Target is targeting our privacy. There’s a big red bullseye, a target – like the one on the shirt I’m wearing today – that Target and Neiman Marcus, who chose not to show up to answer questions today, have put on us because they haven’t done enough to protect our private financial data. And the reason is that there’s no financial incentive to do so.

110 million Americans had their personal financial information breached. That ‘s one out of two adult Americans. I was in Sacramento today to testify in front of a joint California Assembly committee hearing investigating the breach. And yet Target did not send a single representative to Sacramento today to answer questions about the largest data breach in American history?

The fact that Target didn’t show up today tells us all we need to know about how sorry Target is and how committed it is to our privacy.

If you are as offended by this as I am, I have a t-shirt for you to wear too.

The reason Target won’t face legislative questions today is the same reason that our personal financial information and data is at such grave risk: there is no price to pay. There are few financial penalties to companies like Target when our personal data is taken.  

Beyond public embarrassment, Target has little financial incentive to care.

We, the consumers, pay the consequences but we have no remedies.

According to the Committees’ own staff research, 1 in 4 consumers whose personal information that is taken becomes a victim of identity theft. 1 in 4 victims of a data breach is also a victim of identity theft. If these numbers apply to Target, that would potentially create more than 25 million identity theft victims.  

There’s a harm. The retailers had a role in creating that harm. And yet they have no liability under California law for what they have or have not done to safeguard the sanctity of our personal information.

The problem with privacy violations is that unlike thefts of money or property the law does not recognize a harm and does not provide a remedy.

As the Committees’ staff research states: consumers have no remedy under the law for the loss of financial privacy suffered through these data breaches, and the 1 in 4 risk of id theft they face.  Zero remedies.

So why would retailers invest in greater security, or meet voluntary industry standards, or move away from risky magnetic strip technology?  

If they don’t have to pay a price they don’t have an incentive to change.  And that leaves our private financial information with a big bullseye on it.

What can we do?

We need a California financial information act that mirrors our Medical Information Privacy Act.    

When there is a data breach of our medical information, the drug company, hospital or medical center is liable to the consumer for $1,000 per violation.  

Guess what?  Medical data breaches are fewer and farther between. When they occur companies pay a big price.

The same should be true for our financial data. We need a California Financial Information Privacy Act

It would:

• Change notification standards to be immediate.
• Write minimum-security standards into the law so that they are no longer voluntary.
• Set limits on the time data can be retained. And limits on what information can be collected and retained
• Most importantly: create a private right of action. Put a price tag on retailers’ mistreatment of our private financial information.

Until there is a price to pay, Target and other retailers will continue to make us targets.

If you are as offended as I am by Target’s absence today in Sacramento, please share our Target design online to show your displeasure.

When a company as big as Target won’t provide a single representative to answer questions about the largest data breach in American history, it is time for California to step up and deliver on the promise in Article 1 Section 1 of our state constitution: Privacy is an inalienable right.

Posted by Jamie Court, President of Consumer Watchdog.

I was able to squeeze some time out of my hectic schedule to make my routine election predictions for 2012. After these results, I will have my “Partisan Factor” predictions for California, basically merging a national and a California diary into one.

For the national-level results, I used a combination of state polls and national polls, and factored in the results from 2008 to come up with my predictions. For the California-level results, I used registration and presidential, Senatorial, and gubernatorial results to come up with my “Partisan Factor”, which is how I predict each competitive district will go.

Here are my predictions, signed, sealed, and delivered, beginning with the presidential race. Switches from 2008 are noted with an asterisk.

Next up is the short and sweet table of governor races. Pickups are noted with an asterisk.

Now for the Senate races. I don’t know if it will happen, but I predict a status quo. Again, the good old asterisk for the pickups.

Finally, the competitive House races, which will result in a Dem gain of 3 seats for a 239-196 GOP majority.

Now onto my final California predictions:

U.S. House

State Senate (odd-numbered districts)

State Assembly

Assuming districts with a PF of less than R+7 are Dem wins (California’s Cook PVI is D+7), then the composition of the delegations will be as follows:

U.S. House: 37 DEM, 16 GOP

(Districts 3, 7, 9, 24, 26, 41, 47 and 52 go DEM; 10 and 36 go GOP)

Safe DEM (29): 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44, 46, 51, 53

Safe GOP (14): 1, 4, 8, 21, 22, 23, 25, 31, 39, 42, 45, 48, 49, 50

State Senate: 28 DEM, 12 GOP

(Districts 5, 19, 27, 31, and 39 all go DEM)

Safe DEM (10): 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 25, 33, 35

Safe GOP (5): 1, 21, 23, 29, 37

Up in 2014: 13 DEM, 7 GOP

State Assembly: 55 DEM, 25 GOP

(Districts 8, 16, 21, 32, 40, 44, 61, 66, and 78 go DEM; 60 and 65 go GOP)

Safe DEM (46): 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 69, 70, 79, 80

Safe GOP (23): 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 23, 26, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 42, 55, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

I know it’s been a month since the conventions, but I have been very busy in that time.

Here are the updated districts in my “Outlook” series. From my formula predictions on all states’ elections, which I will show later, I determined which congressional districts were competitive and added the 10th congressional district and also the 78th Assembly district to the list.

My predictions for all California races, Congress and state legislature, will also come soon.

U.S. House

State Senate (odd-numbered districts)

State Assembly

Sharon Quirk-Silva, Mayor of Fullerton and teacher of 24 years is running in the newly drawn 65th Assembly District.  Daily Kos put this as “Likely Republican” in their California competitive districts cheat sheet: November 2012 elections…

AD-65 – Northern Orange County: Fullerton, Buena Park, Anaheim

Pres 2008: Obama 50%-47%

Gov 2010: Whitman 50%-42%

Sen 2010: Fiorina 50%-41%

Incumbent: Chris Norby (R-Fullerton)

Candidates: Chris Norby (R), Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton)

Rating: Likely Republican

This district vacillates between safe GOP and likely GOP, but Norby’s performance in the primary (59%) raised eyebrows on his vulnerability. This area is turning blue quickly as Latino growth explodes, and this election might show exactly how much potential this district has for the Democrats in their quest for two-thirds…

But there’s a rub, since this District only constitutes a third of his old District, Norby has a Challenge, he needs to get his name out there, just as Quirk-Silva does.  People shouldn’t write this one off, the Republicans aren’t.

…

65th Assembly District (north-central Orange County): GOP Asm. Chris Norby is seeking reelection in this new district that encompasses a little more than a third of the voters in his current district. Norby’s sole opponent in the June 5 Open Primary and now facing in a November runoff is Democrat Sharon Quirk-Silva, a member of the Fullerton City Council. She has been a teacher with the Fullerton School District for 24 years. Norby, who outpolled Quirk-Silva 59% – 41% in the primary, should be favored to win in November. However, he is running against a strong opponent who appears to be raising serious dollars – supported by EMILY’s List – in a district that has only a one-point 37% – 36% registration advantage.

And raising serious dollars is an understatement, Quirk-Silva has out raised Norby by almost double before the summer with $62,000 vs. his $33,000.  

This race matters and it can be won.  Orange County is changing in many ways and we have the changing Presidential race on our side as well.  As Mitt Romney’s coattails drag down National Races, could it actually drag down even further down the ticket?  What if he implodes to the point where he affects State Races, could it make a difference for candidates like Quirk-Silva?

Norby has proven himself to have the ability to put his foot in his mouth as well, from voting down extending death benefits for public works to condemning Title IX funding, which made National news earlier this year.  Brandi Chastain was appalled at his comments and the photo of her dismay was plastered everywhere.

Assemblyman Chris Norby contended that Title IX’s advances for women had also meant fewer athletic opportunities for men.

Said the Fullerton Republican: “We need to be honest about the effects of what I believe are faulty court interpretations or federal enforcement of Title IX, because it has led to the abolition of many male sports across the board in (California’s public colleges). And that was never the intention of this, to have numerical equality. It was never the intention to attain equality by reducing opportunities for the men.”

Chastain grimaced as Norby made his remarks, according to the AP, and she wasn’t given a chance at rebuttal because public hearings aren’t part of the resolution process.

USA Today

So not only is Norby vulnerable because of the Romney melt down but his inarticulate attack on Title IX.  I believe Norby is not a shoe in, I think with more support from local communities, grassroots efforts, walking and phone banking that Quirk-Silva has a chance to move this one into our court and we could sure use that extra seat.  I would love to see a Democrat like Sharon Quirk-Silva sitting there too!

Sharon Quirk-Silva has lived in Fullerton all her life, taught there and has been a fierce advocate for families and her community.  I don’t think there really could have been a better candidate for the seat.  Sharon is involved in her community in every aspect possible and she represents the best of what Orange County has to offer regardless of Party.

Here are the updated districts in my “Outlook” series. I replaced the 2008-President numbers with a “Cook PVI” based only on 2008. With this number, calculating the “Partisan Factor” (PF) became a bit easier, simply averaging the CPVI, 2010 Governor and Senate races, and the difference between the DEM and GOP registration numbers. The PF’s changed slightly, but the overall numbers for U.S. House, State Senate, and State Assembly remain the same.

For the 2010 races, the numbers represent the difference between the parties given their share of the 2-party vote. For example, in CA-03, Fiorina won 51-49 and Brown won 53.8-46.2.

U.S. House

State Senate (odd-numbered districts)

State Assembly

If (and this is a big if) the races go according to the Partisan Factors, then the composition of the delegations will be as follows:

U.S. House: 36 DEM, 17 GOP

Safe DEM (27): 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44, 51, 53

Safe GOP (13): 1, 4, 8, 10, 22, 23, 25, 39, 42, 45, 48, 49, 50

State Senate: 27 DEM, 13 GOP

Safe DEM (10): 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 25, 33, 35

Safe GOP (5): 1, 21, 23, 29, 37

Up in 2014: 13 DEM, 7 GOP

State Assembly: 50 DEM, 30 GOP

Safe DEM (46): 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 69, 70, 78, 79, 80

Safe GOP (23): 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 21, 23, 26, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 55, 60, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

Picking up on a diary from 2006 about tracking competitive districts, I continued the tracking for the 2008 and 2010 elections. With the new district data, I can start the “Outlook” series for 2012.

In 2008 I tried a “Partisan Factor” (PF), inspired by a comment in the aforementioned diary, in which I averaged the margins in registration, 2002-Gov., 2004-Pres., 2004-Sen., and 2006-Sen. In 2010 I used just the registration and the 2008 presidential numbers. For 2012 I will try a new “Partisan Factor” using the registration margin, 2008-Pres., 2010-Sen., and 2010-Gov, with different weights.

Also, for the 2008 and 2010 races, the numbers represent the difference between the parties given their share of the 2-party vote. For example, in CA-03, Obama won 56.3-43.7, Fiorina won 51-49, and Brown won 53.8-46.2.

Here is the lowdown on these districts.

U.S. House

State Senate (odd-numbered districts)

State Assembly

If (and this is a big if) the races go according to the Partisan Factors, then the composition of the delegations will be as follows:

U.S. House: 35 DEM, 18 GOP

Safe DEM (26): 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 43, 44, 51, 53

Safe GOP (14): 1, 4, 8, 10, 22, 23, 25, 39, 40, 42, 45, 48, 49, 50

State Senate: 27 DEM, 13 GOP

Safe DEM (10): 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 25, 33, 35

Safe GOP (5): 1, 21, 23, 29, 37

Up in 2014: 13 DEM, 7 GOP

State Assembly: 50 DEM, 30 GOP

Safe DEM (46): 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 69, 70, 78, 79, 80

Safe GOP (23): 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 21, 23, 26, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 55, 60, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

(More great information – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

While the range of competitive House districts has narrowed considerably, I am still including all 8 Obama-Republican districts to watch their trends. I also added state legislative seats that are open this year in which the incumbent is not term-limited.

Cross-posted at Swing State Project and Democracy for California.

Competitive and/or open state legislature districts are over the flip…

Our current numbers in the Senate are 25 Democrats/14 Republicans/1 Vacant, with winning 2 GOP-held seats necessary for 2/3; and in the Assembly 49 Democrats/29 Republicans/1 Independent (who is term-limited)/1 Vacant (Dem seat which will be filled before Election Day), with winning 3 GOP-held seats necessary for 2/3. Incumbents running for reelection are italicized.

SENATE

Republicans (6)

Democrats (6)

ASSEMBLY

Republicans (19)

Democrats (19)

With the filing deadline passed, we are beginning to see how the fields are shaping up for the 2010 elections in California. While the range of competitive House districts has narrowed considerably, I am still including all 8 Obama-Republican districts to watch their trends.

Cross-posted at Swing State Project and Democracy for California.

Breaking news: We now have a registration advantage in Assembly District 5 and are closing in on CA-03!

Competitive and/or open state legislature districts are over the flip…

Our current numbers in the Senate are 25 Democrats/15 Republicans, with winning 2 GOP-held seats necessary for 2/3; and in the Assembly 49 Democrats/29 Republicans/1 Independent (who is term-limited)/1 Vacant (Dem seat which will be filled before Election Day), with winning 3 GOP-held seats necessary for 2/3.

SENATE

Republicans (4)

Democrats (5)

ASSEMBLY

Republicans (16)

Democrats (15)

(More good stuff. Thanks! – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

With the release of the new registration numbers, and a couple of special elections just around the corner, I now have updates for the open and/or competitive State Senate and State Assembly districts, as well as the eight Obama-Republican districts. The Secretary of State’s website has the presidential results by district, so I am including the presidential results in each district.

Breaking news: We now have a (albeit slight) registration advantage in AD-10!

And an edit: I am including CA-04 in the list because of McClintock’s less-than-1% win, even though the presidential race and registration gap are not particularly close.

Cross-posted at Swing State Project and Democracy for California.

Competitive and/or open state legislature districts are over the flip…

Our current numbers in the Senate are 25 Democrats/15 Republicans, with winning 2 GOP-held seats necessary for 2/3; and in the Assembly 51 Democrats/29 Republicans, with winning 3 GOP-held seats necessary for 2/3.

SENATE

Republicans (4)

Democrats (5)

ASSEMBLY

Republicans (16)

Democrats (15)

In the Senate, our obvious plan of action is to win the 12th and possibly the 4th if we have a strong candidate, and hold the 34th. In the Assembly, we have a lot of offense opportunities and of course, we will need to defend our 4 freshmen in vulnerable districts (Huber especially, Buchanan, Block, Perez). As for the potentially vulnerable Republican districts we should target, we should prioritize them like this:

(I) Open seats in Obama districts: 5, 33, 37, 63, 70

(II) Incumbents in Obama districts: 26, 30, 36, 38, 64, 74, 75

(III) Open seat in McCain district with small (<6%) registration edge: 25

(IV) Incumbents in McCain districts with small (<6%) registration edge: 3, 65

(V) Other open seat: 68