Senator called for nationwide adoption of the failing electoral system

by Brian Leubitz

A few days ago, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) had something to say about

California, which probably mirrors the diversity of America more than any other state, was racked by polarization until voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2010 that adopted a “top-two” primary system.  … While there are no guarantees, it seems likely that a top-two primary system would encourage more participation in primaries and undo tendencies toward default extremism. It would remove the incentive that pushes our politicians to kowtow to the factions of their party that are most driven by fear and anger. For those of us who are in despair over partisanship and polarization in Congress, reform of the primary system is a start. (NYT Op-ed / Sen. Chuck Schumer)

Quickly I’ll say this: Chuck Schumer hasn’t actually looked at how Top-2 has worked here in California. If he had, he would know just how much of a disaster it was. Yes, our polarization decreased after 2010, but you know what else happened in 2010? We elected a Democratic Governor and huge majorities in the Legislature, culminating in supermajorities in both houses. Oh, and we got rid of the 2/3 requirement for our budget.

I was going to write a lot more about this subject, but then friend of Calitics Paul Hogarth wrote an in depth post that is now appearing on the front page of Daily Kos.

But the “top-two” primary also created a whole new host of problems that has led to abysmal voter turnout, Republican-vs-Republican general elections and the rise of corporate Democrats in the state legislature. Oh, and the Tea Party is still a relevant factor in the state.

So no thanks, Chuck. Please don’t export the Golden State’s dysfunction.(Dkos / Paul Hogarth)

Paul goes on to point out a number of good examples of just how badly Top 2 performs in real life. If you are a regular reader, you can probably recall most of them, but his post is a great primer whenever somebody speaks fondly of Top 2. Share it abundantly.

Former speaker concedes to allow election to move forward

by Brian Leubitz

The trouble with elections decided by less that 500 votes is that you are basically within the margin of error. It isn’t the same kind of error you get in a poll, but the point remains. There are just going to be mistakes somewhere along the line. That’s the nature of the process. But John Pérez has decided that in the interest of moving the election forward to concede.

While I strongly believe that completing this process would result in me advancing to the General Election, it is clear that there are significant deficiencies in the process itself which make continuing the recount problematic. Even in the effort so far, we have found uncounted ballots, but there is simply not enough time to see this process through to the end, given the fact that counties must begin printing ballots in the next few weeks in order to ensure that overseas and military voters can receive their ballots in a timely manner. (John Pérez release)

Yee thanked the former speaker and is looking forward to the general election:

“I want to thank Speaker Emeritus John A. Pérez for doing the right thing in recognizing that the recount was unlikely to reverse the outcome of the June primary election.  This allows us to move forward and to be united for the November general election.  John A. Perez is an outstanding leader who has played an important role in helping to put California back on sound fiscal footing.  He ran a strong and positive campaign and will have a long career of leadership and public service.”

Court ruling could mean big changes at San Quentin

by Brian Leubitz

The death penalty isn’t actually executed in California anymore. Oh, our courts sentence people to death, but it hasn’t actually been executed since 2006, when Clarence Ray Allen was put to death in January.

Bay Area Fox affiliate KTVU did a little slideshow that shows our death row looking more like the early bird special at the local buffet. For a variety of legal and pragmatic reasons, we just don’t perform executions anymore. And now that is increasingly likely to stay the case for the foreseeable future:

A conservative federal judge from Southern California may have done what progressives have been trying to do for years: end the death penalty in California.

The July 16th order by Judge Cormac J. Carney (PDF), in the case of Jones v. Chappell, is an astonishing document. It takes no position on the morality of the death penalty, or whether it’s inherently cruel for the state to take a life. But it repeatedly spanks the State of California for turning the process of executions into such an unpredictable fiasco that inmates – and the families of victims – have no idea whether, or when, a condemned man will die. (48Hills / Tim Redmond)

A few things before I continue. First, if you aren’t reading 48Hills, you should be. I don’t always agree with Tim on some of the local San Francisco issues, but he brings a great insight on local politics. Next, if you are interested in this issue, it might be worth the time to read the whole decision linked above and here.  Now, Judge Carney was appointed by Gray Davis before getting the George W Bush appointment to the federal bench, but he was still a Bush appointee FWIW. (Also, he was a former USFL player!)

As Tim points out in his story, the decision is about process. We have sentenced 900 people to death since 1978, and only 13 have been executed. Certainly the deterrent effect is not what we are going for here. And because we underfund public defender services, death penalty appeals take years upon years to complete. That’s not even to mention the questions of how we perform (or don’t) the executions.

In 2012, California voters very narrowly retained the death penalty, 52-48, by rejecting Prop 34. But how much longer before those numbers flip? And even if we are inclined to retain it, are we going to adequately fund it? Perhaps it won’t be too long until we get another crack at a similar measure on the ballot.

State Water Board issues mandatory conservation order

by Brian Leubitz

We all know that the state is in a pretty serious drought. But while most of the state has at least made some headway in conservation efforts, it just hasn’t been enough. I see you, SoCal, grinning sheepishly in the corner.

The new rules, approved by the State Water Resources Control Board on a 4-0 vote, impose new restrictions on outdoor water use starting Aug. 1 that could result in fines of up to $500 per violation.

Gov. Jerry Brown in January asked Californians to slash their water use by 20 percent. But a new state survey released Tuesday showed that water use in May rose by 1 percent this year, compared with a 2011-2013 May average. (Merc News / Paul Rogers)

Now, this isn’t all just household users. Perhaps it would be easier if that were the case, but water usage is a big mess of different parties and factions. Agricultural water use has been slightly decreased, mostly by force, but it still isn’t enough. Commercial use, like pressure washing, needs to be reduced as well. And, we all need to strive to take shorter showers and reduce water in every way that we can at home.

Because enforcement is up to local water authorities, many people won’t really notice any changes. But some are already up in arms. Like, say, the famously powerful lobbying group of BigPressureWashing. I kid, but this law directly impacts these users and their jobs. And here in SF, where local authorities are now taking a data-driven approach to poop on our sidewallks power-washing can be #KindOfABigDeal.

We can all do more to reduce water usage by using common sense, simple water-saving techniques. Maybe El Nino will save us next year, but we have to plan to be in a drought for a while. Better start saving now.

Measure splitting the state looks set to appear on ballot

by Brian Leubitz

I’ll admit that I sort of thought this was some sort of joke that would never make it to the ballot. I was surprised when word filtered out that serious signature gathering was moving forward in the spring and summer. Apparently that has now borne fruit:

Tim Draper said he will file the signatures in Sacramento on Tuesday morning. State officials still need to review the petitions to ensure the initiative can qualify.

“California needs a reboot,” Draper’s campaign said in a statement on Monday. “With six Californias, we can refresh our government.” (LA Times)

Well, he’s got the awkward technology lingo thing going on, but just because you can say “reboot” doesn’t mean it is a good idea. An LAO report from earlier in the year showed a bunch of flaws in the proposal including higher costs and greater inequalities. Yes, Silicon Valley would be a dynamic and wealthy state, but what about the rest of the state(s)?

And then there is the whole question of this being entirely powerless until Congress acts. With the Senate divided, would either party want to roll the dice on 10 new Senators?

In the end, Draper will spend his few millions on this, the state will pay to count these votes, and not much will happen.

Milestone follows budget stability since 2012.

by Brian Leubitz

It’s been a long time, but we did it! Positive cash!

State Controller John Chiang today released his monthly cash report for the month of June, and announced that the state’s General Fund — the primary account from which California funds its day-to-day operations and programs — ended the fiscal year with a positive cash balance for the first time since June 30, 2007. A positive cash balance means that the state had funds available to meet all of its payment obligations without needing to borrow from Wall Street or the $23.8 billion available in its more than 700 internal special funds and accounts.

Now, this is more of a symbolic milestone than anything else. The Controller can shift money around so that there isn’t a huge cost to the taxpayers of having a general fund deficit on one particular day. And the close of a fiscal year isn’t really that much different than any other day.

That being said, this still speaks volumes about where we have come from over the past two years. Since the majority vote budget rules and the Prop 30 tax increases passed, we are on solid footing. We still need to do more to focus on what comes next when the Prop 30 taxes expire, as a simple expiration would just put us back to the boom/bust cycle that we’ve seen for the last 20 years.

But for today, hooray!

Yee defeats former Speaker John Pérez

by Brian Leubitz

Maybe you see races decided by 484 votes for some City Council races, or in some some states in exceptionally close elections. But in a California statewide election? That razor’s edge is extremely rare:

A month after the primary election, Democrat Betty Yee finished 484 votes ahead of John A. Pérez for second-place in the state controller’s race, officials announced Monday.

Lake County Registrar Diane Fridley used nearly all of her allotted 28 days to certify the results in the down-ballot contest that sparked a daily ritual of political junkies refreshing their web browsers. (SacBee)

Just how close is that? It is 12 thousandths of a percent of the vote total.   Or approximately the same as the vote difference in Florida in 2000 (percentage wise).

Pérez can seek recounts of specific precincts, but there is always the risk of going the other way. There is no guarantee of picking up votes in any one precinct. Because Lake County took so much time, there is a limited decision period for Pérez to decide if he wants to seek that recount. But as of right now, Betty Yee looks to be the favorite over Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearingen in November.

Supreme Court declines review of gay treatment ban

by Brian Leubitz

While there was some very disappointing news coming out of the Supreme Court today, there was some positive as well:

The justices on Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that said the state’s ban on so-called conversion therapy for minors doesn’t violate the free speech rights of licensed counselors and patients seeking treatment.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that California lawmakers properly showed that efforts to change sexual orientation were outside the scientific mainstream and have been rejected for good reason.(SacBee)

This is very good news for teenagers that had been subjected to the harmful practice. It has no basis in anything resembling science, gives credibility to homophobes, and can irreparably damage the self-esteem of its victims.

In short, there is clear evidence that reparative therapy does not work, and some significant evidence that it is also harmful to LGBT people.

In contrast, there is ample evidence that societal prejudice causes significant medical, psychological and other harms to LGBT people. (HRC)

As you can see from the statistics in the image to the right, LGBT youth face many challenges already. There is no place for this practice in anything resembling a medical setting, and it should never be forced upon children. This ban is a big step forward in the fight against homophobia.