Large protest at Capitol draws attention, results unclear

by Brian Leubitz

If you have been paying attention, you have noticed the appalling cuts that the state’s university systems have taken. In fact, a recent study showed that for most middle class students, Harvard is now more affordable than the CSU system.  No matter what your goals are for the CSU system, this is a very bad thing. It is not functioning as a way to improve the lives of middle and lower class Californians, and it is not providing the resources for economic development that it should.

And so we get yesterday’s protests from students of both university systems and their supporters:

Another day of protests played out at the state Capitol on Monday with thousands of demonstrators denouncing soaring higher education costs and a select group spending most of the day inside the rotunda to achieve one goal: getting arrested.

**** *** ****

The main group of arrestees, who will be charged with trespassing, apparently felt they had made their point, although it was unclear at times exactly what that was.

The ballooning cost of attending public colleges and universities in California was the primary focus, but at times the leaderless Occupy movement supporters discussed issuing demands on a range of issues, from the repeal of Proposition 13 to being allowed to use Capitol restrooms during their sit-in.(SacBee)

Occupy is very good at actions and getting attention. But in this case, and in others, the message got overpowered by the theatrics.  And maybe that’s fine, as there are more than enough wonks in Sacramento. Maybe the theatrics will be just the thing to open a few eyes.

But those eyes are just as recalcitrant as ever. The Republicans just look out on this, behind their anti-tax pledge suits, and glaze over.  Will this be the action that breaks through?  Or will there be more actions until it does? This protest was something of an organizing nightmare. But whether the state can continue to ignore the protests, when the function of our higher education systems continues to dwindle, is the larger question.

But as Dan Walters points out, higher education has taken a drubbing:

The thousands of college students who marched on the Capitol on Monday to protest rising fees and decreasing state support had a point: Higher education has taken a disproportionately heavy drubbing in recent years as politicians attempted – and largely failed – to balance the state budget.

The Legislature’s budget analyst has calculated that under Gov. Jerry Brown’s 2012-13 budget, state general fund spending on the University of California, the state university system and community colleges will have dropped 21 percent in five years, while fee and tuition revenue will have increased by 64 percent.(Sacbee)

There are a number of reasons for this, but you can mostly chalk it up to the fact that cutting higher education is the easiest. It involves the fewest lawsuits, and so the students get screwed over and over again. It is just one more piece of the dysfunctional governance by committee that gives the legislature strange cues.

We need more revenue, and we have two initiatives that would do that.  However, the Millionaire’s tax would actually get some of that to higher education for a change. Gee, isn’t that a novel idea.

Governor releases poll showing measures would fail if all three on ballot

by Brian Leubitz

Of course, the question then becomes which measure you actually put on the ballot. Brown’s poll has some interesting figures on that:

Both Brown’s temporary tax hike — a half-cent rise in the sales tax coupled with increased levies on higher earners — and a proposed tax increase on millionaires sponsored by some unions score more than 50% on the poll. Brown’s measure is at 53% while the millionaire’s tax polls at 55%, according to a statement from Sacramento-based pollster Jim Moore.

The third proposed tax hike, an across-the-board income tax hike to fund public education pushed by civil rights attorney Molly Munger, lags with only 31% support.

But if all three appear on the ballot, the release states, none cross the 50% threshold. Brown’s wins 43% support, the millionaire’s tax 42% and the income tax 17%. (LA Times)

Munger seems not to be interested in backing off, despite what poll after poll shows: her measure really can’t pass. And, really, it should be no surprise. It increases tax increase for everybody making any amount over about $7750.  That really isn’t going to fly with any electorate really.

Now, as to the question between Brown’s measure and the millionaire’s tax, the issues become closer.  Both sides seem intent on their own measures making it on the ballot.  While Brown’s has considerably more resources to get on the ballot, there is still a strong chance of both making it.  Unless somebody backs off, we stand a chance of seeing all three measures on the ballot.

For reasons of confusion and principle, having three on the ballot makes it even tougher to get one through to 50%.  And at this point, I’m not sure the little discussion through the media is really working.

Hurry up and wait as anti equality litigation team seeks more attractive ruling to Supreme Court

By Brian Leubitz

Given the proposition eight supporters previous statements that they preferred to go to the Supreme Court as quick as possible, the decision to appeal to Ninth Circuit as a whole probably deserves some explanation. But the big problem for the so-called protect marriage team is that the ruling from the Ninth Circuit three-judge panel is more narrow then they would have expected. It leaves open the possibility that the Supreme Court could actually decline to hear the case. And what they’re really looking for is the ability to continue on with their campaign of constitutional amendments against marriage equality.

So, rather than going directly to the Supreme Court, yesterday They decided to appeal the Ninth Circuit 11 judge panel:

ProtectMarriage, the sponsors of Proposition 8, will ask a larger panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to review the marriage dispute ruling instead of going straight to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a spokeswoman.

The 9th Circuit would have to vote on whether to grant the extra layer of review. If a majority favors it, a larger panel will reconsider the constitutionality of the marriage ban and issue a ruling. Such a reconsideration could delay U.S. Supreme Court review by months or more than a year. (LAT)

After all, what do they really have to lose? With the appeal pending, and the previous decision of the three-judge panel stayed, the prop 8 supporters really only have money to lose. But their supporters have really shown no lack of desire to continue funding the litigation.

As it is, no marriages can go forward while litigation is pending in the 9th circuit. And while they risk the country becoming increasingly accepting of marriage equality, assuming there is no change in the composition of the Supreme Ct., the risk is minimal. So they get to delay the possibility of marriages in California for the better part of another year.

The previous, narrow, decision is just a complicating factor for them as they face the Supreme Court. It sill seems unlikely that the Court will not hear the case, but whatever small chance that is becomes greater with the narrow opinion. If they get a worse decision at the 9th, the case will definitely go to the Supreme Court. And heck, there is always the chance that the 11 judge panel would decide against marriage equality.

So, plan on doing a little more hurrying up and a lot more waiting on the final resolution of the Prop 8 litigation.