Reform would force Secretary of State to hew to state Constitutional requirements

California Constitution, Art. II, Sec 8(c)

(c) The Secretary of State shall then submit the measure at the  next general election held at least 131 days after it qualifies or at any special statewide election held prior to that general election.  The Governor may call a special statewide election for the measure.

That would be the founding document of our state government, with a requirement that initiatives gathering sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot be placed on the next general election.  However, over the years, as the Legislature has put measure after measure on primary ballots for expediency, or whatever reason, and the various secretaries of state over the past 40 years just put the signature-based initiatives on the primary ballot. Ho-Hum.

Except that really isn’t what the Constitution states, and there is a good reason for that.  Primary elections have wildly shifting electorates, in good ways and bad.  Of course, the June primary this year is just one such example.  The Republican base is going to be motivated, or at least somewhat motivated, while Democrats don’t have a presidential primary, as of yet, to get excited.

And, as you may know, “paycheck deception” is now headed to the ballot.  And given that they have now pulled the measure off the streets, it seems likely that they have the signatures.  Paycheck deceptions not only threatens the power of labor, but also of the Democratic party.  So, you know, the Legislature is getting some pleas from labor to help pull the initiative system back to 1971:

Democratic legislators are considering an 11th hour bill that would shift all initiative ballot measures to the November ballot — a move that, if enacted, would help their union allies stave off some measures they oppose.(SacBee)

Thing is, we probably never should have strayed from the Constitution, and now that we’ve let it go for this long, we look very kind of strange making the big change now.  But, the Constitution is the Constitution, and getting the SoS to act like Art. II exists seems like a reasonable goal no matter how the winds of a particular election are blowing at our backs or into our face.

UPDATE: CalBuzz ran a story with a bunch of background on the legal definitions.

Coalition aims to repeal death penalty, save a billion dollars

by Brian Leubitz

For a few months now, Sen. Loni Hancock has been working diligently on moving SB 490 through the legislative process. The bill, which would put a ballot measure on the November ballot, would have asked the voters whether it was time to eliminate the death penalty.  And she was able to get the bill to fly through the Senate on a 39-0 vote. However, the bill stalled at the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and at this point, the odds are looking quite long for anything to actually happen before 2012.

Of course, in California there is always another option: the signature route.  And that is exactly what the California Taxpayers for Justice, a coalition of law enforcement professionals, crime victim advocates, and individuals exonerated from wrongful conviction, has in mind.

When legislation to let California voters decide whether to keep the death penalty got shelved last week, death penalty opponents vowed to launch a ballot initiative anyway. They’re keeping their promise. California Taxpayers for Justice is unveiling the SAFE California Act, which would replace capital punishment with life imprisonment without parole. … Proponents of the initiative say that replacing the death penalty with life behind bars without parole would free up money for local law enforcement, victim compensation and schools. (SacBee)

To be clear, this is hardly some lightweight group here.  The coalition press conference will feature former LA District Attorny Gil Garcetti and former CDCR boss and San Quentin warden Jeanne Woodford discussing the need to end the death penalty.

But, the argument this time will focus as much on cost savings as it will on morality.  While most progressives find the morality argument plenty strong to make the case, the financial side of the debate is nothing to be ignored.  By ending the death penalty, we could save $1 Billion over five years. That is money that can be better spent on education, or home health care, or any number of other priorities that have the long-term benefits that the death penalty, in study after study, has shown to lack.  In other words, the death penalty accomplishes far too little (if anything) in terms of crime prevention, and costs far too much.

But the polling numbers still make this an uphill climb.  As recently as last year, polling showed well over 60% of Californians support the death penalty.  The question now is will the financial argument be strong enough to break through, and will the opponents of the death penalty be able to raise the money to get this measure on the ballot and into a strong campaign.  We’re talking about at least $1-1.5 million to get it on the ballot, and at least another 7-10 for a strong campaign.

So, is now the time? I guess we’ll see.

Move ends 137-year run of the Oakland Tribune

by Brian Leubitz

In another sign of the struggling nature of the journalism business, the Bay Area News Group is combining 11 East Bay newspapers into just two.  In the process, they’ll be laying off 120 production workers and up to 40 editorial staffers.  I suppose it won’t shock you that it is all about the money and falling subscriptions:

“After many months of research and planning, we are taking a strategy of re-branding,” said Mac Tully, BANG president, in an interview. “We are trying to gain efficiencies through streamlining. A lot of positives are being added: a local section seven days a week, a stand-alone business section every day and the successful technology section from the South Bay being brought up to the East Bay.”

BANG will shift more of its print dollars to digital offerings, its iPad and iPhone apps and upcoming products, he said.

Starting Nov. 2, the Oakland Tribune, Alameda Times-Star, Daily Review, Argus and West County Times will appear under the name East Bay Tribune. Tully said it will primarily serve the Interstate 880 corridor.  Also, the Contra Costa Times, Valley Times, San Ramon Valley Times, Tri-Valley Herald, San Joaquin Herald and East County Times will be re-branded as the Times to serve the Interstate 680 corridor and east, Tully said.  In addition, the San Mateo County Times will be branded under the Mercury News title. Tully said it’s still under discussion whether the Mercury News will keep San Jose in its name.(SF Chronicle)

BANG has some great writers who do some yeoman’s work covering local and state politics, including writers regularly featured here like Josh Richman and Steven Harmon.  Journalists are often stretched to incredible lengths, and more work than ever is expected out of them.  And don’t expect to see any skyrocketing salaries from the industry either.

With any luck, these moves will keep BANG stable for a long time as we continue to feel our way out in the new information economy.  

But where each runs is still in question

by Brian Leubitz

It isn’t clear where Brad Sherman and Howard Berman will run for re-election.  However, as it stands right now, there are pretty good odds that they are destined for a Dem-on-Dem bloodbath.  Sherman, who is sitting on $4 million in his campaign account, put out the first volley in the form of a poll showing a nice lead:

Congressman Brad Sherman is the likely winner of the election in the new 30th congressional district. These are the results of a just completed survey in the new congressional district from initial match-ups with no information given about either candidate:

Three-way race:

Congressman Brad Sherman, Democrat: 42%

Businessman Mark Reed, Republican: 26%

Congressman Howard Berman, Democrat: 17%

Two-way race:

Congressman Brad Sherman, Democrat: 51%

Congressman Howard Berman, Democrat: 24%

Sherman currently represents just over half the voters in the new 30th CD. Sherman is strong in his current district (CD27), winning 52 percent support there in the three way match-up with only 9 percent for Berman and 24 percent for Reed. In contrast, Berman barely ekes out a plurality in the less than a quarter of the district that he currently represents (CD28), leading Sherman by only 32 percent to 30 percent, while Reed draws 21 percent support.

Whether this election comes to pass is still up in doubt, but there is no question that Sherman is preparing for it.

Former Governor Joins Effort to Overturn Commission’s Maps

by Brian Leubitz

While Arnold Schwarzenegger was all over the place in his effort to pass the redistricting measure on the ballot a few years back, his fellow California Republicans were very mixed on the subject.  Some supported it out of team jersey loyalty, while others just weren’t comfortable with an unknown entity.

It seems that discomfort lingers, as the Republican Senate Caucus, along with some other rich Republicans, is attempting to kill the maps.  They now have a brand new, and high profile, ally:

Wilson and other GOP leaders have sent out a fundraising appeal to help finance a referendum drive that would give the state’s voters a chance to repeal the maps drawn by a Citizens Redistricting Commission. The GOP leaders say in a five-page memo to several thousand potential donors that the new districts could help give Democrats a two-thirds majority in the Senate. …

“The state Senate lines drawn by the California Redistricting Commission virtually guarantee a Democrat Super-majority in the California State Senate in 2012,” the mailer added. “A successful drive to put a referendum on the June 2012 ballot is the best way to prevent this from happening.” (LA Times)

And perhaps they are right, as the maps do put a few additional seats in the toss-up column and make a 2/3 majority in the Legislature possible.  It seems more likely in the Senate, and that’s why we are seeing the Republican Senate caucus pouring money into the initiative.

But the problem for the Republicans is that even a victory at the ballot doesn’t mean that they’ll get what they want.  If they do get an initiative on the ballot, the district lines will be tossed to the judges.  And while there are more Republicans on the Court, they aren’t really the idealogues that the Republicans really want.  And they are very process-y, which would seem to indicate that they would prefer something similar to the maps as drawn by the commission.

But, right now they are sitting at just $92,500, and they are going to need a lot more money fast to get the referendum on the ballot.

SF State President says Gov. Brown hasn’t stood up for higher education

by Brian Leubitz

Yesterday we saw the scary fact that tuition would exceed state support in the UC system.  Today, the long-standing president of San Francisco State, Robert Corrigan, made his feelings known about the current budget situation and the governor’s leadership in an exit interview with the Bay Citizen.

The president of San Francisco State University said Monday that Gov. Jerry Brown “doesn’t seem to appreciate high-quality education in California.” …

“I think we are looking at a five-year budget] problem in California,” Corrigan said in a telephone interview. “At my age, I am not likely to be around for five years.” Corrigan plans to return to his research in American history after retiring. “The next president needs to deal with the Legislature and the governor as best that they can,” he said. ([The Bay Citizen)

President Corrigan is leaving after 24 years as president of the San Francisco campus amongst mixed opinions.  Many seem to think that he could have done more to protect students, while others seem resigned to the situation in Sacramento.  Ultimately, the question really can’t be answered at any of the individual campuses of either CSU or UC.  It is a failing of our state, our leaders, and our voters.  Together we have conspired to deprive our institutions of higher education of the necessary funding and then essentially required them to make the education cost prohibitive to much of the state’s population.

It is easy to question Gov. Brown, especially in hindsight.  But, with structural problems blooming like a stinking rose in Sacramento, the Governor is hardly the only person worthy of blame.  It is a sad fact that we once were wholeheartedly committed to education, today we cannot say that.

Tuition will exceed general fund support for the first time for UC system this year

by Brian Leubitz

There was once a vision for education in California that allowed us to dream big.  It allowed the state to have expectations for the future, because we were investing in it through education.  We went so far as to build a master plan that included tuition free higher education.  Those days now seem like an extremely distant dream.

For the first time, the total amount that University of California students pay in tuition this year will surpass the funding the prestigious public university receives from the state. It is a historic shift for the UC system and part of a national trend that is changing the nature of public higher education.

Propelled by budget crises in California and elsewhere, the burden of paying for education at a public college or university, once heavily subsidized by taxpayers, is shifting to students and their families. (LA Times)

While the Right is crowing about class warfare, they are doing their damnedest to ensure that those below them can’t work their way up.  Higher education, for several generations, has been the most significant way of upward mobility.  Decreasing access further cements that the rich stay rich.  A sad day for the California dream, indeed.