Recall

Bolivian President Survives Recall Attempt

Joe Mathews — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:32:00 -0400

Evo Morales triumphs in a referendum he sought on whether he should remain in office. The victory should give him some political momentum in his battle with leaders of wealthy provinces who have been resisting his economic plans.

But provincial governors who oppose Morales also survived the plebiscite. And some of these provinces appear to have backed Morales' removal. (He won overwhelmingly in poorer parts of the country). So Bolivia remains divided.

Redistricting Initiative "Is A Power Grab," Says Supporter of Redistricting Reform

Joe Mathews — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:52:00 -0400

Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Weintraub writes today that politicians will lie to beat the redistricting reform initiative on the November ballot. But if Ted Costa's views are heard, they may not need to do much.

Ted Costa was the original proponent of both the recall of Gov. Gray Davis and of Prop 77, the failed redistricting initiative in 2005. In an email, he blasts the new initiative, Prop 11, as a "power grab," matching the rhetoric -- if not meaning -- of the measure's opponents.

Democrats and legislators have constituted most of the opposition to this point. But Costa is a Republican, and his argument, if it gets heard over the din of the presidential election and the gay marriage ban, could peel Republicans off the measure. Costa also betrays his own personal frustration with Common Cause and other backers of the measure; he's spent years trying to work with them on redistricting, and doesn't like their approach, from how the lines are drawn to the fact that Congressional districts aren't included. The measure only covers state legislative districts, and the districts for California's Board of Equalization.

Here's Ted's email:

"In a funny way the initiative opponents are right. The redistricting initiative IS a power grab! But not a power grab by Republicans.

This initiative is a power grab by the left wing interest groups who drafted it like Common Cause, and AARP, and those who've endorsed it (ACLU) to seize control of the redistricting process from the incumbents like Perata. The interest groups want a more liberal legislature that will be more likely to give then a 2/3 vote to raise taxes..

Fairness and accountability have little to do with this initiative.

It's all about shifting power from incumbents to special interests!

If it were truly reform, there would have been real instead of misleadingly phony criteria to keep cities and counties from being divided, and there would have been actual language to promote competitive districts. But there is none. The left vetoed such language.

There would have been strong conflict of interest provisions, to keep employers of lobbyists (not just lobbyists) and former legislative consultants (not just former legislative employees) off the Commission.

There would have been some minimal safeguards like better disclosure of who recruited applicants, or a jury-like random invitation process to prevent special interests from recruiting hidden ringers for the Commission. But there are no safeguards.

In fact, this measure is precisely tailored to put public interest group liberals like Common Cause, AARP, and ACLU allies, and perhaps even their Board members on the Commission with no restraints on their ability to gerrymander the state.

And a liberal gerrymander by this Commission would APPEAR biparstisan, because no one may ever know who or if hidden ringers are really working for some incumbent or special interest, instead of the interets of the Party in which they happen to be registered.

If the Mafia could recruit potential jury panelists to pack a jury pool, how would we ever be sure the prosecutor found them all and that the trial was honest? If the Mafia could write rules to allow them to pack the jury pool, would we adopt them?

And if a jury, once selected, could write its own rules of evidence (its "criteria"), instead of following the law, would we have any confidence in the result? Why would we give any jury such unlimited power?

This initiative is a mockery of reform!

Unless the "reform" you want is a tax increase and a MORE liberal legislature.

Under today's Rules at least Republicans can:

1. Elect a Republican Governor to force a fair plan OR

2. Referend a partisan gerrymander OR.

3. Use the threat of a referendum to force at least an incumbent protection gerrymander that blocks the 2/3 majority the left needs for a tax increase.

4. Count on the greed of Democrat incumbents to create a safe district Democratic majority instead of the incumbent-threatening gerrymander it would take to get a 2/3 liberal tax-raising majority.

5. Perhaps even propose and pass real redistricting reform that would protect cities and counties, and guard against special interests planting phony Republicans on the Commission

The left has, under the current system, so far failed to get a 2/3 vote for a tax increase....

Is Bolivia Breaking Up?

Joe Mathews — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:25:00 -0400

Partial results show a big victory for those supporting "autonomy" for the gas-rich province of Tarija. It's the fourth Bolivian province to vote for autonomy from the central government this year. A recall vote on President Evo Morales is scheduled for August. Morales says that, if he survives the recall, he will push for a new constitution that would put more power in the hands of the central government. Given Bolivia history, it's possible that in that country, these autonomy referenda aer serving as a prelude to civil war.

Redistricting, and Unintended Consequences

Joe Mathews — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:03:00 -0400

Ted Costa, the Sacramento anti-tax activist best known as the original proponent of the 2003 recall of California Gov. Gray Davis, once told me that the recall was his second choice. He wanted to pass an initiative to strip California's state legislators of the power to draw their own districts. But the courts knocked a measure he drafted off the ballot. With the money he had raised for redistricting, he decided to launch the recall effort.

In 2006, looking back at all the political change his recall had produced, Costa looked back and said, "I would trade it all for a fair redistricting." Well, another redistricting initiative is headed to the ballot in California this November. And Costa doesn't like it at all.

Could California Recall Spark A Statewide Run?

Joe Mathews — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:16:00 -0400

Under the category of What Doesn't Kill Us Makes Us Stronger, here comes Jeff Denham, the Republican state senator who survived a recall attempt Tuesday. In fact, the recall was something of a victory, with more than 80 percent of voters in his district casting ballots against. In a time of bipartisan anger at California's elected leaders, such a vote is a sign of strength. Denham also showed a talent for raising money--even after Don Perata, the state senate's Democratic leader, who organized the recall, announced he was abandoning the campaign against Denham. More than two decades ago, San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein got an enormous political boost by easily beating a recall effort. Could Denham benefit in a similar way? He's the sort of moderate Republican who can win statewide -- if the public learns who he is.

Elias: California No Better Off Because of 2003 Recall

Joe Mathews — Fri, 30 May 2008 17:02:00 -0400

Tom Elias is an independent columnist who was the first journalist to write about the possibility of a recall of then-California Gov. Gray Davis. He weighs in with a new column in which he says that for all the interest and excitement the recall and Davis' susccessor Arnold Schwarzenegger have sparked, the state is no better off than it would have been without the recall.

Recall Target: I'll Keep Campaigning

Joe Mathews — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:55:00 -0400

Its sponsors have ended their campaign, but State Senator Jeff Denham tells the Sacramento Bee that he's going to kepe up his campaign against his recall. The measure remains on the June 3 ballot.

Midnight for California Recall

Joe Mathews — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:51:00 -0400

Don Perata, the top Democrat in the state senate, has decided to drop his campaign to recall Republican state senator Jeff Denham. A wise move, but perhaps too late. The recall has added to Denham's profile and may make him more politically influential than he was before. (Other California pols who survived recalls -- notably Dianne Feinstein -- gained politically from the experience). And it's too late to remove the question from the ballot--voters in Denham's district will still see the recall on the ballot June 3.

Updated: Here, via the Sacramento Bee, is Perata's statement. It's wildly different than what he told the Associated Press in a fire-breathing interview last week -- that he needed a Democrat in Denham's seat to protect programs and get a budget passed. (Perata added that it was "immaterial" whether Denham's vote against last year's budget -- the number one reason given for seeking his recall -- proved to be right). To some Capitol observers, this reversal on the recall is part of a pattern of erratic decisionmaking by Perata, who soon will be replaced by State Senator Darrell Steinberg.

Monday Round Up: Speaker's Initiative; Arizona Transportation

Joe Mathews — Mon, 05 May 2008 17:09:00 -0400

NEW SPEAKER MAKES BALLOT INITIATIVE A PRIORITY: Here's another example of how thoroughly California has become a blockbuster democracy: the state's new Assembly Speaker, the formidable Karen Bass, has announced three priorities for her time as speaker. One is a ballot initiative to set aside funding for foster care. That's right, the speaker of the assembly, with considerable power, must look to the voters for a budget item. And her other two priorities -- balancing the budget and reforming the tax system -- almost certainly would require voters to sign off on constitutional changes at the ballot.

ARIZONA TRANSPORTATION: A $42 billion transportation tax initiative is expected to be filed in Arizona this week. And The Republic has a preview.

LEAGUE OF CITIES INVESTMENT: The California League of Cities has now put more than $4 million into its no on Prop 98/ Yes on Prop 99 campaign on eminent domain. The campaign's goal, which includes the counter measure Prop 99, is to stop an effort by property rights and taxpayer groups to limit municipalities' ability to take property. Hat tip, Election Track.

STATE GOP HAS A PULSE: California Republicans finally have been galvanized by something--the attempt to recall State Senator Jeff Denham. Via the LA Times.

SO WHAT ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO DO? Most of the time, your blogger doesn't understand conservative rage at the press. But once in a while, after an editorial like the following, he gets it. The Contra Costa Times says eminent domain shouldn't be changed at the ballot. But the legislature has failed to act one way or another in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision that dramatically expanded the rights of local governments to take land. In California's governing structure, where else would you suggest property rights advocates go?

ANOTHER LOOK AT CALIFORNIA ENERGY POLICY: Gov. Schwarzenegger has gotten very little criticism for his efforts on energy and global warming, but the Wall Street Journal had an interesting piece this weekend taking him on. I don't agree with much of it -- it's the classic conservative argument that mandates won't work -- but he draws blood in talking about California's self-congratulation even as it continues to rely on dirty, coal plants outside the state for much of its energy needs.

What a Blocking Campaign Looks Like

Joe Mathews — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:58:00 -0400

Take out the over-the-top claims about "free speech blockers" and this video posted by supporters of the recall effort against Michigan House Speaker Andy Dillon gives you a look at what a blocking campaign looks like. And it's not nearly as big a deal as press reports and advocates on both sides of a measure make it out to be (blockers really don't block much, but they're rarely the "thugs" they're described as by those being blocked). Blocking campaigns are mostly a waste of everybody's time and money.

The video shows some political looking folks showing up and surrounding a circulator. At one point, one of the blockers claims the recall petition is really about gay marriage. Self-styled reformers would like to make it crime to make such false claims, but this is political speech.