This is our first attempt at endorsements on a broad scale in the legislature. It is not comprehensive, we simply don’t have the resources to get to every seat. But, we tried to get to most of the competitive seats. We’ll provide a bit of commentary on some of these over the flip. State Senate races tomorrow, and Congressional races on Wednesday. But, today, Assembly races:
AD-08: Mariko Yamada
AD-10: Alyson Huber
AD-15: Joan Buchanan
AD-27: Emily Reilly
AD-37: Ferial Masry
AD-40: Laurette Healey
AD-78: Any Democratic candidate other than Auday Arabo.
Chris Cabaldon has run a textbook 20th Century campaign. He has a good resume and the institutional support. Yamada has a solid resume of her own but can also claim the support of much of the grassroots. She is also a tireless advocate of single payer healthcare. We support Yamada as the more progressive candidate.
We have respected Ms. Huber for a while, and she continued to impress on the Calitics podcast. AD-10 is a district that is rapidly blue-ing, so we have a shot in this open seat.
We missed this one originally, and for that we apologize. Kriss Worthington is definitely deserving of the endorsement of a progressive blog like this one. While frontrunners Nancy Skinner and Tony Thurmond would likely be excellent Assembly members, Worthington stands out for his prolific work for the progressive movement in the East Bay. He has signaled his intent to be the far-left conscience of the Assembly, and we need one of those.
AD-15 is an always competitive seat that shares much of its district with Jerry McNerney’s congressional district. Ms. Buchanan would be a very competent Assembly member.
This is a solid progressive district, and the candidates are all pretty good. Nonetheless, we like the way Reilly has reached out to the grassroots and netroots over the past few months. As a current Santa Cruz city council member and former city mayor Reilly also brings valuable government experience, especially with balancing budgets and finding new revenues, that are desperately needed right now in Sacramento. Her intellect, creativity, and support for budget reform and single payer mean she would be an excellent Assembly member.
AD-37 is a tough district, but Sharon Runner Audra Strickland is a particularly odious Republican who stands in the way of real progressive change. We wholeheartedly support Masry’s candidacy.
AD-40 is the seat of Lloyd Levine, who is now termed out. The campaigning has been long and tiresome between the two candidates favored by the institutional players, Bob Blumenfeld and Stuart Waldman. Both have experience in the legislative bodies as aides, but we find the progressive choice is Laurette Healey.
AD-78: Any Democratic candidate other than Auday Arabo
We won’t be sorry to see Shirley Horton go, and aside from former Bilbray staffer-turned-Democrat Auday Arabo, we’d definitely prefer any of the Democrats in this race over Republican nominee John McCann. But Marty Block, Arlie Ricasa and Maxine Sherard have all run similar campaigns centered on similar issues that have failed to differentiate. We are confident in any of them, but can’t separate one from the rest.
This race has become a smidge more personal in the last few weeks, and we’d prefer to see it become more substantive. We like both Manuel Perez and Greg Pettis, the leading candidates. Pettis, an LGBT leader on the Cathedral City Council, would be a solid vote in the Assembly for Democrats. Perez, on the other hand, holds more potential, and a bit of our concern was eased when he publicly announced his support for gender-neutral marriage licenses. Not only is he a part of a growing demographic that could produce a new progressive majority, he also understands the need for more than transactional changes. In the end, the Calitics Editorial Board chose to support Manuel Perez.
Finally, Brian Bilbray and I agree on something. I’ve been saying it for years, but apparently he’s only now coming around: he should be ashamed of his record, and now that he’s up for re-election, suddenly he is.
During his chat with the U-T’s Logan Jenkins, he falls all over himself trying to demonstrate that he’s not a partisan hack who’s married to Bush’s failed policies (except when he’s to the RIGHT of Bush). He talks about working with Democrat Heath Shuler on immigration reform, thinking that it moderates his well-documented immigration insanity and fealty to his corporate sponsors. He recalls clean beach legislation that he cosponsored…in 2000. Without mentioning that he’s desperate to abandon all environmental standards to help build an ineffectual border wall.
But here’s where the beauty of the current political landscape kicks in. After claiming that the string of Dem wins in special elections have nothing to do with the 50th (apparently everything he doesn’t like is a fluke- he’s got the spin down), he dramatically tries to break from the Republican brand:
“I don’t work for anyone but the 50th,” he told me. “I didn’t swear to uphold some Republican agenda.”
This from the guy who votes with the Republican Party 91.8% of the time and has seen his (reasonable-for-a-Republican) lifetime Progressive Punch score of 12.93% drop more dramatically than anyone else in Congress- this term his rating is at 5.25%. Now these aren’t the only metrics out there, but it’s hardly the profile of a legitimate across-the-aisle legislator. This is a man who was elected in 2006 on his perceived moderate credentials only to arrive in DC and enable Bush policies and the broader pro-corporatist politics of fear and repression. He knows that won’t fly in a district full of politically reasonable people, so he’s trying to keep up the smoke and mirrors as long as possible. Trouble is, while he’s astute enough to realize he should be ashamed of his record, that doesn’t change reality.
Bilbray’s made his GOP-enabling bed. Now he has to live with the consequences.
Today is the last day to register to vote. Personally, I'd like to see same-day registration. After all, we are living in the era of cheap and tiny computers. This is a fundamental fairness issue, legal voters simply should not be turned away. Nonetheless, here's the voter reg SoS page. Other interesting stuff:
Frank Russo writes about a S-USA poll in the Rumble in the Bubble (SD-03). (I do some work for Leno.) Leno leads overall 42 -22(Nation)-21(Migden). Besides the fact that Leno is the only candidate with net favorables, a number of note is the breakdown for “liberal” voters. Leno leads that category 47-21(Migden)-17(Nation).
The Bay Guardian has released the audio of their endorsement interviews at their 2008 spring election center. I'm a big fan of news media outlets releasing such interviews. Good work SFBG!
The elected delegates met yesterday in Sacramento. They talked, chose more delegates, and generally had a good time. The media seems to want to make this some sort of bloodbath, but it seems there was more about unity than anything else.
Another item to be slashed in the next budget: Aid for California's disabled. Perhaps the legislators will go and help some of these Californians themselves? Maybe set up an oxygen tank here, help in the process of dressing there. I think Roger Niello and Mike Villines would be excellent at that. After all, they want to cut these funds, so why not provide a bit of their time in leiu of the money that is so desperately needed. That would help, right? Ok, not so much.
Democrat Lockyer, a former state Senate leader and attorney general, traces California's budget woes back to the 1978 passage of Proposition 13 — the historic property tax cut — and Sacramento's subsequent decision to bail out revenue-short local governments and schools.
“We've been bailing the sinking ship ever since,” he says. “This may be the year when we have to say, 'OK, we're going to make these awful cuts and voters are going to see what the consequences are.' That's kind of a scorched-earth approach, but people somehow think that the budget is going to be balanced by the tooth fairy.
“I don't like it, but there are days when I think that voters need to persuade themselves and reluctant legislators that cuts like these are unacceptable. It's time to do whatever needs to get done to escape this annual torture.”
I'd start by placing a measure on the ballot allowing budgets to be passed by a majority vote — as they are in 47 other states.
But a two-thirds vote is what's ludicrously required today. So the legislators and governor must deal with it.
The article discusses ways to increase lottery sales so the Governor can borrow from future revenue to pay today’s bills. (And we get to pay huge investment bank fees for the privilege of borrowing our money from our future.)
The article does not discuss the consequences of the possible failure of this wild plan to base the state’s financial future on gambling revenue. If it fails we will still owe a huge amount of money to the big Wall Street firms, but will have even less revenue coming in to pay the additional interest and principal. We’re talking about the possibility of bankruptcy here, folks.
The article does not discuss the consequences of using marketing methods to push gambling to California’s low income citizens. We already know there is a gambling problem just from the amount of advertising that is being done today. Now lottery-pushers are talking about online betting, allowing use of credit cards so people can go into debt, and increased advertising. This can only lead to terrible victimization of people who are susceptible to gambling addiction.
Mostly, though, this Sunday headline article does not discuss realistic ideas for raising revenue to pay for the state’s schools, roads, police, firefighters, courts, health care facilities, DMV workers, environmental oversight and the rest of the absolutely necessary things that our state government does for us. These ideas include asking the wealthy to pay the same sales taxes when they buy yachts and jets that the rest of us pay when we buy clothing and cars and necessities, or asking the big corporations to pay realistic property taxes on commercial real estate, or asking the oil companies to pay something when they pump our oil out of the ground and sell it back to us, or closing some of the loopholes that allow big corporations and wealthy to escape paying their share of taxes.
Nope, instead of looking at realistic revenue ideas we’re all being distracted by this silly lottery scheme.
I live for Al Rodger’s excellent photo diaries at dKos, so here’s a tribute to that great man- the photo diary about Manuel Perez.
In this diverse and challenging district, Manuel Perez is the only Latino Democratic candidate to support gay rights and gay marriage, the only Democrat in the race fluent in both English and Spanish, the only teacher, the only promontore, and the one with the full backing of the healthcare, education, and labor unions. But there are four candidates, three weeks to go, and nothing is guaranteed. ActBlue action here.
One of the most important progressive equal rights issues for me is Marriage Equality for same sex couples. Why? Because it’s one of the last Government sanctioned forms of discrimination.
This week there was a huge victory for Marriage Equality with the California Supreme Court striking down the State’s 2000 ban on gay marriage.
One of the first knee jerk reactions of Republicans in the State was to declare that the Court was legislating from the bench, just a bunch of “activist” judges (Of course the minor detail they forget to mention in their partisan bigot filled hissy fit is that 6 of the 7 judges were appointed by Republican Governors). They also argue that this will lead to the legalization of “polygamous and incestuous marriage”. Another whopper is that the ruling undermines the voters because the bill was passed with 61% supporting the ban on gay marriage. And of course the best argument is that we as citizens must protect marriage and I wrote earlier in the week, Protect Marriage? From What Exactly?.
So, what is all the fuss about? It’s a sea change and Republicans can sense that they will probably lose this battle in the end. This is when all politics become local politics. A precedent in such a large State like California will resonate with other States who have yet to take this issue head on.
Here is an excerpt from a blog post by a local Republican Assemblyman.
The California Supreme Court’s Supremely Bad Decision
By Chuck Devore
The California State Supreme Court, lead by Chief Justice Ron George, repealed California law stating that marriage is between a man and a woman as set forth by both the Legislature and the people through the passage of Prop. 22.
The Court’s ruling is breathtaking for its overreach. Using words like “dignity” (23 times), “liberty” (34 times), and “privacy” (37 times) to describe same sex partners full right to marry, the Court overturned millennia of experience and more than 150 years of state law precedence. (For the ruling, see: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/op… In so doing, their strained justifications threw the door wide open to polygamous and incestuous marriage. How? By using the flawed logic that marriage is none of the government’s business insofar as marriage should be afforded to all to afford people privacy, liberty and dignity. The same weak logic can be applied to the “plural” marriages of the Fundamentalist LDS cult in Texas or to a devout Muslim citizen of Saudi Arabia who wishes to emigrate to California with his four wives. In fact, due to the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, both a Fundamentalist LDS cult member and a devout Muslim could argue that their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion are being violated by any restriction on polygamy – after all, their “dignity,” “liberty,” and “privacy” would be violated otherwise.
Lovely isn’t it? I love how Republicans can use words such as “dignity” as being something supremely evil when talking about the individual rights of another human being. And of course, they go into the straw man argument that by legalizing same sex marriage the next thing you know you will find people wanting to marry their brother or attempting to turn their personal life into a legal version of “Big Love”.
Ultimately the most important issue here is fighting back on these poorly argued oppositions and labeling them for what they are, flat out bigotry and homophobia. The Chief Justice in this case understood why it was so very important that the right decision come down from the highest court in the State. He said it was the hardest decision of his life.
But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning “No Negro” or “No colored” left “quite an indelible impression on me,” he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday.
“I think,” he concluded, “there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.”
…
Asked whether he thought most Californians would accept the marriage ruling, George said flatly: “I really don’t know.”
He indicated he saw the fight for same-sex marriage as a civil rights case akin to the legal battle that ended laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that the California Supreme Court moved ahead of public sentiment 60 years ago when it became the first in the country to strike down the anti-miscegenation laws.
California’s decision, in a case called Perez vs. Sharp, preceded the U.S. Supreme Court’s action on the issue by 19 years. Even after that ruling, Californians passed an initiative that would permit racial discrimination in housing. The state high court again responded by overturning the law, George said.
Rather than ignoring voters, “what you are doing is applying the Constitution, the ultimate expression of the people’s will,” George said.
To me this is the most compelling argument that Justice George makes for his ruling, it’s not about subverting the people’s will, just as we’ve seen in the past, the “people” have been wrong before. It’s about upholding the State’s constitution and in that way supporting the ultimate will of the people.
I believe that the new initiative that Republicans are fighting to get on the ballot in November will not pass this time though. Even in my conservative area of town in the local paper of record, the OC Register, the online poll they have shows 52% supporting Gay Marriage. In the article I quoted Justice George in, the margin was much larger, 72% of respondents support Gay marriage. Now granted, many Republicans are hoping that such a ballot initiative will bring out Republicans in droves but they forget something just as important, many new Democrats will also be coming out to vote and they will more than likely vote against change the State Constitution to ban Gay Marriage.
And another factor to consider in California for this November? Republicans in the State are stepping away from wedge issues like Gay Marriage.
“I think we have bigger fish to fry than do people have a right, if they are gay, to get married or not,” Schwarzenegger said. “I think that we should think about fixing the budget system and think about fixing the health care system and rebuilding California.”
And you know what, I agree with the Governator. We do have bigger issues to deal with and as it stands, gays will be able to marry legally in this State if the initiative in November doesn’t pass. I hope that moderate Republicans will heed the Governor’s logic and reject yet another ban that violates the State Constitution.
I would love to see my gay and lesbian friends have the right to marry so they too can have the same protections that many married straight couples take for granted. I also hope then that in such a case we can put more energy into issues such as universal health care and education. Wouldn’t it be nice to say we’ve moved passed the issue altogether?
California Gay Marriage made legal! Press Briefing & Rally
“Full and equal recognition of our relationships means that we have crossed a final barrier toward full and equal citizenship, at least in California. This day has been years in the making, but we know we can’t celebrate for long…
today we celebrate. Today we savor the full and equal recognition of our relationships, our families, and our responsibilities that come with it. But tomorrow, we organize. Our equality did not come easily. We will not let it go. – Ed Bennett, President of Sacramento Stonewall Democrats
…
Dan Chmielewski, on May 15th, 2008 at 10:27 am Said:
Its a great day for equal rights and personal freedom and liberty. Nice job on this Andrew
…
The Lovable Curmudgeon, on May 15th, 2008 at 10:32 am Said:
I had prepared for the worst. Now I’m numb. Truly a historic day.
Does anyone know of any celebrations scheduled in OC?
(And my security word was “equality”)
…
Sean H. Mill, on May 15th, 2008 at 10:44 am Said:
This is truly a great day. California should have been on the forefront of this and led the way in this fight for equal rights. Being the second state isn’t half bad though. I am proud to be a Californian today!
…
Vern Nelson, on May 15th, 2008 at 11:21 am Said:
SWEEET! Equality and justice, as they do too infrequently, lurch forward another step! And TEH GAY ROCKS!!!
…
OCDemoGrl, on May 15th, 2008 at 11:21 am Said:
It is great to see discrimination take a hit today. To my best friend, a proud gay American, who said he would not see gay marriage in his life-time, the door has swung open in your favor. Go forth and be marry!
…
Drew C., on May 15th, 2008 at 11:48 am Said:
This is absolutely awesome! Coming from working on the Equality for All campaign this is great progress…Congratulations to everyone in the LGBT community, I am so exited for you guys! As I always said, “Live better, promote equality!” Oh yea…thanks for coming out to phone bank for equality Andrew!
…
Bill Spaulding, on May 15th, 2008 at 12:55 pm Said:
Great news indeed. It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood.
Celebrate in Long Beach this weekend at the Pride Festival both days and the Parade on Sunday morning.
Celebrate by donating to and/or volunteering for candidates who support the community.
Celebrate by helping in whatever way you can to make sure the initiative likely to be on the ballot this November fails to undo the court’s decision.
Democratic Candidates’ Stands on Marriage Equality
Aspectes Xposted at 5/18/2008 10:50 AM PDT on MyDesert.com in BluePalmSpringsBoyz Blog
Greg Pettis, Cathedral City Councilmember and former Mayor Pro-Tem of Cathedral City has consistently supported Marriage Equality and has stated publically and unequivocally at Democratic Candidates’ forums that he would vote for Marriage Equality if elected to the California State Assembly
Rick Gonzales, Community Development organizer with Wells Fargo, has stated publically and unequivocally at Democratic Club Candidates’ forums that if elected to the California State Assembly he would vote against Marriage Equality
Richard Gutierrez, dentist, has stated publically and unequivocally at Democratic Club Candidates’ forums that if elected to the California State Assembly, he would vote against Marriage Equality
Victor Manuel Perez, now former-Vice-President of the Coachella Valley Unified School District, has equivocated in public on Marriage Equality. At Democratic Club Candidates’ forums, Perez avoided taking a position for or against Marriage Equality and has not indicated in public how he might vote as a member of the California State Assembly.
Perez states publically that he favors equal treatment for the LGBT community, but at each Democratic Candidates’ forum, when questioned, Perez equivocated, failing to answer how he would vote on Marriage Equality if elected to the State Assembly. Favoring equal treatment and non-discrimination is not the same as stating a voting position.
The people of Coachella and Imperial Valleys need to know where Perez stands prior to the June primary, not after the November election. It would behoove the Perez campaign and benefit the people of the 80th AD for his positions on LGBT issues and related position papers to be posted on his website. One can only imagine why his spokepersons hold that Perez supports Marriage Equality when the candidate has not spoken to a possible vote.
The LGBT community cannot afford another Bonnie Garcia-type politician in the State Assembly who opposes equal rights for the LGBT community and who votes against the best interests of a major constituency.
