(California Young Democrat leaders have begun organizing for AB 1819 on Facebook! – promoted by Bob Brigham)

While the California Republican Party is busy defending tax breaks for yacht owners, Democrats are busy working to decrease barriers to voting and increase participation in democracy. The California Democratic Party Platform even talks about increasing participation:

To promote honest leadership and open government, California Democrats will:

[…]

• Increase voter participation by advocating for extended voting hours and/or days, scheduling elections on weekends, or by declaring Election Day a holiday

While I agree that would be great, the current perspective of the CDP Platform is to seek increases in the percentage of participation among registered voters. Yet there is even greater potential to increase voter participation by reforming barriers to voter registration. This is the premise behind recent national legislation by Democrats in Congress and a bill by Assemblyman Curren Price for California.

These are two pieces of legislation that deserve to be followed closely, which means you’ll probably need to follow on the blogs as so far both reforms have been largely ignored by traditional media.

Federal Election Day Registration Legislation

If you want to increase participation in democracy and provide a crucial check on GOP efforts to disenfranchise voters, the most common sense reform available has already been proven effective:

Election Day Registration (EDR), also known as “Same Day Registration,” permits eligible citizens to register and vote on Election Day. Currently, eight states have EDR. A ninth, North Carolina, allows for Same Day Registration at early voting sites. EDR states typically boast voter turnout rates that are generally 10-12 percent higher than states without EDR, and report few problems with fraud, costs or administrative complexity. EDR significantly increases the opportunity to cast a vote and participate in American democracy.

This really is common sense. In the 2006 midterms, 40% of election news stories were aired in the final week — after the registration deadline in 42 states. Not only does EDR help new voters, but prevents disenfranchisement by allowing an easy remedy for voters who arrive at the polls only to find out there was a problem with their registration (the solution to Katherine Harris purges). Furthermore, this reform is more secure than mailed registration as the registrant is there in person and significantly reduces the volume of staff intensive provisional ballots.

Our friends at Progressive States (disclosure: I helped incubate the organization a few years ago) have been promoting EDR at the state level, but as much as I appreciate lateral redeployment of progress from state-to-state, we need to move forward nationally as all Americans deserve the benefits of such reform. That is why I was delighted to see that the day after the Bush Supreme Court ruled in favor of GOP disenfranchising voter identification laws, Democrats in Washington introduced federal Election Day Registration legislation:

U.S. Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) are introducing legislation to help more Americans register to vote by allowing Election Day registration at polling places for all federal elections. The Election Day Registration Act addresses chronic problems with the American electoral process – low voter turnout and archaic voter registration laws. Election Day registration is also seen as preferable to advance registration since voters are actually present when they register, reducing opportunities for fraud. The bill’s introduction comes days after the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana voter ID law that seriously impedes the ability of elderly and low-income Americans to vote. Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Jon Tester (D-MT), who represent states that recently enacted Election Day registration, are also cosponsors of the bill.

“The right to vote is at the heart of our democracy, and we should constantly be looking for ways to make it easier for Americans to exercise that right,” Feingold said. “Election Day registration has worked well in Wisconsin for more than 30 years and is a major reason why Wisconsin is a national leader in voter turnout. By allowing people to register in person on Election Day, we can bring more people into the process, which only strengthens our democracy.”

“For over 33 years, Minnesota’s same day registration law has helped produce the highest voter turnout of any state,” said Klobuchar. “Same day registration works, it encourages people to be engaged and interested in the issues facing our country – this bill gives a voice to every American who wants to vote.”

Indeed, Senator Klobuchar is correct in the results and the comparison between states’ differing approaches to unnecessary voter registration deadlines is stark.

From Future Majority PAC’s EDR page

This is important federal legislation and is well worth spending a few minutes to contact your representative and our Senators to politely ask that they co-sponsor this legislation. Please leave a comment with any progress on this front as I’ll be keeping a list to mark progress in getting the entire California delegation to join up. This is a “no brainer” in the words of Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie.

California Assembly Bill 1819 to Expand Pre-Registration

In California, Assemblyman Curren Price is lowering barriers to participation at the other end of the registration window. His AB 1819 is an extremely forward thinking bill that could bring the youth organizing energy we’ve seen the last few cycles on college campuses into our high schools.

Progressive legislation, authored by Assemblymember Curren Price (D- Inglewood), that will allow young Californians to “pre-register” to vote at the age of 16 passed through the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee.

“Research shows that early involvement in politics leads to lifelong involvement,” said Assemblymember Price.  “Facilitating participation by younger voters empowers and engages our youth and ultimately strengthens our entire political process.”

According to the Secretary of State, more than 7.2 million eligible voters in California are not registered to vote – nearly one-third of California’s eligible voters.  Among young voters, participation is even lower – according to the most recent data available from the U.S. Census, more than 45 percent of eligible voters in California between 18 and 24 years of age were not registered to vote in 2004.  Furthermore, while participation by younger voters has increased in the last few elections, California ranks 36th in the nation for turnout among young voters.

As currently written, the bill would go into effect on January 1, 2010 and while I anticipate it would increase interest in that year’s midterm elections, the long-term effects of facilitating an expectation of participation in our high schools would be a boom for democracy. It is great to see AB 1819 co-sponsored by incoming Democratic Party leaders Karen Bass and Darrell Steinberg as I believe it is safe to assume California Republicans will throw a tantrum at the thought of expanding the pre-registration period from current law which allows pre-registration for those turning 18 prior to the next election. In fact, the bill was passed out of the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee on a party-line vote, with Republicans apparently having a problem with this:

Research shows that people who get involved in the political process at a young age are much more likely to become lifelong voters, so facilitating participation by younger voters can have positive long term effects on overall voter participation.

[…]

AB 1819 does not change the voting age, but by allowing 16 and 17 year olds to register to vote when they go to the DMV to get their first driver’s licenses, or when they are taking civics and government classes in high school, it will help those individuals take the first steps towards a lifetime of participation in our democracy.

I applaud Assemblyman Price’s focus on facilitating participatory democracy. With the Millennial generation the largest in our country’s history, such a focus will be felt decades down the road.

While we are lucky this cycle to have Barack Obama’s National Voter Registration Drive (beginning next Saturday with events in California from San Diego to Ukiah), it is legislation like this that will institutionalize increased participation regardless of the dynamics of a particular election.

And as long as Republican remains a slur, having more people vote will decrease the voice of yacht owners voting for tax loopholes. Which is why the GOP is fighting the idea of more people (who despise them) voting instead of reversing the actions that created the loathing. Until such an unlikely coming to terms with reality, removing barriers to voter registration will disproportionately benefit Democrats.

A near-term game changer for Democrats and a long-term game changer for democracy.

(Good work, Larry! – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Larry Handerhan is an employee of the California Democratic Party who runs Chairman Art Torres’s San Francisco office. This weekend, he and some friends decided that it was time to take the fight for equality to Sacramento. Larry wanted to share his experiences from the weekend, and we thought the folks at Calitics would be interested.

By Monday, April 21st, organizers of a discriminatory anti-marriage initiative must submit enough valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot. By most reports, they are within reach of that goal.

That was sufficient motivation for me and three fellow members of the San Francisco based Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club to brave I-80 early Saturday morning and join Equality for All’s “Decline to Sign” Campaign in Sacramento.

L to R: Larry and his friends, David, Jason and Cecilia

Upon arrival at the SEIU-UHW Union Hall in Midtown, we were greeted by strong coffee and enthusiastic organizers. As volunteers filled up the seats in advance our 10 AM training, an Equality for All Staffer proudly acknowledged that this was their first “standing room only” training session.

Introductions established that our group – 40 strong – hailed from all across Northern California. They included GLBT parents, straight allies, Sacramento activists, a young couple ready for marriage, and the President of a South Bay PFLAG Chapter and her husband – “the other half of a lesbian parent.”  

Most impressively, nearly half of the group was affiliated with a church congregation – highlighting the deep GLBT support in California religious communities that is often underappreciated.

Each volunteer cited different personal and political motivations for their attendance, but everyone agreed stopping the ballot initiative now would allow activists and community leaders to focus on the myriad of other challenges facing California in the upcoming months.

Our Trainer Kelly – an eight-year field organizing veteran – explained our plan: stop paid signature gatherers from collecting names and identify supporters by having them sign an equality pledge. She emphasized the importance of working as a team and not engaging our opponents. The 45 minute training was one of the most organized I have attended, and I felt very prepared to tackle my turf: the Wal-Mart in Roseville, CA.

My group of six had only positive experiences with community members despite the conservative slant of Roseville’s Saturday afternoon Wal-Mart patrons. One woman explained her son was gay, while another signed our pledge despite disapproving looks from her husband. About fifty percent of those who stopped signed, and many others alluded to their support even if they were hesitant to put their name on it. It was a successful exercise in grassroots field work, hampered only by a disapproving Republican registering voters at the same location.

At the afternoon Debrief, we learned that our shift secured 863 “decline to sign” pledges, recruited 21 new volunteers, and ran off 4 paid-signature gatherers. Those numbers – coupled with the hundreds of additional people we engaged in dialogue and the camaraderie facilitated between volunteers – make me confident in our chances come Monday.

There are 6 days left; what are you waiting for?

Penny

Online Organizing Director

California Democratic Party

In a brilliant parliamentary maneuver, the Victor Manuel Perez for CA 80th Assembly District campaign to replace the termed out, thank God, Bonnie Garcia (R-CA), the Perez forces by one vote were able to keep Greg Pettis, Mayor Pro-Tem of Cathedral City, from retaining the California Democratic Party endorsement for Assembly.  (Perez is Vice-President of the failed school board in the Coachella Valley Unified School District.)  However, the short-term battle victory may possibly cost the Democrats not only the 80th in the November general election, but also cost them the majority that they need to ignore the demands of the recalictrant minority Republicans in the Assembly.

A major factor developing in the campaign and one of which I have been consistently blogging on mydesert.com, the online edition of The Desert Sun, is the fact that Gary Jeandron, presumptive Republican candidate for the 80th AD is a boardmember of the Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD).  Recently, the State of California Board of Education threatened actions and/or sanctions against 97 school boards across the state that failed to meet state academic goals and the requirements of the Federally unfunded ‘No Child Left Behind.’  As a result, California threatened sanctions against the PSUSD and the board for the academic failures in the District.  Jeandron, as boardmember, and running for the 80th cites his education background and experience as instrumental to his qualifications for the office.  However, the threatened sanctions are a major demerit and campaign issue.

This is relevant to Perez as he is Vice-President of the failed CVUSD board which according to the State, had more problems than any other school district in California this year.

More below the flip…

The state actions against the CVUSD and its board are much more severe as their failures were more significant.  The CVUSD District was threatened with state takeover but the state action only involved installation of a trustee to oversee and possibly veto any District and/or board action (State assigns trustee to CVUSD to improve test scores):

“Coachella Valley Unified School District will get a trustee and a state-approved team of independent experts to help improve student test scores, state board members decided this afternoon.

The state board named Riverside County Superintendent Kenneth Young as the district’s trustee, which will give him veto powers over superintendent and board decisions.

But Young said he will work collaboratively with the district.”

The CVUSD was the ONLY district to receive trustee oversight.  Perez as V-P and long-term boardmember bears major responsibility for the failures of the District, its teachers, and its students.  That the CVUSD is suffering such consequences for the academic failures not only raises the question of Perez’ qualifications for Assembly, especially in the area of education, but also blunts the criticism of Jeandron.

If Democrats in the 80th Assembly District choose Perez as the candidate, one of the major issues in the campaign against Jeandron is either removed from the table due to mutual assured destruction on this issue or becomes even more of an issue given the CVUSD is the only District in the state that was assigned a trustee.

Having a ‘well-spoken’ or ‘charismatic’ candidate will not soften the damage to the local Democratic campaign to re-take this seat in November 2008.  Style will not win where substance can win.  Greg Pettis, Mayor Pro-tem of Cathedral City, unlike Perez and Jeandron, is untainted by the failures of the CVUSD and PSUSD school boards and Districts.  In addition, Pettis has the endorsements of State Assemblyman Mike Eng (D-49), Member California State Assembly Committee on Education, El Centro School Board Trustee Diana Newton, and Palm Springs Unified School Board Trustee Meredy Schoenberger.

Some reflections now that I’m back home on the shores of the Monterey Bay:

– The Leno-Migden fight certainly reached a dramatic climax today, and the result was stunning. After the vote was finalized Eden James argued that it was a representation of the power of the grassroots within the party, and I think that analysis is absolutely right. Migden had pulled out all the stops and leaned on every party official she could find to get this endorsement, but the rank and file delegates overwhelmingly refused to go along. I wish I could have stuck around to interview some of these delegates and get a sense of why they voted as they did. If anyone did ask those questions, or if we have any delegates here who wish to discuss the vote, please weigh in with a comment.

– Migden’s failed endorsement is also further evidence, along with the rescinded AD-40 endorsement and the split over Prop 93 earlier in the year, to a huge divide between the party grassroots and the Sacramento leadership in particular. Senate Democrats and their staffers had worked hard over the weekend to get a Migden endorsement and the delegates would not go along with it. To their credit, Speaker Núñez and his office have been reaching out more to the netroots, and a lot of the delegates are eagerly awaiting Karen Bass’ speakership, so this divide may not be difficult to bridge. The Senate seems to have more work to do on this, and Darrell Steinberg’s ascension to the leadership might well bring some welcome change.

– Speaking of the new speaker, Karen Bass is a rising star within the party – and someone who already has a lot of support from the delegates. She got a rapturous welcome at the Progressive Caucus Friday night, and her name was on many lips all weekend long. Her endorsement of and speech for Mark Leno today right before the vote may well have played a decisive role in denying Migden the party endorsement, which would be an interesting sign of how much respect she is already being given by party members. It’s a shame that her term will be so short, but it may be a transformative two years.

– I also sense growing disapproval of the party making an endorsement in contested primaries. Nobody I talked to could remember the last time even one endorsement was pulled from the consent calendar and overturned by delegates, not to mention two – and there were a few other instances where the district endorsement caucuses overturned the pre-endorsement vote (such as in AD-80). The Progressive Caucus was exploring a motion to reduce incumbents’ advantages in the voting process, and a lot of delegates I talked to felt that the party shouldn’t be endorsing at all. Look for this issue to take a higher profile in the coming months and years.

– Overall I am left wondering whether the party convention is a good use of time and resources. Delegates seemed bored with most of the speeches and few paid attention to the party business. If endorsements were done away with, there wouldn’t have been much going on at all, aside from the caucus meetings, which were popular and well-attended. That suggests to me that the party should explore ways to use the convention to spur activism and training – to help catalyze political action.

– On a personal level it was great to hang out with the California blogosphere, whether I’d met you before, hadn’t seen you in a few years (like Dante Atkins) or met you for the first time (like Lucas). I want to give a special shout-out to the unsung but important and valuable Caliticians, such as soyinkafan and Caligirl, who were very active and engaged at the convention and helped bring some of those stories to your attention here; and to friends of Calitics such as Frank Russo and Dave Johnson. Matt Lockshin, Penny Denenberg, and Crystal Strait were all excellent hosts who helped make this first-time attendee feel welcome and supported.

Other thoughts? Share them in the comments.

[Update by Robert] I have some high speed rail specific thoughts over at my new high speed rail blog.

I’ve been focusing on talking to as many challengers and elected officials as possible.  And I get two almost contradictory opinions.  The presidential primary is great because it brings new energy and attention to the party and new voters into the process; and yet at the same time, the downballot candidates find it difficult to raise money, secure staff and get attention, because it’s all being forced upwards.  This is particularly a problem in California, where we think we run the country, sad to say, and where we get hung up on national issues.  We have to come back home and take advantage of these opportunities we have at the local level.

The encouraging factor is that we have won the budget conversation in the state legislature, and when I say we, I mean those of us who wanted a posture that finally said no to a cuts-only approach, that focused on the 2/3 requirement and the need to either overturn that legislatively or win at the ballot box.  I had the opportunity to have dinner last night with a large group including Asm. Ted Lieu (AD-53), the chair of the Rules Committee, and he was able to designate those targeted seats where we can flip districts (AD-80, AD-78, AD-15) and talk about the oil extraction tax and the yacht loophole in a very direct way.  This is the year we take back the conversation over the budget and call the Yacht Party out for their obstructionism.  That is very exciting.

Obviously there are the endorsement fights.  Outside of the Leno-Migden battle royale, let me just quickly talk about AD-40, which is near where I live: Bob Blumenfield is an associate of Rep. Howard Berman, who kind of runs Valley politics.  He reportedly told Lloyd Levine that he had to support Blumenfield to get his endorsement in Levine’s State Senate race (in my district of SD-23, against Fran Pavley).  Stuart Waldman, who is also running in AD-40, was working for Levine at the time.  So Levine fired Waldman and threw his support to Blumenfield.  So it’s all crappy machine politics of the most odious kind, and it’s not limited to Sacramento.  Our new leadership in the Senate and Assembly offers some opportunities to change that to an extent, but this is still how California is run for the most part.  You’re already seeing here the beginning of the 2009 State Party Chair race and the 2010 Governor’s race.  

That’s transactional politics, and it bores me.  I’m interested in a transformational politics that changes the conversation and inspires those who don’t attend a convention.  Getting single payer in the platform is an example.  Talking about the 2/3 majority and splitting Prop. 13 is an example.  Talking about the budget in a compassionate way, as a document that reflects our priorities, is an example.  The rest is bluster.

As I said, we’ve talked to a number of candidates, and we’ll have audio (and video) up in the next few days with Charlie Brown (CA-04), Russ Warner (CA-26), Bill Durston (CA-03) and Debbie Cook (CA-46), who we’re interviewing this morning.  But I wanted to give the line of the night that I overheard, in a conversation between Russ Warner and Rep. Diane Watson.  She was talking about David Dreier’s shameful conduct as chair of the Rules Committee under the DeLay machine, where he blocked nearly all Democratic amendments and ran the committee with an iron fist.  Watson talked about an anti-terrorism bill the Republicans wanted to pass, and she said to a Republican colleague, “You guys can’t tell me from Maxine Waters, how are you going to tell what Middle Easterner is a terrorist?”  Classic.

• I truly think that the governor’s mansion is Jerry Brown’s if he wants it.  I always aprreciate a guy who’s been marginalized and demonized by the right for so long, and just keeps going, shoving it right back in their faces.  Brown’s speech at the convention, delivered without a teleprompter, was great for red meat but also reflected an agile mind that has been right about so many issues for so long.  I like a guy who takes “Governor Moonbeam” as a compliment.  I really think that if he wants to be Governor again the seat is his.  Outside of President I don’t believe he’s ever lost a political race. (Plus I still remember that Joe Trippi ran his campaign against Bill Clinton in 1992.)

• I don’t have a connection to the Leno-Migden fight outside of what I read on Calitics and what I hear from my friends on the site.  But I have to say that, looking at it from the outside, this is the biggest waste of resources I’ve ever seen in my life.  What would happen if these hundreds of volunteers walked precincts in the district, instead of providing “visibility” while fighting for an endorsement in a high-information area that won’t ultimately matter much?  The battle is swamping the entire convention, and it’s clearly become a giant pissing contest between the Assembly and the Senate, with each side taking up for their colleague.  As you’ve read here, Migden is nuts, and I have pretty strong opinions about who should serve, and in particular the principle of the unbalanced endorsement process, where an incumbent needs a lower threshold to get the party endorsement than a challenger.  That’s ridiculous, and in fact Joye Swan of the Progressive Caucus is leading an effort for a bylaw change to address just that.  But this is a waste.

• Relevant to that, I think Bill Clinton has NO IDEA what he’s about to step into on Sunday.  The Leno-Migden thing is sucking up most of the oxygen out of this convention.  Clinton and San Francisco DA Kamala Harris are speaking for Hillary and Barack Obama tomorrow, but there’s going to be less focus on that than he’d expect.

• We are doing several interviews with Congressional and legislative candidates.  So far we had a good chat with Bill Durston, a candidate in the rapidly purpling area of CA-03.  We have interviews with Charlie Brown (CA-04), Hannah-Beth Jackson (SD-19) and Russ Warner (CA-26) later on.  We will be posting the audio as we get it in.  We also had a nice chat between bloggers and Mayor Gavin Newsom.  His effort to sue for restoration of Medi-Cal reimbursements is a very strong stand.  What I didn’t get a chance to ask him about is why he’s trying to curtail free speech when the Olympic torch relay comes to San Francisco on April 9.