Brian Leubitz Posts

Joins Asm. Nathan Fletcher as GOP exiles

by Brian Leubitz

Bruce McPherson was never really the vote that Republicans wanted to have to count on, but, he was a fairly reliable Republican. Well, a moderate Republican, of the sort that is currently getting pushed out of the GOP across the nation.  Well, count McPherson as one of the exiles.

The man long known as the only Republican who could get elected in Santa Cruz is no longer a Republican. Bruce McPherson said Tuesday he is dropping his GOP party affiliation and listing no preference, joining a growing bloc of California voters who've renounced party identification.

"That's who I am," McPherson said. "During my years in the California Legislature, I was widely recognized as the most independent voice in either the Assembly or the Senate. Now more than ever I think we need leaders who make decisions for the community and the people, not what's best for the party." (Merc News)

McPherson is currently running for a Santa Cruz county Supervisor seat, and will likely be elected in the run-off in November if he hasn't already. (The votes are still being counted.) And in Santa Cruz, he'll still be pretty conservative for the County. But in the end, he's what he always was, a California Forward kind of guy.

As for the CA GOP...well, follow the registration numbers.

Several Key Contests Still Await their Top 2

by Brian Leubitz

With the election now two weeks in the rear view mirror, there is still a lot of fuzziness about who will be on the November ballot. For example, in the new North Coast seat, where voters are replacing the retiring Lynn Woolsey, Asm. Jared Huffman has already punched his ticket to the general and looks to be in good position to take the seat. However, he would be helped by having Republican to run against in November. Dan Roberts, that Republican, is currently leading Norman Solomon, a progressive Democrat by less than one percent of the vote. Roberts is at 15% and Solomon at 14.2%.  

The strongest counties for Roberts, Trinity and Del Norte, have already completed their tallies, while Sonoma has the most unprocessed ballots (PDF). At this point, it looks like it might come down to just a few votes. However, given the expected voting patterns of the remaining ballots, Solomon might be able to squeak into a run-off.

Down in AD-46, Democrat Adrin Nazarian will face off against either Jay Stern, a Republican, or Brian Johnson, a charter schools advocate and Democrat. Stern currently leads Johnson by 42 votes. Oh, and toss Andrew Lachmann in the mix as well, as he is only a few hundred voted behind the other two. What happens on this one is anybody's guess.

In AD-51, Ian Calderon (of the Calderon dynasty) is maintaining a small lead over former Asm. Rudy Bermudez. The winner between the pair will be favored to defeat the Republican in the district.

You can find more close races on the SOS site.

While President Obama won't be spending a lot of time here in October, you can bet there will be a lot of money spent here.  With the Special Exemptions Act, the death penalty, several contested Congressional seats and the Governor's revenue measure on the ballot, it will be a busy campaign season. But for Howard Jarvis' corpse, it will be the same ol' same ol. It's what they do every day, slam the goverment, tell them how  terrible it is and bam, there you go.

There, at a news conference to announce the formation of "Californians for Reforms and Jobs, not Taxes," Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, previewed the campaign against the governor's November ballot initiative to raise taxes. It will rely on messages, he said, that "quite frankly, are short and sweet."

Brown's opponents, Coupal said, will remind Californians of the state's relatively high tax burden, challenge the Democratic governor's claim that his tax increase is for schools and publicize unflattering examples of government spending.(SacBee)

Of course, take any large organization and you can find some dumb stuff going on. And, the California government is such and organization. But, just because there is a small stupid thing going on, doesn't mean that we should just toss the big, smart things that go on every day. Like, you know, educating our children, maintaining our streets, and so on. California government is simply too big to fail.

Yet, that is where we are headed. With the continued pessimism and me-first attitudes of the anti-tax organizations, we are stuck on a 20th century budget in a 21st century reality. We have neither the flexibility nor the wherewithal to continue with budget disaster after budget disaster. And, yeah, the current budget is a mess.

The governor's measure doesn't fix that, and doesn't totally save the budget, but it is a step that we must take.

We're in a real fight for November, but big Netroots news

by Brian Leubitz

You probably noticed that I've been a little quiet around here. Okay, a lot quiet.  I've been working on a rather time consuming local election, the Vote No on A campaign, and that severely restricted how much time I've had.  So, while it has been slow on the blog, it has been anything but slow for me, California politics, or many other related issues.

Before I get back into the regular blogging saddle with some commentary about the election, I want to make a pitch for Netroots Nation 2013. For the first time, it is going to be held here in California.  From June 20-23, 2013, thousands of netroots activists will descend upon San Jose to discuss how to improve our nation. And where better than the Bay Area to discuss that?

But before we get to next year's Netroots Nation, we have a pretty big election coming up in November. Sure there's that Barack guy, but between the labor-busting Special Exemptions Act and the revenue measure, there is a lot to work for right here in California.  And as we saw with the elections last week, there will be a few Dem-on-Dem elections worth watching.

I'm going to try to be more active as we gear up for November, so stay tuned. And if you know of anybody that would like to write for Calitics, shoot me an email. The more the merrier.

Marriage equality case looks set for the Supreme Court

by Brian Leubitz

Today the 9th Circuit denied the motion for en banc rehearing of the case. The Yes on 8 supporters had sought review from an 11-judge panel, but the denial means that their only recourse at this point is the Supreme Court.

Interestingly, this puts the case on a similar time schedule as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case that was just decided at the 1st Circuit. We could potentially see the future of marriage equality firmly established (or severely set back) within the very near future.

You can get all the documents from the Prop 8 case at the 9th Circuit's case page.

Somewhat interestingly, the dissenting judges, O'SCANNLAIN, BYBEE and BEA, went off on the President's statement on marriage equality, suggesting that we should have a "greater conversation" and that blocking the en banc hearing cuts off the conversation.  Judges Hawkins and Reinhardt respond:

We are puzzled by  our dissenting colleagues' unusual reliance on the President's views regarding the Constitution, especially as the President did not discuss the narrow issue that we decided in our opinion. We held only that under the particular circumstances relating to California's Proposition 8, that measure was invalid. In line with the rules governing judicial resolution of constitutional issues, we did not resolve the fundamental question that both sides asked us to: whether the Constitution prohibits the states from banning same-sex marriage. That question may be decided in the near future, but if so, it should be in some other case, at some other time.

9th Circuit in San Francisco will hear similar case in September

by Brian Leubitz

A quick word on the marriage equality front, as today the 1st Cir. in Boston struck down DOMA's prohibition of federal recognition of marriage unconstitutional. You can read the decision here.

In something that twists judicial "conservatives" into knots, the argument for recognizing marriages performed in Massachusetts is one of "federalism".

To conclude, many Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today.  One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage.  Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest. (Decision at p.34])

In other words, this is a state's rights issue. In Massachusetts and several other states, they have defined marriage to include same sex couples. Who is the federal government to ignore that definition? Judicial restraint and the Supreme Court's precedent simply do not lead to any other decision than that DOMA is unconstitutional.

The 9th Cir in San Francisco will hear a similar case on DOMA in the fall.  With the Prop 8 case stalled at the 9th Cir., the DOMA cases may arrive at the Supreme Court first. While the issues are substantially different, the Court may choose to deal with the whole marriage equality issue in one term, rather than dragging it out.  However, one thing is certain, an electoral victory, or more optimistically several, would be very helpful when the case comes to the Court. Maine and Washington offer the best opportunity come November, and it may be that we here in California may never have to vote on this issue again.

9th Circuit in San Francisco will hear similar case in September

by Brian Leubitz

A quick word on the marriage equality front, as today the 1st Cir. in Boston struck down DOMA's prohibition of federal recognition of marriage unconstitutional. You can read the decision here.

In something that twists judicial "conservatives" into knots, the argument for recognizing marriages performed in Massachusetts is one of "federalism".

To conclude, many Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today.  One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage.  Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest. (Decision at p.34])

In other words, this is a state's rights issue. In Massachusetts and several other states, they have defined marriage to include same sex couples. Who is the federal government to ignore that definition? Judicial restraint and the Supreme Court's precedent simply do not lead to any other decision than that DOMA is unconstitutional.

The 9th Cir in San Francisco will hear a similar case on DOMA in the fall.  With the Prop 8 case stalled at the 9th Cir., the DOMA cases may arrive at the Supreme Court first. While the issues are substantially different, the Court may choose to deal with the whole marriage equality issue in one term, rather than dragging it out.  However, one thing is certain, an electoral victory, or more optimistically several, would be very helpful when the case comes to the Court. Maine and Washington offer the best opportunity come November, and it may be that we here in California may never have to vote on this issue again.

Campaign accidentally posts outtakes. Hilarity ensues.

by Brian Leubitz

There isn't really much to this. It doesn't expose some of Miller's extremism, but, well, outtakes are fun! So, enjoy Republican Rep. Gary Miller's outtakes as he was filming a campaign ad.

Campaign accidentally posts outtakes. Hilarity ensues.

by Brian Leubitz

There isn't really much to this. It doesn't expose some of Miller's extremism, but, well, outtakes are fun! So, enjoy Republican Rep. Gary Miller's outtakes as he was filming a campaign ad.

In a ballot with few initiatives, these two get some statewide attention

by Brian Leubitz

There are just two measures on the statewide ballot, and KQED's Forum took a look at both today. And while they are each controversial in their own way, they are both worthy efforts.  Prop 28 is a measure that would change the way term limits work from a total of 14 years (6 and 8 in the Assembly and Senate, respectively) to a total of 12 years in either house. In the first radio program, former FPPC chair Dan Schnur argues that reforming term limits will allow legislators to grow into their jobs, rather than being thrust into leadership right away. And in a very civil discussion, a vice chairman of the CA Republican Party disagreed and argued for the continuation of the current (broken) system.

They then followed that up with a discussion of Prop 29, the cigarette tax measure that will go to cancer research. As you would expect, there is a heavily tobacco-funded No campaign on that one.  It turns out the Yes side isn't entirely without resources. Mike Bloomberg tossed in $500,000 today bringing their fundraising to nearly ten million. While Lance Armstrong and Bloomberg won't match the over $30 million, there will be resources. The discussion on Forum, though, is worth a listen.

Increased budget deficit means big cuts with or without tax initiatives

by Brian Leubitz

With the recent announcement of a bigger than expected deficit, Gov. Brown has announced bigger than expected cuts are coming in his May revision of the budget.

The gap grew, the budget revision states, because Brown over-estimated tax revenues by $4.3 billion and the federal government and courts blocked $1.7 billion in cuts the state wanted to make. The remainder of the difference reflects an increase in the amount of money the state is mandated to spend on education under a complex voter-approved formula.

To close the wider gap, Brown has heightened the cuts he wants to make to Medi-Cal, to $1.2 billion, and maintained another $1.2 billion in welfare and child-care savings he proposed in January.

He also wants to slash payments to people who care for the disabled by 7% and reduce the state payroll through a shorter workweek or wage concessions. He proposed $500 million in cuts to the state's struggling court system, including a one-year freeze on all new construction projects.(LA Times)

That's just the best case scenario there. As horrendous as that may be, if the tax measure in November doesn't pass, Brown is set to do a triggered cut of $5.5 billion and $3b other cuts.  

At this point, the waste is gone. We are cutting vital services that won't just magically reappear when times get better. We are fundamentally changing how we treat each other, and we are letting social darwinism run amok. It's a tragedy of immense proportions, and no saviors are riding in from the horizon.

It may have been the Amendment 1 vote in North Carolina, but for whatever reason, today the President of the United States announced that he supports marriage equality...

Brown appears on Face the Nation, calls GOP "reactionary"

by Brian Leubitz

Jerry Brown is not quite on par with Arnold Schwarzenegger on the national pronouncement front. However, he does like to share a view or two with the nation. As Governor of the nation's most populous state, it seems appropriate that he say a few words about what is going on in DC.  And, as anyone can see, it's a mess, and Jerry Brown is only saying what is obvious for all to see: (video here)

"I think the Republicans have to move out of that reactionary cul-de-sac that some of the more extreme members are pushing them," Brown told host Bob Schieffer.

"There's an enforcement of discipline that's ideological and, as was mentioned today in The Washington Post, takes on the quality of a cult," the California governor said.

Brown provided one example of Republican ideology, on immigration. The party largely opposes a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally.

"They're so hostile to millions and millions of people in this country, and while they can't vote, they have millions and millions of people who they're related to or who identify with them. And you just can't ignore 12 million people, particularly when they're picking our food, they're working in the hotels and restaurants, and now they're increasingly in very important jobs," Brown said.

But Brown, who is 74 years old and has been in the political realm for more than 40 years, criticized the entire political system, which he calls "more polarized" than he's ever seen it.(Face The Nation)

On that note, Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann have a new book, for which they were interviewed on Morning Edition today that essentially calls out the media for trying to play "balanced" over facts. Yes both parties have issues, but one is a more clear and present danger to the long-term stability of the nation.

"One of the two major parties, the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier - ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition," they write in their new book, It's Even Worse Than It Looks.

The media rarely acknowledges this fact, but the radicals in almost every issue today, are the Republicans. On sexual freedom, it is the Republicans who want to limit access to birth control. On regulation of the banks, it is the Republicans who want to return to a reckless capitalism that has now been thoroughly discredited. And on our social safety net, the Republicans want to so decimate it that our homeless populations will continue to spike.

Good on Gov. Brown for calling them out, and as he did so, acknowledging that he isn't perfect, and that he can't simply overturn what the GOP has created with their superminority. In our system of democracy, repairing government takes time. In many ways, it is unfortunate, but you work with the government you've got, I suppose.

Over at CapAlert, find a 1979 interview with a much younger Gov. Jerry Brown. Also, Mayor Villaraigosa also appeared in the full episode video here discussing the national political environment.

Superior Court says Controller not arbiter of "balanced budget"

by Brian Leubitz

In what was a pretty watched decision, a Sacramento Superior Court Judge struck a victory (?) for the legislature:

In a bitter feud during last year's budget battle, Controller John Chiang determined that the budget passed by legislative Democrats was not balanced. Using new powers he believed he had under voter-approved Proposition 25, Chiang then blocked lawmakers' pay and expense money for 12 days until they cut a budget deal with Gov. Jerry Brown.

In a tentative ruling today, Judge David I. Brown said that the controller does not have discretion to determine whether the Legislature's budget is balanced. Proposition 25 said that lawmakers must approve a balanced budget by June 15 or else lose their pay.

Brown's ruling essentially says that the Legislature can determine for itself whether a budget is balanced.

"A contrary result could threaten to undermine the Legislature's essential function," Brown wrote today.(SacBee)

Here's the thing with this. If legislators are forced to vote on a budget simply to pay the rent, we are raising a number of troubling questions. Will they be forced to vote for something against their true beliefs, and perhaps against the beliefs of their constituents. It is essentially saying that we think those votes can be bought for a few thousand dollars. It is troubling in many ways.

But that is all an issue with the measure that brought us this. The issue here is smaller, about who controls the meaning of "balanced budget." This ruling says that if the Legislature says they passed a balanced budget, then they did. And perhaps that is prickly on the gridlock issue, but it is better on the freedom to vote their conscience front.

Asm. Mike Allen, who shifted over into what is essentially a new district for him, has supported the Rohnert Park casino. In a debate yesterday, he discussed the project: