Prop 16 has had more negative editorial board reviews than Ishtar, yet, PG&E is still pumping money into this dud. Whether will be worth PG&E’s money is a question that can only be answered by the voters of California.

Whether it is good policy is a question with an objective answer: NO.  This is the answer from good government groups, editorial boards, progressive organizations, and non-partisan groups.  It is a policy that’s great for PG&E, terrible for the state and its ratepayers.  Today the San Jose Mercury News threw down on PG&E’s hidden agenda scheme:

Surely you’ve heard the ads, wedged between Steve Poizner’s cries of “Liberal!” and Meg Whitman’s attempts to sound tough.

“And we don’t even have the right to vote on it!” whine the indignant actors, as if they’re victims of an evil government conspiracy.

Don’t be fooled. These ads, like the rest of PG&E’s estimated $45 million campaign to pass Proposition 16, are full of lies. PG&E calls the measure the Taxpayers’ Right to Vote Act, but it’s really the PG&E Monopoly Protection Act. So we can’t resist another reminder to vote no. …

One thing that’s clear about PG&E’s campaign is where it got the $45 million for all those ads. From you. Unless you’re lucky enough to live in a PG&E-free city like Santa Clara. Exercise your right to vote on Proposition 16: Say no. Tell PG&E to stop spending your money to thwart your best interests – and to stop lying. (SJ Merc)

It’s really not a big ask, even from a corporation like PG&E: don’t lie to the voters of California.  However, it’s too much to ask of PG&E these days They’re spending $45 million to get Prop 16 passed, but it’s still sinking in the polls. There won’t be any big ad buys for No on 16, just the small matter of being right.

It is my sincere hope that the voters of California will see beyond PG&E’s lies and smack them on the head for over-reaching by spending ratepayer money on anti-consumer initiatives.

That’s the Bay Area’s South Bay, not the one in the LA area. There are a couple of interesting Assembly races, with some pretty good candidates.

AD-20: The Choice is Clear: Bob Wieckowski

First, I want to look at the 20th District, where progressives should be paying attention.  The district, currently represented by Alberto Torrico, is solidly Democratic.  This race pits a progressive Fremont City Councilman, Bob Wieckowski, against a moderate Oholone College Board member, Garrett Yee.  Until 2002, Yee was a Republican, and registered as a Democrat in 2007.  Wieckowski has been a strong progressive throughout his career.

Democrats voting in the upcoming primary will have a rare treat on their hands when it comes to the 20th Assembly District race: a real choice.

Fremont Councilmember Bob Wieckowski and Ohlone College trustee Garrett Yee attended the same Fremont high school, but they differ starkly in disposition, life experience and political philosophy. (OakTrib)

Wieckowski says he would support marijuana legalization, oil severance, and a split roll for property taxes.  Yee says that we should not be touching Prop 13, and is backed primarily by groups looking to destroy the rights of consumers and victims of medical malpractice.  On the flip side, Wieckowski has gotten help from the nurses and environmentalists.

Now, I speak only for myself here, but if I had a vote, I’d happily vote Wieckowski.

AD-21: Some Great Choices

Just to the west, there are several great choices in AD-21.  I had the chance to sit down with San Mateo Supervisor Rich Gordon and venture capitalist Josh Becker to talk about the race. Both impressed me, Becker with his optimism and willingness to try new things, Gordon with his pragmatism and willingness to fight for the progressive ideals.  Palo Alto Mayor Yoriko Kishimoto is also an intriguing candidate with a record for environmentalism.

One interest factor in this race is high speed rail.  Robert has a good write-up of the positions of the three candidates that any interested parties should read.  Long story short, all want to listen to their constituencies (a dash of NIMBYism) but want to get the thing built. To date, none of the three candidates have really been champions of HSR, but neither have really set down the gauntlet against it. It would be nice to see a candidate really come out strong for moving the process forward for getting it built, but that doesn’t seem to be something we’ll see for now.

Gordon, an openly gay candidate, has been snapping up most of the endorsements in the race.  However, it appears that Becker’s campaign is out hustling their competitors. Yoriko has a sizeable base in her community, so where this one is going is anybody’s guess.

Note, that I’ve thought a bit about this race, and at various times considered writing more in depth about it.  I could very easily see myself voting for Josh Becker. He’s been involved in any number of great progressive organizations, including auctioning himself off for the New Leaders Council.  If I were voting? It’s a really tough call. I think I would be switching my vote back and forth several times.  For right now, I’d say Rich Gordon, but any of the three would do a good job. But then again, maybe Becker…or Gordon…or…well, I don’t vote in this race. Anybody have any more solid opinions?

Sen. Leland Yee has been an advocate of same-day registration for a while, but it’s always good news to hear some progress on that front.  Today, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted 7-3 (partisan style) to approve Yee’s SB 1140 for same day registration:

California will allow citizens to vote without registering prior to Election Day if a bill by Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) becomes law.  Today, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved Yee’s Senate Bill 1140 on a partisan 7-3 vote.  While voter turnout has declined throughout the country, other states with similar laws have seen a seven percent increase in voter participation.

“California currently ranks 41st in the nation in voter turnout,” said Yee.  “We need to find ways to increase participation in our democracy and allow all citizens the opportunity to vote.  As a proven way of increasing voter turnout, we should implement same-day and Election Day registration in California.”

Idaho, New Hampshire, Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming have successfully implemented Election Day registration.  North Dakota does not require registration and North Carolina allows registration during early voting up until Election Day.

Thing about same-day registration is that it not only encourages people to vote, but it also reduces fraud.  While the opponents claim otherwise, just think about it.  In our current process, we rely on a number of people to maintain the cards as it passes through their hands.  In same day registration, you have the voter sitting right in front of your face, asking to register. The risk of fraud goes down substantially.

This would be a win-win for California.

Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado has never been a favorite around these parts.  His budget machinations were cruel and unnecessary. He used the entire process merely to gain political advantage.  With any luck, we will be rid of him at the end of the year.

But his legacy just might live on in the muck that is Prop 14.  He came on to KQED’s Forum this week to discuss the “open” primary initiative. He had no facts. He had no support for his outlandish claims.  Just his gut.

Then the forum turns to California’s new lieutenant governor, Abel Maldonado, one of the main proponents of Prop. 14, and Richard Winger, one of the initiative’s more prominent opponents.  Maldonado’s performance is, in my humble opinion, a trainwreck.  He proceeds to list one complaint after another about the state government — it’s broken, it’s broke, legislators are highly partisan, they spend too much time on silly issues, they can’t pass a budget, politicians misrepresent themselves to voters, etc. — but then says that the solution is a top-two primary.  He never really explains how the latter would correct the former.

Meanwhile, Winger, to his credit, employs actual evidence debunking each of Maldonado’s claims one by one.  You say more open primaries would make it easier to pass a budget?  Well, it turns out the budget was plenty late during Calfornia’s use of the blanket primary a decade ago.  You say it would make the legislature less partisan?  Washington state used a blanket primary for decades, and they’re legislature is one of the most partisan in the country.  And so on.  And all Maldonado does is keep saying, “I’ve lived it.  I’ve been there.”  And then he repeats his talking points.  It’s not a very impressive spectacle. (Enik Rising)

See, you have to wind up St. Abel. Make sure he’s got his Talking Points down, and he can be Arnold’s voice in the Legislature, or really any other forum. But, ask him to explain himself, and this is what you get.

The problem with the “open” primary system is that it just doesn’t do what its supporters claim it will.  It doesn’t get people more involved.  As Seth Masket points out, if anything, it makes people less likely to vote.

But okay, maybe you still want a less polarized legislature.  Fine.  Would a top-two primary get you there?  Not really.  The evidence we have suggests that the effect would be small or negligible.  There turns out to be very little relationship between a state legislature’s partisanship and the openness of its primary elections.  Meanwhile, you’ll end up with many runoff elections between members of the same party, giving voters not of that party a lot less incentive to participate. (Enik Rising)

Here’s what you get with this mess.  In a purple district, you get candidates that will tack for the base to make sure they get into the general election.  If you get the lion’s share of the base, you are likely to get enough votes.  How do you do this? Get more polarizing. So, scratch that less polarizing thing.

And in districts where one party controls, you end up getting two candidates of the same party.  Let’s be honest, does a Republican have a lot of incentive to vote for either of two progressive democrats in a Blue seat? Would you want to vote between some of the two crazy Republicans we’ll get in a couple of these districts? Do you hold your nose and vote for the slightly less odious one? Perhaps, but it sure doesn’t inspire civic engagement to have to vote for some creep you disdain slightly less than the other creep.

Meg Whitman talks a lot about her business acumen. She helped sculpt eBay after all.  But, if you are to really look at her record, there’s a lot to complain about.  

Take eBay itself. Yes, it grew while she was CEO.  But her career was hardly without mistakes there. Take the whole Skype affair. She purchased Skype for 3.1 billion dollars, and then had to write off 900 million of that less than two years later. Since eMeg left, they’ve sold most of Skype for $1.9 billion.  Sounds like somebody has been taking business lessons from one Arnold Schwarzenegger’s School of Stupid.

But, go back past eBay, and her record is not all that stellar either.  She quit as a failure from her CEO gig at FTD.

after two disappointing years struggling to turn a profit…. ‘This company is not fixable, at least not by me,’ Whitman told FTD Chairman Richard Perry… (SacBee)

Furthermore, Whitman’s FTD settled an anti-trust case that acknowledged that FTD was essentially muscling competitors out of the market. Not only did she violate the law, she did so knowingly, as FTD was already under a consent decree to not engage in precisely the kinds of activities that she repeated.

Oh, and lest you think that was her only shadiness at FTD, she also did a good ol’ fashioned purge of the “stodgy” (read: old) executives. She eventually settled litigation for age discrimination.

The fact is that Whitman can’t even run FTD with respect for the law, why do we think that she can handle the world’s eight largest economy?

The regulation and taxation of marijuana is going to be a fairly big issue come this fall. But, the question remains as to how it will fair.  In order to pass the measure, the supporters will likely need fairly high turnout. However, from a starting position, they could be doing worse.  Today, they released results of an internal poll:

• 51% of voters support the initiative on hearing only the title, with 40 percent voting no – an 11-point margin.

• 74% agree that “marijuana should be controlled like alcohol and tobacco.”

• 57% agree the initiative “puts police priorities where they belong.”

Now some of these numbers are kind of weird. Like why would you say that the initiative would put police priorities in the right place, then vote against it. But, I suppose 5 percent of the state is just kind of weird.

Voters generally likes the idea of the additional revenue flowing into the state, and aren’t all that worried about any changes that might occur.  Incidentally, my guess is that very few changes will actually occur, as teh federal government would likely step in if the measure passes.  Not that this fact should stop Californians from supporting the measure, but it is a point worth noting.

Finally, there is this convenient little fact for progressives:

The marijuana initiative has the potential to drive turnout among younger voters, newer voters and

independents.

• More than 3 in 4 voters (77%) say they have heard about the initiative. Awareness is high across all demographic groups, including newer voters, younger voters, young Democrats and independent voters.

• Many of these traditionally low propensity voters say they will be more likely to vote because of the marijuana initiative. Especially in a year when so many voters are turned off by politicians and the election process in general, this initiative can be a strong driver of turnout among younger voters, newer voters, Democrats and independents.

CDP Chair John Burton mentioned this during the convention, but it’s likely true.  In the absence of this measure, I’m not sure there’s any great motivation to rush to the ballot for any of the gubernatorial candidates. This measure, however, changes the game, even if just a little bit. So while Jerry Brown may not be embracing the measure, you can be sure he’s glad it is on the ballot.

Full polling memo over the flip.

TaxCannabis May 2010 poll memo