It’s increasingly apparent that the 2008 California Presidential primary will be moved to February 5.  The Senate bill moved through the appropriate committee today unanimously, and the Assembly will move their version as well, which the Governor has indicated he will sign.

This bill says nothing about possible initiatives on redistricting or term limit relaxation that are rumored to be tied to the primary shift.  But Fabian Nuñez, who under current law will be termed out in 2008, doesn’t have $7.1 million in his campaign account for no reason.  Last week he put forward a redistricting plan that was short on details.  And Senate President Pro Tem Perata appeared cool on the idea, at least publicly.  But it’s clear that somebody is gearing up for something.

I would offer that if you REALLY wanted to change how we choose a President and how California can impact that, if you actually wanted to see candidates in this state both before and after Feb. 5, 2008, there are far more effective ways to do so beyond moving up a primary to the very moment when the nominee will have already been all but selected.  Therefore I challenge everyone who supports this plan to also advocate full support for the National Popular Vote.

The real travesty with California’s role in the Presidential process is not in the primary election, but in the general.  By virtue of the antiquated electoral college system, a Californian’s vote is about 3.6 times less valuable than a vote from a resident of the state of Wyoming.  We’ve seen over the past two close elections that states like California are completely taken for granted in the general election, with all the money and all the focus going to a select few swing states.  This state with the most voters really does have practically no effect on who gets elected.

The National Popular Vote would change all that.  Under this legislation, every state pledges to deliver its slate of electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote.  It would not kick in until states with a majority of electoral votes make it law, therefore essentially doing an end run around the electoral college.  It is completely constitutional (apportionment of electors has always been left up to the states; Nebraska and Maine give them out be electoral district) and would mean that the winner of the popular vote could never be denied the Presidency.

The practical effect of this would be that Presidential hopefuls would not be able to concentrate their campaigns in one or two states.  It would open up the playing field entirely, and we would see a number of new and innovative strategies to round up votes.  Nobody’s vote could be taken for granted, and therefore political participation nationwide would be widespread.  Some think that candidates would just park themselves in major urban centers.  They pretty much park themselves in a handful of states right now, so I don’t see that as a fair or even coherent criticism.

46 states have introduced bills for the National Popular Vote.  It has passed the Colorado State Senate, and has cleared committee in Montana and Hawaii with bipartisan backing.  Last year both houses of the legislature in California passed the National Popular Vote bill, which was managed by then-State Senator Debra Bowen and then-Assemblyman Tom Umberg.  But it was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger last September 30.  It was vetoed because there was no public groundswell of support and no penalty for the Governor to veto the bill.

This is what baffles me about petitions and such for the date of the California Primary.  Here is a common-sense solution that would make California count and literally change the way the Preisdent gets elected, making the system more fair and just.  Why aren’t the champions of reform (and, ahem, courage) pushing this bill?  The LA Times and the Sacramento Bee editorialized in favor of this reform last year.  Where is the grassroots and the netroots?

In fact, Carole Midgen is sponsoring SB 37, the National Popular Vote bill, in the 2007 session.  I would love to see these people who are so wounded by California’s lack of entry in the Presidential process to get behind this bill.

I always believed that the best way to get some sanity into the process of how we count votes in this country is to make it an election issue.  It sounds paradoxical, but if you could get a Secretary of State elected who is sympathetic to the concerns of voting rights advocates, then you put powerful forces in motion to get some accountability out of the big e-voting conglomerates like ES&S and Diebold.  You hold the only thing that matters to those organizations: the power of the purse strings.  And now, California has the most knowledgeable and vociferous critic of unaccountable e-voting in that position.

Today Debra Bowen, California’s recently elected Secretary of State, hired Lowell Finley, the lead attorney for VoterAction.org, as the lead official in charge of supervising and authorizing the state’s voting machinery.

On the flip…

Finley has lots of experience dealing with e-voting machines.  He’s sued just about every manufacturer, as well as every county and every state who’s authorized them (including Florida, in the current case in the 13th Congressional District, where 18,000 ballots were simply lost by the e-voting machines).  From the SF Chronicle article:

Finley is co-founder and co-director of Voter Action, a group that has been very leery of the safety, security and fairness of electronic voting. Voter Action last year sued Republican Secretary of State Bruce McPherson to block his approval of a Diebold Election System touch screen system used throughout the state and coordinated a suit to block Alameda County from using the Sequoia e-voting system it purchased. He was also involved in a 2004 suit that forced Diebold to pay a $2.6 million settlement to the state for making false claims about its voting systems.

Finley is dropping out of the suits he’s involved in with Voter Action and will recuse himself from any decisions in the secretary of state’s office involving suits he’s been involved with, said Evan Goldberg, a spokesman for Bowen.

He’s also succesfully sued Governor Schwarzenegger in the past for illegally loaning his campaign $4.5 million dollars during the recall election.  The Governor had to pay the money back out of his own pocket instead of raising campaign contributions to cover the costs.  This guy will sit in an office in the same building as the governor.  How incredible is that?

BradBlog has more on this major development.

In his new capacity, Finley will oversee testing and certification for all voting machine technology in the State of California. In a phone call this morning, Finley confirmed that he would be working closely in his new role with key national associations like the National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST) and the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission (EAC).

E-voting critics and at least one California Registrar of Voters have hailed both the swearing in of Bowen as SoS and her appointment of Finley, expressing delight to The BRAD BLOG over the news, characterizing it as a “colossal surprise” and a “very, very good sign for the future of voters’ rights in California.”

America’s voting machine companies are less likely to feel quite as happy about the news.

All of us who supported Debra Bowen’s candidacy expected a bold move like this.  She is the sharpest elected official on voting rights and election integrity in the entire country.  The impact of this appointment, which will doubtlessly put pressure on the major e-voting manufacturers to conform to acceptable standards or lose the business of the largest state in the country, will resonate nationwide.  This, along with the continuing battle in FL-13, is the turning point in the election reform movement.  It shows that the responsible reaction to voting concerns was to make it a big-time issue, build a movement behind voting integrity, and get the leaders of that movement involved in the oversight of the machines.  It sounds almost impossible, but that’s exactly what happened.

(Yes, we wouldn’t want to reform government until we’ve thoroughly broken its back, now would we? – promoted by SFBrianCL)

(Cross-posted at dKos)

The Orange County Register is hardly known for its liberal bias. And true to form, its editorial page came out yesterday against Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. It’s hardly a surprise, but what’s noteworthy is that they really can’t name much that’s wrong with it. The editorial even admits, in a snide way,

The idea is to level the playing field, allowing candidates without access to big money to compete, and centering campaigns on ideas rather than money. Nice thoughts.

So then, what’s their problem with it?

A more fundamental objection is that limits on contributions and spending by political campaigns are limitations on freedom of political speech – the kind of speech the First Amendment was most specifically designed to protect. Elections should be about the people telling the government what to do, but if government regulates elections tightly the people’s options become limited.

Ah, the Freedom of Speech concern. The Register is clearly worried that you and I, the average voters, are being denied our right to free speech. I’m sure the limits on corporate contributions have nothing to do with their concerns.

And the kicker:

Campaign spending limits put the cart before the horse. Big money is interested in politics (aside from the ego factor) because government decisions can make or break businesses and entire industries. This can’t be fixed until government power is limited. If it isn’t, interests affected by government decisions will find ways, including money, to be persuasive to those making the decisions.

So, get rid of those pollution controls, forget about federal deposit insurance, stop regulating the stock market. When left alone, businesses do the right thing. And then we won’t need any campaign reform, because business won’t need to influence the government anymore.

It’s most interesting that the Register seems worried about the doom this “well-intentioned” reform will bring to California – yet doesn’t see fit to mention the turmoil in Maine and Arizona, who have had similar reforms in place since 2000. That’s because it’s not there. Clean money reforms are working well in those states. Voters there now have more choice in candidates and consequently are increasing their turnout at the polls. Maine was even able to pass a form of universal health care.

We are more than two months away from the election, and the Register feels the need to start attacking now. That tells me they and their corporate backers are scared. Scared that the electorate just might want to get back some say in the political process. And even more worried that if the proposition passes in California, there will be momentum spreading nationwide.

But when cornered, the special interests are already bringing out the big guns. The California Chamber of Commerce, representing big oil, insurance firms, HMOs, developers, and other businesses, has formed a committee to oppose the initiative. We have to be ready to fight back. Please help make clean money campaigns in California a reality, and in doing so, help bring us another step closer to clean money all across America. You can give money; you can give time. And if you’re in Southern California, you can give the Register a piece of your mind. Prop 89 makes politicians accountable to voters, not big donors.