(Great info from the CDP.  Moved some stuff below the fold for space issues. – promoted by Julia Rosen)

Cross posted on Daily Kos

On Monday, the California Democratic Party will send its latest message to Independent (Decline to State) voters notifying them that they are eligible to vote for the Democratic candidates in Tuesday’s presidential primary.  Two separate emails will be sent to approximately 195,000 DTS voters.

One email will go to regular DTS voters and explain the process for obtaining a Democratic ballot at their polling place.  The other email will be sent to DTS Permanent Absentee Voters, letting them know that if they have a non-partisan ballot that they haven’t yet returned, they can take it to their polling place and exchange it for a Democratic ballot.

VOTE DEMOCRATIC ON FEBRUARY 5TH!!

As we head to the polls on Tuesday, Feb. 5, Californians will be playing an exciting and unfamiliar role in presidential primary politics:  Our votes are going to be important in selecting the 2008 presidential nominee.  In the spirit of small-d democracy, the California Democratic Party has opened its primary process to independent (Decline to State) voters throughout our great state.

In 2008, if you are registered as Decline to State, you can request a Democratic ballot which will allow you to vote for one of the Democratic candidates for president.  All you have to do is request a Democratic ballot at your polling place.  The poll workers will not offer you a Democratic ballot; you MUST ask for it.  You can read about your rights to request a Democratic ballot at the Secretary of State’s website.

To make the voting process a little easier for you, the California Democratic Party has prepared several tools at our website, www.cadem.org, to help you on Election Day:

• If you have any questions about your rights as a voter, you can visit the CDP’s Voters Rights page for assistance.
• If you aren’t sure where to go to vote, we have a Polling Place Locator to help you find the polling place for your precinct.
• If you would like to get more information about the candidates who are still actively participating in the race, you can visit our Candidate Profile page, which will give you links to each candidate’s website.
• If you have questions about the propositions on your ballot, the California Democratic Party has officially made an endorsement of No on 91 and Yes on 93.  We have no official position on Propositions 92, 94, 95, 96 or 97.

If you experience any voting irregularities or encounter any difficulty in casting your vote on Tuesday, you can call the Secretary of State’s office at 1-800-345-VOTE(8683).  

And if you have any questions or problems, you can always contact the California Democratic Party headquarters at 1-916-442-5707.

This year, Californians finally have a chance to influence the choice of our Democratic presidential nominee.  Don’t miss out on your chance to stand up and be counted.

VOTE DEMOCRATIC ON FEBRUARY 5TH!!

Recently, the Courage Campaign has done yeoman’s work in getting the word out to DTS voters that they are entitled to vote on a Democratic ballot on Tuesday.  Their message builds on one the CDP has been pushing for a long time.

Back in March of 2007, the California Democratic Party was spreading the news that DTS voters were welcome to participate in the Democratic primary:

If California’s independent voters want a voice in next year’s presidential primary, they better start paying attention to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and the rest of the Democratic candidates.

While the nearly 20 percent of California voters who register as decline to state will be welcome in the Democratic presidential primary, they will be barred from casting a ballot for any of the Republican presidential hopefuls. […]

“There are a lot of decline-to-state voters in this state who tend to have Democratic ideals and values,” said Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the state party. “We’re happy to have them vote in our primary.”

Decline-to-state voters are the fastest-growing segment of the California electorate, particularly among young voters, and Republicans and Democrats desperately need the support of those independents to win in November.

An independent voter who had a chance to support a Democrat in the primary is likely to continue to back that candidate in the November general election when everyone can vote, Salazar said.

“We’d like to see those voters invested early in Democratic candidates,” he said. “That will help, come the general election.” […]

“Our goal is to increase Democratic voter registration,” Salazar said. “If we can let independent voters know they’re welcome, maybe the next time they re-register, they will check the ‘D’ box.”

As the election drew closer, on December 11, 2007, the CDP sent a public service announcement to the California media:

The California Democratic Party will allow Californians who are registered as Decline to State (commonly known as “Independents”) to vote in our presidential primary on February 5th. This will give Independents the same voting options as Democrats to choose a presidential candidate.

Independent Permanent Absentee voters are being sent a card from their County Election office stating that two (Democrats and the American Independent Party) of the six recognized political parties will allow Independents to vote in their presidential primary and asking if they want the absentee ballot for either party sent to them.

Independent Absentee voters must mail the card back to their County Election official indicating their choice of Party, otherwise they will be sent a ballot in January with only Propositions on it.

Independents who go to the polls on Election Day (February 5, 2008) can get either their regular ballot with Propositions only, or ask for a Democratic presidential ballot to also be able to vote on presidential candidates.

For further information call the Secretary of State’s hotline 1-800-345-VOTE (extension line #7) or go to California Democratic Party’s website (www.cadem.org).

Later in the month, on December 26, 2007, the CDP sent out emails to a list of 90,000 DTS permanent absentee voters advising them how to get a Democratic absentee ballot:

Want to vote for Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich, Obama or Richardson on February 5th?

You Can!

You are receiving this email because records show that you are registered as a “Decline to State” (Independent) and as a Permanent Absentee Voter.

The California Democratic Party rules allow registered Independents to vote in our presidential primary.  By the way, the Republican Party voted to prohibit Independents from participating in their presidential election.

If you are registered as a Permanent Absentee Voter, your County Registrar of Voters should have sent you a notice about this option.  Hopefully they provided you a postage paid return card to request, if desired, a Democratic ballot.

If you want to vote in the Democratic presidential primary, notify your County Elections official ASAP and request a Democratic Party ballot.  If your county doesn’t hear from you soon, starting on January 7th they will send you an absentee ballot containing only the ballot measures. […]

If you can’t find the notice from your county, follow this link to find your county elections office phone number.  

Independents who vote at polling places on February 5, 2008, may request from the pollworkers a Democratic Ballot when you sign the roster.

But sadly, even after all of our attempts to notify them, there will be too many DTS voters who are unaware that they are eligible to vote on a Democratic ballot this Tuesday. With the number of DTS voters swelling, Democrats face a real challenge in finding ways to communicate with folks who have opted out of the party system.  And based on current trends, this problem is only going to continue to grow.  We’re all going to have to work together to develop new and better ways to communicate with Decline to State voters if we are to be successful going forward.

Penny

Online Organizing Director

California Democratic Party

This is going to be short enough to be in the quickies, but deserves its own full post.

Matt Lockshin and babaloo of SayNoToPombo fame have been hired by the California Democratic Party to be the co-directors for online organizing.

They have a lot of work ahead of them, given the CDP’s shall we say moribund approach to the Internet.

So congrats to Matt and babaloo and how about we give them a list of things to work on. heh.

(full-disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign)

Ok, so the attempt to censure Senator Feinstein failed, but it sure changed the conversation.  Everyone from the New York Times editorial board to Fox News chimed in.  Over 35,000 people and over 40 grassroots groups, clubs and organizations joined in.  It really hit a nerve and catalyzed a new discussion about what it means to be a Democrat.

Now it is time to do something positive and continue the conversation.

Next week the Senate will again take up the re-authorization of FISA.  Immunity for telecom companies will be a major battle within the larger re-authorization bill.  Senator Dodd has promised to put a hold and filibuster the bill to prevent the attempt to let the telecommunications companies off the hook for following Bush’s orders to break the law and spy on Americans without a warrant.  Heck, the bill as written would not even let us even look into what exactly they did and who they spied on.  Senator Feinstein has indicated that he will join this effort.  CDP Chair Art Torres said that this issue was “very important” to him and one that he discussed with Senator Feinstein.  Two Senators does not a sustainable filibuster make.  They need some friends.  We must hold the line together.

So today the Courage Campaign sent out an email to our members (available below the fold) asking people to sign on to a letter to Chairman Torres requesting that he convey the message to Senator Feinstein to stand strong in opposing retroactive immunity for telecom companies.  Will you join us?

Full text of the email that went out an hour ago.

Dear Julia,

“What does it mean to be a Democrat?”

Over 1,000 of you have sent the Courage Campaign your passionate responses to this vital question, continuing the conversation catalyzed by your grassroots movement to censure Senator Dianne Feinstein for her regrettable Judiciary Committee votes supporting Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Judge Leslie Southwick.

While the California Democratic Party used parliamentary procedure to prevent a discussion or vote on the censure resolution, your 35,031 signatures succeeded in fundamentally changing the conversation inside the party.

The mainstream media is also taking notice of this unique grassroots and netroots movement for accountability, as exemplified by the editorial board of the New York Times:

“The censure motion may have failed, but Feinstein’s critics say they are not going away. Rick Jacobs, the founder of the Courage Campaign, vowed that if Ms. Feinstein continues to vote the wrong way, as his group sees it, ‘we’ll be back.'”

Senator Feinstein failed us all by not standing strong against the condoning of torture, homophobia and racism. To hold her accountable, we rallied the California progressive community in support of a censure resolution authored by Mal Burnstein, Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus, and subsequently supported by 40 other Democratic Clubs and progressive organizations, including MoveOn and Progressive Democrats of America.

Now, we are concerned that Senator Feinstein will fail us all again on one of the most important issues currently facing the Senate — a likely floor vote next week on an Intelligence Committee bill re-authorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This Intelligence Committee bill includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies guilty of wiretapping Americans without a warrant, a violation of our fundamental constitutional rights.

“What does it mean to be a Democrat?” As many of you wrote to us, it means standing up for the Constitution and standing strong against retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. If you agree, please click here to send a letter to California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres, perhaps the only person in California capable of convincing Senator Feinstein to stand strong in opposition to retroactive telecom immunity:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/standstrong

Senator Chris Dodd, Senator Russ Feingold and several other Senators have recently said they will filibuster any legislation that contains retroactive telecom immunity.

However, to date, Senator Feinstein has failed to indicate that she will support such a courageous stand in defense of our Constitution.

Fortunately, California Democrats have a potential friend in California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres. He may not agree with us on censuring the Senator but he does agree with us on retroactive immunity for telecom companies. In a passionate speech defending Senator Feinstein at the CDP Executive Board meeting last week, the Chairman expressed his sincere opposition to censure and reported a conversation he had with the Senator about granting telecom companies retroactive immunity, indicating that it is an issue that is “very important” to him.

In the spirit of catalyzing an open dialogue about what it means to be a Democrat, the Courage Campaign would like to highlight the YouTube video of the Chairman’s speech, as posted by the California Democratic Party. Please click here to watch it and then sign our letter to Chairman Torres encouraging him to represent California Democrats in asking Senator Feinstein to stand strong in opposition to telecom immunity:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/standstrong

As Chairman Torres said in his speech, “if we don’t have transparency in our rules, if we don’t have open discussions, and if we don’t argue with each other, we’re not the Democratic Party. We’re the Republicans.”

He’s absolutely right. And that’s exactly what many of you said last week when we asked you: “What does it mean to be a Democrat?” Over 1,000 of you responded with heartfelt, passionate statements expressing your core values as Democrats, progressives and Americans, including John W., who said:

“I don’t even want to talk about what it means to be a Democrat; I want to talk about what it means to be a good American who supports the Constitution and wants our country to act with integrity…”

“What does it mean to be a Democrat?” Click here to read the rest of John’s comment as well as other eloquent statements we’ll be sending directly to Chairman Torres. Then take just a few seconds more to sign the letter to the Chairman encouraging him to represent California Democrats in asking Senator Feinstein to stand strong against immunity for telecom companies:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/standstrong

The New York Times isn’t the only media outlet taking notice of your activism in collaboration with the Courage Campaign. From the Los Angeles Daily News and Fox News to the Huffington Post and community blogs like Calitics and Daily Kos, your movement to hold the Senator accountable has fundamentally changed the conversation.

But we can’t be satisfied with just changing the conversation. We also need to change the direction of California and our country. That means standing up for core American values that keep our nation strong, starting with the Constitution itself.

Please encourage the Chairman and the Senator to stand up for our Constitution and stand strong against telecom immunity today.

Thank you for taking action to keep America free and safe.

Rick Jacobs

Chair

P.S. The Courage Campaign does more than just hold our elected representatives accountable. From working to block Blackwater’s plans to build a mercenary base on the California border to our “NoDirtyTricks.com” campaign to stop the Republicans from stealing the White House, we are fighting for you on multiple fronts.

To build a people-powered progressive California, we need to build progressive infrastructure today. Please join with us in common cause by making a contribution to the Courage Campaign, in whatever amount you can afford:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/contribute

(from my DailyKos diary this morning–it’s important for me to try to bring CA issues to the national spotlight.)

And by that, I refer to the California Democratic Party.

As you may know by now, the resolution authored by progressive activists to censure Senator Dianne Feinstein was not heard by the CDP Resolutions Committee.  If you read my previous diary on the subject, you’ll realize just how contentious this issue was, and that the end result was exactly as expected.

There will be a lot of complaints about the result, and understandably so.  Nevertheless, an official censure is a huge step, and the end result is no surprise, given the momentous nature of the struggle in question.

But I’d like to share another story with you that might even better exemplify just how much change and reform we still need in the California Democratic Party, as well as give you some insight into how the party machinery works.

It all starts with a news item you may or may not be familiar with: the Speaker of the California State Assembly, Democrat Fabian Nunez, came under fire last month for reports of using campaign funds to pay for lavish expenses at luxurious destinations in Europe and California:

The spending, listed in mandatory filings with the state, includes $47,412 on United, Lufthansa and Air France airlines this year; $8,745 at the exclusive Hotel Arts in Barcelona, Spain; $5,149 for a “meeting” at Cave L’Avant Garde, a wine seller in the Bordeaux region of France; a total of $2,562 for two “office expenses” at Vuitton, two years apart; and $1,795 for a “meeting” at Le Grand Colbert, a venerable Parisian restaurant.

You know, the type of thing that it’s really, really hard to justify using a campaign account, even if you’re Steve Maviglio from Speaker Nunez’ office (whose previous foibles I have mentioned before).

I, and many other activists, were disturbed at these reports–though admittedly, even more disturbed by Speaker Nunez’ claims to be “middle-class”:

There’s not too big a difference,” he said, “between how I live and how most middle-class people live.”

Because I can tell you, I’m racking up those $10,000 hotel bills at luxury resorts in Europe all the time!  It’s just part of the middle-class lifestyle.

Regardless, I decided submit a resolution concerning transparency for travel expenses to the Resolutions Committee for consideration at the Executive Board meeting in Anaheim this weekend.  Now, originally, I wrote my resolution specifically calling for Speaker Nunez to fully account for the legislative or fact-finding purpose behind his travel expenses.  I was assured, however, that such a targeted resolution would have no chance of passing the Resolutions Committee, so I rewrote it to be more general, especially since there have been many, many Republicans who have been guilty of the same type of thing on perhaps a much worse scale in recent years (paging Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff, anyone?), and resolutions are supposed to be statements of “philosophical intent” regardless.  So here’s the text of my resolution:

RESOLUTION CALLING FOR GREATER TRANSPARENCY FOR CAMPAIGN-RELATED TRAVEL EXPENSES

WHEREAS, in recent years, officeholders of both major political parties at both the federal and state levels have been accused of using campaign-paid travel expenses to enrich their personal lifestyles;

And WHEREAS, travel expenses to more exclusive locales paid for by lobbyists or other special interests create the appearance of and possibility for conflicts of interest in the legislative process, especially for officeholders with higher stature in legislative bodies;

And WHEREAS, California law requires that travel expenses for members of the State legislature have a legislative purpose;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Democratic Party, in the interests of accountability, transparency and good governance, calls upon all federal and state legislators to fully disclose the legislative or fact-finding purpose behind all travel and accommodations expenses paid with campaign funds;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Party encourages all federal and state legislators to use campaign funds to pay only for travel and accommodations expenses regarding a transparent, easily understandable legislative or fact-finding purpose, and supports investigations into use of campaign funds that do not meet this criterion.

Now, to my mind, that’s just about as harmless as you can get for a resolution on this issue.  It’s bipartisan, mentions no names, and calls for the easily shared values of transparency, accountability, and good governance.

Apparently, however, the values of transparency, accountability and good governance aren’t shared by certain members of the Resolutions Committee.  Either that, or this resolution was still so dicey for the people at the highest echelons that they couldn’t even take this amount of heat.

Now, I originally got a call on Saturday from my friend Brian Leubitz, founded Calitics and who sits on the Resolutions Committee, that they wanted to insert language into the resolution concerning accountability for the fact that some of Schwarzenegger’s travel expenses were picked up by a nonprofit group.  I told Brian to assure the rest of the Resolutions Committee that I had no objection to inserting “accountability for Arnold” language into the resolution if the main thrust of my language remained unchanged.  But then later that afternoon, this was the text I got back from the Committee:

Whereas, in recent years candidates at the federal and state levels
have been accused of not fully disclosing how they raise and spend
funds and of misusing campaign funds; and

Whereas, in recent years some officeholders have paid for expenses
through the use of non-profit organizations, eliminating virtually all
disclosure of which individuals and interest groups are actually
paying for the expenses of the officeholders; and

Whereas, California and federal finance rules require that expenses
paid with campaign funds have a campaign, governmental, or political
purpose;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Democratic Party, in the
interests of accountability, transparency, and good governance,
supports modifications in state and federal law that would require
non-profit organizations who pay for officeholder expenses to fully
disclose the sources and amount of funds the organization has obtained
and the purpose behind all activity paid for by the organizations in a
manner similar to that required for campaign committees; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the California Democratic Party supports
state and federal legislative and regulatory changes to facilitate and
require that candidates and officeholders fully disclose in a
transparent manner the campaign, governmental or political purpose
behind all activity.

Notice a problem here?  Well, I certainly do: All references to travel expenses were excised from the resolution.  I called Brian to tell him that the Resolutions Committee had voided the entire point of my resolution and that I wanted to see the phrase “travel expenses” actually appear in my resolution about travel expenses.

But alas, it was not to be.  The Resolutions Committee took their new anti-Arnold resolution and moved it to the consent calendar.  Now, I wasn’t at the general session of the meeting on Sunday because of work obligations, but I could have still called one of the e-board members I know to have them pull it from the consent calendar for the purposes of amending it according to my specifications, but I decided not to bother, especially since everyone was so preoccupied with Feinstein and the amendments would have likely failed on a floor vote regardless.

The only thing it proves, though, is that when all is said and done, it’s the elected officials that control what the party does, rather than the party trying to keep the elected officials in line with party values.

And this doesn’t just manifest itself in a reticence to acquiesce to large-scale significant actions like censuring Dianne Feinstein.  The craven desire to kowtow to elected officials and not dare to acknowledge their wrongdoing is so pervasive that a resolution whose language focused primarily on a Republican can’t even be passed if it dares to mention an issue on which a prominent Democratic elected official has been lacking.

And that, my friends, is a sad situation that calls for action and reform.  Am I antagonized? Certainly.  But am I forlorn?  Not at all.  (Do I sound like Donald Rumsfeld when I ask rhetorical questions and provide the answers? Yes.  Is it fun? absolutely.)

You see, the worst possible thing we would do is give up and operate on the assumption that the system is impermeable–because it isn’t, and we’ve already made significant strides in California.  But there’s more work to be done.

And let me ask you something: do you know how your state party would act in a similar situation?  If you don’t, why not find out?

And most of all–keep fighting for good governance that’s accountable to the people.

( – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

NOTE: I am reposting this from a long comment I just made in a diary posted by Julia Rosen about the incident at the Resolutions Committee meeting last night. I am reposting it here as a diary so that John’s response can potentially be read by a larger audience.

Thank you to everyone who posted supportive comments in the aftermath of the sign incident with John Hanna.

Since I told you earlier that I was planning to talk with John, I can now tell you what happened.

In the interim period, many people talked to me about how to respond, some going so far as to suggest that I call the police to file a report.

Something about that didn’t feel right. In my gut, I knew that what happened clearly crossed the line (to be kind) but that I needed to talk to John before taking any kind of action. I did not know John but I felt I needed to give him a chance to explain himself.

He did, both publicly and privately. I wasn’t in the room when the meeting adjourned, but from what Julia told me, John offered a very sincere apology to the Resolutions Committee and others present for his behavior.

Brian (Leubitz), who is on the Resolutions Committee, privately asked John to meet with me. Juls called me and I came over to the meeting room shortly thereafer.

More below the fold…

John approached me and immediately and thoughtfully apologized for his behavior. He was quite forthright and direct. I sensed that his regret was coming from a very sincere place.

We talked for a good 45 minutes with him, Brian, Juls and a two of John’s colleagues.  It was actually one of the most edifying and intellectually stimulating conversations I’ve had in Anaheim.

While consistently acknowledging that what he had done was wrong, John then went on to talk about what led up to this altercation and how it might have been avoided. For example, he respectfully suggested that we should have approached the co-chairs of the meeting before positioning our sign in the room.

It’s a fair point. I am mindful that we could have made a more formal request to place the sign and easel inside the room. Crunched for time, we failed to follow the expected protocol. If I had to do it over again, I/we would have followed it. I’m not sure what the outcome would have been, but at least it would have started the conversation on a more collegial level, perhaps leading to an amicable solution for everyone.

I don’t know John that well, but I got the impression from our conversation that he is a very thoughtful, very judicious and presumably fair individual who overreacted to a high-stress moment with an uncharacteristic physical response.

I accept his apology.

Hopefully, this unfortunate incident can be a potential bridge-building opportunity with the Resolutions Committee members. To that end, I have invited John Hanna to reach out to the grassroots and netroots and engage our communities in a dialogue about the resolutions process.

In the end, as many of you know now, the censure resolution itself was not officially heard by the Resolutions Committee. A number of members objected to it being considered, due to its submission as a late resolution, per party rules.

You can read more about the Resolutions Committee outcome in a piece Rick Jacobs posted at the Courage Campaign.

Thanks again for your support, everyone.

Onward.

Eden James
Managing Director
Courage Campaign

(cross-posted from Courage Campaign)

Things took a pretty nasty turn, unfortunately.

I entered the California Democratic Party Resolutions Committee  meeting room with Eden James, Courage Campaign’s Managing Director, bearing our sign and easel.  We found a free space at the front of the room and set up the sign.

Almost immediately, Resolutions Chair John Hanna approached us, demanding that we remove the sign.  Eden politely asked if there “was a rule” against signs in the meeting rooms.  Hanna replied “yes.”

Kathy Bowler, CDP Executive Director, then calmly approached me, stating that the sign should be removed because the room was getting full and she had staff she needed to get into the room.

John then grabbed ahold of one side of the sign, attempting to remove it from Eden’s hands. Eden, maintaining his hold on to the other side, repeated the question to John about whether a rule existed against signs inside the meeting room. John said “yes”again and Eden asked to see the rule, saying that if there was an actual rule against signs inside the room — he would respect it.

Increasingly angry, John threatened to call security. Eden, surprised, calmly responded that John “should go ahead if that’s what you want to do.”

Suddenly, Hanna then shoved his side of the sign and Eden at the same time, forcibly pushing Eden backwards. Eden held on. John shoved again, then pushed Eden’s shoulder back with the palm of his hand.

Stunned, Eden let go of the sign as John ripped it from his hands and threw it to the floor. An unknown person then picked up the sign and sprinted it out of the room, taking it to the staff room (according to Kathy Bowler).

More below

This is the Last thing that we wanted to happen. And Eden is one of the most peaceful, non-aggressive people that I have ever met. It was shocking to see his calm, determined words met by violence.

The goal of bringing the sign into the room was to provide a visual representation of the large number of people, clubs and groups supporting the resolution to censure the Senator.

Our purpose in continuing to discuss moving the sign was to get a clear reason and clarification of the rules surrounding bringing in signs. If a rule was presented against posting signs, we would have respected it without question. And indeed, we would have entertained a discussion about its removal due to space issues.

We are shocked and shaken by this turn of events and so are many others. It is extremely disappointing that something as simple as trying to bring a sign into a room (that lists organizations supporting a resolution) can escalate into physical violence.

Eden and I want to commend Kathy Bowler for her professionalism throughout this incident. John Hanna’s conduct, on the other hand is shocking, upsetting, and completely inappropriate.

This resolution should be addressed on its merits. No matter what side you are on, this discussion does not deserve to be marred by physical violence.