All posts by Brian Leubitz

Jerry Brown, Prisons

Prison Realignment Works. Prison Realignment Doesn’t Work.

Abel Maldonado Wildly Misses Mark in His Criticism of the Prison Realignment Policy

by Brian Leubitz

By any estimation, Governor Brown is in a tough spot politically and managerially with the issues surrounding the prisons. As Attorney General, he fought the federal courts on capacity and healthcare standards. As Governor,  he’s been forced to actually implement the reduction of population by those judges. And he’s been fighting it all the way.

But, in realignment, he probably struck on the path of least resistance to state prison population. It allows a significant reduction in population without actually setting all of the prisoners free. But that’s not what Abel Maldonado sees.

Maldonado, flanked by Fontana Mayor Acquanetta Warren and Erin Runnion, whose daughter Samantha was kidnapped and murdered in a high-publicized 2002 crime, argued in favor of an as-yet-unwritten ballot measure that would repeal A.B. 109, the law creating the state’s realignment policy, which Maldonado referred to as “early release.”

“The legislature and more importantly, the governor, won’t fix early release,” said Maldonado, a former lieutenant governor and legislator who represented communities in Santa Barbara County.(Daily Bulletin)

Abel Maldonado simply sees it as “early release” and plans on running some sort of initiative to address the issue. How it will address the issue while maintaining compliance with the federal rulings is anybody’s guess. It’s hard to see the ToughOnCrime act to be anything other than posturing for the 2014 race for governor. And he’s searching for Willie Horton. Desperately. Calitics diarist smoker1 pointed that out last week.

This week, Abel Maldonado held a news conference announcing a statewide effort to repeal the realignment program.  Proof of the dangers of realignment: the heinous murder of Mary Beth Blaskey.  Jerome Anthony Rogers has been arrested and charged with the murder.  Rogers, 57, has a lengthy criminal record, but was last in prison in 2003.  

Got it?  The last time he was in prison was 2003 and Maldonado is using this case as an example of how realignment is failing.  Realignment came last year, not 10 years ago. Why would Maldonado use a case that has nothing to do with realignment to promote an effort to repeal realignment?  Because there is no such case within the realignment universe.

The thing about the California prison system is that there is a lot of shades of gray. Way more than 50, it turns out. There are some hardened criminals, some murderers, some rapists and the like, that will probably never be rehabilitated to the point that we’ll want them on the streets. However, the total number in that category are a minuscule portion of an enormous system. The recidivism rate in our system was hovering around 70% for a while, dipping down to 65% in 2012. But considering that the national level is below 45%, there is still a ways to go.

But much of that increased rate is about parole violations. Increasing parole flexibility and working with former prisoners to increase the percentage of better outcomes could go a long way to reducing some of that recidivism.  Some of that has already been happening in a few counties, but there is a lot more work to be done.

Realignment itself laid a heavy burden on counties, and this is where the changes haven’t really been as successful as we would like. They were supposed to get reimbursed for much of that burden, and while they will see additional revenues from the state to pay for the increased expenditures, it seems unlikely that they will ever be made truly whole.  However, Brown knows what he’s doing. Counties should be held more directly responsible for the prison population. Allowing prosecutors to simply lock away a criminal and forget about them has a perverse effect on the extreme overcapacity at state prisons.

The entire law enforcement community has begun a process of working to improve efficiency. As prisons have passed higher education spending, this is a conversation long overdue. But these changes can’t come overnight. But we can’t allow our prison budget to overwhelm the general fund, and we can’t build our way out of the prison crisis. We need to reduce the prison population, and that is done through hard work, funding education, including Brown’s effort to increase resources for disadvantaged students, and reducing the population of reoffenders.

Maldonado wants to simply revert back to the failed ToughOnCrime policies because that just might be an issue that scares voters. It’s simplistic and cynical.  

Uncategorized

The Merry Go Round Files: Norma Torres to Senate, Another Assembly Seat Opens

Norma Torres Easily Wins Election to Senate, Next Up: Replacing Michael Rubio

by Brian Leubitz

Norma Torres, the current Assembly member from Pomona, yesterday won election to the Senate, defeating an overmatched Republican in the Top-2 race.

With all precincts reporting, the state Assemblywoman from Pomona got 59.4 percent of the vote in Tuesday’s election, according to figures on the secretary of state’s website. Her Republican challenger, Ontario Mayor Paul Leon, got 40.6 percent.(AP)

The district, split between Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, is heavily Democratic. She only narrowly was pushed to the second round of the special election, and easily had more resources to win the race.

The Senate’s supermajority is intact, but the Assembly will have to wait for the eventual election of Lorena Gonzalez in San Diego’s Assembly special election next week. Gonzalez, the Secretary-Treasurer/CEO of the San Diego Labor Council, is the heavy favorite in the Democratic leaning AD-80. Chula Vista Councilman Steve Castaneda, a Republican turned Democrat, has received very little institutional support, and a similar grassroots response. Either way, a Democrat will take the AD-80 seat, and restore the Democrats 2/3 majority. However, a Gonzalez victory is the preferred outcome for Leadership and progressive activists.

The focus now shifts to replacing Chevron’s Michael Rubio. Rubio left for Chevron a few months ago, and in a low turnout special election, anything can happen. The two strongest candidates are Democratic Supervisor Leticia Perez and former Congressional candidate Republican Andy Vidak. Vidak very narrowly lost to Rep. Costa in 2010, and is seen as a strong candidate. The Republicans see a chance to pick up a seat here, and will be spending what resources they have on the race.

An election date to replace Asm. Torres will be decided upon by Gov. Brown after Torres officially leaves the Assembly.

Budget, Jerry Brown

Brown: Surplus Not So Big After All And It’s Already Spoken For

Jerry Brown 0742May revised budget assumes smaller surplus this FY, lowers estimates for next year

by Brian Leubitz

Well, the CalChannel stream is leaving something to be desired, but seems to have rebounded to some sense of consistency at the end after Gov. Brown was replaced by Ana Matosantos at the dais.

But, here is the big, headline takeaway: The administration doesn’t think the surplus is really $4.5 billion, and it thinks it is money that was pushed forward for tax purposes. And that money is going to education.

The budget Brown proposes will assume revenue in the current fiscal year only $2.8 billion ahead of expectations, with revenue next fiscal year down $1.8 billion from Brown’s January estimate, the sources said.

The proposed budget will include a $1.1 billion reserve. It would increase funding for Brown’s effort to overhaul California’s educational finance system by $240 million. In his education proposal, Brown will also propose $1 billion to implement English, math and other subject guidelines known as the Common Core Standards.(SacBee)

According to Matosantos, the additional funds dedicated for education are 103% of the surplus. Because previous budgets “borrowed” from previous Prop 98 requirements, the administration had very little choice as to where the money would end up. However, that he continues to plan to focus it on English learners and socioeconomic status is quite the source of controversy.

Brown’s revised budget still includes his plan from January to revamp education funding, directing more money to low-income schools and giving districts more control over how to spend the state’s money. The plan he released Tuesday would boost the money under local control by $240 million, to a total of $1.9 billion.

When fully implemented, it’s projected that the new local-control funding formula will spend 80 cents of every dollar on base grants for every district; 16 cents in supplemental funding for every English learner, student from a low-income family, or foster child in a district; and four cents for those districts with a particularly high concentration of these students.

The concentration funds are only a small part of the total dollars, the governor’s office says, but are vital to districts facing the biggest challenges. The May revision also strengthens the proposal’s accountability measures to make sure the targeted, at-risk students benefit from the money. (Josh Richman / BANG)

There is still a sizable group within the Legislature who would prefer to simply dish out the additional funds to the schools. And school districts. And teachers. But, negotiations on the issue are still active, and given that the decision will be made entirely by Democrats, some sort of deal will be worked out with the Legislature and the Governor. It is hard to argue that some of our poorest schools don’t need a bit of extra resources. But all schools will get at least some additional money under the May revised budget, and schools with additional needs will simply get a boost.

You can see the full May revised budget over the flip or at this link. Photo credit: Randy Bayne, 2010.

mayrevise

Budget, Jerry Brown

The Governor’s May Revised Budget: Tomorrow at 10

Budget “surplus” headed to education?

by Brian Leubitz

I’m a nerd, so this tweet was very exciting:

Now, I’ll probably we watching this live online, but in case you can’t, I’ll make a few comments tomorrow. However, before we get the details of where the Governor is looking, a few points.

First, the so-called surplus is looking like it might end up in the $4.5 billion range. However, before we get any plans on how we can spend it, Prop 98’s educational funding guarantees get precedence. We have already “borrowed” from Prop 98 guaranteed money, and much of that will have to be paid back to the schools. Not exactly the end of the world (in fact, more money for schools is a very, very good thing), but it leaves less flexibility than perhaps the Governor would prefer.

The Governor would like to leave much of that money as some sort of rainy day fund, but other interests are clamoring for the restoration of some of the worst cuts from the past few years. The judiciary has been especially hard hit, and social services budget are minuscule compared to the past. If the governor is going to be able to save some of that money, he’ll have to negotiate some sort of compromise with the teachers and education advocates while also holding off on some of the critical spending priorities we are facing.

We’ll get a lot more details when the May revised budget comes out tomorrow…

Uncategorized

How Two Assembly Incumbents Lost in 2012


Right-leaning groups took on traditional Democratic power base with the help of “top-two” voting

by Brian Leubitz

Both Michael Allen and Betsy Butler faced difficult reelections in 2012. Butler decided to run in what was basically a new district when she opted for the progressive AD-50 seat. She did represent a small portion (less than 10%), but she certainly didn’t carry the same incumbent advantage you typically expect.  She defeated Torie Osborn and Richard Bloom in the primary, but with top-two she had to come back again to face Democratic Santa Monica mayor Bloom.

Meanwhile in Marin County, Michael Allen had to move from his Santa Rosa base to a Marin district due to the new districts. Like Butler, Allen, while an incumbent, was new to these voters. San Rafael City Councilman Marc Levine was something of a grassroots champion. He was very involved with the state Democratic party, serving as eboard rep for the old AD-6, as well as the local party.  However, he saw the writing on the wall after his second place finish, and started aggressively courting independent and Republican voters.

The CalBuzz team took a deep dive into how the two races went downhill for the two “incumbents,” and the story is well worth a careful read and a tale on how typically conservative interest groups will look at influencing a new one-party Legislature.

We also know that we’ll see lots more of this kind of thing in the future – in both Democratic and Republican races – as the top-two primary system encourages moderate candidates with guts and gumption to take on left- and right-wingers in hopes of getting into a run-off election where independent and other-party voters can provide the margin of victory.

What makes these two Assembly races particularly intriguing is the fact that both Republican and Democratic strategists were crucial in electing moderate-to-liberal Democrats who were perceived as less beholden to labor unions and thus more palatable to business interests.

There’s also the fact that the California Chamber and Western Growers – after thumping Mr. Speaker Himself – appear to have tried to hide their involvement by working through shell vendors, sharing valuable data and personnel and failing to report their spending until they were exposed months later. (HT to Dan Morain for digging into this whole issue.)(CalBuzz)

I won’t spend a long time going over their article, but rather implore you to read the whole thing, and maybe again a second time. While I won’t rehash the viscous AD-50 race that was already well documented here, I happen to personally like Marc Levine. I’ve known him for several years through CDP and other events, and he ran a strong campaign. The IEs that supported him, however, were hardly paragons for progressive values. Maybe a bit more disclosure will blunt the impact of these IEs, but they are clearly here to stay.

Health Care

How Much Secrecy Does the Health Insurance Exchange Need?

New Exchange has extraordinary levels of secrecy approved by the federal government

by Brian Leubitz

For the states that are proceeding with the setup of a state-based health insurance exchange, contracts are beginning to go out. Bids are coming from a number of sources, and the states are doing their best to get the best deals. And getting the best deal may require a temporary level of secrecy, but why would California’s need so much more secrecy than any other state? That’s what the federal government granted the state in a recent waiver:

The degree of secrecy afforded Covered California appears unique among states attempting to establish their own health insurance exchanges under President Barack Obama’s signature health law.

An Associated Press review of the 16 other states that have opted for state-run marketplaces shows the California agency was given powers that are the most restrictive in what information is required to be made public.(Michael Blood / AP)

A few other states have explicitly applied their open records’ act to the exchanges, while others have exempted commercial and financial information. But apparently we have gone the extra mile in authorizing the exchange and the exemption from our own open records laws:

In California, the explicit exclusions from open-records laws may run afoul of the state constitution, said Terry Francke, head of Californians Aware, a group that promotes government transparency.

If the Legislature wants to limit access, the state constitution requires it produce findings that demonstrate the need for shielding information from the public. In the bill that authorized the exchange, the Legislature devoted two sentences to address that issue. It argued the cloaked spending was “necessary” to protect “powers and obligations to negotiate on behalf of the public.”

There may be some issues, but in all likelihood this was totally permissible. In fact, closed bids will probably allow the state to produce better value for the system. It would be nice to see some of the data, even if it comes out a few years later. But for now, this AP story has Sacramento buzzing…

Uncategorized

Assembly Passes Bill to Protect Transgender Students

Bill passes Assembly on GiveOUT Day 2013

by Brian Leubitz

Today is “Give OUT” day, a nationwide fundraising drive for LGBT organizations. So the timing of the Assembly’s passage of AB 1266 couldn’t have been better as a way for me to make a pitch or two. The bill ensures that transgender students in California have equal and full access to programs and facilities on the basis of their gender identity.

“This shows the nobility of what a Legislature can do,” bill author Assemblymember Tom Ammiano said on the Assembly floor.

The bill clarifies existing law, which already prohibits discrimination against transgender students. While some large districts – Los Angeles and San Francisco – are already successfully working with these students on the basis of their gender identities, many school districts are not presently in compliance with these requirements.

“Because somebody is uncomfortable is not a reason to discriminate,” Ammiano said, responding to opponents of the bill, who argued that inclusion of transgender students would cause discomfort to others.

This bill does not require schools to create new programs or new facilities for any students and therefore would not have any fiscal impact. However, making the gender identity requirement clear will help parents and students understand their rights while also helping schools comply with the law, reducing conflict and the potential for litigation, while protecting students’ health and well-being.

While a lot of work has been done to decrease bullying for gay and lesbian students, transgender youth are often hit particularly hard and may find it more difficult to find the resources that they need. That’s one reason why I have given to the Transgender Law Center, a fantastic civil rights organization based in San Francisco. Though they were founded just over ten years ago, TLC is California’s first “fully staffed, state-wide transgender legal organization.” You can contribute to TLC here or you can find your favorite LGBT organization at the GiveOUT 2013 home page.

Uncategorized

Thousands Sign Petitions Supporting California Disclose ACT

1 Comment

California Disclose ACT grows grassroots network

by Brian Leubitz

I don’t ordinarily post updates on every petition on legislation. There are just too many of them. However, the online and offline petitions for the California DISCLOSE Act are worthy of a mention.

On SignOn.org, MoveOn’s online petition site, three petitions already have over 53,000 signatures. Here are the links, where you can add your own name if you are so inclined:

Russ Feingold’s Progressives United Petition: Over 35K signatures

Clean Money Campaign’s petition: Over 16K signatures

Pat Johnstone, of Marin OFA and other grassroots fame: Nearly 1K signatures and nearly 500

This is in addition to the hard copy petitions that Clean Money Campaign and other volunteers have been gathering. If you were at the CDP convention over the last few years, you would have seen some of those petitions going around. By this point, the signature totals on those are probably enormous.

The California DISCLOSE Act is a simple proposal to require political funders to announce who they really are in political advertisements. It won’t stop anybody from spending gobs of cash on an initiative, or setting up an Independent Expenditure committee to promote or attack legislative candidates. However, it will force them to take ownership and responsibility for the words that they speak.