All posts by Brian Leubitz

Uncategorized

California Still Needs High Speed Rail

8 Comments

Despite cost issues, HSR is still the future

by Brian Leubitz

Robert has written abundantly about the recent HSR controversy.  And while there are still some serious issues to be dealt with before construction, HSR is still a good idea. Sure the HSR Authority could have done a better job at the initial planning and outreach.  Former chairman Quentin Kopp, also known as “San Francisco’s Favorite Crank,” and his shall we say less than convivial tactics didn’t really suit the situation all that well. Fortunately for HSR, Kopp is now removed from the situation and doing what he does best, acting cranky from the sidelines.

That all being said there is still much to like in the in the new HSR plan, and really it lies at the heart of the New California Dream.  From a letter from Jim Earp, Chair of 2008’s Prop 1A and also the executive director of California Alliance for Jobs:

As we all have witnessed, the debate over the details of the business plan has been spirited. There have been questions about cost, funding, whether starting construction in the Central Valley makes sense and whether the High Speed Rail Authority is being responsive to local concerns.

But there is a more fundamental issue that must be addressed first: Does California really need high-speed rail?

As the one who oversaw the high-speed rail bond measure campaign in 2008, I firmly believe that high-speed rail isn’t a luxury, but a necessity for California. It isn’t a pipe dream that should be shelved until such time in the distant future when California hopefully finds itself with loads of discretionary cash. Plain and simple, high-speed rail is the most cost effective, environmentally responsible way to help transport the additional 20 million people that will be living in California three decades from now.

You can find the full letter here or over the flip. But to me, the main issue is how we are going to move Californians north and south for the next century.  We can either continue to rely on the highway system, and just hope that oil doesn’t run out, and that we don’t need to be concerned about greenhouse emissions or actually look at reality.  There will be a lot more people in California over the next few decades.

We’ll hit 50 million at some point in the next few decades and moving those people around is not cost-free even if we don’t build HSR. Highways are far from free, and our airport system cannot really sustain substantially higher traffic.  We’ll have to invest in our infrastructure in one of two-ways, either try to prop up the old way of doing things, highways and such, or think big.  As Governor Brown said:

While the nation is in a “period of massive retrenchment,” Brown told The Fresno Bee’s editorial board, “I would like to be part of the group that gets America to think big again.”

*** **** ***

“The numbers look big,” Brown said, but he added that the investment is small when compared to the state’s economic productivity over the life of the system. That, he suggested, is why the state needs to “look to the future instead of the past.”

Gov. Brown recently appointed Michael Rossi, his so-called “Jobs Czar” to the Authority, and is paying attention to the program.  It is time to think Eisenhower-ian in California once again. We can afford to build big projects, the alternative is that we just coast off what we built in the last century.  That is really as far away from the American ideal that I grew up with as is really possible.

Uncategorized

The Murky Future for the Senate District Referendum

6 Comments

Measure would put maps on the ballot in June, leave 2012 districts to the Courts

by Brian Leubitz

As I’ve mentioned here in the past, the Senate maps aren’t so much biased, as no longer crazy incumbent protection rackets.  And with that risk, the Republicans face the very real risk of losing their 1/3 superminority and thus becoming pretty much irrelevant.  I’ve outlined many of the complexities of the situations if the measure does qualify, but let’s go with complicated.

But that is a big if at this point. Scott Lay in his wonderful Nooner daily email laid out the situation for qualification:

As expected, the referendum of the state senate plan met the raw count requirement. With 51 counties reporting, 697,392 signatures were counted. Now, counties have until January 10 to conduct and report a random sample for validity. If fewer than 95% of the 504,760 required signatures are projected to be valid, the referendum fails. If the projection exceeds 110% of the required signatures, it qualifies. In between, it proceeds to a full count.

This will be a nail-biter, with the validity of the 209,163 signatures from Los Angeles likely being make-or-break. In contrast, paycheck protection/deception is on track to qualify with 920,569 signatures and a 70% validity rate (before Los Angeles has reported). Carrying forward the trend, it will have 648,000 signatures and won’t need a full count. To avoid failure, redistricting petitions need 68.8% validity in the random sample. With 79.6% validity, a full count will be avoided.  If a full count occurs, actual validity of 72.4% would be needed.

Typical validity rates are between 70 and 77 percent, so while the low-end 68.8 will likely be met, there is no guarantee.  A full count could mean that we don’t know whether this will be on the ballot until March. At which point, it would be nearly impossible to draw up some new set of maps.  At this point, it seems tough to imagine a situation where we aren’t voting on the commission’s maps.  If the June referendum winds up somehow tossing the maps out…well, more fun will surely ensue.

Uncategorized

Think Long Attacks Public Education

6 Comments

Report calls for end to Prop 98

by Brian Leubitz

Robert mentioned the so-called Think Long report that proposes reducing taxes on the highest earners in favor of additional taxes on the middle class.  In case that wasn’t enough to piss off the Left, there is this little treasure in the report: (via SacBee)

We believe such new funding should not be automatically given to a system that is failing to educate millions of Californians. It instead should be tied to improving performance of K-12 schools, as a result of rigorous evaluation of teachers, as well as curbs on automatic teacher tenure and seniority.

So…in case No Child Left Behind didn’t do enough to screw up the schools, we need to tie state school funding in a larger way to a deeply flawed system of test-first, test-last, and test-always that encourages teachers to teach to the test.  The rest of that second sentence is merely rehashing Arnold Schwarzenegger proposals that voters soundly rejected at the polls.

What we have here is nothing really all that different from what California Forward and other similar corporate-leaning centrist organizations are pushing.  And unsuprisingly it isn’t getting great reviews. Here is Dean Vogel, current president of the California Teachers Association:

“The Think Long Committee Report was supposed to be a bipartisan path to rebuilding California’s future, not a dangerous detour that would hurt students and the poor. Educators are alarmed by these recommendations to raise taxes on the poor, lower taxes for corporations, dismantle Proposition 98 – the state’s minimum school funding law – and avoid repaying $10 billion already owed to public schools and students.”

Without getting bogged down in NCLB, what really amazes me is that all these people want to look for causation only at teachers and schools.  When they see a struggling school, they only see “failing teachers.”  They never stop to look around the neighborhoods to see the failing communities. The families torn apart by poverty. Parents who rarely see their children because they are working multiple jobs. Sure, Newt Gingrich has a plan to solve that problem, (let’s create an army of 9 year old janitors!) but no solutions for addressing the inequality in our society seems to be present in the Think Long Report.

If you want to see better performing schools, teachers are merely an easy scapegoat.  Some teachers are truly more gifted than others, and we should encourage teacher quality.  However, that is only one small portion of the underlying problems.  Causation is never an easy, but politicians and billionaires apparently share an interest in preferring easy answers over good, thoughtful policy.

Think Long has said that a repeal to Prop 98 will not be in their tax measure that they intend to bring to the ballot.  However, their posture really goes to more than just Prop 98, it goes to the heart of our system of public education. Their attacks are certainly not the first, nor will they be the last as profit-seekers look to open up public education to corporate style earnings.

Uncategorized

UC-Davis In Crisis

11 Comments

Chancellor facing calls for resignation after pepper spray incident

by Brian Leubitz

In case you aren’t one of the approximately 1.5 million viewers of the Davis pepper spray video, here it is, the video that changed Chancellor Linda Katehi’s life.

The pepper spraying of students was without a doubt overkill for the situation. After all, who would it really have hurt to allow the students to remain on the Quad. Instead, Davis administrators are now dealing with national scrutiny on their police policies, pay levels (officers make twice what those who actually teach), and their level of respect for their customers/students.

Chancellor Katehi is desperately trying to cling to her job.  After the silent walk of shame caught on video, she today addressed the students:

When Chancellor Linda Katehi took the stage at a rally of students held to protest last week’s pepper-spraying by police she was apologetic.

“I’m here to apologize,” said Katehi. “I really feel horrible for what happened on Friday.” (SacBee)

When you click through to that link you will see something of a live-blog and video of both Katehi’s apology and of the tents returning to the UC-Davis Quad. One has to imagine that pepper spray is not an option this go-round.  Katehi will continue to face increasing scrutiny as she is trying the time-tested “name a panel” stalling technique.  

The Davis panel is supposed to return a report within 30 Days, and then the matter will be handled further.  Legislators, including Sen. Ye, have been calling for something more substantial, but no additional word has emerged.

The student protesters are calling for a boycott on Nov. 28.

Marriage Equality

CA Sup Court Unanimously Favors Standing for Prop 8 Proponents

10 Comments

In a general opinion, Court favors giving initiative proponents authority to defend measures

By Brian Leubitz

As I mentioned yesterday, today the California Supreme Court has ruled on the certified question from the 9th Circuit regarding standing.  I’ll get into more details in a bit, but here is the general ruling from the court:

In response to the question submitted by the Ninth Circuit, we conclude, for the reasons discussed above, that when the public officials who ordinarily defend a challenged state law or appeal a judgment invalidating the law decline to do so, under article II, section 8 of the California Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Elections Code, the official proponents of a voter-approved initiative measure are authorized to assert the state’s interest in the initiative’s validity, enabling the proponents to defend the constitutionality of the initiative and to appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative.

Here is the full opinion (PDF), more in a bit.

What does this mean? Well, it ends the easy way out of the case.  Standing is a threshold question, that must be resolved before the judge or judges in the case get to the merits of the case. Standing is appealable, but a decision by a lower court in a case as controversial as this to duck the question would hardly give the US Supreme Court any motivation to enter the fray themselves.  In this situation, the question of standing is really a state law question anyway.  The California Supreme Court should really be the body deciding who represents the state.  

In this situation, both the Governor and the Attorney General declined to defend Prop 8, as they both felt it was unconstitutional. The Proponents defended the measure in the trial court as intervenors, but the decision to appeal isn’t one that can typically be done by intervenors.  So, if they were allowed to appeal, they would have to be granted some special standing.  This decision is not specific to Prop 8 at all, rather it just says that when California’s elected officials refuse to defend a ballot measure in court, the Proponents of the measure are “authorized to assert the state’s interest in the initiative’s validity.”

In other words, the 9th Circuit is now on the clock for their decision on the merits.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  AFER has built up a strong legal team and they constructed a good record at the trial court. They have the money to proceed all the way to the Supreme Court on Perry v Brown, lord knows with all the fundraising AFER has been doing, they have the money. But hey, if you are Chad Griffin, the man behind AFER, why not ask for some more money, because, well, AFER is really, really good at that. In his reaction to the case that seems to have been pre-written, Griffin seems to be relishing the fight (and asking for more money.)

Our federal lawsuit for marriage equality is back on the fast track!

Now that the California Supreme Court has finally issued its advisory opinion that the Prop. 8 Proponents have standing to appeal, we can expect a speedy ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  We are on the cusp of achieving what we have been fighting for. For countless couples like our plaintiffs, Kris Perry & Sandy Steir and Paul Katami & Jeff Zarrillo, marriage equality cannot come quickly enough.

Help us win the freedom to marry for couples like Kris & Sandy and Paul & Jeff. Make a donation today so we can continue our fight for full federal marriage equality. (donation link)

Look, I know that it is in AFER’s best interest to move forward for this case, but I think celebrating this decision looks kind of silly.  There was much discussion of the possibility of marriages beginning again this year, but that doesn’t seem all that likely at this point.  The 9th Circuit now will rule on the merits of the case, and we’ll wait longer for this case to proceed.

So, no quick way out.  Now, given that this case has taken so long, one of the AFER arguments to bring the litigation over the objection of many LGBT organizations, that we cannot tolerate a measure like this for one day longer now looks rather stark.  The question I have now is given that we’re still looking at many more layers, could we have gotten it done at the ballot box? I suppose we won’t know, as it won’t be on the 2012 vote. I’m pretty sure we would have won, but it would have cost more.  And the impact of a Sup. Ct. win on this case would have an impact for the entire nation.

But, we’re still rolling the dice here, no matter what we do.  So, let it ride!

Marriage Equality

Prop 8 Decision Due Tomorrow from CA Supreme Court

1 Comment

California Supreme Court will rule on question from 9th Circuit regarding standing

by Brian Leubitz

A quick public service announcement here. A ruling from the California Supreme Court is due tomorrow on the question of standing for the Prop 8 proponents:

The California Supreme Court will decide Thursday whether to allow supporters of Proposition 8 to defend California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Based on the tenor of the justices’ questions during arguments in September, it appeared likely the Supreme Court would permit Proposition 8’s legal team to defend the voter-approved law, which would push the ongoing legal battle forward in a federal appeals court.

The Supreme Court is addressing the narrow question of whether Proposition 8 sponsors have a right to appeal a federal judge’s ruling declaring the law unconstitutional when the governor and attorney general refuse to do so. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asked the state’s high court to rule on that issue before addressing the central questions in the legal challenge to the same-sex marriage ban. (SJ Merc)

As a reminder, this question has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the case.  And while I’m not that big of a fan of reading the tea leaves, the fact remains that the Court did seem sympathetic to the Proponent’s standing claim.  And while a denial of standing would seemingly end the case and allow Californians to marry, as Chad Griffin of AFER points out, we really can win either way.

Here’s the great news: No matter what happens, we win. Either the Federal District Court ruling that declared Prop. 8 unconstitutional stands, or our case proceeds on its merits with the strong likelihood of reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. Because there is no reason to justify discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans, we are confident that the higher courts will affirm our District Court victory.

So, I guess we’ll just wait a few more hours, or a few more months, or a few more years, but time is on our side.  The clock is ticking towards full marriage equality.

Budget, Jerry Brown

The Dystopic Present: $13B Deficit

4 Comments

State faces another looming budget crisis

by Brian Leubitz

UPDATE: I’ve included video of Taylor’s press conference from John Myers’ twitter feed. Thanks John!  You can get the full press conference from the CalChannel here.



I’ve been a little quiet around here, as I was more than a bit busy with the election and then trying to recover from said election.  And Sacramento was hardly hopping either, just a few press conferences here and there.  However, Leg Analyst Mac Taylor (and sometimes Right-leaning Budget Warrior) has been on the grim watch on our state finances along with Finance Director Ana Matasantos.  And grim is really the best adjective for the situation:

The report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office says the state faces a budget deficit in the current fiscal year largely because it will collect only $300 million of $4 billion that Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature added to the budget just days before it was approved in June. Critics had called the sudden infusion of projected revenue “phantom money” that was conjured to avoid deeper spending cuts.

The report says California also faces a budget deficit in the 2012-13 fiscal year of $13 billion.(SF Chronicle)

I’m not sure how bright I can highlight this situation, but we are steamrolling towards another budget crisis.  And guess what, there is so little left to cut, there will be no other choice to cut deeper into some already devestated state services.  Of course, much of that could be avoided with a bit of reasonableness from the other side of the aisle, but let’s be realistic here. Unless somehow four Republican legislators get a Dickensian like visit from beyond, do we really think that is going to happen?

Now, the ultimate determination will be made by Matasantos by December 15, but given that relatively few of those $4Billion have come in, it is tough to imagine that she will have much choice. The $4 Billion will hit education particularly hard, with the possibility of eliminating 7 school days from the year. As David Dayen points out, the threat of a $13B series of cuts threatens to make ridiculously small the few parts of President Obama’s jobs package that can pass Congress. $1 Billion in veterans benefits will do little to combat the biggest of the 50 Little Hoovers here in California.

It is hard to really blame Gov. Brown for much here, other than his rosy expectations. The Right will take the usual attack on Democrats of being too close to labor, but even if he totally decimated pensions and laid off huge portions of the state public employees, we still wouldn’t get near dealing with the situation.  But the fact remains that the $4 Billion that has failed to show was put in the budget because the cuts without them would have been unbearable.

So California, meet the dystopic future, where cutting K-12 school days and rocketing higher education fees are the best option.

Marriage Equality

The Push to End DOMA

7 Comments

California Leaders Lobby Congress to End Discriminatory Law

by Brian Leubitz

There are a few facts that should probably come up first here.  DOMA is unconstitutional.  It violates the full faith and credit clause in addition to equal protection and due process claims.  And that will be decided at some point soon, as the case is now at the appellate court level.  However, for the time being the law is on the books, and we need to eliminate it.

Sen. Feinstein has been pushing DOMA repeal this legislative session, and got the bill out of the Judiciary Committee on a party line vote last week.  Now Governor Brown and several California Mayors are pressing Congressional leaders to repeal as well.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act “is a stain on our common values,” Lee and 14 other mayors and governors from around the nation said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which voted last week to repeal the law.

In a separate letter, Brown noted that 18,000 gay and lesbian couples were legally wed in California in the five months before November 2008, when voters reinstated the ban on same-sex marriage by passing Proposition 8. Those marriages remain valid despite a state Supreme Court ruling upholding Prop. 8, which is now being challenged in federal court.

“Californians in these marriages deserve to be treated the same by the federal government and other states as Californians in other legal marriages,” Brown told the Senate committee. (SF Chronicle)

Other California signatories to the Mayoral letter were Mayors Villaraigosa of LA and Sanders of San Diego.

Uncategorized

CRP Submits Signatures for Senate Redistricting Referendum

1 Comment

Party that put redistricting on the ballot decides it didn’t work out for them after all.

by Brian Leubitz

Arnold Schwarzenegger was at the center of many of the so-called “good government reforms” of the past decade. The same is true of the redistricting initiatives.  Our former Republican governor was all about the commission, and how it is going to make our districts more fair and competitive.  Now, the competitive thing was something of a joke anyway, as we have already self-sorted to such a degree that it would be nearly impossible to draw more than 25% of districts competitive even if that was your main goal.

But other Republicans besides the Governator weren’ts always as excited about the commission. They had managed to hold off irrelevancy by getting some pretty rigged districts to allow them to maintain their super-minority 1/3+ in both legislative chambers.  

It turns out that the maps we got from the commission were not to the Republicans liking. Very not to their liking.  And with some cash from Mercury Insurance CEO George Joseph, the CRP managed to get what looks to be enough signatures to put the Senate map to a referendum on the June ballot.  Here’s their press release.

The question of the districts for next year now goes to the courts, as they will now have to determine which maps we vote on during the June primary.  They can either opt to go with the commission’s maps or have a special master draw up a new Senate map.  I’m sure you will be hearing something about this fairly soon, as candidates, elections officials, and activists are all needing to get an idea for what Senate district they are in.

So, thanks for that CRP, confusion and chaos, the hallmarks of a good Republican party.

UPDATE: Given the amount of signatures that the CRP folks turned in, checking the signatures is going to take a long time.  They only turned in just over 700K signatures, and given standard validity rates, they will be around 103-107% of the target.  According to California law, that means a more timely “full count.”

With the minimum valid signatures for a referendum being 504,760, the Senate redistricting referendum would need a projected 555,236 valid signatures (110% of the number required) to quickly qualify.

But Gilliard said in an email this afternoon that he believes the final valid signature tally won’t be above 520,000 (103% of the required number) and could be as low as 518,000 (103% of the required number). That would mean a full count… and much longer for the final verdict to be rendered.

And here’s where we come back to the legal fight.

The original plaintiff, Orange County GOP activist Julie Vandermost, is also the proponent of the referendum. Vandermost’s lawsuit, rejected on October 26 by the California Supreme Court, asserted that the existence of a redistricting referendum, under the process laid out by Proposition 11 and Proposition 20, compels the Court to draw interim Senate districts for 2012. (CapNotes)

So, we’re talking about this measure possibly qualifying after the date that candidates can formally announce their bids for the district.  Given those considerations, does anybody think that the Court could do anything but temporarily pick maps that already exist? And since using the old maps would violate the whole one man, one vote thing, what other maps are available to use for a June primary other than the commission maps?

Now, if the referendum does indeed kill the maps in June, the Court will need to draw up new maps.  Whether the CRP will like those anymore is anybody’s guess.  That being said, it seems quite unlikely that the electorate will really over turn maps drawn by an independent commission based upon what is likely to be seen as Republican partisan BS.  The June primary will be pretty awful for Democrats, but Republicans will probably have already selected their nominee. Even in these partisan conditions is a partisan argument really going to carry the day?

But, be prepared for “they’re going to raise your taxes” ads threatening the end of the Republican veto.

Uncategorized

Occupy Oakland Evicted

4 Comments

These officers have no identifying info - no names or numbers... on TwitpicOfficers act on notice of eviction sent out last week

by Brian Leubitz

Let’s just put it this way. It isn’t easy to get recalled as a Mayor in Oakland.  The activist set has been plenty mad with previous Mayors, but nothing on the scale of Jean Quan.  Quan has so botched Occupy Oakland that Vegas would surely put some pretty long odds on her being mayor this time next year.

Last week, Quan used a shooting near 14th and Broadway as an excuse to put out a notice of eviction to the Occupy Oakland encampment.  Now, the police, the administration, and the Occupiers all say the shooting has nothing to do with Occupy Oakland, but apparently #oo is taking time away from Oakland Police from their other activities.

Now, I don’t mean to belittle Oakland’s other priorities, as they are legion.  Oakland still has a high crime rate, and the well-respected police chief Anthony Batts just resigned, rumors being that he just couldn’t work with Quan and the Council any longer.  So, hardly a walk in the park there.  OPD’s resources are spread very thin, as they now tell Oakland Citizens that they won’t even show up for many 911 calls that don’t involve somebody in physical danger. Whatever presence OPD has at #oo are resources not available elsewhere.

So, this morning Quan ordered the raid on the occupy encampments.  Or, well, at least we assume she ordered it, as last time she apparently said that somebody else did it. Who knows?

Police cleared the Occupy Oakland encampment early Monday morning in what has so far been a peaceful raid.

Hundreds of protesters gathered at the intersection of Broadway and 14th Street overnight in anticipation of the eviction, and of many tents remained in the camp when lines of police in riot gear began moving in.

However, dozens of occupiers had moved their tents out of the plaza as the city issued repeated eviction notices over the weekend, and rumors of an early morning raid intensified.

“It feels pretty sad because we built a community here, and now they can just come and destroy it,” said Lara Bitar, 28, who helped collapse three of the camp’s four tents early Monday morning. “At the same time, this movement is about more than just the space here.”(Bay Area News Group)

The raid began this morning around 5AM, but the rumors of the raid had been coming for a while.  Many of the protesters had already packed up, and the raid itself was largely peaceful.  A far different affair than the last time around.  And hey, apparently a couple got married in front of the police line. So, congrats on that!

From the latest #oo twitter feed, General Assembly will meet at 4PM at the main Oakland public library (125 14th Street, I think). I’m sure it will be a lively affair for those that can make it.