I told you I’d be back bright and early! Well, all in all, a pretty good night. So, let’s get to some results:
- CA-LtG: McClintock’s name ID wasn’t sufficient to propel him over the top and John Garamendi will be our next lite gov. I know this position is essentially powerless, but would you really want McClintock to have gubenatorial powers when Arnold leaves the state? Or to give him any further platform? Me neither.
- CA-SoS: Woohoo! Debra Bowen won!!! Finally, somebody will address the issues of electoral integrity from the SoS office. Bowen will be a phenomenal SoS. You’ve done a good job, California.
- CA-Controller: All that money that Intuit and the Indian gaming interests dumped into IEs for Strickland were completely unsuccessful. Chiang won this one going away. Again, he’ll do a great job.
- The less competitive races: As expected Jerry Brown defeated Pooch and Lockyer defeated the repo’d man. Both were far better than their scary competition.
- CA-InsComm: Well, Poizner was right, we cruzed, we losed. Next time, we’ll get some better candidates. However, in the interim, Poizner is now primed to run for governor, the position he wanted anyway. It’s time to start branding him the way we want.
We barely squeaked by on Prop 90. Whew!! That was way too close for comfort at 47.4% Yes. We’ll need to address paid signature gathering soon. I’m really sick of the Howie Rich’s of the world coming here and trying to mess with our system.
Props 86-89 all failed. The forces against them, Big Tobacco, Big Oil, the monied special interests and well I don’t know about 88, but they just got wiped out by the TV ads. They obfusicate the issue and hope people will just vote no. It worked this time. Next time we’re going to work just as hard. Particularly, Clean Money and the Alternative Energy/Oil Tax were good ideas. You haven’t heard the last of them.
Ok, I’ll be back soon; I need to take a nap.
The Clock is ticking, there’s tons of stuff going on, and I’m sick. Yuck. But what can you do? So, teasers: POLLS on the props, Clinton across California, Charlie Brown stands up to Doolittle, Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken lots of special interest money, and The OC GOP is F’d, seriously, f’d up.
And more…see the extended.
- Prop 85 is slightly ahead, but within the MoE: 46% Yes, 43% No, 11% undecided
- Prop 86 is tied: 45% Yes, 45% No, 10% Undecided
- Prop 87 is slightly behind: 40% Yes, 44% No, 16% Undecided
- Prop 90 is slightly behind: 35% Yes, 42% No, 23% undecided.
- Hopefully some of those undecideds on 90 will be swayed by Arnold’s rejection of Prop 90.
- Gov: Arnold leads Phil 53-36
- Senator: DiFi leads Dick “Pray for Me” Mountjoy 53-38
- 1A (I know not a bond, but a bad budgeting amendment) leads 57-27
- 1B(Transportation) and 1E (Disaster Preparedness) are comfortably ahead, 1C (Housing) and 1D (Schools) are struggling.
- Other Props:
- 83 (Jessica’s Law), 84(Parks and Water Bonds) comfortably ahead, 88 (Parcel tax), 89 (Clean Money) are behind
- 85 (Parental Notification), 86 (Health Care), 87 (Alternative energy) are too close to call
- Prop 90 has a small lead, down a lot form Datamar’s last poll. (46 Yes – 41 No) Still folks, this one is still too close. However, this is likely before Arnold’s rejection of Prop 90.
Another week closer to the election. We are now only 15 days away from it now. Teasers: Prop 86, Props in general, Prop 90, Debra Bowen, Money, prop 85 and Latino voters, Gary Miller and Arnold Schwarzenegger is a politician…shocker!!
Sorry there’s not more…I’m crazy busy. Feel free to add your own diaries if I missed something (which I did.)
The California Courage Campaign has launched our fall campaign to oppose the Bush agenda on the ballot in California this November in the form of several propositions.
Our Stop Bush in CA page is an excellent resource for information regarding the initiatives on which we’re taking stands:
No on 85
Yes on 86
Yes on 87
Yes on 89
No on 90.
We’ve also just launched a letter to the editor writing campaign to get the word out in the media that Proposition 90 is unacceptable and needs to be opposed. Please join the effort by going HERE and using our user-friendly webtools, complete with talking points, to send an LTE today.
I’m also going to be keeping tabs on all the proposition news in my weekly (or perhaps more frequent, as needed) “Prop Watch.”
Join me for all the latest proposition news over the flip.
The OC Register has an article reminding us that this year’s Prop 85 is essentially a re-write of last year’s parental notification bill, Prop 73. The bills are nearly identical except for some strategic changes that have been made to the wording of this year’s model:
Proponents have adjusted the wording of the measure in an effort to weaken some arguments against it. One change is removing the definition of a fetus as "a child conceived but not yet born." Opponents last year pointed to that as an indication of the philosophy and ultimate intent of the backers…
Another change is stating explicitly that a parent can sign a standing waiver for their daughter, which would allow her to get an abortion any time without special notification. This is designed to defuse the argument of the parent who says, "I just want my daughter to be safe if she's going to have an abortion, I don't care if I know," said Albin Rhomberg of "Yes on 85."
Proponents are confident that even if the original wording remained intact, 85 would pass this year. They attribute the 53-47% defeat of 73 to the "vote No on everything" anti-Arnold wave of the 2005 special election.
While The L.A. Times acknowledges the changes to the newer bill, it says Prop 85 "still contains the same troubling provisions" and "remains part of a broader campaign to chisel away at a woman’s right to privacy."
More over the flip.
They lay out the case against Prop 85 in a recent OpEd:
By requiring doctors to notify a girl’s parents (or seek court permission) before she can end her pregnancy, Proposition 85 interferes with the doctor-patient relationship. The measure would almost invariably delay abortions, and because teens are more likely to find out later rather than sooner that they are pregnant, it could lead to more later-term procedures, which are riskier and more complicated.
For girls who are afraid to report molestation by a family member, the proposition would create an almost insurmountable obstacle. Similar laws in other states have not appreciably changed teen pregnancy or abortion rates.
Let’s make sure Prop 85 doesn’t pass. VOTE NO ON 85
In their ongoing quest to make the case for clean money, The Yes on 89 folks have compiled a list of the special interest money that has flowed into California from out of state in the last 5 years. Remarkably, Middlesex County, New Jersey is responsible for more donations to California campaigns ($10.2 million) than Kern County, California is ($7.5 million.) Why?
Middlesex County is the home of Johnson & Johnson and other pharmaceutical companies involved in last fall's high-priced ballot battle over discounts for prescription drugs.
Big Pharma isn’t the only special interest investing in California campaigns. This year, add big tobacco to the list.
Since the June election, there have been at least nine new contributions of more than $5 million, led by a $13.8 million donation from Philip Morris and $10 million from R.J. Reynolds, of out-of-state tobacco companies that have each put up more than $20 million to fight Prop. 86, which would boost the state tax on cigarettes by $2.60 a pack.
That fact alone makes you want to support Prop 86, doesn’t it? We are. Learn more at Yes on 86.
Meanwhile, a new poll shows that while Californians are critical of the role of big money in our elections, Prop 89 has not yet made its case with voters.
A poll released today by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that 61 percent of likely voters are convinced the current system that allows politicians to collect millions of dollars in special interest campaign contributions is hurting the state, while only 6 percent think it's good for California.
But when asked whether they backed Prop. 89, which is designed to take almost all private money out of California campaigns, only 25 percent of those surveyed said yes, compared with 61 percent who said they would vote against the initiative.
The City Council of Pasadena has joined the California League of Cities in formally opposing Proposition 90, the so-called “Protect Our Homes Act.” You almost have to admire how perfectly Rovian its title is considering what a far cry it is from describing what the measure would actually do.
While acknowledging some reform is necessary, opponents said a provision requiring the government to pay property owners for substantial economic loss resulting from regulations on use of private property would end up costing taxpayers billions in lawsuits. "This goes way, way too far," said Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman for the No on 90 campaign. "Now, when a developer wants to build 50 houses and the city tells him he can only build 25 – he can sue for compensation for the others."
While Prop 90 would
prohibit local governments from using eminent domain to acquire private property unless the government itself plans on using it.
The Pasadena City Council took issue with the fact that 90
would prevent cities from acquiring blighted areas, eliminating slum lords, building affordable housing and providing public facilities by private for-profit agencies.
In other words it would prevent the government from doing what’s best for its citizens.
Help us fight Prop 90 by writing a letter to the editor today.
The California Courage Campaign has launched a new campaign for the fall focusing on five initiatives that will be on the Nov 7 ballot here in California. Last year we had great success as part of the progressive coalition that defeated Arnold’s reform initiatives. This year, Arnold is, probably wisely, keeping his distance from them. Without a unifying force behind the initiatives, we knew we had to come up with a theme, a narrative, with which to frame the initiatives in a way that would educate and motivate the ballot measure-weary electorate. And this year, what better motivator for voters in our great blue state, and, truly, what better uniter of what ordinarily would be disparate progressive groups than the decider himself, George W. Bush.
Yes, this fall, George Bush’s agenda will be on the November ballot in California, and we’re calling on our supporters and all of you to join us in saying simply “George Bush, you’re not welcome here” by signing our open letter to President Bush. Go ahead, try it. The comments section is particularly therapeutic.
More over the flip.
Rick Jacobs, Chair of The California Courage Campaign, launched the campaign with an e-mail to supporters yesterday:
The issues vary, but the effects are the same. Conservatives plan to make California a national leader in regressive policies and unfair practices.
Courage Campaign, with your help, wants to stop Bush and Co. from:
- Invading our privacy
- Giving tax breaks to Big Tobacco and Big Oil
- Corrupting fair elections
- Handing over our state to rich real estate developers
We are mounting a concerted effort to keep Bush, Karl Rove and their conservative special interests out of California. We've stepped up to coordinate with dozens of other progressive organizations around the state, from the ACLU to the League of Conservation Voters to the California Nurses Association and together, we will send George Bush's dangerous policies packing.
We’ve launched a Bush in CA website where we describe the 5 initiatives we’re taking positions on including how the other side is framing the debate, who is funding the initiatives, an explanation of the positions we take and links to the actual “Yes On” or “No On” campaigns for those props.
No On 85: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy.
Yes on 85 calls this the “Parents’ Right To Know” Act
No on 85 says that voting no means “Real Teen Safety”
We call it “Protect Teen Safety.”
If approved, Proposition 85 would require notification given to parents of a pregnant girl under the age of 18 when she seeks an abortion. Then, a 48-hour waiting period is mandated.
Yes on 86: Tax on Cigarettes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Yes on 86 Campaign calls it “Stop Big Tobacco”
No on 86 Campaign calls it “Stop the $2.1 Billion Tax Hike”
We call it “Hold Big Tobacco Accountable”
Will raise state cigarette tax $2.60 a pack and is projected to raise about $2.1 billion in 2007 to fund health insurance for uninsured kids, improved emergency care, tobacco prevention programs, and chronic disease research.
Yes on 87: Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil Producers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Yes on 87 Campaign calls it “Make Big Oil Pay for Cleaner Energy”
No on 87 Campaign calls it “No on $4 Billion Oil Tax. It’s a Recipe For Waste, Not Progress”
We call it “Make Big Oil Pay Their Fair Share”
Right now, Big Oil pays California almost nothing to drill in our state, while they pay billions of dollars in drilling fees to every other oil producing state. Prop 87 will set California’s oil drilling fees to 1.5 to 6% (depending on the price of oil per barrel) which is at levels similar to those in Oklahoma, Alaska, and Texas. The revenue raised ($4 billion over 10 years) will go towards research and producing alternative fuels and energy.
Yes On 89: Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Limits. Initiative Statute.
Yes on 89 calls this the “California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act”
Californians to Stop Prop 89, a coalition of taxpayer groups, insurance companies, and corporations, says that this is “Phony Reform.”
We call it the “Restore Democracy Act.”
If enacted, Proposition 89 would reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests in California. This is why it’s often called the “clean money” act. Currently, lobbyists and corporations can donate “dirty” money to the campaign funds of their favorite candidates. Prop 89 would restrict the ability of special interests to donate to campaigns, and would provide public financing for qualified “clean money” candidates.
No on 90: Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Yes on 90 campaign calls it “Protect Our Homes Act”
No on 90 campaign calls it “The Taxpayer Trap”
We call it “Leave No Real Estate Developer Behind”
This is fake “eminent domain” reform. Prop 90’s out of state backers are trying to capitalize on people’s fears about government confiscating private property (made infamous in the Supreme Court’s Kelo v. New London decision) to inject their own anti-government ideals into our constitution. Prop 90 will destroy future environmental protections, responsible land-use planning and basic laws intended to protect the welfare of California’s citizens.
Leading up to the elections, we’re going to be spreading the word throughout the state and throughout the blogosphere about these initiatives with e-mail alerts, petitions and an ad we have in the works, which we’ll be running some time next month. Any contributions to the cause are of course always welcome. We actually have a generous donor who has pledged to match up to $30,000.
So please, join us by signing the open letter to Bush and spreading the word to all your friends and family in California.
The California Labor Federation, which had been neutral on Prop 73 during the special election, is officially now opposing the redux.
California’s leading union organization, bucking organized labor’s long-standing neutrality on the issue of abortion, is for the first time taking a strong stand in favor of abortion rights.
Meeting behind closed doors last month, the California Labor Federation — which represents more than 2.1 million workers belonging to more than 1,100 affiliated unions — voted to oppose Proposition 85, a November ballot initiative that would require doctors to notify parents before performing abortions on minors. In a policy statement, the labor federation also urged the national AFL-CIO “to reconsider its position of neutrality on the issue.”
(LA Times 8/7/06)
It’s great to hear that the CLF is standing up for the safety of teenagers. The transperancy of the motives of the far Right combined with their tenacity on this issue mean that we will need to focus a lot of energy on the issue.
(A repost to fix some formatting. – promoted by SFBrianCL)
I’ll start with the good news. Prop 87, the alternative energy and oil tax initiative, is way ahead right now. It leads 52-31 right now, including 58% support from decline to state voters. If that number remains in that ballpark, 87 has a great shot at passing.
Prop 87 is an interesting initiative. I’ll be doing a longer post on it in the near future, but as a former Texan, it boggles my mind that the state keeps so little of its mineral revenues. The entire University system in Texas was built off those revenues, but somehow California didn’t jump on that train. Personally, I would prefer that those revenues be given to the general fund rather than a specific purpose. Alternative energy is great (and I just posted on that last week), but the state needs all the revenue it can get. It would be the best to let that money into the general fund and then hash out details in the normal budget process (if it really can ever be called normal).
The cigarette tax initiave, Prop 86, is up 63-32. I’m not sure how I feel about this one. I like the purposes it goes to, but I’m just concerned over whether this law would violate the terms of the tobacco settlement. I would prefer that the state avoid another bout of massive litigation if possible. The no voters on this ballot seem to be smokers, as they are the only demographic rejecting it right now (72-31).
Unsuprisingly, Jessica’s law, Prop 83, is passing overwhelmingly, 76-11. I’m not sure that we really need a ballot initiative on this, mainly because most of the issues in the law were already addressed by Jackie Speier’s law on sex offenders. But, you can see why Angelides was almost forced by popular will to support this bill.
The Anti-choice initiative, Prop 85, is currently trailing, but just barely. It looks like there will be another battle. These people will never give up, no matter how many times the people of this state say that we don’t want these anti-choice laws here. Phil Angelides has denounced the initiative. I haven’t seen anything official from Schwarzenegger, but he supported last year’s nearly identical Prop 73.
And finally, Prop 90 has a plurality of support as well. It currently leads 46-31, but right now it has a 42-32 lead amongst Democrats. Once the message goes out about how bad Prop 90 is, the No tally will increase quickly.
Incidentally, it’s important to note that the no tally generally increases as the election draws near. Voters are usually drawn towards the status quo (typically No), so expect to see some drift there. Last June’s Prop 82 was a good example of this, it started off quite strong, but inertia (and a blitz of advertising) overcame its initial approval.
These numbers will soon appear on the flip and in the Poll HQ.
|Poll/Prop||83: Sex Offenders||85: Anti-choice||86: Cigarette Tax||87: Oil & Alt. Energy||90: Em. Dom.|