In what is sure to be an important component of the campaign, No on 8 started airing a TV spot in markets across California.  It is a strong commercial featuring a married couple of 46 years with three grown children, one of whom is gay. Here’s the words from the commercial, video to the right:

SAMUEL THORON: Julia and I have been married for 46 years.

JULIA THORON: Together we’ve raised three children – who are now adults.

SAMUEL THORON: My wife and I never treated our children differently, we never loved them any differently and the law shouldn’t treat them differently either.

JULIA THORON: If Prop 8 passes, our gay daughter and thousands of our fellow Californians will lose the right to marry. Please don’t eliminate that right – for anyone’s family.”

SAMUEL THORON: Don’t eliminate marriage for anyone. Vote No on Prop 8.

You can help get this commercial on television more frequently at the No on 8 Website. Here at Calitics, we’re hoping to have some fun activities for you as well soon…

[UPDATE] by Julia: The Thorons signed the ballot argument against passage of Prop. 8.  This is a good, solid ad carefully calibrated to move undecided voters.  The more you donate, the more they can get ads up on the air.  The other side had booked TV earlier than us, but with this ad we have beaten them to the punch.

Yesterday, the six most senior bishops in California announced their opposition to Proposition 8, the anti-marriage amendment.

“We believe that continued access to civil marriage for all, regardless of sexual orientation, is consistent with the best principles of our constitutional rights,” said the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles.

Bruno, flanked at a news conference by fellow clergy members and gay and straight couples, added: “We do not believe that marriage of heterosexuals is threatened by same-sex marriage.” (LA Times 9/11/08)

This is just another crack in the facade the Yes on 8 people are trying to put up. That somehow they own religion. Despite the fact that nearly all of their endorsements are tied to Dobson-esque quasi-religious right-wing organizations (and the Republicans that love them), they do not speak for all religious groups.  These Episcopal Bishops join other religious leaders like those from the National Council of Jewish Women and the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry Action Network.

Also, the LA Times has an interesting graphic on the donations to both sides on Prop 8 and where they come from. Yes on 8 still leads, with about $14.5 million compared to about $10.5 million for the no side. Let’s just hope the yes side squanders more resources.

(We won! – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Yesterday I mentioned the Prop 7 ballot argument lawsuit, but there’s always more of this stuff. Today we should be getting the Prop 8 ballot title result. A hearing on the case was held yesterday, and it didn’t go so well for the Yes on 8 folks:

Despite objections from opponents of same-sex marriage, a judge seemed inclined Thursday to leave intact a state ballot label that declares a November initiative “eliminates (the) right of same-sex couples to marry.”

Sponsors of Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 ballot argued that Attorney General Jerry Brown’s formal title and summary of the measure – the first words voters will see on their ballots – were one-sided and prejudicial. Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley appeared skeptical, although he deferred a ruling until today. (SF Chronicle 8/8/08)

UPDATE: The ballot title stays. This is a nice little victory for the opponents of Prop 8.  Thatks to Hermit9 in the comments. Full press release over the flip.

UPDATE by Dave: The other big news today is that the LA Times has come out No on 8, which, given their reach and their tendency to be something less than liberal in worldview, is very significant.

But it was Ronald M. George, chief justice of the California Supreme Court, who cut through to the essence of the issue in the May 15 opinion he wrote: “[A]ffording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.”

In other words, the very act of denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry — traditionally the highest legal and societal recognition of a loving commitment — by definition relegates them and their relationships to second-class status, separate and not all that equal.

Good for the LAT ed board.

Court Upholds Attorney General’s Ballot Language

Judge keeps ballot title and summary, declares Prop. 8 ‘eliminates the right of same sex couples to marry’

(Sacramento – August 8, 2008) In agreement with Attorney General Jerry Brown, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley ruled today that the Attorney General’s Title and Summary of Proposition 8 is accurate. He also ruled that domestic partnership and marriage are not equal and that educators are not required under California law to teach young students about marriage against a parent’s will.

Judge Frawley heard arguments from both sides of Prop. 8, ultimately ruling in favor of the opponents of the proposition and in favor of the Attorney General.

Clarifying the distinction between marriage and domestic partnerships, Judge Frawley referred to California case law that concludes that “domestic partnership is not marriage.” and, while finding it within the bounds of political speech, did describe the assertion that marriage and domestic partnership are the same as “hyperbole.”

Judge Frawley further rejected the assertion that marriage by same sex couples would be required in the California school curriculum, saying, “…children cannot be required to attend any health-related instruction, including instruction on the subject of marriage, against their parents’ will [Cal. Ed. Code §51240.]. Petitioner therefore has failed to show that the opponents’ arguments [stating that no such mandate would occur] are objectively false or misleading.”

“We are delighted that the court found some of the proponent’s arguments to be false and misleading,” said Geoff Kors, a member of the NO on 8, Equality for All Executive Committee. “We are confident that California voters will see through these scare tactics.”

The information will be included in the November ballot materials, which are the only official direct mail materials California voters receive from the state.

Dan Walters has never been a fan of Jerry Brown. In the past few years, he’s never missed a chance to call him a flip-flop artist or go after him as a Flake Extraordinaire (PDF).  We get it, Dan Walters doesn’t like “Governor Moonbeam.”

But his most recent attack is really beyond whatever logic even Dan Walters has. Dan thinks that Jerry went all cynically pro-gay by changing the title and summary of Prop 8 from “amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.”  And by doing so, Dan becomes nothing more than a Knight acolyte.

The logic behind the change is clear. Before In re Marriage Cases was decided the amendment was not really removing any already existing rights.  Today, Prop 8 would eliminate the right of gays and lesbians to marry the person they love. That is a right today that would no longer exist after. The switch only reflects the changing state of the law.

But Dan Walters simply loves going after Jerry Brown, so he attacks Brown as a sycophant to the gays. Well, I won’t deny that Brown is trying to ingratiate himself with what is a powerful Democratic voting block, but this decision only reflects the world as it is.  The courts will soon confirm that Brown did the right thing.

In most, if not all, of the states that have passed marriage bans, corporations have pretty much stayed out of the ballot fight. After all, who wants to get boycotted by the Family Research Council. I mean that’s three bottles of soap that you could have sold right down the drain.

So, the introduction of a “Equality Business Advisory Council” at a presser tomorrow is something of a big deal. No on 8 needs to pick up a few points from CalChamber types who not only see the importance of equality from a fairness perspective but also see the value of marriage equality to their bottom line.  And first up is Pacific Gas & Electric.

PG&E is a big political player. They know exactly what they are doing here.  They need some credibility with the left, especially in San Francisco. It doesn’t hurt that they are in a fight over a possible public power measure in SF either.  Of course, being something of a monopoly doesn’t hurt. Where else are people going to go to get the electricity to turn on their lights?

As for other companies, I expect we’ll see a few other businesses. Maybe a few similar monopolies, but also a group of businesses that cater to the rising creative class. As the title and summary of Prop 8 mentioned, this ban will have an effect on the bottom line of some businesses in the state.  I have confidence in the voters of California seeing the fairness and logic in voting NO on Prop 8.

The reply brief in Bennet v Bowen has been filed by Equality California and allies. You can grab the PDF here.

There’s not a whole lot new here, so I’d recommend that you take a look at my previous diary. This reply brief focuses on the issue of pre-election versus post-election review and then restates the previous two issues: that Prop 8 is a revision rather than an amendment of the constitution and that the signature forms carried an improper statement of the law.

There is one interesting passage that I thought might carry some weight and might incline the justices to consider pulling Prop 8 off the ballot:

No other group in this state has ever had to face an initiative that would deprive them of their basic status as equal families under California law. If Proposition 8 is a revision, as Petitioners assert, gay and lesbian Californians should not be required to endure the indignity and pain caused by the uncertainty that Proposition 8 now poses for their families. That many gay and lesbian couples have had to wait decades or even most of their lives, to exercise the fundamental freedom to marry does not diminish, but rather exacerbates, the grave harm caused by that uncertainty.

I’m still counting this one as a longshot for anything to happen before the November election. It is still a case of first impression and would be creating new law, but it’s not an altogether unreasonable argument. Either way, let’s plan to shut the door on discrimination right here in California.

Cross posted in Orange.

On June 20, Equality California, NCLR, and a whole host of groups filed suit in the Supreme Court of California against our Secretary of State, Debra Bowen. (Note that Debra Bowen is an amazing SoS; she’s getting sued in her SoS capacity.) To grossly oversimplify, EQCA alleges that the signature gathering process was flawed for a few reasons:

Ultimately, this is a long shot. For a number of reasons, the Supreme Court is unlikely to pull the measure off the ballot in November. Let’s go over those over the flip.  

First the general process questions:

Why go to the Supreme Court directly?

On a few issues, the California Supreme Court has so-called “original jurisdiction.” Basically, this just means that they can take the case without the case working its way through the court system. This requires that there are no issues of fact, only of law and that there is a pressing time concern. There is a lot of discretion involved on this issue of law, so this is one way the Court can punt the case until November.

When does the Court prefer to act on challenges to initiatives?

Generally, post election. This was restated in Independent Energy Producers Assn. v McPherson all the way back in 2006. Some energy producers tried to kick Prop 80, a energy reregulation bill, off the ballot. Ultimately the initiative lost badly, so the court ended up looking good on punting the issue, but they did issue something of an advisory opinion stating that preelection review is generally frowned upon. Or to pull directly from case law:

[I]t is usually more appropriate to review constitutional and other challenges to ballot propositions or initiative measures after an election rather than to disrupt the electoral process by preventing the exercise of the people’s franchise, in the absence of some clear showing of invalidity.” (Brosnahan v. Eu (1982) 31 Cal.3d 1, 4 [181 Cal. Rptr. 100, 641 P.2d 200] (Brosnahan I).

The Court in the Costa v Sup. Ct (37 Cal. 4th 986), goes on to say that pre-election review is acceptable when the initiative is not  “properly submitted”, such as a violation of the single subject rule, or, say it amounts to a revision rather than an amendment:

More recently, however, in Senate of the State of Cal. v. Jones (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1142 [90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 810, 988 P.2d 1089] (Senate v. Jones), we noted that decisions after Brosnahan I “have explained that this general rule applies primarily when a challenge rests upon the alleged unconstitutionality of the substance of the proposed initiative, and that the rule does not preclude preelection review when the challenge is based upon a claim, for example, that the proposed measure may not properly be submitted to the voters because the measure is not legislative in character or because it amounts to a constitutional revision rather than an amendment. [Citations.]” (21 Cal.4th at p. 1153.)

So, Bingo Bango Bongo. This doesn’t seal the matter, but it does make a strong argument that the Court has the authority to review the case. Again, this is a gross oversimplification, but hey, this is a blog, not a law review. By the by, you can look up CA Sup. Ct. caselaw free here.

Why are we suing Bowen?

Well, quite simply, the SoS puts stuff on the ballot. The proponents of the initiative are named as the “real parties in interest,” and the Liberty Counsel, the out-of-state anti-marriage legal team has also filed to intervene in the lawsuit.

Now to the substantive issues: What’s the deal with this revision argument?

Alrighty, this really goes to the heart of the matter. So, what is a “revision”? Basically a revision is a change to the “underlying principles” of the Constitution. If the Court determines that the question at issue affects the underlying principles of the California Constitution, the initiative must go through a different process. A revision requires a 2/3 vote of both houses of the Legislature or the convening of a Constitutional Convention (a process that I won’t go into here). The revision then must be ratified by the people. Obviously this initiative hasn’t gone through either process.

But what is an “underlying principle”, you ask? Well, good freaking question! There have been only a few cases which have actually dealt with this.  A few months back Killer of Sacred Cows wrote a recommended diary at dKos and crossposted here about an article by Kevin Norte (and a follow-up), a research attorney in the LA Superior Court and a huge John McCain fan. Well, I’m only inferring that last part from the fact that he’s the official blogger of the California Log Cabin Republicans.  So, apparently Kevin is comfortable with rosy predictions from Republicans. They’ve been great to the LGBT Community in California and across the nation, right?

Kevin really wants this off the ballot, that much is clear. And that’s a laudable goal, but let’s go over the law honestly: Norte’s concept of classifying Prop 8 as a revision would be establishing new law.  Despite the fact that he cites lots of cases, the Supreme Court would still need to take one additional step.

In other breaking news, there is no such thing as a free lunch. This will be a tough case for Chief Justice George and the California Supreme Court.  While he did give a hint in the questioning all the way back in March, it’s not clear by any stretch that there are 4 votes for this, either before or after the election.

Norte, and the EQCA brief cite several cases where amendments have been tossed. The most notable amongst the amendments that were tossed was at issue in Raven v Deukmijian (52 Cal 3d 336). In that case, Stephen Bomse (the same attorney at Heller Ehrman that field the case on behalf of the voters and orgs in the marriage case) argued that a proposed initiative that would have limited California criminal rights to the extent of the US Constitution.  The CA Sup Ct ruled that such an amendment would so change the structure of the California system of government as to amount to a revision of the Constitution.

The Court stated a rather nebulous standard in Raven:

As explained in Amador, and confirmed in Brosnahan, our revision/amendment analysis has a dual aspect, requiring us to examine both the quantitative and qualitative effects of the measure on our constitutional scheme. Substantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision. Before examining the applicable authorities in greater depth, we first set forth the nature of petitioners’ revision challenge.

So, the Court goes through a two-pronged analysis when dealing with revisions. Quantitative goes to scope of changes in the Constitution, quite literally. That looks to the actual number of additions, deletions, and amendments to the California Constituion (Raven , III, B, 2).  As to the qualitative aspect, the Court states that “even a relatively simple enactment may accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision.”

Clearly, the marriage issue is looking towards qualitative aspects. And again, Raven is the case to look at:

Even under respondent Attorney General’s “limited” construction of new article I, section 24, fundamental constitutional rights are implicated, including the rights to due process of law, equal protection of the law, assistance of counsel, and avoidance of cruel and unusual punishment. As to these rights, as well as the other important rights listed in new section 24, California courts in criminal cases would no longer have authority to interpret the state Constitution in a manner more protective of defendants’ rights than extended by the federal Constitution, as construed by the United States Supreme Court.

This is where the case is headed, where the controversy lies. The EQCA attorneys argue that marriage is now a fundamental right. It is implicated under equal protection of the law, as orientation is now a suspect class under In re Marriage Cases.  From the brief:

Equal protection is not merely a discrete constitutional guarantee; it is a trascendent principle that is deeply woven into the fabric of our entire Constitution. (Brief at 17)

There is a substantive argument to be made here. But, there is no case law on the definition of fundamental rights.  This would be the Court going out on a limb and expanding the scope of the revision doctrine.  Now, this is the same court that decided In re Marriage Cases, so it’s not entirely unthinkable.  However, we shouldn’t be banking on this.

The Material Misstatements on the Circulating Initiative

This seems to be an even longer shot, as the misleading statements weren’t actually misleading at the time of signature gathering. Clearly, the only remedy available for this would be to remove the amendment. However, I think if the Court wants to remove the amendment from the ballot, this would be only a secondary cause, as it was in the brief.

Specifically, the brief argues that the description’s statement that the amendment would make “no change” to marriage law and that there would be no “fiscal effect” on the state budget.  It’s clear that there would be a few million bucks of tax revenue on the line from gay weddings, but that amount of money would never be used to boot an initiative from the ballot.

Does the fact that the summary got the outcome of In re Marriage Cases wrong matter? Again, this is a case of first impression for the CA Supreme Court. There is just not a lot of case law to go on. You can analogize to cases in the past, but there is nothing dispositive. The closest case is Senate of the State of California v Jones, 21 Cal. 4th 1142, which states, in dicta, a non-precedent setting tossaway phrase, that initiatives could be booted for a misstatement of current law.

Again, it’s a stretch, considering it wasn’t entirely a misstatement.

In the end, I, and many others, are expecting to have to fight this battle at the ballot box. It’s possible that Chief Justice George and the Court could come riding to our rescue, but how much sweeter would our victory be if we didn’t need the Court? How much more important to the future of our nation would it be if we were able to shut down the forces of bigotry and hate at the ballot box?

Erica Solvig, reporter for The Desert Sun, in an article entitled “Outside funding inundates primary reports that special interests outside the CA 80th Assembly District have flooded the Coachella and Imperial Valleys with hate mail on behalf of Victor Manuel Perez.  In fact, according to the Fair Political Practices Commission, Opportunity PAC has spent or plans to spend approximately $450,000 on hit pieces on behalf of Manuel Perez targeting the frontrunner Greg Pettis, Cathedral City Councilman and former Mayor Pro-Tem of Cathedral City.  One has to wonder just what Opportunity PAC hopes to get in return for its investment should Perez be elected.  One also has to wonder what the workers and their families in these AFL-CIO-labeled ‘rogue unions’ who typically make between $18,000 and $24,000 per annum might think about such expenditures by this PAC for a little-accomplished candidate on behalf of them.

Voters across the District also report receiving repeated live phone calls purported to be from the Pettis campaign at all hours of the day and night but that are clearly not from the Pettis campaign.  This is an apparent attempt on the part of special interests to suppress voter turnout in areas of Pettis strength in the District.’  The Pettis campaign has received ‘many’ reports on these harassing phone calls.

More below the flip…

Solvig writes:

Just a day after candidates filed their last big pre-primary campaign finance reports, Cathedral City Councilman Greg Pettis’ camp criticized Manuel Perez and what they’re calling a “special interest hijacking” of the 80th Assembly Democratic primary.

Perez late Thursday reported that he spent about $85,000 during March 18 to May 17, leaving the Coachella Valley Unified School District trustee with $39,924 cash on hand and roughly $27,000 in outstanding debt.

Less than $12,000 of his expenses are for literature, postal needs and campaign paraphernalia, according to the report he filed with the state.

Compare that to the amount of independent expenditures outside agencies (who cannot coordinate with the campaigns) are spending.

Opportunity PAC, a group of educators and health-care workers, has spent $233,335 campaigning in support of Perez and another $133,326 opposing Pettis, according to the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

The Strengthening Our Lives through Education group has spent $31,388 touting Perez.

“Instead of being an adjunct to the camp, it has become a defacto campaign,” Pettis’ campaign consultant Michael Grossman said.

Not that Perez is immune to outside attacks. The Desert Stonewall Democrats, which has endorsed Pettis, has spent $21,437 in opposition to Perez.

From early on in the campaign, the Perez campaign has engaged in divisive, intimidating campaign practices.  Perez and his staff and bloggers have attempted to pit the East Valley and Imperial County against the West Valley.  Soyinkafan refers to the ‘West Valley elite,’ code words for the Whites and LGBT community in the West Valley versus those in the East and Imperial Valleys.  Other obvious interpretations include attempting to differentiate between the more well-to-do ‘West Valley elite’ versus the less-well-to-do East Valley residents.

Perez himself lowered the bar when in his opening remarks to local Democratic clubs he referred to himself as ‘not a member of an Alternative Lifestyle.’  Clearly code words for not being gay and an attempt to appeal to baser instincts.  After months of vacilation, Perez also finally committed to vote in favor of Marriage Equality if elected to the State Assembly, after equivocating before Democratic clubs and community groups.  However, while stating his support for ‘gay rights and gay marriage,’ in the East Valley and Imperial Valleys, more conservative portions of the District, Perez and his handlers conduct ‘whispering’ campaigns against Pettis as being openly-gay and a supporter of the ‘gay agenda’ (sources, a Republican elected and a Democrat elected in the District).

Now, the hate mailers and harassing, live calls from special interest stealth campaign that clearly support Pettis’ opposition.  Perez lacks the support in the District that would translate in boots-to-the-ground and monies from voters in the Coachella and Imperial Valleys from outside the Valleys.  Every single Democratic Club in the District voted to endorse Pettis for 80th Assembly District.  Not a single Democratic Club supports Perez campaign because of his relative lack of governmental and administrative experience, because of the derth of achievement in his area of ‘expertise,’ education, with the failures of the Coachella Valley Unified School District and the sanctions levied by the California Department of Education, and his veiled homophobia and divisive campaign.  The Desert Hot Springs Democratic Club, the Desert Stonewall Democratic Club, the Inland Stonewall Democratic Club, the Palm Springs Democratic Club, the San Diego Democratic Club, and the San Diego Democratic Women’s Club have all endorsed Pettis for 80th AD.

Perez also lacks support from electeds and activists in the District, with every single current elected in Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, and Rancho Mirage who has endorsed supporting Pettis’ candidacy.  Cathedral City Councilmember and Candidate for Cathedral City Mayor Paul Marchand, Cathedral City Clerk Pat Hammers, Desert Hot Springs City Councilmember Karl Baker, Palm Springs Mayor Pro-Tem Ginny Foat, Palm Springs City Councilmember Rick Hutcheson, and Palm Springs Unified School District Trustee Meredy Schoenberger.

Other electeds and candidates supporting Pettis based on his ability to deliver, his experience, and his ‘go-to’ abilities include Candidate for the 45th Congressional District Paul Clay, Candidate for the 45th Congressional District Dave Hunsicker, former Brawley Mayor Orbie Hanks, former Cathedral City Councilmember Sarah Digradi, former Coachella Mayor Juan DeLara, Juliet DeLara, and Olivia DeLara, Coachella City Councilmember Gilbert Ramirez, Jr., El Centro Councilmember Sedalia Sanders, El Centro School Board Trustee Diane Newton, Office of Neighborhood Involvement Boardmember and former-Candidate for the Palm Springs City Council John Williams, Candidate for Palm Springs Unified School District Greg Rodriguez, former Rancho Mirage Councilmember Jeanne Parrish, co-founder of the Palm Springs Democratic Club Lisa Arbelaez, Desert Hot Springs Democratic Club President Will Pieper, Desert Hot Springs Democratic Club Vice-President Chuck McDaniel, Desert Stonewall Democratic Club President George Zander, Desert Stonewall Democratic Club Vice-President Roger Tansey, Desert Stonewall Democratic Club Treasurer Bob Silverman, Desert Stonewall Democratic Club Secretary James Reynolds, Desert Stonewall Democratic Club Steering Committee Members Ruth Debra, Donald W. Grimm, Ph.D., Hono Hildner, Bob Mahlowitz, Robert Lee Thomas, and Lynn Worley, Desert Stonewall Democratic Club activist Bill Cain-Gonzalez, Palm Springs Democratic Club Co-Chair Sandy Eldridge, Palm Springs Democratic Club Co-Chair David Pye, Palm Springs Democratic Club Secretary Peter East, Pass Democratic Club President Jacqueline Atwood, Pass Democratic Club Vice-President Betty McMillion, Pass Democratic Club Treasurer Robert Atwood, Pass Democratic Club Recording Secretary David Knight, Riverside County Democratic Central Committee Alternate and former-Candidate for Palm Springs Unified School District Trustee Kira Klatchko, and Sun City Democratic Club President Arnie Kaminsky.

Perez also has little support amongst the tribes with Pettis having the endorsements of Morongo Band of Mission Indians Vice Chair and former-Candidate for the 80th AD Mary Ann Andreas and Pechanga Band of Lisueno Mission Indians Vice Chairman Andrew Maisel.  Pettis’ support with the local tribes is especially remarkable since Pettis has been able to bring together into one campaign the local unions as well as the tribes.  The tribes particularly despise the AFL-CIO-labeled ‘roge union’ providing a vast majority of Perez grey monies.

Race, class, and sexual orientation have dominated the subtext of the Perez campaign, especially in the blogosphere, creating division between communities that Pettis has worked hard over the course of more than 13 years to eliminate.  Pettis has been able to bring together the Latino and LGBT communities as evidenced by his endorsements and his support amongst the ‘West Valley elite’ and the East Valley and Imperial County working class families.  His ability to unify peoples is greatly evidenced in his ability to run for and win three times as Councilmember in Cathedral City, a city with a population including 58% ethnic and racial minorities.  Pettis three times was able to win with overwhelming support in the local Latino, Asian, and African-American communities as well as in the LGBT communities in Cathedral City.

It is time for the Perez campaign to cease its hate speech and innuendos.  It is time for the Opportunity PAC hit pieces to cease.  It is time for the 80th AD campaign to focus on the issues: the economy, the environment, and education.  Unfortunately for the Perez campaign, these are all issues where Pettis has demonstrated strength and success and where Perez either has little or no experience or has failed miserably (e.g., education and the State sanctions against his CVUSD).

XPosted 5/9/2008 2:53 PM PDT on MyDesert.com

Andy Linsky

HRC Board of Directors*

and co-hosts

Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet

Palm Springs City Councilmember Ginny Foat

Palm Springs City Councilmember Rick Hutcheson

Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund

Equality California

The Bottom Line Magazine

Palm Springs Democratic Club

Desert Stonewall Democratic Club

Invite you to meet

U.S. Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA)

and to join him in supporting

Greg Pettis

For California State Assembly (80th AD)

Saturday May 24, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.

Location for the Cocktail Reception at the home of Andy Linsky will be provided with a confirmed reservation

Suggested minimum contribution: $100 per person

Sponsor: $500 ~ Co-Host: $1000

Computer Generated; Labor Donated. © 2008 | Pettis for Assembly 2008 | P.O. Box 2692 Cathedral City, CA 92235-2692 | FPPC ID# 1285158

Contributions are not tax deductible for income tax purposes.

Limits to this campaign are $3600 per person, company or PAC

Reservations: [email protected] or (760) 841-3189

For more information, or to contribute online:

http://www.gregpettis.com/dona…

Xposted 5/20/2008 8:58 PM PDT on MyDesert.com by BluePalmSpringsBoyz

The Greg Pettis for 80th Assembly District campaign announced earlier that Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, the highest-ranking Democratic elected official in California endorsed Pettis for the 80th AD to replace the termed-out, thank God, Bonnie Garcia (R).  The campaign Press Release is as follows:

Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi, the highest-ranking Democratic official in state government, has endorsed Greg Pettis in the open 80th Assembly District race.

“While Democrats in the 80th AD are fortunate to have a wealth of choices this year, I’m getting behind Greg Pettis because he has a long record of results that matter to families throughout the Coachella and Imperial Valleys, and the experience to deliver on the promise of creating a healthier California,” Garamendi said.

More below the flip…

Continuing the Press Release:

“We need to put this seat in the hands of someone who will be ready from the first day in office to make our health care system more affordable and accessible, to improve our economy by reducing the achievement gap in our schools and keeping college affordable for more students and to take the lead in combating global climate change,” Garamendi added.

Garamendi specifically lauded Pettis for his work expanding CSUSB campus in Palm Desert to accommodate more students, negotiating the Multi-Species Habitat Act to manage growth and conserve water and for creating over 1,000 new jobs in Cathedral City through the downtown revitalization project.

Pettis welcomed Garamendi’s endorsement and said he looked forward to working with him on a host of issues including creating a universal health care system, growing CSU’s branch campus in the Imperial Valley and increasing the use of renewable fuels to reduce carbon emissions.

Garamendi joins a long list of elected officials supporting Pettis including State Controller John Chiang; former State Controller Steve Westly; State Board of Equalization Member Judy Chu; incoming State Senate pro-tem Darrell Steinberg; State Senators Carol Migden, Christine Kehoe and Sheila Kuehl; and State Assemblymembers Mike Eng, John Laird, Lloyd Levine, Mark Leno and Ted Lieu.

Garamendi thus follows suit with every local Democratic Club which has chosen to endorse, including the Desert Stonewall Democratic Club, the Desert Hot Springs Democratic Club, the Palm Springs Democratic Club, the Pass Democratic Club, the San Diego Democratic Club, and the San Diego Democratic Women’s Club, as well as most progressive Democratic-leaning organizations.

Pettis was also endorsed by the California National Organization for Women, Equality California, Victory Fund, Progressive Majority, and HONOR PAC.  California NOW endorsed Pettis, not providing dual endorsement, as his prime competitor, Victor Manuel Perez, was unable to articulate a coherent position on Women’s Rights and freedom of choice.  That Perez as a candidate is unable to state unequivocally that he supports a woman’s right to choose is patently unprogressive.  Equality California (EQCA) endorsed Pettis for his consistent and openly-stated support for Marriage Equality, unlike his Democratic challengers such as Rick Gonzales and Richard Gutierrez in public Democratic forums opposed Marriage Equality.  Perez equivocated, stating general support for Civil Rights for LGBT community members, but refused to state unequivocally that he would vote for Marriage Equality in the State Assembly.  In addition, at the Sun City Democratic Club Candidate’s forum, Perez stated in his opening statement that he was not a member of ‘an alternative lifestyle.’  Anyone in the LGBT community knows that this is code.  Not speaking of the DaVinci variety.

The Desert Sun in its editorial endorsement of Pettis for the 80th AD specifically spoke of Pettis’ ability to ‘hit the ground running’ if elected as well as his extensive local administrative and legislative experience.  The endorsement inferred that his Democratic opponents lacked similar administrative skills and experience, troubling to the voters of the West Valley, East Valley, and Imperial Valley.