(Some quick action – promoted by shayera)

Earlier today, dday posted a diary about the confusing ballot that will be handed out to Independent (Decline to State) voters who request a Democratic ballot in Los Angeles County.  As dday pointed out, those DTS voters will have to mark their ballot twice in order for it to be valid — they’ll have to fill in the bubble next to their candidate AND fill in the bubble on the line marked “Democratic.”

A few hours ago, the California Democratic Party sent out the following email to Decline to State voters in Los Angeles County in an attempt to alert them to this problem:

Now, the San Jose Mercury News has quoted the LA Registrar of voters as follows:

“It would almost be counterintuitive for someone to miss,” said Dean Logan, the acting county registrar. “We have put this information in voter education materials, and we’ve provided real clear instructions.”

Huh… Looks like yet another case of “Blame the voter.”

In the meantime, you can either call the Secretary of State’s office at 1-800-345-VOTE(8683) or the California Democratic Party headquarters at 1-916-442-5707 with questions or problems.

Penny

Online Organizing Director

California Democratic Party

Today I’m headed out to the OC for the Democratic Party of Orange County annual convention, where I’m participating on a panel about Prop. 93 (and debating Tim Steed of the California Young Democrats).  I respect the opinion of those on this site and elsewhere who support Prop. 93.  I can’t join them for the following reasons:

I think that it’s important to look at this in three respects: the short-term, the medium-term, and the long-term.  In the short term, the Governor, who is supporting this proposition, has outright said that he endorsed it because “I don’t want these guys to leave.”  The charitable interpretation of that is that he has a good working relationship with Speaker Nuñez and President Pro Tem Perata and doesn’t want to jeopardize that.  The uncharitable interpretation is that he’s already housebroken these two and he doesn’t want to housebreak anyone else.  I am unfamiliar with the rule whereby the Governor gets to pick the leaders of the opposition party he wants to work with, so that disturbs me.  But also it’s important to look at what this good working relationship has yielded: a $14 billion dollar budget deficit, endless borrowing and passing debt onto children and grandchildren, the worst prison system in America with no leadership on how to address it, a failed health care overhaul with no alternative on the horizon, and so on.  The bargains between the governor and the legislative leaders, and the entrenched power of that relationship is not beneficial for the citizens of the state, either, have not proven to be all that salutary.  So before we extend it, we should think about the value of a less accommodationist leadership stance that rewards the fiscal inanity of the Schwarzenegger era.

Of course, that’s a short-term look, the least important, in my view.  But in the medium term, the rule that keeps current legislators in office does impact the real opportunities Democrats have to make meaningful gains in the legislature.  Term limits are certainly not the only reform necessary in Sacramento, or even the most important.  I think eliminating the absurd stranglehold the minority has on budgets and taxes by reducing the 2/3 requirement on those votes is of paramount necessity.  And the only way we’re going to get that is by actually getting a 2/3 Democratic majority in both chambers.  And it’s a realizable goal, considering the excitement in 2008 with our game-changing Presidential candidate who will bring new voters into the process, whoever it is.  I think we can get 54 Assembly members and 27 Senators by 2010.  But it’d be a hell of a lot easier if we can run Democrats in rapidly bluing areas in open seats, instead of against incumbents like Bonnie Garcia and Shirley Horton and Tom McClintock and Abel Maldonado.  We have a much better chance of winning those seats and getting real budget reform and tax fairness if this proposition does not pass, and those lawmakers get termed out of office.

But we’re told in all of the advertising and literature that we should really focus on the long term.  Never mind the back door for sitting lawmakers, this is about a better and more well-prepared legislature for our future.  Well, I hate to break this to everyone, but that statistically doesn’t add up. Prop. 140, which set current term limits, passed in 1990.  Before that there were no term limits at all.  Yet the average length of legislative experience was 10 years.  That’s actually pretty much what it is today.  And the reason is that California has a lot of structural churn in their legislature, and for good reason.  You may have noticed that politicians are ambitious folks, and in this state there are simply a great deal more desirable political offices than in any other state.  We have the biggest Congressional delegation, we have enormous cities with city and county boards of supervisors that wield tremendous power, and politicians desire those positions.  The idea that suddenly all the ambition is going to be boiled out of lawmakers and we’re going to be able to bolt them into their seats for 12 years is frankly not borne out by historical precedent.  The case of Richard Alarcon is instructive.  He was a state Senator who ran for mayor and lost in 2005, then he ran for Assembly in 2006, and after just getting there he ran for LA City Council in 2007.  The mayor’s office, and LA City Council are very desirable posts, and they drew him out of the legislature.  And that’s not because of restrictive term limits.  I hear a lot of talk about how we are possibly going to lose Sheila Kuehl, my state Senator, from the legislature, and who is going to carry the banner of universal health care, and this is why we need to change term limits.  Sheila Kuehl is leaving whether Prop. 93 passes or not.  She wants to be on the LA County Board of Supervisors because she wants to be closer to home.  Nicole Parra of Bakersfield just announced that she won’t run again despite being eligible if Prop. 93 passes.

Another part of this is the fact that this only extends time in office if you make the decision, at the beginning of your career, to run for either Senate or Assembly, and then stay there.  Right now, 85% of all State Senators have at least 2 terms of Assembly experience and only 2 have none.  That’s simply not likely to change, or else you’re going to have a far MORE inexperienced State Senate than you do right now.

What term limits did accomplish is it got rid of the longtime Willie Brown types, the old hands who steered the legislature in their direction and maintained all the committee chairs through seniority.  I don’t see how giving Senators one extra term, or 3 in the case of the Assembly, is going to fix that.  You’re going to have the same legislative churn as ambitious pols seek better positions of prestige, and none of the benefits of a relaxed term limit structure, which is increasing institutional memory.

Now, personally I don’t think there should be any term limits.  Ultimately, the only limit should be we the people.  But that has to be coupled with an overhaul in our campaign finance system, so that challengers have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.  I simply think there are better ways to reform the system than with something that fails what I believe should be the short-term, medium-term, and long-term goals of the California Democratic Party.  So I can’t support Proposition 93.

(Great info from the CDP.  Moved some stuff below the fold for space issues. – promoted by Julia Rosen)

Cross posted on Daily Kos

On Monday, the California Democratic Party will send its latest message to Independent (Decline to State) voters notifying them that they are eligible to vote for the Democratic candidates in Tuesday’s presidential primary.  Two separate emails will be sent to approximately 195,000 DTS voters.

One email will go to regular DTS voters and explain the process for obtaining a Democratic ballot at their polling place.  The other email will be sent to DTS Permanent Absentee Voters, letting them know that if they have a non-partisan ballot that they haven’t yet returned, they can take it to their polling place and exchange it for a Democratic ballot.

VOTE DEMOCRATIC ON FEBRUARY 5TH!!

As we head to the polls on Tuesday, Feb. 5, Californians will be playing an exciting and unfamiliar role in presidential primary politics:  Our votes are going to be important in selecting the 2008 presidential nominee.  In the spirit of small-d democracy, the California Democratic Party has opened its primary process to independent (Decline to State) voters throughout our great state.

In 2008, if you are registered as Decline to State, you can request a Democratic ballot which will allow you to vote for one of the Democratic candidates for president.  All you have to do is request a Democratic ballot at your polling place.  The poll workers will not offer you a Democratic ballot; you MUST ask for it.  You can read about your rights to request a Democratic ballot at the Secretary of State’s website.

To make the voting process a little easier for you, the California Democratic Party has prepared several tools at our website, www.cadem.org, to help you on Election Day:

• If you have any questions about your rights as a voter, you can visit the CDP’s Voters Rights page for assistance.
• If you aren’t sure where to go to vote, we have a Polling Place Locator to help you find the polling place for your precinct.
• If you would like to get more information about the candidates who are still actively participating in the race, you can visit our Candidate Profile page, which will give you links to each candidate’s website.
• If you have questions about the propositions on your ballot, the California Democratic Party has officially made an endorsement of No on 91 and Yes on 93.  We have no official position on Propositions 92, 94, 95, 96 or 97.

If you experience any voting irregularities or encounter any difficulty in casting your vote on Tuesday, you can call the Secretary of State’s office at 1-800-345-VOTE(8683).  

And if you have any questions or problems, you can always contact the California Democratic Party headquarters at 1-916-442-5707.

This year, Californians finally have a chance to influence the choice of our Democratic presidential nominee.  Don’t miss out on your chance to stand up and be counted.

VOTE DEMOCRATIC ON FEBRUARY 5TH!!

Recently, the Courage Campaign has done yeoman’s work in getting the word out to DTS voters that they are entitled to vote on a Democratic ballot on Tuesday.  Their message builds on one the CDP has been pushing for a long time.

Back in March of 2007, the California Democratic Party was spreading the news that DTS voters were welcome to participate in the Democratic primary:

If California’s independent voters want a voice in next year’s presidential primary, they better start paying attention to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and the rest of the Democratic candidates.

While the nearly 20 percent of California voters who register as decline to state will be welcome in the Democratic presidential primary, they will be barred from casting a ballot for any of the Republican presidential hopefuls. […]

“There are a lot of decline-to-state voters in this state who tend to have Democratic ideals and values,” said Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the state party. “We’re happy to have them vote in our primary.”

Decline-to-state voters are the fastest-growing segment of the California electorate, particularly among young voters, and Republicans and Democrats desperately need the support of those independents to win in November.

An independent voter who had a chance to support a Democrat in the primary is likely to continue to back that candidate in the November general election when everyone can vote, Salazar said.

“We’d like to see those voters invested early in Democratic candidates,” he said. “That will help, come the general election.” […]

“Our goal is to increase Democratic voter registration,” Salazar said. “If we can let independent voters know they’re welcome, maybe the next time they re-register, they will check the ‘D’ box.”

As the election drew closer, on December 11, 2007, the CDP sent a public service announcement to the California media:

The California Democratic Party will allow Californians who are registered as Decline to State (commonly known as “Independents”) to vote in our presidential primary on February 5th. This will give Independents the same voting options as Democrats to choose a presidential candidate.

Independent Permanent Absentee voters are being sent a card from their County Election office stating that two (Democrats and the American Independent Party) of the six recognized political parties will allow Independents to vote in their presidential primary and asking if they want the absentee ballot for either party sent to them.

Independent Absentee voters must mail the card back to their County Election official indicating their choice of Party, otherwise they will be sent a ballot in January with only Propositions on it.

Independents who go to the polls on Election Day (February 5, 2008) can get either their regular ballot with Propositions only, or ask for a Democratic presidential ballot to also be able to vote on presidential candidates.

For further information call the Secretary of State’s hotline 1-800-345-VOTE (extension line #7) or go to California Democratic Party’s website (www.cadem.org).

Later in the month, on December 26, 2007, the CDP sent out emails to a list of 90,000 DTS permanent absentee voters advising them how to get a Democratic absentee ballot:

Want to vote for Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich, Obama or Richardson on February 5th?

You Can!

You are receiving this email because records show that you are registered as a “Decline to State” (Independent) and as a Permanent Absentee Voter.

The California Democratic Party rules allow registered Independents to vote in our presidential primary.  By the way, the Republican Party voted to prohibit Independents from participating in their presidential election.

If you are registered as a Permanent Absentee Voter, your County Registrar of Voters should have sent you a notice about this option.  Hopefully they provided you a postage paid return card to request, if desired, a Democratic ballot.

If you want to vote in the Democratic presidential primary, notify your County Elections official ASAP and request a Democratic Party ballot.  If your county doesn’t hear from you soon, starting on January 7th they will send you an absentee ballot containing only the ballot measures. […]

If you can’t find the notice from your county, follow this link to find your county elections office phone number.  

Independents who vote at polling places on February 5, 2008, may request from the pollworkers a Democratic Ballot when you sign the roster.

But sadly, even after all of our attempts to notify them, there will be too many DTS voters who are unaware that they are eligible to vote on a Democratic ballot this Tuesday. With the number of DTS voters swelling, Democrats face a real challenge in finding ways to communicate with folks who have opted out of the party system.  And based on current trends, this problem is only going to continue to grow.  We’re all going to have to work together to develop new and better ways to communicate with Decline to State voters if we are to be successful going forward.

Penny

Online Organizing Director

California Democratic Party

(from my DailyKos diary this morning–it’s important for me to try to bring CA issues to the national spotlight.)

And by that, I refer to the California Democratic Party.

As you may know by now, the resolution authored by progressive activists to censure Senator Dianne Feinstein was not heard by the CDP Resolutions Committee.  If you read my previous diary on the subject, you’ll realize just how contentious this issue was, and that the end result was exactly as expected.

There will be a lot of complaints about the result, and understandably so.  Nevertheless, an official censure is a huge step, and the end result is no surprise, given the momentous nature of the struggle in question.

But I’d like to share another story with you that might even better exemplify just how much change and reform we still need in the California Democratic Party, as well as give you some insight into how the party machinery works.

It all starts with a news item you may or may not be familiar with: the Speaker of the California State Assembly, Democrat Fabian Nunez, came under fire last month for reports of using campaign funds to pay for lavish expenses at luxurious destinations in Europe and California:

The spending, listed in mandatory filings with the state, includes $47,412 on United, Lufthansa and Air France airlines this year; $8,745 at the exclusive Hotel Arts in Barcelona, Spain; $5,149 for a “meeting” at Cave L’Avant Garde, a wine seller in the Bordeaux region of France; a total of $2,562 for two “office expenses” at Vuitton, two years apart; and $1,795 for a “meeting” at Le Grand Colbert, a venerable Parisian restaurant.

You know, the type of thing that it’s really, really hard to justify using a campaign account, even if you’re Steve Maviglio from Speaker Nunez’ office (whose previous foibles I have mentioned before).

I, and many other activists, were disturbed at these reports–though admittedly, even more disturbed by Speaker Nunez’ claims to be “middle-class”:

There’s not too big a difference,” he said, “between how I live and how most middle-class people live.”

Because I can tell you, I’m racking up those $10,000 hotel bills at luxury resorts in Europe all the time!  It’s just part of the middle-class lifestyle.

Regardless, I decided submit a resolution concerning transparency for travel expenses to the Resolutions Committee for consideration at the Executive Board meeting in Anaheim this weekend.  Now, originally, I wrote my resolution specifically calling for Speaker Nunez to fully account for the legislative or fact-finding purpose behind his travel expenses.  I was assured, however, that such a targeted resolution would have no chance of passing the Resolutions Committee, so I rewrote it to be more general, especially since there have been many, many Republicans who have been guilty of the same type of thing on perhaps a much worse scale in recent years (paging Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff, anyone?), and resolutions are supposed to be statements of “philosophical intent” regardless.  So here’s the text of my resolution:

RESOLUTION CALLING FOR GREATER TRANSPARENCY FOR CAMPAIGN-RELATED TRAVEL EXPENSES

WHEREAS, in recent years, officeholders of both major political parties at both the federal and state levels have been accused of using campaign-paid travel expenses to enrich their personal lifestyles;

And WHEREAS, travel expenses to more exclusive locales paid for by lobbyists or other special interests create the appearance of and possibility for conflicts of interest in the legislative process, especially for officeholders with higher stature in legislative bodies;

And WHEREAS, California law requires that travel expenses for members of the State legislature have a legislative purpose;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Democratic Party, in the interests of accountability, transparency and good governance, calls upon all federal and state legislators to fully disclose the legislative or fact-finding purpose behind all travel and accommodations expenses paid with campaign funds;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Party encourages all federal and state legislators to use campaign funds to pay only for travel and accommodations expenses regarding a transparent, easily understandable legislative or fact-finding purpose, and supports investigations into use of campaign funds that do not meet this criterion.

Now, to my mind, that’s just about as harmless as you can get for a resolution on this issue.  It’s bipartisan, mentions no names, and calls for the easily shared values of transparency, accountability, and good governance.

Apparently, however, the values of transparency, accountability and good governance aren’t shared by certain members of the Resolutions Committee.  Either that, or this resolution was still so dicey for the people at the highest echelons that they couldn’t even take this amount of heat.

Now, I originally got a call on Saturday from my friend Brian Leubitz, founded Calitics and who sits on the Resolutions Committee, that they wanted to insert language into the resolution concerning accountability for the fact that some of Schwarzenegger’s travel expenses were picked up by a nonprofit group.  I told Brian to assure the rest of the Resolutions Committee that I had no objection to inserting “accountability for Arnold” language into the resolution if the main thrust of my language remained unchanged.  But then later that afternoon, this was the text I got back from the Committee:

Whereas, in recent years candidates at the federal and state levels
have been accused of not fully disclosing how they raise and spend
funds and of misusing campaign funds; and

Whereas, in recent years some officeholders have paid for expenses
through the use of non-profit organizations, eliminating virtually all
disclosure of which individuals and interest groups are actually
paying for the expenses of the officeholders; and

Whereas, California and federal finance rules require that expenses
paid with campaign funds have a campaign, governmental, or political
purpose;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Democratic Party, in the
interests of accountability, transparency, and good governance,
supports modifications in state and federal law that would require
non-profit organizations who pay for officeholder expenses to fully
disclose the sources and amount of funds the organization has obtained
and the purpose behind all activity paid for by the organizations in a
manner similar to that required for campaign committees; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the California Democratic Party supports
state and federal legislative and regulatory changes to facilitate and
require that candidates and officeholders fully disclose in a
transparent manner the campaign, governmental or political purpose
behind all activity.

Notice a problem here?  Well, I certainly do: All references to travel expenses were excised from the resolution.  I called Brian to tell him that the Resolutions Committee had voided the entire point of my resolution and that I wanted to see the phrase “travel expenses” actually appear in my resolution about travel expenses.

But alas, it was not to be.  The Resolutions Committee took their new anti-Arnold resolution and moved it to the consent calendar.  Now, I wasn’t at the general session of the meeting on Sunday because of work obligations, but I could have still called one of the e-board members I know to have them pull it from the consent calendar for the purposes of amending it according to my specifications, but I decided not to bother, especially since everyone was so preoccupied with Feinstein and the amendments would have likely failed on a floor vote regardless.

The only thing it proves, though, is that when all is said and done, it’s the elected officials that control what the party does, rather than the party trying to keep the elected officials in line with party values.

And this doesn’t just manifest itself in a reticence to acquiesce to large-scale significant actions like censuring Dianne Feinstein.  The craven desire to kowtow to elected officials and not dare to acknowledge their wrongdoing is so pervasive that a resolution whose language focused primarily on a Republican can’t even be passed if it dares to mention an issue on which a prominent Democratic elected official has been lacking.

And that, my friends, is a sad situation that calls for action and reform.  Am I antagonized? Certainly.  But am I forlorn?  Not at all.  (Do I sound like Donald Rumsfeld when I ask rhetorical questions and provide the answers? Yes.  Is it fun? absolutely.)

You see, the worst possible thing we would do is give up and operate on the assumption that the system is impermeable–because it isn’t, and we’ve already made significant strides in California.  But there’s more work to be done.

And let me ask you something: do you know how your state party would act in a similar situation?  If you don’t, why not find out?

And most of all–keep fighting for good governance that’s accountable to the people.

You can draw your own conclusions from what went down this weekend in Anaheim.  But I have to call attention to what is being put out there as a growing meme, that DiFi somehow worked with Chris Dodd to “kill” telecom immunity in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week.  Nothing could be further from the truth, and anyone pushing this line is delivering blatant misinformation.

Sen. Feinstein voted AGAINST stripping immunity out of the Title II provisions of the bill.  The eventual vote to report out a bill without immunity was simply a chance to buy time.  As I noted the other day, James Risen’s article in the New York Times nailed this:

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who also opposed Mr. Feingold’s measure, pleaded with Mr. Leahy to defer the immunity issue because she wants more time to consider several compromise proposals.

What happened in the Judiciary Committee was a punt.  There’s going to be a floor fight, and NOTHING is resolved.  DiFi wants to sign on to a bipartisan centrist compromise that probably won’t be a compromise at all.  If and when she does so, we can assess her position on the merits; for now, we can continue to tell her how we feel on the issue (And I hope Chairman Torres along with anyone else concerned about granting legal amnesty to companies who break the law and violate our privacy will continue to do so).  But suggesting that she “led the fight” to kill telecom immunity is an insult to my intelligence.  How can you kill something that’s not dead, and where the so-called leader is actually looking for ways to return it to the bill on the floor?  Try that logic on somebody else.

(Incidentally, the way certain progressive organizations whooped and hollered and jumped in to take credit for DiFi’s vote, which was nothing more than a vote to take pressure off of her, didn’t help matters.)

(I posted this on the CDP Blog at blog.cadem.org–which you can comment on or please post here.)

This weekend’s CDP Executive Board Meeting kicks-off today at 5:00pm and runs till Sunday at noon. If you have any specific questions we’ll be checking our blog or you can email me directly at [email protected].

Please check out the full agenda at www.cadem.org/agenda, but I wanted to share a few of the highlights for this weekend…

Platform
Friday, Nov. 16 at 5pm, Public Testimony for Platform Committee
Any registered Democrat is welcome to give official testimony to the Platform Committee.

Book Signings
John W. Dean and Christine Pelosi and will sign their latest books from 6:30pm to 8pm and 8:00pm to 9:30pm respectively.

58-County Strategy
The CDP is dedicated to expanding services provided to local parties and activists for the 2008 election and beyond. The 58 County Strategy revolves around three principles: 1) building local party partnerships; 2) growing and strengthening activism; and 3) running targeted voter contact programs. The services include trainings, voter file access and support for campaign offices. Martha Gamez, CDP Deputy Political Director, will be making a special presentation about the 58-County Strategy at the following times:
? Friday, Nov. 16 at 8pm, Rural/Irish-American Caucus
? Saturday, Nov. 17 at 6:30pm, Computer & Internet Caucus
? Saturday, Nov. 17 at 8pm, California Democratic Council

Trainings
? Saturday, Nov. 17 from 12:30pm to 5pm-Campaign Skills Training
Sue Burnside and the CDP Political staff will hold a hands-on Campaign Skills Training that covers coalition building and voter contact techniques.
? Saturday, Nov. 17 from the 1:30pm to 3:00pm-Delegate Selection Workshop
The process to run to be an official delegate for the Democratic National Convention Committee can seem overwhelming, but the key to winning at the district level is knowing the rules and developing your own “campaign plan”. CDP staff will review the rules and provide information about how to participate in the delegate selection process.

Standing Committees
The Finance, Leg Action, Voter Services, Organizational Development, and Rules Committees will meet at various times from 3:00pm to 6:30pm on Saturday, Nov. 17. Resolutions Committee will meet from 3:00pm to 6:30pm on Saturday, Nov. 17, 2007. Timely resolutions will be considered and recommendations on positions for the Feb. 5 Primary Ballot initiatives will be discussed.

Saturday and Sunday General Sessions
This Executive Board meeting will feature guests speakers: Treasurer Bill Lockyear, Assemblymember Jose Solario, and Elizabeth Kucinich, wife of Presidential Candidate Congressmember Dennis Kucinich. Officer and Committee Reports will also be discussed and voted on during these general sessions.