More Poaching

The President announced that Republican John McHugh (NY-23) will be nominated as Secretary of the Army. That's basically an administrative job as I understand it, not necessarily a policy job. So I'm fine with it.

And, this opens up another special election in a district where Democrats and Republicans are pretty closely divided. Obama won here 52-47. The Cook PVI is R+1. Down the road, I agree with Matt Yglesias that even if a Republican wins, he will have little clout to save his seat after 2010 redistricting, when New York is likely to lose a district based on population.

Obama has displayed a knack for increasing Democratic Congressional power and disarming opponents through these appointments.

What We've Been Waiting For, What We've Been Working For: The Progressive Wave Comes To California

The past few days have seen another spate of "OMG, Republican incumbents are in trouble!" stories in the traditional media. Aside from them not understanding and internalizing the theory of coattails, this problem is particularly acute among the California media, where gerrymandering is just supposed to lock up Congressional and legislative seats airtight, except when, you know, it doesn't. Peculiar to this rendering of the world is the idea that nobody ever moves, dies, or reaches the age of 18 in any particular district, and thus voter registration statistics are completely static. But of course this is not true, and once the Democratic Party started putting resources into registering new and lapsed voters, why look what happened:

One of the major reasons for these competitive contests has been the narrowing gap in registered voters between the parties. While Republicans still enjoy a substantial advantage over Democrats in all three districts, their leads have shrunk significantly.

Four years ago, Republicans led Democrats among registered voters by margins of 17 percent in the Orange County-based 46th, 15 percent in the San Diego-area 50th and 11 percent in the Riverside County-based 45th. By this year's registration deadline of Oct. 20, those leads had shrunk by 6 percent in the 50th, 5 percent in the 46th and 6 percent in the 45th.

There are still the conventional wisdom-besotted punditocracy that simply can't conceive of these major shifts in the electorate (it's not like anything has happened the past eight years that would lead people to desert the Republican Party in droves, right?), who believe that incumbents just win and that's the end of it. But just ask one of those incumbents what he fears on Tuesday:

HUNTINGTON BEACH - Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach/Long Beach said Friday he's concerned that Republicans will be discouraged by a possible Democratic landslide at the polls, affecting his re-election bid.

"If (Republican nominee John) McCain does not do well, and Republicans stay home, my lead could evaporate," the nine-term incumbent of the 46th Congressional District said.

Huntington Beach Mayor Debbie Cook, the Democratic challenger, said the race is a "statistical dead heat," and agreed that a solid turnout for change - from the economic problems facing the country - could be the difference in Tuesday's hotly contested race.

"All the uncertainty that's going on now is helping," she said, adding that incumbents who have been "part of the system for the past 20 years" could be vulnerable.

This is all the more reason why Democrats and progressives need to remember Jim Corman and get as many voters to the polls as possible. And Don't Stop At The Top, of course.

And if the scenario is bright in the Congressional races, the Assembly looks even brighter. Why, even Dan Walters has figured this one out.

Voters may not realize that they could dramatically alter that balance, but interest groups that are pouring millions of dollars into legislative and ballot measure campaigns certainly get it.

Democrats could pick up one seat in the Senate and are so certain of gaining three to five seats in the Assembly that they've diverted resources into several marginal districts, taking advantage of Obamania-inspired voter registration gains, to shoot for the six added seats that would give them a two-thirds majority. That margin is required for the budget and tax increases and could happen as the Capitol wrestles with a rapidly deteriorating economy and a fast-growing budget deficit.

We know about those top-line seats: AD-80, AD-78, AD-15, AD-10, AD-26. But it's Linda Jones' race in AD-36 that has captured my attention. She represents the ultimate swing vote as the potential 54th Democrat in the State Assembly, the vote that would give us a 2/3 majority, which in California is a governing majority. And Linda Jones happens to be really great, campaiging on a message of green jobs in the waning days of the race.

As part of her campaign to create a stronger economy for the region, Democratic Assembly Candidate Linda Jones (36th District) today announced her “High Desert Region Green Jobs Initiative” - using ‘green jobs’ to increase opportunities for unemployed and underemployed adults in the High Desert communities. Lt. Governor John Garamendi, a longtime advocate for environmental protection and renewable energy, offered his full support of the plan, calling it a “giant leap forward” for the region’s economy.

“Investing in the ‘green economy’ is a win-win because it will create jobs and increase our clean energy efficiency,” said Linda Jones. “The High Desert Region Green Jobs Initiative will create outreach, educational, and training programs to recruit, develop, and sustain a green industry that will create jobs, increase our clean energy efficiency, and grow our economy for the region.”

There's a website, High Desert Green Jobs, that details the initiative. It's fantastic that someone in a swing district trying to become the first Democratic member of the Assembly from this region in 34 years is offering such a bold agenda.

This district had an eight-point GOP lean just two years ago. Now the registration gap is GONE. 400 votes separate Democrats and Republicans. Don't give me that redistricting stuff, nothing's stopping this progressive wave. I'm excited for Linda Jones and so is her community.

There's just one day to go. You need to Stay for Change because you can have a major impact right here in California. I'm going to give predictions on everything in the morning. But right now, I'm psyched.

Chuck Todd Catches Up

If he were still at the Hotline this would be more specific, but unlike so many of the California punditocracy, he knows what a wave election means.

California: As unpopular as Bush supposedly has been in California, he only lost the state by 11 points in both 2000 and 2004. So what happens with McCain in '08? I think Obama's margin in this state will tell us a lot about Democratic enthusiasm among the base. Anything above 15 points for Obama probably means he will have some coattails down the ballot. And frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if some two to four GOP incumbents go down, shocking folks in Washington (Reps. Mary Bono-Mack? David Dreier?) No one is safe in this Blue state.

As we know, the latest Field Poll had Obama up by 22. And that big a spread is going to cause some disruption.

I hear that Dana Rohrabacher dropped a last-minute mailer to Republicans, imploring them to turn out. The latest registration numbers show that Dan Lungren is in serious, serious trouble. This is not going to be a normal election year in California. And it's going to put the lie to the primary rationale for redistricting that Arnold Schwarzenegger is peddling to reporters.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the Kremlin in Russia sees more turnover than the statehouse in Sacramento, as he made the case for Proposition 11 Thursday in a conference call.

"We have to make our politicians responsive to the people, not to the party," Schwarzenegger said, joined by state AARP president Jeannine English and national AARP CEO Bill Novelli.

Well, the Kremlin is going to see some shakeups this year. I don't know if people are going to make the connection between all that turnover and the inherent fallacy that re-gerrymandering would allow for more competition, but maybe some of that late money flowing to No on Prop. 11 can make that case. Because the facts are that the Yacht Party is on the verge of being wiped out, at the state and federal level. And no redistricting had anything to do with it.

Obama's West Virginia Problem

So after locking down the nomination, Sen. Obama is going to get his hat handed to him tomorrow in West Virginia. It's not going to be close; if Obama gets up to 40% it'd be a miracle. Kentucky is going to be the same way. And people are justifiably asking why, and just as justifiably chalking it up to race.

Like most people in Mingo County, West Virginia, Leonard Simpson is a lifelong Democrat. But given a choice between Barack Obama and John McCain in November, the 67-year-old retired coalminer would vote Republican.

“I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife’s an atheist,” said Mr Simpson, drawing on a cigarette outside the fire station in Williamson, a coalmining town of 3,400 people surrounded by lush wooded hillsides.

I think making it entirely a racial construct misses the mark, however. While there have been a number of stories written with essentially this same racial theme in mind, they're all largely anecdotal. There does seem to be a trend with Obama doing the most poorly in counties in Appalachia. I'm going to attribute this to a couple of factors:

1) Demographics - if you're living in the Appalachian mountains, you're likely to be older than the general population, less likely to have a college degree, and almost certainly white. Demography has been destiny for the better part of this Democratic nomination fight, and these are some of Clinton's most favorable areas. There are plenty of mostly white areas where Obama does well, but they are higher-education whites, more affluent whites, and generally just a different group than you have in Appalachia.

2) The Digital Divide - West Virginia is one of only a few states without a Drinking Liberally chapter. There isn't a very powerful netroots there (there is in Kentucky, but it's largely the product of people in the college towns like Lexington and Louisville). The places that Obama fans congregate online are harder to find in Appalachia. And it's harder to get news of the non-corporate media variety, and we all know Obama has been pounded by corporate media recently.

3) People vote like thy neighbor - this was the subject of a great New York Times piece this weekend, and I've been saying this for years. People have self-segregated to a higher degree than ever of late, choosing to live in the same neighborhoods as their ideological soulmates. This has the effect of doubling any cultural divide or polarization. I think part of this is class and age, and part is just people congregating with who they find comfortable. In bigger states there is more of a diversity of regions within the state to balance these echoing effects out - not so in West Virginia, at least.

On the whole I agree with Attaturk - if there are those for whom race is a hurdle they can't get over in choosing the most qualified candidate for President then it's THEIR problem, and they can catch up to the non-racists rather than us having to hold back history for them. But I think he may be overstating how that's playing out in a place like West Virginia. There are other factors at work. And Obama hasn't chosen to really attack these other factors and present himself in a more palatable way to these voters - he's basically checked out on both states. I didn't agree with all of George Packer's disquisition on the subject, but I do think this is sound advice.

McCain began his speech in Inez by saying, "I’m not the son of a coal miner. I wasn’t raised by a family that made its living from the land or toiled in a mill or worked in the local schools or health clinic. I was raised in the United States Navy, and, after my own naval career, I became a politician. My work isn’t as hard as yours." His modest disclaimer seemed unnecessary—the local pol who introduced McCain had just finished calling him a son of Kentucky at heart, and the crowd was entirely on his side. But for Obama, who’s bound to strike people in places even less isolated than Inez as alien, this kind of self-presentation might be essential. Rather than analyzing them out loud, or pretending to be one of them, he should speak about the differences (and race is far from the only one) directly, candidly, in the blunt, personal language that made his Philadelphia speech so memorable. He should say that in spite of these differences, in spite of what he doesn’t know about or share in their life, he knows what Presidential leadership can do to improve their lives—as did Roosevelt, who was an aristocrat, and Kennedy, who was rich and Catholic.

Obama doesn't need to win West Virginia or Kentucky in the general election but he would do well to use this kind of presentation when speaking to those kinds of voters.

A Tale Of Two Speakers

Fabian Nunez hosted his final press conference as speaker yesterday, and began his post-speaker life by offering a series of proposals focused on process issues.

The redistricting component features an independent 17-member "hybrid" commission. No legislators will serve on the panel, with the majority picked randomly from a screened pool with no legislative influence and eight others picked by legislative leaders. Unlike the Voters First initiative that may appear on the November ballot, this proposal requires diversity in every step of the process and puts the Voting Rights Act first and foremost among the criteria in selecting districts. There's also a host of transparency and public input provisions.

The term limits provision is similar to Prop 93, but excludes the provisions that protected many incumbents that drew criticism. It reduces the maximum amount of time a person can serve in the Legislature from 14 years to 12 years, allowing a legislator to serve all their time in one house.

There's also a fundraising blackout period prohibiting campaign contributions to legislators and the Governor from May 15th until the budget is enacted.

These would go up on the ballot for passage by voters in November once they get through the Legislature. There is of course already a redistricting measure that appears to be on its way to the ballot, so it's unclear whether or not this is a "confuse and kill" strategy. But Nuñez said that his hope would be for one redistricting proposal on the ballot.

That's the past; here's the future.

Karen Bass has drawn up a short agenda for her two-year reign as Assembly speaker that begins next week.

There are only three items:

* Balance a state budget that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has declared is "$20 billion out of whack."

* Create a ballot initiative that would produce $300 million to $500 million annually for foster care programs.

* Restructure California's tax system to make it conform to the modern world. Actually, she wants to create a blue-ribbon commission of "the best and the brightest" to tackle taxes.

That's all.

Foster care programs are Bass' pet issue, but otherwise she's focused on, I have to say, the ACTUAL problem facing California.

We are out of money. Not out of money in theoretical terms, or on a balance sheet somewhere, but physically out of money by August if no budget is enacted. The cash reserves are empty and the revenues aren't coming in. All that matters between now and August is that we put a budget in place that is SUSTAINABLE and, as Bass notes, in line with the modern world. All of this process stuff about redistricting and term limits is what gets pundits and press people all a-twitter, but it's not the problem in California. What Bass is saying without saying it is that we need to end the 2/3 requirement so we can have a legislature that reflects the will of the people. That's the only way we're going to pass a sustainable budget, that's the only way we'll get a 21st-century revenue system. And I believe she knows that.

The governor wants to sell out our future, sell bonds, sell the lottery, hold a fire sale and mortgage California for generations. We should not have to stand for that. Selling off the state to preserve tax cuts for the wealthy is not a "creative" solution. I have no idea how Karen Bass will fare in her 2 1/2 years as Speaker, but I'm now confident that she's at least focused on the right issues.

The California Report

Here are a few things I never got around to this week:

• Democratic Senators are asking for a real plan from Gov. Schwarzenegger about how to solve the prison crisis. AB 900 passed a year ago with the promise of building thousands more beds to address prison overcrowding. To date not one construction project has begun. This is a complete shell game, and the courts are likely to act immediately in the face of such incompetence. Just another reason why trying to build our way out of this problem was such a stupid idea.

• Not only did immigrant's rights advocates rally in Los Angeles today, they were joined by businesses who want an end to workplace raids. I actually believe in workplace enforcement to an extent, but business can be a powerful ally in reaching toward a comprehensive solution. The crowd was smaller this year but I think there's a more robust coalition for a breakthrough. Voter mobilization is going to be the key.

• Others have mentioned the new poll numbers on taxes and schools, but I'll say this - decades of anti-tax rhetoric has succeeded in dislodging the relationship between taxes and services. People want education and other services to be funded but don't want to pay for it. The only way to restore that relationship is to... restore that relationship, by specifically explaining how America is worth paying for and turning the whole issue on its head. Not a huge revelation, but thought I'd throw it out.

• Home prices continue to fall in LA and Orange County, and foreclosures continue to wreak havoc on the state's homeowners, including Jose Canseco.

• I thought this was the most interesting study of the week:

It's often said, "You are what you eat," but new research suggests that where you eat may have a lot to do with it, as well.

In communities with an abundance of fast-food outlets and convenience stores, researchers have found, obesity and diabetes rates are much higher than in areas where fresh fruit and vegetable markets and full-service grocery stores are easily accessible.

"The implications are really dramatic," said Harold Goldstein, a study author and executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, based in Davis. "We are living in a junk-food jungle, and not surprisingly, we are seeing rising rates of obesity and diabetes."

Intuitive, and it's a chicken-or-the-egg argument. Convenience stores and fast-food outlets move to neighborhoods where people are more likely to only be able to afford convenience stores and fast food. However, the researchers claim this holds across socioeconomic strata. "Food environment" is something we have to think about. Education would seem to be the key,

• Forgot to link George Skelton's article on the potential for competing redistricting measures on the ballot. My position on redistricting is well-known. Skelton does segue into initiative reform, which is sorely needed.

Enough With the Handwringing

I haven't delved into the latest voter registration report from the California Secretary of State's office, which shows that Democrats are strengthening in the state while the rise of delcine-to-state voters is completely coming out of the hide of Republicans. By November it's clear that we'll have well over 7 million Democratic voters in California, and possibly under 5 million Republicans.

This isn't going away and can't be redistricted into balance. There is exactly one Congressional or legislative lawmaker in the ENTIRE Bay Area (Guy Houston in AD-15, and that seat will be strongly challenged in November). Pray tell how redistricting will somehow "remedy" that. Nationally, the trend toward Democrats is occurring in suburban and exurban districts. These are the only remaining Republican strongholds, and they're dissipating. With the sucky job picture in the state - worse than Pennsylvania or Ohio - and the rise in citizen activism to protest disaster capitalism, this wave is not likely to subside.

The Democratic leadership in Sacramento is trying to cement their legacy in vastly different ways, one with edge-tinkering and the other by demanding that the entire legislature works for change. The next two elections will use the current legislative district lines regardless of what happens with any redistricting initiative. This is the moment to capitalize on the trashed GOP brand in the state and across the nation, and capture a 2/3 majority and the governor's mansion, changing the vote threshold and allowing the legislature to actually govern.

This starts with the SD-12 recall, where Simon Salinas will run a strong campaign and needs to be supported. It's a referendum on the GOP. The fretting about some random initiative is pointless compared to getting a 2/3 majority today.

Redistricting Looks Dead, Too

Arnold Schwarzenegger's official call for a special session covered the topics of health care and water, but not redistricting, as was suspected earlier. So, with no bill coming from the legislature yesterday either, redistricting is apparently dead for this legislative session. The major players appeared to agree on the broad principles of a reform, but the devil was in the details, specifically the makeup of the independent redistricting commission and whether Congressional districts should be included in that redistricting (Nancy Pelosi says a big no to that one). Dan Walters explains how this proposal's absence from the February ballot may impact the other major initiative on it:

Democratic leaders, it's evident, are mainly interested in persuading voters to modify term limits via a measure on the Feb. 5 primary election ballot and entertained redistricting reform only because Schwarzenegger, a longtime advocate of reform, indicated that he would not support, and perhaps oppose, the term limit measure were it not accompanied by a redistricting measure [...]

The decision to abandon reform may be good news for those who didn't want it, including Pelosi and most Democratic Party interest groups, but it may also make it more difficult for those same interests to persuade voters to change term limits because it raises the possibility of opposition from the popular governor.

Schwarzenegger was noncommittal Tuesday about what position he would take on changing term limits but it's highly unlikely that he'll endorse the measure, and he may oppose it. And with polls indicating that voters are somewhat ambivalent on term limit modification, Schwarzenegger's position could be critical to the outcome.

I don't totally buy that Schwarzenegger is a kingmaker in the initiative process - how did he do in 2005 - but clearly his opposition wouldn't help. I can't see him ACTIVELY campaigning against it, however, especially with his former advisor Matthew Dowd on the term limits reform team.

I remain skeptical that redrawing districts with any geographic specificity would change the partisan makeup of those districts in any meaningful way. People self-segregate and the broad changes in regions happen because of demographic shifts, not boundary-drawing. It's notable that the vaunted Texas redistricting "scheme" (which actually was correcting an earlier gerrymander) has produced just half the results that were expected.

Perata declined to take up the issue in a special session because it's not an urgent issue. He's right. In fact it would be dysfunctional to use 2000-era data to redraw districts in 2008. This should be taken up with a new governor after a new Census in 2010. And Pelosi shouldn't be so stubborn - many of her compadres don't need a 70% cushion in their districts, and furthermore it would be impossible to make places like the Bay Area or Lo Angeles vulnerable. Plus it's symbolically good for democracy not to have the legislators pick their voters.

California Notes

Had a few things I didn't get to post throughout the week, so for those interested in Golden State politics:

• Last week the LAT reported on the rise of private prisons as an answer to crises like the overcrowding situation in California. Of course, the last private prison in the state I can remember, the city lockup in Seal Beach, had to be closed down because it WASN'T MAKING ENOUGH MONEY.

• Meanwhile, Robert Sillen, who's overseeing the prison health care system after a federal judge threw it into receivership, got a somewhat favorable writeup in the New York Times. Sillen is going a little outside the boundaries of his mandate to improve the facilities for prisoners, including going outside state budget requirements. He also spoke a little truth:

Mr. Sillen says California politicians are reaping what they have sown. He attributed the state’s prison problems to tough-on-crime lawmakers who made political hay out of sentencing laws that filled the state prisons without expanding either the facilities or their services.

He has a standard diatribe concerning the criminal justice system that includes issues like the neglect of poor neighborhoods and the lack of alcohol treatment programs.

“I wouldn’t even be here if it weren’t for the politics,” Mr. Sillen said. “No one gets elected in Sacramento without a platform that says, ‘Let’s get rid of rapists, pedophiles and murderers.’ ”

• Which is why it's doubtful that two bills soon to be on the Governor's desk that would create independent sentencing commissions with the ability to modify sentencing laws will be signed. Schwarzenegger is as wedded to the tough-on-crime myth as his Republican pals, and he thinks that privatization, along with building on credit, is the answer. None of those measures attacks the problem at the root, however, which is why we'll be back here in five years.

• I attended the press event where the Speaker announced legislation aimed at stopping oil industry market manipulation on a variety of fronts. Turns out those bills have been denuded, and I can't help but wonder if it has anything to do with all that oil money pouring in to the CDP and various legislators, including the Speaker himself.

• Another bill that appears unlikely to be signed by the Governor is Sen. Perata's bill that would put the occupation of Iraq to a vote in Feburary 2008. Backers of this bill think they have squeezed Schwarzenegger, and if they jump on the result then maybe they'll get something out of it, but reasonable people agree that this is a meaningless feel-good measure that would have no impact on actual policy, and the Governor can merely say that those interested in ending the war already have a voice in Washington, call your representatives, etc.

• There is supposedly something in the works on health care reform, another closed-door deal mandated by a forced-bottleneck process that results in a Big 5, Little 116 state government. I wonder if the 30 million-plus citizens NOT represented by Sens. Perata or Yacht Boy Ackerman, or Asms. Nuñez or Villines, feel valued by such a process. As for the actual bill, it's apparently a mix of approving the plan now with the funding (including fee hikes) in a ballot initiative later.

• There's also a redistricting ballot initiative in the works. Hey I've got an idea, how about we have an election a week and "let the people decide" everything! Wouldn't it be so democratic, to run a nation-state based on 30-second television ads?? (also, people redistrict themselves, this measure will end up being FAR less spectacular than everyone believes, and also the political map has changed in 8 years, and the gerrymandering itself is not a good enough reason not to contest everywhere, it's just a convenient cop-out that allows the CDP to unilaterally disarm.)

I'd better stop writing before I get myself in more trouble...

Schwarzenegger Comes Out Kind Of Against Electoral College Dirty Trick

The AP has a story up about Governor Schwarzenegger's reaction to the right-wing dirty tricks proposal to steal the Presidency in 2008.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger gave a chilly reception Thursday to a GOP-backed plan to change the way California awards electoral votes in presidential elections - a proposal critics say could tilt the outcome in favor of Republicans.

"In principle, I don't like to change the rules in the middle of the game," the Republican governor told reporters.

OK, starts good, not as hard-hitting as you would want but...

Schwarzenegger added he wasn't versed in details of the ballot proposal and stressed he wasn't taking a definitive position.

Ah, the last bastion of a political scoundrel. "I haven't read it."

But his uneasy response is likely to make it harder for supporters to build momentum and could chill fundraising.

I doubt that, considering that far-right Republicans don't even much like the Governor anymore.

The proposed ballot initiative is being pushed by Thomas Hiltachk, a lawyer in a Sacramento firm that represents the state Republican Party.

Um, you couldn't have mentioned that he was Schwarzengger's personal lawyer? Would that have killed you?

The other big election story is that the governorappeared with Pete Wilson and Gray Davis to announce their intention to push for a change in redistricting laws.

Governor Schwarzenegger joined with two former governors today in Los Angeles to call for a new way to carve up political district boundaries.

Schwarzenegger appeared at a news conference with former Republican Governor Wilson and former Democratic Governor Davis.

Schwarzenegger said the current system does little to encourage competition. The governor said in the past three election cycles, only 4 of the 459 congressional and legislative seats changed party hands in California.

Schwarzenegger seeks a ballot proposal that would have an independent commission do the reapportionment, rather than the legislature. The proposal is similar to one that was unsuccessful on the 2005 ballot.

He wants the proposal on the February 2008 ballot. If this would take effect immediately, I don't know how anyone could support changing the way districts are drawn with 8 year-old Census data. But "I haven't read it"!

This is part of a new strategy of aggressiveness coming out of the Governor's office, to show the Legislature who's boss, I guess. Obviously the Governor is holding out endorsement of the term limits measure as a chip to get redistrcting done. And he's vowing not to sign any health care proposal that doesn't have his thumbprints all over it.

What remains to be seen is whether or not post-partisanship has any coalition-building left in it. The Governor came out of the budget fight relatively unscathed, and has really only taken a popularity hit this year when the public noticed his lack of a true commitment to fighting global warming. What he ends up blue-penciling out of the budget might cause a reaction as well. And the reaction to his middling response on the dirty tricks issue may hurt him. A lot of questions leading into crunch time for the legislative process.

Redistricting Comes Back To California

Frank Russo has all the details about Fabian Nunez' redistricting proposal announced today. Essentially it puts redrawing the state boundaries in the hands of the Little Hoover Commission, minus the legislators that normally sit on that panel. This would have to go before voters as an initiative once it passes the legislature with a 2/3 vote (it's a Constitutional amendment).

The precise wording from Attorney General Brown is here: That's apparently a different initiative which is gathering signatures, I misread.

REDISTRICTING. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Amends process for redistricting California’s Legislature, Board of Equalization, and U.S. House of Representative districts. Establishes Citizens Redistricting Commission comprised of 11 qualified registered voters formed by the Secretary of State pursuant to detailed selection process. Requires Commission to submit redistricting plan, consistent with specified criteria, after each national census. Requires Commission to hold public hearings and receive public input before finalizing the redistricting plan. Requires legal challenges to be made within 45 days of certification of plan. Subjects adopted plan to challenge by referendum. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Potentially increased redistricting costs every ten years–probably of less than $1 million. Any such costs would be accommodated within the Legislature’s existing budget. (Initiative 07-0005.)

Without the lawmakers, the Little Hoover Commission includes 4 citizens appointed by the legislature and 5 citizens appointed by the governor. Seven panel members would have to agree for a plan to move forward.

The Little Hoover Commission has a decent enough reputation as an independent study group; their report on California's corrections crisis was well-done. I'm a bit wary of subjecting district shapes to be subject to referendum, it seems to invite an endless series of low-information elections. And overall, I don't think redistricting geographically will have as massive an impact as everybody thinks. People largely gerrymander themselves.

But there you have it, and I've seen worse plans in my life. I ultimately believe that two candidates with the same basic money pool can overcome any gerrymander thrown at them, which is why I think that election reform begins and ends with public financing.

On Building Back Democracy In California

This is a really frustrating sign for democracy in the nation's largest state.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen said today that nearly one million fewer people are registered to vote in the state than two years ago. In February 2005 there were 16,628,673 registered. This year's figure is down to 15,682,358.

Bowen says part of the drop can be attributed to better procedures for eliminating deadwood -- those who have died or moved out of state -- from the rolls. But the overall trend is not good.

"The percentage of people who have regsitered to vote vesus the total number of people eligible to register has dropped 5 percentage points in the past two years. This means fewer people are making the critical decisions that affect the lives of 37 million Californians,'' Bowen said in a statement accompanying the newest Report of Registration.

We have two parties in California that are fairly dysfunctional. The gerrymander of 2001 means that relatively few races are contested statewide, and given how adamant Nancy Pelosi and her allies are about keeping things the same, I don't see that changing in the near future. When you don't have the energy and excitement that accompany contested races, you tend to get lower participation rates, and worse, less people even interested in the civic process at all. The recent post-partisanship and cooperation and progress between Democrats and Republicans Democrats and a Republican governor who wanted to save his job may push the needle on this in the other direction, but I doubt it. This survey by Binder research shows the real problem with the term limits initiative, the fact that the perception of it as a power grab by elected officials will threaten its viability.

We already know that voters don't like Schwarzenegger and the Legislature fighting. A survey by David Binder Research in January 2006 showed only 46% support for "adjusting" term limits. Now, that figure is 59% in support of modifying the law through a ballot proposition. That corresponds with a better view of the Legislature and Schwarzenegger. In 2006, 42% of voters said they approved of the job performance of the Legislature, but a year later that has jumped to 49%. Schwarzenegger himself jumped from 53% approval to 68% in the Binder survey.

But it comes with caveats. After the initial questions, the survey-takers explained some of the arguments against the initiative: It would grandfather current members and would permit some lawmakers to easily win re-election at a time when California needs "new blood." Support for the initiative dropped to 54% of those surveyed, with 35% saying they would vote no and 11% undecided. Anything lower than that - especially without an opposition campaign started yet - would be a major danger sign for any initiative.

I think the universal pre-school initiative was well ahead of that number in a similar poll a year out. It lost big.

The point is that voters believe that they have little direct voice in choosing their legislators; the gerrymander does it for them. They view all of the machinations of the legislators with cynicism, expecting that they're a bunch of people who want to keep power. They are disconnected from the business in Sacramento by a state media that, by and large, doesn't report on it. And the state parties are flaccid, irrelevant to the everyday concerns of citizens and disassociated from the grassroots.

I want this to change. The future of California as a national bellweather and the source of progressive change depends on it. That's why I got active in the party and became a delegate. The California Democratic Party convention next month is the perfect opportunity to begin to reverse this troubling trend of non-participation. It's important to note that there are many in the political class who don't really want more participation. A small turnout is one that is quantifiable and easier to manage. But it's corrosive to the process of democracy, and ultimately I believe that when people are engaged, progressives win because we have the issues in our favor.

We desperately need the state party to adopt a 58-county strategy and compete in every borough, village and hamlet in California, letting the residents there know that they have a choice. There's a second gerrymander at work here beyond the chopping up of legislative districts; there's the gerrymander created by the CDP choosing not to compete on what they consider unfriendly turf. Jerry McNerney, Charlie Brown and others ought to have put that fiction to rest. If we make the effort to fully fund Democratic organizations all over the state, activate core supporters everywhere, and make our case no matter what the environment or the partisan index, I have no doubt we will be successful. In addition, by becoming a presence at the grassroots level, the CDP will bring voters back into the process again, and help increase voter participation instead of contributing to the decrease.

You can read the resolution promoting a 58-county strategy for California. I will be at the Santa Monica Democratic Club's executive meeting tonight asking for their endorsement. This is absolutely vital to the future of democracy and the progressive movement.

Old-Time California Power Grab

This is pretty much exactly what I've been saying about the term limits measure, by the co-editor of the California Target Book:

What to do? Call a special election to be held in February 2008, ostensibly so California can have an early presidential primary, and place the term-limits measure on that ballot. Because the initiative would take effect immediately if it passed, Nuñez and Perata could file for extended terms in March, which is the deadline to compete in the regular June primary. They would certainly be renominated in their safe districts and go on to election in November.

The rollout of the initiative could not have been clumsier. Neither Nuñez nor Perata are official sponsors of the term-limits measure, and in its first version, the author, Democratic attorney Roberta Johansen, forgot to provide additional legislative years for Perata. Because Perata will have served 10 years in the Senate by the time of the 2008 election, the proposed 12-year limit had to be rewritten to give him 14 years in the body.

Another problem is that some other termed-out senators already have served their 12 years. The measure includes a special exception that would allow them to stay in office as long as 18, 20 and, in one case, 26 years.

What began as a sound public policy idea - shortening term limits from a maximum of 14 in two houses to 12 in a single chamber - has become a Cinderella farce, with legislators scheming to save themselves before the stroke of midnight. The public rejected a similar term-limits extension in 2002, so the proposed measure seems even less likely to pass the political smell test.

They torpedoed reform by making it look too much like a job-protection scheme.  This will be the prime mode of attack for opponents of this reform, and it can't help but be effective.

Read the whole thing for the mess that will be competing redistricting reform plans on the Feb. 2008 ballot, and Schwarzenegger's complete lack of leadership on any of these plans so the stink of them doesn't rub off on him.  What a disaster.

Bump In The Road

Whoops. Arnold won't support the term limits measure unless redistricting is also on the initiative menu for Feb. 2008. And Perata doesn't want to mess with the Congressional districts. So either it's all going down in flames or we'll have an old-fashioned partisan Governor v. Legislature war.

Would I HAVE to pick sides?

...adding, Arnold is being perfectly consistent here. He always said term limits would be the carrot to get redistricting done. For my part, I don't think anyone understands the degree to which Californians (actually all Americans) gerrymander THEMSELVES. Regional redistricting has been going on at the individual level for a while now. Exactly how are you going to make a balanced district, say, in Santa Monica? You'd have to reverse-gerrymander to get it.

The only way that districts change is demographically, as more and more people from the coastal cities move to the inland areas, for example. That's what we saw in CA-11; the partisan number there lowered enough to make McNerney viable. And if Democrats would stop worrying about how hard it would be to run a race in a red area and just spend the money to do it, they could win anywhere. Case in point: Charlie Brown in CA-04, who was let down by the California Democratic Party (and Art Torres just admitted it:)

Despite the strong Republican composition of the district and Brown's failure to oust Doolittle amid a wave election, the Democrats smell blood. California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres said Brown might have won last year's race if the party had given him more help and said Democrats don't want to make that mistake again.

"I was out on the campaign trail with him and his wife, and he really resonates with that district," Torres said. "Did we do enough? Probably not; we should have done more."

All talk. Let's see some action, Chairman.

Feb. Primary Will Happen: Time to Put Pressure on REAL Election Reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third Term, Anyone?

Dan Walters makes a hell of a lot of sense about the real reason why the Governor is pushing this plan to move up the California primary. He seems to think it has nothing to do with the primary itself, but about the other proposal being tossed about for that February 2008 ballot.

Schwarzenegger could legally seek a third term only if the term limits were to be modified, and lo and behold, he and legislators are talking about doing exactly that. While the public discussion of changing term limits has centered on legislators, there's no particular reason why loosening the limits on constitutional officers couldn't be part of any deal.

I think that Arnold's outsized ego just makes him want to be in the thick of the Presidential race, but this is an absolute side effect. You can bet that if the term limits change for the legislators, they'll similarly change for the constitutional officers, and we won't get the opportunity to pick one but not the other. It'll all get tied up in one big redistricting/term limit ball.

Plus, this would give Republicans in the Congress until 2014 to amend the Constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to ascend to the Oval Office. And I don't see Arnold wanting to be anywhere else but the Governor's mansion or the White House.

Walters ends the piece by calling this idea "possible but not probable," but I think he convinced me that it's actually likely. Are you all ready for 8 more years of math-challenged budgets and more attempts to break up unions and universal health care plans that aren't universal or even health care?

Well, enjoy getting to see part of Barack Obama's head at some rally in late January! That seems like a fair trade-off!