Moderate Assembly member looks at competitive seat in the Central Valley

by Brian Leubitz

Asm. Cathleen Galgiani has decided to enter the race for the new 5th Senate District.  The district voted slightly for Jerry Brown over Whitman, but voted in the opposite direction in favor of Fiorina over Boxer.  It is a winnable seat for either party.

Now, this is one of the curious odd senate districts that has changed rapidly.  Tom Berryhill currently represents much of this district in what is now SD-14, however that district is now a Dem leaning seat.  Scott Lay at Around the Capitol’s Nooner Email lays it out:

If it was only that simple, we’d grab our popcorn and settle for a great fight.  But, next year, few things are simple. Tom Berryhill currently serves in SD14, an even-numbered district.  SD14 isn’t up for election until 2014.  He won’t stay in the new SD14 after 2014, as it’s now a solid Dem majority-minority Latino district stretching from Fresno to Bakersfield.  

So, he has two choices if he wants to stay in the Senate.  He can run in SD05 against a strong moderate Dem Assemblywoman in a toss-up race or, relax for two years and then move to the conservative foothills-based SD08 in 2014.  He moved to run for SD14 originally, so that’s not out of the question.  However, if he skips a 2012 showdown against Galgiani, he will need to end his moderate ways to avoid a conservative showdown against Assemblymember Linda Halderman  or someone else in SD08.  (If Leland Yee wins the mayoral race in November, the voters of San Francisco will choose who represents the foothills through 2014.  Most likely, it will be Fiona Ma, although there would be something fun in sending Tom Ammiano to one of the havens for Prop. 8 for a couple of years.)

And beyond that, Berryhill could take a shot at the lean-Dem Central Valley Congressional district that Jerry McNerney plans to pursue next year. But as for Galgiani, she certainly is a known quantity in much of this district, and whether it is Berryhill or Asm. Kristin Olsen that she ultimately faces, she will be in a tough race.  She’s not somebody you would ever consider labeling progressive, but she has been a strong advocate of High Speed Rail and is probably a better vote than some of the other Mods currently in the Senate.

See the extended diary for the text of Galgiani’s press release.

Stockton, CA – After encouragement from area business leaders, community organizations

and members of both political parties, Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani today announced her

candidacy for the 5th District State Senate seat.

“When the districts were finalized on Monday, it was clear that the new State Senate district

would include significant portions of my current Assembly district and presents an opportunity to

continue to work on the vital issues I’ve spent the last several years working on in the

Assembly,” said Galgiani.

Galgiani continues, “I am no stranger to the serious issues facing this region. We’ve been hit

hard by record unemployment and foreclosures, and I want to continue fighting to create good

paying jobs, excellent schools and safe communities.  In addition, I want to continue my work

with Congressman Dennis Cardoza to bring a school of Medicine to the Central Valley so we

can improve access to healthcare.  These are the reasons that I am declaring my candidacy to

represent California’s 5th Senate District.”

A 5th generation Stocktonian, Cathleen has lived and worked in the San Joaquin Valley her

entire life. She has become a recognized leader on a variety of issues ranging from protecting

the Valley’s agricultural base, Delta protection and water supply, a clean and healthy

environment, to high-speed rail, and securing funds for the Stanislaus Family Justice

Center. Galgiani was instrumental in securing funding and support for UC Merced as a

Legislative Committee consultant on the Development of UC Merced.

Cathleen Galgiani, a Democrat, currently represents the 17th

Assembly District (which reaches from Stockton to Los Banos, and Tracy to Merced) and serves as the Chair of the Committee on

Agriculture, and as a member of the committees on Higher Education, Transportation and

Governmental Organization. She is also a vice-chair of the California State Legislative Rural

Caucus and Outdoor Sporting Caucus.

The new 5th Senate District seat includes parts of Stanislaus, South Sacramento County and all

of San Joaquin county and encompasses Stockton, Tracy, Modesto, Lodi and Galt

LA Mayor Takes Steps towards state politics

by Brian Leubitz

Since Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa opted out of the 2010 Governor’s race, he has been fairly quite on state level politics.  However, he stepped right up, and at the Sacramento Press Club, took on Prop 13:

He implored politicians to muster the courage to stop shying away from the third rails in California politics, including Prop. 13′s property tax on businesses and the constitutional requirement for a two-thirds vote on taxes.

And he framed it as direct challenge to Gov. Jerry Brown:

“To Governor Brown, I say, we need to have the courage to test the voltage in some of these so-called third-rail issues, beginning with Proposition 13,” Villaraigosa said. “We need to strengthen Proposition 13 and get it back to the original idea of protecting homeowners.” (Political Blotter)

Of course, these are traditional issues of import to California progressives, and critical to reestablishing democracy in California.  Even if Democrats are able to get 2/3 in the Legislature, changing the tax rules still matter.  Look at it this way, if we are working with majority rules, we can afford to lose some conservative Democratic votes.  But with the supermajority rules, the right-leaning lobbies have far more sway over a 2/3 Democratic majority as they can pick off members of the “Mod Squad.”

It is good to see Villaraigosa take on Prop 13, as the more conversation the better.  Whether anything comes of this is another question.  

Many of them went house hunting for new districts

by Brian Leubitz

The Legislators haven’t had a summer recess for quite a few years owing to the catastrophe known as the budget.  Having wrapped that up already, they got to “enjoy” some down time.  By enjoy, I mean sweating over the redistricting maps, either looking for ways to retain their current positions, or to move on and up. Of course, there were time for some extra-curricular activities, such as Asm. Steve Bradford pretending to be a food inspector.

But, the district shopping was fierce.  As I mentioned before, we will see a slew of Legislators try to wedge their way into un-term limited Congressional seats.  The merry-go-round has already begun.  But as the Republican Senate Caucus continues their freak out, at least one of the GOP Senators is in some serious trouble.  Sen. Sam Blakeslee’s district got a big GOP leaning chunk of Santa Barbara County pulled from the district, making it a more Central Coast district.  In other words, a very tough district for a republican.  And Asm. Bill Monning would like to take that seat:

A Carmel Democrat, Monning has long signaled his intentions but waited until Monday, when new statewide political boundaries were finalized, before making an official announcement. He said he was emboldened by a new, Democratic-leaning seat, and touted his two-term record in the state Assembly.

“I am enthused by (redistricting) and fired up and ready to go,” Monning said. “If the voters were to elect me to represent them in the Senate, there would be a continuity of issues, a continuity of relationships I’ve built.”(SJ Merc)

Monning is fairly popular in Santa Cruz and the area.  He’ll need to reach out to the slightly more than half of the voters who he has never represented, but many should be receptive to his message.

With Democrats needing just two votes in the Senate, and several possible pickups, a 2/3 majority in the Senate seems very possible.  What that buys us is a different question.

GOP plans for an attack on the maps, dreams of a brighter past.

By Brian Leubitz

As we mentioned earlier, the Redistricting Comission was scheduled to vote on their maps today.  Despite some public pressure on the GOP Comissioners, the vote remains unchanged and it passed:

The first voter-approved California Citizens Redistricting Commission finished its No. 1 job this morning and adopted new maps for Congress, state Assembly and Senate and the Board of Equalization.

The boundaries will be in effect for the next decade until the 2020 Census triggers a revision.

Passage was never really in question despite grumbling from a few corners.  The Several commissioners expressed frustration with some of the maps but conceded that wholesale perfection was unattainable in a state with so many competing interests.  (I confess, I couldn’t hear everything that was said. The webstream kept cutting out; perhaps the site was overtaxed.) (Lisa Vorderbrueggen/bay Area News)

But don’t think redistricting could be done easily here in California. Already one commissioner is alleging that other commissioners held secret meetings in violation of the rules laid out in Prop 11. The other commissioners are denying the charge, and perhaps this is an instance of trying to provide something for the inevitable GOP lawsuit.  But in any case, it looks like the Republicans aren’t going to limit themselves to a lawsuit.

“A referendum will be filed with respect to the Senate lines and possibly the congressional lines,” said California Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro. “The California Republican Party will wholeheartedly support those efforts when they come about.”

He said the redistricting commission’s actions “have been unfair if not unconstitutional.”

GOP lawmakers and activists have formed a committee called Fairness & Accountability in Redistricting to launch a petition drive to overturn the state Senate lines, according to Republican political consultant Dave Gilliard. The new district boundaries could give Democrats the two-thirds majority in the Legislature needed to pass taxes.

The Senate Republican Caucus has voted to endorse the referendum drive, according to Senate Minority Leader Bob Dutton of Rancho Cucamonga. (LA Times)

You’ll have to forgive me when I let out my cry of shock upon that news.  Unfair! Unconstitutional! Just plain outrageous! Of course, other than the trumped up charge of back room deals (because that would be sooooo different than past redistricting plans), the is no real evidence if anything running contrary to the intent of the proposition.  On the contrary, on the whole, these commissioners went bode and beyond the call of duty in their efforts to make this a transparent and open process. The meetings were all webcast, and they traveled the state to hear from as many people as possible.

Of coursem if this does go to a referendum, we then toss it to the Supreme Court which hardly represents the will of the people of California.  Nonetheless, I find it difficult to believe that the Court would come up with anything much more favorable to Republicans.  But, if the GOP wants to attack their own creation, I won’t be the one to wipe away Arnold Schwarzenegger’s crocodile tears.

Redistricting Commission votes on final maps today

by Brian Leubitz

“Paying off” is really a loaded phrase.  Sure, the redistricting commission has done a ton of work, and they deserve rich praise for that.  But, as noted last week, it is something of a fool’s errand. The districts are too large, and so they are constantly fighting competing interests that ensure few will be really satisfied when the time comes. But, today is the day when the work of the Commission will “pay off.”

Be that as it may, today is the day that the Commission will vote on its final maps.  They have already tentatively approved the last visualization, and it appears that they have the votes for passage.  However, over the last few days, they have been receiving testimony of disgruntled groups.  Some are more serious than others.  Notably, MALDEF has suggest rejection of these maps because they underrepresent the Latino community.  Many other localized, and valid, concerns have been raised.  But, the feeling from the meetings is that the Commissioners feel that this is the best they could do.

The GOP has been putting public pressure on one of the 3 supportive Republicans to change their vote, but that seems unlikely.  If it is approved, expect to see the GOP quickly file papers for a referendum.  They are terrified that they might lose their superminority in one or both houses of the Legislature.  However, whether they have the money is seriously in doubt.  As of last reports, they had less than a quarter of a million dollars in the bank.  That’s not enough to throw a good party, let alone put a measure on the ballot.

But at some level, there has to be a sense of fatalism to the complaints:

If it’s all just grumbling, then perhaps the lessons of this redistricting process — the first of its kind in California — will improve future efforts. The ultimate reality of redistricting is that the lines have to go somewhere; but keeping the criticism at a low level will no doubt help remind voters why they chose the new system in the first place.(John Myers)

With lines that nearly touch a million, there are going to be some very tough choices.  That is inevitable.  And people will be disappointed.  Peter Schrag, in a brilliant column, over at the California Progress Report points out that pretty much everybody is going to be disappointed in one way or another.  And, despite the potential for Democrats to take 2/3 majorities in each House, it may not be enough:

But maybe the biggest frustrated expectation in this set of political reforms could be the hope of the left that Democrats may at last get the two or three additional seats in each house to achieve the two-thirds majority needed to raise taxes without Republican votes.

Democrats may get the seats, but don’t count on the votes. The Republican minority, in rigidly blocking any road to tax increases or, as this year, even a ballot measure giving voters a chance to extend the expiring taxes that the legislature itself approved in prior years, also protected Democrats from the voter backlash against the tax increases that they might have voted for. California Democrats have also voted for corporate tax loopholes.

If any new competitive districts produce those marginal Democrats, how eager will they be to vote for boosts in the vehicle license fee, the sales tax, or the gas tax? How willing would Gov. Jerry Brown be to sign such tax increases? In his last terms as governor his austere heart was always in thinking small for an era of limits. He stiffed the universities and never trusted big institutions.(Peter Schrag)

But for today, let’s keep an eye on the Redistricting Commission.  They are likely to get a few legal challenges, and perhaps that referendum.  However, the redistricting task is a huge one, and they’ve done their best in a thoughtful process.  You can watch the meetings live at their website and check out the maps here.  The meeting is today at 9AM in Room 4203 of the State Capitol.

Well, I haven’t done an open thread in a while, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t just as worthwhile. I’ll be a little quiet for the next week or so, but feel free to chatter away.  So, a few pieces to chew on…

* The CA State Law Enforcement Association is having their annual Foundation Golf Tournament, with the proceeds going for college scholarships. It’s in Napa on Oct. 7. You can get more details here.

* New York is beating us on the Marriage Equality race in more ways that one.  The latest polls in CA show the barest of majorities in support, but New York is up at 55%. One way or the other, Prop 8 will be gone by the middle of this decade.

* Well, even though our economy stinks, at least Apple is popular with looters. Hooray for California (and the nation’s) largest corporation!

* Sacramento put $22 million towards keeping their redevelopment agency open for the fiscal year.

* Patients are now getting a more team-based response to chronic conditions.

The grocery chain plans to begin enforcing their rules more strictly

by Brian Leubitz

Safeway isn’t really a political ally to the left in any meaningful way.  They could be worse to their employees, sure, but they could also be a lot better.  But they are frequently the center of signature gathering operations.  Not of their own free will, mind you, but just because that is where the traffic is.  If you want to find a lot of people walking around, go to the grocery store.

But the problem is that the signature gathering business isn’t really an activist operation anymore, if it ever really was. It’s a business, and the people gathering signatures are doing it for money.  And while the sidewalks are public property, safeway parking lots are not.  So Safeway is doing more to clear the entrances to their stores and ensure that gatherers are following the rules.  Unsurprisingly, the signature gatherers weren’t so impressed, as Josh Richman explains:

Safeway says the signature gatherers don’t abide by their corporate policies, block entrances and harass customers, and so has started a crackdown that, in some instances, includes seeking court injunctions against the worst offenders.

Signature gatherers counter that Safeway is disrupting their free-speech rights. About two dozen political petition signature gatherers protested the crackdown Wednesday outside Safeway’s corporate headquarters in Pleasanton. (BayAreaNews)

I actually have had a couple of awkward situations with the gatherers at the grocery store. But that is mostly because I like to hear what they say, and never sign.  I have seen them get rather rude to some people as well.  It is really hard to blame Safeway from blocking what is really a nuisance at their doorway.

Douglas was an environmental powerhouse since the Commission began

by Brian Leubitz

Way back in 1972, the fledgling environmental movement was still looking for its footing.  California was still recovering from the 1969 oil spill in Santa Barbara, but the big thing that really angered people was the construction of Sea Ranch, a private coastal community that planned to take several miles of coast away from public access.

It turns out that these facts really galvanized the movement, and soon the campaign to launch the Coastal Commission was off in earnest.  Douglas was at the heart of that:

Douglas began his crusade for coastal protection in the 1970s as a legislative aide and consultant, helping to draft Proposition 20, which voters passed in 1972, and the 1976 state Coastal Act, which created the Coastal Commission. After serving as the agency’s chief deputy, he was named its third executive director in 1985.

Since then, Douglas is credited with transforming the start-up panel into an influential land-use agency that has final say in nearly all development proposed along the coastline, from single-family homes, docks and beach stairways to the largest projects, such as subdivisions, marinas, highways and power plants. (LAT)

Of course, today the Coastal Commission vigorously defends the public right of access, but that result wasn’t always a sure thing.  And like every other public agency, budget woes threaten to cut away at their core mission.  However, Douglas leaves an impressive foundation on which to build.

Timm Herdt questions the size of the districts

by Brian Leubitz

When the dreams of a constitutional convention were high around here, we often said that one of the first structural reforms would be the size and shape of the Legislature.  The idea of a unicameral Assembly of 120 legislators came up again and again.  But when you really look at the numbers, as Timm Herdt did today, they are simply shocking:

The size of the Legislature – 80 Assembly members, 40 senators – was established in 1879. At the time, there were fewer than 1 million people living here.  Today, there are 37.3 million. That means that an Assembly district must contain about 465,000 people and each Senate district about 931,000. …

How big is a Senate district? Five of the 50 states have fewer people. The districts are 10 times larger than the national average, three times bigger than those in the second-place state, Texas.(VC Starvcstar.com )

And, as somebody who grew up in Texas, there is a big caveat on that Texas figure.  While the 31 Texas Senate districts are huge, the 150 House districts are far more manageable.  So, while you don’t normally know who your Senator is, I always knew, personally, my representative.  In fact, I went to school with his children.

Of course, I know my Legislators now, but I work in politics.  I expect that very few Californians can even name their legislators, let alone say that they have spoken to them personally.  It is physically impossible.

But the question became more clear with the redistricting process, as various pockets and enclaves fought for their own interests.  The people of American Canyon fought separation from Napa County and inclusion with Sonoma tooth and nail.  And Santa Rosa was not thrilled being shipped west.

But, wouldn’t it just make sense for Santa Rosa to have its own district? It is certainly a large enough population to merit that.  I’m not arguing for New Hampshire size districts, which are only about 3400 people/district.  However, districts of about 100,000 would make a lot of sense.  Now, that would net us nearly 400 members of the legislature.  However, if done right (and with a smaller staff for each member) it wouldn’t cost all that much more money while making government a lot more transparent and approachable.

Put that one in your initiative process and vote on it.  Well, maybe not until the budget has stabilized for a while…

UPDATE: It turns out that Students for California’s Future has a nice little report on this subject. Check it out here for some of the possible options on creating a bigger Legislature.