California precinct index offers detailed political information.



by Brian Leubitz

Geeks around California rejoice! David Latterman, who now works at USF’s McCarthy Center has been known around San Francisco for his progressive precinct index. Today he released his 2011 version of the California version. As you can see from the image to the right, much of the data is as you would expect it. There is a dark blue core around the coast, and red elsewhere. what that really translates to is that a fairly strong majority, as population, of somewhat progressive voters. Much of that red area exists in large, unpopulated districts. If you look closely, you will see a growing blue section in the central valley of progressive voters.

You can get the full details of Latterman’s California 2011 Politcal Precinct Index at this PDF release.

ZMYG6EU6PHKF  

Republicans once again nearly broke

by Brian Leubitz

With the news that Republican registration is falling again, perhaps it is of very little surprise that they also have very little money, especially when compared to the Democrats.  But, that is the case.

One of the standouts in terms of limited dollars: the California Republican Party. The state GOP bet big on getting the referendum against the new Senate redistricting maps qualified for the November ballot (and the signatures are still being counted); overall, the party’s report shows it raised $4.2 million in 2011. But the state GOP only had $439,000 in cash left on Dec. 31, and the fate of the redistricting effort still seems somewhat in doubt.

Meantime, the redistricting referendum campaign reported (PDF) having only $620.31 in the bank on the final day of 2011 and has reported no 2012 contributions. The campaign owes $214,000 in unpaid bills.

Compare that to California Democrats, who reported raising $11 million in 2011 and still sitting on a rather impressive $9.3 million in cash as of Dec. 31. That suggests Dems are well positioned for legislative and even ballot measure efforts in 2012, while Republicans will need a major infusion of cash… and in a hurry. (CapNotes)

As John Myers points out, the Senate district map referendum, while largely funded by Mercury Insurance CEO George Joseph, has still left them with emptier campaign coffers than they had before.  While the Dems haven’t spent nearly as much money, expect the Party to spend big time on the November ballot, with revenue and paycheck deception on the ballot.

At the same time, news from the June initiative front is also quite anemic.  While the anti-tobacco groups will be kicking off their campaign to raise cigarette taxes by a $1/pack to pay for cancer research today at the State Capitol, they’ll be doing it without a lot of cash.  Same for the LA Labor Fed’s term limits reform measure that made it on the ballot last year.  

June’s election will be fierce in a few competitive legislative and Congressional seats, but don’t expect any big statewide push.

GOP is in danger of falling below 30%

by Brian Leubitz

Party	Feb 1999	January 2008	January 2012
Democratic	46.72%	42.71%	43.63%
Republican	35.27%	33.45%	30.36%
NPP	12.89%	19.38%	21.24%

For the last decade, the big winner in party registration has been no party at all. Decline to state, now known as no party preference, has boomed from just under 13% in 1999 to 21.24% in the latest numbers released by the Sec. of State’s office today.  While Democratic numbers have fluctuated in the lower 40s, Republican numbers continue to creep downwards.  If the trend continues, the GOP may fall below 30% in the very near future.

It is no surprise that the GOP is rapidly losing adherents, what with the far right extreme becoming dominant within the Party of Reagan (née Lincoln). But with district maps that require Republicans to compete for the middle, the question is whether they really can do that.  These numbers certainly don’t bode well for that.

Asm. Calderon bill, AB 1208, would change the way courts are funded and work statewide

by Brian Leubitz

UPDATE: AB 1208 passed out of the Assembly yesterday and now moves on to the Senate.

Last year, I documented what was a mini cry of outrage about the pending disaster in court funding.  The courts have taken quite the slashing in pretty much every round of budget cuts. Yet, beyond the Bar Associations and a few judges, few have really noticed.  This has severe ramifications for both our efforts to maintain a speedy trial system on the criminal side as well as provide some sort of civil justice system. Because of the constitutional requirements, the civil side has been taking the brunt of the cuts, but our criminal justice system has certainly not been immune.

A group of lawyers mounted a protest on Jan 18, but I was unable to find any coverage of note in the media.  But the issue is real, and there are a lot of different proposals on how to fix it.  One consortium, most prominently backed by SEIU, who represents many of the court employees, is pushing AB 1208 in order to push power down from the state level and on to the county level courts.

As you may expect, that is not universally popular, as Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, many of the state trial courts, and defense and plaintiff’s attorneys, are pushing against the bill. In order to proceed, the bill must emerge from its house of origin, the Assembly, today.  You know it is getting nasty when the legal press is using terms like “the knives come out.” Fun!

Except, that there are very real consequences.  A group of “rebel” trial court judges has alleged that the statewide efforts, coordinated by the Judicial Council, have not spent money wisely and should be more accountable to the trial courts, a sentiment which is at the heart of AB 1208.  The Chief Justice, has stated that she would be extremely concerned that the courts would not be able to fund any statewide projects, and that as few as two counties could veto projects, leaving the courts in a state of semi-paralysis.  A state of paralysis that is familiar in the Legislature, who would now become more powerful in the funding of the Courts.  (Raising a significant separation of powers question.)

While we may get some idea of where this legislation is going, the underlying problem, the massive underfunding of our court system will continue.

A quick, and probably wildly inaccurate, summary of the decision.

by Brian Leubitz

I read the decision very quickly (you can find it over the flip), so I likely missed many of the finer points.  Nonetheless, I figured I wanted to get this up quickly, so, my apologies for any errors.  At any rate, today the Court decided a few issues:

1) They have authority to intervene and provide a new map if a Redistricting map is challenged.

2) The Commission map is the best map to use in the interim, as it does the best job of adhering to the goals set forth in the redistricting initiative, even if the referendum gets on the ballot.

The discussion at the hearing was sort of meandering, but touched on all of these issues.  Starting with the Commission’s map, the entire Court agreed that it was the best map to use both for June and November.  Interestingly, there were two semi-conflicting decisions from Supreme Court precedence to choose from.  Legislature v. Reinecke held that the 1972 maps, which were vetoed by Gov. Reagan, could not be used. Rather, the previous maps based on 1960 census data should be used. The maps proposed by the 1972 Legislature had only been presented in a “truncated” Legislative process.

On the other hand, Assembly v Deukmejian held that the maps signed into law Gov. Jerry Brown and put to a referendum by the Republicans should go ahead in 1982.  The Court reasoned that

Although the Constitution of our state grants the power to initiate a referendum to 5 percent of the voters, it does not require that the effect of that referendum be articulated in a manner that does such serious injury to conflicting and equally compelling constitutional mandates.

In other words, there were competing Constitutional interests. The right to a referendum, which is provided in the state Constitution, and the principle of “One person, One vote.” (OPOV) Using the old maps would have meant that districts would be out of balance.  In 1972, the Court held that the never really approved, because they were vetoed, maps could not be imposed, the principle of OPOV had to take a back seat because it would be far more destructive to impose the fake maps than it would be to just accept disproportionate districts for two more years. At the same time, because the 1972 district netted 2 Congressional seats, the Court let those be imposed on an interim basis.  So, apparently they weren’t so odious or destructive.

On the other hand, the legitimately passed 1982 maps were put in place, for reasons both of pragmatism and of principle.  The maps had been duly passed by the Legislature.  While the right of referendum was an important Constitutional right, it was not so important as to throw the system into chaos.  This was a 4-3 decision, with the dissenters basically calling the decision a wholly political one.

And with that in mind, the Court ultimately decided that the Assembly v Deukmejian was more applicable in this instance.  The referendum situation ultimately bearing more similarity to the newer case than the older.

The court considered several maps in the case the referendum is put on the ballot:

1. The 2002 maps. They would have resulted in districts that varied by nearly 40% from largest to smallest. The court ultimately dismissed this as varying too far from the OPOV and not complying with the standards set in the 2008 redistricting initiative.
2. “Nesting ADs” – The Republicans also suggested just nesting assembly districts, which I suppose might present them with somewhat better chances to get to 1/3 representation. However, these districts did not in any meaningful way meet the listed requirements of the 2008 initiative (now Article XXI) and would “defer” too many voters from their new districts for too long.
3. The GOP Dream Plan – Basically, Republicans hired Anthony Quinn, an advisor to the GOP redistricting efforts in 1971 and 1981( and author one of five co-editors of the California Target Book) to come up with a set of maps when they first challenged the maps for legality, and now they want to try it again. The Court said this would take too long and would not yield a better map than the final option.
4. The Commission map – The SoS and the Commission argued that the commission map best meets the goals of Art XXI, is ready to be implemented, and would cause the least amount of upheavel. Ultimately, the Court agreed, adding that any new plan would not be vetted by the public at all and yield additional hardship

Now, while seemingly less interesting, the question of authority seems to have been a more controversial question. In fact, Justice Liu wrote a concurring opinion, but pointed out that the Court did not need to come to a decision on whether they have the power to intercede in a situation where the referendum is only likely to succeed. I’ll not dwell too long on this issue, but if you are interested, read the concurring opinion down there at the end of the decision.

To put it as succinctly as possible, Justice Liu feels that the majority could have come to the decision of using the Commission’s map without deciding that “under California Constitution, article VI, section 10, this court is authorized to issue an order to show cause and decide which districts should be used in the event a proposed referendum directed at a Commission-certified redistricting map qualifies for the ballot, even in the absence of a showing that the proposed referendum is likely to qualify for the ballot.”

He felt that the decision could have been arrived at simply by looking at the superiority of the Commission’s map as an interim map. Legally, narrowly tailored decisions are preferred, so this one went too far. Perhaps Liu is right that at some point in the future this decision could be abused for political purposes, but ultimately it is a question that will bear more importance in the future than it does for the 2012 Senate maps.

And so, as they say, that is a quick summary of the case.

Redistricting Decision

As I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court decided a few things on redistricting today. Obviously this is a major blow to the Republicans. Let the whining commence:

Republican State Sen. Mimi Walters of Laguna Niguel, a leader of the referendum drive, blasted the ruling as “shortsighted and disrespectful” of California voters who signed petitions and are awaiting the opportunity to vote on the commission’s Senate maps.

“They kind of gutted the whole idea behind the referendum process,” said Dave Gilliard, another leader of the drive to kill the maps.

Peter Yao, current chairman of the commission, countered that use of the commission maps is important to maintain electoral stability and that the challenge is based on “partisan self interest” that has “cost precious taxpayer dollars to defend.”(SacBee)

Except that, as the court stated in the decision the power of referendum isn’t the only constitutional right in question in this case. The power of referendum, which grants to 5 percent of the state’s voters the power to put to a vote, does not override all other constitutional rights.

But whine as they may, the Commission’s maps do present a very good Democratic opportunity to pick up that fateful 27th seat.  With Sen. Blakeslee already saying he wouldn’t run in the Commission’s district, there are few routes for the Republicans to maintain 14 seats. Possible, certainly, but they’ll need a pretty strong election cycle.

It is all rather ironic, really. Now that Schwarzenegger got his wish in the redistricting initiative, the Republicans are freaking out. While the Republicans (and ProPublica) whine that the system was gamed, six Republican appointees just finalized (mostly) the process.

As was said on Twitter by many Sacramento-watchers, what could the CRP have done with all the money they just wasted on this measure. It now seems rather hard to fathom that the CRP either has the resources to pass this measure, or would even want to.  Who knows what other map is around the corner. This was really all about stalling the Commission maps for a cycle. It would have been expensive and unlikely that they could defeat the maps, and the CRP knew that. They were just hoping to hold on for one more cycle.

So much for that.  I’ll be posting a brief summary of the legal opinion shortly.

Court must decide how they want to intervene with impending referendum possible in June

by Brian Leubitz

UPDATE: Here is the decision in PDF.  Basically the Court opted for the suggestion that I believe was made by Justice Liu to use the Commission’s maps on an interim basis if the referendum does succeed in getting on the ballot. At the hearing, Justice Liu noted that it was at the very least one way of meeting all the goals of redistricting initiative.  So, on that, we now know the maps we’ll be voting on in June and November. More in a bit.

At the beginning of the month, the courts held a hearing on what do about the Senate maps.  As you may recall, the Republicans spent a bunch of money, mostly from Mercury Insurance CEO George Joseph, to gather signatures to put the Senate map to a referendum.  You see, the maps present something of an existential crisis for the Senate Republican caucus.  While it isn’t a sure thing that Democrats will exceed the necessary 27 Senators to attain 2/3 in the Senate, the new map presents an exceedingly good opportunity to do so.  Heck, Sam Blakeslee has already said he wouldn’t run again unless his district changes. After that, you basically only need to pick up one more seat from 2 or 3 lean-Dem opportunities.

And dipping below 1/3 of the Senate would basically mean that the swing vote would no longer be a Republican, but a conservative Democrat. It is a prospect that would dry up funding from lobbyists, as who really wants to lobby an irrelevant politician? Whatever power they do have through the supermajority revenue measure would do little for them. They claim they gathered sufficient signatures, but that is far from clear.  As of right now, the status of the initiative is that it had enough signatures to not be bounced at the random check stage, but not enough that it didn’t have to get a more thorough check.  The more thorough check won’t be decided until mid to late February.

The problem with that is that it would leave precious little time to come up with some other map to vote on for the June “primary” election. The Supreme Court’s hearing thus addressed which of many map options they could use, what the meaning of “likely to qualify” is, and whether they could use the Commission’s map instead of drawing their own.  

The decision is expected at 10AM today, and will be published on the Court’s website.  You can also find the video of the oral hearing here.