The Northern Solano Democratic Club has posted A Resolution In Support of Assembly Member Mariko Yamada (AD-08) thanking her for her vote against the Blackmail Primary.  She was one of only seven Democrats in the Assembly and the State Senate to vote against this ill-conceived measure.  

Thanks also to Assembly Members Jones (AD-09), Ma (AD-12), Ammiano (AD-13), and Portantino (AD-44) along with State Senators Yee and Hancock who voted No on SCA 4.  And, for the record, Democratic Assembly Members Chesboro (AD-01), Skinner (AD-14), Blumenfield (AD-40), Brownley (AD-41), and Perez (AD-80) were either absent or did not vote.

The text of the resolution is below.

A Resolution in Support of Assembly Member Yamada

WHEREAS on the nineteenth of February, 2009, the California State Legislature approved State Senate Constitutional Amendment Four calling for adoption of a Louisiana-style “free-for-all primary”, which was coerced from the legislature under pressure to pass the State budget, and

WHEREAS State Senate Constitutional Amendment Four is another ill-conceived ballot measure that will permit manipulative and deceitful practices such as concealing party affiliation, the running of stalking horse candidates, and the gaming of results through organized crossover voting, thereby depriving voters of their true preferences, and

WHEREAS Assembly Member Yamada, by standing with only three four other Democrats [in the Assembly] to vote against State Senate Constitutional Amendment Four, stood up for cleaner, more honest elections,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Northern Solano Democratic Club applauds the courageous action of Assembly Member Yamada in her opposition to State Senate Constitutional Amendment Four,

and

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Northern Solano Democratic Club exhorts all Californians, especially all elected officials, to follow her example and defeat the measure at the polls.

The Northern Solano Democratic Club has posted five resolutions on their web site that will be submitted for approval at the state convention next month.

They are:

A Resolution for Improving Higher Education Accreditation Practices

A Resolution for Relief from No Child Left Behind Expenditures

A Resolution Opposing the Open Primary in 2010

A Resolution for majority Rule Initiative Reducing the Threshold for Passing a State Budget

A Resolution on Contesting Elections

The full text of each is below the fold and can be adopted by local clubs by inserting your club name in the “Resolved” clauses at the appropriate place.  

A Resolution for Improving Higher Education Accreditation Practices

WHEREAS, under the previous administration, the Department of Education has asserted that the accrediting agencies for higher education have failed in their duties and has consequently demanded that accrediting agencies assert themselves and take action against our community colleges, and

WHEREAS, notwithstanding the fact that real and important issues do exist for our community colleges and those issues need to be resolved, it is a fact that the accrediting agency in California has acted capriciously and has issued negative findings that too often are not related to educational issues but to trivial matters that lack sufficient import to be cited as a reasons for withdrawing accreditation, and

WHEREAS the negative findings of the accreditation agency in California seem to follow a pattern that gives the appearance of selective findings repeatedly invoked in support of a predetermined outcome rather than the findings of an honest inquiry,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] proposes that the accreditation agencies for higher education be instructed that the time frame for compliance, currently set at two years, be defined as commencing when the educational institution receives a set of clearly stated accreditation issues to be resolved along with clearly defined criteria for the resolution of those issues,

AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] calls upon the California Democratic Delegations to the United States Senate and House of Representatives to bring their combined influence to bear on the higher education accreditation process so that it might function in a proper manner.

A Resolution for Relief from No Child Left Behind Expenditures

WHEREAS, the California State budget reduces education funding by 7.4 Billion dollars this year and the Federal Stimulus money allotted to California to stabilize educational funding amounts to only 6 Billion dollars, leaving a deficit of 1.4 Billion dollars , and

WHEREAS the common consensus is that the sanctions imposed by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) have failed to produce positive results, and

WHEREAS it is well known that NCLB imposes requirements on schools districts and demands actions from those districts while providing no funding for those mandates, there has been no public focus on the fact that the cost to implement programs designed to bring under performing groups up to NCLB compliant standards have been estimated to be Thousands of Dollars Per Student and would require massive increases in funding,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in these financially difficult times, with our public schools in dreadful financial straits, the [insert the name of your club here] recognizes that it is unconscionable to require our schools to continue funding NCLB compliance activities, and, for this reason, [insert the name of your club here] proposes that public schools be given relief from the mandates of NCLB for the period of one year, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the [insert the name of your club here] calls upon the California Democratic Delegations to the United States Senate and House of Representatives to introduce and to work for the passage of legislation that will suspend, for one year, all NCLB compliance activities that require the expenditure of local school or district funds.

A Resolution Opposing the Open Primary in 2010

WHEREAS passage of Senate Constitutional Amendment 4, not only lacks legitimacy, but also encourages the minority party to commit acts of political blackmail and extortion in the future, and

WHEREAS it is a fundamental right of political parties to choose their nominees for office in accordance with the constitutionally protected right of Freedom of Association, and further, the open primary clearly violates that right by forcing political parties to admit nonmembers into the nominating process and thus enabling the election of candidates who do not support their party’s philosophy or platform, and

WHEREAS the proposed open primary will increase campaign spending, strengthen the influence of special interests, weaken party cohesiveness, and expand the opportunity for manipulative and deceitful electoral practices such as concealing party affiliation, the running of stalking horse candidates, and the gaming of results through organized crossover voting,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] opposes approval of Senate Constitutional Amendment Four, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] calls upon all members of the California Democratic Party, especially our elected officials, to campaign to defeat the measure at the polls.

A Resolution for Majority Rule Initiative Reducing the Threshold for Passing a State Budget

WHEREAS the State of California has adopted a budget that neither fulfills the needs of the people of California nor reflects the values of a majority of the people and their representatives in the state legislature and,

WHEREAS the approval of the state budget was inexcusably delayed in the State Senate for more than seven months by a few members who chose loyalty to ideology over a commitment to common sense, the good of the State, and the needs of their constituents, and

WHEREAS this inexcusable travesty was due solely to the current state constitutional requirement that two-thirds of the members of the state legislature are required to approve a budget,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] supports lowering the threshold for passing the state budget to 50-percent-plus-one, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] calls upon all members of the California Democratic Party, especially our elected officials, to campaign actively for the adoption of the 50-percent-plus-one threshold for budget passage.

A Resolution on Contesting Elections

WHEREAS State Senator Abel Maldonado, the leading hold-out in the budget impasse, was reelected without a Democratic opponent in 2008, and his seat was one of six Congressional, State Senate, and Assembly district seats that were uncontested by Democratic candidates, and

WHEREAS it gives the appearance of “back room deal making” when Republican held districts remain unchallenged, as has occurred on more than one occasion, and

WHEREAS it is un-American to discourage any qualified citizen from seeking elected office and irresponsible of Democratic leaders to let any seat go uncontested,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] strongly condemns any and all efforts, past, present, or future, to discourage Democratic candidates from challenging Republican incumbents, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that [insert the name of your club here] demands that no Democratic Party member or elected official ever discourage a qualified Democrat from seeking elected office and insists that the California Democratic Party vigorously contest every office by recruiting and supporting qualified Democratic candidates.

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?