CA Joins Plan To Kill Electoral College

This is excellent news! Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill to add California's 55 electoral votes to an interstate compact which says that the state's electoral votes will only go for the winner of the nationwide popular vote. Once states with 270 electoral votes have enacted this legislation, it would effectively make the electoral college irrelevant.

This would have the effect of making every vote of every person in the country have
equal weight, since each vote equally affects the outcome of
the national popular vote, which would determine the winner of
the presidential election.

With California's addition, there are now states with 132 electoral
votes in the interstate compact, about half-way to the needed total of 270.
Anything which makes sure we never have another Bush v Gore situation I am in favor of!

Cal Sup Ct Prop 8 Arguments To Be Televised Live

Last week I told you that the California Supreme Court had set oral arguments in "the Prop 8 case" (Perry v. Brown) for September 6, 2011 at 10am. This week comes news that those oral arguments will be televised live!

Online newspaper SF Appeal has the deets:

In January, a panel of the appeals court said that federal law, as defined in a 1997 Supreme Court decision, doesn't seem to allow sponsors to defend an initiative when state officials refuse to do so.

But the appeals panel said there might be a right under state law, and asked the California Supreme Court to step in and decide that issue.

The seven-member state high court will hear one hour of arguments in its State Building courtroom on Sept. 6 and then will have 90 days to issue a written ruling.

Court spokeswoman Lynn Holton said that because of public interest in the case, the court has approved a live statewide television broadcast of the arguments on the California Channel, a public affairs network.

If the state court eventually rules that the sponsors have standing, or the right to appeal, the case will then go back to the 9th Circuit for review of Walker's decision, a process that might take several more months.

But the federal appeals court said earlier this year that if the sponsors lack legal standing, the federal court would be required to dismiss the appeal.

Hat/tip to Wonder Man

CA Sup Ct Sets Prop 8 Case Oral Arguments Date: 9/6/2011

Good news! The California Supreme Court has finally set a date of September 6 at 10:00am for the oral arguments in the Perry v. Brown lawsuit (informally known as "The Proposition 8 case") in which the question at hand is a very limited one. Namely,

Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.

Although the question is limited, the stakes are not. If the state Supreme Court rules, most likely within 90 days of oral arguments, that the heterosexual supremacists who drafted and promulgated Proposition 8 now have no legal standing to defend its constitutionality, it is very likely a 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will follow that decision and rule that the Proposition 8 proponents have no standing to defend the measure in federal court, either.

In that case, the lower court's decision would go into effect and federal Judge Vaughn Walker's brilliant ruling determining that Proposition 8 violates the United States Constitution would go into effect. Of course the bad guys would probably appeal to the Suprem Court but since the case would only be about California (and California law) it is unlikely that SCOTUS would take the case. There is a possibility that SCOTUS would take the appeal to try to clarify once and for all whether proponents of state ballot measures who are not named plaintiffs in lawsuits have a right to continue appeals when the named plaintiffs fail to appeal but there's already a decision called Arizona for Official English vs Arizona in which SCOTUS basically says you need a particularized interest under state law in order to pursue a federal appeal. And it is precisely that question of whether a particularized interest exists under California law that the California Supreme Court will decided, by the end of 2011.

Another wrinkle is that the 7-member Supreme Court has recently lost its most pro-gay member, Carlos Moreno, and Governor Brown only announced his replacement, Goodwin Liu, who is probably as similarly pro-equality as Moreno, this week. If Liu is not on the court by September 6th, the court will probably name a state appellate judge to hear oral arguments and participate in the decision.

Hang on to your hats, folks, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!

Brown Nominates Goodwin Liu To CA Sup Ct!

Charles Dharapak / AP Photo

Goodwin Liu, 40, was rejected by a Republican United States Senate filibuster for a coveted position on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals but has received a pretty nice consolation prize: a nomination by Governor Jerry Brown to the California State Supreme Court (from which he could still be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court before he's 50).

The Los Angeles Times reports:

Liu, a graduate of Yale Law School, is the son of Taiwanese immigrants. He was born in Georgia, grew up in Sacramento and has a history of public service.

“I’m deeply honored by Gov. Brown’s nomination and look forward to the opportunity to serve the people of California on our state’s highest court,” Liu said in a statement.

Before joining the Berkeley Law faculty in 2003, Liu was an appellate litigator at O'Melveny & Myers in Washington. He clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and for Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He also served as special assistant to the deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Education and as senior program officer for higher education at the Corporation for National Service (AmeriCorps).

Brown has forwarded Liu’s name to the State Bar’s Commission of Judicial Nominees Evaluation. The appointment will not become final until the Commission on Judicial Appointments -- consisting of state Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris and Justice Joan Dempsey Klein, senior presiding justice of the state Court of Appeal -- confirms the nomination.

Liu will replace Associate Justice Carlos Moreno, who retired from the court earlier this year.

Justice Moreno was a very strong advocate for the LGBT community, voting with 4-3 majority to end marriage discrimination in California's landmark In Re Marriage cases in 2008 and was the lone dissenter in 2009's California Supreme Court decision which upheld Proposition 8 as not violating the California constitution.

Goodwin Liu has previously expressed his belief that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional so it will be interesting to see if he can get confirmed in time to participate in the case now before the case as to whether the heterosexual supremacist supporters of Proposition 8 have legal standing to defend it in court when the elected representatives of the people of California have decided not to defend a voter-approved ballot measure.

Another interesting feature that Liu, if confirmed will produce a court with an Asian American majority and no Black or Latino members, in a state which has Latino plurality in the population. Things that make you go Hmmmmmm! That being said, Liu is a great choice, since he can't get through the Senate to a federal judgeship while Republicans have more than 40 votes and no compunctions about filibustering extremely qualified judges purely based on ideology, a state supreme court seat is fantastic.

1st Anti-Gay Ballot Measure (To Repeal SB48) Ready To Go

Bad news about SB 48, the FAIR Education Act Governor Brown signed into law on July 14, 2011. The heterosexual supremacists who brough California Proposition 8 have filed a referendum challenge to the law and received approval from Attorney General Kamala Harris to start circulating petitions in order to gather the 504,000 valid signatures to submit to Secretary of State Debra Bowen to place the question of the measure's legality on the June 2012 ballot.

Karen Ocamb of LGBTPOV has the scoop:

Referendum to Overturn Non-Discrimination Requirements for School Instruction.

Summary Date: 07/25/11 | Circulation Deadline: 10/12/11 | Signatures Required: 504,760

Proponent: Paulo E. Sibaja (909) 996-9391

If signed by the required number of registered voters and filed with the Secretary of State, this petition will place on the statewide ballot a challenge to a state law previously approved by the Legislature and Governor. The law must then be approved by a majority of voters at the next statewide election to go into effect. The law would require school instructional materials to recognize societal contributions of various groups; and would prohibit school instructional materials that reflect adversely on persons based on their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and other characteristics. (11-0023.) (Full Text)

By a referendum, all passage of the measure would do is take back the laws of California to the way they were prior to July 14, 2011. LGBT people and the disability community would not be required to be included in instructional materials. Previously the law mandated the teaching of many other groups, mainly racial and ethnic minorities and Equality California and Mark Leno sponsored legislation to add LGBT and people with disabilities to the list (and change American Indian to Native American and Asian Pacific to Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders).

This is basically a proxy fight over gay rights the right wing is hoping to use to increase conservative turnout in the June 2012 election which will be an incredibly important election (maybe more important than the Presidential election in California) as (almost) every single district-based political office in California will be up for election for the first time in a redrawn district.

I've also heard rumors of a second anti-gay ballot measure which would attempt to divorce the 18,000 same-sex couples that got married in California prior to Proposition 8 and preempt any positive decision striking down Proposition 8 as violating the federal constitution. This second measure seems like even more folly because any measure seeking to replicate or even out do Proposition 8 in anti-gay fervor would clearly also be subject to a similar lawsuit which will probably nullify that measure.

POLL: CA Voters Reject "Tough On Crime" Policies

Excellent news from California! In the midst of a financial meltdown California voters are beginning to realize that they can not continue to spend billions of dollars locking up non-violent criminal offenders in more and more prisons.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

The ailing economy far outweighs crime as the top concern for most people today, the pollsters said. That, along with the court order, could help explain voters' new receptivity to changes long sought by prisoner-rights advocates:

— More than 60% of respondents, including majorities among Democrats, Republicans and those who declined to state a party preference, said they would support reducing life sentences for third strike offenders convicted of property crimes such as burglary, auto theft and shoplifting.

— Nearly 70% said they would sanction the early release of some low-level offenders whose crimes did not involve violence.

— About 80% said they approve of keeping low-level, nonviolent offenders in county custody — including jails, home detention or parole — instead of sending them to state prisons. The same percentage favors paroling inmates who are paralyzed, in comas or so debilitated by advanced disease that they no longer pose a threat to public safety.

The pollsters noted that people don't generally favor the release of convicted criminals. But "when it comes to prisons," said Linda DiVall of American Viewpoint, "voters are looking for solutions that don't raise taxes or take money from other priorities like education."

Only 12% of respondents said they'd be willing to accept less state spending on healthcare or education to pay for more prisons. And less than a quarter of voters want to pay higher taxes to build prisons or ship inmates to private lockups in other states to comply with the courts.

This year the state plans to spend $9.8 billion on prisons, making it the third-highest general fund expenditure, behind education and healthcare.

"We spend such a large portion of our budget on crime and prison systems, and we get so little for it," said Amanda Hixson, 59, a Democrat from Sacramento.

Politicians determined to burnish their law-and-order credentials try to scare the public about releasing inmates early, Hixson said, "but some guy who's got three pot busts just isn't going to be that terrifying on the street."

I look forward to voting on ballot measures in 2012 which will finally end this madness which seeks o bankrupt the state by spending ridiculous amounts on criminal justice as compared to education.

Obama Names 4th LGBT Judicial Nominee

Michael Fitzegerald becomes President Obama's

4th openly LGBT nominee to the federal judiciary

Wow! Just days after Paul Oetken became the first openly gay man was confirmed as a U.S. District Court judge to the Souther District of New York, President Obama has named a 4th openly LGBT individual to become a federal judge with lifetime appointment. He is Michael Fitzgerald and joins Ali Nathan, J. Paul Oetken and Ed Dumont as openly LGBT federal judicial nominees of the Obama administration. The Oetken nomination has passed the Senate, the Nathan nomination is on the floor and there is no scheduled action on the Dumont nomination planned.

Here's the press release from the White House on the Fitzgerald nomination:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_________________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 20, 2011

President Obama Nominates Michael Walter Fitzgerald to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Obama announced his nomination of Michael Walter Fitzgerald to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 

"I am honored to nominate Michael Walter Fitzgerald to the United States District Court," President Obama said.  "His impressive career stands as a testament to his formidable intellect and integrity.  I am confident he will serve the people of California with distinction on the District Court bench."

Michael Walter Fitzgerald: Nominee for United States District Judge for the Central District of California

Michael Walter Fitzgerald has been a named partner at the law firm of Corbin, Fitzgerald & Athey LLP in Los Angeles, California since 1998, where he handles civil and criminal litigation in both federal and state courts.   Previously, he worked at the Law Offices of Robert L. Corbin PC from 1995 to 1998 and at the law firm of Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe from 1991 to 1995.  Between 1988 and 1991, Fitzgerald served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Los Angeles.  Upon graduation from law school, he clerked for the Honorable Irving R. Kaufman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Fitzgerald received his J.D. in 1985 from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) and his A.B. magna cum laude in 1981 from Harvard University.

### 

Understanding Redistricting, Part 1

It matters how you draw the lines

Dante Atkins of Daily Kos has a very useful article on the importance of redistricting for progressives.

In most states, the decennial maps for congressional districts are redrawn and approved by state legislatures. Why does this matter? Because partisan state legislatures are likely to divvy up the districts in a way that benefits their party. How does this work in practice? At its most elementary, let's hypothesize a state with a population of nine people: five Democrats and four Republicans. And from those nine people, the Census Bureau required creating three districts with an equal number of people. If the state legislature were controlled by Democrats, they might make a map that carves the state in a way that has a majority of Democratic seats. But if Republicans were to control the legislature—something that happens from time to time in Democratic-voting states such as Minnesota—they just might pass a map with different districts that gives the GOP a majority of the seats. 

The 2010 elections will have long-lasting consequences for control of the House of Representatives. The problem isn't just that Republicans won so many seats; the larger problem is that they won them at exactly the right time. Incumbent representatives are hard to defeat, but unseating freshmen is generally an easier task. Unfortunately, having a wave election in a redistricting year allows the new majority party to take advantage of the redistricting process to shore up vulnerable members, usually by taking some friendlier territory from a safer, better-known incumbent—serving essentially to "lock in" that majority for the rest of the decade. In addition, less scrupulous legislators can use the redistricting process to consolidate the districts of opponents to force their members into either retirement or a bruising primary fight and removing them from their seats regardless—a process playing out right now to eliminate Democratic seats in states like North Carolina and Michigan. The GOP has also shown its willingness to use redistricting to ward off potential political disadvantages at the state legislative level as well: for example, Wisconsin Republicans are redrawing the state senate lines in a hurry before the recall elections, even though doing so right now would create a bureaucratic nightmare. Clearly, the GOP is willing to use redistricting as a political weapon in spite of any resulting collateral damage.

While most states have this concern, California no longer does. In 2008, voters passed Proposition 11, which created a so-called Citizens Redistricting Commission that removed the authority to draw legislative lines from the state legislature and put it into the hands of a supposedly non-partisan commission (in 2010, a second proposition was passed that put the authority to draw boundaries for congressional districts as well into the hands of this same body). The Democratic Party opposed this measure for obvious reasons: As Democrats have a substantial majority of seats, they control the redistricting process and could use it to maximize Democratic seats while ensuring no contentious primary battles among the state's delegation. (Full disclosure: I serve on the executive board of the California Democratic Party.)Furthermore, the commission's mandated structure is hardly representative of California's population: despite the fact that California is an overwhelmingly Democratic state, the commission is required to have an equal number of Democrats and Republicans serving, with absolutely no guarantee of geographic or ethnic diversity.

The commission has had other problems, such as missed deadlines and cancellation of draft maps—and right now, the current maps are likely to face suits, especially from organizations in the Latino community who feel that the maps dilute their community's voting power and are thus illegal under the Voting Rights Act. Nevertheless, among Democrats the mood of uncertainty at the congressional level has yielded to a cautious optimism, as the commission's draft maps (should they hold) will likely result in Democratic gains of multiple seats, and defeat or retirement of several longtime Republican members. 

Gov. Brown Signs FAIR Education Act Into Law!

Governor Jerry Brown (D-California) signed State Sen. Mark Leno's
Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful Education Act into law today

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEJuly 14, 2011

CONTACT: Rebekah Orr, Equality California
PHONE: 415-498-0847 EMAIL: rebekah@eqca.org 

CONTACT: Jill Marcellus, Gay-Straight Alliance Network
PHONE 516-313-9659 EMAIL: jill@gsanetwork.orgCONTACT: Ali Bay, Office of Senator Mark Leno
PHONE 916-651-4003 EMAIL: ali.bay@sen.ca.gov

Governor Signs Landmark LGBT Education BillLegislation sponsored by Equality California and Gay-Straight Alliance Network aims to end LGBT history exclusion in education and to promote school safety

Sacramento – Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill that will fairly and accurately portray the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights movement and the historic contributions of the diverse LGBT community in social science instruction. The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act (SB 48), by including fair and accurate information about the rich and diverse history of LGBT people in instructional materials, will enrich the learning experiences of all students and promote an atmosphere of safety and respect in California schools. SB 48 was authored by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and co-sponsored by Equality California and Gay-Straight Alliance Network.

Studies have shown that inclusion of LGBT people in instructional materials is linked to greater student safety and lower rates of bullying.  In schools where the contributions of the LGBT community are included in educational instruction, bullying declined by over half and LGBT students were more likely to feel they have an opportunity to make positive contributions at school. 

“Today marks a monumental victory for the LGBT civil rights movement as the contributions of diverse LGBT community will no longer be erased from history,” said Equality California Executive Director Roland Palencia. “Thanks to the FAIR Education Act, California students, particularly LGBT youth, will find new hope and inspiration and experience a more welcoming learning environment that will embrace them.”

Palencia added, “For decades, LGBT leaders have worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life for all Californians. LGBT leaders were involved in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, the farm workers’ movement, the women’s movement, have built health and human services institutions that now serve millions of Californians, and have contributed to the economic development of our state. We are truly grateful for the courageous leadership of Senator Leno, the LGBT Caucus, allied lawmakers, our members, and the entire LGBT community for making history and for promoting safety in our schools as students learn about our rich legacy.”

The FAIR Education Act will bring classroom instruction into alignment with existing non-discrimination laws in California and would add the LGBT community to the existing list of underrepresented cultural and ethnic groups, which are covered by current law related to inclusion in textbooks and other instructional materials in schools.

“I am awed and humbled to be part of this historic moment.  Today, we've written the latest chapter in the LGBT civil rights movement -- one that will now be presented fairly and accurately in California schools,” said Carolyn Laub, Executive Director of Gay-Straight Alliance Network. “By signing the FAIR Education Act and ending the exclusion of the LGBT community from instructional materials, Governor Brown has realized the hopes of youth who have been fighting for safe and inclusive schools, where all students learn about our history and gain respect for each other’s differences as a result.  This is a part of the American story that we can be proud to know all students will learn.”

“Today we are making history in California by ensuring that our textbooks and instructional materials no longer exclude the contributions of LGBT Americans,” said Senator Leno “Denying LGBT people their rightful place in history gives our young people an inaccurate and incomplete view of the world around them. I am pleased Governor Brown signed the FAIR Education Act and I thank him for recognizing that the LGBT community, its accomplishments and its ongoing efforts for first-class citizenship are important components of California’s history.”

“There is no room for discrimination of any kind in our classrooms, our communities or our state,” said Dean E. Vogel, president of the California Teachers Association.  “We believe that curricula should address the common values of the society, promote respect for diversity and cooperation, and prepare students to compete in, and cope with a complex and rapidly evolving society.  SB 48 does that by helping to ensure that curricular materials include the contributions of persons with disabilities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans to the development of California and United States.”
Among the diverse supporters of the FAIR Education Act include: Adolescent Health Working Group, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Anti-Defamation League, Arc and United Cerebral Palsy in California, Asian Americans for Civil Rights & Equality, Asian/Pacific Islander Youth Promoting Advocacy & Leadership, California Language Teachers Association, California Psychological Association, California Teachers Association, California Faith for Equality, Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., City of Oakland, City of West Hollywood, Disability Rights California, Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Unified School District, Public Advocates, San Francisco Unified School District, Transgender Law Center, California Church IMPACT, Our Family Coalition, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Fresno County Democratic Central Committee, San Joaquin Valley Democratic Club, The Trevor Project, School for Integrated Academics & Technologies, and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund.

Equality California (EQCA) is the largest statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights advocacy organization in California. Over the past decade, Equality California has strategically moved California from a state with extremely limited legal protections for LGBT individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil rights protections in the nation. Equality California has passed more than 70 pieces of legislation and continues to advance equality through legislative advocacy, electoral work, public education and community empowerment.www.eqca.org
Gay-Straight Alliance Network (GSA Network) is a national youth leadership organization that empowers youth activists to fight homophobia and transphobia in schools by training student leaders and supporting student-led Gay-Straight Alliance clubs throughout the country. In California alone, GSA Network has brought GSA clubs to 56% of public high schools, impacting more than 1.1 million students at 850 schools. GSA Network's youth advocates have played a key role in changing laws and policies that impact youth at the local and state level. GSA Network operates the National Association of GSA Networks, which unites more than 30 statewide networks of GSA clubs throughout the country. GSA Network is also the founder of the Make It Better Project, which aims to stop bullying and prevent suicide. www.gsanetwork.org  

-30-

CA Legislature Passes LGBT Education Bill

Equality California
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 5, 2011

CONTACT: Jorge Amaro, Equality California
PHONE: 562-964-3591 EMAIL: jorge@eqca.org

CONTACT: Jill Marcellus, Gay-Straight Alliance Network
PHONE 516-313-9659 EMAIL: jill@gsanetwork.org
 
State Assembly Passes Landmark LGBT Education Bill

Legislation sponsored by Equality California and Gay-Straight Alliance Network aims to end LGBT history exclusion in education and to promote school safety

Sacramento -- Today, the California State Assembly in a 49-25 vote passed a bill that would require schools to fairly and accurately portray the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights movement and the historic contributions of the diverse LGBT community in social science instruction. The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act (SB 48), authored by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), would also add sexual orientation and gender identity to the state's existing anti-discrimination protections that prohibit bias in school activities, instruction and instructional materials.

Studies have shown that inclusion of LGBT people in instructional materials is linked to greater student safety and lower rates of bullying. The bill is co-sponsored by Equality California and Gay-Straight Alliance Network. 

"The struggle of the multicultural and multiethnic LGBT community in California is one of the greatest stories yet to be told," said Equality California Executive Director Roland Palencia. "The FAIR Education Act will ensure that public schools acknowledge the heroism of individuals and communities who in spite of countless barriers continuously overcome adversity."

Palencia added, "For decades, LGBT leaders have worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life for all Californians. LGBT leaders were heavily involved in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, the farm workers' movement, the women's movement, and have built health and human services institutions that now serve millions of Californians. It is time for history to accurately depict our community's contributions."

The FAIR Education Act would bring classroom instruction into alignment with existing non-discrimination laws in California and would add the LGBT community to the existing list of underrepresented cultural and ethnic groups, which are covered by current law related to inclusion in textbooks and other instructional materials in schools. By including fair and accurate information about the rich and diverse history of LGBT people in instructional materials, SB 48 will enrich the learning experiences of all students and promote an atmosphere of safety and respect in California schools.

"This is a victory not only for the LGBT youth in California who have been fighting to be heard in Sacramento and represented in their history classes, but also for all California youth who deserve to learn a fair and accurate account of California and US history," said Carolyn Laub, Executive Director of Gay-Straight Alliance Network. "By passing the FAIR Education Act, the Assembly has taken an unprecedented step to reduce bullying, increase safety for all students, and teach students to respect each other's differences."

"We are selectively censoring history when we exclude LGBT Americans, or any other group of people, from our textbooks and instructional materials," said Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco). "We can't tell our youth that it's OK to be yourself and expect them to treat their peers with dignity and respect when we deliberately deny them accurate information about the historical contributions of Americans who happened to be LGBT."

The bill now heads to the Governor's desk.

Equality California (EQCA) is the largest statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights advocacy organization in California. Over the past decade, Equality California has strategically moved California from a state with extremely limited legal protections for LGBT individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil rights protections in the nation. Equality California has passed more than 70 pieces of legislation and continues to advance equality through legislative advocacy, electoral work, public education and community empowerment.www.eqca.org

Gay-Straight Alliance Network (GSA Network) is a national youth leadership organization that empowers youth activists to fight homophobia and transphobia in schools by training student leaders and supporting student-led Gay-Straight Alliance clubs throughout the country. In California alone, GSA Network has brought GSA clubs to 56% of public high schools, impacting more than 1.1 million students at 850 schools. GSA Network's youth advocates have played a key role in changing laws and policies that impact youth at the local and state level. GSA Network operates the National Association of GSA Networks, which unites more than 30 statewide networks of GSA clubs throughout the country. GSA Network is also the founder of the Make It Better Project, which aims to stop bullying and prevent suicide. www.gsanetwork.org   

Heterosexual Supremacists Appeal Judge Ware Ruling

Good grief! The heterosexual supremacists who believe that they are "defending marriage" by supporting Proposition 8 in federal court have appealed Federal District Court Judge James Ware's decision denying their motion to vacate Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling which struck down the measure.

The San Francisco Examiner says:

Attorneys for Prop. 8 filed their appeal this afternoon before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court that is hearing an appeal of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling last August that the law unconstitutionally violated the civil rights of gays and lesbians.

Earlier this year, Prop. 8 sponsors had asked Ware, Walker’s replacement as chief justice, to throw out Walker’s ruling because of an interview he did with reporters in April, after his retirement, during which he discussed his long-term relationship with a gay man. They argued that Walker should have disclosed the relationship and whether he intended to marry before last year’s trial.

Attorneys for the same-sex couples who sued over Prop. 8 argued at the time that the motion was “frivolous” and “offensive.”

Ware denied the motion, saying there was no federal precedent for disqualifying a judge solely because he shares a characteristic, such as sexual orientation, with a litigant.

It should be interesting to see which case they lose first, the Perry v Schwarzenegger lawsuit (the appeal of Judge Ware's ruling) or the Perry v Brown lawsuit (the appeal of Judge Walker's ruling). I expect they will lose them both.

CA-SEN: Feinstein's Poll Numbers Approach Danger Zone

Dianne Feinstein has represented California in the U.S. Senate since 1992

A new Field poll shows that California's senior U.S. Senator popularity has dropped significantly, raising doubt about her election to a new 6-year term in 2012.

Politico reports:

A new Field Poll survey found that 43 percent of California voters approve of the job Feinstein is doing, while 39 percent disapprove - her highest disapproval rating in the year before an election since she won office in 1992. Of those polled, 18 percent had no opinion.

The numbers reflect a decline from a Field Poll in March, which found 48 percent of voters approving and 33 percent disapproving.

“With Feinstein, we’ve never seen these kinds of numbers before, where it’s so close,” Field poll director Mark DiCamillo told the San Francisco Chronicle. “I was more surprised in March, but to see it replicated - this was a large sample - I just think it’s a very different economic and political backdrop we’re going to have in 2012 than we’ve seen in any previous election year for Feinstein.”

The new numbers reflect a double-digit drop off since in 2005, when Feinstein enjoyed a nearly six-in-ten approval ahead of the next year’s election. Her popularity also was similar in 1999 when 59 percent of Californians approved.

I didn't vote for her in 2006 and I will not vote for her in 2012. As far as I am concerned she is Joe Lieberman in a dress. She gave aid and comfort to Republicans, especially on federal judges during the Bush administration. I'm D O N E.

Of course, I would never even consider voting for a Republican.

Isadore Hall Announces Intention To Run For Congress

Assemblymember Isadore hall has announced his
intention to run for a South LA Congressional seat

The decennial redistricting will lead to a lot of turnover of the California congressional delegation, especially since a non-partisan commission is drawing the boundaries of every congressional and state legislative district in the state. This means that every current officeholder will be running in a brand new district. Many ambitious politicians will seize this opportunity to run for higher offices.

One such politician is Assemblymember Isadore Hall III, an African-American pastor who represents the 52nd Assembly District which includes part of North Long Beach and all of Compton. Hall recently announced his intention to run for a new Congressional district which is intended to be "majority-minority." There are currently 4 Black members in the 53-member Congressional delegation, all women: Maxine Waters (CA-35), Karen Bass (CA-33), Laura Richardson (CA-37) and Barbara Lee (CA-09). The district that Hall is eyeing would probably be one that Waters would be expected to run in, unless the 72-year-old Congresswoman decides to retire instead.

Hall's staff sent out a press release about his political intentions:

Compton, California – California State Assemblymember Isadore Hall announced his campaign for Congress today. Hall intends to run in a new Congressional District, which according to the first draft of maps released by the California Citizens Redistricting Committee on June 10th, might include the cities of Compton, Carson, Lynwood, Hawthorne, Gardena, Lawndale, portions of the City of Los Angeles and Unincorporated Los Angeles County.  

“As a local School Board Member, Councilmember and Assemblymember, I have worked tirelessly to make a difference in this community,” said Hall. “Our district needs a representative that will fight cuts to education and gang prevention programs, protect critical frontline services, and partner with President Obama to create family wage jobs.” 
“I have spent the past few days talking with friends and community leaders about running for this new seat,” Hall added.  “The response has been overwhelming and I am energized by the grassroots support we have already received.”

Hall is a former two term President of the Compton Unified School District Board of Trustees. He was elected to the Compton City Council in 2003 where he served in various leadership positions including Mayor pro Tempore.  Hall was elected to the California State Assembly in 2008 and served as Assistant Speaker pro Tempore during his first term. He currently serves as a member of the Appropriations, Elections and Redistricting and Human Services Committees. He chairs the Assembly Committee on Government Organization.
The youngest of six children, Hall was born and raised in the City of Compton. Hall holds a bachelors degree in Business Administration, a Masters Degree in Management and Leadership from the University of Southern California, a Masters Degree in Public Administration from National University and will be conveyed his Ph.D. from Next Dimension Bible College later this summer.

No incumbent member of Congress currently lives in the proposed Congressional District; however, Hall will not seek election to Congress in the event that Congresswoman Maxine Waters seeks to represent the new district.

I'm pretty confident that this will be the first of a lot of similar announcements.

Federal Judge Denies Motion To Vacate Prop 8 Ruling

In an unsurprising move, Federal Judge James Ware has summarily dismissed the motion to vacate last year's ruling striking down Proposition 8 filed by the heterosexual supremacist supporters of the 2008 ballot measure which ended marriage equality in California.

You can read the full text of the Motion to Vacate here.
Denial of Motion to Vacate 06-14-2011

REPORT: Why 2012 Is Not Year To Repeal Prop 8

There is a debate going on in California (again) about when (or if) the LGBT community should attempt to repeal Proposition 8 by circulating and passing a constitutional amendment to restore marriage equality in 2012.

REPORT ON WEST HOLLYWOOD TOWN HALL
The state's largest LGBT political advocacy group, Equality California, is hosting 12 town halls around the state seeking LGBT community input on the momentous decision to attempt to pass a ballot measure which would enact marriage equality and overrule Proposition 8. To that end, MadProfessah was invited to attend the 2nd of these events at the West Hollywood Auditorium on Sunday May 22 (Harvey Milk Day) as part of the panel. Other members were David Codell, a leading gay attorney who participated in the California marriage case and is one of the smartest legal minds in the state, Jim Carroll, interim Executive Director of Equality California, and Andrea Shorter, Director of Coalitions and Marriage at EQCA.

About 75 people showed up for the event which started a bit late at 5:45pm. Incoming EQCA Executive Director Roland Palencia was introduced to the crowd but did not say anything. During the event David explained that if a new constitutional amendment were to be passed then that would immediately make the Perry v Brown lawsuit moot. He also gave his opinion on the disposition of that case, making it clear that he felt it was very unlikely that the California Supreme Court would rule that the Proposition 8 proponents have standing to pursue the federal lawsuit when the Attorney General and Governor of the state have declined to defend the ballot measure in federal court. According to his timeline, oral arguments should happen in September with a ruling in December and the 9th Circuit ruling soon after that in early 2012. That would lead to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling sometime before June 2013. David also thought that the U.S. District Judge James Ware would quickly dispose of the offensive challenge to the original Perry v Schwarzenegger decision based on the sexual orientation of the judge, saying he was looking forward to reading the decision to see just how sharply the judge smacks down the heterosexual supremacists for making the ridiculous claim that a gay judge's sexuality or relationship status would have any impact on his ruling. David also made the point repeatedly that never in the history of America has any state passed a ballot measure to enact legislation to provide a right to LGBT people. There was a question from the audience about this later and I explained that there have been pro-gay ballot measure results (Maine 2005, Arizona 2006, Washington State 2009). Maine 2005 was the defeat of the repeal of a statewide gay civil right bill on employment. Arizona 2006 was the defeat of a measure to ban domestic partnerships and same-sex marriage (in 2008 Arizona passed  a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage only). Washington 2009 was the statewide approval of a referendum on a comprehensive domestic partnership law recently passed by the state legislature and signed by the Governor. These are all different situations from asking voters to overturn a previously passed initiative statute and constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage while a lawsuit is pending.

Jim Carroll's job was to give the results of a new poll about marriage equality conducted by Binder Research paid for by former Ambassador James Hormel and Love Honor Cherish. You may recall LHC was the group who moved forward with a Repeal Prop 8 campaign in 2010 (and failed to turn in any signatures) despite most of the LGBT community deciding in summer 2009 that this was not the right time to raise and spend tens of millions of dollars to pass a pro-gay ballot measure that year. Carroll presented a powerpoint which demonstrated that there has been very little change in public support for marriage equality since the last time the LGBT community polled in 2009. Carroll tried to educate the audience about the difference between polls of "adults" and polls of likely voters. California has 37 million people, and about 24 million adults, of which 21 million are registered to vote and about 15 million who are likely to vote in the next election. These 15 million are, on average, whiter, older and more conservative than the population as a whole which is "majority minority." The poll results Carroll discussed were for this group of likely voters.

THE LATEST POLLING RESULTS ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN CALIFORNIA
The topline result is that on the question of marriage equality, i.e. "Do you support or oppose allowing same-sex couples to be legally married" the 2011 numbers are 45% Yes-45% No 10% Undecided compared to the 2009 numbers of 47% Yes 48% No 5% Undecided. This is a somewhat shocking result in the light of numerous national polls (Gallup, CNN)showing majority support in the adult population for marriage equality in the last 6 months or so.

Unsurprisingly, support for marriage equality varies depending on how you ask the question. For example, if the question is about repealing Proposition 8 there is majority support (51%). Note that the margin of error in the telephone poll of 900 likely voters May 10-14 (with oversampling in African-American and English-speaking Asian Pacific Islander communities) is 3.3 percentage points. Look at the graphic above to see that support in communities of color for marriage equality has slightly increased with opposition slightly decreasing.

Binder also polled on the question of explicitly adding a religious exemption to a ballot measure which legalizes same-sex marriage (and thus also implicitly repeals Proposition 8) and support went down from the repeal Prop 8 numbers.

Would you vote yes or no on a ballot initiative that would legalize civil marriage for same-sex couples, on the condition that clergy or religious institutions are never required to perform a marriage that goes against their religious beliefs?

47% Yes 43% No 10% Undecided

Binder calls this an increase in support because the 47% number is higher than the 45% baseline support for the marriage equality question. However, the question "Would you vote yes or no on a ballot initiative that would legalize civil marriage for same-sex couples" was not included in the poll. The assumption is that the results of this question would track identically with the results on the marriage equality question.

In fact, in a bizarre case of fallacious reasoning Binder lumps all the respondents who said they support marriage equality OR repealing Proposition 8 OR would vote yes on a ballot measure with a religious exemption and comes up with a support of 58% Yes and 34% No. The notion that you can presume that people who will vote for a measure that does ONE of these things will also vote for a measure which does ALL of these things is simply ridiculous. (Mathematical geek aside: There is a huge logical difference between an OR and an AND.)

WHY TRYING TO REPEAL PROP 8 IN 2012 IS A BAD IDEA
All in all, I went into the Town Hall undecided and left pretty convinced that a 2012 ballot measure campaign to restore marriage equality to California is a bad idea. Especially when there is a pending federal court challenge which may not only restore marriage equality in California but support the legal argument to strike down the 30 other constitutional amendments which ban marriage equality around the nation. There are numerous other states which will likely have anti-gay marriage measures on the ballot (Minnesota, North Carolina and Indiana) and there may be states which have affirmative pro-gay measures on the ballot (Oregon and Maine). For the amount of money it takes to expand California from civil unions to full marriage equality one could have a good shot of winning one or both of the affirmative measures and possibly defeating one or some of the anti-gay measures. Nationally, it just doesn't make sense to me to spend 30-plus million dollars to enact marriage equality in California when there are states which do not have basic laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (29) and gender identity (38).

We shall see what happens in the future, since EQCA says they will report back to the community in September 2011. LHC says that we can file ballot language and collect signatures before the California Supreme Court rules on the standing issue. Depending on the decision, the signatures do not have to be submitted. I'm not opposed to this idea, but I think it will be very very difficult to not submit the signatures to the secretary of state in March 2012 if either the Cal Sup. Ct. or  9th Circuit doesn't rule our way. Of course if a measure does get submitted and qualified I would support it, not monetarily but I would vote for it.

I just think that 2012 is not the right year to repeal Proposition 8. In order to make that decision to move forward I have three pre-conditions which need to be met: 1) Show majority support outside of the margin of error for marriage equality in the state in multiple polls 2) Significant (7 digit) quantities of money in the bank and 3) a open, accountable leadership structure and detailed plan for how to run a statewide ballot measure campaign.

Saturday Politics: Hahn and Bowen Battle Over CA-36

LA. City Councilperson Janice Hahn ((left) and CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen
are competing for a rare open Congressional seat

Open congressional seats  in California are like "blue moons": they don't come around that often. The last open seat was CA-33 when Diane Watson retired and was replaced by former Assembly Speaker Karen Bass. With the retirement of U.S. Representative Jane Harman, who was a hawk and a Blue Dog, progressives are salivating over the prospect of getting a true liberal to replace her in the 36th Congressional District which Barack Obama carried by over 30 points.

The Washington Post's Rachel Weiner notes:

The likely result of the May 17 primary fight, which features 11 total candidates including 2010 primary loser Marcy Winograd, is a July 12 runoff. Under California’s new primary system, if no candidate gets 50 percent in the primary, the two top vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to a runoff.

“I think its clear there’ll be a runoff,” said Joe Trippi, a longtime Democratic consultant who is advising Hahn’s campaign.

Bowen holds statewide office and represented most of this district in the 1990s as a state legislator. Yet to hear her campaign tell it, she’s the outsider against Hahn.

The argument: Hahn has more endorsements and more money while Bowen has more grassroots support. A majority of her donors gave $200 or less. Democracy for America, a leading liberal organization, endorsed her after polling their members in the district. Her campaign is also quick to point out that Hahn has taken contributions from lobbyists.

As secretary of state, Bowen has been behind a number of initiatives that appeal to liberals, including work on ballot security. She has a long history of advocacy on environmental issues. She’s positioned herself as the anti-war candidate, trying to take some of the space occupied by Winograd, who ran against Harman in 2010 and took 41 percent.

The only poll of the race I have seen is an internal poll released by the Bowen campaign indicating a tie between Hahn and Bowen with 20 percent of the vote each, and Winograd back at 6 percent and openly gay Republican Mike Gin at 8 percent.

MadProfessah doesn't really know either of these candidates well, but I have been unimpressed with Hahn in the past when she ran (and lost) against Gavin Newsom for  Lieutenant Governor last year while Bowen has been endorsed by LGBT super-ally U.S. Representative Judy Chu (CA-32). Hahn has been endorsed by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and enemy-of-true-progressives everywhere U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein.