The CDP Convention didn’t only kick off the start of the 2010 Governor’s race, but the start of the various Congressional campaigns throughout California as well.  I’m going to have a full cattle call tomorrow, with my opening rankings for the races, both the potential primaries and the races with Republican incumbents.  But I wanted to give the special elections some attention in a separate post.  In CA-32, we have an election in just a few weeks on May 19, and Judy Chu has racked up a lot of local endorsements, while Gil Cedillo has made the worst kind of headlines over campaign spending and personal gifts.  Given the demographics of the district, I think it’ll be a close race either way.

But I wanted to hone in on the upcoming special election in CA-10, because I had the chance to talk with three of the five announced Democratic candidates while up in Sacramento.  We don’t know when Ellen Tauscher will be confirmed as a State Department undersecretary, and thus when the seat will open up and when the election will be scheduled.  What we do know is that there are several good candidates in the race, all of whom offered interesting perspectives at the convention.

over…  

Mark DeSaulnier was anointed the successor to Tauscher inside the district by the local establishment, but since other candidates have jumped into the race, he’s going to have to work for his victory.  And that’s absolutely as it should be.  But though you would expect someone who appeared to be riding endorsement coattails to Congress to be some kind of creature of the establishment, I and some of my colleagues did not get that impression when we cornered DeSaulnier at the Netroots Nation Party last Friday night.  DeSaulnier is an ex-Republican who joined the party as a youth in Massachusetts to vote for Edward Brooke, the first African-American Senator elected by popular vote in the United States.  DeSaulnier was a liberal Republican then and grew far more progressive as he went on, eventually leaving Massachusetts to get out of politics (he was the son of a political family whose name was besmirched by corruption charges).  But the bug caught him and he returned.  DeSaulnier talked to us about revitalizing the public square, about reversing the trends found in Robert Putnam’s book Bowling Alone, and about how the Internet and blogs can go a long way toward doing that.  He talked about how his first instinct with the special election was to tell the Republicans to go hang on their crappy deal.  He talked about the importance of transportation in his district, which includes several bedroom communities, and how that can connect to solving our energy problem.  He seemed like a serious and earnest public servant who was committed to using public policy as a lever to make progressive change.

On that score, he has a formidable opponent in Lt. Governor John Garamendi, who has been in the policy game for over 30 years.  At a late-afternoon meeting, Garamendi reminded bloggers that he created the first tax credits for solar and wind energy in 1978, leading to the windmills in the Altamont Pass that stand to this day.  He first looked at cap and trade in the early 1990s when he helped write some of the Clinton Administration briefs (while working in the Interior Department) for the Kyoto Protocols.  He recalled his international peace efforts in Ethiopia and the Congo.  He threw out dates from 15, 20 and 30 years ago talking about all the legislation with which he has been intimately involved, from energy to health care to the insurance industry to regulatory reform to the environment.  He brings a unique and diverse skill set and a deep knowledge of the issues.  And he can drill down to particulars.  On health care, while he supports a single payer plan as the most efficient and effective policy, he can see a role for private insurance to play, as an add-on or a fiscal intermediary (but “we won’t allow them to rip the system off”).  However, he wants to make sure that whatever comes out of Congress, which is more likely to be a lesser reform, cannot be gamed by the insurance companies.  “ERISA has become a great way for insurers to avoid the rules.  A real guaranteed issue (where companies cannot deny coverage based on a pre-existing condition) would be fine, but a sham guaranteed issue would just be ERISA II, which the states wouldn’t be able to fix.  So the states can help, they can do things, but they cannot get there without real federal action.”

Garamendi, as a knowledgeable figure, would be an asset in what he called “preparing the public to deal with” the realities of issues like climate change and rising sea levels.  We have to adapt in California to an already-changing climate, and making the necessary changes will require leadership and authority, telling the public that they must “use the wealth of the nation to protect themselves.”  Garamendi projects a seriousness and a knowledge that would be crucial to this effort – you tend to believe him when he tells you “there are places in this state where we should not be building.”  On the question of CA-10 being a moderate district, his view is that the district has a set of issues, which you take into account, and then you try to conform those views with the facts and personal opinions, and “try to get the district to see your side – that’s the essence of political leadership.”

In addition to the establishment endorsee and the policy heavyweight, there’s the fresh perspective of an Anthony Woods, who has this amazing bio (two tours in Iraq, biked cross-country for Habitat for Humanity, Harvard’s Kennedy School, took a stand by coming out to protest the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy) and yet it new to the political scene.  In my interview with Woods you saw that he has a head for public policy.  I view him as a compelling story who can mature into becoming a compelling candidate.  He has something of a low-key demeanor that will have to change for the stump.  But I was definitely impressed with his leadership ability, his confidence, and his expressed desire to ride that wave of change sweeping the country and enter Washington without the baggage of the same old politicians pushing the same old ideas.

There’s also Joan Buchanan and Adriel Hampton, and this should be an extremely interesting race throughout the summer, as we may even get a serious policy debate about where to best take the country.

Today, Chief Privacy Officer at Facebook Chris Kelly announced an exploratory committee for the race for California Attorney General.  He joins a field that includes Assemblymembers Ted Lieu, Pedro Nava and Alberto Torrico; San Francisco DA Kamala Harris, and Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo.  In his statement, which you can find at his website, Kelly talked about efficienct and effective government, Internet safety, proper training and equipment for law enforcement, and stopping trafficking.  The words “prisons,” “jails,” “corrections” or “parole” was not mentioned.

Our prison system is a mess.  We have the highest recidivism rate in the country, mostly because 2/3 of our prisoners returning to jail go there because of technical violations of their parole.  This turns jails into giant holding pens instead of areas for rehabilitation and treatment, as well as colleges for nonviolent offenders on how to get involved in violent crime.  The overstuffed prisons cost more money to staff and service as they become more dangerous, leading to the state spending more on incarceration than higher education.  Despite all this spending, conditions in the prisons are medieval, with the ACLU proposing the closure of the LA County Men’s Central Jail.  Prison officials are discussing release of 8,000 nonviolent and terminally ill offenders, but that’s a drop in the bucket.  We also have denied prisoners their Constitutional right to health care, and have a federal receiver now remedying that situation, taking it out of the hands of the legislature.  The “tough on crime” mantra that has ruled the thinking of both parties on this issue has utterly and completely failed.

And yet, our Attorney General candidates and our gubernatorial candidates view this absolute crisis as just another check on their list, instead of the serious problem it is.  Gavin Newsom didn’t bring it up in his speech, though I did ask him about it in the blogger meeting afterwards.  He talked about how we need a re-entry strategy better than the failed parole system, and cited some re-entry reforms in San Francisco that have helped matters.  And he stated that having the courts step in to fix the problem presents an opportunity for real reform.  With respect to the drug war, which lies at the heart of this, he expressed his support for drug courts and mental health courts and the kind of options that wouldn’t consign nonviolent offenders to the rigors of overcrowded prison life when they need medical treatment.  And he vowed to have more detailed programs available soon.  But when it counted, on stage, he said nothing.  Jerry Brown did tackle the issue, but his non-stop fight against the prison health care receiver and sensible steps like Prop. 5 destroy any credibility he may have had on the issue.

I have appreciated Greg Lucas’ interviews with some of the candidates in the Attorney General’s race, and I have paid particular attention to their views on the prison crisis.  (over)

Here are Alberto Torrico’s ideas to deal with recidivism:

CC: What’s the best way to reduce recidivism?

AT: First, we need to evaluate. See what programs work and don’t work. We’ve got to figure out what we’re going to do about these parolees. Put all these people out and then there’s too many parolees and too few parole officers. We can’t continue to pretend our prisons are drug rehab centers because they’re not. We need to get resources to people who can be helped and make sure when they’re tried at the local level they get put into programs that work.

I’ve been a criminal defense lawyer. I’ve been a labor lawyer. I represented a public agency. The judge tells people under Prop 36 (drug rehab law) that you’re not going to jail, you’re going to get counseling once a week for 12 weeks. You’re not going to beat an addition one hour a week over 12 weeks.

He seems earnest about lowering the recidivism rate as a financial and moral imperative, and these ideas are somewhat noble, but they read like bullet points, without the innovation necessary to really deal with this crisis.  It’s not just about hoping the locals solve the problem, but a strategy that focuses on rehabilitation, re-entry and alternatives to prison right at the top.

Here’s Ted Lieu on the same subject:

CC: Not sure how much it costs but it has to be expensive when we parole 120,000 people a year and within two years over 70 percent are back in prison.

TL: It is a sort of downward spiraling problem. Because we have a prison-overcrowding situation we now aren’t doing any of the skills training in prison programs that teach people how to function in society when they leave prison. And then people come back to prison because they have nowhere to go and that increases the over-crowding.

I’m a big supporter of drug courts. If someone is addicted, they should get treated. When revenues are falling off a cliff its extremely difficult to fund the programs we need to help people when they get out of prison. Long-term view is that yes it costs some money now but in the long-term it would help the state save money.

If an inmate works toward a degree then they should get early release credits as an incentive to do such things. Part of the problem – and this is a much larger fix – is I think I we also need to improve our education system. If we did, we’d have less people in prison as well.

I just see a lot of people talking around the problem.  I support drug courts as well, but I think there’s a mindset change that’s needed.  The Attorney General at this point is in a position to transform the entire way we think about prisons and rehabilitation.  Rocky Delgadillo gets closer to that.

CC: Speaking of costs, recidivism is very expensive. Something like 120,000 people are paroled each year and 70 percent are back behind bars within two years.

RD: We’ve got to get on the front end. One thing we know about gang members and people who have been in prison is they tend to have a shelf life it tends to end. But if they’re young and active and they go out they do it again. Why? Because in prison they get to hang out with the best in their business. And we pay for it. Great health care plan. So when they get out, they go back to it again. So the answer is to send less in.

We have a program called “First Chance.” I grew up in Northeast Los Angeles. People would say they’ll give you a second chance. You can’t have a second chance until you have a first chance. This is a program for young, but adults who get into our system. Not where they’ve done a serious crime but we know they’re involved with gangs or negative activity. We allow them to go to job training and school and if they complete it, we drop the charges. It’s a much better investment up front then to try and deal with them after they’ve been in prisons. In there, it’s an abyss.

Finally, here’s Kamala Harris, who actually pre-empts the discussion by raising recidivism without being asked:

CC: What role can the Attorney General play in the state’s seemingly endless budget mess?

KH: First, critically examine how the criminal justice system is working and whether we are being most efficient with limited dollars. Here’s an obvious example: Recidivism. California has the highest recidivism rate in the country. On an annual basis we release more than 120,000 prisoners and within two years of their release 71 percent recidivate. That’s costing us a lot of money.

In San Francisco, we created a re-entry initiative in my office. Its called “Back on Track.” It’s for low-level, first-time, non-violent offenders. I brought on my friends from labor – the building trades guys – friends from the business community, non-profits, and we give the parolees job skills development, education and help them meet things like parenting needs. A lot of these young offenders are parents. We reduced recidivism for this specific population from 54 percent to less than 10 percent. The national DA’s association has designated “Back on Track” as a national model.

My vote in this crowded Attorney General’s field will be almost entirely predicated on each candidate’s approach to the prison crisis.  Will they reverse the “tough on crime” myth and start talking about sentencing reform?  Will they discuss serious options to reform parole?  Will they bring up innovative strategies around re-entry and recidivism that would put the focus on rehabilitation and spend on the front end to save on the back end (Hint: check with Kansas)?  Will they touch the third rail of the failed drug war by moving toward decriminalization and keeping tabs on those who commit crimes with victims instead of nonviolent drug abuse?

I eagerly await the answers.

I’ve been pretty up front in questioning whether or not the next Governor matters compared to the structural reforms needed to get California back on a sustainable course.  Nevertheless, the off-year CDP convention in Sacramento does traditionally kick off the following year’s gubernatorial race, and this year was no different.  Given what we know right now, I think it’s highly probable, actually, that the Democratic primary will feature only two candidates.  Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom were the only two with any visibility whatsoever in Sacramento, and while Antonio Villaraigosa may still feel he can jump in late and capture a healthy share of the Latino vote in any primary, his awkward exit from the festivities does not lead me to believe that he will bother with the race.

If that is the case, we have a virtual mirror-image of the 2008 national Democratic primary, with a candidate positioning himself as looking to the future against a candidate firmly implanted in the past.  That’s the general belief, anyway, and there’s quite a bit of truth to that.  Clearly, Mayor Newsom’s convention speech continually framed the choice for voters as “whether we’re going to move forward in a new direction or whether we’re going to look back.”  Clearly, each candidate has a profile that fits that general mold.  And the general mood of each candidate’s signature event, with Brown lolling at the old Governor’s Mansion with his 1974 blue Plymouth in the driveway, literally an historical set piece, while Newsom closed off a street and held a block party featuring Wyclef Jean (and got what amounts to an endorsement from Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson when he introduced Newsom as “the next Governor of California”), could not have been more different.

And yet Jerry Brown has always been something of a political futurist, someone who was mocked in his time for being unrealistic and silly, on issues which are now firmly in the mainstream of the American political debate.  And as CalBuzz points out, Brown’s presentation to the convention may be closer to the zeitgeist than Newsom’s right now:

While Newsom (a Hillary supporter, BTW) spent the weekend trying to position himself as Obama to Brown’s Clinton, General Jerry delivered a Jim Hightower-like jeremiad to the convention, filled with rips and roars at financial insiders and white collar criminals. In tone and substance it seemed closer to tapping the populist zeitgeist of these financially troubled times than did Newsom’s effort to fight the last war.

Voters fed up with Governor Arnold’s shattered promises to “blow up boxes” and sweep clean the mess in Sacramento may well be in the mood for less “change” and more common sense, which happens to be Brown’s political meme du jour.

Ultimately, I don’t cotton much to these popularity-based views of major elections, preferring to judge on substance.  The primary electorate is older, but that means there’s more potential for increasing turnout among youth, so we’ll see where that leads.  But ultimately, I’m going to judge on the basis of substance, particularly with respect to structural reform.  And while Brown gave a fairly nice speech, highlighting his high-profile work as Attorney General suing the likes of Wells Fargo, in essence he left unanswered the charges that he is an apostle for fantasyland in thinking he can just bring Democrats and Republicans in a room together and get them to work everything out.  On the other hand, Newsom, in a meet and greet with bloggers, came out once again in favor of a Constitutional convention to put all of these contradictory and hobbling budget and governing ideas on the chopping block and work from scratch to figure out a way to organize the state that makes sense.  You can ague with his somewhat rosy picture of his record – as I have – but you cannot argue that he has a forward-looking view of how to finally blow up this insanely dysfunctional structure.

On the near-term issue of the special election, Brown has appeared on stage with Arnold Schwarzenegger to tout the Yes side on all measures, while Newsom has not.  In fact, he expressed his opposition to Props. 1C, 1D and 1E, saying “I can’t get my arms around balancing the budget with lottery money” and that 1D and 1E would raid successful and cost-effective programs.  Now, what I can’t get MY arms around is Newsom’s support for 1A, particularly because he explained that his first instinct was to oppose, but that he “had to be responsible” and look at the impact on city budgets.  However, 1A would provide no budgetary relief for two years, while 1C, 1D and 1E, which he opposes, would.  In clarifying this, Newsom spokesman Eric Jaye explained that the impact on city budgets could be made worse by the bond markets seeing the failure of 1A and raising their interest rates, but there’s definitely a tension there.  Perhaps Newsom thinks that he can fix whatever damage is done by a constitutional convention, but a voter-approved spending cap would be hard to cancel out within a the space of a year or two.

(More on the Newsom blogger meetup in a later post.)

I think there’s room to be critical of both candidates, as well as room to be praiseworthy.  But rather than framing this election along cultural or generational lines, I think it’s necessary to frame it along the policies they would both bring to Sacramento and whether they make sense for progressives to get behind.  So it’s not past vs. future for me so much as success vs. FAIL.

Those who followed the proposition thread know the outcome, but in case you need a recap, Big Media’s got your back as well.

Efforts by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders to win voter approval of six budget measures on the May 19 ballot grew more difficult Sunday when a sharply split state Democratic Party declined to back three of them.

The mixed verdict by more than 1,200 delegates to a state party convention came after a nasty floor fight over the grim menu of proposed solutions to California’s severe budget crisis.

“We’ve got all kinds of divisions,” Art Pulaski, leader of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, said of the fractures among unions that drove the party’s internal rift. “It’s not unusual for us.”

Republicans, too, are split on Propositions 1A through 1F. The state Republican Party has broken with Schwarzenegger, its standard-bearer, and begun fighting the measures.

Taken together, the muddled messages from California’s two major parties threaten to fuel the sort of voter confusion that often spells doom for complicated ballot measures.

This is pretty on the money.  There’s a split within both parties, one that Democratic leaders aren’t coming to terms with.  Neither side has taken heed of its grassroots, at least in part.  With the propositions in trouble, we must take an eye to the message that will come out in the aftermath.  The truth is that Democrats have a principled policy difference here, and those legitimate concerns should not be discounted by the leadership in favor of a narrative that voters opposed the ballot because of 2 years’ worth of certain tax increases.  In fact, the word “taxes” was not used once on the floor of the convention by those opposed to 1A or any other measure.  We oppose these measures because we find them deeply harmful to the future functioning of the state.  We believe there’s a better way in the short term, with the majority-vote fee increase, and the long-term, with the end of the conservative veto and a more sustainable course, based on broader-based taxation to pay for the services all Californians desire.  We reject in whole the dumbed-down, simplistic framing that 1A would “reform the budget” and failure would court disaster.

As for the spin that delegates “supported” the measures on the “May 11 ballot” (Steve, you should probably get the date right if you’re working for the Yes side), and a “supermajority quirk in party rules” was used by opponents, I really don’t know what to even say to that.  First of all, the quirk has been on the books for a long time, and it was actually progressives like Dante Atkins who have been working to reform the endorsement process, so welcome to the party.  Next, with fully 1/3 of the delegates electeds and appointeds, most of whom negotiated and supported the deal, and another 1/3 elected by county committees, and another 1/3 grassroots delegates elected at caucuses, a 60% threshold, which again was never argued by these people when it worked for them, represents a fairly broad consensus of all three sectors.  Finally, if you went state by state, I would imagine you would find such a threshold in many if not most state Democratic parties, whereas the 2/3 rule for the budget, to which some are making a false equivalence, only finds parallel in Arkansas and Rhode Island.  I would be all too happy to completely reform the endorsement process and even question its use by the party outright, that would be a fine debate.  But whining about known rules sounds like Hillary Clinton’s staff bemoaning the fact of caucuses in the 2008 primary when they knew the facts for years.  The grapes, they are sour.

Now that the endorsement battle is over and the election just weeks from being done, let’s have a dialogue instead of a lecture, and let’s take the concerns seriously of those who reject the false messiah of a spending cap and raiding important voter-approved initiatives and balancing the budget on the backs of gamblers.  Let’s actually advocate for something rather than being forced to accept something.  Let’s not worry about “what the Republicans will say” and let’s not sniff that “pie in the sky solutions won’t work.”  Let’s reform the state and come out with a government that works.