War in Iraq – where Californians are more progressive than the rest of the nation.  But it seems like their true motivation was Prop 93 – so that if it passes in February, some of them can run for re-election in June.

The Democratic leadership put their money where their mouth is – by paying to gather signatures for Prop 93, but not for a “Get Out of Iraq” referendum.

Because having a governor with no political experience whatsoever is working out so well, the Republicans, who have no bench to speak of, may be tapping another unconventional candidate to be their standard-bearer in 2010.

As she prepares to depart from EBay after a decade at the helm, Chief Executive Meg Whitman appears to be investigating a new career — in politics.

Whitman has talked with top Republicans about the possibility of a run for California governor in 2010, according to three operatives who have had discussions with her. Whitman is said to be asking detailed questions about the logistics of a run and the effect she could have as governor, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal the conversations.

Whitman did not make herself available for comment. A source close to her said she had been talking with Republicans around the state and had become “fascinated” by politics in her work as a fundraiser for GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts and a former colleague of Whitman at the consulting firm Bain & Co.

As tempting as anyone close to Mitt “Who let the dogs out” Romney is to me as a chief executive, I’m thinking no.

But what’s interesting here is that Whitman is not driving the discussion as much as Republican party leaders, who see nobody on the horizon that would put up much of a fight.  There are a couple gazillionaires and Tom McClintock, who is more likely than any of them to win a primary.  Has McClintock ever even voted for a budget?  Have the others run a government bureaucracy?

Thought it was an interesting tidbit, anyway.

Senator Jeff Denham(R-SD12), who is facing a possible recall in his moderate district, is raising money. Lots of it. In fact, he found a loophole a mile wide. A loophole so wide as to make a recall attempt possibly a good thing.

According to Sen. Dehnham, there are no contribution limits to an anti-recall account. I’ve not verified this, but, I have no reason to doubt it. At any rate, I’m sure we can ask some of Gray Davis’ old campaign staff. So, in today’s Capitol Morning Report, we get this announcement for a fundraiser for Monday:

Jan. 28, Friends of Jeff Denham, Against the Recall (12th SD), reception, Sponsor $25,000, Patron $10,000, Individual $5000, “CA state law does not limit contributions to recall accounts.” 5:30 p.m., Mikuni, 1530 J St. Contact: 916 498 9223.

Feel free to give Sen. Denham’s campaign staff a call, if you so desire, but I can’t imagine there’s a whole lot of interesting conversation to be had there. But, if you offer him money, say $25K, you might get a very receptive audience. While I don’t doubt that this is legal, it should be. Both pro-recall, and anti-recall, campaigns should be limited to contribution limits. One person, yes, I’m looking at you Mr. “Step Away From the Vehicle”, should not be able to recall an elected official by himself. Similarly, one person should not be able to finance the defense of said elected official. The same thing could be said of ballot props, regarding the fact that these were supposed to be populist tools, rather than tools of the wealthy.  I suppose I would agree with that statement (and the regulation of funds for props), as well.

After February 5, I will be embarking upon a redesign of the website. It’s kinda been getting bogged down recently, so a fresh coat of paint could do us some good. In the interim, I’ve moved the “Menu” from the right hand side beneath the Premium Ads to the left hand side right beneath the logo and combined it with the About box.

So, let me know what ideas you have, either email me or post a comment. Consider this an open thread, as we’ve not been doing enough of those lately.

( – promoted by jsw)

Disclaimer:  I am paid by exactly no-one to advocate for any political position.  I’ve heard rumors that certain people would actually pay me to stop.

There’s been a lot of heat, and not as much light as would be ideal, generated around Proposition 93, the ballot initiative to extend (a bit) the current legislative term limits.  I have already turned in my absentee ballot, and I voted for Proposition 93, despite its manifest flaws.  If you’re interested in why (and my take on those flaws), it’s below the fold.

First, here’s what Prop 93 does, according to the Legislative Analyst (who so recently cast her long and erudite shadow over the proposed health care reform):

Background: The state’s voters passed Proposition 140 at the November 1990 election. As well as other changes, Proposition 140 changed the State Constitution to create term limits for the Legislature-Members of the Assembly and Senate. Term limits restrict the number of years that individuals can serve in the Legislature. Currently, an individual generally cannot serve a total of more than 14 years in the Legislature. (An exception is when an individual serves additional time by finishing out less than one-half of another person’s term.) An individual’s service is restricted to six years in the Assembly (three two-year terms) and eight years in the Senate (two four-year terms).

Proposal:

Time Limits Without Regard to Legislative House. Under this measure, an individual could serve a total of 12 years in the Legislature (compared to 14 years currently). Unlike the current system, these years could be served without regard to whether they were in the Assembly or Senate. In other words, an individual could serve six two-year terms in the Assembly, three four-year terms in the Senate, or some combination of terms in both houses. (As under current law, an individual could serve additional time by finishing out less than one-half of another person’s term.)

Current Members of the Legislature. Under this measure, existing Members of the Legislature could serve up to a total of 12 years in their current legislative house (regardless of how many years were already served in the other house). This could result in some current Members serving longer than 14 years in the Legislature.

So, it’s a pretty moderate change to the current term limits, except that last paragraph with respect to sitting legislators, about which more in a moment. It does remove the incentive for the legislature to play musical chairs every election, and it allows each house of the legislature to develop an institutional memory of a decade or so.  This is important to me, as it ties into the reason that I am opposed to term limits for legislatures.  Despite all of the badness associated with perpetual incumbency, in my view the alternative is to turn over the entire institutional memory of how you get things done over to unelected staff (and worse) lobbyists.  I’ve picked my poison, and I can live with it (and more on that below).

Now, that last paragraph, that’s a doozy, ain’t it?  Basically, the people currently sitting in the legislature completely screwed up the politics on this, if they actually wanted to deal with term limits, not just keep their positions.  And of course, it’s impossible to to dismiss as an innocent coincidence the fact that both Speaker Nuñez and President pro Tem Perata would be termed out in 2008 after the end of their current terms if Proposition 93 does not pass.

If the legislature had really been serious about changing the landscape on term limits, not just keeping themselves in office, they could have grandfathered sitting legislators into the old system.  Or the Speaker and the President Pro Tem as individuals could have publicly disavowed further terms for themselves.  But they didn’t.  Instead, the legislature elected to follow a path of fairly obvious and politically toxic self-dealing.  Ironically (and in my view, stupidly), that may result both in sitting legislators (including the aforementioned legislative leaders) losing their seats and an outcome that places the issue of term limits off limits for several years at least.   Well played, gentlemen!  Well played indeed.

And I still voted for Proposition 93.  Term limits are a crappy idea, for the reasons explained above, and in legislation, you have to cut deals, you have to log-roll.  The amusingly perverse situation here is that the interest group with whom you have to cut a deal is the legislature itself.  So that’s the deal I think we’re cutting — longer terms for the current legislature in order to build a better institutional memory and stronger legislators.

As a brief coda, let me note that the notion that term limits (or redistricting) are meaningful structural reform is essentially bogus.  It’s true that with term limits, you will cycle younger people through legislatures, and their attitudes on social issues in particular will change, but you’re still cycling people into and through a system where money buys campaign success, and when those self-selected people arrive at the legislature, the industry lobbyists run the show.  I don’t like that bargain, myself.  But people like Howie Rich and the rest of the radical-right funders of US Term Limits do like that bargain, because they want weak legislators and a lobbyist-run legislature.