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!

Romney Pledges Heterosexual Supremacy

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney signed a pledge from the National Organization of Marriage to affirm his support for heterosexual supremacy in America. This entails:

1. To support and send to the states for ratification a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
2. To do vigorously what President Obama has refused to do: defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.
3. To appoint to the Supreme Court, and as his or her Attorney General, only those who support the original meaning of the Constitution and who will, therefore, not invent a right to gay marriage.
4. To establish a presidential commission to investigate the increasing reports of harassment and threats to supporters of traditional marriage.
5. And to give back to the people of D.C. the right already guaranteed in the Charter which Congress gave them: the right to vote on marriage via the referendum process.

Where to begin? I guess let's address them one at a time. The Federal Marriage Amendment didn't get out of the U.S. House of Representatives when the Republicans controlled the Presidency, the House and the Senate majority in July 2006 and popular support was below 50%. Why would anyone expect a measure to divorce the estimated 100,000 same-sex married couple in the country to be more successful in 2013? It takes a vote of 2/3rds of BOTH Houses of the Legislature and then ratification of 3/4 of the states to be enacted. In 220 years the document has been Amended 27 times, and 10 of those happened within the first 5 years. A federal marriage amendment is not going to happen!

The second item (to defend DOMA) is obvious, but by the time a Republican could become President on January 20, 2013, the Defense of Marriage Act may already have been struck down by multiple federal appellate courts and perhaps even the U.S. Supreme Court.

The fact that Romney, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum signed the third item should mean they are immediately disqualified to serve as President. They are basically saying that they will have a particular litmus test for Supreme Court nominees (and Attorney General).

The fourth item is just sheer buffoonery. As the discriminatory position of heterosexual supremacists to envision a society in which heterosexuals have more civil rights than non-heterosexual becomes more and more a repulsive position to a greater majority of American voters, the supremacists have begun to claim that any opposition to their radical ideology in verbal or written form is "harassment" or "intolerance towards religion." The idea of a President Commission to explore harassment and threats to people who have been publicly calling for LGBT people to have less rights than other Americans is simply laughable.

The fifth item is just obnoxious. Marriage equality has been legal in the District of Columbia since March 4, 2010 after a measure was approved by a near-unanimous vote of its law-making body in December 15 2009. After filing multiple lawsuits in order to force a vote of the majority on the rights of the minority despite explicit provisions in the D.C. Charter which prevents such inimical actions, those attempts came to an ignominious end with a Supreme Court refusal to hear their appeal on January 18, 2011.

It should be interesting to see which other Republican presidential candidates are willing to sign NOM's pledge to heterosexual supremacy. I presume Rick Perry will be next in line to add his name to this foolishness.

Celebrity Friday: Pougnet Decides Not To Run For Congress

 Steve Pougnet is the openly gay Mayor of Palm Springs. He was also the Democratic nominee for the 45th Congressional District of California in the 2010 federal elections. He was widely expected to seek a rematch in 2012 but recently he announced that he would seek re-election as Mayor of Palm Springs in Fall 2011 and would suspend his 2012 Congressional campaign.

Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet announced Thursday he will not seek to unseat Rep. Mary Bono Mack, R-Palm Springs, in the 2012 election.

Instead, Pougnet told friends and supporters at the Hyatt Regency Suites that he wants to focus on finishing his job as the city’s mayor.

“The new congressional district is one that a Democrat can win," Pougnet told Patch. "There are some wonderful things happening here in the city of Palm Springs.”

Good luck to Mayor Pougnet on winning a second term. Let's hope some ohter Democrat steps up to the plate to challenge Chaz Bono's step-mom, the odious Rep. Mary Bono Mack.

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.

Celebrity Friday: Luis Lopez, Latino LGBT candidate for AD-45

Luis Lopez is an openly gay, Latino candidate for the 45th
 Assembly District, which is located in Los Angeles

Luis Lopez, a friend of mine, is running for a state Assembly seat in California (he would actually represent the 45th Assembly district in which my house and work is located).

Recently, Luis won the endorsement of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, the national organization devoted to promote the election of openly LGBT candidates.

Also, this week The Advocate ran an article called "The Other Gay Contenders" which includes Luis:

Sacramento politics are not for the faint-hearted, but Luis Lopez just may have the chops to effectively take on such an unwieldy beast. Running next year to represent California’s 45th state assembly district, Lopez currently serves as a planning commissioner for the funky, diverse L.A. neighborhood of Silver Lake, where he lives with his partner. Lopez, 38, is also part of a parks oversight committee for his city, co-chaired his neighborhood council, and started a Latino LGBT political action committee (his full-time job is as a communications director for a health center).

Aside from that impressive resume, Lopez has some powerful friends who will help him when he faces a primary in June. Jackie Goldberg, a lesbian who represented the Democrat-friendly 45th district from 2000 to 2006, is supporting Lopez in his race, and Lopez’s good friend, John Perez, the out California Assembly speaker, will likely endorse him as well. It’s not yet clear who Lopez will face off against as the current assemblyman, Gilbert Cedillo, is termed-out next year and possible candidates are still coming forward.

“We need to look at leaders who’ve earned the respect of their peers,” Lopez says. ”People who are respected can move an agenda along—there were many times when my colleagues on a given board haven’t agreed with me, but we were still able to make decisions.”

Protecting labor is paramount to Lopez, who grew up in East Los Angeles and started working not long after his mother passed away when he was eight. Voters in his district, which stretches from Hollywood to Chinatown to East L.A. and includes thousands of diverse gay people, are inline with his platform, he says.

I strongly encourage all MadProfessah.com readers, especially if you live in the 45th Assembly District to support Luis Lopez.

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. 

Obama Raises Record $86M In First 3 Months

President Barack Obama raised a record amount of cash in the first 3 months of his 2012 re-election effort: $86.7 million.

The Washington Post's The Fix reported:

Obama’s re-election campaign collected $47 million, while the president raised another $38 million for the DNC via a joint fundraising committee that allows donors to write a single check that is then divvied up between the two entitites.

The haul far surpasses the goal [Campaign Manager] Messina set for the campaign’s national finance committee of collecting a combined $60 million between April 1 and June 30.

[...]

Obama’s total is more than the $35 million raised this past quarter by all the Republican presidential candidates combined (although Minnesota Rep.Michele Bachmann has not yet reported her fundraising). The GOP is lagging in fundraising, a problem made more acute by Obama’s success. By this point in 2007, 10 GOP presidential hopefuls had collectively raised more than $118 million. Obama had raised $58.9 million over two quarters.

This is excellent news, but it's probably going to take a billion dollars to re-elect the president if, as predicted, unemployment is well above 8.5% on election day 2012.

EQME Plans 2012 Marriage Equality Ballot Measure

Well, well, well! The LGBT community will not only be playing defense of our civil rights in the 2012 election in Minnesota but will also be playing offense in Maine. 

Equality Maine has announced that they will be attempting to put this question before voters on the November 2012 ballot:

Do you favor a law allowing marriage licenses for same-sex couples that protects religious freedom by ensuring no religion or clergy be required to perform such a marriage in violation of their religious beliefs?

More interestingly, Equality Maine also released the information that marriage equality is a majority position in Maine, according to recent polls.

The Bangor Daily News reports:

“We’ve changed hearts and minds during ‘No on One,’ and since then, many more Mainers have changed their hearts and continue to change their minds,” said Smith in a Thursday release. “We have been going door to door, talking to them and hearing their journey toward support. In two separate polls, conducted over the last five months, 53 percent of Mainers surveyed said they support letting gay and lesbian couples marry here.”

[...]

Supporters must get 57,277 signatures to get the question on the November 2012 ballot.

Gay marriage supporters hope to build on momentum in Rhode Island and in New York, which earlier this month became the sixth state to allow gay marriage.

In 2009, Maine voters used a People's Veto to overturn a marriage equality bill by a vote of 53% to 47% on Question 1 that had been passed through the legislature and signed by Governor Baldacci at the time.

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.

Cartoon Reveals Republicans' Plan To Win In 2012

Herman Cain Says Homosexuality Is A Sin and A Choice

MadProfessah first blogged about Black republican presidential candidate Herman Cain way back in April, noting then that he was once a mathematics major.

Cain has started making headlines because he is starting to appear in the middle or at the top of polling lists in early Presidential primary states, with more support than media darlings like Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty.

Openly gay Miami Herald blogger Steve Rothaus has the transcript:

"I believe homosexuality is a sin because I'm a Bible-believing Christian, I believe it's a sin," he said. "But I know that some people make that choice. That's their choice." 

Cain was asked: "So you believe it's a choice?" 

"I believe it is a choice," he responded.

I wonder if Mr. Cain believes in the Golden Rule?

Hat/tip to Rod 2.0

Rick Perry Invites All Governors To Pray

Rick Perry, Republican Governor of Texas

The Governor of Texas has issued an invitation to the governors of every state in the Union to come to Texas and pray with him on August 6, 2011 in Houston. He is collaborating with notorious hate-group American Family Association to put on something called "The Response USA".

The Friendly Atheist reports:

As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy.Some problems are beyond our power to solve, and according to the Book of Joel, Chapter 2, this historic hour demands a historic response. Therefore, on August 6, thousands will gather to pray for a historic breakthrough for our country and a renewed sense of moral purpose.
I sincerely hope you’ll join me in Houston on August 6th and take your place in Reliant Stadium with praying people asking God’s forgiveness, wisdom and provision for our state and nation. There is hope for America. It lies in heaven, and we will find it on our knees.

Earlier this year Gov. Perry made headlines when he called on all Texans to pray with him for rain, since there is a fierce drought going on leading to historic wildfires. The Governor went as far to issue an official proclamation:

WHEREAS, throughout our history, both as a state and as individuals, Texans have been strengthened, assured and lifted up through prayer; it seems right and fitting that the people of Texas should join together in prayer to humbly seek an end to this devastating drought and these dangerous wildfires;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICK PERRY, Governor of Texas, under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas, do hereby proclaim the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas. I urge Texans of all faiths and traditions to offer prayers on that day for the healing of our land, the rebuilding of our communities and the restoration of our normal and robust way of life.

This is clearly a politician who does not believe in a separation between church and state, and who will use a political office to promote a particular religious-based ideology. And now he is thinking of running for President of the United States. He has never lost an election. Beware this man!

Obama Administration List of LGBT Commitments

The Obama Administration’s Commitment to Winning the Future for the LGBT Community

Elections Have Consequences Voters Starting To Realize

In November 2010, voters elected Republican governors with Republican legislative majorities in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia.

Think Progress has created a fun graphic which shows that in all of those states, if voters could have a "do-over" election today, they would vote for the Democratic candidate instead. Currently, signatures are being gathered in Michigan to begin the process of being recalling Governor Vic Snyder, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker may face one next year.

Clockwise from left to right: Scott Walker (R-Wisconsin)
Chris Christie (R-New Jersey), Rick Scott (R-Florida) and Vic Snyder (R-Michigan)

One of these governors is the most unpopular state chief executive in the country. The question is, which one?

Florida's Rick Scott and Ohio's John Kasich are currently the leading contenders for the title of the most unpopular governor in America, according to a recent Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey. (A mere 32 percent of respondents approve of Scott, while just 33 percent support Kasich. A separate Quinnipiac poll puts Scott's approval even lower, at 29 percent.) Michigan's Rick Snyder is struggling with a 33 percent approval rating, and in Wisconsin, 43 percentapprove of Scott Walker, PPP found—down 3 points from February and 9 from Election Day 2010. Only 41 percent of respondents gave Iowa's Terry Branstad a thumb's up. Even New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a darling of the GOP, has seen his approval plummet in recent weeks, according to a recent PublicMind released by Fairleigh Dickinson University.

Talking Points Memo makes the point that these unpopular governors are heads of states which may be swing states in the 2012 presidential election, thus aiding President Obama's re-election:

A Quinnipiac poll released last week found that just 29% of voters approved of Scott's job performance, while a 57% majority disapproved. At the same time, Obama's approval rating rebounded from a negative 44% to 52% split in April to a positive 51% to 43% in May, and he increased his leads over each of several high-profile 2012 GOP contenders. Certainly some of that Obama bump is wholly unrelated to Scott -- the killing of Osama bin Laden, for one -- but Scott's unpopularity is sure to be a weight on his party's candidates next year if his standing doesn't improve.

In Ohio, a similar scenario has unfolded, where union-busting Gov. John Kasich is now so unpopular that a recent PPP poll showed him losing a do-over election by an astounding 25-point margin. In that same poll, just 33% of voters gave Kasich positive marks on his job performance, compared to 56% who said the opposite, tying Kasich with Rick Scott as the most unpopular of 38 governors PPP has surveyed.

Meanwhile, Obama posted comfortable leads against each Republican challenger pitted against him in 2012 contests in that state, despite posting a middling approval rating, with 46% of voters giving him a thumbs up versus 49% who gave him a thumbs down. In releasing those findings, PPP's Tom Jensen credited voter discontent with Kasich for helping put Obama over the top.

Why would anyone vote for a Republican, ever?

Obama's Job Approval Rating At 51%

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.

MN Legislature Sends Prop 8 Copycat To 2012 Ballot

After nearly 6 hours of debate the Minnesota House voted 70-62 to send a proposed constitutional amendment which would ban same-sex marriage to be decided by voters on the November 2012 presidential ballot. The measure had previously passed the Minnesota Senate 38-27.

The Washington Post reports:

State law already prohibits gay marriage, but supporters of the proposed amendment said it’s necessary to prevent judges or future lawmakers from making it legal in Minnesota. Critics said the plan is divisive and would put discrimination into the constitution.

The amendment would define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

The state Senate already passed the measure. Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton has no power to block it from the ballot, but said before the vote Saturday that he would fight its passage. Dayton called the amendment “un-Minnesotan.”

Rep. Steve Gottwalt, the bill’s sponsor, said voters should have the final word on the issue.
“This is not about hatred. It is not about discrimination or intolerance,” said Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud.

But another Republican, Rep. John Kriesel, described how losing his legs in Iraq began a personal transformation of his views on the issue. He said he would have supported the amendment five years ago, but has since realized that the country for which he fought should not deny the right of two people who love each other to marry.

“I’m pleading with you to vote no,” said Kriesel, R-Cottage Grove. “I’m begging you.”

So far we know that Minnesota will be voting on the marriages of other people. There are amendments pending in North Carolina and Indiana. There are also discussions in Maine, California and Oregon about going to the ballot to repeal previously passed anti-gay marriage amendments.

Celebrity Friday: Jackie Lacey Could Become LA County DA

Jacquelyn Lacey is the front runner to become the first female (and first African-American)
District Attorney of Los Angeles County

Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley announced that he would not be seeking a 4th term next year and endorsed the #2 person in the office, Chief Deputy District Attorney Jacquelyn Lacey as his replacement.

Jackie Lacey had already been running for Los Angeles County District Attorney. If she wins, she will become the first Black and first female District Attorney in Los Angeles County, the state's largest. Interestingly, Kamala Harris was the first Black female District Attorney of San Francisco and famously defeated Lacey's boss by a razor-thin margin to become California's first Black and first female Attorney General earlier this year.