All posts by Brian Leubitz

Uncategorized

CA-26: Asm. Julia Brownley to seek Congressional seat

1 Comment

Race could be critical for Democratic hopes in the House

by Brian Leubitz

Since Sup. Steve Bennett dropped out of the race for CA-26, the Democrats have been looking for a candidate that could raise the money in what is likely to be a pretty expensive race.  Bennett had been pretty successful at fund raising, and has promised to help for any future Democratic candidate.  Until now, that has been limited to David Cruz Thayne, who is described as a “businessman” on the CA-26 page on AroundTheCapitol. But considering that Tony Strickland appears set to contest this race, his fundraising left a lot to be desired.

So, enter Asm. Julia Brownley, who represents much of the district in the Assembly in a district that runs the coast from Santa Monica to Oxnard:

I’m thrilled to announce my candidacy for Congress in a district I’ve represented for over five years. It’s clear that we need to end the partisan gridlock in Washington and start representing the interests of the voters who elected us. Ventura County residents want to get back to work, they want their children to have the same quality education they had, they want to make sure our coastlines are protected and they want access to affordable health care. These are the values I’ve fought for on behalf of my constituents and I’d be honored to be able to continue that work in Congress.

Brownley received Bennett’s endorsement, so perhaps this could really be all one big story. But whatever it happened, it certainly made the DCCC happy. In Brownley they found somebody with good name ID and fundraising acumen. Assuming the top-two is between Strickland and Brownley, expect to see a very expensive campaign.

Finally, as David Nir points out, this likely puts the kibosh on the pressure to move Brad Sherman over to this seat instead of the new 30th district. Game on, “-ermans”.

Uncategorized

Where Would You Put Your Next Political Dollar?

12 Comments

If you were spending a few bucks in California politics, where would you put it?

by Brian Leubitz

I was recently asked by a Democratic donor where I would recommend giving money in state politics. Well, that is certainly a challenging question.  Like the national Dems, the state dems have quite the bit of dysfunction.

I think there are a few different priorities, which occasionally come into conflict. First, in order to really break the deadlock in Sac, you need to get to 2/3 in each house. The absolute hard and fast anti-tax pledges from the Republicans mean that you can’t really accomplish any larger goals w/o 2/3. And that goal is very doable, at least in the Senate, this year. The Assembly is less likely, but not impossible. So, if that’s the goal, then there are a few races where you would want to contribute: Cathleen Galgiani in SD-05, Russ Warner in AD-40 and a number of other.  You can  find more swing seats at AroundTheCapitol.

The other question is about better Democrats.  As you get to the end of each session, you always see good bills die because some “moderate” Democrat came up with some reason to walk out on the vote or just plain voted against it. There are more than a few examples of a Democrat that runs as somebody who won’t raise your taxes, or will cut regulations, or something similarly anti-progressive that feeds into Republican talking points. That is more than a single campaign issue, more than just one race, whether that be in Santa Barbara or the Central Valley, we need to work on developing candidates that will work to get the state on the right track through progressive economic growth.

In that we are fortunate to have the party lead by a strong progressive like John Burton, and they can do some of that work. However, ultimately that has to come through training and cultivation that may or may not be the right place for the party. It is somewhat conflicted in this matter, as they represent both sides of the intraparty fight. Term limits make it all that much more difficult as you have to keep looking for new candidates.

This June there will be a measure on the ballot to at least fix that one small part, moving term limits to 12 years total. And in November there will be a number of Dem-on-Dem races where we need to ensure that a progressive wins, while also picking up those swing districts? These are somewhat competing interests, and as a donor, you have to choose your priorities?

So, any thoughts?

Uncategorized

Asm. Shannon Grove has better things to do

5 Comments

Bakersfield Republican doesn’t think she has been using her time productively.



by Brian Leubitz

If you are like me, you don’t really know who Shannon Grove is.  But if you are also like me, you are going to be rather confused when you hear the message that she brings to you courtesy of the Inter-tubes.

See, she’s a member of the Assembly who wants to go back to the idyllic days of a “citizen legislature” who aren’t “professional politicians.”  What Shannon apparently doesn’t remember from her California history classes or didn’t bother to look at in Texas, the state closest to us in size that has a part-time legislature, is that a part-time legislature breeds corruption and conflicts of interests galore.

Sure, it would be great if the state could be governed in a period of 90 days every other year, but things aren’t really that easy.  Leaving California to a part-time legislature means that while the lobbyists never go away, the legislators do.  Guess what that means for the relative power between the groups? The last thing we need is a further increase in power in unelected staffers and lobbyists.

But, you know, what the heck, why not have people who are in industry vote on that industry? Sounds great!

If Shannon Grove thinks she’s not busy enough, maybe she should find a different line of work. One that she finds more satisfying.  Maybe she doesn’t like regulating fonts (that would be so we have better campaign finance disclosure) or shark fins (so we stop torturing sharks), but these are important issues.  That she is so flippant about them, makes me think that perhaps she could find work that is more satisfying.

Uncategorized

Nerd Out with the Sac Press Club

If only it weren’t true…

by Brian Leubitz

Because the world hasn’t seen enough of the sh*t __ says videos, the Sacramento Press Club thought they’d toss one more into the mix.  And of all the sh*t says videos, well, this is certainly one of them.

Uncategorized

The Good, Bad, and Ugly of the Democratic Convention

2 Comments

Democratic convention went mostly to script

by Brian Leubitz

Election year Democratic conventions are traditionally all about the cheerleading.  And so there was a lot of praise for President Obama, and Dem. Leader Nancy Pelosi.  That was all rousing, but to be expected.

There was much to do about the endorsement battle in two districts: CD-30 and AD-50.  The Valley Congressional Battle of the “-ermans”, Brad Sherman and Howard Berman, finished at a draw, but not without allegations of cheating back and forth, patheticness, and even a handwriting expert. (Yes, really.) You can check out John Myers reportage on the event.  It really was that crazy.

In AD-50, the Assembly pushing delegates into the district was successful, as Betsy Butler secured the endorsement. But many were still upset about the situation:

Here is where State Party rules are not only stacked in favor of incumbents – but give politicians like John Perez an unsavory role in manipulating the outcome. On Saturday, delegates from the 50th Assembly District gathered to make the Party endorsement. Assembly members can appoint up to five delegates, but only three must live in the legislator’s district. Therefore, Perez asked all Democratic Assembly members to set aside their two “non-resident” slots – so he can appoint delegates who live in the 50th District, and will vote for Betsy Butler over Torie Osborn.

As I walked in to observe the 50th Assembly District caucus on Saturday (as a San Francisco delegate, I could not vote – but I attended to observe), aides for Perez were in full force with clipboards – keeping track of who had shown up to vote for Butler. Aides for other Democratic Assembly members like Fiona Ma had already been working the Convention for the past day, promoting Betsy Butler. This was a well coordinated effort to rig the endorsement, for the Speaker to deliver for one of his members. The Osborn campaign knew they didn’t have much of a shot.(BeyondChron)

Chairman Burton later told a relevant committee that he wanted the situation to end.  A reasonable compromise would be to allow the appointment of delegates from anywhere, but simply eliminate the voting rights for local endorsement issues. Seems to me that would eliminate the entire mess.

At any rate, despite the disagreements, the Party seemed excited to take on the greater challenges facing us this year: the reelection of President Obama and the rejection of “Paycheck Deception.”

Uncategorized

CDP Convention Begins Today

New platform and gearing up for the Presidential election is on tap in San Diego

by Brian Leubitz

I’m about to head down to San Diego for the annual installment of CDP convention madness. Or as I like to call it, a weekend with some fellow political nerds.

As you’ve probably read on these pages, there are some issues of party endorsements going on.  AD-50 (Bloom, Butler, Osborn) has been a very competitive fight, with legislators moving delegates into the district and accusations of club packing. And the bruising battle between the “-ermans”, Brad Sherman and Howard Berman, in CD-30 has meant that I’ve received more mail for a CDP convention than I ever thought possible.

Other notable events include the ratification of the state party platform.  The platform committee will be meeting all day today to nail down the wording, and you can drop on by to learn more.

I’ll be around all weekend, come find me and say hi!  I’ll be doing most of my updating 140 characters at a time, so follow my twitter account to get the latest updates.

Environment

Why Can’t Regular Citizens Get a Fair Shake in Sacramento?

Bill to change statute of limitations for polluters stalls out

by Brian Leubitz

When people complain about the Legislature, it is precisely because of things like this story from the always interesting California Watch.

Under pressure from construction, architect and other industry groups, state legislators killed a bill that would have closed a loophole used by businesses to evade pollution lawsuits.

Sponsored by Assemblyman Warren Furutani, D-Long Beach, AB 1207 arose out of a lawsuit in Carson, where residents discovered in 2009 that for nearly five decades, their families have been exposed to dangerous levels of cancer-causing toxins emanating from their properties. There is no state law that explicitly puts time limits on pollution cases, which often are discovered decades after the toxic dumping occurs.

However, Shell Oil Co. and a local developer were able to initially get the resident lawsuit thrown out by claiming the state’s 10-year time limit on “construction defect” claims had expired.

It is never hard to kill a bill that can be even tangentially tied to the evil “trial lawyers”. However, in this situation, and many others, lawsuits are the only ramification for Californians who have been well and royally screwed by big companies. This time it was a developer and Shell Oil, but you can trace these same general circumstances to many other cases.

The buyers and renters of homes in Carson simply had no way to know that they were moving into property that was on top of a toxic waste dump. But Shell knew, and at some level, the developers should have known if they did their due diligence. But money comes first, and that didn’t happen because any answers would be inconvenient.

And so a generation later, people in Carson are stuck with toxic property. And somehow there is a statue of limitations for an event that they could have no way of knowing? It is a perversion of the concept of statute of limitations, which is intended to force people to act on situations of which they are aware.

Best of luck to Asm. Furutani and any other legislators who take up this bill. This shouldn’t happen to other Californians. But what this really speaks of is the sheer power of lobbyists and industry in Sacramento. I try to imagine the situation where a majority of Californians prefers this outcome, and I just can’t imagine such a world. No, this was all about moneyed interests against a diffuse sense of right and wrong.

I suppose it shouldn’t surprise much that the money won.

Prisons

Can We Just Drop the R from CDCR again?

1 Comment

Gov. Brown denies parole for almost all of parole board’s recommended release candidates with murder charges

by Brian Leubitz

This is a failing system:

California Gov. Jerry Brown pardoned 21 people in his first year in office and rejected parole for 71 first- and second-degree murderers who had been recommended for release by the parole board.

Brown did allow for the early release of just one person, Tung Nguyen of Garden Grove, who was convicted of first-degree murder for his role in a motel-room killing in a dispute over money. … Unlike the 71 other such recommendations rejected by Brown, the governor approved Nguyen’s parole, based in part on his role in helping 50 civilians to safety who were on the prison yard during a 2006 inmate riot.

There was once a point to a parole board. They were doctors and social workers who specialized in examining risk to the public. They still are the same people, but now their recommendations are completely ignored. Few of the violent offenders that are recommended for early release are actually released. Offenders with “life” sentences that are eligible for parole should just consider the first word, and forget the rest.

Since the governor was granted the power to reject parole board recommendations, rarely has a governor not taken advantage of that power. There is simply no real upside of releasing a prisoner, but the downside political risk is huge.  And so nobody gets released.  We have a prison system that ignores rehabilitation and simply warehouses people.

It is massively expensive but not particularly effective. But nobody ever got voted out of office for keeping an offender behind bars, and so the cycle continues.

A full report on Brown’s pardons and parole releases is here.

Marriage Equality

9th Circuit Upholds Judge Walker’s Prop 8 Decision

Court strikes down Prop 8 on narrow equal protection grounds

by Brian Leubitz

It probably isn’t the decision that we would like, but it is sure better than the alternative.  In a narrow decision, Judge Reinhardt held Prop 8 unconstitutional as denying equal protection under the law.  However, this decision does not issue a blanked declaration that marriage bans are inherently unconstitutional in their own right.  You can read the full decision over the flip or at this link.

That being said, the 2-1 decision was mostly positive.  Judge Walker’s findings of fact, which you can read on a footnote on Page 18 of the decision, were not disputed.  The standard for changing these findings of fact is substantially higher than for the legal conclusions, but the maintenance of those facts is nonetheless important and notable.  And of course, there is the fact that the 9th Circuit ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, which is pretty great.  However, I am guessing that AFER and Boies/Olson would have preferred an answer on the broader question of legality of same-sex marriage bans.  But that was not to be today:

Whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, a right that has long been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, is an important and highly controversial question. We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case.

And so, citizens of other states must wait in line for the time being. Metaphorically, I suppose, because the 9th Circuit also put a stay on the decision, so no marriages will proceed right away.  But the Supreme Court can review this decision in any way they would like to. They could address that broader question if they so decide. Perhaps they’d prefer to rip the band-aid off in one grand gesture, or maybe we’ll wait for that.  The Supreme Court won’t make its decision on whether to hear the case for a few months, so Court watchers will be left guessing.

All that being said, you can’t help but smile when you realize that an appellate court sees the real injustice in this inequality. Check out page 37 and the subsequent pages for a rather heartfelt statement of the importance of marriage in our community.

The designation is important because ‘marriage’ is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couple designing to enter into a committed lifelong relationship, a marriage by the name of ‘registered domestic partnership’ does not.

Furthmore, when Reinhardt gets to his conclusion, it is stark and simple:

Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.

Reinhardt ultimately wrote the opinion for an audience of 9.  By limiting his opinion, it has a stronger chance of standing up, and possibly even inspiring Justice Kennedy to end marriage discrimination forever.

9th Cir Prop 8 decision