Recap of CDP E-Board

PhotobucketA bit of controversy at the General Session

by Brian Leubitz

While CDP Executive Board delegates seemed to be on edge about the debt ceiling debate, the meeting also contained a fair bit on the accomplishment side.  The big news from the CDP was an effort in Los Angeles County to register far more PAVs for the next round of elections.  The PAV numbers in LA are far below other counties, and the associated drops in turnout particularly affects minority turnout.  Even if we just get LA County to parity with other counties in the state, we could be looking at an extra half million votes.  That sure would have made my life easier in the Kamala Harris race last year.  Kudos to the CDP for their work on the project, we’ll be anxiously watching the results in the coming months.

But that certainly wasn’t the only news.  As I explained yesterday, there were a few issues of controversy at the CDP e-board this weekend.  First, the death penalty resolution that called for the conversion of all sentences to permanent incarceration was passed without much dissent at all.  While there was resistance at the April convention for political reasons, that seems to have melted away with the prominent support of CDP chair John Burton.

On the other hand, the fight over bylaws changes was not so easy.  The easy cases for the handling of endorsements in the 2012 were handled quickly.  Endorsements for the 2012 election will be made at the Feb 10-12, 2012 CDP convention.  If the endorsed candidate does not proceed to the general election, there will be another endorsing caucus in the district.  The big issue was if the party wanted to endorse somebody who did not express a Democratic preference.  

There were quite a few speeches back and forth on the subject, including CYD VP Hillary Blackerby who strongly opposed allowing non-Democrats to get the state party’s endorsement.  This opinion ultimately carried the day, but only just.  Because amending the bylaws of the state party requires a 2/3 vote, the majority that supported the change was not able to succeed.

The other controversial issue was the change of the “convention pull” process for endorsements. Under the current rules, Democrats who did not get the endorsement in the regional caucus at the convention could bring the endorsement to the floor by getting 300 signatures.  After verification, these endorsements then went to the floor for debate.  The Mark Leno/Carole Migden episode was one of these events.  But this is problematic for a couple for reasons.  

First, the verification process requires an excessive amount of staff time.  On the leniency side, getting 300 signatures at an event of approximately 2000 isn’t really all that high of a barrier to entry.  There should be more respect for the opinion of the local delegates, but no so much as to allow the Democratic brand to be carried into the gutter.  A corollary of this issue is that legislative caucuses are known to pack the local caucuses with delegates in their region. In fact, in that Leno/Migden race, about 15% of all delegates were in the 3rd Senate district.  Obviously that was unacceptable, and legislators are now only allowed to appoint half of their delegates outside of the district they represent.

The solution presented over the weekend was to allow appeal to a board composed of the regional director and Chair appointed members of standing committees.  The main concern with this process was that it would essentially be a yes-man for the earlier decision to avoid controversy.  Whether that would have been true won’t be known, as after all the speeches from both sides the rule failed to gain the necessary votes.

However, I think there is a lot of room to build a process that reduces the load on CDP staff while still preserving the convention pull process.  I think you’ll hear more about that in the next few months, but the contours seem anything but clear now.  These issues certainly need to be addressed as soon as feasible.

These issues will eventually be settled.  And with that being said, the executive board was an overall success as we head into another election season.  

4 thoughts on “Recap of CDP E-Board”

  1. Sorry, this sounds like party meetings in the old Socialist Paradise

    Which one is Alexander Kerensky ??

    Whether or not to endorse a ‘decline to state’ candidate seems kind of paternalistic

    Why not let voters make up their own minds ?

    I’m a Democrat, but with Obama’s Surrender on the debt limit I suspect Demcorats may not be too enthusiastic in the 2012 elections

    Doesn’t matter who or what they endorse

    I think the CDP opposed an independent commission to redistrict California

    How’d that work out ?

Comments are closed.