Calitics - Front Page

Church Lobbyist: Obnoxious Callers Killed CA Single Payer -- FOREVER!

Seneca Doane — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:24:27 GMT

(Portion below the fold cross-posted from the Orange Juice Blog and to Daily Kos.)

You really have to read the letter to appreciate its full horror.

The short story is this: California's "single payer health care" proposal for this two-year session had to pass the State Senate by January 31 in order to stay alive. Despite the fact that Democrats control the Senate 25-15, it fell two votes short. Two Democrats, Lou Correa and Ron Calderon, voted no; four others refused to vote at all.

This was a shock without being a surprise. It's shocking that Democrats can control the legislature and yet fail to get one of our signature proposals through even one chamber. Yet we've dealt with these Senators before -- we've seen who gives them money -- so it was not a surprise.

The surprise came yesterday. Apparently, it was our fault that SB 810 failed. Not the insurance industry that fought so hard against the measure; not the pusillanimous Democrats who wouldn't defend it. Our fault: activists' fault. Why? Because we kept calling Senators' offices and some of us were allegedly obnoxious.

That's what the letter from the Director of Public Policy of the lobbying branch of the California Council of Churches says.

My post from the local blog where I also publish is below.
Apparently, I and people like me were the ones who killed Single Payer. Everything was well in hand and then ... whoops! We were mean to people and so it died.

The sordid tale -- or at least some vague accusations of terrible things being said by aggrieved voters to office interns -- may be found in this letter from Elizabeth Sholes, Director of Public Policy for California Church Impact, the lobbying arm of the California Council of Churches. California Church Impact sports the following motto on its website:

We advocate for those who can't afford high-priced lobbyists: low-income mothers, hungry children, elderly.

I hope that we can all agree that that is a lovely sentiment.

First, Ms. Sholes explains how the people who dropped the ball were the sponsors of the Single Payer Study Group. Here's the relevant excerpt:

Over a year ago the single payer grassroots steering committee, the State Strategy Group, agreed to create a panel of experts who would do a new fiscal analysis to update the information from the Lewin Report. IMPACT helped find experts on health care financing for the panel, and the SSG knew that it would cost about $250,000 to get this done well.
For both the incoming governor, Jerry Brown and all the new legislators, this evidence of cost savings for individuals, families, small business, and the state was crucial. Single payer had to show it would be at least as if not more effective than federal health care reform in cost savings for all parties. It would be impossible to convince legislators unfamiliar with single payer that it was a very responsible measure without those data.
Consequently, in its first foray under Senator Leno's authorship, the bill did not pass on the Assembly floor. There were simply too many grave doubts, and the newer members had no interaction with single payer supporters who might have eased their concerns.
In response to that loss, the SSG decided suddenly to abandon SB 810 and the fiscal report and go the initiative route thinking it would be simple and that the governor could put it on the ballot. That is not possible since it would have to be done legislatively and requires a supermajority vote. To do an independent initiative with signature gathering is extremely expensive. SSG fund raising therefore turned to obtaining the $2-3 million needed just to do a signature drive, but the money never materialized for the ballot measure, much less the financial analysis.
No initiative. No fiscal study.

Ms. Sholes may or may not fully appreciate that, in presenting the matter as she does, she is in effect calling her "allies" like Sen. Leno and 18 other Democratic Senators irresponsible. They, after all, supported single payer without the requisite study -- given that "this evidence of cost savings ... was crucial ... [and it] would be impossible to convince legislators unfamiliar with single payer that it was a very responsible measure without those data." (Yet 19 of them irresponsibly voted "yes" anyway, based on existing evidence! Thanks for the support, "ally"!) And is it the case that new members had "too many grave doubts ... [having] had no interaction with single payer supporters who might have eased their concerns"? Did they, um, seek out such interactions? I know plenty of people who would have talked to them! We've interacted with Sen. Correa, but he just keeps repeating that "the state's piggy bank isn't big enough."

But the failure wasn't ultimately the legislators' fault, you see: it was the supporters who killed the bill ... FOREVER!!!

Senator Leno continued to shepherd SB 810 until, as is customary, it went into "suspense" the last week of January in Senate Appropriations. Suspense occurs when there are large questions about costs and means to cover them. Despite the pressure to hold the bill for lack of financial analysis, President pro Tem of the Senate Darrell Steinberg used his leadership strength to send it to the floor. At the first floor vote, five Senators abstained, all of whom had the same fiscal reservations expressed by Senators in Appropriations. Steinberg, as a strong single payer supporter, kept the bill "on call" until the absolutely last moment, January 31 by which time legally it had to pass or die.
Over the weekend senators Leno and Steinberg asked the abstaining members for a "courtesy vote." This is a vote that occurs when a member with reservations still moves a bill to keep it going.
Those votes were getting pinned down when on January 30th the grassroots advocates started a massive phone campaign to senators. The results were shocking. Office after office including Leno's and Steinberg's were flooded with calls -- angry, berating, nasty, threatening, and bullying calls. These were not from opponents of single payer. These were from supporters.
When callers could not access senators or their top staff, they lambasted lower-level staff right down to the receptionists. One young woman, new to the Capitol, was shattered by the vicious attacks on her and her senator. She was absolutely devastated by the personal assaults on her character and politics. Other, older staff were tougher, but every one of them was shaken to their foundations by how incredibly violent and abusive the calls were from supporters.
What the enraged supporters did not realize -- because they never asked -- is that yes, the requisite number of courtesy votes were being gathered. But after the barrage of abuse, these senators, all with reservations due to the absence of information on financial impacts, withdrew those votes in disgust. Senator Leno then pulled the bill rather than having it die on the floor.
We are aware that these calls did not involve the faith community. Insofar as people identified themselves, those from faith groups were not the source of the harassment. It did not matter enough, however, to prevent the massive meltdown from other less responsible groups and individuals.
At this moment so much damage has been done from the barrage of nasty calls that it is seriously doubtful any legislator will ever work with any of the single payer supporters again, not even in the faith community.

I was certainly one who encouraged people to contact their State Senators regarding SB 810. When I do so, I usually tell them to be polite; I also tell them that they should tell their stories.

Here's one of their stories: I was recently asked, through my work for the Occupy movement, for help by a woman I'll call Alice. She is a cancer survivor -- or at least in remission. She recently received notice of a premium increase for her individual policy. She's now expected to pay $830 per month -- $10,000 per year -- just for herself. She's disabled by her illness, can't work enough to make ends meet, too young for Medicaid -- and she's concerned that she will have to give up her insurance altogether. For her, that could be a fatal outcome.

You know what? She's pissed off. She's going to meet with Correa's office today -- at my urging -- in the hope that perhaps they'll be able to find some angle that can keep her insured, keep her alive -- keep her, by the way, from burdening the state with emergency room bills that she would not be able to pay.

I told her -- other strong activists told her -- "don't lobby him. Don't make a statement. Just find out how to help yourself. We don't want you to die."

She said "I just want to ask him some questions about why he voted against single payer."

"Don't do it," a chorus of us said. But it's probably in vain. Do you know why? It's because she is a very intelligent woman, she knows that a bill like SB 810 would possibly save her life if it were now in effect, she has her dignity, she has enough pride to think that others should honor her dignity -- and she's pissed!!!

That's how people are -- we in the 99%. If you act unreasonably towards us, and thereby threaten our lives and our families' well-being, we get uppity. Some of us are hard to calm down. Some of us get impolite -- because this is not some abstract enterprise for us, but this is our lives.

Now I should make clear that I don't entirely believe Ms. Sholes's story. I'm not saying that she's lying; I'm saying that perhaps she was counting chickens, when it comes to these "courtesy votes," that were not quite hatched. I'd like to know which two Senators among the four Democratic holdouts -- Padilla, Vargas, Rubio, and Wright -- were the ones who had tentatively committed to the courtesy vote. (I presume that it wasn't Correa or Calderon, who voted "no.") Oh, I know that I won't be told this -- I know that I'm supposed to just accept that this must be kept secret, but I do really want to know.

Here's why I want to know.

Let's presume for the moment that Ms. Sholes's story is correct. Let's, just because we could use some examples, say that the two who were in the bag and then jumped out of the bag, were Vargas and Rubio. (I choose Vargas because this website has taken an interest in his campaign; I choose Rubio because he's retiring from office.)

What Ms. Sholes is asking us to believe is that Vargas and Rubio (or whoever) had been convinced that sending the bill to the Assembly was worth doing -- presumably because it would allow time to investigate the financial aspects of the bill that 19 members either didn't care about or (more likely) didn't find lacking -- but they changed their minds because individual citizens alerted to the situation called up and were (allegedly) abusive to their staff.

And, what's more, the abusiveness of citizens to these staff members was so awful that "it is seriously doubtful any legislator will ever work with any of the single payer supporters again." It was THAT BAD!

Well, now. I would take all of the anguish of all of the staffers who answered all of the calls on January 30 and 31, roll it up into a ball, and set it on one pan of a scale in which the other pan held only Alice's anguish about the idea of her dying because she can't afford health insurance. And then I would let go.

My strong suspicion is that the anguish of Alice would outweigh all of the anguish of these staffers, and all of the anguish of their bosses, and all of the anguish of the members of California Church Impact over this event, combined.

And that is how it should be.

[Let's say that hypothetically] I'm planning on running for State Senate this year. If I should win, I will tell my staffers this:

If you can't handle being abused by angry citizens, who may or may not have legitimate grievances and may or may not have a couple of screws loose, then you should not be answering the phones. If you are abused, I will feel bad for you, and I might even call up some of those constituents and give them a piece of my mind on your behalf. But there is one thing that I will never do: I will not vote against an otherwise worthy bill, or vote for an unworthy one, because people were mean to you ... or to me.

Ms. Sholes's depiction of our legislators, as people who are not willing to put aside their personal emotions and do what they think is right every single time they vote, is insulting and, I would like to think, inaccurate. People will suffer and die -- the low-income mothers and children and the elderly served by California Church Impact will continue to suffer and die -- due to the lack of affordable health insurance and adequate health care in this state. To say that this solution of this problem should be put aside forever because they were mean to legislators is breathtaking in its temerity. It fundamentally misconstrues the role of legislators as masters rather than servants. I'd expect better of a church group.

Beyond this, Ms. Sholes's story is insulting to Majority Leader Steinberg and Senators Leno. If the votes were truly in the bag -- which I doubt -- and they knew that calls were coming in, those figures should have raised the alarm immediately to tell supporters to get out the word for people to STOP CALLING! If things were really taken care of, they just had to give the word -- that's a lot easier than people trying to control the message that someone might have seen five steps removed from the sender, alerting them to call. But no such word came out -- and yet proponents of single-payer take the blame.

If I took Ms. Sholes's story seriously, this would have to be the lesson I'd take: don't ask people to call the government.

Don't ask people to call the government because some of them may at some point be mean and mess everything up. And you can't even say "don't call the government anymore if we tell you to stop," because by then it might be too late. So the only thing to do, if you want people to support the bill, is to carefully control which voters do call in -- make sure that they're all polite and charming and well-spoken. (And then you have to hope that your opposition doesn't engage in a "false flag" operation of calling in and being abusive while claiming to be proponents, because from the looks of Ms. Sholes's letter that would work wonderfully.)

Taking Ms. Sholes's teaching at face value means a commitment to abjuring popular activism because someone might not be as well-bred as a lobbyist or constituent called on behalf of California Church Impact. It is advice not to get people riled up, to "shut up and leave it to the pros."

Indeed, Ms. Sholes's advice is very comforting to those legislators who would prefer not to have to deal with hoi polloi at all. I am also struck -- gobsmacked, in fact -- by the fact that these six Democratic State Senators, let alone their fifteen Republican counterparts, are entirely exculpated from the failure of this bill. Nope! It's the activists' fault, and only the activists' fault!

Sadly for Ms. Sholes, and for me, and for progressive Senators and Assemblymembers and activists everywhere, the estimable level of decorum she sees as critical simply is not going to be met in the future -- because income distribution is getting worse, and times are getting tougher, and people are getting mad. They're going broke and they're dying and they see their government not quite accomplishing what it needs to do.

I'm sorry for the staffers who, to credit Ms. Sholes's story, received such abuse from constituents (or from non-constituents.) That should not have happened to you. But if the lesson you gleaned from it is that it is OK to change your vote in a life-or-death matter against the interests of people who are worked up into righteous indignation, then I am doubly sorry for you, because you have learned a false and corrosive lesson.

As for Ms. Sholes -- I'd like to introduce her to Alice. Another bill, AB 52 -- already passed by the Assembly -- would give the Insurance Commissioner the ability to regulate unreasonable premium rate increases of the sort that might soon kill Alice. These same six Senators (plus one other, whom I won't name) are believed to be the ones blocking its passage. If you can tell me which Senators are just being coy, but who really would vote for the bill if people are just nice to them, I'll try to spread the word to people not to vent their anguish at them. (Following the example of the very polite Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, I already do this, but I'll try even harder.)

Please, someone, get me their names. Then it can be only those Senators who can't be moved to vote to respect the lives of people like Alice who will receive holy hell -- because that's what we have to deliver to them.

Update [in original post]: How did I gloss over the best paragraph of Sholes's letter, right after what I copied above?

This means single payer likely is dead in California. The most important point is that SB 810 died NOT due to the insurance industry or even from Senate opposition -- the votes were ready for passage - but due to the obnoxious and outrageous actions of its supporters.

Yes, it's pretty easy to say that the insurance industry and Senate opposition killed SB 810 -- what with the actual evidence at hand suggesting it at all. But it's also getting easier to say that Ms. Sholes is mostly carrying water (and body armor) for one or both of the above players. One wonders, given her protestations of progressivism: why?

CDP Convention Begins Today

Brian Leubitz — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:24:27 GMT

New platform and gearing up for the Presidential election is on tap in San Diego

by Brian Leubitz

I'm about to head down to San Diego for the annual installment of CDP convention madness. Or as I like to call it, a weekend with some fellow political nerds.

As you've probably read on these pages, there are some issues of party endorsements going on. AD-50 (Bloom, Butler, Osborn) has been a very competitive fight, with legislators moving delegates into the district and accusations of club packing. And the bruising battle between the "-ermans", Brad Sherman and Howard Berman, in CD-30 has meant that I've received more mail for a CDP convention than I ever thought possible.

Other notable events include the ratification of the state party platform. The platform committee will be meeting all day today to nail down the wording, and you can drop on by to learn more.

I'll be around all weekend, come find me and say hi! I'll be doing most of my updating 140 characters at a time, so follow my twitter account to get the latest updates.

Why Can't Regular Citizens Get a Fair Shake in Sacramento?

Brian Leubitz — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:34:13 GMT

Bill to change statute of limitations for polluters stalls out

by Brian Leubitz

When people complain about the Legislature, it is precisely because of things like this story from the always interesting California Watch.

Under pressure from construction, architect and other industry groups, state legislators killed a bill that would have closed a loophole used by businesses to evade pollution lawsuits.
Sponsored by Assemblyman Warren Furutani, D-Long Beach, AB 1207 arose out of a lawsuit in Carson, where residents discovered in 2009 that for nearly five decades, their families have been exposed to dangerous levels of cancer-causing toxins emanating from their properties. There is no state law that explicitly puts time limits on pollution cases, which often are discovered decades after the toxic dumping occurs.
However, Shell Oil Co. and a local developer were able to initially get the resident lawsuit thrown out by claiming the state's 10-year time limit on "construction defect" claims had expired.

It is never hard to kill a bill that can be even tangentially tied to the evil "trial lawyers". However, in this situation, and many others, lawsuits are the only ramification for Californians who have been well and royally screwed by big companies. This time it was a developer and Shell Oil, but you can trace these same general circumstances to many other cases.

The buyers and renters of homes in Carson simply had no way to know that they were moving into property that was on top of a toxic waste dump. But Shell knew, and at some level, the developers should have known if they did their due diligence. But money comes first, and that didn't happen because any answers would be inconvenient.

And so a generation later, people in Carson are stuck with toxic property. And somehow there is a statue of limitations for an event that they could have no way of knowing? It is a perversion of the concept of statute of limitations, which is intended to force people to act on situations of which they are aware.

Best of luck to Asm. Furutani and any other legislators who take up this bill. This shouldn't happen to other Californians. But what this really speaks of is the sheer power of lobbyists and industry in Sacramento. I try to imagine the situation where a majority of Californians prefers this outcome, and I just can't imagine such a world. No, this was all about moneyed interests against a diffuse sense of right and wrong.

I suppose it shouldn't surprise much that the money won.

Can We Just Drop the R from CDCR again?

Brian Leubitz — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:06:34 GMT

Gov. Brown denies parole for almost all of parole board's recommended release candidates with murder charges

by Brian Leubitz

This is a failing system:

California Gov. Jerry Brown pardoned 21 people in his first year in office and rejected parole for 71 first- and second-degree murderers who had been recommended for release by the parole board.
Brown did allow for the early release of just one person, Tung Nguyen of Garden Grove, who was convicted of first-degree murder for his role in a motel-room killing in a dispute over money. ... Unlike the 71 other such recommendations rejected by Brown, the governor approved Nguyen's parole, based in part on his role in helping 50 civilians to safety who were on the prison yard during a 2006 inmate riot.

There was once a point to a parole board. They were doctors and social workers who specialized in examining risk to the public. They still are the same people, but now their recommendations are completely ignored. Few of the violent offenders that are recommended for early release are actually released. Offenders with "life" sentences that are eligible for parole should just consider the first word, and forget the rest.

Since the governor was granted the power to reject parole board recommendations, rarely has a governor not taken advantage of that power. There is simply no real upside of releasing a prisoner, but the downside political risk is huge. And so nobody gets released. We have a prison system that ignores rehabilitation and simply warehouses people.

It is massively expensive but not particularly effective. But nobody ever got voted out of office for keeping an offender behind bars, and so the cycle continues.

A full report on Brown's pardons and parole releases is here.

9th Circuit Upholds Judge Walker's Prop 8 Decision

Brian Leubitz — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:09:22 GMT

Court strikes down Prop 8 on narrow equal protection grounds

by Brian Leubitz

It probably isn't the decision that we would like, but it is sure better than the alternative. In a narrow decision, Judge Reinhardt held Prop 8 unconstitutional as denying equal protection under the law. However, this decision does not issue a blanked declaration that marriage bans are inherently unconstitutional in their own right. You can read the full decision over the flip or at this link.

That being said, the 2-1 decision was mostly positive. Judge Walker's findings of fact, which you can read on a footnote on Page 18 of the decision, were not disputed. The standard for changing these findings of fact is substantially higher than for the legal conclusions, but the maintenance of those facts is nonetheless important and notable. And of course, there is the fact that the 9th Circuit ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, which is pretty great. However, I am guessing that AFER and Boies/Olson would have preferred an answer on the broader question of legality of same-sex marriage bans. But that was not to be today:

Whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, a right that has long been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, is an important and highly controversial question. We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case.

And so, citizens of other states must wait in line for the time being. Metaphorically, I suppose, because the 9th Circuit also put a stay on the decision, so no marriages will proceed right away. But the Supreme Court can review this decision in any way they would like to. They could address that broader question if they so decide. Perhaps they'd prefer to rip the band-aid off in one grand gesture, or maybe we'll wait for that. The Supreme Court won't make its decision on whether to hear the case for a few months, so Court watchers will be left guessing.

All that being said, you can't help but smile when you realize that an appellate court sees the real injustice in this inequality. Check out page 37 and the subsequent pages for a rather heartfelt statement of the importance of marriage in our community.

The designation is important because 'marriage' is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but to the couple designing to enter into a committed lifelong relationship, a marriage by the name of 'registered domestic partnership' does not.

Furthmore, when Reinhardt gets to his conclusion, it is stark and simple:

Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.

Reinhardt ultimately wrote the opinion for an audience of 9. By limiting his opinion, it has a stronger chance of standing up, and possibly even inspiring Justice Kennedy to end marriage discrimination forever.
9th Cir Prop 8 decision

Prop 8 Ruling Tomorrow

Brian Leubitz — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:47:35 GMT

9th Circuit Announces Decision at 10AM tomorrow

by Brian Leubitz

The 9th Circuit has just announced that they will be releasing their opinion in Perry v Brown, otherwise known as the Prop 8 case, tomorrow. The opinion will be posted on their website. Given that the 9th Circuit will likely be overwhelmed by traffic, we'll get links up to alternate sites as soon as we have them.

LGBT leaders will be gathering at the court in San Francisco tomorrow at 10AM for the decision, and then heading over to City Hall where clergy will be standing by to bless couples. (There will likely be a stay if Prop 8 is again ruled unconstitutional, so no real marriages.)

The team behind the lawsuit will, AFER, be llivestreaming their press conference with David Boies and Ted Olson.

Campaign Contributions Raise Troubling Questions For Speaker John Perez And Sacramento Democrats

Marta Evry — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:35:53 GMT

Democratic activists hoping for big gains in the California legislature this year were dealt a serious blow after campaign finance reports released last Thursday raised troubling questions about Assembly Speaker John Perez's strategic priorities and the California Democratic Party's ability to achieve a two-thirds majority in the State Senate and Assembly.

Democrats would have to pick up at least two more seats in each chamber to achieve the super-majority needed to pass revenue increases over the objections of a Republican minority.

Yet campaign finance reports reveal that Speaker Perez, Sacramento Democratic lawmakers and PACs donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to safe Democratic Assembly districts while virtually ignoring new "swing" districts or defending others against possible Republican pickups.

In the 10th Assembly District (Marin, D+35) Sacramento Democrats gave $80,600 to Mike Allen, an incumbent Assemblymember who moved into the open district when his existing district was carved up and reapportioned. This, even though Mr. Allen is running against two other Democratic candidates and no Republican opposition.

In the 50th Assembly district (Santa Monica, D+33), Perez and Sacramento Democrats donated $88,750 to Assemblywoman Betsy Butler, who moved north to the Democratic stronghold after redistricting meant she'd have to run in the new, more conservative 66th Assembly district (Torrance, D+3). Butler is running against Democratic candidates Torie Osborn and Richard Bloom, both long-time residents of the district. The lone Republican in the race, Brad Torgen, is not considered a viable candidate.

Records also show that most of these donations were given to Allen and Butler during a three-week period last December, and that many Democratic Assemblymembers who donated did not give money to any other Assembly campaigns. The timing suggests a coordinated and conscious effort from leadership to funnel money to these candidates at the expense of other candidates running in more competitive districts.

But as Butler and Allen enjoy the largess of their colleagues in Sacramento while running in districts so safe a Democratic corpse could win, two other candidates running in swing districts which could potentially lead to Democratic super-majorities enjoy no such protection.

In the South Bay, Torrance School Board member Al Muratsuchi became the Democratic candidate for AD66 after Betsy Butler left the district. Election experts consider the race highly competitive for Republicans, giving them the best opportunity in two decades to pick up a seat in that area.

However, not a single Sacramento Democrat, including both John Perez and Betsy Butler have yet to make any financial contributions to his campaign.

Even Democratic State Senator Ted Lieu, whose district overlaps much of AD66, gave $1,000 to Butler, but nothing so far to Muratsuchi.

Additionally, while PACs - including the Professional Engineers in California Government, the State Building & Construction Trades Council and the California State Council of Laborers - gave over $300,000 to Butler and Allen, many of them presumably at Perez's direction, Muratsuchi received only $11,900 in PAC money, including $1,000 from the California League of Conservation Voters - $6,800 less than they gave to Betsy Butler.

Sacramento's indifference means Muratsuchi has had to loan his campaign $45,000 to defend the new South Bay Assembly seat against two Tea Party candidates, Nathan Mintz, who ran and lost a close race against Butler in 2010, and Craig Huey, who ran an unsuccessful $500,000 self-financed congressional campaign against Janice Hahn last year.
In the Central Valley, where termed-out Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani is running for Senate District 5 (Stockton, D+4), only one Sacramento lawmaker, fellow Democratic Assemblymember Kevin De Leon, contributed to Galgiani's campaign.

Galgiani has $140,000 in cash on hand while her two Republican opponents, Assemblymember Bill Berryhill and former County Supervisor Leroy Ornellas, each have twice that amount.

Galgiani represents much of the district now and is considered a popular moderate. AroundTheCapitol.com reports the race is "likely the bellwether Senate district for 2012....Galgiani came out as gay to the Stockton Record on November 1, and will be running in a district that voted 64% in favor of prohibiting same-sex marriages."

If elected, Galgiani would be the first openly gay legislator elected from a Central Valley district.

Taken in their entirety, campaign finance records, along with reports of political maneuvering, clearly and consistently demonstrate Speaker Perez and Sacramento Democrats are prioritizing the reelection of "incumbent" Assemblymembers in safe, Democratic districts over obtaining a two-thirds majority in the legislature in 2012.

Political insiders will claim this just isn't true, that Sacramento's strategy will change after the June primaries, focusing less on incumbents and more on flipping swing districts.

However, even if accurate, considering California's new top-two election rules, it's a deeply flawed strategy.

In the case of both AD66 and SD05, there's no guarantee Muratrsuchi and Galgiani will survive a June primary and make it to November. And even if they do, their well-funded opponents will have already had a six-month head start to rip the Democrats to shreds with negative mailers and media spots.

When the California Citizens Redistricting Commission upended the political landscape in 2012, it opened up a unique opportunity for Democrats, but only if we have the foresight and political will to take advantage of that opportunity. Now is the time to stop paying lip service about achieving a two-thirds legislative majority and actually do something about it.

Until that happens, we're just kidding ourselves that we can fix what's really wrong with California. The best we can hope for is triage.

As our convention convenes this weekend in San Diego, I hope the delegates, activists, candidates and politicians assembled will take a hard, cold look at how the political landscape is shifting beneath our feet.

These issues are more important than any single election or candidate, they go to the very heart of what it means to be a Democrat in California in 2012.

UPDATE:
State Senator Ted Lieu responds:

Re: My $1000 contribution to Betsy Butler's committee. As you know, I have not endorsed in the race. The contribution was made in April 2011, months before the first draft of Assembly maps were released, and months before Betsy Butler announced where she was running. In early fall, my Ted Lieu for Senate 2011 committee was frozen due to the Kinde Durkee case.
Regarding AD 66, when the Kinde Durkee legal proceedings are resolved, I will contribute to Al Muratsuchi's campaign. I endorsed him early and am helping him in a variety of other ways.

On "Reagan Day", Perhaps Remember the Real Reagan?

Brian Leubitz — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:44:45 GMT

As Conservatives play games with the former President's legacy, what would Ronald Reagan do in today's California?

I probably wouldn't have known it was "Reagan Day" but for the helpful tweets of @GeorgeRunner. The former legislator and current member of the Board of Equalization isn't really much of a tweeter, but on occasion he gives us such helpful words as "Happy Reagan Day!" after a few weeks of silence other than an announcement of his "e-newsletter." (By the way, if you call it an "e-newsletter," you are doing it wrong.)

Anyway, I thought I would take a moment to remind Mr. Runner and his #tcot friends about a few facts of the Gipper's tenure here in California. In a blog post, Bruce Bartlett, a Reagan domestic policy adviser, points out some of the false tax mythology:

Reagan's record on raising taxes began almost the moment he entered politics. Elected governor of California in 1966, he inherited a large budget deficit from his predecessor, Pat Brown. Although a conservative, dedicated to shrinking government, Reagan nevertheless found the magnitude of spending cuts that would have been necessary in 1967 to be beyond reach. This led him to endorse a $1 billion per year tax increase, equivalent to a $17 billion tax increase today - an enormous sum equal to a third of state revenues at that time. Journalist Lou Cannon recounts the circumstances:
"No amount of budget reductions, even if they had been politically palatable, could have balanced California's budget in 1967. The cornerstone of Governor Reagan's economic program was not the ballyhooed budget reductions but a sweeping tax package four times larger than the previous record California tax increase obtained by Governor Brown in 1959. Reagan's proposal had the distinction of being the largest tax hike ever proposed by any governor in the history of the United States."1] ([CG&G Feb 2011)

Let's stop with all the beatification and think about what really happened 45 years ago, and what is happening now. Like Reagan, Gov. Brown inherited a big deficit from his predecessor. Schwarzenegger's mish-mash of policies left the state without direction and with a huge deficit to show for it. Brown the Younger in his third time has a similarly daunting challenge as he did in 1978 after Prop 13 and as Reagan did in 1978. And like Reagan, he understands the impracticality of a cuts-only budget solution. And the tax increases that Brown is proposing today is less than half of the Reagan 1967 tax increases.

Runner and his fellow Republicans need to really take a deep look about their presidential saint and how he was able to objectively look at a situation and be more than ideologically dogmatic. Perhaps then we could really govern the state, and the GOP could return to relevance.

If you'd like to see more debunking of the religion rapidly building around Reagan, read the entire post. Think Progress also has a great post about Reagan's real legacy last year for his centennial. Let's

Data Nerds Rejoice! CA Precinct Analysis Released

Brian Leubitz — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:47:26 GMT

California precinct index offers detailed political information.

by Brian Leubitz

Geeks around California rejoice! David Latterman, who now works at USF's McCarthy Center has been known around San Francisco for his progressive precinct index. Today he released his 2011 version of the California version. As you can see from the image to the right, much of the data is as you would expect it. There is a dark blue core around the coast, and red elsewhere. what that really translates to is that a fairly strong majority, as population, of somewhat progressive voters. Much of that red area exists in large, unpopulated districts. If you look closely, you will see a growing blue section in the central valley of progressive voters.

You can get the full details of Latterman's California 2011 Politcal Precinct Index at this PDF release.

ZMYG6EU6PHKF

The Money Game

Brian Leubitz — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 19:01:16 GMT

Republicans once again nearly broke

by Brian Leubitz

With the news that Republican registration is falling again, perhaps it is of very little surprise that they also have very little money, especially when compared to the Democrats. But, that is the case.

One of the standouts in terms of limited dollars: the California Republican Party. The state GOP bet big on getting the referendum against the new Senate redistricting maps qualified for the November ballot (and the signatures are still being counted); overall, the party's report shows it raised $4.2 million in 2011. But the state GOP only had $439,000 in cash left on Dec. 31, and the fate of the redistricting effort still seems somewhat in doubt.
Meantime, the redistricting referendum campaign reported (PDF) having only $620.31 in the bank on the final day of 2011 and has reported no 2012 contributions. The campaign owes $214,000 in unpaid bills.
Compare that to California Democrats, who reported raising $11 million in 2011 and still sitting on a rather impressive $9.3 million in cash as of Dec. 31. That suggests Dems are well positioned for legislative and even ballot measure efforts in 2012, while Republicans will need a major infusion of cash... and in a hurry. (CapNotes)

As John Myers points out, the Senate district map referendum, while largely funded by Mercury Insurance CEO George Joseph, has still left them with emptier campaign coffers than they had before. While the Dems haven't spent nearly as much money, expect the Party to spend big time on the November ballot, with revenue and paycheck deception on the ballot.

At the same time, news from the June initiative front is also quite anemic. While the anti-tobacco groups will be kicking off their campaign to raise cigarette taxes by a $1/pack to pay for cancer research today at the State Capitol, they'll be doing it without a lot of cash. Same for the LA Labor Fed's term limits reform measure that made it on the ballot last year.

June's election will be fierce in a few competitive legislative and Congressional seats, but don't expect any big statewide push.

Republican Registration Continues to Crater

Brian Leubitz — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:56:54 GMT

GOP is in danger of falling below 30%

by Brian Leubitz

Party	Feb 1999	January 2008	January 2012
Democratic	46.72%	42.71%	43.63%
Republican	35.27%	33.45%	30.36%
NPP	12.89%	19.38%	21.24%

For the last decade, the big winner in party registration has been no party at all. Decline to state, now known as no party preference, has boomed from just under 13% in 1999 to 21.24% in the latest numbers released by the Sec. of State's office today. While Democratic numbers have fluctuated in the lower 40s, Republican numbers continue to creep downwards. If the trend continues, the GOP may fall below 30% in the very near future.

It is no surprise that the GOP is rapidly losing adherents, what with the far right extreme becoming dominant within the Party of Reagan (née Lincoln). But with district maps that require Republicans to compete for the middle, the question is whether they really can do that. These numbers certainly don't bode well for that.

Cash Crunch?

Brian Leubitz — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:01:19 GMT

Controller John Chiang sounds the alarm bells

by Brian Leubitz

While tax season is gearing up, the state government is now running low on cash reserves. Controller John Chiang announced today that without payment delays and other tactics, the state will run out of cash in March:

California will run out of cash by early March if the state does not take swift action to find $3.3 billion through payment delays and borrowing, according to a letter state Controller John Chiang sent to state lawmakers today.
The announcement is surprising since lawmakers previously believed the state had enough cash to last through the fiscal year that ends in June.
But Chiang said additional cash management solutions are needed because state tax revenues are $2.6 billion less than what Gov. Jerry Brown and state lawmakers assumed in their optimistic budget last year. Meanwhile, Chiang said, the state is spending $2.6 billion more than state leaders planned on. (SacBee)

To some extent this happens every year. Last year we had to borrow $10B to tide us over until tax revenues came in. And heck, Chiang thinks this year will only be $5.4billion. The world is getting better, hooray.

Unfortunately, with the continuing high demands on state services, this is really to be expected. And, Chiang, as he has always done, will have to find a way to balance the state's checkbook. Fun job, isn't it?

'Medicare for All' Would Solve California's Budget Deficit

Jennifer Epps — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:29:05 GMT

by Jennifer Epps

In Canada, the only way to see a doctor is to call one up and make an appointment. Or walk in to their office. In Britain, the only way you'll get surgery is if you actually need it. And yet State Senator Mark Leno and 44 co-sponsors want to bring this kind of healthcare system to everyone in California! Imagine.

In fact, the California legislature twice approved such a system, in which private providers carry on as independently as always but the public pays their bills directly (rather than indirectly as it does now, through a patchwork quilt of emergency care, programs to bring healthcare to the poorest and the elderly, and subsidies for insurance premiums.) Both times Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. But Senator Leno, a longtime campaigner for single-payer -- a.k.a. "Medicare-for-All" -- has brought the bill back again as SB 810. Last week, the bill fell just two votes shy of passage with a tally of 19-15 in favor. (It needs 21 to pass because it requires more than a simple majority.) Sen. Leno plans to push for another vote under Reconsideration, because several Democratic state senators abstained, but the deadline to win their support is today.

(Edit by Brian...More over the flip)
This single-payer bill is championed by Campaign for a Healthy California, a coalition which includes the California Nurses Association, Physicians for a National Health Program, California Alliance for Retired Americans, Progressive Democrats of America, California School Employee Association, Democracy for America, the California Health Professional Student Alliance, and many others. They have put out action alerts to supporters of SB 810 to call on five key state senators to vote Yes: Los Angeles area state senators Alex Padilla, Rod Wright, and Ron Calderon; San Diego area senator Juan Vargas, and Fresno/Bakersfield senator Michael Rubio. If supporters can bring just two of these state senators around in time for a Reconsideration vote today, then patients in California could very soon be able to choose which doctor to see (rather than submitting to a 'network' or their HMO). And the leading cause of bankruptcy for both the insured and uninsured - medical bills - could be eliminated.

A lot of people - i.e. all other advanced democracies in the world - think access to healthcare is a basic human right, and that organizing that access is one of the functions of a government and of a civilized society. In fact, in poll after poll, the majority of Americans support a publicly-funded universal health care system as well.

But never mind that. This is a time of economic struggle, an overstretched state budget, and financial uncertainty. Giving the government the job of administering health insurance at this particular juncture is above all else...the most fiscally conservative thing to do.

SB 810 would eliminate private health insurance entirely. All Californians' healthcare costs would be paid for from one big pool. It's just like the way people get insurance coverage now, except much much simpler, everyone would be covered, and the profit motive would be removed. And making health insurance a government-run program would dramatically reduce a huge portion of health care expenses that are eaten away by needlessly complicated administration costs. It's the exact opposite of what the bill's detractors pretend. Rather than creating more bureaucracy or paperwork, SB 810 would very quickly whittle down the costs of administering healthcare, currently at 33% of California's total healthcare spending, to under 5%.

Providers would only have to bill one entity, a new California Healthcare Agency, and would have no need to chase after patients for unpaid balances, or argue with insurers about whether the insured really does need that organ transplant or dialysis. That's how Sen. Leno's site can claim that SB 810 would save California $20 billion in the very first year by reducing administrative costs alone.

Moreover, health insurance commissioners would not need to watch over insurers and fight their premium hikes on behalf of consumers (health insurance premiums grow 4 times faster than wages). After SB 810, there would be no premiums. There would be no deductibles. There would be no co-pays. There would be no private health insurance.

These companies would still find a way to sell insurance for non-essential services -- just as in Canada insurers offer policies for things like private rooms should the insured be hospitalized. Insurance companies are nothing if not resourceful, and we shouldn't worry about them too much. The big change would be that with a single-payer program, insurance companies could no longer build their business by keeping the whole health system stratified.

The U.S. spends twice as much of its GDP on healthcare as other wealthy nations do. It spends more, and gets less. Americans receive less doctor consultations, hospital care, and surgery than people in other industrialized nations, yet our healthcare costs are higher. Insurance companies, by insisting on their privileged position as middlemen between patients and physicians, balloon healthcare costs out of all proportion. Far from delivering medical care more cheaply, these companies take money from patients - and from non-patients, like those who put off getting care because they can't afford their deductibles or co-pays but who keep sending in premiums to ward off catastrophe - and apply it to profit dividends, CEOs' bonuses and even marketing to win over more customers. And all we get in exchange is the 37th best healthcare in the world, according to the WHO.

In addition to Big Insurance, we have Big Pharma driving up healthcare costs. Countries like Canada began long ago to use the leverage of government to negotiate down drug prices, but in the U.S., the government behaves as if it is powerless in the face of whatever pharmaceutical companies wish to charge. SB 810 would tackle prescription drug pricing in California by using its bulk purchasing power. Sen. Leno estimates that such savings on medication, as well as equipment, would save the state $5.2 billion.

Lack of or inadequate insurance leads many to wait until their health is seriously threatened and then seek care in Emergency wards, rather than getting preventative screenings or catching the problem at the initial symptoms. This is not only costly to the hospital which provides the Emergency services, and to taxpayers who have to make up the costs, but it escalates costs in general, since by the time these patients seek care they are in need of much greater intervention. SB 810 would transfer the emphasis to preventative care and primary care, and thereby save Californians an estimated $3.4 billion.

In short, Sen. Leno maintains that SB 810 would be fully funded from the money we already spend on health care, and that, to boot, California would save a total of $29 billion just in the first year.

Considering that these cost-cutting measures would completely solve the state's fiscal crisis without either cutting social services or raising taxes, if Republicans really were fiscal conservatives they should have jumped on board with full support for SB 810. But of course insurance and pharmaceutical companies would be pretty unhappy with them, and campaign donations would stop flowing.

Considering that the Republicans' objections to the federal Affordable Healthcare Act was that it would force people to buy private health insurance - the result of the Obama Administration's barring single-payer advocates from all planning sessions - you would think that they would all be in favor of the freedom that SB 810 would bring. But of course it's hardly the freedom of the 99% that matters.

SB 810 has strong backing from ordinary, non-radical Californians. Sen. Leno's website lists 172 groups (unions and professional association, religious groups, city governments, Democratic Clubs, etc.) who endorse SB 810 and who have been working hard to make California the 2nd state in the nation to enact single-payer.

Single-payer advocates affiliated with the Campaign for a Healthy California include the American Medical Student Association, Consumer Federation of California, League of Women Voters of California, Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party, Amnesty International USA, California National Organization of Women, Courage Campaign, California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, and California Faculty Association.

The bill's champions expect that Governor Jerry Brown would happily follow in the footsteps of Vermont's Governor Peter Shumlin and sign a single-payer bill. (The passage last spring of a publicly-run health insurance system made Vermont the first state in the U.S. to take this bold step.) If Sacramento fails to pass SB 810 this year because one Democratic senator voted No (Calderon) and four Democrats abstained (Padilla, Wright, Vargas, and Rubio), there will be a lot of very disappointed people in this state.

There will also continue to be 7 million Californians without insurance. Even after the federal Affordable Healthcare Act kicks in, 3 million Californians will remain uninsured, says Sen. Leno. Despite the fuss the country went through over health insurance reform, so-called 'Obamacare' would only manage to cover four out of five at best. And it is predicted that many who will still be unable to afford health insurance will choose to pay the fine instead. We will still have a tiered health care system. And we will stay pay more for less.

Alex Padilla (Pacoima/LA area) Capitol - 916-651-4020 District - 818-901-5588
Rod Wright (Los Angeles area) (916) 651-4025 (310) 412-0393
Juan Vargas (San Diego area) Sac: (916) 651-4040 Dist: (619) 409-7690
Michael Rubio (Fresno/Bakersfield area) Sac: (916) 651-4016 Dist: (661) 395-2620
Ron Calderon (Los Angeles area) Sac: (916) 651-4030 Dist: (323) 890-2790

Funding Our Courts

Brian Leubitz — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:53:33 GMT

Asm. Calderon bill, AB 1208, would change the way courts are funded and work statewide

by Brian Leubitz

UPDATE: AB 1208 passed out of the Assembly yesterday and now moves on to the Senate.

Last year, I documented what was a mini cry of outrage about the pending disaster in court funding. The courts have taken quite the slashing in pretty much every round of budget cuts. Yet, beyond the Bar Associations and a few judges, few have really noticed. This has severe ramifications for both our efforts to maintain a speedy trial system on the criminal side as well as provide some sort of civil justice system. Because of the constitutional requirements, the civil side has been taking the brunt of the cuts, but our criminal justice system has certainly not been immune.

A group of lawyers mounted a protest on Jan 18, but I was unable to find any coverage of note in the media. But the issue is real, and there are a lot of different proposals on how to fix it. One consortium, most prominently backed by SEIU, who represents many of the court employees, is pushing AB 1208 in order to push power down from the state level and on to the county level courts.

As you may expect, that is not universally popular, as Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, many of the state trial courts, and defense and plaintiff's attorneys, are pushing against the bill. In order to proceed, the bill must emerge from its house of origin, the Assembly, today. You know it is getting nasty when the legal press is using terms like "the knives come out." Fun!

Except, that there are very real consequences. A group of "rebel" trial court judges has alleged that the statewide efforts, coordinated by the Judicial Council, have not spent money wisely and should be more accountable to the trial courts, a sentiment which is at the heart of AB 1208. The Chief Justice, has stated that she would be extremely concerned that the courts would not be able to fund any statewide projects, and that as few as two counties could veto projects, leaving the courts in a state of semi-paralysis. A state of paralysis that is familiar in the Legislature, who would now become more powerful in the funding of the Courts. (Raising a significant separation of powers question.)

While we may get some idea of where this legislation is going, the underlying problem, the massive underfunding of our court system will continue.

A Quick Summary of the Senate Map Legal Opinion

Brian Leubitz — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:00:00 GMT

A quick, and probably wildly inaccurate, summary of the decision.

by Brian Leubitz

I read the decision very quickly (you can find it over the flip), so I likely missed many of the finer points. Nonetheless, I figured I wanted to get this up quickly, so, my apologies for any errors. At any rate, today the Court decided a few issues:

1) They have authority to intervene and provide a new map if a Redistricting map is challenged.
2) The Commission map is the best map to use in the interim, as it does the best job of adhering to the goals set forth in the redistricting initiative, even if the referendum gets on the ballot.

The discussion at the hearing was sort of meandering, but touched on all of these issues. Starting with the Commission's map, the entire Court agreed that it was the best map to use both for June and November. Interestingly, there were two semi-conflicting decisions from Supreme Court precedence to choose from. Legislature v. Reinecke held that the 1972 maps, which were vetoed by Gov. Reagan, could not be used. Rather, the previous maps based on 1960 census data should be used. The maps proposed by the 1972 Legislature had only been presented in a "truncated" Legislative process.

On the other hand, Assembly v Deukmejian held that the maps signed into law Gov. Jerry Brown and put to a referendum by the Republicans should go ahead in 1982. The Court reasoned that

Although the Constitution of our state grants the power to initiate a referendum to 5 percent of the voters, it does not require that the effect of that referendum be articulated in a manner that does such serious injury to conflicting and equally compelling constitutional mandates.

In other words, there were competing Constitutional interests. The right to a referendum, which is provided in the state Constitution, and the principle of "One person, One vote." (OPOV) Using the old maps would have meant that districts would be out of balance. In 1972, the Court held that the never really approved, because they were vetoed, maps could not be imposed, the principle of OPOV had to take a back seat because it would be far more destructive to impose the fake maps than it would be to just accept disproportionate districts for two more years. At the same time, because the 1972 district netted 2 Congressional seats, the Court let those be imposed on an interim basis. So, apparently they weren't so odious or destructive.

On the other hand, the legitimately passed 1982 maps were put in place, for reasons both of pragmatism and of principle. The maps had been duly passed by the Legislature. While the right of referendum was an important Constitutional right, it was not so important as to throw the system into chaos. This was a 4-3 decision, with the dissenters basically calling the decision a wholly political one.

And with that in mind, the Court ultimately decided that the Assembly v Deukmejian was more applicable in this instance. The referendum situation ultimately bearing more similarity to the newer case than the older.

The court considered several maps in the case the referendum is put on the ballot:

The 2002 maps. They would have resulted in districts that varied by nearly 40% from largest to smallest. The court ultimately dismissed this as varying too far from the OPOV and not complying with the standards set in the 2008 redistricting initiative.
"Nesting ADs" - The Republicans also suggested just nesting assembly districts, which I suppose might present them with somewhat better chances to get to 1/3 representation. However, these districts did not in any meaningful way meet the listed requirements of the 2008 initiative (now Article XXI) and would "defer" too many voters from their new districts for too long.
The GOP Dream Plan - Basically, Republicans hired Anthony Quinn, an advisor to the GOP redistricting efforts in 1971 and 1981( and ~~author~~ one of five co-editors of the California Target Book) to come up with a set of maps when they first challenged the maps for legality, and now they want to try it again. The Court said this would take too long and would not yield a better map than the final option.
The Commission map - The SoS and the Commission argued that the commission map best meets the goals of Art XXI, is ready to be implemented, and would cause the least amount of upheavel. Ultimately, the Court agreed, adding that any new plan would not be vetted by the public at all and yield additional hardship

Now, while seemingly less interesting, the question of authority seems to have been a more controversial question. In fact, Justice Liu wrote a concurring opinion, but pointed out that the Court did not need to come to a decision on whether they have the power to intercede in a situation where the referendum is only likely to succeed. I'll not dwell too long on this issue, but if you are interested, read the concurring opinion down there at the end of the decision.

To put it as succinctly as possible, Justice Liu feels that the majority could have come to the decision of using the Commission's map without deciding that "under California Constitution, article VI, section 10, this court is authorized to issue an order to show cause and decide which districts should be used in the event a proposed referendum directed at a Commission-certified redistricting map qualifies for the ballot, even in the absence of a showing that the proposed referendum is likely to qualify for the ballot."

He felt that the decision could have been arrived at simply by looking at the superiority of the Commission's map as an interim map. Legally, narrowly tailored decisions are preferred, so this one went too far. Perhaps Liu is right that at some point in the future this decision could be abused for political purposes, but ultimately it is a question that will bear more importance in the future than it does for the 2012 Senate maps.

And so, as they say, that is a quick summary of the case.
Redistricting Decision