Archive for California
Recent Stories for California
Tioga High students push to recall school board
Category: Education · State: California · Source: LA Times
Reporting from Groveland, Calif. -- When the school board in this rural community voted to get rid of popular math teacher Ryan Dutton in September, the students at Tioga High School were so upset, the entire school boycotted class the next day. Then they decided to save his job.
What started as a civics class project soon became much more: a campaign to remove all five board members of Big Oak Flat-Groveland Unified School District.
Believing in their teacher, the students organized a petition drive to hold a recall election in this sparsely populated district near Yosemite National Park. With the help of parents, teachers and even their principal, the campaign turned in about 1,200 signatures last week for each board member -- 910 were needed to call a special election. The students expect to learn this week whether the recall qualifies. If so, an election will be held in May.
Dutton, 31, a former professional football player, lost his job over allegations that he cheated in a course he took last spring at Cal State Fresno. The university cleared him and apologized for "any misunderstanding," but the board has refused to reinstate him.
"We didn't like what was happening in our district," said Elise Vallotton, Tioga student body president and president of the newly formed Students for a Better School District. "Many of us stood up at board meetings and explained our point of view. Obviously, they weren't listening. They didn't do anything to try and help us, and that's why we started the recall."
Despite its name, Big Oak Flat-Groveland Unified School District is hardly unified.
With a long history of political infighting and personal rivalries, it has run through seven superintendents in eight years. When Supt. Mari Brabbin was hired last year, one local businessman greeted her, "Welcome to the Gaza Strip."
The recall campaign has brought that bitterness and hostility into the open.
"It's become a dialogue of the deaf," Brabbin said.
Brabbin, who placed Dutton on leave, is also a target. Parents dug up complaints from her previous job. And a preliminary report from the association that accredits schools found that Tioga's "program this year has been totally disrupted because of the decisions of the superintendent and the school board."
The schism in the district was apparent at a tumultuous meeting of the school board in December. Hundreds of people crowded into the Tenaya Elementary School cafeteria to support the students seeking Dutton's return.
Community members peppered the board with allegations of mismanagement, missing school funds, improper teacher transfers, secret board meetings and lack of oversight for school construction projects.
More than a dozen students -- including the Tioga High basketball team dressed in uniform -- appealed to the board to reinstate Dutton. As the students made their case, the board members sat stone-faced.
Krystal Edman-Wilson, a sophomore, told the board she was disappointed that other beloved teachers had been forced to leave. Then she lost Dutton, who she said was "a great teacher and taught me math in a way I could understand."
"The students were starting to feel invisible in the eyes of the school board," she told the board. "Now, recall petitions are being signed. We want a fresh start."
Because most of Tioga's 120 or so students are not old enough to vote, they could not legally circulate petitions. Many parents joined the campaign, including one who provided an RV dubbed the "recall mobile" to collect signatures in remote areas.
"People who didn't get a chance to vote are trying to make a change in a small community in a very big way," said Gloria Marler, a former school board member who is supporting her daughter, Dana, 15, in the recall effort. "Basically, it's the children taking the initiative because their parents are either too afraid or too apathetic."
But the involvement of parents like Marler -- who is expected to run again if the recall qualifies for the ballot -- has prompted criticism that some grown-ups are taking advantage of the students to further their own agendas.
"They are being led by people who may not have their best interests at heart," school board member David Gookin said. (Read More...)
‘Open primary’ may be headed to 2010 ballot
Category: Election Reform · State: California · Source: Capitol Weekly
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday plans to discuss his goals for political reform that may include a push to change California's primary election laws.
The governor and those close to him who helped spearhead the recent change in the state's redistricting laws are expected to voice suport for open primaries, which would allow voters to cast primary ballots for any candidate, regardless of partisan affiliation. A ballot initiative could be before voters by 2010, perhaps even earlier, to change the state's primary laws.
Schwarzenegger has already signaled his support of an open primary. That issue - and others - are expected to be covered Wednesday by the governor in a public briefing on political reform.
"He (the governor) believes we need to have a robust debate about that and other political issues," said Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear. "You can anticipate that, as he has through his governorship, he will continue to push for political reform."
One view of the partisan paralysis gripping the California Legislature is that it could be eased by embracing open primary elections, in which voters can cast ballots for any candidate regardless of party affiliation. The notion is not new - some 13 states already have open primaries and 20 more have variants, and California had open primaries in 1998, before its law was thrown out by the courts. But reformers, the governor and others now see open primaries in California as a possible answer to a Capitol frozen in partisan gridlock.
The political parties themselves remain opposed, however, and during the past decade voters have tended to agree, turning down two attempts to open up the primaries.
But California voters, in a signal that change could be looming, recently approved the creation of a bipartisan, independent commission to draw the boundaries for 120 legislative and four Board of Equalization districts, taking that authority away from the Democrat-controlled Legislature.
Before the November election, Gov. Schwarzenegger said in Los Angeles that redistricting was the most important first step. "And of course, the next thing is open primaries. That's how we have to walk down that road and create the real change and not stay with the status quo."
California Forward, a nonprofit political group that played a significant role in the passage of Proposition 11, the redistricting measure, is looking at the possibility of changes to the primary election process. The group says its overarching goal is to ensure confidence and trust in the election process. California Forward, which is in the midst of researching the primary election issue, has not set a timeline for its reform proposals, if any, although others interested in primary election changes see the 2010 ballot as a likely target, even sooner.
"Elections should be designed for voters, not for protecting incumbents or elected officials," said California Forward's Zabrae Valentine. "There is a good chance that this reform area (open primary) could be part of the solution." She noted that a number of other options also might improve the existing primary, including removing the partisan designations on candidates or allowing voters to register without identifying their party affiliation.
"Any thying we can do to improve trust and confidence is worth looking at," Valentine added. "No single reform will do that."
California Common Cause, a sponsor of Proposition 11, also is looking at open primaries. Common Cause notes there are a number of possibilities, including same-day election registration, a fully open primary and the so-called "top two" formula, in which the top two vote-getters in the primary face off in the general election, regardless of party affiliation.
In election-day registration, voters request the party ballot of their choice. Like California Forward, Common Cause is examining the options.
"We are particularly interested in election-day registration," said Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause. "In November 2008, we saw a lot of voters try to vote who were turned away. They were convinced they had registered to vote, but because of the turnout, they weren't in the system." Election-day registration, she added, would help alleviate that problem.
"We think election-day registration allows people who are legitimately able to vote to express that on election day. It would allow for an open primary, like Michigan, and it would eliminate the ‘criss-cross," she added. The "criss-cross," the bane of the two major parties, allows registrants of one party to vote in another's primary - a move they believe causes political mischief.
The purpose of a primary election is to select the party's candidate. In a fully open primary, any voter can vote for any candidate. In a fully closed primary, voters can only vote for a candidate from their own party. In either case, the general election remains unchanged: Voters can vote for whomever they want.
California has what is called a modified closed primary. In this system, the parties determine whether those registered as declined-to-state can vote in the party's primary election. Generally, that means declined-to-state voters can cast ballots in most primaries except presidential and party leadership positions.
One statewide race, the superintendent of Public Instruction, is nonpartisan. The contenders are listed on the ballot by name, but not party. If candidate wins more than 50 percent of the vote in the primary, the race is over. If no candidate wins 50 percent, a runoff election is held in November during the general election.
Initiative process needs overhauling
Category: Initiative and Referendum · State: California · Source: The Monterey County Herald
If California's initiative process stays the course, with rich special interests crafting tricky propositions that don't do what they claim, it soon will be time for the ultimate ballot measure. If it ever qualifies for the ballot, a measure reforming the initiative process might be called Proposition L, for logic, something that has been drained from the process.
The idea of initiative reform is in the air because of the muddle of measures on the overly long California ballot early this month and because of the polarizing debate over Proposition 8, the same-sex marriage ban headed for a state Supreme Court showdown.
As a smattering of propositions demonstrated on Nov. 4, California's methodology does little to keep confusing, complicated and ill-considered measures off the ballot. Fortunately, voters saw through the deceptive advertising and alertly turned down one measure this year that would have further enriched Texas oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens under the guise of promoting clean energy and another that would have devastated small, green energy producers.
Californians, it seems, finally have broken with tradition and are now rejecting some measures even when their backers are able to seriously outspend the competition. But this state, unlike some, still labors under a system in which moneyed interests from anywhere can buy a spot on the ballot to pitch just about anything.
That, coupled with the judiciary's reluctance to weigh in on the legality of measures until after the vote, has led to nearly a dozen instances of the courts tossing out propositions approved by voters. That includes a 1972 proposition rolling back desegregation measures, a 1982 measure repealing inheritance and gift taxes, a 1992 measure imposing congressional term limits and the 2000 measure barring same-sex marriages.
Confusion over the process and the court's role has led to considerable anger being misdirected at the courts. Their responsibility to rule on the constitutionality of laws remains in full effect no matter whether those laws are the creation of a legislature or the electorate. Those who argue that the courts have no business overturning "the will of the people" have forgotten their grade-school lessons on the balance of powers.
Still, some have suggested the public frustration won't be eased until ballot measures start receiving some form of formal, advance legal analysis, similar to how the legislative analyst assesses economic impacts. Others, most notably the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies, have put forth long lists of reformist suggestions that could soften the whipsaw effect. Most of the ideas deserve serious consideration, sooner rather than later.
Among the better thoughts is to limit campaign spending for propositions, to extend the signature-gathering period in order to encourage volunteer as opposed to paid petition circulation, to allow the Legislature to tweak successful measures in order to make them more practical and more likely to withstand judicial scrutiny, and to require proponents to wait longer before reviving unsuccessful measures.
Some legislators and public interest groups argue convincingly that the process has been hopelessly hijacked already, all but destroying the populist intentions. But considering the current standing of the Legislature, it is entirely unreasonable to expect an increasingly suspicious public to give up this form of direct governance.
A better idea would be for groups such as the League of Women Voter to work with the Center for Governmental Studies, California Forward and perhaps even the Legislature to craft a ballot measure salvaging the best of the process and jettisoning the worst. With each election season, California demonstrates the danger of leaving things as they are.
Prognosticators Dissect Calif. Supremes’ Vote to Review Prop 8
Category: Marriage · State: California · Source: ABA Journal
A California Supreme Court vote yesterday to review an initiative banning gay marriage had observers dissecting the hidden meanings.
Fueling the speculation were votes by two justices who had joined the court’s 4-3 decision in May finding a constitutional right to gay marriage. Chief Justice Joyce Kennard was the only justice yesterday to vote against review of the voter-approved constitutional amendment that sought to overturn the decision, report the Los Angeles Times and the Daily Journal (sub. req.). And Justice Carlos Moreno was the only justice to vote in favor of staying the measure until the court could review the case.
The court also directed lawyers to present arguments on whether the referendum known as Proposition 8 violated the separation of powers under the state constitution.
Moreno’s vote was seen as an indication that he would vote to overturn the anti-gay marriage referendum, the Los Angeles Times story says. At issue is whether the ballot measure, approved by 52 percent of the voters last month, is a simple amendment to the state Constitution that can be approved by a voter majority or a far-reaching revision requiring either a two-thirds vote of the legislature or a constitutional convention.
Legal analysts were more puzzled by Kennard’s vote, the Times story says. Although she voted against reviewing the constitutionality of Proposition 8, she joined the other justices in voting to review the legality of gay marriages performed between the supreme court’s gay marriage decision and the approval of the referendum.
Andy Pugno, general counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, told the Los Angeles Times that Kennard’s vote seemed to "seemed to indicate that she thought the lawsuits [challenging Proposition 8] had ... little merit." He was pleased the court agreed to allow his organization to present arguments.
“We see today as a grand slam,” he said. "Everything we asked for was granted."
There was also speculation that the court’s decision to grant expedited review was a hopeful sign for challengers, but others didn’t think the schedule indicated anything other than a desire for a quick resolution.
Gay-Marriage Ban Sets Up Host of Battles
Category: Marriage · State: California · Source: Wall Street Journal
California voters on Tuesday approved Proposition 8, which adds to the state constitution the following sentence: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
While the wording is simple, the situation quickly became complicated. For example, what happens to those same-sex couples who married before the ruling? Legal challenges filed Wednesday raised other questions: Was the referendum process itself lawful? Does the new language conflict with other parts of the state constitution? Separately, should Proposition 8 opponents have filed challenges saying the proposition violated the U.S. Constitution?
David Cruz, a constitutional-law expert at the University of Southern California, has some answers...
Monthly Archives for California
- January 2009 (1)
- December 2008 (1)
- November 2008 (3)
- October 2008 (3)
- September 2008 (1)
- August 2008 (1)
- July 2008 (3)
- June 2008 (3)
- May 2008 (4)
- April 2008 (1)
- December 2007 (11)
- November 2007 (49)
- October 2007 (14)