Kim Alexander's Weblog

This blog has moved

2010-04-28T21:16:00.001-07:00

This blog is now located at http://blog.calvoter.org/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://blog.calvoter.org/feeds/posts/default.

Certified list of candidates for June ballot now online

2010-04-08T16:28:00.000-07:00

The Secretary of State recently published the final, certified list of candidates for state and federal offices that will appear on California's June 2010 Primary election ballot. Open seat contests for statewide offices such as Governor have attracted a large number of candidates from all parties. The 177-page PDF-format list features candidate contact information and web sites.

Controversy over Prop. 14 ballot language

2010-03-11T08:19:00.001-08:00

Today's Los Angeles Times features this column by George Skelton outlining the controversy over the ballot title and summary for Proposition 14, a measure on the June 2010 that, if passed, would create an open primary process for California elections. Excerpts from Skelton's column are below.

The fate of an open primary proposal on the June ballot may well hinge on the outcome of a bitter court fight this week over a dozen or so words.

The words will be seen by millions of voters -- everyone who casts a ballot in the June 8 primary. They will summarize what Proposition 14 is all about and undoubtedly influence more votes than any endorsement or mail piece.

It's language that will be used in the "ballot label" printed right on the ballot, and the "title and summary" included in the secretary of state's official voter guide mailed to households.

"If we win the case, we win the election," says David Townsend, a strategist for the Prop. 14 side. "If they get their language, we lose the election."

At issue is whether the proposed open primary amounts to "reform" or merely "change." The current ballot language states the former; opponents contend the latter. Also, would Prop. 14 really lead to "greater participation in elections," as the language claims? Not necessarily, opponents argue.

There are other disputes: Opponents want to point out that candidates would not be required to list their political party. They could list it voluntarily. Also, the anti-14 side wants the summary to state that the measure eliminates the guaranteed rights of political parties -- and write-in and independent candidates -- to be on the general election ballot.

And they dispute the nonpartisan legislative analyst's finding that an open primary system would result in "no significant" increase in government costs. It could raise costs by "between $10 million and $20 million," they say, and insist the summary should point that out.

Accusations are flying all around the Capitol, mainly from Prop. 14 backers, who claim they were blindsided when a labor union, the California School Employees Assn., filed a suit against the Legislature without notifying them.

Most legislators -- both parties -- strongly oppose an open primary system. But they placed Prop. 14 on the ballot as part of a late-night deal last year to buy the budget-and-tax vote of Sen. Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria).

Now proponents suspect that the union and legislative leaders conspired to change the ballot language in the opponents' favor by attempting an out-of-court settlement -- a sort of bait-and-switch on Maldonado.

----

But let's back up: Prop. 14 would create a "top-two" open primary. There would no longer be party nominating elections, except for president.

There would be one primary ballot, open to all candidates and voters. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, would advance to the general election. In a heavily Democratic district, it's possible that two Democrats could face each other in the runoff. Ditto for two Republicans in a GOP district.

The goal is to force candidates in primaries to appeal to a wider range of voters than merely their own party members -- and elect some pragmatic moderates who can crack Sacramento's partisan gridlock.

Because the Legislature produced Prop. 14, it was allowed to write the ballot label and title and summary. When a ballot measure originates as a voters' initiative, the attorney general composes the language.

The legislative counsel wrote the Prop. 14 language with aides to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who strongly supports an open primary.

Testimony from SoS hearing on the Future of Voting in California

2010-02-11T14:08:00.000-08:00

On Monday I attended a hearing sponsored by the Secretary of State to examine the future of voting in California. The hearing was well-attended, although there were some notable absences, including Secretary of State Debra Bowen herself, who was held up in Washington, DC due to weather.

I know many folks were watching the hearing online via the Secretary of State's web site and a few even stuck around until the bitter end when I delivered my testimony in the "Public Comments" portion of the agenda around 5:15 p.m. I believe there may be a video archive of the hearing available at a later time. Staff did inform the audience yesterday that there would be transcript and that public comments will be posted on the Secretary of State's web site.

My remarks are available here.

What do you envision as the future of voting in California? The Secretary of State is still accepting public comments, which can be sent via email to votingsystems@sos.ca.gov.

Secretary of State hearing Monday - Future of Voting in California

2010-02-05T13:30:00.000-08:00

On Monday, February 8th California Secretary of State Debra Bowen will hold an informational hearing, on the topic of "The Future of Voting in California: the People, the Equipment, the Costs". The Secretary of State has arranged for speakers from across the country to come to Sacramento for this event (see the agenda for a complete lineup of speakers).

In her media advisory announcing the hearing, Secretary Bowen had this to say:

“Demands for increased transparency and services, shrinking government budgets, and technological advances that outpace elections laws and regulations have combined to challenge what many thought were ‘permanent’ solutions developed as part of the 2002 Help America Vote Act,” said Secretary Bowen, California’s chief elections officer. “Many in California and across the nation are ready to move in a new direction. The question is, what should Californians seek in the next generation of voting equipment and how can new products truly serve the interests of voters?”

The hearing begins at 10 a.m. in the Secretary of State's auditorium in downtown Sacramento, at 1500 11th Street, first floor. For those who cannot attend in person, there will be a live webcast available online.

Application deadline for Citizens Redistricting Commission is Feb. 12

2010-02-05T11:39:00.000-08:00

California's first-ever Citizens Redistricting Commission will be created by the end of this year. According to the Bureau of State Audits, which is responsible for managing the commission selection process, the Bureau has received over 15,000 eligible applications from Californians to serve on the commission! The response is overwhelming and inspiring. I had thought maybe a few hundred people would apply -- I never imagined it would be more than 15,000! This tremendous groundswell of interest shows that many Californians care deeply about the quality of representative democracy in our state.

The Bureau has been compiling statistics showing who is applying by gender, party, ethnicity and geographic location -- they can be found online here. The deadline to apply is February 12. Visit www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov for additional details and to access the application process. The Dec. 18 edition of CVF-NEWS also provides additional information about what will be expected of applicants and those who are selected to serve on the new commission.

This morning on Capitol Public Radio's "Insight" show - using iPhones to sign initiative petitions

2010-02-01T07:14:00.001-08:00

Can you use your iPhone to sign an initiative petition? A northern California-based company, Verafirma, has developed an application that makes it possible. But is it legal? Is it secure? These are the questions that remain unanswered. Election officials will need to start figuring it out soon, though, because the proponents of an initiative seeking to legalize marijuana use in California have submitted their petitions for verification, and the batch includes a smattering of signatures submitted not on piece of paper, but on thumb drives that display the initiative petition along with an image of a voter's signature captured when the voter wrote that signature on his or her iPhone screen using the Verafirma app.

And it's not just an image of a signature - it's something called "signature dynamic" that captures the pressure, speed and other special characteristics of the signature-in-the-making. This data can also be used for verification purposes - however, I do not believe the 58 county registrar offices have that technology in-house at this time. The counties that received these thumb drives have to either accept or reject the signatures on them. If they are rejected then there will likely be a legal battle and/or a legislative effort to change the law.

The advantages of collecting initiative signatures using iPhones or other kinds of personal digital assistants (PDAs) are substantial, especially if you have an initiative that is likely to attract grassroots support. Using PDAs to sign initiatives will allow for more successful viral marketing campaigns and can lower the cost for qualifying an initiative, which experts estimate is a minimum of $1 million, even for the most grass-rootsy of measures.

The technology may also lend itself to voter registration, which is currently an all-paper affair in California. Although the Secretary of State is aiming to create an online voter registration process, it is not likely to be up and running for several more years. From an election officials' point of view, it will likely be far easier to verify petitions or registration forms that come in a digital format because the information on them is more accurate and easier to read, and it will also greatly reduce the number of paper petitions that get submitted, thus saving paper.

The downside? From a voter's perspective, it may make initiatives easier to qualify so we may end up with even more measures on the ballot, which can overwhelm voters. There are also potential security and privacy risks that must be addressed. How does the voter know that a company collecting their information and signature image isn't storing it somewhere to use later for commercial or fraud purposes? How do you know the initiative you are signing is the actual one you want to sign and not an imposter petition? These kinds of questions typically get worked out during legislative and regulatory proceedings. But in this case, as in so many other instances in the past 16 years*, public policy has not kept pace with technology.

And we know from experience where that can lead. Remember electronic voting? It was so appealing to the registrars -- no more paper ballots, a fast, accurate count. The problem was there was no transparency or accountability either. California spent hundreds of millions of dollars on 40,000 paperless, electronic voting machines that ended up later being replaced with paper-voting systems or retrofitted with printers to produce a paper trail. We learned an expensive lesson -- paper is low-tech and perhaps not what's best for the environment, but in an election process marked by a tangle of procedures and varying degrees of technical sophistication in county election offices and at polling places, paper is the safest, most transparent method for transacting ballots.

Of course, voter registration forms and initiative petitions are not the same as ballots. While they are in the same "class" of transactions, they are fundamentally different; a ballot is secret, and your name is not allowed to be on your ballot. Once you cast a ballot it must be anonymized, mixed with other ballots and never tied back to you. These rules are what keep the ballot secret. But initiative petitions and voter registration records are public records, and election officials must know the names and addresses of people who sign and submit them. Signatures must be visible and verifiable. Consequently, I am cautiously optimistic about the prospects for the iPhone initiative petition application. But first, election officials will need to figure out how to protect the security of these transactions and the privacy of the information contained in them.

For more on this topic, tune in to the Capitol Public Radio's Insight show today, hosted by Jeffrey Callison, where I will be a guest along with Sacramento county Registrar of Voters Jill Lavine and Steve Churchwell, counsel for Verafirma. The show starts at 10 a.m. at 90.9 FM in Sacramento or online at www.capradio.org.

For additional details, take a look at this article by Ken McLaughlin from earlier this month in the San Jose Mercury News.

* Incidentally, I mention "the past sixteen years" above because it marks the time when I took up my role as the head of the California Voter Foundation, and today happens to be my sixteen year anniversary on the job. It has been a phenomenal experience watching, and participating in the changes technology has brought to the democratic process! I look forward to the challenges ahead.

A new initiative aims to derail redistricting reform

2010-01-20T15:53:00.000-08:00

George Skelton wrote an insightful column for the Los Angeles Times this week discussing some of the formidable hurdles Proposition 11, the redistricting reform initiative, must overcome before the initiative's results are achieved. His column is online and excerpts are below.

Remember redistricting reform, the effort to strip from legislators the power to choose their own voters?

It's the power that leads to gerrymandering or, in effect, lawmakers rigging their own elections.

Proposition 11, sponsored by a coalition of nonpartisan good-government groups and heavily funded by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, passed by a thin margin (1.8%) in November 2008. It called for creation of a 14-member independent citizens commission to draw districts for the Legislature and state Board of Equalization.

The next once-a-decade remapping will occur in 2011, and take effect with the 2012 election.

Here's an update: Things aren't going all that smoothly.

Two problems:

* Not enough women and minorities are applying for seats on the commission, officials report. The panel's pool of applicants is heavily tilted toward old white guys. There's a concerted effort underway to recruit a more diverse pool by the application deadline, Feb. 12.

* It all could be moot anyway. A small group of Democratic political insiders is trying to repeal Prop. 11 and also torpedo a sequel that would extend the redistricting reform to congressional seats. They've filed an initiative for the November ballot.

The odds are that Prop. 11 will survive. The repeal effort is blatantly cynical, and Californians probably will see through the bunkum. But this election year is unpredictable.

---

At last count a week ago, about 6,000 people had applied. But 73% were male, and 52% were 55 or older. Whites represented 80% and Latinos only 8%. A mere 14% were from Los Angeles County, but 20% -- not surprisingly -- lived in the capital county of Sacramento.

Still, it should all work out. There'll be a large enough pool of women and minorities to seat a diverse commission representative of the state's demographics.

A bigger threat to reform is an initiative conceived by Michael Berman, a longtime Democratic strategist, redistricting guru and brother of U.S. Rep. Howard Berman of Van Nuys. The Bermans' goal is to kill an initiative that would also hand congressional redistricting to the independent commission.

The Berman proposal would commit a double execution by simultaneously burying Prop. 11. All redistricting would be returned to the Democratic-dominated Legislature.

But that's not how the so-called "findings and purpose" of the Berman initiative read. Titled "the 'Financial Accountability in Redistricting Act' or 'FAIR,' " the measure begins: "Our political leadership has failed us. California is facing an unprecedented economic crisis and we, the people (not the politicians), need to prioritize how we spend our limited funds. We are going broke. . . . "

And so forth with paragraph after paragraph of pot and kettle bilge. Based on Sacramento history, the independent commission won't spend any more money on redistricting than the Legislature has, and its meetings will be open, unlike the lawmakers' plotting behind locked doors.

"I'd be embarrassed to write that, and I'm a hack," says Rick Claussen, campaign consultant for the congressional redistricting reform. That initiative is being funded so far by wealthy Silicon Valley physicist and political activist Charles Munger Jr., a bankroller of Prop. 11. Half the necessary voter signatures have been collected to place the measure on the November ballot.

"I'm trying to uproot this evil" of gerrymandering, Munger says. "It's a national problem, but this is my state so I'm starting here. Whenever the politicians get into the game of selecting the voters, instead of the voters being free to select the politicians, that's bad for democracy."

The Berman measure, which hasn't yet been cleared for signature-gathering, actually was officially submitted by UCLA law professor Daniel Lowenstein. He is an election law expert, first chairman of the state Fair Political Practices Commission and a Berman chum. For decades Lowenstein has opposed independent redistricting and is straight up about it.

"I believe that in almost all respects, redistricting is a political matter," he says. "There's one institution set up especially for resolving political matters and it does so entirely legitimately. And that's the state Legislature."

As for the majority party gerrymandering to minimize campaign competition, he says: "It's a complicated process of self interest, group interest and public interest. . . . A fair redistricting plan is whatever emerges from the political process of compromise and competition."

"If the other party doesn't like it, they should win the next election."

One hazard for reformers is that voters could become confused and vote against both measures. That would be fine with the Berman group. They'd at least prevent pesky citizens from drawing congressional districts.

A fresh perspective on reforming California government

2010-01-07T12:29:00.001-08:00

These days everyone is talking about reform, many initiatives are in circulation and voters are likely to face various, and possibly competing approaches on the November 2010 ballot. One of the freshest perspectives I have heard recently came from Susan Rose, a former member of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors whose essay, "State Government Badly in Need of Reform", appeared in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle. An excerpt is below:

Is it possible to reshape the way California is governed?

At a time of continuing unhappiness with the governor and Legislature, several groups have issued proposals that would redesign the financial structure of the state. But now is the time to not only rethink the fiscal systems of California but to redesign how services are delivered.

---

Here are areas that need to be considered in the reform movement and in any debate about governing the state:

Special districts

Special districts are a holy grail in California communities, but are they still needed? Many began when and where services did not exist. Today, according to Peter Detwiler, staff director of the state Senate's Local Government Committee, California has about 3,400 special districts. Many counties have multiple water, sewer, fire and transportation districts. Why not consolidate or annex them to local municipalities? The administrative savings alone would be worth millions to taxpayers, and more-efficient services would result.

Regional government

Counties have been the real losers in this last budget go-round. They perform many of the same services that cities provide and also those that are mandated by the state: public and mental health, social services, tax collection, courts and probation.

Why not create regional forms of government that would reduce duplication? Counties can provide services that cover larger geographical areas, and cities can serve the day-to-day needs of their communities such as land-use planning, public works, building safety, parks and recreation, and police.

If cities are too small to provide their own police departments, they can contract with neighboring communities; it is done frequently throughout the state. Counties can contract with nearby cities to provide day-to-day municipal services for their own rural areas. The elimination of some of these functions would result in huge savings to local governments and more streamlined delivery of services.

---

Consolidating services

California has 58 counties. Each presents a laboratory of opportunities for reshaping government. Santa Barbara County has a population of 405,000 and 10 fire protection agencies. Services are provided by some of the cities, the county, special districts, and state and federal programs that include firefighting. In some areas, training and communication systems have already been combined. Small communities can be very protective of their fire departments, but a single consolidated fire service program could provide greater resources and increased service levels. Why not unify all county fire programs into one area-wide agency?

What I especially like about Ms. Rose's suggestions is that not only would streamlining and reorganization of government services likely result in the provision of better services, it also would improve government accountability. Right now just about every level of government in California is involved in just about every kind of government service. This overlapping of jurisdictions makes it difficult, if not impossible for voters to know who to go to when they need help or have a complaint or question. Streamlining government services would make it easier for the public to know which political leaders are responsible for delivering those services and rewarding or punishing them according to performance.

Carnegie Corporation report looks back on election reform

2010-01-07T12:20:00.000-08:00

The Carnegie Corporation of New York recently released this report summarizing the election reform work it has funded over the past eight years, following the 2000 Presidential election and Bush v. Gore. The report provides an historical overview of a pivotal time in U.S. democracy, featuring comments and stories from many of the people and organizations that Carnegie has supported. It also contains a fascinating map (on Page 7) of the 50 United States and the circumstances under which voters in those states who are felons can get their voting rights reinstated, produced by the Brennan Center for Justice.

Please donate to the California Voter Foundation!

2009-12-28T11:48:00.001-08:00

There is still time to donate to CVF before the end of the year and get a deduction on your 2009 tax return! Learn more about why the California Voter Foundation needs your help, then make a secure donation online or mail your contribution. Thanks to all who have already given generously to support CVF!

Initiatives aplenty coming to California voters in 2010

2009-12-28T11:33:00.000-08:00

Folks who keep an eye on initiative trends have been noticing a significant uptick in the number circulating and attempting to qualify for the 2010 ballot. Recent articles by Eric Bailey in the Los Angeles Times and Torey Van Oot in the Sacramento Bee discuss the prospects for these measures and their likely impact on voters next year (excerpts below). For those interested in tracking initiatives in progress, you'll find the links you need in CVF's 2010 California Election Preview Guide.

Here are some excerpts from the December 27 Los Angeles Times story:

With heated contests looming for U.S. Senate, governor and other statewide posts, 2010 stands to be a blockbuster year in California politics.

The state could also see a bumper crop of ballot measures.

In recent weeks, nearly 90 proposed initiatives have been in the pipeline, elbowing to become the latest entrants in the state's century-old tradition of direct democracy.

Gay-rights activists, abortion foes, marijuana proponents and government-reform advocates are getting into the act of citizen lawmaking. Insurance companies and consumer groups appear poised to rumble.

There is also the possibility of a high-stakes proposition fight between business and labor interests that some pundits liken to state politics going nuclear.

If historical trends hold, many of the proposals will fail to garner enough support and voter signatures to qualify. But the state remains on track to potentially see dozens of measures on the ballot.

The record of 48 initiatives set in November 1914 -- in the era of Gov. Hiram Johnson, progressive politics and the birth of the ballot measure -- almost certainly is safe. But in a state with a rich tradition of lengthy and complex ballots, "2010 is going to be extraordinary," predicted Kim Alexander, founder of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation. "Voters are going to be cramming like never before."

Here are some excerpts from the December 28 Sacramento Bee story:

Even if just a small percentage of proposed initiatives clear the signature hurdle, voters are likely to face another long ballot in November, with anywhere between 10 to 20 measures having a shot to qualify. A legislative measure asking voters to approve an $11.1 billion bond has already been placed on the November ballot by state lawmakers and proponents of a measure that would legalize and tax marijuana for recreational use say they have gathered more than enough signatures to qualify.

Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said a crowded ballot can cause challenges for communicating to voters the implications of the various initiatives as well as which wealthy interests put up the cash to put the measure on the ballot.

"There's a lot of mystery already in voting in California, and then that problem is compounded with the initiatives process and the fact that we have so many state and local measures to vote on," she said.

The ballooning ballot and increased role of money in both the qualifying and campaigning process have prompted calls to update the initiative system, which was adopted in 1911 as a direct democracy fix for widespread corruption caused by the railroad industry's control over state politics.

"The history of the process is just the opposite of what has evolved over time," said Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, the co-chairman of a select legislative committee that is generating recommendations for improving state government, including the initiative system.

"I think there is certainly strong recognition by voters that it's really important to constrain special interests from capturing the initiative process," Feuer said.

Ideas for updating the system include offering proponents the option of lowering the signature threshold if they give the Legislature a role in a measure, requiring two-thirds voter approval for passing constitutional amendments and mandating that initiative proponents identify how new programs would be financed.

Others have suggested raising the fee for filing an initiative to lower processing costs for the state – an estimated $6,800 for the attorney general's office to prepare the title and summary describing each proposal – and discourage the submission of less serious initiatives that clog the system.

But despite voters feeling fatigued by the lengthy list of measures at the polls and concerns over the role of money in the process, getting them to change their cherished initiative system could be a difficult task in itself. Polls have consistently shown that while voters recognize the shortcomings of the process, huge majorities support it.

"California voters have a love-hate relationship with the initiative process," Alexander said. "People love to complain how difficult it is, but don't even think about taking it away. It is sacred in this state."

Apply for the Citizens Redistricting Commission -- Deadline is Feb. 12

2009-12-28T11:29:00.000-08:00

The California State Auditor's office is now accepting applications from Californians interested in serving on the new Citizens Redistricting Commission. To learn more about what to expect if you apply and find links to the application and additional resources, take a look at this CVF-NEWS commentary I recently wrote about the application process.

Live webcast today, 10:30 a.m. -- California Redistricting Reform

2009-12-10T09:18:00.000-08:00

I'm heading downtown today for the State Auditor's event to kick off the new web site and application process for the Citizens Redistricting Commission, created through the passage of Prop. 11 last year. The event will be webcast live at 10:30 a.m..

The new "We Draw the Lines" web site will begin accepting applications next week on December 15. Already people can see drafts of what the applications look like and find out what will be asked of folks who want to apply.

Some have been wondering whether at the end of the application process there will be enough money to fund the actual commission? The initiative called for $3 million to fund the new commission, but the first time around there are of course start-up costs, like creating regulations and an application and selection process. The Legislature has allocated the $3 million Prop. 11 calls for, but clearly more money will be needed. Even the Legislative Analyst's analysis of Prop. 11 in the ballot pamphlet said $3 million was insufficient and the actual costs just given inflation would be $4 million.

Fortunately John Myers at KQED Radio has taken a closer look at this question, and today published a very thorough description of what is likely to be the biggest implementation challenge Prop. 11 faces -- how do you get more money for a worthy program in this fiscal climate?

Reform proponents have a good opportunity to try to lock additional funding in, but the window is closing. The current Governor of the state was the biggest champion of all of redistricting reform and Prop. 11. He used his fundraising powers to raise millions to support the measure, which barely passed. If it's going to take more than $3 million to do it right, proponents need to figure out how much and ask for it sooner rather than later while Gov. Schwarzenegger is still in office. There's no guarantee the next Governor, whoever he or she will be, will have such a soft spot for redistricting reform, and certainly most members of the Legislature aren't exactly eager to get this done, either.

Please donate to the California Voter Foundation!

2009-11-19T12:01:00.000-08:00

It's that time of year -- a time for giving. We at the California Voter Foundation are looking for your support to help fund our important work! Please read our appeal and donate online or by check to CVF. Your tax-deductible contributions make a huge difference!

Twitter changes policies to improve nonpartisanship

2009-11-19T11:52:00.000-08:00

Last month Don Thompson of the Associated Press wrote this story calling attention to the fact that Twitter, the popular social networking web site, appeared to be favoring Democratic candidates for Governor of California by highlighting only Democrats in its list of suggested users.

This week, Twitter co-founder Biz Stone said they would change their policy and practices. Excerpts from Thompson's follow-up story are below.

"That list will be going away," Stone said at a conference in Malaysia. "In its stead will be something that is more programmatically chosen, something that actually delivers more relevant suggestions."

Names on the suggested user list are selected by company officials. In California, Democratic gubernatorial hopefuls were placed on the list, a move that greatly boosted their number of followers. Republican candidates were left off until recently.
The difference in treatment drew outcries from good government groups and contributed to a decision by the California Fair Political Practices Commission to hold hearings next year. The commission plans to examine whether it needs to regulate how campaigns intersect with social media.

In the three weeks since an Associated Press story about the suggested user list, Twitter executives added all three of the Republican candidates seeking to replace Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is termed out of office after next year.
The switch gave each Republican a significant bump in followers, demonstrating the list's reach and influence.

Former eBay chief executive Meg Whitman, who led the Republican field with 4,160 Twitter followers, jumped to nearly 61,000 followers. Former Congressman Tom Campbell went from 1,660 followers to 57,500, while state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner's nearly 2,600 followers increased to 56,500.

By comparison, Attorney General Jerry Brown, the presumed Democratic gubernatorial candidate, increased from 960,000 followers to 1 million during the same three-week period.

Twitter also added Carly Fiorina, who is seeking the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer next year.

The list's expansion drew praise from Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit California Voter Foundation. She wants to see the site continue as an avenue for political discussion, saying it can serve as a valuable tool for voters who are just starting to get engaged in next year's campaign season.

California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring, however, urged Twitter to drop politicians from its favorites list if it doesn't end the list entirely.

"To include political candidates among suggested users is begging for some government entity to come in and regulate it," Nehring said.

State Auditor Q&A, WeDrawTheLines.ca.gov site launch

2009-11-19T11:34:00.001-08:00

Today's Capitol Weekly features this Question and Answer interview by Malcolm Maclachlan with State Auditor Elaine Howle, whose office is charged with implementing the new Citizens Redistricting Commission. The interview coincides with the Bureau of State Audits' launch of its new web site, WeDrawTheLines web site, featuring a growing bounty of information about the new commission, including the draft initial and supplemental applications and a description of the role of a commissioner. At a news conference at the Sacramento Public Library today, Ms. Howle was joined by Rivkah Sass of the Sacramento Public Library, who said all 27 of Sacramento's libraries will help the public access the application process.

Excerpts from the Capitol Weekly Q&A are below.

What kind of commitment are we talking about if you’re on the Commission?

The Commission has to be established by the end of calendar year 2010, so our job is to get this commission established. We actually pick the first eight names, randomly draw them in November, and then those eight commissioners pick the remaining six. There are 14 commissioners in total.

The commission is required to commence its work in January of 2011. They must have the maps drawn by September 15th, that’s about an 8 ½ month time frame. How frequently the commission will need to meet, how long they will need to meet on a particular day is going to be entirely up to the commissions depending on the workload. We’re in the process of putting some materials together that we can get on our website to try to educate people so that they’re making an informed decision when they decide to apply.

The commission is in all likelihood going to be meeting in a variety of locations in the state, because they need to hear public input from people from throughout the state. Beyond that, we don’t have any more specific information as far as the commitment. But again, we’re working with some re-districting experts who have done this in the past, who can help us develop some more materials that will educate the public about what the expectations will be.

It’s a big commitment, but it’s also a huge opportunity for you to be the first citizens’ commission in this state. There are some commissions in other states. Most of them are either appointees of the legislator or appointees of the governor. This is truly going to represent the citizens of the state because the commissioners are actually going to be everyday people. Not only is this an opportunity to be on a commission for the first time in California but it could end up being a national model.

----
Don’t you have a difficult job even when this process isn’t going on? Do you have extra staff?

We actually do not have extra staff. We have lots and lots of work. It was kind of thrown in our laps, a bit of a surprise to us. It’s a huge challenge, but to be quite honest, we are flattered that the voters have that kind of confidence in my office. As I said in an editorial, the voters picked the right agency to do this job. We’re going to do it well. We have some funding that was appropriated by the Legislature, and I will keep asking for additional money. But we’re committed to doing this job as well as we do our audit work.

Study finds demographic differences between vote-by-mail voters and registered voters

2009-11-11T12:38:00.000-08:00

Today's Ventura County Star features this column by Timm Herdt discussing the recent findings of a California Field Poll study on the turnout and demographic characteristics of California's permanent vote-by-mail voters. Excerpts are below.

Excerpt:

There’s a new study out this week that documents the extent to which California has transitioned to a new way of voting, one that has created a pool of 6 million voters who may participate in every future election but never again set foot inside a polling place.

These are people who have signed up to be permanent mail-in voters, and their numbers are growing at a breathtaking pace: from 2.7 million in the 2004 election, to 4 million in 2006 to 5.6 million in 2008. They now represent more than a third of all California voters.

---

In his paper on the growth in permanent mail voters published in this month’s Survey Practice, a journal for pollsters, Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo notes that turnout among permanent mail voters was significantly higher than total voter turnout in the last two statewide general elections. In 2006, when overall turnout was 56.2 percent, the voting rate of permanent mail voters was 77.7 percent. In 2008, the comparable numbers were 79.4 percent and 86.3 percent.

In low-profile elections the difference is even more striking. In last May’s statewide special election, overall turnout was just 28.4 percent. But almost half, or 48.6 percent, of permanent mail voters returned their ballots.

Much about this phenomenon is overwhelmingly positive.

Permanent mail voting has increased voter participation, made it possible for voters to take their time and consult reference materials when completing lengthy and complex ballots and, judging from the public response, provided a great many Californians with a convenient voting option that they like and prefer.

Unfortunately, DiCamillo’s research also reveals an unfortunate side effect: Permanent mail voting has intensified the demographic disconnect between the California populace and the California electorate.

The pool of registered voters in the state has always been older, more affluent and more Anglo than the adult population at large. With the growth of permanent mail voting, the differences among actual voters appear to have become even more pronounced.

Based on data collected from the Field Poll’s pre-election surveys, DiCamillo concludes, “There are significant demographic differences between the state’s permanent mail ballot registrants and other registered voters.”

There are geographic, age-based and ethnic disparities.

For instance, voters ages 18 to 29 make up only 13 percent of permanent mail voters, but 19 percent of all other voters. Those over 65 make up 29 percent of those who always vote by mail, but only 15 percent of all other voters.

Latinos are vastly under-represented among permanent mail voters, accounting for just 14 percent. Among all other voters, 24 percent are Latino.

Kim Alexander, founder of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, says permanent mail voting may be exacerbating the lack of diversity among California voters. “Policy-makers need to be mindful of that,” she said.

Alexander notes that the impulse of county elections officials — who now must conduct essentially two elections every Election Day, one through the mail and the other in person — has been to reduce the number of polling places and, in many cases, to urge that voting be conducted entirely by mail.

“Just because the vote-by-mail rate keeps going up doesn’t mean it’s time to start closing polling places,” Alexander said. “All voters should be able to vote in the way they’re most comfortable.”

Alexander said DiCamillo’s data also reveal the importance of getting elections officials in every county to uniformly promote vote-by-mail registration.

Until very recently, officials in Los Angeles County — the state’s largest and most diverse — had been decidedly cool to mail voting and did nothing to promote permanent mail registration. The result is striking: DiCamillo’s data show that LA County voters account for only 10 percent of permanent mail voters but 32 percent of all other voters.

The Voter Foundation not long ago commissioned a survey of 1,000 registered but infrequent voters. It found the No. 1 reason they cite for not voting regularly is that they don’t have time on Election Day. Yet, more than half were unfamiliar with mail-in voting. “That was kind of astonishing,” Alexander said.

DiCamillo’s study shows that the popularity of permanent-mail voting has continued to increase dramatically even nine years after the option was established. It’s not going away.

The challenge to those who would like to see a California electorate more reflective of its people is to educate young and minority voters about an option that makes voting more convenient.

Lobbyists sue to block state public financing proposition

2009-11-09T16:03:00.001-08:00

Over the weekend the Sacramento Bee published this story by Andy Furillo reporting on recent legal actions taken by California's association of lobbyists to block a proposition that, if passed by voters would create a public financing system for the Secretary of State's elections in 2014 and 2018. The measure relies on fees paid by lobbyists and lobbying firms to fund the public financing system. Excerpts are below.

Excerpt:

California lobbyists have filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court to stop the vote on a ballot measure scheduled for the June primary election that would make them the guinea pig in an experiment on campaign finance.

The lobbyists say the measure to make them collectively pay approximately $34 million to fund California's statewide secretary of state campaigns in 2014 and 2018 unfairly restricts their free speech rights and restricts people's constitutional right to petition their government.

"Our view is that the First Amendment isn't up for election," said Jackson Gualco, president of the lead plaintiff in the suit, the Institute of Governmental Advocates, and himself a top-level California lobbyist.

---

Hancock's Assembly Bill 583 cleared the Legislature on tight votes that showed no Republican support and a smattering of Democratic opposition.

It won only after it was amended to knock out the governor's race and elections for two legislative seats from the pilot project in public financing. The bill was sponsored by the California Clean Money Campaign, the California Nurses Association, other labor, environmental and consumer groups, and Common Cause.

Gualco's lobbyist association opposed the bill when it was in the Legislature, along with the California Chamber of Commerce, other business and anti-tax organizations, as well as the state Fair Political Practices Commission and Schwarzenegger's own Department of Finance, even though the governor later approved the measure going to the ballot.

The plaintiffs filed the suit Aug. 25 in Superior Court only after they had registered an identical action in U.S. District Court in Sacramento and saw it dismissed June 15 by Judge Frank C. Damrell. The federal judge threw it out on grounds of lack of "ripeness," because voters had yet to approve the measure and there was no imminent threat of damage to lobbyists.

Loyola Law School professor Richard L. Hasen, an expert in election law, said the lobbyists can expect another tough legal go when their suit comes up for a scheduled Nov. 20 county court hearing in Sacramento in front of Judge Michael P. Kenny.

Hasen said the "ordinary rule" is that lawsuits contesting the constitutionality of ballot measures have to wait until the public votes them in, "on the theory that the voters might turn down the measure and save the court from having to address the constitutional question."

2010 California Primary Election Preview debuts

2009-11-09T15:58:00.000-08:00

Last week we began publishing this new June 2010 California Election Preview providing dates, links and resources to help the public keep track of the election as it takes shape.

So far three measures have qualified for the ballot:

Senate Constitutional Amendment 4 of 2008, authored by Senator Roy Ashburn (Property tax: new construction exclusion: seismic retrofitting)

Assembly Bill 583 of 2008, authored by Senator Loni Hancock (Political Reform Act of 1974: California Fair Elections Act of 2008)

Senate Constitutional Amendment 4 of 2009, authored by Senator Abel Maldonado (Elections: open primaries)

See the election preview for links and more details.

Bureau of State Audits finalizes regulations for Citizens Redistricting Commission application process

2009-10-21T16:23:00.000-07:00

This week the Bureau of State Audits released the final regulations that will govern the new Citizens Redistricting Commission application process. The commission was enacted by California voters via Prop. 11 in 2008. CVF worked with a number of other organizations to help shape and refine these regulations; overall they are good but there were several important changes CVF sought but was not able to achieve. One was to define the term "state office" in a way that would not restrict thousands of former and current state board and commission members and their families from applying to serve on the new commission. CVF also urged the Bureau, unsuccessfully, to refrain from using the Form 700 conflict of interest form as a tool to vet applicants for the commission, as we are concerned that doing so will be both invasive and burdensome for applicants.

CVF's letter regarding use of the Form 700, it is online here. The final regulations are online here. More information about California's Redistricting Reform is available from the CVF web site.

Legislative hearing Thursday Oct. 22 on political reform

2009-10-21T16:22:00.000-07:00

The leaders of the California State Senate and Assembly recently announced a new committee made up of ten lawmakers from each house that will explore reform proposals. The Select Committees on Improving State Government have scheduled their first, day-long hearing for Thursday, October 22, at the State Capitol, Room 4202. The hearing begins at 9 a.m. and concludes at 4:30. Topics to be covered include possible legislative branch and budget process reforms. Speakers include Mac Taylor, Bill Hauck, Fred Silva, Bruce Cain, Laura Chick, Bill Lockyer, Robert Naylor and others.

"Getting to Reform" conference - a brief review

2009-10-21T16:17:00.000-07:00

Last week on Oct. 14 I attended a conference in Sacramento organized by a number of academic organizations at UC Berkeley, CSU Sacramento and Stanford called "Getting to Reform". The event was sponsored by the Hewlett Foundation and was extremely well attended; over 300 people came for the day-long conference, the purpose of which was to assess the pros and cons of various reform approaches being discussed throughout this year, such as convening a constitutional convention or a constitution revision commission.

If you were not able to attend the conference and would like to see what you missed, there are six free videos available for viewing online from the California Channel web site. One of the panels I found most fascinating was the first one, titled, "What do Californians Think About Reform?" where Mark DiCamillo presented findings from a Field Poll commissioned by Next Ten and a number of other groups involved in the conference. Among the key findings:

* 52 percent of California voters oppose changing the current two-thirds legislative vote requirement to pass a state budget with a simple majority vote;
* 69 percent of voters oppose amending Prop. 13 to allow the state legislature to increase taxes with a simple majority vote;
* 56 percent support the idea of increasing the vote requirements needed to approve amendments to the state constitution from a simple majority to a two-thirds majority vote of the people in an election; and
* 75 percent support requiring initiative sponsors to identify funding sources or areas of the budget to be cut when submitting new initiatives that call for additional spending.

More details about this Field Poll are available here.

I think the most salient point I came away with from the conference was made by Bill Hauck of the California Business Roundtable who served on a constitution revision commission convened in the 1990's following a recession and budget crisis. Hauck noted that it took several years for his commission to complete its work and make recommendations, and by the time that happened the call for reform had died down as the economy had picked back up. Assemblymember Anthony Portantino, who spoke at lunch, made a similar observation about a Constitutional Convention, stating the whole process would take five years and by that time the momentum for change is lost.

It seems like a serious dilemma; if meaningful structural or governance reform is going to be achieved in California, setting the stage to get there may take several years, but it is unclear whether the voting public, or the organizations that would back various reforms, would maintain the long-term commitment needed to see reform measures all the way through.

CVF applauds 2009 EFF Pioneer Award winners

2009-10-21T16:12:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow night in San Francisco, the Electronic Frontier Foundation will celebrate this year's Pioneer Award winners. As a Pioneer Award judge (and former recipient) I am very pleased with this year's crop of winners, which includes hardware hacker Limor "Ladyada" Fried, e-voting security researcher Harri Hursti, and public domain advocate Carl Malamud.

More details about this year's Pioneer Award winners and tomorrow's awards dinner are available here.

Nonprofit news ventures flourish in California

2009-09-29T15:19:00.000-07:00

Over the past year or so, a number of new, nonprofit news ventures have been announced, serving both a national and California audience. Largely funded by foundations, these ventures are designed to help plug the news reporting hole resulting from severe staff cutbacks at news organizations across the country in recent years. The four ventures are ProPublica, the Center for Investigative Reporting's California Watch, the Voice of OC (Orange County) and the Bay Area News Project.

Recognizing that the for-profit business media business model is not so profitable these days, a nonprofit model is now being pioneered. First the San Francisco-based Sandler Foundation stepped up in early 2008 with a $10 million, three-year minimum investment to launch and fund ProPublica which is producing hard-hitting investigative pieces and collaborating with commercial news organizations to produce and distribute its stories.

This year, the Hewlett, Knight and Irvine foundations announced their multi-million, multi-year investment to support California Watch, whose staff and editors include many of the finest journalists I have known in California, such as former San Francisco Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Bob Salladay. The mission of this project, according to its web site, is to "emphasize story telling that holds powerful interests accountable and shines a light on key areas of interest – education, health care, criminal justice, the environment and government oversight. The goal of our reporting is to expose hidden truths, prompt debate and spark change."

More recently, on September 15, down in Santa Ana, the seat of Orange County, The Voice of OC was announced, which is yet another non-profit news venture, but focused specifically on Orange County issues and featuring exclusively online reporting. According to the LA Times' story about this project, the seed funding was obtained from the Orange County Employees Association. The key backers include former state senator Joe Dunn and former veteran LA Times reporter Dan Morain who is serving on the Voice's board.

And just last week, it was reported that San Francisco investor (and host of the beloved Hardly Strictly Bluegrass festival in Golden Gate Park) Warren Hellman's family foundation is donating $5 million to start up the Bay Area News Project, in collaboration with KQED and the UC Berkeley School of Journalism.

It's exciting to see all these new ventures get underway, and to see so many public-spirited journalists finding new, innovative avenues for sharing their talent. In the past few years the number of reporters covering Sacramento has dropped significantly. Fortunately now there is a growing number of reporters who will keep tabs on what's happening in Sacramento, Santa Ana, San Francisco and beyond.

I believe a significant precursor to all this public-interest journalism was the civic journalism movement, which was supported back in the 1990s by the Knight Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts, which funded the Pew Center for Civic Journalism. I participated in a number of the Pew Center's projects and conferences, and recall how skeptical and even hostile journalists from commercial news organizations were to the notion of civic journalism, and the Pew Center's mission to "create and refine better ways of reporting the news to re-engage people in public life".

Technology and necessity have changed the reporting equation. Of course, nonprofit news is not quite the same as civic journalism, but it stems from a similar sentiment, which is the idea that news coverage is something that should be designed to benefit the public interest and hold politicians accountable. By taking the profit requirement out of the equation the public will hopefully benefit enormously from all these ventures letting loose dozens of public-spirited reporters to watchdog politicians, and will succeed in establishing a new model for journalism.