All posts by Brian Leubitz

Uncategorized

Recidivism Is the Target

1 Comment

How do we work to address overpopulation at jails and prisons?

by Brian Leubitz

Sometimes you’ll see some unlikely collaborations, and just kind of look askance at the written words. Sometimes you do a true double take, and that is exactly what happened upon reading this op-ed by Tim Silard, President of the Rosenberg Foundation, and Mike Jimenez, president of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA).

Counties also are tasked with dealing with California’s recidivism rate, one of the highest in the nation, and local law enforcement must ensure that the state’s revolving prison door problem does not become a county jail problem. A job is one of the best tools for reducing recidivism, and one solution is for the state and local officials to join forces to create multi-county re-entry facilities, again at less cost. Inmates nearing the end of their sentences can be trained and eased back into society, and given the job and life skills they need when they leave jail. (SacBee)

I’ve have enormous respect for Tim Silard, and his work on criminal justice reform. CCPOA, on the other hand, is known to be all over the map on prison reform.  A collaboration with a foundation that focuses on civil rights, and has a history with prison reform, isn’t really all that expected. But there it is.

With realignment, counties will now be expected to take up a lot more of the slack. However, they need the tools and the resources for the state. With a 2/3 majority, Democrats need to move past any fears of “Willie Horton” ads. We simply cannot continue spending billions upon billions on warehousing inmates.

But there is a win-win opportunity here with programs like job training. They help reduce recidivism, saving us money, and also making our communities safer.

Marriage Equality

Prop 8’s fate to be determined at the Supreme Court

3 Comments

Supreme Court takes on marriage equality, Prop 8 and DOMA

by Brian Leubitz

Mark your calendars for June 2013. That’s the close of the current Supreme Court session, and by that time we should have a decision on marriage equality. On Friday, the Court announced that it would hear cases on both Prop 8 and the so-called “Defense of Marriage” Act. But there is a caveat in the Supreme Court’s order:

About two decades after the campaign to win the right to marry for same-sex couples began, the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon agreed to consider – but not necessarily to decide – some of the most important constitutional issues at the heart of that national controversy.  Each side gained the opportunity to make sweeping arguments, for or against such marriages.  But the Court left itself the option, at least during the current Term, of not giving real answers, perhaps because it lacks the authority to do so. (ScotuBlog)

With respect to that open question of whether the Court has standing, it is a question that was at the center of much speculation before the 9th Circuit’s decision. Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit determined that the proponents of the law, ProtectMarriage.com, had standing to defend it. If the Court decides that it doesn’t have standing, Judge Walker’s original decision will hold and marriages will resume in California.

Now, as a matter of scheduling, we should have oral argument for both cases early next year. The cases will likely be scheduled for the same day, but that is not definite at this point.

Turning to the merits, well, you can find many reasonable predictions. But the Dean of UC-Irvine Law is both esteemed and usually pretty accurate at this game. His take:

“I believe the court will find that Prop. 8 and (the Defense Of Marriage Act) are unconstitutional,” Chemerinsky said. “The court decision will be 5-4 and I predict Justice Kennedy will write it. The court will say that the government has no legitimate interest in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. …

“Justice Kennedy wants to write the next Brown v. Board of Education, not the next Plessy v. Ferguson,” Chemerinsky said.

Kennedy has actually been pretty good on LGBT rights issues, having written Lawrence v Texas and Romer v Evans, two of the most noteworthy gay rights cases.

For further discussion of possible options on how the Court goes on these cases, check out the Same Sex Marriage Section of ScotusBlog. NYU Law Professor Kenji Yoshino has a particularly interesting take on the three main ways that the Court could strike down Prop 8 without requiring nationwide marriage equality.

Budget, Jerry Brown

The Low Hanging Fruit? Reducing Tax Thresholds

7 Comments

PPIC Poll shows support for some Prop 13 Reforms

by Brian Leubitz

There’s good news and bad news in yesterday’s PPIC poll. The bad news first, Prop 13, or at least that branding, is still popular. When asked if they felt whether Prop 13 has mostly been a good thing or a bad thing for California, a strong majority said “good thing.” 60% of Californians generally, and even 55% of Democrats say that Prop 13 has been good for the state.

Yet, that doesn’t really tell the whole story. When it comes to the particulars of our messed up taxation system, Californians are very amenable to change. Take the 2/3 vote that is required by voters on local special taxes. When asked whether they would support the threshold going back to 55%,  54% of Californians said they would support it.

Fortunately for us, we at least have a start on that.

So, this doesn’t even go so far as the PPIC poll tells us that voters are willing to go. It is a modest reform that would allow community colleges and K12 school districts put parcel taxes on the local ballot with only a 55% threshold. That would simply put taxes at parity with bonds, as voters already made that change in the early part of the last decade.  

With the pending supermajority, we will have the opportunity to put many measures on the ballot. Perhaps we should be thinking bigger, about totally overhauling our the taxation system. Surely we can’t be giving the voters measure after measure with tweaks.

But Prop 30 bought us a bit of time. We have five years to come up with a sustainable revenue system. A system that can see us through the booms and the busts. Whatever that may be, starting with a simple change in 2014 seems a good place to start.  And if we can’t pass Senator Leno’s measure, we have to question what use the supermajority is at all.  So, let’s get SCA 3 passed quickly and move on from there.

I close with a passage from Federalist 58 on the subject of thresholds:

As connected with the objection against the number of representatives, may properly be here noticed, that which has been suggested against the number made competent for legislative business. It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences. Lastly, it would facilitate and foster the baneful practice of secessions; a practice which has shown itself even in States where a majority only is required; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than any other which has yet been displayed among us.

Uncategorized

What is a “Safe Seat”? And Can the Republicans Save Themselves?

In an era of nonpartisan districting, what is a safe seat?

by Brian Leubitz

Much will be written about what brought Steve Fox to the Assembly. The unlikely Assemblyman from the normally solid Republican foothills of LA County was shall we say, not expected to win. The area’s voting history made most observers inclined to believe that it would be a relatively easy Republican victory for Ron Smith, the Republican in the top-2. And that was shown in stark relief by Fox’s website and the seeming lack of interest in the race by the usual Sacramento suspects.

Tony Quinn, an editor of the California Target Book and a former redistricting lead for the Republican Assembly caucus in 1971 and 1981, has a great take on the  race, the 2012 election, and the role of the two parties in California going forward:

So what’s the problem? Well, over the summer local Democrats put on a big registration drive in this middle class district, as they did across the state and using the new online registration signed up a whole lot of new voters.  And guess who they were: loads of young Latinos, citizens and native Californians, who have learned to read and write, no thanks to the Republicans, and know who their friends are and who they are not.  Because they were new voters, many were not on the precinct rolls, so they cast provisional ballots.  And that is who manipulated the election, Mr. Smith.  The new voters who voted.

It isn’t a long article, and certainly worth a full read. Yet the point is there. If demographics really are destiny, where does that leave the Republican party. Perhaps this is the first in a number of calls for reform in the so-called GOP. Or perhaps it will go unheeded once again.

The Democratic Party did a good job on registration. Partially by using new tools, like the online voter registration, and partially by good ol’ fashioned shoe leather. But, the Republicans have been doing much of the work of marginalization of their party all by themselves.

With the news that Jim Brulte is considering a bid to run the CA Republican Party, perhaps they can work towards a more practical future. Brulte has a history as a right-wing Republican, but that being said, he also know how to work within the system to get things done. It would take a Herculean effort, as the Republicans can simply not survive relying on the traditional voter base alone.

But, even with a somewhat pragmatic leader like Brulte, Quinn points out that the Democrats really left several seats on the table this election.

Democrats actually failed to make the gains they could have in this election; there are about half a dozen newly-elected Republicans in districts like Smith’s who faced unknown and unfunded Democrats in 2012 but still had mediocre showings because of Latino turnout in their districts.  

Of course, the answer isn’t as simple as Latino turnout alone. However, with additional resources and targeting, 2014 and 2016 could mean the further marginalization of a party that once ran this state.

Uncategorized

Gay Therapy Bill Blocked by Federal Judge

1 Comment

Bill signed last year would block therapists from “converting” gay minors

by Brian Leubitz

Sen. Ted Lieu’s bill barring anti-gay conversion therapy from being practiced on minors was blocked by a federal judge yesterday.

A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked California from enforcing a first-of-its-kind law that bars licensed psychotherapists from working to change the sexual orientations of gay minors, but he limited the scope of his order to just the three providers who have appealed to him to overturn the measure.(AP via Fresno Bee)

Judge Shubb, a HWBush appointee who is known for his forceful presence in the courtroom, didn’t really strike down the law, per se. However, with this action he both indicates that the therapists have a decent shot of winning and he can expand the scope to further therapists. However, another federal judge is also considering the case in Sacramento, so the legal wrangling on this one is just beginning.

However, it is worth pointing out a snip from Shubb’s order

“Even if SB 1172 is characterized as primarily aimed at regulating conduct, it also extends to forms of (conversion therapy) that utilize speech and, at a minimum, regulates conduct that has an incidental effect on speech,” Shubb wrote.

The judge also disputed the California Legislature’s finding that trying to change young people’s sexual orientation puts them at risk for suicide or depression, saying it was based on “questionable and scientifically incomplete studies.”(AP via Fresno Bee)

Now, the protection of free speech, no matter how disgusting the content is and should be one of the most important duties of our government. That being said, this bill was narrowly tailored to minors only, and if anybody over 18 wants to make themselves miserable by trying to change who they are, therapists are legally allowed to oblige them. However, the state clearly has an interest in protecting LGBT minors, who are often forced into such clinics. The legal path is just beginning, but we can hope that this is just a temporary setback.

Uncategorized

Steve Fox Who?

2 Comments

Assembly Stunner

by Brian Leubitz

Suffice it to say that Steve Fox was on nobody’s radar this year. You can tell that he wasn’t on the Assembly Democratic Caucus target list, as the SteveFox4Assembly website is pretty, um, atrocious. That is unless you are into free geo-cities type websites with a bunch of talk-to-camera videos with interesting messaging.

But, be that as it may, Steve Fox looks set to win a stunner of a race in the new AD-36 over Republican Ron Smith. While he was down on election day by over 2000 votes, he has clawed his way back to the narrowest of wins.  (less than 50 votes, last time I checked)

So who exactly is Steve Fox? Well, he previously ran for Assembly as a Republican, and has apparently signed the Norquist anti-tax pledge. But he does seem to support public education funding (see video). However, he will likely be something of a wildcard vote. But, probably better than a wildcard Republican vote.

2012 was the absolute worst case scenario for California Republicans. The question now has to be whether they intend to do anything about it beyond further moving toward their out of touch base vote.

Marriage Equality

Prop 8 litigation status at the Supreme Court likely determined today. UPDATE:Nope.

Supreme Court to decide on future of Prop 8 litigation

by Brian Leubitz

It has been over four years since Prop 8 passed in November 2008. Though it would now appear as pro-equality forces are on the march nationally, and could have flipped the 2008 final tally this year, we are still waiting for news from the Supreme Court.

In theory, that should come today. While the court could possibly hold over a final decision, that’s the luxury of being the nation’s highest court, I suppose. However, the justices were to discuss the case and announce a decision on whether to grant review of the decision today. So, what are we looking at?

If they decline to review the decision, Prop 8 remains dead in California. Marriages would likely begin once the Ninth Circuit lifts the stay and clears the last few procedural hurdles. Unfortunately, due to the narrow decision of the panel, the case only directly impacts California.  However, you would certainly have to think that marriage inequality amendments in other 9th Circuit states will be looked at skeptically until there is a Supreme Court decision.

If they take the case, a decision would likely come in the batch of decisions released in June after oral arguments. The Court also will decide whether to look at the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.  With DOMA have being ruled unconstitutional in several states, it seems at least better than a 50-50 call that the Court will deal with at least one of the LGBT rights issues.

And, so the waiting continues…

UPDATE: Well, as soon as I post this, it seems that they may be pushing it off. Not official yet, but ScotusBlog has a good track record. Their rumor  is that the Court is determining which marriage equality cases to take, especially with regards to the DOMA cases.

UPDATE: Well, the time has come and gone on Monday now too. It looks like Friday is the next best guess. More from ScotusBlog.

Uncategorized

Tim Donnelly Brings Crisis Front and Center to the GOP

11 Comments

Minuteman Assemblyman looks to challenge for 2014 Governor’s race

by Brian Leubitz

Tim Donnelly isn’t one to shy from a fight, and clearly that’s what he has in mind by announcing a bid for the 2014 Governor’s gig. Now, Gov. Brown hasn’t yet announced his intentions, but the speculation is that he will likely be giving it another go. Challenging Gov. Brown, even with the state’s challenges, is a tall order that many prominent Republicans (read: wealthy outsiders) may not want to take on.

So, this is what is facing the California GOP. Unless the exceedingly unlikely happenstance of a Democrat challenging Brown occurs, Republicans will likely be free to have a free for all primary and still get on the general election ballot. That being said if there were any “adults” in the room of the California Republican establishment, you would expect that they would shutter at the thought of a Donnelly candidacy.

Let’s just look at what the Republicans have here. Donnelly is a far right conservative, out of step with the California electorate, to be sure. But that is probably not a disqualifier with today’s California Republican Party. But he really came to the public spotlight through his work with the Minutemen, the anti-immigration group. While leadership in a vigilante organization is always a bit tough to spot, clearly he was in the forefront. And the organization never was all that shy about talking about race and immigration.

So, this is where the CRP is headed. In a state that is a minority-majority state with a burgeoning Latino electorate, the first major Republican to announce an exploratory bid for the Governor’s spot is…a Minuteman leader.  If Donnelly does get on the general election, it is difficult to see a path for the Republicans out of the wilderness. As Prop 187 brought Wilson to power, it also set the CRP on its course for long-term irrelevance.  That culminated this year with a legislative supermajority.

Perhaps there is a place for the Republican Party in California, but if so, they’ll need to drastically review where they are headed.  The strategy and course they are on is great for a regional party, or perhaps a Southern State. But, unless they can find some way to attract a broader base, they’ll keep walking the road to minor party status.

Uncategorized

The Fall of Kindee Durkee

Campaign treasurer blames “bad business” on losing millions of Democratic campaign funds

by Brian Leubitz

Kindee Durkee is something akin to Lord Voldemort in the corridors of Democratic fundraisers. She squandered millions of dollars from a long list of Democrats, including several million from Sen. Feinstein.  Turns out that she apparently was really, really not cut out for the job. From a court filing (via SacBee):

“Although a significant amount of money was used to pay for personal expenses, including mortgage payments and credit card charges, a great deal of the stolen funds were used to keep the business afloat and her employees employed. … Unfortunately, it spiraled out of control, she lost track of the amount of the shortfall and it ultimately reached a level that she will be unable to repay in her lifetime.”

Durkee received 8 years for her crimes, but you would figure that she would be out sooner. Her career in accounting, well, that’s over.

Uncategorized

Sen. Leland Yee to run for Secretary of State

10 Comments

Leland Yee at a 20/20 CoffeeSF Mayoral Candidate has worked on election issues

by Brian Leubitz

While this will be a surprise to exactly nobody, Sen. Leland Yee is making it official, he’ll be a candidate for the 2014 election for SoS.

State Sen. Leland Yee, a San Francisco Democrat who has made voter access and open government among his main priorities as a lawmaker, will run for secretary of state when he is termed out of the Legislature in two years.  …

“Given the fact that I am termed out in two years, I looked long and hard at the options available,” Yee said. “Given the work I have done on voting, on transparency and on open government accountability, I thought the secretary of state position would be a nice fit for me.”(SF Chronicle)

Now putting aside the issue of term limits and legislators constantly looking to find a new seat, Yee will make for a formidable candidate in this race. He has worked on voting issues, and his bill for online registration saw a boom of around a million voters registering via the internet.

With top-two elections, being the first mover is a fairly big advantage. The party will want to avoid a wild primary with lots of solid Democratic candidates so that we don’t inadvertently hand an office to the Republicans. Yee certainly has his share of detractors, but with his background on the issues and a pretty strong base in San Francisco, he will be a strong candidate.

UPDATE: Here’s his tweet on the subject.