Elections

The amount of time and money we spend on drug enforcement is mindboggling, particularly in light of the state of our economy, the various budgets of local entities, and the utter lack of success.

For the cost of housing an inmate in California for one year, we could put several in residential treatment for two years.  That is the key.  Most programs simply do not last long enough to get people out of bad habits.  We need to not simply punish people, but rather we need to start turning them into productive citizens.  As we discussed Friday, the system often makes that impossible, imposing huge fines on people struggling to get their lives back in order, putting restrictions on the ability to land decent jobs, and live productive lives.

I have read a couple of commentaries opposed to Proposition 19 which would legalize marijuana in California.  As I read these things, I wonder if people really understand the extent to which drug laws clog up our court system and make it difficult to deal with more serious crimes.  For the cost of incarcerating one individual in California for one year, we can put perhaps two people into residential treatment for two years each.  To me that seems not only more cost-effective, but it seems more effective.

I have seen a lot of studies cited, but I thought it might be valuable to glean some insight from someone who spent thirty years actually working on the ground with people with drug-dependency problems.

Last summer I went on police ridealongs, first with the Davis Police Department and the next night with the Woodland police department.  Both nights we encountered individuals in respective parks in possession of marijuana.  In both cases the police took the marijuana from the individuals without issuing a citation.

In one of the vehicles there was a huge collection of extravagant pipes.  In one case there was a pipe that looked like a gas mask, going completely over one’s face as they took the smoke in.

During the last campaign, as reported by this site, an Independent Expenditure campaign launched by Mayor Ruth Asmundson and Marty West attempted to resurrect a flagging Sydney Vergis campaign for Davis City Council.  Instead, a series of missteps helped to undermine the effort.  But at its core, it represented an attempt by two members of the public to legally circumvent the city’s one hundred dollar campaign contribution limit.

This is of course not just a Davis issue, in fact, the FPPC just released an analysis that found that $127 million has been spent by special interests on independent expenditures since California voters enacted contribution limits for statewide and legislative candidates in 2000 with the passage of Proposition 34, according to information released today by the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state’s political watchdog.

Two weeks ago, the voters of California said no to PG&E’s attempt to buy marketshares and avoid competition from public power.  Davis residents saw through the charade, voting against the measure by nearly an 80-20 margin.  However, PG&E pumped in more than 46 million dollars into a campaign aimed at deceiving the voters into support.  It nearly worked, but not quite.

Still Senator Mark Leno wants to prevent another close call.  Last week, he announced legislation that would prevent PG&E from using ratepayer funds to finance future political campaigns. The bill allows the corporation to continue participating in political campaigns, but stipulates that money derived from ratepayers cannot be used for political or public affairs expenditures.

A lot of people I think took for granted that given the amount of money that PG&E spent on Proposition 16, to essentially put public power out of business, that it would prevail.  In fact, PG&E was not alone.  Mercury Insurance also spent about $16 million to pass Proposition 17.  PG&E spent $44 million.

Given the fact that PG&E’s deceptive ads were on TV every day, every hour, heck every minute, I will fully admit I had no faith that the average person would be able to see through the rhetoric.  And yet somehow just enough people did.

Proposition 16, sponsored by PG&E Corp., would amend our state constitution to require a two-thirds vote to replace privately owned utilities like PG&E. According to the Bakersfield Californian, Prop. 16 would erect a ‘constitutional iron curtain,’ that would freeze us into PG&E’s utility empire forever after the June 8 election.

As such, Prop. 16 is a frontal assault on the right of voter majorities to choose their electricity providers. If it passes, Prop. 16 will empower a one-third electoral minority to veto any attempt by cities or counties or irrigation districts to escape PG&E’s cold embrace and declare their energy independence.

By now many have already seen the beginnings of the PG&E campaign to somehow trick the voters into approving the blatantly transparent Proposition 16 – a measure that would require a two-thirds vote in order for voters to approve public utilities.  If this campaign ad that you can view below is any indication, we are in for a long spring of deceptive Proposition 16 campaigns.

After all, PG&E spent $10 million on a campaign in 2006 to keep SMUD out of Yolo County, a measure approved by every single elected official in this county.  How much will they spend statewide to make it more difficult for competitors to arise?

Remember 2006, at the time, PG&E spent over $10 million to prevent Yolo County from turning to SMUD for its power.  It was a complicated process in that Yolo County had to pass two initiatives and Sacramento had to approve.  

SMUD was the one time when every single official in Yolo County – every member of the city councils in Davis, Woodland, and West Sacramento and every member of the County Board of Supervisors endorsed SMUD, but they were not enough to overcome the $10 million campaign that had to rank of the most dishonest people have ever seen.  Yolo County narrowly passed one of the initiatives, the other very narrowly failed, and Sacramento overwhelmingly voted no.

The polls had consistency shown that Former Governor and current Attorney General Jerry Brown was the odds on favorite to the win the Democratic nomination for the Governorship in 2010.  In fact, not only is he odds on favorite to win the nomination, he holds a commanding lead over either of his would-be Republican challengers. 

That he has not formally declared for the race is a mere formality.  San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom brought those factors into play when he finally did what he had been rumored to do for weeks–drop out of the race.

The California Supreme Court by a 6 to 1 vote today, with the only dissenting Justice, Carlos Moreno, also the only Democrat on the court, upheld the ban on Same Sex Marriage that was passed by the voters last November in Proposition 8.

Justice Moreno in his dissent argues that enforcing equal protection requires protection for all aspects of the law.

On Friday afternoon, the Truman Club had a Luncheon in Sacramento that was supposed to feature the four major Democratic candidates for Governor.  But a strange thing happened along the way.  First, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa did not come.  Second, Lt. Governor John Garamendi announced earlier this week that instead of running for Governor where he was trailing badly in the polls, he would run in the special election in the 10th Congressional District, where Ellen Tauscher had been appointed by President Obama as the undersecretary for arms control and international security. She has not yet faced confirmation hearings in the Senate.

That left two likely candidates for Governor, the announced candidate, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the presumptive front runner former Governor and current Attorney General Jerry Brown.  However, around twenty minutes prior to the event, it was announced that Jerry Brown was a no-show and Yolo County Democratic Central Committee Chair Bob Schelen spoke briefly in his stead.

The Vanguard is breaking down the ballot initiatives for the May 19, 2009 special election.  We began last week by looking at Proposition 1A.  Today we look at Proposition 1B.

Proposition 1B ensures that schools receive $9.3 billion over time, so that the money cut during the current budget crisis is not permanent.  The payments to schools will come out of the newly created rainy day fund, but not until 2011-2012 when the state’s fiscal outlook is expected to improve.

Part of the budget deal that was reach back in February put a number of propositions on the ballot.  Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E were specifically related to the budget itself and their passage in part will determine whether that particular budget was balanced or not.  Of course, since that time, the state has announced that regardless of whether these items are passed in May, there is an $8 billion budget deficit.  Despite this groups are lining up on both sides of many of these ballot initiatives.  Many argue that they are “hastily written in secret with no public hearings or analysis.”  The consequences of passage of them would outweigh the benefit of a balanced budget.

Today in San Francisco, the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments from the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), ACLU, and Lambada legal challenging the November 5 passage of Proposition 8 which sought to overturn the Supreme Court ruling from last year granting rights to same sex partners.

On Vanguard Radio last night, the Vanguard spoke to Elizabeth Gill Staff Attorney from the ACLU in San Francisco and Natalie Wormeli from the Yolo County ACLU. They informed the Vanguard that the central argument that will be made comes down to the fact that the California Constitution does not permit the fundamental constitutional rights of a minority to be stripped away by a simple majority vote.