Several possibilities remain for Supreme Court

by Brian Leubitz

We are heading into the last few weeks of the Supreme Court’s session, which typically ends in the last few days of June. June 24 is the last calendared day, but it is not uncommon to see the close of the session drift a few days back. With that in mind, a few folks are summarizing what could happen. Howard Mintz has a quick such article in today’s SJ Merc.

To summarize, there are basically four different outcomes. From best to worst case scenarios, here is what we are looking at with some help from the office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera:

• We win on the merits. This is the best case scenario and could possibly end most of the litigation surrounding marriage equality. In short, that would be the U.S. Supreme Court reaching the merits of Proposition 8’s constitutionality and affirming the Ninth Circuit decision invalidating California’s measure. Any victory on the merits restores marriage equality in California.  But, of course it isn’t that simple, there are a couple options within this scenario.
  • Beyond California, the Court could hold that all state bans on same-sex marriage are invalid (i.e., legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide);
  • Separate but unequal: Court could rule that states with civil union and domestic partnership laws must require full recognition for marriage rights for same-sex couples (i.e., legalizing same-sex marriage in several more states, including: Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, and Oregon).  
• Punting the case: The Supreme Court ‘DIGs’ the case. In the next scenario, the U.S. Supreme Court dismisses the case, leaving the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional as the final, binding decision.  In lawyer parlance, this outcome is called a “DIG” — for “Dismissed as Improvidently Granted” — and it occurs when at least five justices agree that the petition for certiorari (or review) should never have been granted (it takes only four of the nine justices to grant review).  Though DIGs aren’t typical, it’s notable that Justices Kennedy, Breyer and Sotomajor all questioned in oral arguments whether review should have been granted.  This outcome would apply solely to California.  But it would remove any prospect that a party hostile to marriage equality would challenge whether the ruling applies statewide.
• Standing: The Supreme Court holds that Prop 8 backers lacked standing. In the next scenario, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Prop 8 proponents lacked standing under federal law to appeal the U.S. District Court’s decision.  Such a decision would vacate the Ninth Circuit opinion, leaving U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional as the final, binding decision.  Prop 8 is held unconstitutional in this scenario, but parties hostile to marriage equality might seek to litigate over whether the District Court ruling applies statewide.  Already, Prop 8 proponents and some ill-informed pundits have argued that such a ruling on standing should limit the judgment to only the two couples (who are named plaintiffs in the suit), or to the Counties of Alameda and Los Angeles (which are named as defendants in the suit).  Those arguments are wrong, but certain to get litigated if the case is dismissed for standing in this fashion.
• Losing: Here, a majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices agree to reverse the Ninth Circuit, upholding Proposition 8 as valid under the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection guarantees.  This would settle the legal question about Prop 8, though the larger debate about marriage equality in California would likely shift from the legal arena to the political realm.

Former Congressman was convicted on bribery related charges

By Brian Leubitz

Well, the Duke-Stir is looking to make his way in the big world, after he gets out of the joint today.

Cunningham, 71, is due to be released Tuesday. He told a federal judge last year that he planned to live near his mother and brother in a remote part of Arkansas, writing books in a small cabin. But in a brief interview with The Associated Press in April, he said he might settle with military friends in Florida, where he would write his memoirs.(AP)

It’s been a while since we heard all the lurid details of cunningham’s bribery filed exploits. But with the bulk of the former congressman’s district by freshman Rep Scott Peters, the district is probably getting much better representation.

Heres a UT timeline of the Duke’s scandals.

Will Legislature Push Restoration of Dental Care

by Brian Leubitz

Friend of Calitics David Dayen takes a look at the California budget process and finds one cut that should be restored:

Perhaps the most critical is restoring dental care for the 3 million adults currently on Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid system.

Like many other states during the Great Recession, California eliminated its adult dental program for Medicaid in 2009, without the legislature ever voting to cut it (the Medi-Cal reductions came as part of a “trigger,” which got pulled when revenues failed to materialize). In a given year, over 300,000 poor Medi-Cal recipients would have used dental services. Instead, they either go without, letting serious dental problems fester, or they use the emergency room as their dentist, ringing up massive costs in uncompensated care. “People show up to the ER for root canals, abscesses, everything,” explained Anthony Wright, the executive director of Health Access California. “It’s far more expensive to the state to have a patient spend 2-3 days in the hospital than to pay for their checkup.” (David Dayen / Salon)

Sen. Steinberg has been pushing the restoration of dental cuts since at least January when we got some early positive revenue estimates. But dental care is one of those things that gets lost early. Legislators don’t see it as a life or death issue, though they probably should. Or maybe they should watch Frontline on the simple expenditures that can save lives and reduce costs.  

PPIC poll shows majority support for split role

by Brian Leubitz

Prop 13 is still the “third rail of California politics.” When some progressive leaders began arguing that the supermajority should look at tweaking the Property tax measure, Sen. Steinberg immediately responded that it wouldn’t happen this session. And as Warren Buffett learned during his very short stint as an economic advisor to Gov. Schwarzenegger, it still has plenty of juice.

But here is where I buried the lede in yesterday’s PPIC poll post. The poll included a question on the subject:

But one proposed reform gets majority support: 58 percent of adults and 56 percent of likely voters favor a split-roll property tax, which would tax commercial properties according to their current market value. But less than half of Californians (46% adults, 42% likely voters) favor another proposed reform, which would lower the vote threshold from two-thirds to 55 percent to pass local special taxes. (PPIC)

.

Now, this isn’t exactly all that progressives would want, but split role is a pretty good start. And leaders like San Francisco Assembly Members Ting and Ammiano have at least brought up the issue. Now it awaits a move up the food chain as legislative leaders need to take up the cause before it can really advance.

But what progressives are arguing for is that Prop 13 has fundamentally skewed our property taxes. By gaining consistency over time, we gave up equality between different owners. As this image illustrates, tax patterns have varied wildly. Corporations are able to fudge around the edges with structuring deals in order to avoid reassesments, while homeowners are always stuck with the latest sale price. That means there has been a huge shift from commercial property bearing a strong majority of the property tax burden to residential properties now far outweighing commercial taxes. (See these graphs; the picture to the right is the 2010 residential percentage of property taxes from that page.)

This is hardly the little old lady is going to lose her house issue, but an issue of tax equity. Commercial property owners are unlikely to see any big changes, but as the Sacramento Bee argues voters are going to be the ones that ultimately make the big changes.

Bills must pass out of their house of origin today to stay alive

by Brian Leubitz

It’s Deadline Day!

CA Senate has only 25 bills left to hear today before #CALeg ‘house of origin’ deadline.CA Assembly looks to have just shy of 150..

— John Myers (@johnmyers) May 30, 2013

Among those bills are some pretty controversial ones like AB 26. AB 26 addresses a very real problem in workplace safety issues as well as the modernization of big greenhouse gas emitting facilities. However, there are some serious flaws. A recent analysis from Communities for a Better Environment shows a few flaws:

Proposed Assembly Bill 26 claims to advance climate protection and worker rights, but a provision snuck into this bill after it was proposed would do just the opposite for California’s heaviest industrial polluters-oil refineries.

The provision (§ 39714 (c)) would define refinery maintenance as “public works.” It would give oil companies public money that is supposed to be used for climate protection in places hardest hit by industrial pollution, to keep refineries that do too little to curb their emissions running, and insist that they use contractors instead of the existing refinery workers to do all that maintenance work.

Perhaps something can be changed in the Senate to make the bill more palatable and less of a subsidy to oil companies. After all, Chevron played fast and loose with workplace safety and the integrity of our environment in Richmond. Why are we subsidizing Big Oil to do what they should be doing anyway?

It will be a pretty busy day on the floor of the Assembly, but much of the really tough process of pushing bills is done at the other house. That’s where you will see the big lobbying pushes for and against potential legislation.

Also shows record support for marriage equality and increasing support for split roll tax

by Brian Leubitz

The CBRT poll earlier today showed strong support of the Governor’s budget plan, but the confirmation of the Public Policy Institute means quite a bit. And Brown’s cautious plans seem to be popular:

When read a brief description of the overall budget proposal, solid majorities of Californians (61%) and likely voters (60%) favor the plan, which includes increased spending for K-12 education and modest increases to higher education, health and human services, and corrections. The governor’s plan would also reduce state debt and maintain a $1.1 billion reserve-a potential focus of debate, as some Democratic legislators look to restore funding to social services. When asked about the tradeoff, a majority of Californians (55%) prefer paying down debt and building a reserve to restoring some funding for social service programs (39%). Likely voters are twice as likely to prefer reducing the debt (62%) to restoring funding to social services (32%). (PPIC Publications)

There is still a lot of question as to how the K-12 funds will be dispersed, as the Legislature is a little unsure of the Governor’s plan. But with the Governor’s budget attempting to reserve as much money as possible, other spending priorities will find it difficult sledding.

Some other interesting findings of the poll:

There is a lot more data available, go check it out at the PPIC website.

Former Assembly Speaker Has Strong Support

by Brian Leubitz

Former Assembly Speaker, and former California Forward leader, Robert Hertzberg is looking to replace Alex Padilla when he is termed out of his state Senate seat:

After announcing Tuesday he will run for a state Senate seat next year, the Van Nuys Democrat said this morning he has the support of incumbent Sen. Alex Padilla and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg. …

“I’m a guy who really believes in public service,” said Hertzberg, 58. “And I just love the work.”(SacBee)

With his name ID and support that he has already garnered, he stands a pretty good chance at the seat. However, there is still a year before voters go to the polls for the 2014 primary election.

With all votes counted, race pushed to run-off by narrowest of margins

by Brian Leubitz

Sometimes you realize just how important turnout operations really are. For SD-16, a few additional votes for Andy Vidak would have meant that he would soon take the oath of office. Instead, we’re headed for another low-turnout special election runoff in July: (Vote totals here)

Republican Andy Vidak of Hanford and Democrat Leticia Perez of Bakersfield earned a spot in the runoff as the top vote-getters in the May 21 special election, which was held after Michael Rubio suddenly resigned midterm from his 16th Senate District seat to take a job with oil giant Chevron.

The Senate district up for grabs includes parts of four counties: Fresno, Kings, Tulare and Kern. Eyewitness News contacted each county elections department Tuesday, and each confirmed that all votes from the May 21 special election have been counted.(Bakersfield Now)

The margin was just about a hundred votes in a 60,000 vote election, that’s pretty close, folks. However, the July special election still presents the same challenges that Perez faced before. Turnout will be abysmal, and the Democratic base tends to fade more than the Republican base in special elections. However, that being said, the margin between Vidak and Perez was still relatively low. Perez will now be the only Democrat on the ballot, but must work even harder on turning out votes.

Not sure what this does to Dan Walters’ thesis though.