The campaign for Prop 4 launched some new videos today. Well, kind of. You see, these are pretty much the same ads that we saw against Prop 85 in 2006. I suppose there is one side benefit when one group is repeatedly targeted for action by initiative: pre-made ads.

I thought the bubble burst ad was pretty strong during the 2006 cycle, and I’ll stick to that statement today.  And props out to Assemblywoman, City Councilwoman, Senator Supervisor Gloria Molina for recording the ad against No on 4.  One of the reasons this is always so close, is that the traditional Democratic foundation can break apart on these issues. Having a powerful Latina stand up to Prop 4 (in English and Spanish) is more important than the traditional head shot ad may seem at first.

State law mandates that every initiative that is going to appear on the ballot must have a legislative hearing sometime before Election Day. On Tuesday in Sacramento, Proposition 4 – “Sarah’s Law” – or Parental Notification for the third time – was heard by a joint Assembly-Senate health committee.

In a packed hearing room, opponents, including Planned Parenthood, the California Medical Association, the California Teachers Association, and other organizations representing nearly one million Californians watched as Assemblymember Dave Jones pinned the initiative’s author Katy Short to the wall, asking her question after question about the deceptive nature of Prop. 4. “Isn’t it true there is no Sarah? Isn’t it true she was a married woman? Isn’t it true nothing in Prop 4 would have applied to Sarah?” Katy Short could do nothing but resort to slamming the California Legislature.

When the opponents of Prop. 4 took the field, a doctor who treats teenagers, a representative from the ACLU, and Planned Parenthood President Kathy Kneer, turned the discussion to the dangerous effect of Prop. 4 on California’s teens and why voters should reject it for the third time. Following the scheduled testimony, when chair Assemblymember Mervyn Dymally asked for public comment, only a handful of supporters went to the microphone, whereas opponents lined up around the room, representing hundreds of coalition groups opposed to Prop. 4. It was no contest.

The good guys won, hands down. But one side note – an anti-choice fixture in the capitol, Albin Rhomberg, began to take individual pictures of opponents as they lined up at the microphone. This is something he has done for years to scare Pro-Choice activists. Chairman Dymally told him to sit down and stop taking photos…. But this is the kind of campaign from the proponent that we are all up against. For more info about how you can help defeat prop 4 and how to help, visit http://www.noonprop4.org.

Maggie Shandera Linden has more than 25 years of experience working in local, state and national politics, public affairs and community relations. She has worked in the halls of Congress, as well as the Capitols of California, Oregon, Nevada and Washington D.C. She co-managed the Campaign for Teen Safety (No on Prop 73 and No on Prop 85) and is one of the campaign consultants for No on Proposition 4.

The newest major donor to the No on Prop 8: Equality for All campaign is one Brad Pitt.  It comes at a key time in fundraising over the initiative that would take away the right for gays and lesbians to get married.  The Yes side is seeing a major surge in donations, flooding into their coffers.  In fact, they are out raising us right now, Brad Pitt’s donation included.

The Mormon church is getting heavily involved in the campaign.  It looks like about 35% of contributions to the other side have come in from Mormons, or at least that is what they are claiming over at this Mormons for 8 website.  A high percentage of the large checks are coming from Utah.  

Here is the question: is a religious institution trying to buy this election and change the California Constitution?

They aren’t just donating.  They are fueling their GOTV activites.  Mormons have been invading neighborhoods en mass.  They are not using walk lists, but rather descend in large groups to knock doors and try and pass out the million yard signs they think is going to win them this election.  It’s flat out creepy.  It freaks out entire communities and usually the No on 8 campaign hears within a few minutes where the Mormons have decided to invade on any given day.

Look, I don’t have anything specific against Mormons.  It’s just that when a specific religious institution decides to play a large role in a political battle, it weirds me out.  Separation of chuch and state….

I know many of you have seen the polls and think we are going to win the battle over fundamental rights here in California.  But I have news from you.  The other side is winning the fundraising battle.  They are energized with volunteers and are counting on a sort of Bradley effect to put them over the top.  This is from an email from Dale Bankhead, the campaign manager for No on 8 (flip it):

You’ve probably heard that the polls show our side ahead. Some are saying that victory for our side is a sure thing. Don’t be fooled! This race is too close to call. The ugly truth we have learned from defeat after defeat in states across the country is that people lie on polls, especially about how they feel about LGBT people. In contest after contest, from Wisconsin to Colorado, we have gone into election day with polls showing our side with 7 to 10 points more support than we actually received at the ballot box.

This thing is close.  Want anecdotal evidence?  Key campaign staffers and leaders within the gay community are somehow squeezing their long awaited personal weddings in right now.  They are not running the risk that they will not be able to get married after the election.  So they are taking time out of working on the campaign to get married themselves.

The No on 8 campaign needs your help.  This is THE biggest campaign in California and we can’t win it without money and volunteers.

So give via the Calitics ActBlue page directly to the campaign.  And sign-up to volunteer.  They need people in their offices making calls and IDing voters.  This weekend there are a ton of field activities to participate in, as the Mormons and others on the Yes side try and pass out their million lawn signs.

[UPDATE] by Julia: Here is the quote from Pitt.  It’s a good one.

Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn’t harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8.

As Larry points out in the comments on the dkos version of this post, the Yes side is outraising us 3 to 2 right now.  So give if you can.

No, not dead, just delayed.  They kept pushing their luck on turning in the signatures and now have conceded that they will not make the June ballot.  (Got this via email, but Meyer’s blog has technical problems, will update with link later)

The initiative to change how California’s Electoral College votes are awarded in the race for the White House will not appear on the June statewide ballot, according to campaign officials.

In a brief statement e-mailed to reporters this afternoon, the California Counts political team said they are now shooting for the November ballot after being unable to gather enough signatures in time for this week’s drop-dead June deadline.

“Due to the tight calendar we are operating under and the challenge of raising money and gathering signatures during the Holiday season,” says the statement, “we understand that submitting signatures and having them counted in time to make the June ballot, is no longer a realistic goal.”

They are now shooting for the November ballot.  However, like Meyers notes that there are two major problems with that strategy.  1) The turnout will not be as favorable for the Republicans as it would have been in June.  2) If it were to pass there would be a court challenge over whether it would count for the election occurring on the same day.

We have killed it twice now and we will for a third time if necessary.

[UPDATE] 3:20 pm Here is the SacBee breaking story that has a crucial piece of information:

California Counts has until Feb. 4 to submit their signatures, a deadline representing six months after the initiative was approved for circulation. Gilliard’s statement said his group had collected more than 500,000 signatures; political strategists believe they need about 700,000 to ensure they have enough valid ones to meet a state threshold.

“CalCounts will continue with its fundraising and signature drive because we believe Californians deserve the right to vote on this important initiative to reform the Electoral College and to make our state count again in presidential elections,” Gilliard said in the statement.

There has been a lot of confusion over when the dirty tricksters needed to turn in their signatures.  The hard deadline was Feb 5th, but that is also when they need to be certified by, so they obviously had to turn them in before then.  The County Registrars need time to do the random counts and if that failed, to do a full count.

They are busy preparing for the primary, thus can’t be devoting a lot of resources to a count.  The dirty tricksters pushed it so far that it is now impossible to get certified in time for the June primary.  But if they get the 200,000 more in by February, it will make the November ballot.

(full disclosure: I work for Courage Campaign, which is working on defeating the dirty trick)

The state campaign finance disclosure laws say that you have to report your contributions within 10 days of receiving them.  The relatively short turn around means that we know what kind of money the dirty tricksters have and where it is coming from.  Though they have been swearing up and down they have $3 million to get this on the ballot, the initial round of contributions only adds up to about $539,000 in the last two weeks.  That is nowhere near enough money to get it on, though they could have cash rolling in over the next few days.  John Meyers has the names.

So who are some of the donors? The larger contributions come from people like Glen Holden, an insurance investor and former ambassador to Jamaica under the first President George Bush; Duane Roberts, an Orange County businessman who’s also given money this year to GOP presidential contenders Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain; money manager Robert Day, listed on Forbes’ 2006 list of “The World’s Richest People”; venture capitalist Floyd Kvamme, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2001 as co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology; Jerrold Perenchio, former CEO of Univision who’s also been a financial backer of Governor Schwarzenegger; and Bill Leonard, an elected member of the California Board of Equalization and former Assembly GOP leader.

I am sure Lehane and company with their oppo-research team are digging into these guys.  We already know about Issa.

And as publicly reported before, seed money has also been contributed by U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) — from both his own checkbook ($50,000) and from his campaign account ($9,500).

The last one is interesting, though not surprising.  I say interesting because I am wondering where they are getting the money from.

The single largest contribution so far to the campaign known as California Counts: $80,000 from the California Republican Party.

The California Republican Party is bankrupt, so where did they find the cash for this?  And is someone using the CRP as a way to funnel money into the campaign, without having their name disclosed.

(full disclosure: I’m working for Courage Campaign)

While Giuliani’s minions scramble around gathering signatures (holler in the comments if you have seen signature gatherers), Courage Campaign is ramping up again to beat the dirty trick initiative AGAIN.  We had pivoted on to Blackwater and are now waging two big battles at once: making sure the Republicans don’t steal the White House and keeping Blackwater from opening a mercenary training base in Potrero.

These battles take resources and by that I mean money.  We are dedicated to running a new style campaign, for and by the netroots.  Where these guys are getting million dollar checks from big funders, we are running hard on ActBlue.  We have set a goal of 1,000 contributions on ActBlue all time for No Dirty Tricks.  We knew it would be a reach.  We started the day at 619 donors and we are now at 820 donors. Can you help us reach our goal? You can contribute via the Calitics ActBlue page.

Below the fold is the email we sent to Courage Campaign members today.  On Halloween we will have a surprise from Courage friend and dirty trick foe Bradley Whitford.

Dear Julia,

I am very angry.

One month ago, your amazing activism killed a right-wing dirty trick to steal the White House in 2008. This unprecedented ballot initiative — robbing 20 Electoral College votes from California for the GOP’s presidential nominee — collapsed under intense pressure from the grassroots and netroots.

So, why am I angry? Well, as the Los Angeles Times reports, a ghoulish gang of out-of-state Republican donors and consultants is bringing this dirty trick back from the dead, just in time for Halloween.

But there’s another reason why I am upset about this devious Republican power grab: Progressives are now being forced to fight a two-front war in California with right-wing extremist outsiders spending millions to battle us on the ballot — and on the border.

As you may know, after the first dirty trick died, I dedicated our staff and budget to a very time and resource-intensive campaign — helping the people of Potrero block Blackwater’s planned mercenary base in San Diego County. And now, with the dirty trick rising from the grave, our organization’s finances are stretched thin and our staff is maxed out.

Let me be blunt: We need your immediate financial support to beat back Blackwater AND this new cabal of dirty tricksters. Can you dig deep and donate $20, $50, or $100 or more by Sunday, November 4? Your contribution will help us reach our mission-critical goal of 1,000 “NoDirtyTricks” donors on ActBlue:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/ActBlue

While I am not the least bit shocked by this new dirty trick, I am very angry that Karl Rove’s cronies are forcing it on the people of California again.

The desperation of these right-wing consultants would be laughable if they weren’t so frighteningly effective at stealing elections. Just like they did in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, they want to steal the presidency in California in 2008. And the consequences could be catastrophic for our country and the world.

Iraq. Iran. Global warming. Health care. Civil liberties. The Supreme Court.

The next President of the United States will fundamentally change the course of human history. That’s why these desperate right-wingers are hell-bent on subverting the Electoral College rules to lock down the White House for decades.

Are you angry now?

Then do something. With a vital contribution of $20, $50, or $100 or more, you can help us immediately re-launch our NoDirtyTricks.com campaign AND block Blackwater as well. Please help us reach 1,000 donors on ActBlue by Sunday, November 4 — exactly one year before the 2008 presidential election:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/ActBlue

We are a new kind of organization, waging a new kind of campaign, practicing a new kind of politics. By closely collaborating with some of California’s leading bloggers and grassroots activists, the Courage Campaign is changing the landscape of policy debate under the traditional media and political establishment.

A few months ago, for example, we worked with the netroots to relentlessly re-frame this sneaky ballot initiative as a “dirty trick” — creating a ubiquitous buzz in the blogosphere that prompted journalists and opinion leaders like Howard Dean to use “dirty trick” as a default description of the initiative.

The upshot? Instead of spending a fortune on focus groups run by top-down insider political consultants, the Courage Campaign is people-powered, working closely with grassroots and netroots activists to impact politics from the bottom-up.

That’s why we are setting a new kind of goal — donors instead of dollars. Can you help us defeat the dirty tricksters and beat Blackwater by making a small donation of $20, $50, or $100 on our ActBlue page? Your quick donation will help us build a people-powered movement of 1,000 “NoDirtyTricks” donors by Sunday, November 4:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/ActBlue

You are on the ground floor of a new movement led by the Courage Campaign to synergize the netroots with the grassroots to achieve a progressive vision for California. Now, as we battle Blackwater and the dirty tricksters, we need your help to make that vision a reality.

Thank you for everything you are doing to build our people-powered movement for progressive change in California and the country.

Rick Jacobs
Chair

P.S. On Halloween, Emmy Award-winning actor Bradley Whitford (“Josh Lyman” of “The West Wing”) will be sending you a special message with a special treat. For now, check out Brad’s YouTube video right here:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/ActBlue

Meanwhile, can you help us by forwarding this email to two friends? Getting two more friends involved will help us put an end to politics as usual in California. Thank you so much.

UNITE-HERE and their allies in the race track community and others submitted what appears to be enough signatures to get four initiatives on the ballot to repeal the gaming compacts with four tribes that were approved by Arnold and the legislature.  However, the tribes under the auspices of their new coalition “Coalition to Protect California’s Budget and Economy” are challenging the signature submission process in court.  They are now trying to claim that they did not submit them in time and that the Secretary of State has been misinterpreting the state constitution for the past decade.  John Meyers:

The language at issue is found in Article II, Section 9: A referendum measure may be proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State, within 90 days after the enactment date of the statute, a petition certified to have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election, asking that the statute or part of it be submitted to the electors.

With that in mind, did the 433,971 signatures have to be certified within 90 days? Or did they merely have to be gathered within 90 days?

Secretary Bowen, using guidelines established by her predecessors, said that it’s the latter, that the 90 days only refers to the gathering and submitting of signatures. And that’s consistent with a bench ruling by a state judge in 1998 about how the referendum process works (ironically, a case that also revolved around Indian gaming).

But the new legal challenge argues that the constitution intends for the entire process to be over in the 90 days. And if that’s true, then there will be no referendums on the ballot; local elections officials have not yet sent their final tabulations to Bowen’s office.

The tribes have hired Roger Salazar, spokesman for the CDP and co-founder of CMR as their press flack.  His quotes and their strategy on the flip.

Desert Sun:

“They had 90 days to collect, submit and have the signatures they paid for verified and certified by the secretary of state,” said Coalition spokesman Roger Salazar. “They did not, therefore the referenda are invalid.”

“Our message to the racetracks and the Nevada gambling interests that want to undo our compacts and take $9 billion away from the taxpayers of California is very simple,” said Morongo tribal Chairman Robert Martin. “The clock has run out.”

The tribes are clearly going to make the argument that the consequence of repealing these compacts is that state gets less revenue.  That is indeed correct, but I am sure the pro-side will argue that this was not a good deal for the state to begin with and that they need to go back to the drawing board to get the appropriate amount of revenue for the state.  The sides are testing their messages out now as this campaign gets off the ground.

And of course this story would not be complete without some serious hypocrisy, as Meyers alluded to above.

He also pointed to an irony in the action, noting absence on the part of the Agua Caliente to file a petition challenging the signature collection and certification timetable.

“It is the height of hypocrisy for the ‘Big 4’ to sue on this basis because the Agua Caliente filed a lawsuit years ago to establish that their tribe had 90 days to collect signatures on a referendum petition,” Macdonald said.

The Agua Caliente prevailed, Macdonald said, and that case provided the foundation for the secretary of state’s official signature collection calendar for the referenda.

Can’t have it both ways folks.  Either you get 90-days to collect your signatures, or you get 90-days to collect and have them approved.  To me this is a sign that the tribes really are reluctant to have this fight on the ballot.  Obviously they would save money by keeping it off, but you have to wonder about the polling, if they are taking this tact.  (No I have not seen any numbers on this issue.)

Thomas Gangale

Never mind the partisanship behind Republican lawyer Tom Hiltachk’s so-called Presidential Election Reform Act, an initiative that seeks to peel off about twenty of California’s electoral votes to Republican presidential candidates in 2008 and indefinitely into the future.  Let’s just consider the question, does the US Constitution permit a state to determine via a ballot initiative how to cast its electoral votes?

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 says in part: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”  The Legislature directs… how does this power devolve upon the voters?

Proponents of the Hiltachk initiative might argue that California’s initiative process permits the voters to assume some legislative functions, and that this includes changing the rules about allocating the state’s electoral votes.  Perhaps the initiative’s supporters will say that the state legislature gave citizens the right to “legislate” when it gave them the power to propose and pass ballot initiatives; so in effect, nearly a century ago, the state legislature “directed” a “manner” for appointing presidential electors that contemplated the abdication of this power to the people.

This is tortured logic.  The body of citizens is certainly not the state legislature.  When the Constitution says “legislature,” it means exactly that.  The initiative process is not an abdication of legislative power; the legislature still legislates.  Rather, the initiative process is an alternative method of enacting law.  It is not only outside of the legislative power, it is also outside of the executive power; the governor can veto legislation, but he cannot veto an initiative.  Therefore, an initiative is not just another kind of legislation, it is of its own kind.  Likewise, when we act as a body of citizens, we are not acting in the capacity of a legislature; we are of our own kind.

The distinction between the body of citizens and the legislature as sources of law goes back 2,500 years to the Roman Republic.  There were some types of laws that the Senate could pass, while others required passage by one of the various citizens’ assemblies.  Hence, SPQR, senatus populusque romanus, the Senate and People of Rome.  In the same vein, California’s legislature and its body of citizens are two distinct lawmaking entities; they aren’t us, and we’re not them.

Clearly, the Framers of the Constitution also drew this same distinction between a state’s legislature and its people.  From the beginning, members of the US House of Representatives have been elected by the people.  This is not true of the US Senate.  Originally, the Constitution provided for senators to be elected by the legislatures of their states; the Framers created two distinct methods of electing the houses of Congress.

The election of US senators by the people came about as a result of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.  This transfer of power from legislatures to the people was a very specific reform born of the Progressive Era.  To infer that another Progressive Era reform, the initiative process, also transferred the power to appoint electors, is a legal fallacy.  If Progressives had intended to transfer such power, they would have stated so explicitly, either in the Seventeenth Amendment or in a companion amendment.  They did not.

So, if neither the Framers nor the Progressives intended the people to have the power to direct the manner of appointing electors, the only possible conclusion is that the power does not exist.  If enacted, the Hiltachk initiative could not stand legal challenge, and the state attorney general would be forced to waste millions of taxpayer dollars defending a lost cause.  Rather than have our pockets picked by Tom Hiltachk, we voters should defeat his initiative at the ballot box.  Better yet, don’t sign his petition and keep the initiative off the ballot.