California Office Pool 2010
The late, great New York Times columnist William Safire made a habit of writing a year-end column he called Office Pool. In it, Safire offered, multiple-choice style, a series of possible news events that could take place in the year ahead. At the column’s end, he let you know which ones he thought actually would occur.
Safire’s focus was Washington, though he delved into culture and sports too. Reviving this tradition, here’s the California Office Pool. My picks are at the end. Be sure to make your predictions, and clip n’ save (or bookmark and save) so we can see how we did at the end of 2010.
1. The big, surprise California political controversy of 2010 will erupt over:
A. The California Supreme Court, when Chief Justice Ronald M. George unexpectedly retires, sparking a fight over his successor, and Associate Justice Carlos Moreno becomes a target of the Yes on Prop 8 crowd in the retention election.
B. The Board of Regents, who decide to raise UC tuition another 30 percent.
C. Jerry Brown, who loses liberals when he says, in a gubernatorial debate, that Prop 13 has been good for the state.
D. The late entrance into the governor’s race of an independent gubernatorial candidate, backed by the tea party people, who gains in the polls after raising millions on line.
Revisiting the George Speech
It’s been two months since Ronald George, chief justice of the California Supreme Court, gave a speech sharply critical of the ballot initiative process.
It was an important address. And, for the most part, the speech was on target in identifying California’s peculiar initiative process (we’re the only American jurisdiction in which a statute passed by initiative can only be altered by another vote of the people) as a culprit in the state’s governing and fiscal crisis.
But in the past couple months, as I’ve thought more about the speech, a few things have bothered me. I re-read it recently and offer two small criticisms, and one large one:
– George exaggerates in the speech how easy it is to qualify and pass an initiative constitutional amendment. California permits a relatively small number of petition signers – equal to at least 8% of the voters in the last gubernatorial election – to place before the voters a proposal to amend any aspect of our Constitution.” That’s not a relatively small number – right now, it works out to just under 700,000 valid signatures. As a pratical matter, petition circulators who want to be sure to qualify for the ballot need to gather more than 1 million signatures. That’s at least a $2 million process. There’s nothing “relatively small” about such an enterprise.
“The Default of Walters and Skelton”
George Skelton and Dan Walters are terrific journalists who already have forgotten more than I’ll ever know about California politics and government. Which is why I was shocked to see the two columnists make the same false and highly irresponsible claim in recent weeks.
Their error? Suggesting that there’s a real risk of the state defaulting on its debts.
Walters went off the deep end first. Writing on Nov. 20 about the state’s persistent budget deficits, Walters predicted a bitter budget battle next year that would end in default: “This will be one of the bloodiest skirmishes the Capitol has ever seen – with the only option being that the most populous state in the nation defaults on its debts.”
Skelton has raised the specter of default twice — on Nov. 23 (“Be grateful if California can avoid defaulting on its state bonds for the first time ever”) and again last week, with a line in a column about Gov. Schwarzenegger’s failures: “For Schwarzenegger to survive his final year, of course, the state must survive. That means no more IOUs, let alone defaulting on bonds.”
Why the Media Should Back the Anti-Acorn Activists
It’s hard to take seriously the loopy, conspiratorial conclusions drawn by conservative activists digging up dirt on ACORN.
But the methods they use to dig up that dirt are important – and admirable.
The best thing about the anti-ACORN reporting is that it may revive two journalistic methods that have long been dismissed as sleazy: surreptitious taping and dumpster diving on journalistic subjects.
In a skeptical age, there is no substitute for getting the goods: the video that shows the subject damning herself with her own words, the documents that demonstrate malfeasance. As institutions become more sophisticated about dodging journalistic inquiry, journalists need every investigative tool to hold institutions accountable.
But mainstream news organizations have shied away from these tactics, in large part because of terrible state laws and precedent that, in the name of privacy, protect powerful people and institutions against investigation.
Maldonado and the Murphy Memo
Two seemingly unconnected political items from last week should be considered together.
The first is the political debate over the nomination of Abel Maldonado for lieutenant governor. The second is the release of political strategist Mike Murphy’s July 2008 memo for the Poizner campaign.
What do these two unimportant events have in common? They say something important about the problematic structure of California’s executive branch of government.
The job for which Maldonado has been nominated means almost nothing to the daily lives of Californians. But his nomination sparked debate among insiders because they see it as a political plum – and a potential launching pad for higher offices. Lieutenant governors typically use the title and the few duties of the position to improve their fundraising and profiles for future runs.
With Maldonado, Arnold Can’t Lose
First things first: Yes, I’m personally disappointed that I wasn’t nominated lieutenant governor. The job is a joke, but my interest was serious. I wasn’t even vetted, at least as far as I know.
But Maldonado is the second best choice – a smart strategic move, for a few reasons.
– This nomination rewards loyalty.
Schwarzenegger has suffered from the perception (and sometimes the reality) that he twists with the political winds. By picking Maldonado, he rewards a like-minded Republican who has taken political risks for Schwarzenegger. And that will make it a little bit easier for the governor to convince other moderates to join him on tough votes during his last year in office.
– It likely produces one more Democrat in the state senate.
Quiz: What Disqualifies You from the Redistricting Commission?
The authors of Prop 11, which creates a new commission to draw lines for state legislative and board of equalization districts, wanted to keep politics out of the process. How far did they go?
Below is a list. Some of the items on the list, if they were true statements about you, would disqualify you from serving on the new redistricting commission. Other statements on the list, if true, would not disqualify you.
You can apply on-line to be a member of the commission beginning December 15.
First is a statement. Then an explanation of whether it’s disqualifying:
"You were an independent voter who changed her registration
in 2007 so you could vote for your friend Mitt Romney in the Republican
presidential primary."
The Mac Taylor Rule
As I’ve written here before, I’m against supermajorities, and for that matter supermen, superbanks, super-centers, and supermodels (too skinny).
But if you’re going to have super-majorities for spending, budgets and taxes, as we do in California, you need to align those super-majorities with the best interests of the next generation. Our system fails to do that.
The best example: Raising taxes is politically difficult and forces us to pay for our current needs, instead of off-loading them onto the future. So California’s system makes it even more difficult with a 2/3 vote. But if you want to cut taxes (politically popular) even if it means pushing costs into the future, that’s much easier—it requires only a simple majority.
A super-majority system should recognize this reality by applying 2/3 votes to the easier options. If you want super-majorities (I’d get rid of them all together), super-majorities should be applied to two cases. 1. It should take a two-thirds vote of the legislature to cut taxes, a politically easy thing to do. 2. It should take a 2/3 vote to spend money (which is essentially the rule we have now).
Two Reasons Whitman Needs Another Democrat
If another Democrat were to get into the governor’s race, the most logical question to ask him or her would be: Are you in league with Meg Whitman?
The best thing that could happen for Whitman would be for Jerry Brown to get some competition.
There are two reasons for this, one obvious and one not so obvious.
1. The obvious. If Brown sails to the Democratic nomination without facing competition, he can avoid damaging attacks and save his money for what it is certain to be an expensive and brutal general election campaign. In fact, Whitman’s bottomless pit of money is a much greater advantage if Brown has to spend millions in a contested primary.
2. The not so obvious. As Steve Poizner fails to gain traction, it’s become clear that Whitman’s real competition for the Republican nomination is Tom Campbell. And Campbell, more than anyone besides Brown, benefits from the absence of real competition on the Democratic side.
Shocked, Shocked To Find Taping In the Attorney General’s Office
I am shocked, shocked, shocked to discover a press spokesman
taping on-the-record conversations between his boss and reporters.
This
sort of recording took place only just about every time I interviewed a
politician during the 2008 presidential campaign. And during the 2003
gubernatorial campaign. And during most high-profile campaigns for office. And
during any number of impromptu press availabilities in the state Capitol. Such
taping, after all, is only legal in 38 states of the 50 states, so such an
obviously illegal act truly is outrageous. For someone to record such
conversations over the phone now, as former Jerry Brown spokesman Scott Gerber
did… Hey, did I mention I was shocked?
And I totally share the outrage on
both left and right over the attorney general’s investigation, which was so
cursory that it only released 93 pages of transcripts and emails that, in the
effort to cover up this terrible crime, revealed that Brown’s chief deputy Jim
Humes had advance warning of at least one of the tapings.