More commentary this weekend on California’s Proposition 14 “top two” open primary referendum after Judge Allen Sumner’s ballot wording ruling on Friday. The ruling was seen as a win for independent voters by attorney Harry Kresky of IndependentVoting and by Californians for an Open Primary/Yes on 14… Meanwhile, state Rep. Hunter Greene, a Republican who chairs the state House Ways and Means Committee, wants an open primary for Louisiana….

PROPOSITION 14

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Allen Sumner is expected to rule today on the ballot language for Prop 14. Leading independent Attorney Harry Kresky speaks out on the legal fight over the “top two” open primaries referendum:

“When the California legislature voted to put Proposition 14 on the ballot this June, it crafted a summary of the initiative which will also appear on the ballot, that accurately described what its effect would be if passed. Opponents of the measure have now gone to court to try to change the summary to frighten voters with misleading statements such as, “Eliminates political parties’ rights to be on the general election ballot.” If they have their way, a measure that expands the rights of voters – most especially the state’s three million independent voters – will be reframed as one that eliminates the rights of parties. Since an overwhelming majority of Americans are angry about partisan gridlock, now is not the time to protect political parties at the expense of the voters. The people of California deserve an honest representation of Proposition 14. Let’s hope the court looks out for them.”

The California School Employees Association has sued the Secretary of State (presumably on behalf of the California State Legislature) to change the ballot wording. Read more at California Independent Voter Network.

Keep reading below…

PROPOSITION 14

Independent voters in California (aka “decline to state”) vote in primaries at the whim of the party big-shots. And California Dems (including the school employees union) are playing some bad language games trying to dissuade voters from supporting Proposition 14, the “Top Two” open primary referendum on the ballot for a vote in June that will allow independents full participation. At issue is whether the political parties or the people have the power.

CALIFORNIA PROP 14

This moment from the Massachusetts Senate debate is getting a lot of play:

“It’s not Ted Kennedy’s seat. It’s not the Democrat’s seat. It’s the people’s seat.”

If Brown wins, this may be the moment that put him over the top. Over a million dollars flowed into his campaign coffers in the 24 hours after the debate. The Democratic party establishment took note and sent out a call for cavalry. Of course Big Union is riding to the rescue. But in the meantime, while Coakley is measuring the drapes in Washington D.C., Brown is on the ground in Massachusetts.

Watching from afar out here on the left coast, I have a hard time believing that Massachusetts would elect a Republican to finish Ted Kennedy’s term in the Senate. It seems as unlikely as unseating my Representative Nancy Pelosi or Senator Barbara Boxer in the upcoming mid-terms. Just not a good bet.

There were some interesting insights on this election in the comments to Frank’s post on the race. In terms of prognostications, I’ll defer to our man on the ground and agree with Kranky. The Dems may get a scare, but on election night Martha Coakley will prevail. As Nick points out, all this national attention and the tightening polls should serve to motivate the rank and file Democrats to get out the vote. Excitement about their candidate being heretofore the very thing that is missing from the Democratic campaign. Scott Brown is givng them the gift of panic excitement.

That said, Scott Brown is doing some very smart things. Challenging Massachusetts voters to rethink the notion that this senate seat is an entitlement of the Democratic Party was exactly the right thing to do. In addition, he is soft pedaling the commitment required by voters, noting there are only three years left in the term. Saying in effect – Just try it out for while. If you don’t like it you don’t have to buy. Very smart salesmanship – first deal with the objection, then make it easy to sign on the dotted line.

It will still be a miracle if he pulls it off, but if he does I’ll have to change my prediction for 2010. Who knows? If the GOP can pick up this seat, four more seems reasonable, and if Joe Lieberman gets tired of his abusive relationship with the Democrats, well, that means a new majority in the Senate in 2011.

Dare I even dream the impossible dream? Replacing Barbara Boxer with Carly Fiorina?

If Brown can win in Massachusetts, anything can happen.

^{cross-posted at Divided We Stand United We Fall}

I feel dumber for having seen this, but it’s so hilariously clueless that I couldn’t stop watching.

(Stolen from BTB. Thx Doug!)

Looks like they’ve finally come to an agreement, but at the expensive of the poor and elderly.

From LA Times:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders announced Monday that they had reached a deal to close California’s $26.3-billion deficit and begin paying all of the state’s bills again, potentially ending months of partisan wrangling and a cash crisis that threatens to push California into insolvency.

Their agreement, which could go before the full Legislature within days, does not include any broad-based tax increases, relying instead on deep cuts in government services, borrowing and accounting maneuvers to wipe out the deficit.

So what about the elderly and poor? Well, from reading about the following cuts it feels like Schwarzenegger really got his way.

That’s not to suggest he doesn’t care about the elderly and poor, but cutting back on social services and allowing off shore drilling is a pretty big cornerstone of current fiscal conservative philosophy…

Tens of thousands of seniors and children would lose access to healthcare, local governments would sacrifice several billion dollars in state assistance this year and thousands of convicted criminals could serve less time in state prison. Welfare checks would go to fewer residents, state workers would be forced to continue to take unpaid days off and new drilling for oil would be permitted off the Santa Barbara coast.

By the way, that little bit about criminals serving less time? The estimates suggest that nearly 20,000 people will be released early. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing since sometimes more prison time leads to people becoming better criminals. Also, I’d imagine you could let the non-violent drug offenders go first.

Still, these cuts will hurt, and in a place as massive as California a lot of people can fall through the cracks. Now even more will.

After I read Matt Taibbi’s piece about Goldman Sachs gaming the oil/gas marketplace and wrote my own response, I started to think about the massive $24.3 billion budget deficit in California, and I wondered, “How could they get that far in the hole?”

Sure, the global economy has tanked the past couple years and revenues aren’t coming in like they were, but how can the gap be so vast? Because we’re not talking a couple billion dollars. This took some doing and I had a really hard time believing this was due to simple revenue shortfalls or excess expenditures on infrastructure, health care, welfare and schools.

Read more at True/Slant.

They’re seeing red in the Golden state.

From Reuters:

California’s controller said on Wednesday that he would have to issue IOUs in a week if lawmakers can’t quickly solve a $24 billion budget deficit, and the state’s treasurer plans to tap a reserve fund to meet debt service costs.

The measures came as a budget crisis deepened in the most populous U.S. state and the gridlocked legislature failed to pass a proposed $11 billion in cuts.

Why the gridlock? Because Dems want to makes cuts and raise taxes and Republicans won’t let them. They say that massive cuts need to be made, and that’s fair politically, but we’re getting into some pretty dire territory at this point and I don’t see how cutting health care and school funding is going to help California in the long run.

But back to the IOU situation…

“Next Wednesday we start a fiscal year with a massively unbalanced spending plan and a cash shortfall not seen since the Great Depression,” Controller John Chiang said in a statement announcing that he would be forced to use IOUs to pay the state’s bills beginning on July 2.

“The state’s $2.8 billion cash shortage in July grows to $6.5 billion in September and after that we see a double digit freefall,” Chiang said. “Unfortunately, the state’s inability to balance its checkbook will now mean short-changing taxpayers, local governments and small businesses.”

They say they plan to solve some part of it by issuing bonds, but that’s not as surefire as it once was since rating agencies may downgrade them.

No easy answers in this debate, but that’s where we’re at right now.

More as it develops…

California voters had their say and now Schwarzenegger is doing what needs to be done.

From Mercury News:

In a state that long has prided itself on its social safety net, it could well go down in history as the most drastic reduction in social programs ever. And billions in further cuts will be unveiled later this week.

The governor’s proposal to whack an additional $5.5 billion from state programs stunned even longtime Capitol-watchers with its blunt force. Ending cash assistance for 1.3 million impoverished state residents, for example, would make California the only state with no welfare program. [...]

The governor’s office reiterated that the cuts were painful but unavoidable, with the proposed budget for the 2009-10 fiscal year already outdated before lawmakers even begin debate. Schwarzenegger’s finance team now says the deficit will grow to $24.3 billion by July 1, up from the previous $21.3 billion projected shortfall.

Here are all of the proposed cuts…

So why is this happening?

Well, most of what you need to know is in this article. Basically, the blame is shared by both the citizens of CA and the government, and these cuts seem to be the only way to make things right. Spending must be reigned in since any new taxes or tax increases in California have to approved by a 2/3rds majority in both houses, and that’s an almost impossible feat.

More as it develops…

This was a bit of a surprise when I heard about it, but apparently Ted Olson has joined forces with the Equal Rights Foundation and they’ve just sent out a press release about yesterday’s decision.

Here are some key excerpts (.pdf) …

“Yesterday, the California Supreme Court said that the California Constitution compels the State to discriminate against gay men and lesbians who have the temerity to wish to express their love and commitment to one another by getting married,” Olson said. “These are our neighbors, coworkers, teachers, friends, and family, and, courtesy of Prop 8, California now prohibits them from exercising this basic, fundamental right of humanity. Whatever discrimination California law now might permit, I can assure you, the United States Constitution does not.” [...]

Today’s lawsuit argues that the California’s Constitution — as amended by Proposition 8 — violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a provision with which all state laws must comply.

Relegating gays and lesbians to “separate but unequal” domestic partnerships violates the U.S. Constitution, the suit states. California’s domestic partnership law is not an adequate substitute for access to the State’s institution of civil marriage, the suit states, because domestic partnerships do not provide all of the legal and government benefits and protections that marriage does.

“More than 30 years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized that marriage is one of the basic rights of man,” the suit states, referring to the Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage.

According to the suit, Proposition 8:

• Violates the Due Process Clause by impinging on fundamental liberties.
• Violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, thereby creating a category of “second-class citizens.”
• Discriminates on the basis of gender.
• Discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

That’s a lot stronger case than I thought it would be, and maybe they’re right to challenge this one. But the key difference between Loving v. Virginia and this case is that racial identity is pretty much fixed, while it can be argued that sexual identity is not necessarily. Sure, we make sure folks can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, but that doesn’t infer marital rights to those folks. Of course, then it gets into the idea that bisexuals should be allowed to marry whoever they want, and I’m obviously fine with that too. But there’s a difference and it will be brought up.

Also, common sense tells me that if the liberal CA Supreme Court voted against overturning Prop 8 by 6 to 1, does anybody think the US Supreme Court will overturn that? Seems highly unlikely, so they could be handing their opponents a very easy win. (Note: This case is different than the one the CA Supreme Court just decided. My apologies for the confusion, but it also means their case is MUCH stronger now.)

Regardless, it’ll be an interesting case and this could be a watershed moment for gay marriage…one way or another.

(h/t: Volokh)

Anybody who reads this blog knows where I fall on the gay marriage issue, but the Supreme Court of California wasn’t reallly deciding the validity of gay marriage itself, so the ruling was actually dead on in my opinion.

This article from Bloomberg points out why…

The court legalized gay marriage a year ago before California voters overruled it in November. Fifty-two percent of them approved the ban, amending the state constitution to recognize only marriages between a man and a woman. The court ruled 6 to 1 today in favor of upholding Proposition 8, saying it was ruling only on the ability of voters to pass a ballot measure rather than whether gay marriage should be legal.

“The principal issue before us concerns the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state constitution itself through the initiative process,” the court wrote, “not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound.”

Yes, it’s the law and it’s specific. And if they ruled against that provision, it would harm the citizens’ rights to amend the Constitution. That’s not a precedent the courts want to set just to prove a point.

But here’s the most important part of this entire argument…all the marriages that happened before the ban are legal!!!

The court ruled unanimously that the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed before the ban remain valid. The November ban sparked protests across California and led activists to create Web sites that identified individuals who donated money to support the measure and boycott donors’ business. The ballot measure overrode the court’s May 15, 2008, ruling that laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional.

So to all of you gay marriage advocates, I know this seems like a loss today but it’s not.

Actually, this is a VERY big win as it signals continuous positive movement. Because you know there will be another ballot initiative to overturn Prop 8 at some point and it’ll pass and California will join the growing number of states where marriage is equal for all. But you have to get out there and fight for it if you want it to happen.

More as it develops…

This is a pretty big stake in the ground, because they’ll be using California’s standards…the toughest in the nation.

No doubt you’ll be hearing that this is bad for business, but that’s what they said about seat belts, airbags and every other time CAFE standards were raised. And I think we’re all fairly aware that the car companies who’ve prospered are the ones who offered the highest fuel efficiency standards the earliest.

From NY Times:

President Obama will announce as early as Tuesday that he will combine that state’s emissions rules with the existing corporate average fuel economy standard overseen by the Transportation Department, the officials said. As a result, cars and light trucks sold in the United States will be roughly 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016.

The White House would not divulge details, but environmental advocates and industry officials briefed on the program said that the president would grant California’s longstanding request to implement its tailpipe standards. Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia have said they intend to apply the same rules. That request had been denied by the Bush administration but has been under review by top Obama administration officials since January.

Yet Mr. Obama is planning to go further, effectively issuing a single rule for both fuel economy and emissions that matches California’s strictest-in-the-nation standards.

Under the new standard, the new combined fuel efficiency standard for cars and light trucks will be about 35 miles per gallon by 2016, roughly in line with the California rule.

In my mind this is a smart move for many reasons, not the least of which is you diffuse the emissions standards argument immediately. Yes, it will upset states rights’ advocates, but how does it makes sense that a state should be able to determine whether or not certain pollution levels are acceptable or how much mileage cars can have in their locale?

In other words, there are some things that must be mandated by the federal government, and this is one of them. Our long term strategic interests, both for the environment and our dependency on foreign oil, rely on one set of standards across the board.

More as it develops…

This came as a bit of a shock to me, but Arnold is definitely one of the most moderate Republicans I’ve ever seen and is willing to take chances giving his unique position as a Republican Governor of a solidly blue state. Also, let’s not forget that the state voted to okay medical marijuana back in 1996, so it’s a little easier to do.

From Politics Daily:

In February a state lawmaker introduced a measure that would decriminalize marijuana in California. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano suggested regulating and taxing pot could pump $1.3 billion annually into the state’s shaky economy. He got a handful of headlines but the bill didn’t spark much debate and Ammiano was mostly portrayed as a fringe figure from kooky San Francisco.

On CNN a month later Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) said the state should launch a pilot program that would explore legalizing marijuana. Sanchez likened the issue to the prohibition of alcohol last century and said most Californians believe pot laws should be relaxed. (A recent Field Poll supports her claim: 56 percent of California voters say cannabis should be legal for recreational use and taxed). The interview made the blog rounds since it appeared to be the first time a national politician addressed the issue seriously on a mainstream media outlet.

Today an even bigger figure has taken up the discussion on whether to decriminalize and tax marijuana. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said it’s time to at least debate the issue. The Republican governor made it clear that he’s not for legalizing weed, but he doesn’t want to be afraid to talk about it.

First question…should marijuana be decriminalized?

Second…should Schwarzenegger just become a Libertarian already and shed the Republican label?