Tag Archives: Latinos

Uncategorized

CA-46/47/48: OC Latino Voters’ Rights

(The OC redistricting might end up as a big battleground.  A map I’ve seen floating around has Loretta Sanchez’s district split up into three. As Seneca Doane points out, there are a lot of Voting Rights Act issues at stake here. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

In Orange County, over the last few days, we’ve been talking a lot about the Latino vote, which has not been well-served by the Congressional maps recently proposed by the California’s Citizen Redistricting Commission late last week.  In this diary, I present an alternative proposal — one that I presented to the Commission but intentionally did not present here or in any other partisan venue — that I think does a better job of protecting the Latino vote.

Lest I be seen as slagging the Commission, I will say that the Assembly and Senate maps do a better job of ensuring a large Latino voice in a reasonable number of Orange County districts, and that in other respects their Congressional Map seems quite reasonable.  If the “joining Santa Ana to Newport Beach” problem is resolved, I think that they will be better than what we’ve had — although that opinion is certainly open to revision.  They are certainly less ugly — more compact and less obviously gerrymandered.  I think that that’s what supporters of the Commission wanted.

One preliminary point: neither I nor anyone to whom I’ve spoken about them was clear on who exactly authorized them and whether these maps have even preliminary support by the required 3 (of 5) Democrats, 3 (of 5) Republicans, and 3 (of 4) Others.

1. What I did in the Redistricting Wars

What I decided to do — and why I did not end up playing a lot with people on “Son of Swing State” — is to follow both the letter and spirit of the law as established in the initiatives on redistricting.  That means: (1) I did not take any note of where any incumbents or potential candidates lived, (2) I did not take note of which districts were better or worse for Democrats — or even what the political composition and specific voting record of each district was, (3) I gave substantial weight to compactness and honoring city and county lines — and even more so to equal population and (4) I gave even more weight to honoring “communities of interest.”  The problem is that it’s not really clear what “communities of interest” are — and how common they are.  I considered race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, ease of mutual access, and some aspects of topography (proximity to the ocean, hills vs. flatlands) to be communities of interest.  In most cases, though, they did not exceed the importance of the most obvious community of interest: living in the same community.  In other words, to me sharing a city and county is something that people understand and appreciate as a “not-a-gerrymander,” and it’s probably more important to people that knowing that two neighboring cities across county lines each have 25% of an ethnic minority group and should therefore drag a district — dragging the other 75% of the district behind them.

I had redistricted most of the state using the “We Draw the Lines” software from the Commission’s partner site healthycity.org — I could never get Microsoft Silverlight-requiring Dave’s Redistricting App to run on my computer — before at some point my heretofore-never-overtaxed old desktop computer could handle it absolutely no longer.  It was taking me about an hour to make small changes — and I couldn’t even get maps to print out.  Luckily for me, the redistricting I did was so simple that it could almost entirely be described with a list of cities and counties.  I never quite finished the statewide Congressional districting, and never even got started on state legislative districts, but I did finish maps for Orange County, where I live.  (I also did Board of Equalization districts, splitting only LA, San Bernardino and Solano counties.)  Sadly for me, the maps were scrubbed sometime a week or less before the maps were released, saving me a lot of time doing screen captures but also some frustration at literally a week or more of effort wasted.  Oh well, some art isn’t meant to last!

2. The Santa Ana problem

This is probably a good place to introduce readers to the geography of Orange County.  Here’s a map that has nothing to do with any redistricting proposal, theirs, mine, or otherwise:

Cities of Orange County

The center of Orange County’s Latino community is the county seat of Santa Ana.  A city of almost 400,000, it is the densest city of 50,000 people or more in the U.S, about 50% denser than New York City.  According to the 2010 Census (almost surely an undercount), it is about 78% Latino, 90% of that being Mexican.

Santa Ana’s almost-neighbor to the north, Anaheim, is a city of about 336,000 that is 53% Latino.  The figure is misleading, however.  Anaheim Hills, roughly the part of Anaheim east of the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55), is quite wealthy and not heavily Latino.  While Anaheim has a lively mix of ethnicities, the portions nearest Santa Ana are more than 53% Hispanic.

Santa Ana and Anaheim don’t quite share a border, being separated by a southwestern tendril of the city of Orange, which is northeast of Santa Ana and southeast of the western bulk of Anaheim.  It too is bisected vertically by the Costa Mesa Freeway, but with much left to the west of it.  That section to the west, though, fits pretty well with Anaheim and Santa Ana, and so far as I can tell has a disproportionate number of Orange’s 38% Latino population (up, by the way, from 10% in 2000.)

Santa Ana has been tied to Garden Grove, with its burgeoning Vietnamese population (which, along with that of neighboring Westminster and the nearest parts of Santa Ana, does form a true community of interest.  CA-47, which has been 65% Latino, has been represented by Loretta Sanchez; last year, the most prominent Vietnamese politician in California, Van Tran, ran against her and (backed by Meg Whitman’s MegaBucks) seemingly pushed her to the brink before she eventually pulled out a solid low-double-digit victory.  Sanchez’s (and Tran’s) vote totals were very low, though, which may be attributable to some or all (or none) of factors such as the negative campaigns in the race, its being an off-year election, and Latinos simply voting at lower rates compared to the broader population.

In its Santa Ana meeting, the Redistricting Commission was asked by many people to keep Garden Grove with Westminster and separate both from Santa Ana, in part to allow the Vietnamese community to develop its future political influence.  To its credit, the CRC did so.  But it did it in almost the weirdest way possible.  Rather than connect Santa Ana to the largely Latino areas of Anaheim and Orange, among other options, the CRC connected it to the overwhelmingly Republican coast — most starkly (and hilariously for OC residents) to wealthy Newport Beach.  Here’s the CRC’s draft map:

CDC proposed OC CD map

Note: that lavender-colored line at the bottom is the approximate county line dividing the district that extends into San Diego.  The top of the map (above La Habra) is OC’s northern border.  The city of La Palma is also not shown in this map, being absorbed into L.A. County.  The labels contain the working name for each district, the deviation from perfect equal district representation in raw number and percentage terms, and then the percentage of each district of, respectively, Latinos, Blacks, and Asians.

If you look at that coral-colored district, which travels down the coastline taking up most of the Orange County portion of Dana Rohrabacher’s horrifically gerrymandered CA-46 (that went for miles, through a skinny section of Long Beach, to the Palos Verdes peninsula) and then to CA-48, currently represented by John Campbell.  Then it bulges in from the coast to take in part of CA-47 — specifically, Santa Ana.  (Either the CRC really didn’t look at incumbent residences or they have an excellent sense of humor for putting Loretta Sanchez, Dana Rohrabacher, and John Campbell into the same district.  It’s almost admirable.)

Newport Beach is the eighth-most expensive housing market in the U.S.  It’s a little under 5% Latino.  The ratio of registered Republicans to Democrats is a shade over 2.5 to 1.  With a population of about 86,000, it’s about 1/4 the size of Santa Ana.  If you look at the [2010 election results], however, you’ll notice a difference in voter turnout.  Here’s a sample: in Santa Ana’s pretty competitive Mayoral election, about 42,000 people came out to vote.  In Newport Beach, 30,000 people voted on “Amendment V – Newport Beach, Charter Amendments and Ordinance Repeals” alone.  Putting Santa Ana and Newport Beach in the same district all by themselves is a pretty even fight.

Now add conservative-leaning Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Seal Beach into the same district, and it becomes clear that Santa Ana would not be represented by a Latino in Congress for the next decade.  And, in fact, by dividing up the Latino concentration in central Orange County — and not even connecting it to the Latino concentration in Northwest Orange County, in areas such as Buena Park — the Congressional map likely means no Latino Congressional representation from anywhere in Orange County for the next decade.  (The north, northwest, and coastal districts have respectively about 23.5%, 22.5%, and 22.5 Latino population.)

It’s not that hard to combine much of the Latino area in one district with a similar proportion to what CA-47 has now, without using it as a way to snuff out the neighboring Vietnamese community.  That’s what I propose to do.

3. My proposal

My proposal for Congressional districting in Orange County is below.  I can’t provide the percentages because the software recommended by the Commission no longer works at all (at least on my computer) and as noted above I can’t get “Dave’s App” to run, but if anyone wants to calculate the percentages it’s pretty easy.  My recollection is that the Latino portion of the district containing Santa Ana is about 65% — almost exactly what CA-47 has been now — and that’s the main fix needed for the Commission’s proposals.  Other parts of the map overlap with much (although obviously not all) of the work they did.

My proposed OC CD map

As you can see, four cities are divided, all by SR-55 (the Costa Mesa freeway), which is a fair boundary within the central county between the more and less pricey parts of town.  (Anaheim, Orange, and Costa Mesa are obvious; perhaps less obvious is Santa Ana, which includes that mess of lines in blue at the top of what looks like Newport Beach and allows Santa Ana to take in the airport and a neighboring area that is almost entirely detached.)

My proposed CA-47, the Latino-majority district, is in yellow.  My proposed CA-40, in which Vietnamese voters may develop as a voting bloc without being stifled by the Latino majority in the current CA-47, is in green.  Curving around proposed CA-47 (but still quite well accessible end-to-end by freeway) in pink is CA-42.  Newport Beach, Irvine, and most of south county are in proposed CA-48, represented in blue.  Orange County has to share at least one district with another county — I chose to put the southernmost cities in South County into a district with northwest San Diego county.  (It’s not shown, but for the record you fill up a Congressional District quite nicely by including Pendleton/San Onofre, Oceanside, Fallbrook, Carlsbad, Vista; but not Encinitas, Escondido, San Marcos.)

I think that this has the advantages — primarily allowing clear understanding that this is not a political gerrymander — over the Commission’s map without dividing up and neutralizing the representation of OC’s Latino voters in Congress.

I would just as soon not know the partisan breakdown of my proposed districts or who lives where.  Following the rules of the Commission and the will of the voters as I understand it, I didn’t take them into consideration.  This might disadvantage one or the other party, but I doubt it.  To me, it looks like it’s about as competitive as one is going to get without a partisan gerrymander.

Election 2010

5 Reasons Why “Carly Fiorina No Es Mi Amiga” (Carly Fiorina Is Not My Friend)

1 Comment

Written by Robert Greenwald and Axel Caballero

Carly Fiorina, the 2010 Republican nominee for the Senate representing California, has launched a strong campaign to lure Latinos under two main premises: 1) She has always been a friend of Latinos 2) she holds the same values as Latinos.

Her campaign has launched a website titled “Amigos de Carly” (Friends of Carly) where she appears in a picture banner surrounded by what appear to be Latino business folks. The conservative group American Principles Project has also summoned millions for her and have launched the campaign titled “Tus Valores” (Your Values) in an attempt to make Fiorina appear as if she has always cared for Latino issues.

The problem is that there is absolutely no way to substantiate this. In fact as recently as the primaries Fiorina was speaking out against many of the issues and “values” that Latinos truly hold dear.

As a response the campaign The Real Carly: “Carly No Es Mi Amiga” (Carly Is Not My Friend) duly points out how Fiorina's attempt to lure Latinos is yet another charade of California GOP candidates who can't hide from their recent anti-Latino words and actions.

As part of this effort, The Real Carly: “Carly No Es Mi Amiga” project has put together a video, a more “adequate” picture banner for Fiorina's site, as well as the following top 5 reasons why Fiorina is not a friend of Latinos:
 
1. Fiorina pretends to be a friend to Latinos, but her positions on immigration, education and health care put her in direct opposition to the values that Latinos hold dear. DO NOT BE FOOLED, Fiorina is not good for Latinos in California.

2. Carly Fiorina fiercely supports SB 1070 and racial profiling in Arizona. In fact Fiorina was quoted saying, “This law [SB 1070] is necessary because the Federal Government isn’t doing its job and the people in Arizona are in danger.” (Fox News)

3. Carly Fiorina opposed emergency state aide to help teachers for our schools and Medicaid for our community’s poor. The emergency state aid bill saved the jobs of approximately 13,700-16,500 teachers in California and also funded Medicaid programs serving approximately 7 million Californians.*

4. California’s Latinos need a strong economy, and not a job killer CEO Senator with a history of outsourcing jobs and firing thousands of workers. While CEO of HP, Fiorina outsourced jobs and called the move “smartsourcing.” In 2003, she dismissed almost 18,000 people from HP. She had already created job loss in California, and we don’t need her to cause any more.**

5. Carly Fiorina wants to repeal President Obama’s health care bill which would help this nation’s uninsured. ***

Uncategorized

Meg Whitman Loves Latinos… Except When She Doesn’t

1 Comment

Where does Meg Whitman stand on immigration? Well, that all depends on when she’s being asked, where she’s being asked, and who is doing the asking.

* Last year, in an attempt to cater to her Republican base as she prepared for a heated primary, Whitman told reporters she believes the state should “prosecute illegal aliens and criminal aliens in all of our cities, in every part of California.”

* This spring, in a stark reversal, Whitman spoke out against the Arizona immigration law when it first passed in April.

* When Whitman’s primary opponent, Steve Poizner, began gaining traction by veering far to the right on immigration, Whitman’s campaign advisor, former Governor Pete Wilson, produced an anti-immigrant radio ad, touting Whitman’s opposition to “amnesty” and her plan to block immigrant families the having access to education, driver’s licenses and other vital services. He said she’d be “tough as nails” on immigration. Gov. Wilson is the notorious architect of Proposition 187, the initiative that sought to deny immigrant families these same basic rights.

* Whitman’s hypocrisy became even more evident when she told a reporter, “You haven’t seen an ad from me with the border fence,” while at the same time airing TV ads across the state that prominently feature the border fence.

* Just one week after winning the primary, Whitman again changed direction, and began airing Spanish-language ads during the World Cup, indicating she was against the Arizona immigration law.

* But in late July, she went on a conservative talk radio station and said she thinks the Arizona law should stand.

* One week later, Whitman opened a “Latino outreach” office in East LA, and was greeted with a mob of protesters, furious over her perpetual flip-flopping on immigration.

* At the same time, she was also being lambasted by the right-wing John & Ken show, again for flip-flopping on immigration.

[Edit by Robert: Click through to read the rest!]

By our count, Whitman has changed her position on immigration at least five times since announcing her candidacy. And in her cynical ploy to mask her true positions, Whitman managed to alienate both the left and the right… and certainly isn’t making a case to Latinos. A recent poll shows that Jerry Brown still has a commanding lead among Latinos — 42 percent for Brown compared to just 18 percent for Whitman.

That’s because California Latinos remember that Jerry Brown stood up for immigrant workers when he marched with Cesar Chavez and gave farmworkers the right to form and join unions to collectively protect themselves from being exploited at work. And they also remember that Whitman has been changing her mind on Latino issues whenever it suits her.

Columnist Thomas D. Elias points out this example:


In one of her Spanish-language ads, Whitman says “The Latino kids attending public schools in California today will be tomorrow’s doctors, engineers, businessmen and teachers. I want them to have the opportunity to go as far in life as their God-given talent will take them.”

Unless, notes Democratic Party communications director Tenoch Flores, “their hard work and talent take them to a California institution of higher learning.” If they make it there and their parents are illegal immigrants (regardless of the kids’ own status), Whitman’s policy statements say they shouldn’t be allowed to stay long. In the spring primary, she said such “Latino kids” should be banned or removed from community colleges and the Cal State and University of California systems. Will Latinos remember those declarations?

Our answer is yes, they do remember. And they will still remember in November, regardless as to how many more million-dollar ads Whitman airs.

Paid for by the California Labor Federation. Not authorized by a candidate or committee controlled by a candidate.

Uncategorized

Meg Whitman’s Rhetoric on Latinos Doesn’t Match Reality

In her quest for votes, California Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman is saying she’s a friend to Latinos.

“I want to involve Latinos in this campaign in a way that hasn’t been seen in Republican politics in a long time. It will be hard — it will not be easy. But it is a priority of mine and I’m very, very serious about it.” – Meg Whitman’s website

“I want Latinos to look at my whole record, around job creation… [Meg Whitman, as quoted in the Los Angeles Times, 2/24/10]

We took her up on it; and found that Whitman’s record as CEO of eBay tells a very different story.

 The San Jose Mercury News recently reviewed federal employment data for Silicon Valley technology companies.

And the report is telling.

From 2000 to 2005, Meg Whitman’s e-Bay hired 366 managers at its Silicon Valley offices.

And how many of these hires were Latino?

ZERO.

The Mercury News (2/14) reports:

“Take eBay, for example. While the San Jose company declined to make its executives available for an interview, or to share its most up-to-date employment information, eBay said it believes workplace diversity is crucial.

“But the numbers don't reflect that.

“As eBay's local work force swelled to accommodate the online retailer's growth between 2000 and 2005, eBay added 366 managers to its Silicon Valley offices.

“That net increase included just five additional black managers and no Hispanics.”

For Latinos, the record is clear. Meg Whitman’s rhetoric doesn’t match reality.

Orange County

Abel Maldonado Needs An Open Primary To Save Himself From Republican Racism

2 Comments

While I was at Camp Courage in Fresno all weekend (much more on that transformative event later today) I missed out on some of the stories happening in state politics, including this gem from Willie Brown’s Sunday column in the San Francisco Chronicle where he explains one reason for Maldonado’s pursuit of an open primary:

State Sen. Abel Maldonado, the deciding vote in the big state budget morass, came to see me last week with a very interesting story about his fellow Republicans.

I was telling him what a good name he has, because no one can figure out if it is Spanish, Italian or Portuguese.

He proceeded to tell me that when he was running for state controller in 2006, he commissioned a poll to gauge the feelings of Republican voters in Orange County.

The poll came back showing him losing to the Democrat by almost 2-1.

“This is impossible,” Maldonado said. “Orange County is loaded with Republicans.”

They did the poll again and the results were the same – the Democrat won.

So Maldonado ran a little test. He had the pollster go back and give voters the same information as before – his age, that he’s a rancher and the like – but this time, he said, tell them the candidate’s name is Smith.

The result: Smith came out ahead.

So he ran another poll, a Republican named Garcia vs. a Democrat named Smith.

Smith won again, even among Republicans.

At that point, Maldonado said, “We’re not spending another nickel – there ain’t no way that anyone with a Spanish name is going to win anything in a Republican primary in this state.”

He was right, in his case at least – he lost the primary to Tony Strickland.

I wish I could say I’m surprised by this, but of course I’m not. As someone with deep familiarity with Orange County Republicans this story rings all too true to my experiences. They just don’t like Latinos. For many OC Republicans, their anti-immigrant sentiment is thinly veiled racism. In public it may be about “the law” but at block parties or conversations with neighbors at the mailbox or even the dinner table, it’s really about fear of a brown planet.

“Did you hear that some Mexicans bought a place on the next street over?” “Yeah, there go our property values.” [I’ve heard variations on this conversation several times in the last 20 years in Tustin.] “Do you remember when Santa Ana was full of English speakers?” “Yeah, now it’s full of Spanish billboards. It’s like Tijuana!” [Another frequently overheard conversation, one that neatly ignores the continuous presence of Spanish-speakers in that city dating to at least the 1860s.]

Racism against Spanish speakers and those with Spanish-sounding surnames in Orange County remains endemic. And so it’s quite understandable that Maldonado would discover these kind of poll results.

Of course it’s worth noting that “Orange County” is a diverse place and that there are large swaths of the county where this hasn’t been a problem, as Loretta Sanchez can attest (though her 1996 and 1998 campaigns against Bob Dornan unfortunately brought out a lot of racism and attacks on her Mexican last name, with the irony here being that Dornan told me at the time she merely used her maiden name “Sanchez” instead of “Brixey”, her then-married name, to win votes!).

Still, this is indicative of the problems that Maldonado has as a slightly less conservative Latino Republican in a state where conditions of membership in the Zombie Death Cult appear to still include not having Latino heritage.

Not to mention the obvious point that this is further evidence that Maldonado was merely seeking personal gain through the budget standoff and is further evidence of why the 2/3rds rule must go…

California, Coachella Valley

PETTIS PICKS UP SUPPORT FROM LABOR AND LATINOS

Received this press release today from the Greg Pettis for CA 80th Assembly District campaign.  Pettis presently has the overwhelming support of labor and LGBT groups in his race to replace the termed-out, thank the deity, State Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia (R-CA).  Pettis, much to the chagrin of his opponents, is also picking up key endorsements from the ethnic minority and multicultural communities.

Pettis has also significantly outraised and outspent his Democratic opponents each reporting period.  According to The Desert Sun, in the last reporting period, Pettis raised and spent more monies than all of these Democratic opponents combined.  Of interest, Pettis also outraised his presumptive Republican opponent, Gary Jeandron, by a significant margin!

Add to this the fact that the current voter registration favors the Democrats.  Thanks to the local Democratic clubs, activists have shifted the 80th AD voter registration from a majority Republican in 2000, to a more than 15,000 voter advantage at present.  And, this does not include the Decline to State voters which have been since 2004 trending Democratic.  Bodes well for a Pettis candidacy in November 2008.

Here is the text of the press release:

For Immediate Release

April 8, 2008

For More Information, contact Richard Oberhaus 760-413-7938

Cathedral City Councilmember Greg Pettis picked up four critical endorsements in the last week from labor and a Latino group, both keys to winning the 80th Assembly District.

More below the flip…

Earlier today, the California AFL-CIO Committee on Public Education endorsed Pettis for the 80th Assembly District. They join the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) who represent 179,000 workers in California and the California State Council of Laborers, who had previously endorsed one of Pettis’s primary election opponents.

Pettis also won the endorsement of HONOR PAC, a statewide Latino group representing Latino and Latina LGBT communities.

The four endorsements cemented Pettis’s position as frontrunner in the Democratic primary in the race to replace Bonnie Garcia, who is prohibited by term limits from serving another term in the 80th Assembly District.

Pettis has previously won endorsements from all the Central Labor Councils representing the 80th Assembly District as well as the California League of Conservation Voters, Cathedral City Professional Firefighters, Progressive Majority, Democracy for America and the Victory Fund.

He has also raised more money than any Democrat running for the 80th Assembly District and has more individual donors than any other candidate.

“We are building a broad-based grassroots coalition that will continue to build momentum through November. Residents of the 80th are coming together behind the need to bring experience to Sacramento to change the way Sacramento works and create a healthier California for all of us,” Pettis said.

Other unions endorsing Pettis include the Building Trades Union of California, Cathedral City Professional Firefighters, San Bernardino/Riverside Counties Central Labor Council, San Diego/Imperial Counties Central Labor Council, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 440.

LGBT community electeds, organizations and activists endorsing Pettis thus far include U.S. Congressman Barney Frank, U.S. Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, State Senator Carol Migden, State Assemblyman Mark Leno, Palm Springs City Councilwoman Ginny Foat, Palm Springs City Councilman Rick Hutcheson, Cathedral City City Councilman Paul Marchand, Desert Hot Springs City Councilman Karl Baker, the Desert Stonewall Democratic Club, the Inland Stonewall Democratic Club, the Victory Fund, and Bill and Brad Adams, Bill Cain-Gonzalez, Cynthia Davis, Desert Stonewall Democrats Public Relations Chair Donald W. Grimm, Ph.D., Bond Shands, Desert Stonewall Democrats Treasurer Robert Silverman, and Lynn Worley.

Latino and Latina community activists endorsing Pettis include Palm Springs Democratic Club co-founder Lisa Arbelaez, Christopher Arellano, Larry Baza, Bill Cain-Gonzalez, Tony & Sylvia Escobedo, Mayon Gonzalez, Rodolfo Martinez, Leticia Quezada, Nicole Ramirez, 41st Congressional District Candidate Rita Ramirez-Dean, Ph.D., Dan Ruiz, Ed Torres, and Joe Velasquez.

Uncategorized

Why Do Gays and Latinos Support Hillary Clinton?

2 Comments

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

As the Democratic Presidential race moves to California on February 5th, Senator Hillary Clinton holds the advantage in part because she leads Barack Obama among two crucial demographics: gays and Latinos.  But if these groups were more “results-oriented” about which candidate would bring about substantive change for their community, Obama could have an edge.  Clinton’s husband signed the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act when he was President, and she has only promised to scrap part 3 of DOMA – whereas Obama would repeal it entirely.  While both have waffled on giving drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants, when pressed to take a position Clinton said “no” and Obama said “yes.”  Gays and Latinos either don’t know such policy differences — or else have put them aside in favor of symbolic gestures, high name recognition or top-down endorsements.  Before it’s too late, LGBT and Latino voters must look at the issues, and decide which candidate would better pursue their interests.

Clinton vs. Obama and the LGBT Community:

It’s quite baffling why LGBT voters would strongly support Hillary Clinton – but the polls show that they largely do.  Queers loudly celebrated Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 because he pledged to lift the ban on gays in the military, but turned against him after he caved on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  Every progressive group can gripe that President Clinton let them down, but the LGBT community bears the distinction that he betrayed them first.

In 1996, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – which banned federal rights like Social Security and immigration for same-sex couples, and allowed states to not recognize out-of-state gay marriages.  He signed it simply to deprive Bob Dole of a campaign issue, and did so at midnight while denouncing it as gay-bashing.  Days later, his re-election campaign advertised on Christian radio that he had signed it.

Like all Democratic candidates this year, Hillary Clinton has pledged to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  She says that she’s been “on the record” opposing it since 1999 – which raises another question.  Her husband was still President back then, which means that she could have used her influence to have him repeal it.  While one could argue that the Clintons were on their way out, they could have put George Bush in the awkward position of restoring it once he took office.

Clinton says she would repeal Part 3 of DOMA (which deals with federal benefits), but would keep the rest.  That means she would let states discriminate against out-of-state couples, like what California did in 2000 by passing Proposition 22.  Her explanation leaves much to be desired: “marriage should be left to the states, and I believe that states are taking action on their own.”  Unmentioned was that outside of Massachusetts, the “state action” has been to pass anti-gay marriage amendments.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, would repeal DOMA entirely.  So LGBT voters who want to compare the two candidates’ platforms can determine who is better for them on the issues.  But Obama also angered queers last October when he campaigned in South Carolina with Rev. Donnie McClurkin – a black minister and self-proclaimed “former homosexual,” who believes it is his mission to turn gays straight.  Many of Obama’s gay supporters defected to the Clinton camp when they heard about this.

As an openly gay man, I cannot in good conscience defend what Obama did – and adding a gay black preacher to his campaign circuit after the backlash was pathetic.  However, queers must be “results oriented” when choosing a candidate.  Did Obama’s appearance with McClurkin take away any of our rights, and did it make it harder to achieve marriage equality?  What Obama did was symbolically offensive, but was it a substantive setback in getting the legislative accomplishments we strive for?

Due to her longer time in Washington, Clinton is closer to Beltway leaders in the LGBT community – which explains her many prominent endorsements.  The running joke about the Human Rights Campaign is that HRC stands for Hillary Rodham Clinton (though I prefer the moniker “homosexuals requiring cash.”)  But as the recent fury over ENDA have shown, many queers aren’t happy with their leadership.  Hopefully, they’ll take a closer look at the two leading Democratic candidates and make up their own mind.

Clinton vs. Obama on Latinos:

Clinton beat Obama by 2-1 among Latinos in the Nevada caucus – which bodes well for her in California.  Some of that is due to her higher name recognition, and the Clinton family’s longer history with Latinos.  In 1996, Bill Clinton speeded up the INS process for thousands of immigrants to become naturalized Americans – so they could vote that November.  Because Republicans were engaged in racist immigrant bashing, these (mostly Latino) new citizens voted Democrat in droves.

But anyone can see that Bill Clinton did this move out of pure self-interest to get re-elected.  I’m not Latino, but I was one of those immigrants who got my citizenship in 1996 due to the expedited process.  I was grateful at the time to vote in November, but what power do you really have if you just reward the politician who figured you would vote for him if you could?  The better question should be: did Bill Clinton do anything to substantively help immigrants in general, and Latinos in particular?

His record leaves much to be desired.  In 1996, Bill Clinton signed a punitive immigration bill that strengthened the deportation process and imposed mandatory minimum sentences.  He also signed Welfare Repeal – which eliminated Food Stamps and SSI benefits for legal immigrants.  Like DOMA, Clinton signed the Welfare Bill to deprive Bob Dole of a campaign issue – once again taking progressives for granted.

When asked about the Welfare Bill, Hillary Clinton replied that “the positives outweighed the negatives.”  She did not commit to making any changes besides expanding health care for children, whereas even her husband pledged to “fix” the more odious anti-immigrant provisions (while signing the bill anyway.)  How much did the Clinton Administration really fight to restore these cuts in Food Stamps and SSI after they were signed into law?

More importantly, what would a President Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama do to help immigrants and Latinos?  They both voted for the DREAM Act in the U.S. Senate – so that issue is basically a wash.  They also have similar voting records on increasing border patrol.  But there is a substantive difference between the two candidates on an issue of high importance to the Latino community: making drivers’ licenses available to undocumented immigrants.

At one debate several weeks ago, Clinton got in trouble for initially supporting New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s proposal – and then saying she did not.  After Spitzer withdrew his bill, she said she opposed the idea in principle.  “As President, I will not support driver’s licenses for undocumented people,” she said, “and will press for comprehensive reform that deals with all of the issues including border security and fixing our broken system.”

Obama has also danced around the issue, but to his credit did come out in favor.  “Undocumented workers do not come here to drive,” he said, “they’re here to work. Instead of being distracted by what has now become a wedge issue, let’s focus on solving the problem that the Bush administration has done nothing about it.”  When CNN’s Wolf Blitzer demanded that he give a simple “yes” or “no” answer, Obama said “yes.”

Like the LGBT leadership, Clinton enjoys top-down support from the Latino community’s elite.  Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, and UFW icon Dolores Huerta have all endorsed Hillary Clinton.  There’s no question that the Clinton campaign has done a better outreach job with Latinos that gave her a Nevada victory, and it’s been helped by having more surrogates.

But Obama’s beginning to catch up – and his Latino support is coming more from grassroots leaders at the bottom-up.  Labor leader Maria Elena Durazo has endorsed Obama, and took time off from her job to campaign for him in Nevada.  State Senator Gil Cedillo, who sponsored the California bill to give drivers’ license to undocumented immigrants, is also backing Obama.  The only question now is whether such support from the Latino community is too little, too late.

On February 5th, California will join 21 other states in voting on Super Duper Mega Tuesday on Steroids.  Candidates are frantically flying around the country to pick up votes – and under such circumstances, the establishment front-runner is likely to win.  But Clinton leads Obama among gays and Latinos who are not voting based upon real policy differences.  If they started to do so, we may get a very interesting surprise in the race in a few weeks.

Uncategorized

Vote Hope Fills Void in Latino Political Media

1 Comment

(Good stuff from Vote Hope here. – promoted by Julia Rosen)

(Cross-posted at Vote Hope.)

Last Spring, America saw the potential power of the Latino community as a political force. Millions of people, in cities across the country, poured into the streets, marching in solidarity for equality and justice for immigrants. In November of 2006, Latino voters proved again that they could help deliver victories, as their turnout increased by 33% in Congressional races, and was much more heavily Democratic than in years past, according to a recent report by NDN’s Hispanic Strategy Center. The GOP’s constant drumbeat of anti-immigrant rhetoric has opened up an incredible opportunity for Democrats and progressives to solidify Latino voters as a reliable – and fast-growing – part of our coalition.

But in California, where the largest majority of Latinos in the country live, that potential has barely been tapped. In our state, there are still more than 5 million Latino voters who are eligible but not registered to vote, or who are registered but don’t regularly come out to the polls. When you consider that only about 3.2 million people voted in the 2004 Democratic primary in California, you can see the potential that the sheer numbers of this population could have on the outcome of our state’s upcoming primary election on Feb. 5, 2008.

And yet few campaigns on the Democratic side have invested any resources into Spanish-language or Latino-focused media in this state, and the 2008 Presidential Primary is no exception. Vote Hope, a new statewide political network, has stepped in to fill that void. Working with the Los Angeles-based Amigos de Obama, another independent group trying to increase Latino participation, we have produced a series of 4-minute, Web-based films called Tu Voz, Tu Voto, which are inspired by the wildly popular Latin American telenovela genre, and promote Barack Obama as the candidate for hope, unity and change in America.

The films were written, produced and acted by California Latinos, and they reflect issues and experiences that are rarely, if ever, portrayed in mainstream political media. Like telenovelas, these films use humor and drama to convey serious messages. They follow the journey of a typical Latino family in Southern California, the Ortiz family, and how they come to support Barack Obama for President. They are significant not only because they represent the first Spanish-language media effort in the 2008 primary elections, but because they are a unique attempt to connect mainstream politics with Latino culture.

The first episode, “La Marcha,” invokes the excitement of the immigrant rights marches of 2006, and puts forward the desire that many Latinos felt to take that energy and transform it into voting power.

In the second episode, “Amigos,” the immigration issue hits home for the Ortiz family, and 19-year-old Gaby Ortiz grapples with her own political involvement. This episode features the hit “Obama Reggaeton” song produced by Amigos de Obama and heard by thousands of people around the country.

In the third episode of the series, “About Us,” Latino and African American characters grapple with the difficult issues of multi-racial unity, and come to see how Obama’s candidacy can help bridge old divides and galvanize a new multi-racial movement for change.

Each of the stories touches on a different, but very real, part of the modern Latino experience, in California and America. Vote Hope’s goal is to reach Latino voters and potential voters who may not have thought much about the upcoming primary yet, but who will respond to this unique kind of outreach.

At Vote Hope, which employs Latinos and Latinas at all levels, we support Obama because we see him as the only vehicle for real change – change we can believe in – in this country. We see him as an opportunity to build multi-racial unity and solidarity – one that has not come around in a very long time. And we believe that his life experience, from growing up as a person of color in America and overseas, to working as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago to teaching constitutional law and going on to serve his state and his nation in public office, is exactly the kind of experience we need to lead this country right now.

We also believe in the overwhelming need to create more long-term, lasting infrastructure that can engage Latinos in politics more regularly throughout the year, avoiding the cyclical abandonment that happens with campaigns that actually do outreach to Latinos. That is why Vote Hope will continue to work on registering voters, and building political networks, in the Latino community even after the 2008 election.

It’s an incredible political moment we are in. Vote Hope is here to seize it, and build on it for the long term.

Economy

Bill Richardson Roundup: June 23-30, 2007 News Review

Highlighting his considerable foreign expertise, Governor Bill Richardson last week set forth a path to avoiding military confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program. Richardson called on Bush administration to stop threatening Iran with “incendiary rhetoric,” and instead recognize our interests in engaging Iran diplomatically. 

Richardson’s week ended with a well-received speech before Latino leaders in Florida.  Decrying the tone of the debate in the Senate on the immigration bill and how Latinos are portrayed in the media, Richardson asked: 

Do you notice that when they depict immigrants, they have someone crossing a wall, jumping as if they are criminals? How about the farmers who break their backs working or those who are cleaning the toilets and working at the hotel where we stay? How about the American media covering the immigrant who died protecting his country?

Also of note, Pollster.com added Richardson to its Top Democrats charts, joining Clinton, Obama and Edwards.  Charles Franklin of Pollster.com stated, “For other Democratic candidates, we’ve not seen a substantial upturn anywhere. Richardson stands alone in that respect at the moment.”

For a full review of Richardson’s week, continue reading.

Last week began with Richardson campaigning in Iowa.  He stepped up his rhetoric opposing the ongoing U.S. occupation in Iraq. As noted by the Rocky Mountain News:

While all the other Democrats call for an end to the conflict, Richardson goes a step further by saying virtually every American soldier – with the exception of Marine embassy guards – should be pulled out by the end of the year. He is pressuring congressional Democrats to pass a resolution by the end of the summer revoking authority for the war.

Richardson also addressed the question of the process he would employ if as President he believed war necessary:

If I am president, I would only go to war if I get authority from Congress. If you go to war, it’s my view that first you exhaust every diplomatic option, you exhaust mediation, even sanctions, build international support for your goals.  I would not hesitate to go to war if it preserved the security of this country, but I believe this administration has been too trigger-happy. And I would use diplomacy.

Richardson has been consistent on the primacy of diplomacy in conflict resolution.  On Iraq, Richardson advocated that the U.S. explore all diplomatic avenues, including returning to the U.N. and developing support within the Security Council for U.S. objectives.  Under the U.N. Charter, only the Security Council can authorize a member state to wage war. 

Richardson’s view, that the U.S. must place the matter of invading Iraq to a vote of the Security Council prior to commencing hostilities, was rejected by many in Congress, including John Edwards, and ultimately was the path President Bush pursued.

On March 11, 2003, eight days before President Bush announced the U.S. was at war with Iraq, Richardson urged patience and diplomacy, criticizing the Bush Administration’s rush to war, in an interview on CNN.  At this time, polls showed most Americans supported going to war and were critical of the U.N. Richardson defended the work of the U.N. Richardson explained how unilateral U.S. military action in Iraq would undermine the U.N. and hurt the prestige of the U.S. abroad:

CROWLEY: I want to ask you the question, first, if there is no Security Council resolution approving of a war on Iraq, and if the Bush administration should go ahead, who loses in that scenario?

RICHARDSON: Well, I think the United Nations loses because it shows a lack of relevance to this crisis.

And, secondly, I think, Candy, that the United States loses because we’re going into a major conflict without the blessing of the U.N. Security Council, without some of our major allies like France and Russia, and also those 10 other members of the Security Council, the 10 non-permanent members that have a voice right now.

So I think it would come at considerable cost especially if we’re to win the war, which we would, issues relating to a post-Iraq configuration to the prestige of the United States worldwide to bring some kind of order to the Middle East and bring some kind of Persian Gulf-lessening attention. So, I think everybody would be a victim. The United Nations, the United States and, certainly, our NATO allies. I think would be hurt, too, because if they don’t support us the breakdown of the NATO alliance might be next to go.

CROWLEY: Well, I want to cite a couple of figures for you. One of them just came from a CBS/New York Times poll, which showed that right now only about 34 percent of Americans believe the U.N. is doing a good job handling this situation.

Fifty eight percent think it’s doing a poor job. On top of that, we also found that 55 percent would support an invasion, even if the Security Council says don’t do it. What does that say about how Americans view the U.N., and has that changed since you were the ambassador?

RICHARDSON: Well, the United States as a populous, here in new Mexico, there’s not much support for the United Nations. But at the same time, Candy, what everyone should understand is the United Nations does a lot of things that we, the U.S. as the only superpower, don’t want to do.

They get involved in conflicts in Kosovo, in the Congo in Africa, in Guatemala and Latin America. Immigration issues, AIDS, refugees. We don’t want to get directly involved in these, but we use the arm of international support, legitimacy of the United Nations to do it.

Now, in the Persian Gulf, conveniently, the U.N. supported our efforts in 1991 to get a broad coalition. And I think we’ve used the U.N. in the war on terrorism to get international support.

But clearly in this Iraq crisis, the U.N. has to step up and simply enforce its 1881 resolution. And it’s not doing that. So, it’s going to be a big loss for the U.N. in terms of its peacekeeping relevance, unless it really steps up and gets tough on Saddam Hussein. I think that’s the issue.

CROWLEY: So, am I right, am I hearing you correctly that you believe that the U.N. Security Council should pass the resolution that Britain and the U.S. are proposing?

RICHARDSON: Well, I would go a little differently, Candy. I think the U.S. and Britain should compromise. That’s the essence of diplomacy. To get nine votes, if it means postponing for 30 days, or 15 days or 10 days, a new resolution with benchmarks on Iraq’s behavior, let’s do it. I think that France and Russia are basically gone.

They are going to veto. But it would be a partial victory if we get nine votes for a victory of a majority in the Security Council. If we don’t do that, I think it’s going to be tremendous prestige loss overseas. I think, domestically, it’s going to cause more problems for the administration. The Congress will be divided. This is a time when it’s frustrating, but what’s the rush, really. Iraq is not heading down Baghdad into the United States.

Again, it is a threat, but it’s not an immediate threat. It’s not something that is like the war on terrorism, where we’re under alert from a potential terrorist attack in this country. So let’s be judicious. Let’s be calm. Let’s be patient.

While in Iowa, Richardson sat down for an interview with the editorial board of The Des Moines Register. The reporter covering the interview wrote:

Richardson might not be the best-known candidate – for now, anyway – but he might have the best credentials. His resumé includes U.S. congressman, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy and governor. He served in Congress under three presidents: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees. He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

That’s him on paper.  In person, he’s a bit beefy, his eyes scrunch up, and his body shakes when he laughs. He boasts that he holds the world’s handshaking record – more than 13,000 handshakes in eight hours. And his sense of humor comes through loud and clear. . . .

Yet he has a serious side.  It’s the side that made him a go-to envoy while still in Congress. He helped negotiate the release of the body of a U.S. Army helicopter pilot killed in North Korea in 1994. The next year, he negotiated the release of two Americans detained in Iraq. Then he secured release of three Red Cross workers being held in Sudan.

During the interview, Richardson highlighted three issues of such importance that he would make special efforts to reach bipartisan consensus: getting out of the Iraq war; setting up solid funding for Social Security and Medicare for future generations; and achieving energy independence.  The reporter added:

If that sounds like a lot, his vision for the country is equally expansive. Building an America without divisions by race or ethnicity. Launching an Apollo-like program to secure energy independence. Curing cancer. Giving the middle class a break. “My vision is to think big for this country,” he said.

On June 27th, Richardson gave a major address at the Center for National Policy in Washington, D.C.  Richardson laid out his vision for engaging Iran and convincing Iran to halt its development of nuclear weapons.  Richardson also spoke on building support to fight international terrorism and nuclear proliferation, while bringing peace and stability to the Middle East.

I am convinced that a concerted diplomatic effort, backed up by tough sanctions, undertaken with our international partners and grounded in bipartisan cooperation at home, stands an excellent chance of persuading Iran to forego nuclear weapons and to adopt more responsible policies.  We need to end the taboo on open-ended talks, so that we can begin serious, continuing, and senior-level negotiations on the full range of nuclear, Middle East security, and economic issues. . . .

We need to be absolutely clear that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, and we need to be absolutely credible when we say what we will do about it if the Iranians continue to disregard the will of the international community. . . .

Richardson added the Bush Administration was foolish to fund Iraqi exile groups in the delusional expectation that they would somehow topple the regime, and called on Bush not to repeat the mistake with Iran:

The Bush administration foolishly tried this approach with Iraq, and we know what it got us. There is no reason to expect better results with Iran. . . No constructive dialogue with Iran is possible until we break the vicious cycle of suspicion and hostile, incendiary rhetoric. If we want Iran to improve its behavior, we would do well to stop threatening to attack them.

Bill Richardson advocated that the U.S. reach out to moderate elements in Iranian society to defuse the standoff between the two countries.  Richardson reiterated his position that the U.S. must remove all troops from Iraq as soon as possible:

The presence of American troops in Iraq fuels the insurgency and strengthens Al Qaeda.  I strongly believe that the complete withdrawal of all US military from Iraq will have a salutary effect on all of our goals in the region, including our efforts to build a better relationship with Iran, and to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Back in New Mexico, the leading state organization on environmental issues, the non-partisan Conservation Voters New Mexico gave Richardson an “A” in its annual scorecard of elected officials:

The CVNM Scorecard recognizes Governor Bill Richardson with a solid “A” for his commitment to protecting the environment. The Governor weighed in behind a strong renewable energy agenda in 2007 and exercised his veto power on several anti-conservation measures, including a line-item veto of $945,000 for “Gila basin water development”, and a pocket-veto of SB 220 that would have provided a de facto $6.9 million subsidy to the coal industry.

Sandy Buffet, the Executive Director of the CVNM applauded Richardson’s efforts to make “New Mexico the ‘Clean Energy State.‘” She also complimented Richardson for his work on a non-environmental issue, but one affecting the integrity of the state government and New Mexico elections:  uphelding strong campaign finance reporting rules from efforts by the state legislature to reverse progessive statutes.

In response Richardson stated:

We have worked closely with all those who seek to conserve our water, air and public lands and establish New Mexico as the clean energy state — and this grade shows we’ve worked well together.  Having enacted 23 pro-conservation bills this year, this legislative session was an unprecedented success with significant increases to our renewable energy portfolio standard, passage of the surface owner’s protection act and the Renewable Energy Transmission Authority.

On the political front, independent polls issued last week re-confirmed Richardson’s growing support in Iowa and New Hampshire.  The campaign’s internal poll released to the media showed Richardson at 13% in Iowa, and at 18% (above Obama) among likely caucus voters.  And, in in action I believe is related to Richardson’s rise in the polls, the week also saw Obama launch TV ads in Iowa and Edwards commence a TV campaign in New Hampshire. 

In response to Richardson’s momentum in Iowa and New Hampshire, Pollster.com added Richardson to its Top Democrats charts, joining Clinton, Obama and Edwards.  Charles Franklin of Pollster.com explained, “While Richardson is still in fourth place in both states (5th in NH if you include Gore), his is the only trajectory that is clearly moving up.” 

The positive trend in Iowa polls was noticed by reporters in the state:

Lending credence to a poll showing his support has jumped to double digits among likely Iowa caucus-goers, Bill Richardson attracted more than 200 people to a “job interview” in Iowa City. The Democratic governor of New Mexico made an impression Tuesday with the folks who will be doing the “hiring” when Iowans caucus in January.

“He’s the ‘been there, done that’ guy in the field” of Democratic candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination, Sally Peck of West Branch said of listening to Richardson. “He’s not just mouthing platitudes. He has the experience others don’t.”

For months, Richardson has been calling for comprehensive immigration reform in harmony with the ideals upon which our nation was founded.  In a speech last December at Georgetown University, Richardson spoke on the issue:

I come here today as a border state Governor, and a  Hispanic-American who knows that our nation can no longer afford to  ignore the issue of illegal immigration. I come here as a Democrat who  believes my party has an obligation as the new majority party to pass  comprehensive legislation to reform our immigration laws. And I come  here as someone who believes it’s time for our leaders to tell the  simple truth about this — and every other — issue.

Today, there are over 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Most are law abiding, except for the fact that they have entered this country illegally. And almost all have come here to work — to build a  better life for themselves and their families, just as previous generations of immigrants have done.

Eleven million people living in the shadows is a huge problem, and we need to address it intelligently and thoughtfully — and urgently. If Congress fails to do so, it will only get worse, and the demagoguery about it which we have heard so much of recently will only get louder.

Sadly, Richardson’s prediction that the demagoguery on immigration would only get worse proved true last week. Following the failure of the Senate to advance a bill, Richardson stated:

I am deeply disappointed. You can’t solve a problem by ignoring it. We have got to find a way to bridge the divide and bring people together to address the critical problems facing our nation — immigration, energy, healthcare, education. This is the price America pays for divisive leadership. Congress should continue to work on passing immigration reform.

Richardson explained further his opposition to the Senate immigration bill, while calling for immigration reform, in an address to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials on June 30, 2007 in Orlando, Florida.  As reported in the Boston Globe:

“The Congress failed to pass an immigration act, and they must return” to it, said Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a lawmaker of Hispanic background who received one of the most enthusiastic receptions among the seven Democratic candidates for president from the members of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials.

“But it was a bad bill. What I objected to was that they stopped working” on it, Richardson said. He decried that he called an overly onerous provision that would have required undocumented immigrants to return to their home countries to be considered for a green card giving them permanent legal status.

As reported in the Chicago Tribune, at the same conference Obama decried an “ugly undertone that crept into the debate” this year. Yet, Obama defended his vote last year to build the 700-mile fence along U.S. boarder with Mexico because that provision was just one part in a “much more humane” reform bill.  This was not the case.  The “Secure Fence Act of 2006” that Obama, Clinton, Dodd and Biden voted for contained only provisions authorizing the wall and securing the border. Richardson has consistently opposed the border wall as ineffective, a terrible symbol for America and in conflict with our goal of seeking Mexico’s cooperaton on immigration issues.

The Chicago Tribune’s coverage of the Florida conference continued:

But Richardson landed the hardest punch with the crowd when he suggested that the failure to pass fair immigration laws is due partly to a societal failure to recognize that “immigration has historically been a very positive element.”

“I have a message to the American media,” Richardson said. “Do you notice when they depict immigrants, they have somebody crossing a wall … as if they’re criminals? How about the American media looking at the farmworker who breaks his back? How about the American media covering the Latino immigrant that has died for this country?”

Richardson added:  “I’m not running as a Latino candidate. I’m running as an American governor who is enormously proud to be Latino.”

There has been significant blog commentary on the Democratic Presidential debate last Thursday at Howard University.  I won’t add anything further with one exception.  Much of the commentary focused on style and ignored the substance of the candidates’ statements. In particular, on the question of economic growth and tax unfairness, Richardson set forth an unique vision. 

Richardson’s voice is important as he is the only Democratic candidate in the race with executive branch experience and success in working with local communities, private corporations and public entities in creating thousands of new, quality jobs. 

Richardson advocated repealing the Bush tax cuts at the very top of the income bracket, which other candidates did as well.  But Richardson would go much further by replacing the Bush tax cuts with tax cuts for the middle class and to promote job growth, including in the inner cities and rural areas.  Richardson stated: 

We need to rebuild this economy by being pro-growth Democrats. We should be the party of innovation, of entrepreneurship, of building capital, getting capital for African American small businesses. We need to find a way in this country that we say that globalization must work for the middle class.

Finally, the Bay Area Reporter, the leading LGBT paper for the San Francisco Bay Area, profiled Richardson last week:

B.A.R. publisher Thomas E. Horn, who was born and raised in New Mexico and whose family has been involved in the state’s politics – an uncle served as a state legislator and then the state’s Democratic Party chair in the 1950s and 1960s – first met Richardson when he served as a congressman.

“I really think he is the most qualified Democrat in the race for president,” Horn wrote in an e-mail. “His track record is exceptional. He’s done a fine job as governor … and was re-elected with around 70 percent of the vote.”

Horn, who said he expects to make an endorsement in the primary but has yet to back a candidate, said winning the southwest will be key to the Democrats taking back the White House. Not only does he see Richardson having an advantage in the West, but Horn also praised his gay rights track record.

“If a Democrat carries New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada, we don’t need Ohio or Florida to win. Richardson is very popular throughout the southwest and stands the best chance of being able to do that,” wrote Horn. “His record of LGBT issues has always been stellar.”

California, Central Valley, Orange County

State Supreme Court Upholds California Voting Rights Act

5 Comments

Hmmm… I didn’t notice this in yesterday’s OC Register:

A state law allowing voters to challenge at-large elections systems on the basis that they dilute the strength of minority voters will stand, after the California Supreme Court declined to review the case Wednesday.

The high court’s refusal to hear the case leaves intact an appeals court ruling that upheld the 2001 California Voting Rights Act.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights sued the city of Modesto in 2004 on behalf of Hispanic voters there, charging that electing city council members to at-large seats instead of from districts diminished the strength of their votes. Though the city is one-quarter Hispanic, just one Hispanic has been elected to Modesto’s five-member city council since 1911.

So what does this mean for municipal elections in California? Follow me after the flip for more…

So what does this mean for local elections? Chris Prevatt weighs in with an Orange County perspective at The Liberal OC:

This could have impact in OC. In Garden Grove for example there is no Latino representation on the City Council, but an over representation of Vietnamese elected officials. Part of the problem is the amount of money required to successfully run for Council in a city wide election. District level elections would enhance direct representation for all areas of a city, not just those where the most affluent people live.

The similar dynamic occurs in cities where candidates are chosen to represent wards but elected city-wide. This appears to be the case in Santa Ana where we have an entirely Latino City Council in a very demographically diverse city. This is partly due to the reality that in a city with a clear majority of one ethnicity, money isn’t the only thing that has an impact.

Well, Garden Grove may very well have a problem if this law remains upheld. Although the population is nearly evenly split among Latinos, whites, and Asian-Americans, there are no Latinos on the city council. So if the 2001 California Voting Rights Act remains upheld, what does this mean for Garden Grove? Let’s look at what the law says:

[I]f it is shown that racially polarized voting occurs in elections for members of the governing body of the political subdivision or in elections incorporating other electoral choices by the voters of the political subdivision…
[T]he court shall implement appropriate remedies, including the imposition of district-based elections, that are tailored to remedy the violation.

So perhaps, we will see more lawsuits like this one against Modesto. But will this be a true remedy for “diluting of strength of minority voters” and “racially polarized voting”? What do you think about this?