Democratic Senator wants to spend more time with family

by Brian Leubitz

Michael Rubio was first elected to the Senate in 2010, and it looks like he won’t finish that term to its completion next year. He announced that he will be joining Chevron in its California governmental affairs department.

Rubio, citing the desire to spend more time with his family and a young daughter with special needs, “realized that my current professional path has left little opportunity to be home for those who are most important to me, which is why I am making a change.”

“My wife and I have been blessed with two beautiful daughters, from whom we have learned a great deal,” he said. “Our youngest child, who has special needs, has given me great perspective as to life’s priorities and our eldest has reminded me that the most critical decisions are made at home and not under the Capitol dome.”

The governor will call a special election shortly to fill the Democratic-leaning seat, which has an 18point D registration advantage. However, as Rubio was the chair of the Environmental Quality Committee and a leader on CEQA reform, the move could change the complexion of how we will change our environmental quality laws. As the most moderate of the Senate’s Mod Squad, his absence from the chamber could change the caucus to the left somewhat, even given the temporarily smaller majority.

UPDATE: One quick note, Anthony York points out that the special will be for the old 2010 district, the election in 2014 will be for the new district.

Special election fun fact! Race to replace @michaelrubio will be in old SD16, which has been redrawn. Reelect would be in new SD14 in 2014.

— Anthony York (@AnthonyYorkLAT) February 22, 2013

Works to correct for high rate of mistaken identifications

by Brian Leubitz

TV gives a strange impression of the justice system. Jurors come in thinking that there are huge fancy crime labs where money no object in pursuit of justice. Except that, in this climate particularly, money is very much an object. And on the other side of that is the fact that people just really prefer hearing from other people that were there, that saw something, over a number on a chart.

So, eyewitness testimony is compelling. The problem however is that our eyes, and our memories, are really not that great at these types of things. We miss big things in even relatively uncomplicated situations, like say, the video to the right. And when somebody gets on the stand and says that they are just totally sure that they saw the defendant, it tends to get believed. Yet, it leaves much to be desired. Just ask Ronald Ross.

Ross is due to be released from prison this month after spending years in state prison on the basis of a wrong identification. Following efforts by the Northern California Innocence Project, prosecutors in Alameda County have said they will ask a judge to release Ross, who was convicted of attempted murder in a 2006 shooting.

“The injustice to Ronald Ross was not the only terrible result in the Alameda County case,” Asm. Tom Ammiano said. “There was also the fact that the true culprit went free and committed other crimes because police stopped looking for him. This bill will reduce the chances of both of those problems.”

The bill requires trial judges to give juries instructions about witness identification procedures. The instruction would tell jurors they could take into account the way in which identification took place, and whether it met certain criteria. The presence of that instruction would create an incentive for investigators to use more careful procedures.

Police are stretched more thin than ever, and certainly there is risk of creating ever more burdensome regulations. However, when it comes to the risk of incorrectly locking somebody up with some very powerful evidence, a little extra legwork could go a long way.

by Brian Leubitz

Note: Old text moved beneath the fold

If you didn’t have a chance to catch the live stream of the thoroughly enjoyable conversation with Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, put it on your list of videos to watch when you have an hour or so. The video isn’t up on the PPIC website, but it should be available soon here. In the meantime, as this is a blog that spends many pixels on budget issues, I’ll include a bit of my own recording on the subject.

The underlying point is this: You can’t cut 30% of the budget of one of the largest systems of justice in the nation and expect that there will be no substantial service cuts. Over three years, $1B was cut in general fund spending on the courts. Considering the current annual budget is not much more that figure on an annual basis, that’s real money. Despite courts only accounting for 1.2% of the general fund, we get an enormous return on that investment.

However, it is inordinately difficult to adjust to such large cuts so quickly. In LA, 10 courts were closed, Fresno had seven courts closed, and in perhaps the most dramatic instance, San Bernardino County’s three closures meant that some residents of the county will have to drive 175 miles to get to court. Now, you might say that those are folks that are far from everything. That might be true, but for many these will just make it too difficult to access the justice system.  And ultimately, access to justice is the very heart of the judicial branch’s mission.

PPIC president Mark Baldassare spent a good chunk of the time with the Chief Justice discussing the death penalty and sentencing reform. On the death penalty front, she noted that one of the biggest causes of delay in the system was a lack of qualified attorneys willing to take on death penalty appeals. The work drags on for years, and requires a level of skill and commitment that is just simply difficult to find, never mind the issue of the pay. The courts are also working on implementing hybrid sentencing, including both jail and service time, in an attempt to reduce recidivism.

The Chief Justice also touched on the importance of civics education, the initiative process, and how much time of the Supreme Court is spent litigating those ballot measures.

At any rate, it was an hour well spent, check the PPIC site for the video when available.

The Chief Justice is about to sit down at the Public Policy Institute of California for a wide ranging conversation about the courts and their place in the state’s government.

Join us for a wide-ranging conversation with Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye-chief justice of California and leader of the state’s judicial branch-about the challenges and opportunities facing the courts as they seek to serve the needs of Californians. Topics include the relationship between California’s three branches of government, the effects of budget cuts on the court system, the importance of civics education, and the state supreme court’s role in the initiative process. (PPIC)

Several Republican governors have already rejected medicaid expansion

by Brian Leubitz

There was never any real whiff of news that Governor Brown would consider opposing the federally supported medicaid expansion, but in recent months he has been explicit about that support. Now he has some support from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s office

Legislative analyst Mac Taylor urged lawmakers to adopt an optional Medicaid expansion that features an enhanced cost match from the federal government, meaning Uncle Sam will pick up most of the tab and send billions of dollars flowing into the state.

Taylor says the additional money can be used improve health care in California even though the state will take on additional costs down the road. The report estimated that by taking on new enrollees, the state could be on the hook for between $300 million and $1.3 billion a year starting in 2020.

Gov. Jerry Brown has committed to expanding Medicaid, known as Medi-Cal in California, for people who make up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line, or about $15,400 a year for an individual. The analyst estimated the expansion will bring 1.2 million new enrollees by 2017.(Judy Lin/AP)

The decision to go ahead with the expansion means millions of Californians won’t have to worry what will happen if they get sick. Whether they can afford to have even the most basic preventative care that can head off major illness.

Not to pick on Governor Perry, but his decision to reject the expansion in Texas means that there is little relief on the way for the nation’s highest rate of uninsured. It seems a rough lot for such a big decision in an individual’s life to lie in the hands of a distant governor.

But there it is, and the LAO now says that the basic numbers behind the plan make sense for California. Good for California, not so good for Texas.

Relatively minor investment change, with big symbolism, made at the behest of Treasurer Bill Lockyer

by Brian Leubitz

With Newtown still less than two months ago, and the state and federal government still working on how to reduce gun violence, Treasurer Bill Lockyer has a simple idea for CalPERS: Ditch the manufacturers. Back in December, he called on both CalPERS and CalSTRS to sell their investments in major manufacturers. And both had some in their portfolios.

First, CalSTRS decided to drop their $2.9mil in investments in Smith&Wesson and Sturm Ruger, made through index funds, last month. Now, CalPERS has joined them in the decision.

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System’s board voted to divest its $5 million in shares of Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. and Sturm Ruger & Co. because the companies make weapons banned in the state.

California Treasurer Bill Lockyer, a member of the fund’s board, proposed that the state’s public pensions sell the shares after the Dec. 14 killings of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The move has been mirrored by public funds across the U.S.(Bloomberg)

The sales won’t do much to the stocks of either company, as fear continues to swell their sales figures. However, perhaps the statement the stock sales make will last longer than the upsurge in gun sales as we work towards a safer America.

Multiple candidates aiming to get into top two in March balloting

by Brian Leubitz

While the value of newspaper endorsements has surely waned, in a municipal election where many of the candidates are finding difficulties distinguishing themselves from each other, the LA Times endorsement could grab a few votes. And this round, City Councilman Eric Garcetti gets that nod:

As council president, [Garcetti] worked behind the scenes to awaken his colleagues to the depth of the city’s financial crisis and to take action they did not want to take, imposing layoffs and requiring those remaining in the workforce to shoulder more of the burden of their medical and pension benefits. At times when Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa should have been on hand to close difficult negotiations, the task was left to Garcetti, and he came through.  …

Voters at first embraced Villaraigosa because they saw in him the power to inspire. Garcetti has that too, but in a different, quieter fashion, and he backs it up with experience in City Hall, a share of troublesome mistakes and 12 years of achievement. If he avoids a tendency to be glib when he should motivate, and if he avoids the tendency to allow his finesse to give way to a desire to be all things to all people, he could be just what Los Angeles needs. At this time, out of this field, he’s the best choice for mayor.(LA Times)

Polls have been all over the place in the race, but for now, it looks like Garcetti and City Controller Wendy Greuel are in the best positions to grab one of the two spots in the May general election. But Councilwoman Jan Perry, Republican talk show host Kevin James, and perhaps a few others, are within striking distance depending on what the turnout and field programs look like over the last few weeks.

New York Times looks at the fallout of Prop 187 and anti-immigration politics

by Brian Leubitz

In 1994, Pete Wilson was looking at an election that was something of a risky proposition. The economy, like most of the country, was scuttling, and his favorable numbers weren’t doing so well.  As the race for the Democratic nomination shaped up with Kathleen Brown (sister of the current governor) easing to victory over (now Congressman) John Garamendi and Tom Hayden, the dynamic was not looking to be an easy win for Wilson.

Yet in November, Wilson had claimed a 15 point victory over Brown. What happened in those years? Before Karl Rove rose to national prominence, and this became a term, it was Rovian politics at its best. Wilson knew he needed something to both turn out his base as well as tear some undecided voters, whatever the cost.  The cost turns out to be the future viability of the California Republican party by going all out for Proposition 187, the egregiously (and unconstitutionally) anti-immigrant measure that would have blocked the state to providing most services to immigrants.

It worked in 1994, with the issue serving as a wedge that motivated the majority white voting bloc to lean heavily towards Wilson. Yet, just as surely as it worked in 1994, the fallout has been devastating to the CRP. Every few years, some reporter writes about the legacy of Prop 187.

As Congress begins debating an overhaul of the immigration system, many in California sense that the country is just now beginning to go through the same evolution the state experienced over the last two decades. For a generation of Republicans, Gov. Pete Wilson’s barrages on the impact of immigration in the 1990s spoke to their uneasiness with the way the state was changing. Now many California Republicans point to that as the beginning of their downfall.

*** **** ***

“The fact that the Republican Party got identified with anti-immigration has made things very difficult for them,” said Mark Baldassare, the president of the Public Policy Institute of California, which closely monitors shifts in the state. “It is what is going on nationally now, but California started much earlier.”(NYT)

The Republicans are now attempting to dig themselves out of that mess, but it takes more than a few platitudes to make up for a generation of words and deeds. The demographics make it nearly impossible to win statewide election without a considerable portion of the Latino vote. And, interestingly enough, this is where Texas looks like it may be following in California’s footsteps. The two states now have nearly half of the nation’s Latino population, and both are rapidly growing.

California has always been on the leading edge, especially in politics. As goes California, so goes the nation. Jim Brulte and his CRP compatriots have a lot of colleagues in the same boat across the nation. Changing the dialogue is a gargantuan task, and one that may terrify much of the activist base.

Photo credit: Metro Transportation Library and Archive. Gov. Pete Wilson with LA Mayor Tom Bradley

Legislation would extend access to plug-in hybrids three years

by Brian Leubitz

Do you have a plug-in hybrid yet? Probably not, as they are still pretty rare. Complete electric vehicles (Nissan Leaf, Tesla, etc) are even more rare.

However, the state’s HOV lane access program for the partial electric vehicles is scheduled to expire in 2015. At this point, there are apparently stickers left to be had, something that was not the case for plain ol’ hybrids at the same point in the HOV lane program. It seems the program might have gotten a little ahead of itself in just exactly how many folks would be getting the vehicles at what time.

So, Sen. Leland Yee (D-SF) is looking to push out the time horizon three years in SB 286. The bill would extend both the “green sticker” for partial EVs and “white sticker” for full EVs.

“Many of the latest generation of clean vehicles – the plug-in hybrids – were not widely available until recently and thus there are still stickers available,” said Yee. “By extending the life of the 40,000 available stickers, SB 286 will provide a much greater incentive for individuals to purchase these clean cars.”

“It is imperative that we find ways to limit our carbon footprint,” said Yee.  “Over the next few years we should continue to reevaluate the program and find ways to continue to incentivize the manufacturing, sale, and purchase of greener automobiles.”

Well, now, if you have one, rejoice, you are on the road to 3 more years in the HOV lane. And if you don’t well, they say driving less and keeping your car’s emissions clean is the best way to reduce your carbon footprint…