California

Steps to Make Sure Your Vote is Counted: A Guide for California Voters

admin — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:48:01 -0700

No abstract available.

Rational and Pluralistic Approaches to HAVA Implementation

admin — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:05:08 -0700

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) has created a new dynamic for the oversight and implementation of federal elections, requiring states to assume greater control of election processes vis-a-vis their local governments than was previously the case in most states. We consider how HAVA has changed the relationship between states and localities, especially through the HAVA planning process. We examine two approaches that states have used in HAVA planning—a rational approach and a pluralistic approach—and how each can shape the power relationship between states and localities. We then present case studies from Georgia and California to illustrate how these two approaches have functioned in practice.

California Votes: The Promise of Election Day Registration

admin — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:47:20 -0700

Election day registration will produce higher voter participation in California.

States that have adopted EDR have witnessed a 3 to 6 percentage point increase in participation among the voting-age population.
Voting among young people and those who have moved in the last six months in nearly 15 percentage points higher in states with EDR.
California might experience an even larger increase in turnout--perhaps as much as 9 percentage points--because California has a younger and more mobile population

Election day registration will increase the number of people on the registration rolls in California.

In states with EDR, up to 90 percent of the electorate is registered.
Higher registration rates facilitate the distribution of voter information pamphlets and better communication about where and when to vote.

Election day registration works in the states that currently use it, and people like it.

Election day registration is one-step voting.
In states that use EDR, most voters register at the polls.
Election officials in states with EDR like the fact that they have more oversight over the registration process

Voter registration fraud can be minimized in California under election day registration.

Stricter penalties for attempted registration fraud under EDR will minimize risks.
As most voter registrations under EDR occur at the polling place and require some form of identifications, voter registration will be more secure than under the current system in California
States that currently use EDR have low rates of registration fraud because they put into place appropriate safeguards to minimize risks.

Election day voter registration should not substantially increase the cost of elections in California.

EDR will require new expenditures, but it may save money on other items, particularly pre-election staffing. Per-capita election administration costs in major cities using EDR--including Minneapolis and Milwaukee--are approximately $3.50 per voting-age person.
California counties now spend between $3 and $4 per voting-age person to run elections, though some counties spend considerably more.

The year after Minnesota adopted EDR, Minneapolis reported that half of all polling place registrations happened in the wrong polling place. Today less than 1 percent are reported to occur in the wrong location.
The problem can be overcome with appropriate voter education before election day, in the polling place, and after the election. These activities are routine in states that use EDR, and have little apparent fiscal impact.

Rational and Pluralistic Approaches to HAVA Implementation: The Cases of Georgia and California

admin — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:29:03 -0700

The Complexity of the California Recall Election

admin — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:31:21 -0700

The October 7, 2003 California Recall Election strained California’s direct democracy. In recent California politics there has not been a statewide election conducted on such short notice; county election officials were informed on July 24 that the election would be held on October 7. Nor has California recently seen a ballot with so many candidates running for a single statewide office. With easy ballot access requirements, Secretary of State Kevin Shelley certified 135 candidates for the official ballot on August 13.

In the recall, voters cast votes on (1) whether to recall Governor Davis from office, and (2) his possible successor. These two voting decisions were made independent by the federal district court’s decision on July 29. The court’s decision invalidated a state law requiring a vote on the recall question in order for a vote on the successor election to be counted. The abbreviated election calendar also led to many improvisions, including a dramatically reduced number of precinct poll sites throughout the state and the unprecedented ability of military personnel and their dependents, and civilians living overseas, to return their absentee ballots by
fax. These problems produced litigation and speculation that substantial problems would mar the election and throw the outcome of both the recall and a possible successor’s election into doubt. In the end, the litigation failed to stall the recall election, and the large final vote margins on both the recall question and the successor ballot overwhelmed election day problems. In this paper, we concentrate on some of the problems produced by the complexity of the recall election, but we do not attempt an exhaustive presentation of these problems. We focus on polling place problems on election day, the problems associated with translating the complicated recall election ballot into six languages, how the long ballot influenced voter behavior (the “vertical proximity” effect), and voter difficulties with the ballot measured with survey data. We conclude with a short discussion of the possible impact of these problems on the recall election.

This article is drawn from VTP Working Paper #9

State desperately needs redistricting reform

admin — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:00:58 -0700

The other day, a colleague asked me about redistricting reform in California. He had three questions. Why do we need it, how do we do it, and why now?

We need to fix how legislative boundaries are drawn in California for a few simple reasons. One reason is that today's districts do not respect local communities, but instead our state is carved into bizarre districts whose primary purpose is to reelect incumbents.

Consider our local 44th Assembly District. If you haven't seen a map of this district, think of a boot with a high heel and long, thin and curvy toe. The heel stretches down to Glassell Park, over to South Pasadena. The sole runs east along the Foothill (210)Freeway dropping down to Temple City and North El Monte, while the thin toe runs northeast up to Duarte. The district skips Sierra Madre and Monrovia, but picks up a big chunk of territory north of Altadena and La Ca ada, where few people live.

Why are oddly shaped districts like this a problem? Because these districts were drawn to pack enough voters from one party into each district to guarantee that one party will control the district, not to have districts that represent communities and shared interests. This makes elections predictable for politicians, but prevents voters from making real choices.

Even worse, politically drawn districts do not insure that the voters who live in these districts are well represented in Sacramento or Washington. Pacing disparate communities into oddly shaped districts makes the daily job of representatives difficult, as they have to juggle requests and needs of constituents from vastly different communities.

Compare two cities - different cities - in AD44, South Pasadena and Duarte. In South Pasadena, recent hot issues include mitigation of Gold Line noise, the 710Freeway extension, and their public school district. In Duarte, recent concerns center around Gold Line extension, Vulcan mining dust and local air quality, and the preservation of open space in the foothills. No doubt, these are different communities, with different problems, and different needs from state and federal government.

Today, instead of voters picking the right politician to deal with their community's problems, our existing redistricting process lets legislators pick their voters, because the state Legislature (working with the interests of their party's Washington delegation in mind) now draws and approves the district lines. If you imagine a process where legislators and their staff huddle around high-speed computers analyzing how dozens of different district plans will affect their re-election odds, you are not far from the mark.

That's why we need redistricting reform. Communities need to be brought back together so that their interests can be more effectively represented in Sacramento and Washington. Voters should pick their legislators (not the other way around), to guarantee that representatives know who is in charge.

But how do we do it? After all, didn't California voters just resoundingly defeat redistricting reform in the recent special election?

Indeed when put to the voters last fall, Proposition77 failed miserably, for two reasons. First, it would have forced redistricting in 2006, instead of waiting until after the next census in 2010. Second, it would have put redistricting into the hands of a small group of retired judges. The bottom line was that most voters perceived Proposition77 for what it was, a poor attempt at reform, and a potential partisan power-grab by Republicans.

The good news is that there are better redistricting reform proposals now circulating, including a reasonable proposal from state Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, whose Senate proposal SCA3 would give the power to draw district lines to a five-member panel. Two members would be Democrats, two would be Republicans, and the fifth would be a third party or nonpartisan representative.

This proposal is far from perfect, and there are a number of groups working to improve it, especially by increasing the number of redistricting panelists, by insuring that the panel represents the diversity of California, and by making sure that the panel follows a set of concrete principles when it draws new district lines after the 2010 census.

The good news is that Lowenthal is listening to these suggestions. It's also good to hear that the legislative leadership is open to pushing this legislation forward quickly, hopefully so that redistricting reform can be put to voters on the June primary ballot, though that would have to be done through a special supplemental ballot.

The time for reform is now. There is widespread agreement across the state that we need to fix our redistricting process. Political leaders in Sacramento have promised to fix redistricting, and we need to hold them to their promise. If we fix the redistricting process now, there is plenty of time for everyone to figure out how to make it work correctly after the 2010 census.

The clock is ticking, and if we don't see real progress by June, let's throw out these rascals in November.

Governor should hold to promise of reform

admin — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:59:39 -0700

It was just a year ago, back in January 2005, when Gov. Schwarzenegger said in his State of the State Address, "This year we must heal the patient" (the "patient", in his odd metaphor, being the state of California). To heal the patient, the governor argued that we had to do two things: reform the way the government spends money and the way the government operates.

But 2005 was not a year of healing. Far from it. It was a year when little was accomplished in Sacramento on these important issues facing our state. Instead of leading the fight for real reform, the governor stepped into a fruitless, expensive, negative, and highly partisan struggle over a series of ballot measures that would have done little to fix the real problems facing California.

It is now a year later and we are entering the 2006 election cycle. But none of California's fundamental problems, correctly identified by the governor over a year ago, have been fixed. The patient is on life support, and unless we soon start to fix our state's basic problems, our state will continue to slide further into partisan bickering, economic uncertainty and social instability.

Instead of serious discussion about real reform, the talk from Sacramento in 2006 has shifted to debating the details of a massive election-year pork barrel. The governor wants to mortgage our future (and our children's) on a mad scramble of building projects, primarily designed to keep the lobbyists and legislators happy, and to cover up the forgotten promises of real government and political reform.

Unfortunately, Schwarzenegger has forgotten that he promised last year to fix our state's basic problems. Gone is talk of reforming our government and political process. He must think that we will forget his promises, while he doles out billions of dollars, running for re-election.

But we can't forget those promises, and we need to hold the governor and our state legislators accountable. We must re-examine how we are taxed, and how our tax dollars are distributed across state, county and local governments. We need to do a better job insuring that all Californians get the education they deserve. California needs better roads, reliable energy resources and a cleaner environment. We have to make sure that every Californian stays healthy, and if they can't, they need access to affordable, quality care. And of course, every Californian deserves a chance at a good job, paying a fair wage.

These are important, and difficult goals. To achieve them we need a radical reconstruction of how the business of politics is conducted in our state.

Instead of pretending that our structural political problems have disappeared in the past year, the governor and our state legislators must start a process to achieve real political reform in our state. And if they won't do it on their own, we voters must figure out how to make our elected officials pay attention to the real problems in our political process, or fix them ourselves.

First, we need real redistricting reform. The current process, where legislators get to pick their voters and to break up communities in the process, is wrong and has to be changed. We have to take this power away from elected officials and give it to nonpartisan, or multipartisan, hands.

Second, our initiative process needs to be fixed. Voters need to retain the ability to right the wrongs of our elected officials, and the initiative process is an effective check on our state's government. But we need to bring some rational deliberation to the initiative process, including developing a system of legislative study of all qualified ballot measures to give them the chance to adopt the measure before it hits the ballot. We also need time and a procedure for scrutiny of ballot measures, to insure they are free of errors.

Third, we must have real campaign finance reform. Our campaign finance disclosure laws need to be stronger, and we need real-time, electronic and easy access to that information so that voters know who is contributing money to candidates and ballot measures. We need to think hard about limiting the amount of money that flows into our state's elections, and to weight the free speech rights of contributors against the seemingly outrageous amounts of money that are spent in California elections.

It's time for serious talk about real political reform. Gov. Schwarzenegger opened the door last year, but he failed to deliver on his promises to fix our state government. Instead of pandering for votes in this election season with a massive pork barrel plan, the governor and state legislature ought to focus on real political reform. If they don't, we'll end up with a lot of money thrown at lobbyists and the interests they represent, and be stuck with the same supercharged partisan politics and dysfunctional government in Sacramento.