Longtime Congress member has been a strong supporter of Democratic Leader Pelosi

by Brian Leubitz

These days, it seems that some Congress members are being forced out at the end of their careers. (See Pete Stark…) George Miller probably had no reason to worry about that, as he had no competion and remains popular inside and outside of his district. But today, Rep. Miller decided that 2014 will be his last year in the House:

California Rep. George Miller, Nancy Pelosi’s strong right arm and one of the top Democratic legislators of his generation, is stepping down at the end of this year after four decades in Congress.(Politico)

While the Dem on Dem fighting is often overhyped and sensationalized, George Miller truly was the heart and soul of Team Pelosi. He was supportive every step of the way, but Miller was no mere water carrier for Pelosi; he has his own, very impressive legislative record:

As such Miller was a player in the passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 as well as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 backed by then President George W. Bush and the future Speaker John Boehner. Miller helped write the last minimum wage increase with Sen. Kennedy in 2007, and through the years used his committees as a forum to highlight worker safety conditions in the coal, oil and apparel industries.

In the arena of Western lands and the environment, Miller could be as powerful for saying no as yes. He took pride in his role behind the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 impacting the distribution of fresh water supplies in California. But he will probably be remembered more nationally for tearing up the railroad track to impede Western Republicans, who took the gavel from him in the Resources Committee in 1995 and set about trying to undo environmental laws he had championed.(Politico)

The seat is a very Democratic one, and will likely lead to a frenzy in June, and a possible Dem-on-Dem general election in November depending how the candidate field shakes down. There are a number of strong candidates in the area, expect the Around the Capitol page to fill up quickly. However, off the top of my head, this could move one of the State Senate Candidates running in SD-07, Susan Bonilla and Joan Buchanan. Current SD-07 occupant Mark DeSaulnier could also consider the race as he is termed out of the Senate. Tom Torlakson is also in (or very close to) the district as well, but he seems pretty committed to his re-election campaign for State Superintendent of Instruction.

UPDATE: And just like that, Sen DeSaulnier says he is in.

CA state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier @SenDeSaulnier just told me he plans to run for Congressman George Miller's seat

— Laurel Rosenhall (@LaurelRosenhall) January 13, 2014

Good news for the parks system and schools in Brown budget proposal

by Brian Leubitz

First, the good news: the state is already substantially ahead of where it was projected to be in terms of revenue projections. Revenues for the month totaled $10.6 billion, surpassing estimates in the state budget by $2.3 billion, or 27.7 percent. Total revenues for the fiscal year-to-date were $2.5 billion ahead (6.4 percent) of budget estimates. And all that means some good points to the Governor’s budget, including no park closures and repaying money owed to the schools under Prop 98.

But Gov. Brown is a cautious man with money these days. Nobody was really expecting him to spend all that new money, and so this budget is kind of what you would expect.

Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday began a sprint toward his widely expected run for re-election by formally unveiling a $106.8 billion budget blueprint he hopes will give voters what they want. The plan calls for paying off many of the state’s credit cards, creating a $1.6 billion “rainy-day fund” and increasing K-12 school spending by 11.4 percent after years of devastating cuts. And for the first time in recent memory, the budget offers good news for college students and the popular state parks system. …

The proposal won praise from Democrats and Republicans alike for shining a spotlight on California’s $25 billion “wall of debt.” Brown promises to pay it all off in four years, starting with a check that will repay $11 billion owed to schools, retire old bonds and give back money to special funds whose accounts were raided during the depths of the Great Recession.(SJ Merc)

Yet despite praise for repayment of debt, there are still many who are disappointed that more social services were not restored. During the bad years, we made monumental cuts to social services, and at least in this budget, many of them will keep on waiting for restoration. As. Asm. Ammiano points out in the above article, there is still a lot more work to be done on income inequality in this state.

Referendum Still Hangs in the Balance In Signature Verification Stage

by Brian Leubitz

Here in California, and the nation as a whole, gay rights is a concept that we are used to. People see gay and lesbian families on tv and in their neighborhoods. But the T in LGBT sometimes gets ignored. You need only look back at the fight back in the middle of the last decade over trans inclusion in ENDA to see how the transgender movement isn’t always included in the broader LGBT family. To some extent, we are seeing some positive momentum on public awareness, with Laverne Cox’s role on Orange is the New Black and her leadership on trans issues. (For example, take a look at this amazing clip of her on the Katie Couric show.)

But California is a leader in working to promote equality. We’re far from perfect, but Asm. Tom Ammiano’s School Success and Opportunity Act, which officially went into effect on Jan 1, gave transgender students a fair chance in our schools. The new law allows students to use gender segregated facilities and participate in activities for their chosen gender. The Transgender Law Center (an amazing and effective organization, btw) summarizes it this way:

Before the School Success and Opportunity Act, many schools did not understand how to fulfill their obligations to support transgender students. With this new guidance, schools – from Sacramento to San Diego – are now updating and implementing new policies to ensure all students have a fair chance to participate in all school programs and activities.

This law gives these students a fair shot to succeed. And, in fact, large majorities agree that transgender people deserve the same rights and protections as other Americans. But, there is still a lingering question as to what that really means:

However, the political X factor is that a large chunk of the population doesn’t know what transgender means. In that same survey, only 30 percent said they “completely agree” that they are well-informed about transgender people and their issues.

The activists proposing the ballot measure say no student should be bullied. But they are incensed about one aspect of the law: the question of access to restrooms and locker rooms. (SF Chronicle / Joe Garofoli)

And, as you see in the video to the right, Karen England, who is running the referendum campaign, doesn’t really understand what it means to be transgender either.

England, it turns out, is not a gender identity expert — her career has been devoted to right-wing politics. If she were familiar with the findings of the American Academy of Pediatrics – which reports that gender identity is generally established by about age four – she may not have been so shocked that the new law “is for kindergarteners as well as high schoolers.”

Moreover, England would also have recognized that boys won’t simply “wake up one day and] decide that they’re girls.” Not only do scientific findings rebut such claims, they also have no empirical basis. School districts that have enacted similar protections have reported no instances of inappropriate bathroom behavior. Right-wing media figures like Fox’s Bill O’Reilly and Greg Gutfeld have sought to stoke “bathroom panic,” based on nothing more than their claims that they themselves would take advantage of the law to sneak into women’s restrooms and locker rooms.([Media Matters)

Apparently Huckabee and England think this is some sort of trick to see girls changing after PE class. Because heterosexual boys are clamoring the world over to be thought of as having gender identity issues. In reality, this is no different than your standard rightwing sex panic BS. They understand that they can’t segregate gay students, and stop them from using the restrooms, or force students back into the closet. That is just clearly not going to happen. But this offers something that might make people unfamiliar with the issues uncomfortable..

And that squirm factor is what they are counting on to reignite the culture war in California.

“This could get voters who wouldn’t get out for other issues, but will for this,” said Karen England, a longtime conservative activist who is co-chairing the Privacy for All Students campaign to put the measure on the ballot. “And I think this will stop any other state from introducing” similar legislation.(SF Chronicle / Joe Garofoli)

And that is what this is really about, a chance to score political points at the expense of vulnerable students. It is playing with the future of children for a chance to ratchet up the heat on the culture war. As Laverne Cox states in the link above, we have a long way to go on transgender equality:

The reality of trans people’s lives is that so often we are targets of violence. We experience discrimination disproportionately to the rest of the community. Our unemployment rate is twice the national average; if you are a trans person of color, that rate is four times the national average. The homicide rate is highest among trans women. (Salon)

As for the referendum, TLC puts its current status this way:

The referendum attempt to repeal the School Success and Opportunity Act, AB 1266, did not qualify to go to the ballot box in November. Unfortunately, our opponents did gather enough signatures to require the state to conduct a full and thorough count. We are cautiously optimistic that after the full count results are in on February 24th, the referendum attempt will be doomed to the dustbin of history.

It will take a while to go through all of the signatures, and while England’s group got a boost from a legal victory last week, the outcome is still in the balance. A ballot measure would be both expensive, in addition to being highly offensive to vote on whether students will have equal opportunity.

Long-time sheriff had been facing scrutiny, tough reelection battle

By Brian Leubitz

The Baca family may not be as powerful as they once were, what with their number of offices held dwindling. But Sheriff Lee Baca was still something of an institution in Los Angeles County. However, he has been under increasing scrutiny over the past year, and it seems he’s finally had enough.

L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca, who faced a tough battle for reelection amid scandals in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, plans to annouce his retirement, law enforcement sources told The Times.

Baca’s decision comes a month after federal prosecutors filed criminal charges against 18 current and former sheriff’s deputies accused of beating jail inmates and visitors, trying to intimidate an FBI agent and other crimes following an investigation of corruption inside the nation’s largest jail system.(LA Times)

He’s supposed to be announcing this, well, about now, but the speculation is that he will step down at the end of the month, well before his term ends.  A number of candidates were already in the race, and more may enter with his resignation.

Check the flip for a KTLA video on the story.

Two hottest California GOP seats in 2014

by Brian Leubitz

I’ve been away from blogging for a while, in case you missed the radio silence. While I can’t make any firm commitments, I’m going to try to be a bit more active here, so make sure you stay tuned and keep watching your RSS feeds, facebook feed, etc.  As a kickoff to the year, let’s take a look at two of the GOP House seats in play this year.

1) CA-21, where freshman David Valadao is in a Cook lean Republican seat after defeating John Hernandez 58-42 in 2012. 2014 isn’t likely to be a stronger Democratic year, but Valadao could be looking at a very strong challenger in one of Cosmopolitan Magazine’s 20 Women to Watch in 2014, Amanda Renteria.

The former teacher is running to represent California’s Central Valley in the House, a Democrat challenging the Republican incumbent. She was a staffer first for Senator Dianne Feinstein, and then, under Senator Debbie Stabenow, the first Latina chief of staff in Senate history. She turned down a position as chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to focus on her campaign. (Cosmopolitan)

Yes, that is that Cosmo, but the full article of women to watch in 2014 is a good read. (There is one other Californian, Kamala Harris, for whom I have done some work.) She has a wealth of experience in public service and is clearly qualified for the job, the question is whether she can make the transition to political work. If she can raise the money needed for a robust campaign, this could be a very interesting race.

2) Down in San Bernardino (mostly), Gary Miller has his hands full in a lean Democratic seat. As David Atkins pointed out yesterday, Top-2 foiled the Democrats as the votes were split between a number of candidates, leaving two Republicans in the general election. While the candidate field is still flexible, that seems unlikely to happen again. At least unlikely if there is a bit more cooperation all around, but there is still a big field gearing up for a general election.

The full list on Around the Capitol is a little disheartening on the top-2 front:

Pete Aguilar (Democrat) – Mayor, Redlands

Danny Tillman (Democrat) – Trustee, San Bernardino Unified

Eloise Gomez Reyes (Democrat) – Attorney

Joe Baca (Democrat) – Former Member of Congress

However, as of now, there isn’t a second Republican in sight. If one does file before the deadline, this four way matchup could be a slow motion repeat of 2012. If a Democrat is able to get into the general election, Miller will be a top nationwide target. He has a somewhat tricky relationship with ethics and isn’t really all that popular.

In 2010 Californians enacted a top-two primary system, replacing the traditional partisan primaries with jungle primaries in which all primary contestants appear on the same ballot, and the top two advance regardless of partisan affiliation. The move was sold as a way to reduce the power of political parties in elections while giving independents a greater shot at elected office. It is the dream child of moderate Republicans who feel left behind by the Tea Party right, but are far too conservative to become even Blue Dog Democrats and now style themselves as “independents.”

It is a debatable question whether giving austerity-loving social moderates like Dan Schnur and Michael Bloomberg more political space to operate while weakening institutional political parties is a good thing. I would say it is not. But regardless of desirability of the intent, the results of the top-two primary have been counterproductive to that intent. No independents have been elected to state or federal office; very few even made it out of a state or federal primary. Meanwhile, elections have become even more partisan as a great many very partisan blue or red districts saw GOP-on-GOP and Dem-on-Dem battles all the way into November, leading inevitably to more polarized outcomes and greater special interest spending in elections. Political parties have also become more aggressive about forcing weak candidates out of primary races in order to avoid scenarios such as occurred in CA31, where two Republicans advanced to the general in what should have been a safe Democratic seat because seven Democrats split their votes. These problems with the top-two primary have all been widely reported.

But another largely unreported problem is also occurring that is reinforcing institutional control within the political parties at the county central committee level. To understand how, a small introduction to central committee structure is necessary.

Every Democratic and Republican county central committee has its own bylaws that govern who can be a member. Some committees are expansive and large, and some are very restrictive and small. In Ventura County, for instance, the Democratic central committee is approximately four times the size of the Republican one, despite nearly equal numbers of Democratic and Republican voters in the county.

A key feature of nearly every county committee, however, is the elected membership. America is one of the few countries in which elections for these political party offices appear on the public ballot at taxpayer expense. These individuals appear on the public partisan primary ballot in even years, elected either by supervisory or Assembly district, their number a function of the number of fellow partisan voters in that district. To again use Ventura County as an example, elected central committee members are voted in by the public in each of the five supervisory districts. Democratic primary voters get to pick six elected members in the heavily Democratic 1st district, but only four in the much more Republican 4th district. Registered Republican primary voters have the opposite skew.

Generally speaking, county committee members elected by the public tend to have privileges greater than those of other members on the theory that being elected by the public carries more weight than being selected in a back room. If a central committee becomes too staid and institutionally sedentary, one of the best courses for a populist activist is to run a slate of candidates for county central committee on the public ballot. Tea Party and progressive activists alike have done just this in counties all across America in order to refresh their parties and shake up institutional dead weight.

This is where the unintended consequences of the top-two non-partisan primary come in. Remember that partisan central committee elections can only take place in partisan elections: you can’t have Democrats voting for Republican central committee members and vice versa. But in California elections there are now no partisan primaries except for one race: the President of the United States, in which federal elections law supersedes state law.

But, of course, the President is only elected on four-year terms. Which means that in California midterms there simply is no partisan primary. Democrats, Republicans and non-partisan voters all receive the same ballot. That in turn means that intra-party central committee elections can no longer be held on 2-year cycles, since no county central committee can begin to fund the expense of a public election on its own.

So central committees of both parties all across California have been forced to quietly examine their bylaws and shift to four-year cycles for elected committee members due to the top-two primary. That in turn means that it’s twice as hard for populist activists to run grassroots campaigns to shake up machine-like county committees.

As a committee member elected on the public ballot in 2010 and again in 2012, that’s great for me personally: I don’t have to defend my seat again until 2016. But it also means that there’s less recourse to get rid of me if I become corrupted and entrenched. As a county committee political party chair I now have less public accountability than a United States Representative thanks to the top-two primary, empowering me as a political party official while disempowering the public.

California’s top-two primary was an ill-advised and ill-considered move on many levels, some of which are only now becoming apparent. It’s a mistake other states should definitely avoid.

Cross-posted from Digby’s Hullabaloo