Elections

That is because, short of a court decision to call the citizen redistricting commission unconstitutional – which appears very unlikely – the voters are probably not going to willingly vote to turn the power back to politicians to draw district lines.

The weekend, the “Citizens Redistricting Commission” announced they decided to skip the publication of a second draft of redistricting maps.

One Commissioner, Cynthia Dai, told the media, “We were running up against the clock.  There’s a certain amount of time it takes to produce a map.”

There is an old adage in politics that I rarely subscribe to which is to be careful what you ask for.  After all you would be paralyzed if you adhered to that principle, unable to act.

Nevertheless, Republicans and some “good government” Democrats and Independents have been pushing the notion of the California redistricting panel hoping that perhaps there will be more competitive Congressional and Legislative districts in California.

While much of the focus on Monday remained at the top with the swearing in of new Governor Jerry Brown, one of the biggest offices will undoubtedly be the California Office of the Attorney General where San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris was sworn in, “vowing to ensure that state law is on the side of the people.”

What that means will be the question of the next four years, but Ms. Harris represents the last best hope for real reform in the criminal justice in California – a system bogged down with an expensive and over-capacity prison system, recidivism and ridiculous sentences for minor crimes.

The first time I saw Kamala Harris was in San Jose back in 2008 at the California Democratic Convention.  It was during the heat of the primary battle, and both of the top Democrat contenders sent representatives to speak on their behalf. 

Hillary Clinton sent Former President Bill Clinton.  Barack Obama sent a little known District Attorney from San Francisco, Kamala Harris.  She lightened the mood by poking fun of the disparity, pitting herself as the David to Bill Clinton’s Galliath.

The caveat, of course, is that things change in politics very quickly.  In 1994, California was not a blue state.  Pete Wilson had just been re-elected Governor by a wide margin, despite having extremely low opinion ratings.  Dianne Feinstein needed everything she had to hold off what was then a record spending by Michael Huffington.

The Republicans for the first time won the Assembly, although Willie Brown would nullify that advantage.  They won all but two of the partisan constitutional offices.  And they rode the coattails of Three Strikes and Prop 187 to victory.

From the start, the California Attorney General’s Race figured to be one of the most important races on the downside of the ticket.  The outcome of this race may, for example, determine what happens with the Proposition 8 challenges, where Steve Cooley would likely be able to find a way to get California back as a party on the defendant side and that would change everything.

Steve Cooley may also be inclined to join other AG’s across the nation in suing on Obama’s health care reform.  Kamala Harris, for all her flaws (and there are many), is a strong opponent of the death penalty and has been pushing for sentencing and recidivism reform.

As the campaigns in California were nearing an end, I ran a story on the Field Poll showing both Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer moving from close races to a big leads.  I pay particular attention to the Field Poll because it has long been regarded as the best of the statewide polls.

I spent a good amount of time in graduate school studying polling and following the debates over the proper way to poll.  I recall in the middle part of the decade there was a long debate among pollsters about what factors should be weighed and what factors should be measured.  In particular was the question of party indentification.

For much of the last decade, California has been ungovernable – beset by partisan polarization and hamstrung by a political system designed in another era.  The state was led by an inexperienced and at times temperamental Governor, and legislative leaders apparently never quite knew what they were going to get.

The result was not necessarily the record deficits we have seen, as those came more naturally from a collapsed economy.  The political stalemate, however, meant there was never a real or workable solution.

Democrats were licking in their wounds on Tuesday night, but frankly it could have been worse – a lot worse.  Republicans took the House, but Democrats have narrowly held the Senate.  The worst of the Tea Party candidates in Delaware and Nevada went down to defeat.  Even in Alaska the Tea Party candidate finished behind the write-in.

It was a different story in California.  The AP and most networks called it early for Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer, and then watched nervously as the Senate Race remained tight until late, with Fiorina at one point holding a very narrow lead.  But the exit polls were right and the projections held.

Democratic voters reading this ought to brace themselves for a rough night that is likely to rival 1994, if not exceed it.  Angry voters across the nation are poised to sweep out the incumbents yet again in large numbers – this time to the benefit of the GOP.

However, as I suggested last week, Californians ought to build that moat because the wave is not going to hit here.  Recent polling suggests that, while it may be true that Republicans will turn out in large numbers across the country and Democrats will stay home, there is little evidence that will happen in California.

Landmark global warming rules are set to start in January 1, 2012 under new rules released last Friday by state air regulators which would put roughly 600 of California’s major polluters, from oil refineries to power plants to factories, under mandatory limitations on the amount of greenhouse gases they emit.

The California Air Resources Board released guidelines that would establish a new cap and trade market that would allow polluting facilities to trade pollution credits to offset global warming.  For instance, tree planting could cover up to eight percent of their emissions limits.

Another proposition that perhaps has not received enough attention is Proposition 26, which would require supermajority voter approval for raising state and local fees by recategorizing them as taxes. This would set up supermajority voter-approval hurdles for what are now regulatory and impact fees that can be adopted by simple majorities of the State Legislature, city councils and boards of supervisors.

As written, Proposition 26 would recategorize many local government fees and charges as taxes, subjecting them to the approval requirements of special taxes, including two-thirds supermajority voter approval. With some limited exceptions, a tax would include any charge that provides benefits or privileges to those not charged.

Californians may want to a build a mote around the state, protecting it from the tidal wave that is about to hit the rest of the country.  Fueled by anger and frustration over a lingering economic downturn and a dysfunctional government, voters around the country are ready to turn out the incumbent party.  However, that does not appear likely in California.

The Field Poll this week shows Jerry Brown, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, opening up a 10-point lead over his Republican opponent Meg Whitman.

US Attorney General Eric Holder and and Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), have inserted themselves into the debate on Prop 19, arguing that they would not only enforce marijuana laws in California but that the Department of Justice would sue to overturn Proposition 19 should it be approved next month by California voters.

It was a move inspired by the possibility that the measure would pass, although recent polls now show it modestly behind as the election next week rapidly approaches.

It was last June when the voters of California sent a loud and clear message that they would not be fooled by a deceptive ballot measure backed by tens of millions from PG&E in order to help PG&E corner the market on energy, under the guise of democratic protections that in most cases already exist.

Apparently big Texas oil -Texas-based Valero Energy Corporation and Tesoro Corporation along with Kansas-based Koch Industries (Kansas apparently does not generate the same fear as Texas oil) – did not get that memo however, as they sponsored Proposition 23.  This time they sought to use the economy as a wedge to get Californians to suspend the ambitious AB 32, which has stringent requirements for carbon emission reductions.

The Associated Press this morning is reporting on the latest Public Policy Institute of California polling on the California’s Governor’s race.  The PPIC poll, released late yesterday, shows that former Governor Brown now holds an 8-point lead over Meg Whitman,  44 percent to her 36 percent among likely voters.

In addition, they found that Senator Barbara Boxer continues to hold a small lead of five percentage points over her challenger.

The other week Tom Torlakson, who is running for State Superintendent of Public Instruction, really had some thoughtful things to say about education.  One the things he said that stuck in my mind had to do with teachers.

“We owe a lot to teachers.  I’m fed up with the blame game, pointing fingers, blaming teachers, the teachers are the problem,” he said.  “Teachers aren’t the problem, teachers are the solution.”

The US Attorney General has now weighed in, to join local law enforcement in opposing the legalization of marijuana. 

The Justice Department has strongly opposed Proposition 19, and has been pressured by local law enforcement to take a more active stance against the California ballot proposition.

Marijuana legalization has always formed a good nexus for me – tying in my libertarian streak of wanting the government not to involve itself in private lives of individuals (I part ways on economic issues) with my sense of support for fiscal restraint.

A number of years ago, I remember reading an article on Ron Dellums, back before he was Oakland’s Mayor, when he was a powerful figure on Capitol Hill.  He was the defense cutting guru, and in order to make the case for wasted money in defense, he had to become an expert on defense systems.  The reason he chose this area, however, is unusual.  He chose it because he wanted to find money to free up for social programs, which was his priority.