In case you hadn’t noticed, we are pretty much at the moment of perfect storm for the prisons.  They are wildly overcrowded, and generally wild. They are the subject of Supreme litigation to release 40,000 prisoners. They are costing us more than we are spending on our higher education systems, and oh, yeah, there’s the fact that we face about $30 Billion of debt.

So you would think that this would be a super fantastic opportunity to try to do something about the prison situation.  For years, the voters and politicians of the state have been scared of doing anything other than trading on fear.  Rather than working on new solutions was considered too risky.  Thing is, while I was working for Kamala Harris’ campaign, I learned that somebody forgot to tell her that.  Instead, she has throughout her career as SF DA been willing to look at new ways to make this a safer world, rather than just the politically safe ways of locking up every offender and trying to keep the keys far away.

And perhaps we are seeing more Californians noticing that we, in fact, have a few problems here.  From today’s LA Times:

“Smart on Crime” is something of a Harris franchise, the name of her 2009 book. In it, and during her campaign, Harris argued that criminal justice money is wasted on the “revolving door” that prison has become as 70% of the 120,000 convicts released annually end up being caught committing new crimes.

She believes that prison should be the punishment for serious offenders and that greater pains should be taken to prod milder offenders with education, counseling, probation and other community-based support.

“I firmly believe in and advocate accountability and consequences when you are talking about rapists and murderers and child molesters – you’ve got to lock them up,” she said. “But you’ve also got to look at the fact that crime is not monolithic.” (LA Times)

However, we can’t really think that whatever changes are going to be either quick or easy.  At the same time this story (entitled “The time may be right for Kamala Harris”) was published, we get a story of Jerry Brown’s fealty to the prison guards union (CCPOA).

Jerry Brown is preparing to dance with the ones who brung him, specifically 31,000 members of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. … In a speech that was closed to the public, Brown warned union members that there may not be much if any pay raise. But he also talked about his strong relationship with the union’s leaders and declared that he intends to work out a labor pact with them once in office.

“He reached out to a large segment of his employees and gave them hope,” said Chuck Alexander, the union’s second in command. “It made people feel a little bit better.”(SacBee)

CCPOA has been in a near constant war with Schwarzenegger. It occasionally was helpful, but more often what they were fighting was any attempt at reform. The target of their ire was sentencing reform primarily, as they would prefer to keep more people in prisons (and more guards in jobs).  The relationship with Brown will certainly be different. That’s probably a good think initially, but CCPOA is going to have to open up to reforms, or face some far more drastic options.

The court decision is still looming, but even a “victory” would only be a temporary for our prison and its history of letting people die in their own cesspools.  Everybody is going to need to make some changes in their thinking if we are to really tackle the prisons issue.  CCPOA is going to have to open up to reform.  Politicians, particularly Harris and Brown, are going to have to get really friendly with that third rail in order to provide the leadership our state needs.  And most importantly, our voters have to realize that their is a high cost of the “tough on crime” mantras, especially when not backed up with sensible rehabilitation procedures.

Big change is coming, but whether its delivered through democratic processes, through a court order, or some sort of disaster, well, who knows?

Old Man Walters forgot to eat his Metamucil this morning.

Walters is reacting to what California pundits have already decided is Governor Brown’s strategy. In a nutshell, he is going to submit a “clean” budget in early January and then ask the voters to fill in the gaps in a May Special Election. Walters doesn’t like it.

Were Brown’s doomsday strategy to fall short, he’d be stuck with an even worse budget mess and virtually no option other than following through with deep spending slashes in schools and other public services.

Huh? I’m not sure I understand what Walters means here. If the measures fail, the January budget goes into effect. It won’t be a “budget mess”-a human disaster, maybe, but not a “budget mess.” And, yes, those cuts will come, but what’s the alternative?

Walters doesn’t think it will be so easy for Brown to get a budget through in time.

Even before he could seek new taxes from voters, however, Brown would also have to persuade his fellow Democrats in the Legislature to vote for a slash-and-burn budget. And that could be extraordinarily difficult because Democrats would be getting pressure from their political constituencies, such as public employee unions, and be facing uncertain re-elections in 2012 because of redrawn districts and a new “top-two” primary system.

Maybe he wasn’t paying attention in November when the majority vote budget law was passed. That means there would have to be 13 defectors in the Assembly without picking up a Republican and 4 in the Senate without picking up a Republican. Why do I think there’s a chance some Republicans will sign on? Because it will be the kind of austerity budget they want!

Now, far be it from me to impugn the learning of our own local version of David Broder, but does Walters know anything about the dynamics of legislative bodies? There just aren’t the votes there to buck a new governor who just won a solid majority (and therefore a solid mandate from the voters) without breaking a sweat. Maybe a couple will make protest votes. But 13? Yeah, right.

Brown’s budget will sail through and the campaign will be on. I’m guessing there will be several measures covering a number of different priorities, including education, health and welfare, and so on.

So, what does Walters want him to do? Try and do it the old fashioned way and find 3 Senate Republicans and 2 Assembly Republicans to vote to raise taxes? He must believe that “pox on both your houses” kind of rhetoric that would hold that it is equally tough for Dems to vote against the unions on the one hand and Republicans to vote to increase taxes on the other. Bullshit.

Personally, I think Brown’s strategy is brilliant. The voters have wanted it both ways for too long and the Republicans have been able to pin all of the tax increases on Democrats. They won’t be able to do that if the voters approve (though surely they will still try).

As an aside, I am strongly in favor a ballot measure that would reduce to 55% or to bare majority the ability of school districts to raise parcel taxes. I hope that shows up too, and I plan on doing some work to make sure it does.

UPDATE:

Joe Matthews apparently also thinks Dan Walters is being a dick.

While the eyes of the nation are on San Francisco and the 9th Circuit’s Prop 8 hearing, there is some other news around the state.  Keeping the preview theme up, the new legislature gets sworn in today in Sacramento.  We’ll have 10 new Senators and 28 new Assembly members.

Meanwhile, Governor Schwarzenegger will call a special session on the budget, just to see if he can try to do something while Sacramento waits for Gov. Brown. But, there might be some trust issues:

California lawmakers are in no mood to tackle the state’s latest deficit before Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger leaves office next month, even as the governor prepares to declare a fiscal emergency and call a special session of the Legislature on Monday.

The ruling Democrats distrust the Republican governor, who has used his veto pen to make deep cuts in programs they prize, and they don’t want to hand him a new opportunity to exercise that power. Moreover, state law allows them 45 days to pass any deficit-cutting legislation in the special session – and by then, Schwarzenegger will be gone and Democrat Jerry Brown will be governor. (LA Times)

After the courts have affirmed Schwarzenegger’s blue pencil line item veto actions, I’m just not sure why you would deal with him.  If the issue is to make cuts alone, better to make the cuts with Gov. Brown. At least you know the score with Jerry.

As Asm. Beall said, Arnold is Expendable.

Note: this is a cross-post from  The Realignment Project. Follow us on Facebook!

 

Introduction:

With the belated victory of Kamala Harris as Attorney General, the full results of the 2010 election are in for California. There many things that progressives can be proud of – a sweep of statewide offices, picking up another Assembly seat, defeating prop 23 and passing prop 25. On the other hand, there are also some major disappointments – the defeat of prop 19 (marijuana legalization), the defeat of prop 21 (a VLF to fund the state parks), the defeat of prop 24 (rolling back corporate tax breaks), and the passage of prop 26 (2/3rds requirement for fees). Prop 26 especially complicates what this victory means for California.

Indeed, our situation is a lot like the national picture after the 2008 elections – we have an executive who straddles the line between the left and right wings of the Democratic Party, a big legislative majority, but not the ability to break the fiscal deadlock and really be able to govern our state.

So where do we go from here?

 

Finance:

The rather comfortable million-vote margin by which prop 25 passes would make me rather optimistic about the possibility for the passage of a majority-vote revenue proposal. However the failure of every revenue increase – prop 19, 21, and 23 – are daunting evidence to the contrary. Granted that the outcome might be different in a presidential electorate (younger, more minority and working class voters, higher turnout generally), but I think this shows how difficult it will be to thread the needle of the “Program/Government Blindspot” and the prevalence of austerity thinking, even if we link taxation to spending.

In the mean time, California Democrats have a daunting task ahead of them – to balance the budget without doing any more harm to already brutalized public services, and to create the economic growth necessary to ensure that the budget stays balanced. In the short-term, there are four things we can do:

1. Going back to the Steinberg Maneuver – According to the California Budget Project, Prop 26 doesn't establish a blanket 2/3rd requirement for all fees. A number of fees, including “charges where the feepayer receives a service, product, benefit, or privilege…charges imposed for entrance, use, purchase, or lease of state or local government property, penalties, fines, or other monetary charges resulting from a
   violation of the law, charges imposed for “reasonable regulatory costs” and assessments and property-related fees,” are not covered by the 2/3rds requirement. Thus, it's still possible to raise revenue through a two-step process in which said fees are raised by a certain amount by majority vote, then taxes are raised and the fees are lowered by the same amount by a majority vote. The issue here is whether we can get Governor-elect Jerry Brown to sign such measures, given previous statements of his.
2. We can try again with Ballot Box Budgeting – there's some indication that Brown's approach will be instead to put the budget to a vote as a proposition in a special election. The tricky thing here is how to persuade the public to vote for said budget; Schwarzenegger tried this in 2009 and it was dramatically unsuccessful. Perhaps the 2010 election signals a more realist (and realistic) electorate, but it's a roll of the dice.
3. Banks – I'vewritten before about the potential that a state reserve bank offers. That was true before the 2010 election, but it's even more true now. Given the newly-created restrictions on raising revenue, a state reserve bank offers an entirely new possibility, both for resolving the current budget crisis, and for creating the economic growth necessary for California's future development.
   1. I believe that this bank would be even more likely to gain support if, within the state bank, there was created a series of Development Funds – a Green Development Fund, an Education and Innovation Development Fund, a Health Care and Medical Science Development Fund, and so on – that could make targeted investments into key sectors of California's economy, both public and private.
4. Jobs – with or without financing from a state reserve bank, a Job Insurance fund would fit under the exemption in prop 26 – since the “feepayer receives a service, product, benefit, or privilege,” namely eligibility for a job when unemployed. Ultimately, as I have said before, California cannot balance its budget with 12% unemployment because revenues will continue to decline, no matter how much spending is cut. What is needed is a sudden shock to California's labor market, and unemployment being cut in half is that shock – it will pump huge amounts of money into local retailers and other businesses, it will make employers see the ranks of the unemployed in their communities shrinking, and hopefully shift the “animal spirits” of both employers and lenders.

None of these steps is a total solution for the fundamental problem of revenues – given the problems we had with the budget even before the recession. But they will fill the gap so that we can debate the question of majority-vote revenues in an economic climate of balanced budgets, normal levels of unemployment, and higher economic growth.

Green Economy:

Now that AB32 and CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) are safe from Prop 23, we need to do more to show the real possibilities of a green economy. This means making it fast and seamless to develop sustainability, through the creation of expedited approval and categorical permits for model projects. It also means establishing special zoning rules in transit corridors to allow for sustainable, energy-efficient, high-density development.

This doesn't mean dismantling regulations in the name of the environment, but rather shifting the direction of regulation away from NIMBY no-growth, which only encourages sprawl and wasteful development, towards in-fill building of affordable housing in already-developed areas while protecting undeveloped land. It also means – and here is where environmentalists need to reckon with the realities of class and race – getting rid of the tools of modern class (and racial) discrimination: zoning rules that limit building heights to two-stories or less, that ban unrelated individuals from living in the same house (to prevent renters and subdivision), that establish minimum lot sizes to mandate , or that mandate the construction of garages. In other words, ending exclusionary zoning and encouraging inclusionary zoning.

Finally, it means supercharging public investments into green energy, mass transit, and other sustainable ventures. A statewide version of LA's 30/10 plan, aimed at speeding up and extending High-Speed Rail and local mass transit would be a huge transformation, both in terms of creating jobs and spurring growth, but also in lowering CO2 emissions and pushing land-use away into energy-efficient high-density development. Large-scale alternative energy projects, like the Beacon Solar Energy Project, San Fransisco's tidal energy project, should be built under public auspices, making use of the newest forms of technology. The advantage to this approach is that it allows the public sector to act as a yardstick competitor to California energy companies, spurring innovation and providing a guaranteed market for green manufacturing firms under democratic auspices.

All of this links together. Without financing, there's not going to be a green revolution in California any time soon. Without new sources of economic growth that don't depend on housing bubbles, California won't get the revenue it needs. In the end, the fight over our budget is really about the future direction of this state – whether we will have a government that can help build a broad economy or a night watchman state that is powerless to prevent corporate greed from running wild.

So let's get to work.

Meg Whitman didn’t have much in the way of labor support.  However she was able to purchase secure one major public employee union, that of the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association.  You might remember this from the incident where CSLEA extracted a promise from Whitman to exclude law enforcement from any pension reform process.  That incident became quite the brouhaha, first in that the candidate then said that she might take public employee pension reform to the ballot (without mentioning the topic of pension reform), and then later because somebody on Jerry Brown’s staff called Whitman a “whore” for selling out to the union.

Of course, the “whore” episode only comes out because a) Jerry Brown didn’t properly hang up the phone and b) CSLEA handed that tape recording over to the media.  This had to be a very calculated and considered move.  You just don’t do something that creates that kind of personal attack without considering what you are doing.  In other words, CSLEA moved all in by releasing that tape…for the wrong side.

Sure, different interest groups play in politics, and politicians are used to that.  And CSLEA did spend a decent amount of money for Whitman,  about half a million on Whitman.  (And another $100K on the losing AG candidate, Steve Cooley.)  Money gets spent against you, and then you have to work with those interests if you overcome it.  In a democracy so awash with cash, it happens, and you deal with it.  However, it is simply human nature to have a longer memory when it comes to these more personal attacks.  One has to anticipate the same thing would have come into play for Whitman, if she had won, with anybody even remotely associated with Gloria Allred.

But CSLEA was in a more compromised position.  They haven’t had a contract since 2008, and will now have to negotiate with Jerry Brown’s team to get that contract.  And that’s amidst a slew of other labor unions that are looking for contracts that did support him.  Heck, even the prison guards (CCPOA) went pretty heavily for Brown. (Think Bobble Head Meg)

The Bee has an interesting article about the political strategist behind the CSLEA efforts, Don Novey.  Novey, who has a long background with CCPOA, was one of the godfathers of California’s Tough on Crime legislation and ballot measures.  He recognized that fear of crime was a powerful tool to get people to vote for measures and candidates that would benefit his ends.  And, in this situation with CSLEA, he lost:

Don Novey placed a multimillion-dollar bet on Meg Whitman to become California’s next governor and lost. Problem was, he played the game with other people’s money. A lot of it.

Now one of the state employee unions that the labor legend advised to oppose Gov.-elect Jerry Brown must negotiate a new contract with the incoming administration.(SacBee)

The article is worth reading, not only for the background on Novey, but the future of collective bargaining for law enforcement will certainly be affected by what happened in the election.

The bigger issue, pension reform, is still hanging out there.  Brown seems to be looking at the subject to cement some sort of legacy in this term.  He’ll have to overcome some very tepid supporters in labor, but certainly his position will be generally stronger than Whitman to shove something down.  The big danger here is that we might slam the middle class in the process.  If we are going to solve the long-term budget crisis, we will need to stop ignoring the revenue side of the equation.

I usually don’t get to spend much time watching the events I put together at Netroots Nation. With a 3 day event comprised of over 100 sessions, over 300 speakers, over 100 sponsors and 2000+ attendees most of my time is spent in our show office. Thankfully I had a little more time at Netroots California to just take the content in. I was tied to one room for the most part, so there’s a lot of great stuff I missed. But for the sessions I did watch there are a few ideas that stuck with me.

Check them out below the fold.

1. The Lesson of how Jerry Brown won

The first session of the day featured a great presentation by Seiji Carpenter at David Binder Research and Bryan Blum at the California Labor Federation filled in a lot of detail on some innovative things labor did this cycle. You can find Seiji’s presentation here and I’d encourage you to page through it. There’s a lot of meat to this presentation, but I wanted to highlight a few things.

* A lot of people, myself included, had heavy criticism and concern that the Brown campaign was completely absent over the summer. Whitman was pounding away at him over the air for 112 days without any response from his campaign. However, Independent Expenditures were up on the air and they were able to communicate their intentions through press releases. They kept the campaign essentially tied over the summer. And if you contrast that with Angelides in 2006 he’d essentially lost by Labor Day.

* The campaign and IEs were able to focus on key demographics. They prevented Whitman from building a base among women. Undecideds moved toward Brown. Latinos came home to Brown and turned out in record numbers (a special shout out to SEIU’s Cambiando campaign here). Working class voters favored Brown. And in a historic shift Asian Americans overwhelmingly broke for Brown.

* Labor ran a program called Million More Voters that was intended to target voters with similar qualities to union members, and they identified 2.8 million people. Asian Americans were more than twice as likely to be targets so they invested a lot of time in researching those communities, something that hasn’t been done on a large scale in California before.

* The result of this work with the Asian American communities around California lead to a 42 point shift. Asian Americans broke 55 to 38 for Democrats in 2010 and 37 to 62 for Democrats in 2006. And the work done here should be particularly instructive for future campaigns.

* Brown won by 13 points in the end, but lost with White voters. That’s something to think about going forward.

So while this isn’t a campaign that I think anyone should repeat, those of us worried because Brown was not making efforts to reach out to youth voters or boldly articulating a progressive vision or running an effective modern online campaign or name your criticism… were wrong.

2. Open Primaries and Redistricting

In the State of California in 2011 and Beyond panel John Laird made a really smart point. He gave a few examples of politicians running last cycle’s campaign this cycle and being surprised when they lost. District 6’s newest supervisor, Jane Kim, wasn’t on this panel but that’s pretty much exactly what happened in her race with her opponents as evidenced by this article and this one.

The new variable in the 2012 cycle isn’t going to be the vastly different Presidential electorate, although candidates ignore that at their peril, it’s going to be the newly passed primary system and redistricting which will be conducted by citizens and not the legislature. In a lot of races around the state there’s a real possibility for both candidates that go through to the general election to be of the same party. In fact that came within a few hundred thousand votes of happening for the GOP in the attorney general’s race had it been in effect this year. It’ll likely lead to one candidate being either more conservative or liberal and one being more moderate. To not end up with a crop of moderates across the state and lose our progressive streak different strategies are going to be necessary. And this is going to be particularly true if one or several incumbents get redistricted into the same district. We’re going to have to think about how and whether to run primaries.

3. Narrative on government and revenue

One of the organizations I was really proud to have in attendance is California Alliance. The point their staff made across several sessions went something like this. Most voters don’t know how government works and they not only don’t trust it they actively despise Sacramento. It’s common for me to be able to walk into a room of activists or politically informed people and throw out terms like 2/3rds or Prop 13 and everyone know exactly what I’m talking about and why they’re a problem. California Alliance and a lot of other groups have made a case that the average voter doesn’t have that level of knowledge and the reason you often see these anti-tax votes or punitive votes is because they don’t like or trust Sacramento. You do have success on the local level raising revenue because voters can see what their local government does and there’s a lot more trust there. At that level it’s schools, fire fighters, police, fixing roads, etc.

So one of the key things everyone needs to be thinking about in their work is how we can build a narrative about the role of government in California, why it’s important, and why we need reforms to revenue to keep the California dream alive.

4. California vs. The Nation

It was pretty hard watching election returns come in from across the country on election night. Across the board Democrats lost seats culminating in a 60+ seat loss for the House. The GOP also claimed several key governorships and state houses on the one year it matters, when redistricting will be done. But that wave washed ashore at the Sierra Nevada and stopped, as a Courage Campaign email poetically put it. Here in California we’ve almost swept the ticket, and that’ll be complete when Kamala Harris claims victory. We pretty much maintained all seats and fended off some formidable challenges. Progressives didn’t get everything they wanted from propositions but we overwhelmingly shut down corporate money.

During “The Big (Progressive) Picture: The National Landscape Going into 2012” panel Rick Jacobs at Courage campaign noted that it’s looking likely that 5 key leadership positions will be occupied by California Republicans giving California an outsized voice in their caucus leadership. He suggests that we’ve got an opportunity over the next two years to influence national politics by focusing activism on these GOP leaders at home. They’re well aware they’ll be facing re-elections in 2 short years and with big changes happening in California they’re targets. That’s worth considering for all activists as we look at both local and national debates.

5. If you contact voters, you win

This sentiment was echoed by multiple people across sessions. A wide spectrum of organizations put in a lot of voter contact work here, made some impressive new moves this cycle, and increased funding for these activities.

But this has been a debate that’s raged on for a while in California. Most of the money spent in campaigns is for TV time. Our consulting class makes big money pushing this tactic so it’s hard to advocate change and more effective uses of that money. I think this election began to show the effectiveness of field operations in California in ways other cycles haven’t. Some of the biggest wins here were won without large budgets for TV.

So we’ve got to continue the fight to fund organizing more heavily. But the other problem expressed was collaboration. When it comes to initiative fights and candidate elections we are able to accomplish proficient communication among campaigns. What isn’t happening yet is effective sharing of resources and division of tasks. As an example, Becky Bond was talking about CREDO’s work on the No on 23 campaign. They had setup field offices in cities around the state to make calls. But other environmental organizations had setup their own offices in those same cities and they weren’t co-located spaces. There was also a division early on between organizations working in communities of color and environmental organizations. The coalition of environmental organizations didn’t want to fund field work in those communities and so a separate No On 23 campaign was formed to work in those communities.

In the end we won on 23, but in my view we won it ugly. There’s a lot of work to be done to foster greater collaboration among organizations and activists in the state and to start playing offense on initiatives over multiple cycles like the conservatives and corporate interests do. This last piece was the driving factor for creating Netroots California in the first place. The content was certainly interesting, but the value will be whether we can forge new relationships and maintain them going forward.

So in conclusion that was my viewpoint on the day. I didn’t get a chance to see a lot of things I really wanted to see, so I’d be eager to hear the thoughts of others.

Senator – Barbara Boxer

AKA California’s Good Senator. Boxer is a reliable liberal in a senate full of utterly useless corporate centrists, and quite unafraid to make waves in the service of doing the right thing. In a career that has mostly been dominated by Republican control of the senate, Boxer has distinguished herself by pushing back against a decade of wingnuttery. By contrast, I knew about Fiorina’s awful reputation in silicon valley a decade before she decided to make a vanity run for senate, just from techies I knew heaping scorn upon the CEO who drove HP into the ground and then walked away with millions. Thank goodness Boxer’s a formidable campaigner, and Fiorina appears to be headed for the dusty place where all the gazillionaire right wing vanity candidates go after they lose, right next to Michael Huffington.

House of Representatives

CA-01 – Mike Thompson

Mike’s generally a pretty good guy, and there have been no groaners like the credit card/bankruptcy bill. this time around. Mike’s candidate-for-life in that district, but he does a good job representing his people, and I respect that.

CA-02 – Jim Reed

This district is so gerrymandered for Republicans it isn’t funny, but I have to applaud Reed for making a serious hard run at the execrable Wally Herger, who isn’t even bothering to campaign this time around, much less debate Reed.

CA-03 – Ami Bera

I am thrilled to see Democrats finally start to compete east of the Carquinez, and Bera is certainly giving Lungren a run for his money. As a once and possibly future denizen of the 3rd CD, I really hope Bera knocks off that right wing SoCal carpetbagger. The 80 corridor has changed, and deserves a good congressman.  

Governor – Jerry Brown

I didn’t endorse Brown in the primary because he effectively wasn’t bothering to run, and did not ask for my vote. Since then, Brown has come out and made a very strong case for himself as the right candidate for this moment in time. What seemed far-out 30 years ago turns out to be just what California needs today: energy independence and a healthy green economy, bullet trains and a next-generation infrastructure, efficiency in both energy and the functioning of the state government, and a deep love of the state for who we are, in stark contrast to his opponent, who seems to spend most of her time telling us why we’d be better off making California into Texas.

By contrast, Meg Whitman is basically a failed insider trading CEO reading Pete Wilson’s cue cards, and utterly unqualified to function as governor, both experientially and tempermentally. The choice by the CA GOP to run two abrasive, disgraced CEO-turned-amateur politicians after the state has suffered through a wicked one-two punch from corrupt incompetent CEOs compounded by an amateur millionaire-turned-vanity candidate just blows my mind.

Lt. Governor – Gavin Newsom

I’ll admit it; Lt. Governor isn’t the most interesting position, and Newsom is not my ideal candidate. And yet the Lt. Gov. sits on a bunch of commissions that determine everything from offshore drilling to UC tuition. Newsom has higher ambitions, and will be on good behavior delivering on his campaign promises to hold down tuition and not risk another Deepwater Horizon blowout off the California coast. Maldonado, similarly, has higher ambitions, and will no doubt do everything in his power to impress the usual CA GOP primary voters and fundraisers by throwing monkeywrenches in a Brown administration wherever possible. Additionally, Maldonado’s role in the annual hostage crisis that is the CA budgetary process has been to demand all manner of extortionary concessions before he finally cast his vote to pass it, months late. No way I’d vote to reward that kind of jackassery.

Attorney General – Kamala Harris

I am genuinely thrilled to vote for Harris, who by all accounts has done  an innovative, thoughtful job as DA in San Francisco, trying to prevent crime by studying what makes people re-offend and trying to disrupt that vicious cycle. For well over a generation, California has tried the “lock ’em up and throw away the key!” style of policing, and it has been an utter failure on every level (unless you’re a prison guard, in which case it’s been good for business). Additionally, Harris has vowed not to appeal prop 8, and to defend the state’s carbon trading regime against corporations trying to weasel out of paying for their pollution. Naturally, Karl Rove’s corporate-funded group is gunning for Harris with everything they’ve got, and throwing all manner of negative slogans against the wall to see if anything gets traction. Cooley, by contrast, will waste CA money defending the unconstitutional mess that was prop 8. Easy choice here.

Secretary of State – Deb Bowen

Quite possibly one of my favorite statewide politicians. Competent, progressive, and an effective advocate for the reform of California’s voting machines, Bowen has more than earned her reelection.

Treasurer – Bill Lockyear

I am not a fan of Lockyear, and still hold his endorsement of Schwarzeneggar against him. And yet he has done a good job of keeping the state bonds moving in an awful economy with a lot of speculators determined to create the false image of a California on the verge of a default bankruptcy crisis. I’m not likely to support him in any contested primary, but he’s a whole lot better a treasurer than Mimi Walters would be.

Controller – John Chiang

I really like the way Chiang stood up to the Schwarzeneggar administration’s attempts to screw state workers out of sheer spiteful malevolence, and I hope he has a long career in state politics ahead of him. Definitely earned reelection.

Insurance Commissioner – Dave Jones

I was impressed with Jones in the Democratic primary, esp. his deep knowledge of insurance policy and substantial record as a consumer rights advocate, and continue to support him for those reasons. Lord knows the Insurance corporations will eat us alive if noone’s standing up to them effectively.

Superintendent of Public Instruction – Tom Torlakson

It is beyond question that our state’s public educational system is a mess, after decades of deliberate underfunding and burdensome BS testing that robs class instruction time and fattens consultants and experts while starving teachers and programs. Who you vote for in this race depends on where you think the solution lies. If you think teachers are the problem, and that the state needs to make it easier for administrators to fire them, break their unions, and lower their pay, then you probably will want to vote for the other guy. After all, that’s the mindset of the types who are backing him.

If, though, you think that teachers are the solution, and want to give our schools better funding and treat public teachers like the treasured community servants that they are, than Torlakson is your man. As a product of the CA public school system, and as someone who has taught the kids coming out of the school system, I know the strengths and weaknesses of the status quo, and I know which side I am on. I stand with teachers and Torlakson.

Board of Equalization, district 1 – Betty Yee

She seemed nice enough, although I’ll admit I was tempted for a split second to vote for the candidate named “Borg” out of sheer Trekkie geekiness. Then I remembered that’s how the state got Arnold Schwarzeneggar, and came back to my senses.

Assembly – Mariko Yamada

Mariko did such a good job standing up for the district’s interests that she got locked out of the talks on screwing the Delta and building a peripheral canal, along with Lois Wolk. She has not only voted a solid liberal line on most stuff, but has also been there for area farmers with her votes to save Williamson Act funding, one of the few things keeping back the tide of real estate speculation on Ag Land. Deserves reelection.

Judges

Keep – Carlos Moreno, Kathleen Butz

Reject – Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Ming Chin, and especially Nicholson

No recommendation – Harry Hull

I hate the way that judicial races pose all the candidates with no political or legal information and no campaigning, and then let you vote on them. People whining about the politicization for the Judiciary miss the point – it’s already politicized. On that note, here’s my reasoning for the votes:

Moreno dissented quite beautifully to prop 8 and the various decisions to let it stand. Ming Chin OTOH argued against the decision to legalize same sex marriage, then voted to uphold prop 8 after it passed.

George Nicholson is a grade a right wing activist, who wrote the “victim’s bill of rights” and is a strong proponent of “strict originalism.”

Kathleen Butz, from her information, seemed pretty middle of the road.

As for Cantil-Sakauye, I could not find any information on her legal stances, much less political ones, and I don’t trust Schwarzeneggar further than I can throw him. Better to let the next governor appoint someone else, with more of a record.

Davis School Board

Honestly, I’m still pretty upset with the way the Valley Oak closing went, and am not inclined to vote for any of the incumbants. None are crazies, and all will probably coast to reelection. I voted for Mike Nolan, for his refreshing statement that there comes a point where schools cannot be cut beyond, and that he would go to the public and ask them what they would be willing to pay for, and then float a bond well ahead of time to pay for it. I do not buy the “People in Davis don’t have the money for schools” line, not with so many Lexuses and Mercedes parked around town. Pony up, yuppies.

Ballot Initiatives

For an explanation, vote by vote, check out this diary. In a nutshell, I endorse:

YES on 19 – Let Timmy Smoke!

NO on 20 – beware of trojan horse redistricting schemes

YES on 21 – $18 a year for free entry to state parks is a great deal

NO on 22 – the budget doesn’t need yet another complicated set of restrictions

NO on 23 – Beat Texas Oil and protect CA’s green industry

YES on 24 – repeal the last budget deal’s corporate tax giveaways

YES on 25 – majority rule on budgets

NO on 26 – trojan horse corporate polluter attempt to prevent paying fines

YES on 27 return redistricting to the majority party

originally at surf putah