Footer

About

Etiquette

Publish

Contact

Donate

This California Disposable Vape Ban Could Devastate The Legal Cannabis Industry Even Further 

NEW POLL: California Governor’s Race Sees “None of the Above” Beat the Entire Democratic Field

Gallup: Independent Voters Break Another Record in 2025

California is Using Virtual Reality on People in Prison, and It's Working

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots -- Here's Why

How It Really Works

Election Reform

Campaigns

Cannabis

Public Safety

Health Care

Opinion

Another one bites the dust. In tragic  news for California, the state just lost another big-name business.  EA’S Pandemic Studios was a beloved maker of video games, and will  cease to function, at least physically, in California. In an interview  with Kotaku, the studio’s CEO, John Riccitiello, blamed  the loss of the studio on ridiculous levels of taxation and the high  price of living in the state, and explained that as a  businessman, working in California simply no longer made sense. “For  good or for bad, we are taking down headcount in California because  it is really expensive,” Kotaku said. According to Kotaku, in the interview Riccititello  cited “recent regulatory changes” and the lack of tax incentives  in the state, and further claimed that it costs “two to three times  more to employ developers in that state [California] than it does in  Montreal, the U.K., Eastern Europe or China.” Unfortunately for about  200 employees of Pandemic, the perhaps business savvy move translates  to lost jobs. Tragic, but realistic: there is only  so much money state lawmakers can squeeze out of businesses and the  wealthy, before businesses and wealthy individuals simply pack up. Some  individuals and businesses will retain their business in California  for sentimental reasons, but after a certain amount of abuse, even they  will exit the Golden State in order to find true opportunity. What happened  to the idea of California as a state of innovation, creativity and a place to buck the status quo? Raising taxes on businesses has been done before,  and done badly, on the East Coast.Unless lawmakers hope to continue to  scare away business interests, they need to seriously consider the fact  that smart businesspeople will not spend extra overheard forever. Pandemic  Studios is just one entertainment provider, but it is representative  of a growing problem: California is known as the movie capital of the  world, but why would filmmakers continue to throw money away to film  here, when it is significantly cheaper to film elsewhere? Officials  in other states recognize that the market is opening. For example, in  Arizona, the Arizona  Department of Commerce offers a number of benefits and tax breaks to those who come to film  in the state. These include a Transaction Privilege Tax Exemption and  an income tax credit. In Oregon, the Governor’s  Office of Film &amp; Television offers cash rebates in the form of rebates on 20% of “Oregon-based  goods and services” used, in addition to a “cash payment of up to  16.2% of wages paid to production personnel.” The office also points  out that there is no sales tax in Oregon. Compare that to prohibitively  high filming prices and an increasing sales tax in California, and it  becomes easier to see why some businesses would rather close and/or  relocate outside of California, than to stay in this beautiful state  and hemorrhage cash.

A Pandemic of Closures

Over at Free &amp; Equal, ballot access expert, Richard Winger, delivered a point-by-point rebuttal of Jonathan Alter's advocacy of a top-two, open primary system in&nbsp;Newsweek. &nbsp;Here is the full text of Winger's press release:FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASENewsweek&nbsp;Column Spreads Common Misconceptions About "Top-Two" Primaries&nbsp;&nbsp;Ballot Access Expert&nbsp;Richard Winger&nbsp;Writes Editorials Against Measure&nbsp;In June of 2010, the voters of&nbsp;California&nbsp;will vote on a measure to institute a Washington-Style "Top-Two" Primary system. Top-Two is a system which the top two vote getters in the primary are the only names to appear on the November ballot -even if that means only one political party is represented.&nbsp;Now, columnist&nbsp;Jonathan Alter&nbsp;writes in&nbsp;Newsweek&nbsp;that the Top-Two Primary is a fullproof "Jackass-Reduction Plan."&nbsp;"The Top-Two Primary is the biggest threat to the existence of minor parties in over 50 years," said&nbsp;Free &amp; Equal Founder and Chair Christina Tobin. "Once again, the proponents of the system fail to take into account the effect that Top-Two will have on voter choice."Renowned ballot access expert and&nbsp;Free &amp; Equal&nbsp;board member&nbsp;Richard Winger&nbsp;has written a response to Alter, as well as an opinion editorial published in the&nbsp;Sacramento Bee.&nbsp;Mr. Winger's point-by-point rebuttal to Alter's column follows:&nbsp;1.&nbsp;"Top-two" helps incumbents and does not "reduce jackasses." When it was used for the first time in&nbsp;Washington state&nbsp;in 2008, out of 123 state legislative races, only one incumbent was defeated in the primary, and his reputation at the time of the primary was such that he probably would have been defeated under any election system.&nbsp;2.&nbsp;Corrupt special interests were the top financial backers when the "top-two" initiative (Prop. 62) qualified for the California ballot in 2004. The leading financial backer was Countrywide Home Loans, which at the time was the nation's biggest home mortgage lender, but which no longer exists, having been bought out by&nbsp;Bank of America&nbsp;in 2008. Separate from that, Countrywide was sued by 10 states for tricking people into taking out mortgages with disguised adjustable rates, something highlighted in Michael Moore's new film opening October 2, "Capitalism: a Love Story." Big business executives favored "top-two" because it screens out from the&nbsp;general election candidates&nbsp;who didn't have the financial advantages to place first or second in the first round.&nbsp;3.&nbsp;"Top-two" wipes minor party and independent candidates out of the general&nbsp;election campaign season. This was shown when Washington state used the system for the first time in 2008. For the first time since&nbsp;Washington&nbsp;became a state, no minor party or independent candidates appeared on the November ballot in any congressional election or any statewide state office election.&nbsp;4.&nbsp;The system may well be unconstitutional. On August 20, 2009, a U.S.&nbsp;District Court&nbsp;in Washington state said the system may be unconstitutional and set the stage for new briefings and a probable trial.&nbsp;5.&nbsp;"Top-two" greatly increases the cost of campaigning, because it forces candidates to run, in effect, two campaigns in front of the entire electorate (assuming they qualify for the second round).&nbsp;6.&nbsp;"Top-two" is not favored by people who have studied election systems.&nbsp;Political Science Professor Paul&nbsp;Gronke, of&nbsp;Reed College, posed a question to all 600 political scientists on the&nbsp;Political Methodology&nbsp;listserve, asking how many support "top-two". Only one political scientist replied in the affirmative. Professor Gronke participated in debates last year when Oregon voters were deciding whether to vote for "top-two". Gronke opposed the ballot measure, which was defeated 2-1.Mr. Winger's opinion editorial was published in the Sacramento Bee on September 20, 2009. The text of the editorial follows.&nbsp;In June 2010, California voters will be voting on a ballot measure to revise elections for Congress and state office. The measure would provide that all candidates run on a single primary ballot, and all voters get the same primary ballot. Then, only the two candidates who received the most votes in the primary could be on the November ballot.&nbsp;Although The Bee has endorsed this ballot initiative, it is a bad idea. In practice, it would eliminate minor party and independent candidates from the November ballot. We know this is true because Washington state tried the system for the first time in 2008, and that's what happened. Washington, for the first time since it became a state in 1889, had no minor party or independent candidates in November for any statewide state race or for any congressional race.&nbsp;When voters are voting in a primary, they are focusing on which particular Democrat or Republican they want to help. They have no time to pay attention to minor party or independent candidates. So those candidates haven't a prayer of coming in first or second.&nbsp;Even&nbsp;Jesse Ventura, running for&nbsp;governor of Minnesota&nbsp;in 1998, only got 3 percent of the vote in that state's September primary, which was a classic open primary (any voter could vote in any party's primary; Ventura was running in the Reform Party primary).&nbsp;But he went on to win the November election. Under the proposal that Californians will be voting on next year, Ventura and candidates like him would be wiped out after the primary is over.&nbsp;Minor party and independent candidates are useful to society. Because they generally don't expect to win, they are free to say exactly what they believe about social problems and how to fix those problems.&nbsp;The United States needs fresh thinking about our problems. But the election proposal would drive minor party and independent candidates out of the general election fall campaign, the time when voters are most interested in ideas for fixing our national problems.&nbsp;Voters would be wise to vote "no" on next year's ballot measure. Incidentally, California voters already defeated this idea once, in&nbsp;November 2004, when it was known as Proposition 62. Also, Oregon voters defeated it in November 2008, when it was known as Question 65.&nbsp;The Free and Equal Elections Foundation&nbsp;is vehemently opposed to the idea of the "Top Two" Primary. This ill-conceived system makes it virtually impossible for Independent and&nbsp;Third Party candidates&nbsp;to appear on the November ballot.&nbsp;The Free and Equal Elections Foundation&nbsp;plans to coordinate efforts to defeat these amendments in California, and is participating in litigation against the Top Two Primary in Washington State.&nbsp;The Free and Equal Elections Foundation&nbsp;is a non partisan, non profit 501c(4) organization dedicated to eliminating restrictive ballot access laws that target Independent and Third-Party Candidates.&nbsp;Free &amp; Equal&nbsp;will challenge these laws, through lobbying of&nbsp;state legislators, court challenges, and initiatives.&nbsp;####

Free & Equal press release rebuts \Top-Two\ open primary

From FreeandEqual.org: A Back Room Budget Deal earlier this year means the so-called "Top-Two" Primary will be voted on by California citizens.The vote would institute a Washington state style "Top-Two" system, in which the top two vote getters in the primary are the only names to appear on the November ballot -even if that means only one political party is represented.Free &amp; Equal board member Richard Winger writes in Ballot Access News:California newspaper reporters and political columnists have mentioned recently that Californians will be voting on the "top-two" system in June 2010. These articles constantly repeat the idea that the California legislature is now filled with ideologues of the left and right, and that "top-two" will replace them with "moderates" (these articles also constantly refer to "top-two" as "the open primary").History suggests that "top-two" won't replace "ideologues" with "moderates." In 1996, the voters of California passed an initiative for the "blanket primary", and that system was used in the primaries of 1998 and 2000. The "blanket primary" is identical to the "top-two" system, in the operation of the primary and the primary ballot. In both systems, all primary voters get an identical ballot, a ballot that lists all candidates of all parties (although under the blanket primary, independents did not run in the primary). The big difference between the blanket primary and top-two is that in a blanket primary system, the top vote-getter from each party goes on the November ballot.In the California 1998 primary, not one incumbent state legislator was defeated for re-nomination. If the proponents of a top-two primary were correct, there should have been many state legislators defeated in the 1998 primary. After all, the primaries of 1996 (which had elected all Assembly members) and the primaries of 1994 and 1996 (which had elected all Senators), were completely closed. Independent voters could not vote in those primaries.Top-two proponents say that California legislative districts are so gerrymandered, the same party always wins the general election for state legislature. They also say that the "ideologues" win the primaries because the "moderate" independents are locked out of the primaries. But, the evidence from 1998 disputes that.Every argument that the proponents of the Top-Two Primary put forward has been refuted. The fact is, that Democrats, Republicans, minor parties, and independents all agree: the Top-Two Primary is a bad idea.The Top-Two Primary was defeated by the voters of Oregon this past election. In the year to come, Free &amp; Equal Elections will work to coordinate with other like-minded organizations to ensure that the Top Two Primary is defeated in California as well. Free &amp; Equal will also announce a series of public forums about the Top Two Primary in California in the coming weeks.

Third Party Advocates Opposing Top Two

Now, just because something  is fashionable, that doesn't mean it's right. Unfortunately, many  government leaders these days don't seem to grasp that fact. A bill  currently in the California Assembly would make it a rule that consumer  products would have to be labeled according to the amount of greenhouse  gases used to create said product. For an already ailing business community,  this is a terrible idea.The current rage for all things  green, may, ironically, cause a serious setback in the amount of green  that businesses, and by extension, government, would see. When business  is bad, there are fewer dollars from which to tax.AB 19 concerns "Greenhouse  gas emissions: consumer product labeling," and is a bad bill for a number of reasons. The legislation, which is still in  committee, would authorize the Carbon Labeling Act of 2009, which supposedly  would be a voluntary program for businesses. What exactly is the point  of a business volunteering to disclose approximately how much carbon  dioxide was created when making a product? You've got us there.AB 19 was introduced in December  2008 by Assemblymember Ira Ruskin, and was amended earlier this month  on May 4. The bill itself bases its power on the California Global Warming  Solutions Act of 2006, which "designates the State Air Resources Board  as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of  emissions of greenhouse gases that cause global warming in  order to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases."If passed, AB 19 would usher  in the "Carbon Labeling Act of 2009," which would "require the  state board to develop and implement a program for the voluntary assessment,  verification, and standardized labeling of the carbon footprint, as  defined, of consumer products sold in this state."Bills such as AB 19 are frivolous  and a waste of taxpayer's time. State leaders  are paid to enact reasonable and helpful legislation and to oversee  a responsible and useful government apparatus, not create further regulations  to punish businesses using flimsy reasoning.As the recent pushback  against climate change legislation has proven, some citizens (and even  representatives, local and federal) are no longer buying the blanket  explanation that all climate change is from man-made evil. With fluctuating  temperature, both record highs AND lows, and flimsy data to support  the foregone conclusion of global climate change, it begs the question:  why are legislators focusing on punishing citizens for working and creating  goods, when no one really knows exactly where carbon footprints are  stepping?A darker question bubbles beneath  the surface, however: once businesses are allowed to be legislated and  punished for alleged anti-environment byproducts, at what point are  individual citizens targeted as well? If this legislation is passed,  individuals in the business community will be punished, if not forced  straightaway into falsifying "carbon footprint" information and  misleading the public on an already frivolous issue. Once all state  leaders have taken a course in basic environmental science and can thoroughly  explain why they're against what is viewed as "evil" carbon, then  and only then should they be legislating on such complex issues.                                    &nbsp;

Labeling Business, Punishing Individuals

Heads of the Pacific Coast side of the Fishery Management Council decided on Wednesday, April 8 to basically call off this year's salmon fishing season, after fears that the King/Chinook salmon population may be undersized and may be threatened by the additional fishing season, after a smaller number of the Sacramento River and Klamath River Chinooks migrated to California and Oregon this year. (One way that Pacific Coast fishery authorities have tried to alleviate the situation in the past has involved actually transplanting fish from fisheries, to the ocean, in hopes of upping the "natural" salmon population.)The National Marine Fisheries Service must approve this lower-level cancellation by or before May 1, only months before the start to the official salmon fishing season on the Pacific Coast. This marks the second year in a row that California and Oregon fisherman will  newest recommendation would affect fishermen in California, Washingbe restricted from fully participating in their pastime of choice, not to mention careers. Theton, Oregon and Alaska (with its own new salmon and Pollock fishing regulations, limiting accidental salmon catches to 60,000 or less, though it is unclear exactly how accidental catches can be fully regulated, all the time). In related news, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also came to the conclusion that the Longfin smelt fish population around the Sacramento River does not need to be listed as an endangered species (and as an extension, the extra protection that label affords)... despite the fact that its numbers are also noticeably lower this year.At the meeting of the Pacific Fishing Management Council, it was determined that South of Cape Falcon, there should be a "complete closure of commercial fisheries in ocean waters off California and a ten day ocean recreational Chinook only season Off Eureka and Crescent City." According to the council, NOAA member Jane Lubchenko is hoped to be a part of the future action to help "coordinate a comprehensive optimizing strategy for salmon produced in California rivers, including the Sacramento-San Joaquin and the Klamath-Trinity basins." Some of the recommended future mitigating actions include hatchery reviews, "habitat protection measures... including water management practices, biological opinions for Endangered Species Act listed species, recommendations for monitoring and research studies, and alternatives for future fishery management."Oregonian fishing companies were hit with a ban as well, albeit a slightly more relaxed one, with the ban mainly affecting Southern Oregon, for now. South of Cape Falcon Oregon ocean fisheries will face a quote of 117,000 cohos, while Oregon commercial fisheries would see a quota of about 11,000 cohos. North of Cape Falcon, "recreational fisheries" would be restricted to 176,400 cohos while "non-Indian commercial fisheries" would be limited to a "quota of 33,600 mark-selective coho, about five times the 2008 coho quotas," and Chinook quotes would be "slightly better than in 2008 at 20,500 each," with Indian fisheries in Oregon being allowed 39,000 Chinook and 60,000 coho, if the council's recommendations are approved.Will this environmentally-friendly maneuver in fact turn out to do more harm than good? Some have estimated that the commercial fishing season reels in perhaps around $100 million for local economies; in a recession, is it really wise to put such drastic action to affect? Couldn't the heads of the Pacific fisheries have come to a more lenient conclusion, which would not be set up to drastically alter the expected income for certain fishing cities? There is still the question of whether the decreased salmon presence is entirely a function of commercial fishing, or if the smaller number can also be attributed to the ever-present population fluctuations in any dynamic population. There is still hope that the National Marine Fisheries Service will come to a solution, less harmful to communities relying heavily on fishing for industry. 

Salmon Fishermen Face More Setbacks

In the massive field of proposed remedies for California's fiscal insolvency and politically problematic system, a novel idea has come down the pike from Fresno.Bill Maze (R-Visalia) has proposed that California be split into two states, one of them containing the 13 counties from Marin to Los Angeles, and the other containing the 45 inland counties. Into Beachland and Califarmia, if you will, though Maze seems to want something more boring along the lines of "Western California." Because we all know how attractive it is for one state to sound like a knockoff of another.But Maze isn't just shouting his idea hopelessly from the rooftops. He is organizing, and from the sound of it, that organization is going relatively successfully. Maze has an actual organization at his back - the "Citizens for Saving California Farming Industries," an organization he formed with "Don Curlee, an agricultural journalist who writes a weekly column for the Times-Delta; Joe L. Neyer III, publisher of California Farm Equipment magazine; and Virgil Rogers, a retired farmer operating a small cattle ranch in Springville," according to the Visalia Times-Delta.The idea, for all its eccentricity, is certainly intriguing, though not new. A similar effort was put together roughly sixty years ago to join parts of Northern California with Southern Oregon and create the new state of "Jefferson." This effort was defeated when the country hastily abandoned pesky decentralizing ideas like states' rights in the face of World War II. But for all the comparisons of the current President to FDR, this time, there is no World War II.So does that mean that California will finally cease to exist as a single state?Not necessarily. There are several obstacles to the idea, one of the largest being popular opinion. According to the Sacramento Bee, a recent Field Poll found that splitting California garnered, at best, a meager 29 percent support, whereas 71 percent disapproved of the idea. The grounds for this skepticism were best summed up by Terry Nguyen of Santa Ana, who simply said, "It's just crazy."And the perception of the craziness and impracticality of this measure is not the only obstacle to Maze's idea. The Fresno Bee's editorial board has already reacted viciously against the proposal, calling Maze's vision "a waste of time." Their reasoning is that California's problems can be solved more capably by other means, but if one examines Maze's list of grievances, one begins to understand why he could be skeptical of such a claim.One of these issues, according to the Fresno Bee, is that "San Joaquin Valley farmers and others believe that politicians from the liberal counties have foisted environmental rules and high taxes onto the rest of the state. That has put California into an economic tailspin," at least according to Maze's group.Holy Proposition 2, Batman! I wonder where he got that idea!It is possible to argue, as the Bee has done, that Maze and his compatriots are nothing but an assortment of cranks who are overreacting to perceived slights. But that analysis would really be missing the point here. The fact that people from 45 counties (even if they are a minority) could feel victimized by the overzealous good intentions of people from only a third of that number of counties is clearly an indicator that democracy in California is not working. Only 29 percent of the population may be small, but it's a significant enough portion to make the threat of secession worth looking at as a sociological phenomenon. Maze's idea may be impractical, but it speaks to the resentments of a lot of California's people, who are sick of having their state's political process hijacked by well-heeled urban activism. Still, rather than carving up the state, perhaps Maze's followers ought to reserve their carving knives for someone else.

Splitting Up?

According to the Los Angeles Times, a California-based Federal districtcourt has taken up the question of whether California'sprison overcrowding violates the prisoners' "constitutional rights."The case name has not been released to the public, and there may be no singlecase, for the question comes on the heel of multiple lawsuits filed byattorneys claiming medical neglect of prisoners constitutes an infringement oftheir Constitutional rights. The objectionable part of this situation is notthe fact that the court has taken the case, however - certain instances oflitigious zealotry will always make it to court - but rather that the court,despite not having officially ruled in either direction, has apparently begun"speaking and acting as if they have already decided to take actionagainst the state", at least according to the Times. What on earth does it take to placate these would-bejudicial despots? Apparently not satisfied with alreadybeing repudiated for their activism once, the court system appears to bedetermined to force California'scitizens to accept yet another instance of constitutionally dubiousinterference. This time, they are doing this by arguing that murderers, rapistsand thieves have an inviolable right not only to standard excesses of the Warren court, but to elbowroom.Before dissecting the absurdity of this instance of judicialmalfeasance, it may be worthwhile to first explain the full argument of theplaintiffs. The plaintiffs argue, according to the Times, that the overcrowdingof California's prisons has adirect correlation with lack of proper medical/psychological care within theprisons, and that as a result, the mental and physical health of the inmates issuffering to such an extent that it may amount to a violation of the inmates'constitutional rights. Though the article does not explain which"rights" this would violate specifically, the only possible argumentone can foresee is that these conditions are a violation of the inmates' dueprocess rights. That is, the clause in the FourteenthAmendment which states that no person "shall be deprived of life,liberty or property without due process of law" supposedly forbids prisonsfrom being overcrowded.In a pre-Warren Court world, this sort of argument would belaughed off before it even reached the docket. However, California has thegreat misfortune of having its district courts supervised by the 9th U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most infamously activist circuits in thecountry. As such, the district judges in Californiahave very little incentive to fear that their activist decisions will beoverturned by such a body. That is, assuming their activism swings reliably toport side, but in San Francisco(where the courts are located), that is something of a foregone conclusion. Assuming the Times is telling the truth about the directionthe court will go, the reader fluent in constitutional law should experience aneerie sense of Déjà vu and perhaps flashback to Justice John Harlan's dissentin Mirandav. Arizona, in which Harlan wrote: "Nothing in the letter or thespirit of the Constitution or in the precedents squares with the heavy-handedand one-sided action that is so precipitously taken by the Court in the name offulfilling its constitutional responsibilities." A key distinction must be made here. It may be – in fact, itis unquestionable – that prison overcrowding is an undesirable condition forall parties and that a policy that reduces overcrowding would be desirable,assuming it didn't distort other elements of the justice system. However, it isnot sufficient constitutionally to argue that something is good policy. Thealternative must actively transgress the Constitution and, like it or not,there is nothing at all either in California'sConstitution or in the United States Constitution that says anything directlyabout the right to good mental or physical health. Of course, we all know that the actual text of the UnitedStates Constitution is no obstacle to the ideas of activist judges, but theystill find it necessary to use the document as an excuse so as to avoid theperilous shade of Lochnerv. New York (a case so infamously incoherent that it earned its own verb),which constantly hovers, waiting to consume judicial credibility.  Therefore, one can anticipate some sort of gobbledygookabout "evolving standards of decency" or "living,breathing" constitutionalism or, god forbid, "penumbrasand emanations." There is also likely to be some sort of reference tosociological jurisprudence, a practice which unfortunately gained credibilitybecause of its application in Brown v. Board of Education(hyperlink), and hassince been used to justify all sorts of less historically important, and moreincoherent, decisions.  Naturally, the case will likely end up in front of theUnited States Supreme Court but if it doesn't, the justices should be warned toconsider something far more dangerous to their credibility than ajurisprudential slap on the wrist from Scalia, Thomas, Roberts et al. The Timeswarns that if this case is decided against the state, its logical outcome couldbe the mass release of a large number of prisoners. If there ever were a morecast-iron excuse for backlash against the court, it is this, and consideringSchwarzenegger's recent love of heavy-handed tactics, one can imagine aJacksonian response to such a decision – "the girly men on the Court havemade their decision, now let them enforce it!" Thus, the perils oftinkering with the rule of law would be laid bare – for these wise men in robeswill not long survive unless they allow those tasked with enforcing legaledicts to do their jobs in imperfect circumstances. The Constitution leaves no elbow room for activism, and as aresult, the right to elbow room deserves a swift rejection.  

Life, Liberty and Elbow Room

Around this time of the year, there are several seasons that come to mind, like the holiday season, the football season or even winter vegetables.  But thanks to resourceful party planners for our beloved state legislators, we now renew the time-honored tradition of the fundraising season.Both parties spent tens of million of dollars generated by contributions to defend an incumbent seat or gain a new one in June and November.  Of the 100 races in the Assembly and Senate, only a handful of contests were actual campaigns.  Thanks to a reapportionment that protects incumbents, many Senate Democrats winning their second four-year term return to Sacramento with $1/2 million or more in their campaign coffers.The "season" kicks off with the swearing-in celebration of Darrell Steinberg, the 46th President Pro Tempore of the California State Senate.  You can be a "host" of his party on December 1 at The Cosmopolitan for $50,000.   Curren Price, who would like to fill the seat left by Mark Ridley-Thomas is also at Cosmo the next night for a birthday bash.  Gold sponsor, $3,600.  Newcomer Brian Nestande rounds out the week on December 6 with a "Holiday Golf Tournament" at Indian Wells, home of the 2008 Skins Game. Nestande won big in November, capturing the 64th AD.  He was unopposed.But our "party animal award" clearly goes to Ron Calderon.  Over the last two years, he has held 14 fundraising events that we know of.  These include golf outings in Lake Tahoe, Oregon and Palm Desert.  Some lucky Ron supporters dined at Morton's, The Kitchen, Chops, Zocalo,  and Spataro.  Throw-in a Lakers-Kings game and wine tour in Napa.  Now that's a season.Calderon, who runs for re-election in 2010, reported taking in nearly $300,000 this year,  but his expenditures were about the same and, with a beginning suplus, ends the third quarter, 2008 with a balance of $19,000.  But not to fret, Calderon has a golf event in Oregon the second week of December.  Remember, it's a new season.Why do people donate to Calderon?  The Montebello Democrat and some like-minded fellow senators that claim to be business-friendly, have created the Diversity PAC.  The Senate is so far left-leaning that this handful of men and women are like magnets for California businesses trying to avoid more burdensome laws and regulations that negatively impact their ability to compete and employ workers that pay taxes and add to the economy.   The PAC's goal is to elect more moderate senators.  Good luck.

‘Tis the Season

Remember the old days when the only way to make a phone call in public was to cocoon yourself in a tiny glass case, shut the door, drop a few dimes and dial a number? What were those ancient relics of yesteryear called again? Ah, that's right, phone booths. Try to find one of those on a street corner today, and you'll probably be out of luck. It appears that the same fate might befall another similar space: The voting booth.According to data from the California Association of Clerks and Elected Officials, at least 40 percent of California voters are choosing to cast their ballots by mail this year, and it could be the beginning of a slow death for the California voting booth. Some experts predict that as much as half the electorate will vote by mail this year.Imagine it: The ballot arrives in your mailbox a month before election day, giving you weeks to read it, study it and make a well-thought out choice. You can discuss your choices with family members and friends, and mail it back at your convenience. With a voter-information guide that is 143-pages long, 12 state-wide propositions to vote on, numerous local measures, and state and national offices that are up for election, having time to mull over a ballot on the kitchen table doesn't seem like a bad idea.We are already seeing lines going back hundreds deep in early voting places around the country. This election is looking to be a crowded one, and early polls are already showing record participation and wait time. Californians have stood in enough lines at Disneyland, waiting for Space Mountain to undergo magical maintenance. They know better than risk a voting machine malfunction that could cost precious hours of the day.So why not follow Oregon, and have all voting done by mail?Of course, there's always a catch. The LA Times reports:"The increasing popularity of voting by mail in California and elsewhere has prompted some election experts to question whether convenience should trump concerns about ballot secrecy, fraud and the complications of processing mail-in ballots. The growing debate is leading some registrars and voting-rights advocates to call for a renewed discussion about how far the state should go to promote voting by mail."Does mail-in voting increase the chance of fraud?Many states use a signature accountability system, similar to what is used to verify credit card charges, but it obviously isn't difficult to forge a signature.The Indiana Supreme Court recently found campaign members guilty of voter fraud in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago, Indiana Mayor Ropert Pastrick. The charges were for misuse of absentee ballots. According to MSNBC.com, they:    * pressured and coaxed first-time voters or those who were “less informed or lacking in knowledge of the voting process, the infirm, the poor, and those with limited skills in the English language” to vote by absentee ballot;    * paid voters in cash for casting absentee ballots;    * instructed people applying for absentee ballots to phone the Pastrick campaign when the applicant received his or her ballot so that Pastrick supporters could go to their home and “though not authorized by law to do so, ‘assist’ the voter in completing the ballot;”    * illegally kept a stockpile of unmarked absentee ballots and delivered ballots to voters;    * lied about whether the person applying for an absentee ballot would in fact be absent on the day of the primary. (Indiana law requires a voter to have a reasonable expectation of being absent from the state or to be ill or caring for an ill person in order to get an absentee ballot.)All methods of voting, no matter how "fraud proof" they may seem, are susceptible to tampering. For every intelligent poll worker out there trying to keep these elections clean, there's bound to be an army of equally intelligent folks looking for ways around the system.As voters, it's our responsibility to be alert and cast our votes with faith that our voice will be heard. So keep those pajamas on, grab a snack from the kitchen, put your feet up, and cast that ballot.

Search query: oregon