Holding Our Elected Officials Accountable

California's system of government is designed to produce bad outcomes, no question about it. But that does not let Democratic lawmakers off the hook for their actions. The process denies the ability to budget in a sane manner, but nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to sign on to a budget that rips the social safety net to shreds. If progressive Democrats in the legislature were willing to say no a little more, they might gain a measure of respectability and have at least some of their demands met.

The problem is that it's very difficult to get a bead on who votes for and against a budget, given the state's process. There were 26 different budget trailer bills, and lawmakers had the opportunity to pick and choose where to take stands. Progressive activists need that information of who voted on what in order to make choices about their representatives. It's not the sum total of the equation - leadership can cut deals with individual lawmakers to vote no on trailer bills where their vote is not needed for passage and yes on others, and there's all manner of horse-trading that goes on. But in the end, all we have are the votes. And so we can judge our elected officials based on what votes they made.

Marty Omoto has helpfully strung together all the votes on the main budget bill and key trailer bills, and he will follow this up in subsequent posts. Have a look. Hone in on your representative. Did they vote in your interests? Did they take any notable stands? Or did they go along with the leadership? If so, is there any need for them to participate in the Legislature, or couldn't a lever pulled by the leadership work just as well?

I'm going to look at my two lawmakers, below. By the way, I also have a list of all Assembly votes on all budget trailer bills, ping me if you want a copy.

For the time being, I live in the 41st Assembly District and the 23rd Senate District. My lawmakers are Julia Brownley and Fran Pavley. How'd they vote?

Brownley voted yes on every single budget bill except for four based on my records: AB X4 7, AB X4 8, AB X4 19 and AB X4 23. AB 7 (for short) privatized the social services enrollment process. AB 8 instituted so-called "anti-fraud" provisions to CalWorks to reduce or limit eligibility, and eliminated cost of living adjustments to the welfare program. AB 19 dealt with in-home support services (IHSS) in a similar way as CalWorks, adding fingerprinting and background checks and other anti-fraud measures. AB23 was the Tranquillon Ridge offshore drilling deal.

So basically, Brownley objected to the policy changes made to human services programs but voted with the leadership on pretty much all the program cuts.

As for Pavley, she voted against AB 7 (privatizing social services enrollment), AB 8 (anti-fraud changes to CalWorks), AB X4 9 (cuts on spending to developmental services like Early Start), AB 19 (the aforementioned IHSS bill) and AB23 (Tranquillon Ridge). She also voted against AB27, the use of redevelopment funds by the state. Everything else was a yes.

I think if you go through the votes, with rare exceptions you will see this as the norm for Democratic legislators - picking a few issues, usually on issues where their votes were not needed, to draw a line in the sand, but being generally not too troublesome and following leadership.

In general I think Julia and Fran are solid legislators, but I think it's reasonable to ask whether that's good enough.

SD-23: Vote For Me Or I'll Have This Polar Bear Shot

I don't think that's the message Fran Pavley wanted to convey in this mailer (PDF), but that's pretty much what I'm getting out of it. The front page is a polar bear standing on a lonely block of ice after much of it has fallen away into the sea, looking forlorn. Accompanying the picture is the text "Save a Polar Bear, Vote Carbon Free For Fran Pavley." The inside of the mailer explains why; Pavley is an environmental leader, and fighting global warming will help save the polar bears, the reasoning goes.

Now, I've already explained once why this carbon-free voting idea is kind of a joke, particularly when it's being conveyed to the public by using multiple full-color mailers. I know from my mailbox that Pavley has been far more aggressive in direct mail than her opponent Lloyd Levine. The new information in this mailer is that Pavley's campaign has "purchased carbon offsets to cover every vote-by-mail ballot in the 23rd Senate district," but I'm not getting what the metric is. Does that cover the ballots? The constant stream of mailers? The carbon used by the post office to deliver the ballots? Does it cover the fact that carbon offsets are kind of an environmental shell game that assuages liberal guilt without taking the meaningful steps needed to reduce our carbon output?

Kind of unclear from this mailer.

The California Report

Here are some California-centric notes:

• The California School Employees Association made their endorsements for the June primary. In addition to Migden, they strike of an aversion to go out on a limb. They only endorsed one Congressional candidate in a Republican-held seat (Charlie Brown), and they opted out of a lot of contested primaries in the legislative seats as well. Manuel Perez did get the endorsement in the 80th AD, however (he is a school board member, so not a big shock).

• We don't get into a lot of rural issues on the site, probably because of the bias toward writers here in urban environments. But this salmon fishing ban is a big deal along the Mendocino coast. This actually goes back to the Klamath fish kill in the beginning of the decade and Darth Cheney's efforts to ensure that. I think there are going to be a lot of angry fishermen wanting answers this fall.

• I keep forgetting to write about the State Senate primary in my own backyard of SD-23, between Fran Pavley and Lloyd Levine. Here's some background on the race to succeed Sheila Kuehl. I actually attended an environmental forum with these two last week and found them both to be really solid, with different strengths. While Pavley is an astonishingly effective lawmaker - she probably has her name on more far-reaching climate change legislation than anyone in the entire country - Levine really seems to understand the nature of the fight in Sacramento and how best to bring about sweeping change. I'm not going to be disappointed on June 3, regardless of the winner. We're hoping to get both Pavley and Levine on a future Calitics Radio show.

• Here's a user-created video of our debate protest at ABC last week. We have our own video set for release as well.



• Adam Liptak in The New York Times today: "The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners."

Yet we must remain "tough on crime," even though rises and falls in the crime rate are not correlative to imprisoning people (Canada's rate goes up and down roughly at the same time ours does, without a corresponding increase in the prison population).

• John Yoo won't talk to the House Judiciary Committee but it's really not his fault, you see:

In a letter, Yoo's lawyer told Conyers he was "not authorized" by DOJ to discuss internal deliberations.

"We have been expressly advised by the Office of Legal Counsel of the United States Department of Justice that Professor Yoo is not authorized to discuss before your Committee any specific deliberative communications, including the substance of comments on opinions or policy questions, or the confidential predecisional advice, recommendations or other positions taken by individuals or entities of the Executive Branch," Yoo's lawyer, John C. Millian, wrote in a letter to Conyers.

As we all know, the executive branch can ignore subpoenas and prevent Congressional oversight. Why, Yoo wrote it in a memo! But he can't discuss it. Because the executive branch follows the law. That he wrote.

Round and round we go...

Let The Lawsuits Commence

Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown went right to work Tuesday, preparing to sue the federal government "at the earliest possible moment" for the EPA's denial of a waiver to let California implement Fran Pavley's AB1493, the law regulating auto tailpipe emissions that was to begin with model year 2009. The regulations, which sought to control greenhouse gases and not just boost auto efficiency standards, would have had the effect of an increase in MPG to roughly 43, far above the 35MPG by 2020 just mandated in the federal energy bill. Indeed, the EPA in its decision noted the passage of the energy bill as a reason to deny California's request, claiming that there should be one standard and that the new bill pre-empted California's authority. So much for state's rights conservatives.

The lawsuit is about as close as you can get to a slam dunk. The case law is already enormously in favor of California. They have been granted every waiver they've ever requested from the EPA since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1963, and the "compelling and extraordinary conditions" of the state's topography, climate, and number of cars on the road has always been specifically cited. That hasn't changed. In addition, federal lawsuits in California and Vermont have upheld the standards set out in AB1493 as fully legal. And just this year, the Roberts Supreme Court has ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the federal government can regulate greenhouse gas emissions, writng that:

“Judged by any standard, U.S. motor-vehicle emissions make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Sadly, it's true that the Bush Administration probably has the ability to put up enough of a fight in the courts to make implementation virtually impossible so long as he remains in office. And so this is likely to come down to a decision for the next President to make. So you would think that the media, knowing this, knowing the potential of global warming to impact all of our lives, would bother to ask a question about it. But so far in 2007, out of 2275 questions asked of the Presidential candidates on the Sunday chat shows, 3 mentioned global warming. Here's a news peg, Russert, Stephanopoulos, Blitzer, Wallace and Schieffer. Have at it!

The New York Times has more on this.

"Carbon-Free Voting"

I got this mailer today:



Apparently, voting by mail is "carbon-free"! And to prove that point, the carbon-free voting people have sent me a four-page glossy mailer to tell me so. But it's printed on soy ink! And if you vote permanent absentee, you don't have to get in your car to get to your polling place! And anyway, they puchased carbon offsets to mitigate these campaign activities!

So what the hell is going on here? Why is an environmental group sending a mailer touting "carbon-free voting," which, um, pretty much doesn't exist? Well, that would be explained by the picture of Fran Pavley on the back.

Now, Fran's great. As Assemblywoman she authored the landmark global warming law that will hopefully become a model for the nation, AB32. But she's also running for State Senate to replace the termed-out Sheila Kuehl, and obviously she's interested in raising her profile. So everyone in the Senate district, my district, got this mailer. The LA Times ran a story on it.

The mailer is being derided by some, while others are questioning whether it is improperly trying to influence a state Senate election in the West L.A. area by prominently featuring one of the candidates, former Assemblywoman Fran Pavley.

"It looks dubious," said Tracy Westen, chief executive of the Center for Governmental Studies, a Los Angeles-based non-partisan group that promotes political reform in Los Angeles. "It's coordinated with her, it has her picture on it and it is going into that Senate district."

Her main foe in the race, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, wouldn't comment for the story.

There are about 500 good reasons for vote-by-mail, and since Republicans kind of have a head start on permanent absentee organization I'm happy to see someone on the left promoting it. But calling it "carbon-free" is a stretch. And using it as a cover to tout a Senate candidate is pretty suspect.

Senator Shriver?

With respect to the Leno-Midgen battle royale, the most interesting State Senate primary in California may end up being in the 23rd District, replacing the termed-out Sheila Kuehl (who is likely to run for LA County Supervisor, as she wants to stay closer to home). Up until now, it was assumed that the race would be between former Assmblywoman Fran Pavley and current Assemblyman Lloyd Levine. Each has their base of support in different parts of the district, and that would be an interesting enough battle in and of itself. But now I hear that Santa Monica City Councilman Bobby Shriver, brother of Maria, is looking to possibly run for that seat. Shriver was elected to the City Council in 2004 (I remember getting robocalls from Ted Kennedy for a City Council race), has been a music and television executive, and co-founded the Debt AIDS Trade in Africa organization and the RED Initiative with Bono and others. His donor list reads like a Who's Who of Hollywood celebrity, and he wouldn't have any problem raising money (he spent more than $350,000 to win a City Council seat in a city of around 90,000).

However, there is a bit of tension between Shriver and the progressive grassroots community. The dynamic in Santa Monica is between the beachfront hotels, who want pro-business policies forwarded, and SMRR (Santa Monicans for Renters Rights), who are more in line with citizen concerns. The beachfront hotels unsuccessfully went after Councilmember Kevin McKeown (easily the most progressive) in 2006 with an aggressive and vindictive campaign that included dishonest TV ads. That same group of business interests backed Shriver with huge dollars in 2004. Now, Shriver and McKeown don't vote all that differently. But that perception, combined with the fact that Shriver really hasn't had much interest in engaging with the local grassroots, has strained relations. And Pavley is certainly their candidate in this race. The high name-ID of a Shriver throughout the district and his ability to bring in big money will be formidable, but the grassroots connections for both of the other candidates will be an obstacle. This is going to be an outstanding race.