Even Districts Are Elected in Gubernatorial Elections, Odd Districts in Presidential Elections

by Brian Leubitz

From a tweet from the Press-Enterprise’s Jim Miller:

The #CAredistricting commission is scheduled to act on numbering SD’s Thursday. Odds vs. evens have big implications. (Twitter)

Here in San Francisco, this has been the talk of much of the City.  As San Francisco has been consolidated into one Senate District, if the number assigned was even, the eastern half of the City would be represented by nobody that it had elected.  Mark Leno’s (SD-3) term expires in 2012.  Leland Yee (SD-8) is termed out in 2014, but is running for Mayor. If he wins, there will be a special election in early 2012 to replace him. The replacement could either last a few months or for a couple of years.

In other parts of the state where senate districts are set to be dramatically changed, such as the North Coast and several areas in LA, they will represented by temporary assignments to Senators that they did not elect.  This process is rather bizarre, but that’s what you get when you elect legislators for districts longer than 2 years, there really is no other way around it.

Keep an eye out for those numbers this week, it could raise a whole other raft of questions.

Redistricting Commission Ready for Legal Attacks

by Brian Leubitz

When Prop 11, the first redistricting measure, was on the ballot, I was fond of saying that it would never end up drawing a map that was actually used by anybody.  My suspicion at the time was that the 14 members would not be able to get the 9 member majority (3+3+3) to agree to a map.  That is still a possibility, as we really have no certain indications as to how the commissioners are going to vote and how happy they are with the process. That being said, seeing how the public comment has gone, and how the webcast meetings are going, I would be surprised if they were unable to come to agreement.

But that doesn’t mean that judges may not end up making the maps.  Tom Del Beccaro, the CRP Chairman has been making noises about how the maps favor Democrats.  Apparently he wants districts carved out for his legislators, and doesn’t like the fact that the districts more closely represent the fact that Democrats have a rather sizable registration advantage in the state.  I would be pretty shocked if the CRP or some closely related proxy group doesn’t sue shortly after the August 15 due date.  He’s basically said as much:

Tom Del Beccaro, state GOP chairman, claims the panel has been “overtaken by partisanship and incompetence” in hiring legal and line-drawing advisers, and in drawing political districts, some of which he considers oddly shaped and unfair.

“It’s either shenanigans or they’re doing a terrible job,” he said. “We can’t afford either one.”

Del Beccaro said he is concerned about draft proposals that analysts say would give Democrats a strong chance to gain a two-thirds majority in the Assembly and Senate.(SacBee)

And of course the noise isn’t only from the Right, as former Senate President Don Perata says he has talked with several groups who are considering suing to block the maps as well.  The Commission has the authority to protect its maps, and will do so.  If I had to guess, I would say that a few districts here or there will get tweaked, but the majority will be implemented.

But, that’s only a guess, and the courts will end up sorting much of this out.  

The first of the California Dream Act bills could become law next year.

by Brian Leubitz

With the Legislature in recess, the days until August 15, when the Legislature comes back and the redistricting commission is due to return its final maps, are focused on looking at the Governor’s signings and vetoes.  And, of course, lots of dog and pony shows for the media, as Legislators attempt to get some attention for their legislation.

One item that is of particular note is the first, perhaps more modest part, of the California Dream Act.  AB 130 wouldn’t cost the state money, but it could enable some “Dreamers” to afford an education:

One of two bills referred to as the California Dream Act was approved today by the state senate and is headed to Gov. Jerry Brown’s office for approval. Known as AB 130, the measure would allow undocumented college students access to privately funded financial aid in the form of scholarships and other assistance as overseen by state colleges and universities. (SCPR)

Currently, immigrants who attended at least three years at California high schools and graduated from a California high school pay in-state tuition.  This legislation would simply make these same students eligible for private aid.  

Brown has previously said he supported the California Dream Act, and one would hope that would mean a quick signing of AB 130.  But one thing that I’ve learned from watching this process for many years is that nothing is certain.  You can contact Governor Brown to let him know you support AB 130 and help speed up the process.

For the 2008 elections, a confluence of events caused legislators and the governor to support an early presidential primary in California.  There was the whole “California as an ATM” and wanting to get our say, which I guess was part of it.  And, you know, there was also the initiative to change the legislative term limits.

That measure failed, but the February election is still officially on the books.  For a number of reasons, that could be a progressive nightmare.  Few Democrats would show up, but it would still be a full statewide vote, with all the initiatives associated with that.  It would yield one of the most skewed electorates in recent memory. Oh, and it cost the state at least $10 million to throw that party.

So, now AB 80 (Fong) aims to eliminate that expense:

Californians won’t choose their 2012 presidential nominees until June under legislation that’s heading to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk.

Assembly Bill 80, by Democratic Assemblyman Paul Fong, would move the presidential primary from February of next year to June, consolidating it with the statewide primary election. The bill was approved by the state Senate on a vote of 34-3.(SacBee)

That 34-3 vote at least indicates that an extra election and the extra expense just wasn’t palatable politically for some of the Republicans as well.  At the same time, the Governor will soon have on his desk a measure to basically make the electoral college a quaint annoyance:

California would give all its electoral votes to the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide under legislation that was sent Thursday to Gov. Jerry Brown.

Assembly Bill 459 cleared its final legislative hurdle by passing the Assembly, 51-12, with little Republican support.(SacBee)

Basically, the bill would enter us into a compact so that all of our electoral votes would go to the popular vote winner, but only if a majority of the electoral votes sign on to the compact.  Even if Jerry were to sign the bill, another 142 electoral votes worth of states would have to sign on.  However, this might just be slow motion electoral reform we are watching.

Yesterday, it was CSU’s turn to raise tuition.  Apparently, today is the UC’s turn:

University of California regents today voted to raise tuition by about $1,070, sending the total cost to $12,192 for the upcoming school year.

After a recently approved $650 million cut in state funding, UC regents said they had no choice but to raise tuition to close about a quarter of the system’s $1 billion budget deficit. When combined with a previous hike, tuition will be 18 percent more — about $1,890 — in fall 2011 than it was in fall 2010. Each campus also charges undergraduates about $1,000 in additional fees. (SacBee)

The university systems are both on the hook for another $100 million in the triggered cuts if we don’t reach the higher, hopeful, revenue figure. By the way, the Controller announced today that we aren’t actually $230 million behind where we need to be, but $85 million, because somebody forgot to tally a big check from the unclaimed property account.

That being said, the discussion about the additional cuts was bumped until a later date, but don’t be shocked if more increases aren’t on the horizon.

One vote against the increase: LG Newsom.

“The biggest threat to our democracy is income inequality, the loss of the middle class,” Newsom said. “And here we are once again, putting the nail in the coffin of the middle class. That’s exactly who gets hurt in this debate.”

The thing about the initiative process is that there is a lot of smoke without fire.  If you were to really monitor each initiative that comes into the hands of the offices of the Secretary of State you would keep yourself in a perpetual state of manic depression. First, initiatives that seem great (like repealing Prop 8) or initiatives that seem awful (like repeating the restrictions on choice that Californians have rejected many times).  It is just a bag full of crazy, and most of the crazy has nowhere near the money to get close to the ballot.

And so comes this bag full of crazy from the California Center for Public Policy

He said he filed the three initiatives Tuesday with the state attorney general's office.

The first measure would ban recognition of all public-sector labor unions and prevent government authorities from collectively bargaining with them.

The second would impose a higher tax burden on pensions paid through CalPERS or CalSTRS. Someone who earns an annual pension of $100,000 to $150,000 would pay 15 percent above the regular state income tax on the pension. The rate would jump to 25 percent for any pensions above $150,000. Health benefits would not be considered in the calculation. Ebenstein said the tax would eventually raise $1 billion a year for the state.

The third would raise the retirement age for state employees to 65. Public safety workers would see their retirement age rise to 58. 

 As we speak, the Legislature is working on its own pension reform measure that might be on the ballot sometime next year, and who knows what other private organizations might decide that the time is ripe for them to get some publicity through this stuff.  But Larry Eberstein, the head of the fair and balanced California Center thinks the time is now.  So he's groping around for some cash from some of the big funders of initiative campaigns to get some money.  (Not, you know, those dirty grassroots people…)

In the end, I would be pretty surprised if this got any momentum.  The reaction from Wisconsin from milder “reforms” has been outrage, and in California, a bluer state, the reaction to the end of all teacher, firefighter, police, etc unions, yeah, that will not be taken lightly.  Frankly, it's one thing to pay $200 to get some attention for your rather anonymous organization.  But he does have former Assemblyman Brooks Firestone on board, and he is the father of Andrew Firestone, one of the first “Bachelors” on the TV reality show.  So, that's awesome.

But, hey, why not let Eberstein play in the crazy box.  It looks like fun.  Perhaps next week I will round up some friends to file an initiave calling for a save the unicorn program. 

It probably never should have been this close, but today, Janice Hahn is the Congresswoman-elect for CA-36:

Democrat Janice Hahn defeated Republican Craig Huey in a bitterly contested Southern California special election marked by stinging attacks from both sides.

Hahn finished with a healthy 54.56 percent of the vote to Huey’s 45.44 percent in Tuesday’s vote. The good news came early for Hahn’s camp soon after polls closed when the initial absentee returns showed the Los Angeles councilwoman with an 8-point advantage. Huey’s campaign needed a stronger showing in the early vote to offset the 18-point Democratic registration advantage in the beach town district.(Politico)

Despite pouring the better part of a million dollars into his campaign, Huey just wasn’t able to overcome the landscape of the district.  Until the redistricting commission says otherwise, this district will vote for Democrats, even in a special election without the draw of higher offices on the ballot.

California never really caught the Tea Party Fever, and doesn’t seem to be now either.