Another day in sunny San Jose to meet up with fellow netroots activists
by Brian Leubitz
Netroots Nation continues in San Jose with more panels, trainings, and keynotes. The keynote on guns is currently going on, you can live stream that or anything else at the Livestream Friday Guide.
If you don’t have tickets, remember that you can still buy a day pass for today or tomorrow at the convention center. Come on down!
Judges demand prompt action
By Brian Leubitz
The three judge panel looking at the constitutionality of our prisons appears to be just about done with the administration and the speed of prison reform. Today they issued an order that indicates just how much they are peeved:
Their order demands that California’s prison system population be reduced to 137.5 percent of capacity by the end of the year, a requirement that essentially means the state must begin finding ways to reduce the inmate population or face a contempt citation. (SacBee)
Not only does this essentially require the release of 10,000 inmates, but the judges eliminated any state processes that would slow the releases – and required progress reports every two weeks. It’s like a student you don’t trust to do their homework.
Considering this case has already got something of a thumbs up from the Supreme Court, there isn’t a huge grounds for appeal, but I’m sure the administration will look to what grounds are left. In the interim, the administration is going to have to start emptying the state prisons.
Event will bring thousands of activists, politicians together
by Brian Leubitz
The NetrootsNation convention started in 2006 as YearlyKos. Though it took place in Las Vegas, in many ways it was born and raised in California. The DailyKos community that grew out of was based in the Bay Area, and many of the original organizers were based here as well.
And today it all comes home to the Bay Area. The convention officially kicks off today, though the Courage Campaign hosted their party last night as many folks first arrived. I’ll be heading down shortly, and hope to see a lot of California friends at the California Caucus today at 2pm.
Legislation was swiftly killed by Democratic leaders after attention focused on the plan
by Brian Leubitz
Sometimes there are scandals that rage like wildfires so quickly that there is no other way for them to just burn up all the fuel. Today, it seems the Public Records Act brouhaha was something along those lines. First, some background
California’s Public Records Act, revered by citizen activists and journalists as a fundamental right to open government, came under assault last week in a cost-cutting move as legislators approved a new state budget. But now, with Gov. Jerry Brown poised to sign the budget, lawmakers are split over a campaign to restore funding to save the transparency law.
Long story short, the Public Records Act was a state mandate for local government action. That meant that the state had to pay those expenses. In a cost-cutting move, the leaders and the Governor opted to basically eliminate the state mandate to cut funding to the local governments for open records. Most municipalities would simply then be forced to pay for their own open records.
But, in a time of still tight budgets, it wasn’t clear that all municipalities would provide adequate funding, so good government advocates through up a big stink today. All of the state’s major newspapers editorialized against the measure. And it worked. Sort of.
The Assembly reversed course, with the Speaker saying that he was planning on reversing the trailer bill responsible for the fracas. However, the Senate leaders, thought otherwise. Senators Steinberg and Leno proposed a constitutional amendment that would let the voters decide who pays for the open records. (See the video to the right…whenever it is marked public)
I’m not sure this is ultimately the best decision to be made by the voters, but the option is there. Relatively uninformed voters will ultimately decide who pays for the open records, but it punts the issue until next June.
Open records are critical to vibrant democracy. Who pays for them doesn’t really matter, but with the state reaching for additional funds everywhere it can, you can see local government skepticism. And many municipalities just won’t prioritize open records. A final outcome will be likely be decided on this tomorrow.
Secretary of State Turns Into a Competitive Primary
by Brian Leubitz
Of the statewide offices, incumbents will likely run for reelection as Governor, Lt. Gov, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction. That leaves three statewide positions open: Treasurer, Controller, and Secretary of State. John Chiang looks to be a strong front-runner for treasurer and Betty Yee the front-runner for Controller. Former Bank Bailout (TARP) administrator has also been rumored for one of those two positions, and would likely make for the most credible Republican challenger.
On the other hand, there is no clear front-runner for Secretary of State. Debra Bowen, the long-time progressive leader on the issue of voting machines, is termed out. Sens. Alex Padilla and Leland Yee both quickly announced their candidacies after the presidential elections wrapped up. Both will likely have strong fundraising numbers, and a fair bit of name recognition within their communities. Padilla tends toward the more business friendly moderate wing of the party, and Yee towards the labor-friendly progressive wing. But neither fits the traditional mold particularly well, as they each have strong friends, and some detractors, on the entire spectrum of the Democratic coalition.
On the Republican side, Pepperdine think tanker Pete Peterson is the only announced candidate. And all three are sounding similar themes: increasing voter registration, turnout and transparency.
And now, Derek Cressman, a good government advocate who has spent time with the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) and more recently with Common Cause as the director of state operations, is jumping into the race. I should note here that Derek is a friend of mine, and I’ll be hosting a conversation with him at Netroots Nation tomorrow at 10:30. He’s well suited for the job, as he has experience in managing an office and the knowledge of best practices over politics.
But, with a wild three-way race on the Democratic side, who emerges is anybody’s guess. As long as there is only one viable Republican, the top-two nature of the race won’t be too much of a factor. If an additional Republican jumps in, and we get several more Democrats, we run the (admittedly small) risk of a Rep-on-Rep general election. However, while there is still a fair bit of time left, I haven’t heard much in the way of additional candidates from either party, with just one big name left in rumors.
Without any polling numbers available at this point, it is tough to do very much in the way of prediction. The candidates will likely be focusing on fund-raising for a while before spending money on increasing their name ID, so poll numbers will have a lot of “don’t knows” for a while yet anyway. However it goes, SoS might end up being the race to watch in what is generally a pretty chill election next June.
Photo credit: The Uptake. Derek Cressman at NetrootsNation 2010.
PG&E calls CPUC’s $2.25 Billion Fine Excessive
by Brian Leubitz
In 2010, one of PG&E’s main gas lines exploded, killing 8 people, and injuring many more. Since that time, we have discovered that PG&E hadn’t properly inspected the lines, and continued to resist the real work that was necessary to maintain system safety.
The CPUC has proposed that the company be fined $2.25 billion, with administrative law judges scheduled to rule on that soon. The Commission is rather fed up with PG&E at this point. Director of Consumer Safety Jack Hagan had this to say:
PG&E’s brief on penalties displays a chilling lack of remorse for the many failures that led up to the tragedy in San Bruno. I believe the lack of remorse by PG&E in its brief only serves to reinforce the need for the Commission to impose the very substantial $2.25 billion penalty I have proposed.
PG&E’s lack of remorse is particularly evident in the section of its brief entitled “Severity of the Offense.” Although PG&E commences that section of the brief with a statement of “regret” for the incident in San Bruno, the gist of PG&E’s argument is “don’t blame us.” … PG&E’s statements of “regret” ring hollow in the face of this continuing lack of any sincere remorse whatsoever for the Company’s past shortcomings. If there was ever any doubt about the need for a very large penalty in this case, any such doubt is removed by the unrepentant tone of PG&E’s brief. It is time to throw the book at PG&E(H/t to KCET)
Now, this “fine” is rather misleading. Even if they would be fined that large amount, the current proposal is for the money to be required to spend on safety improvements. And as a bonus, the company would get about $900 million back of that in tax benefits. Now, normally PG&E likes to charge customers for these kinds of expenses, but given that the system needs far more than $2.25 billion of safety improvements, this is hardly the end of the world for them. They can still try to recoup some of the other safety costs and the money really goes back on to their system.
You can read Hagan’s full reply brief here. We should get a decision on the fine by the end of the summer.
Photo credit: ABC7.
Newspaper editorializes against Denham’s anti-rail stance
by Brian Leubitz
California’s High Speed Rail system isn’t very popular among California Republicans. Or Republicans in general. But one thing you don’t often see: a Congressman telling the federal government to move money from his own district to another part of the country. That’s just what Jeff Denham has done:
“Given that there are over 11.4 million Amtrak riders and over 200 million commuters that use the Northeast Corridor every year, it would be an investment in an area where we have proven ridership,” Denham said at a hearing at the site of the future Moynihan Station in New York, which is intended to replace the cramped Penn Station across the street…(McClatchy)
Now, as Robert pointed out in the HSR Blog, this doesn’t have to be an either/or proposition. The federal government can provide funds for both projects. But this call to move money out of California also means moving jobs out of California. That’s what the Bee thought improper:
In the Central Valley — where unemployment averages more than 15%, more than 40% in some cities — the project would bring jobs and better connections with the coastal economies. It would relieve traffic congestion on roads and at airports.
But Denham’s having none of it. He laments that construction on the first 29 miles of track between Madera and Fresno will start soon.
Denham’s constituents and residents across the state should demand more from their congressman. He should be representing the Central Valley, California and the transportation interests of the nation — not pitting the Northeast region against all others.(FresnoBee)
An interesting stance for a Congressman with a marginal district, and at least one formidable opponent.
A busy few days for the Legislature as they move forward on important priorities
by Brian Leubitz
The Legislative leaders and the Governor agreed to a framework for the budget at the beginning of last week, but on Friday, the plan was sealed and sent to the Governor. He promptly signed it and tweeted the accomplishment:
After two and a half years of struggle and difficult times, California’s budget is balanced and sustainable into the future.
— Jerry Brown (@JerryBrownGov) June 15, 2013
The total budget is at $96.3bln, a spending total that should give the state some breathing room. If the revenue totals are higher, as the LAO predicts, Governor Brown intends to put much of it into reserve. There was a trailer bill for some welfare restoration and the partial restoration of some dental services within MediCal. The dental restoration wasn’t everything, but it was a good start:
“The elimination of adult dental in 2009 was one of the most visible examples of the harm caused by the recession, the 42 billion dollar California budget deficit,” says Steinberg.
Lawmakers were pressured by many groups to restore public services. A broad coalition wanted to stop doctor payment cuts in Medi-Cal. That didn’t happen.
“We can’t restore everything, or nearly everything that has been lost,” Steinberg says. ” But we can pick a few targeted areas where people have suffered the most. And for me, dental care was at the top of the list.”
So Denti-Cal will be restored – to most of what it was before. Patients will be able to have their cavities filled, get crowns on broken teeth, and bridge work. They won’t be getting partial dentures or implants, and Steinberg says they won’t be getting any care right away.
“It’s going to take some time to rebuild the program since it’s been gone now for over four years,” adds Steinberg.(CapRadio)
Indeed, the Legislature would still like to restore additional funding that was not included in this round. But, for the time being that will wait until additional revenue comes in and an argument that will sway Gov. Brown.
On MediCal, the Legislature also took some time to authorize the build out of that System along the lines envisioned in the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare). The new system will make a million more Californians elibile and streamline the application process.
New report praises commission, commissioners for process, results
by Brian Leubitz
The redistricting commission wasn’t particularly popular when it passed. Nor were great results predicted by many, including myself. However, I’ve thoroughly changed my tune, and acknowledge the solid work done by the 14 commissioners and staff in creating a new system with transparency and openness.
Now a new report sponsored by the League of Women Voters finds that the system was popular statewide, and really did their job. (h/t Josh Richman)
A new report “When the People Draw the Lines,” finds that California’s first citizen-led redistricting commission successfully democratized redistricting in the state. In fact, among the estimated 1/3 of the voters who were familiar with the work of the commission, over 66% of the public approved of the CRC district maps.
The report, commissioned by the League of Women Voters of California in partnership with The James Irvine Foundation, found that the commission made a concerted effort to make the process more democratic and nonpartisan. In particular, the commission effectively gathered input from Californians through developing a statewide campaign with public meetings, open databases and online engagement.
Nobody can accuse the commission of not holding enough meetings. Having attended a few of them myself, I have to congratulate them on sitting through all that. Many of the speakers provided excellent input, some not so much. But they held 34 public meetings around the state, and listened to over 2700 speakers. Impressive indeed.
The report also made a few suggestions on how to improve. Most notably, the report suggested the process begin earlier to give the commissioners more time to do their job. Near the end of the process, meetings got squished together and probably could have benefited from a bit of extra deliberation.
The report also noted that having all 14 members at all of the hearings was a bit resource intensive. Having smaller subpanels would speed up the process and reduce travel costs. And while a lot of effort and resources were spent on selection of the commissioners, more time should have gone into training them.
The redistricting panels would probably be a good model for other states, but as of right now, more Democratic leaning states have moved to them than Republican states. As shown with the redistricting debacle in Texas, Republicans aren’t so keen on giving up their mapping authority. But having seen the process first hand, it is probably best for the people to not have politicians choosing their own districts.
Legislature Agrees to Deal with Governor, Set to Pass Soon
by Brian Leubitz
It turns out representative democracy works. It really works! When you let the majority party do its job, they tend to get it done. It doesn’t hurt that the Governor is of the same party as well, of course. However, in the end, the Governor got most of what he wanted, this is primarily a budget with limited restorations of persistent funding. And he mostly got his way on school funding as well. From John Myers:
The proposal, which still must be put into actual bill form by week’s end, gives legislative Democrats from both houses a smattering of their priorities, from money for mental health programs to new dollars for career technical education and a new scholarship program aimed at college students from middle-class families.
For the governor, the budget includes most of what he wanted in a major education funding plan to earmark money for disadvantaged students. The proposal tinkers with, but retains the structure, of the formulas first demanded by Brown in January — including extra cash for school districts with higher concentrations of poor and English learner students. (John Myers / News10)
There are still plenty of smaller details to work out, but the budget is looking like it will be passed on time for a third straight year. It is no coincidence that it has been three years since the majority vote ballot measure was passed.
On the other hand, this budget is far from all that could be desired from a progressive standpoint. There are big holes that should be filled sooner rather than later. We are still leaving some of our most vulnerable Californians without the services that they desperately need. We are still underfunding the supposedly co-equal judicial branch. We are still underfuning health care services.
The budget uses Brown’s more conservative estimates of revenue over the LAO’s estimates of $3B extra, but perhaps that caution could lead to a more sustainable future for state services.