California Republican state Senators sack leader for compromising

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There was a compromise hammered out between Arnold, and the Democratic and Republican legislature leaders. While enough Assembly Republicans are predicted to support their leader and vote for the compromise, the Senate Republicans don't seem to be yielding the 3 votes needed for the BS 2/3rd majority to pass a budget. And in the middle of the night, they sacked their leader.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget18-2009feb18,0,2637442.story

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Now they're set to to reconvene at 10pm. Our state legislature is in bizarro-land lately.

Edit: Make that 11pm.

[Verily]

Umm... wow. I sort of expected it to be an exaggeration, but they did actually oust their leader for trying to solve the problem. That can't exactly endear the California GOP to anyone.

[bullmoose88]

Umm... wow. I sort of expected it to be an exaggeration, but they did actually oust their leader for trying to solve the problem. That can't exactly endear the California GOP to anyone.

Well, it endears it to the staunch fiscal/economic conservatives that basically elect most, though not all, of the CA senate minority. But as to the median voter (or any sort of external group of voters) who'd the senate GOP would need to get anywhere close to controlling the chamber...epic fail.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

Our state legislature is in bizarro-land lately.

     With this latest development the state legislature is heading into Mad Max territory.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Umm... wow. I sort of expected it to be an exaggeration, but they did actually oust their leader for trying to solve the problem. That can't exactly endear the California GOP to anyone.

Well, it endears it to the staunch fiscal/economic conservatives that basically elect most, though not all, of the CA senate minority. But as to the median voter (or any sort of external group of voters) who'd the senate GOP would need to get anywhere close to controlling the chamber...epic fail.

They don't care, they weren't going to win it back any time soon. But they will manage to keep the 14 Senators or 27 Assemblymen that they need to have a say in the budget, and most of their members are hardcore anti-tax extremists. The state party endorsed the wacko Prop. 90, which would have essentially abolished zoning.

[bullmoose88]

Umm... wow. I sort of expected it to be an exaggeration, but they did actually oust their leader for trying to solve the problem. That can't exactly endear the California GOP to anyone.

Well, it endears it to the staunch fiscal/economic conservatives that basically elect most, though not all, of the CA senate minority. But as to the median voter (or any sort of external group of voters) who'd the senate GOP would need to get anywhere close to controlling the chamber...epic fail.

They don't care, they weren't going to win it back any time soon. But they will manage to keep the 14 Senators or 27 Assemblymen that they need to have a say in the budget, and most of their members are hardcore anti-tax extremists. The state party endorsed the wacko Prop. 90, which would have essentially abolished zoning.

So what exactly are they trying to accomplish?

Merely object for the ideological sake of objecting?  Actually get cuts in the budget (which the average Californian/and their Democratic legislator wouldn't go for?)?  Get public sympathy?

I mean theres a chance their grandstanding could get some concessions (assuming one or two don't break from the pack) but do they have any real desire other than to constitute just enough seats to block things per your amendment?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Umm... wow. I sort of expected it to be an exaggeration, but they did actually oust their leader for trying to solve the problem. That can't exactly endear the California GOP to anyone.

Well, it endears it to the staunch fiscal/economic conservatives that basically elect most, though not all, of the CA senate minority. But as to the median voter (or any sort of external group of voters) who'd the senate GOP would need to get anywhere close to controlling the chamber...epic fail.

They don't care, they weren't going to win it back any time soon. But they will manage to keep the 14 Senators or 27 Assemblymen that they need to have a say in the budget, and most of their members are hardcore anti-tax extremists. The state party endorsed the wacko Prop. 90, which would have essentially abolished zoning.

So what exactly are they trying to accomplish?

Merely object for the ideological sake of objecting?  Actually get cuts in the budget (which the average Californian/and their Democratic legislator wouldn't go for?)?  Get public sympathy?

I mean theres a chance their grandstanding could get some concessions (assuming one or two don't break from the pack) but do they have any real desire other than to constitute just enough seats to block things per your amendment?

The bill is already a compromise, huge spending cuts, and a $1 billion corporate tax cut. It has the support of enough Republicans in the Assembly, the former Republican Senate leader, and one other Republican. There are 2 wavering Republicans who are blackmailing the state, while the other 12 of the 16 Senate Republicans are hardcore ideologues here. One of those wavering Republicans has to be bought off for the budget to pass.

California needs a 2/3rds majority to pass a budget, so actually Arnold's support is irrelevant. He doesn't seem to be too effective at getting support in his own party, either.

[The Ex-Factor]

A 2/3 supermajority to get things done could be good in the right circumstances, but in a state like ours with the parties far left and far right, it's impasse city.

I think we might have a budget, guys! Democratic leaders gave in to Abel Maldonado's demands for open primaries, and not giving lawmakers salaries when the budget is late. Unfortunately, some Democrats accuse this of being a ploy to help Maldonado's political future, and may not support the deal anymore.

"I'm not here to worry about Abel's political future," said Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles).

"I'm open to discussion on the merits of the open primary," said Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto). "But I'm hard-pressed to understand what on earth it has to do with solving the state budget deficit.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget20-2009feb20,0,5263469.story

[Sam Spade]

...whistling through the graveyard...

"Hey, look!  There's a skeleton dancing around near the cliff over there."

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I wonder how many people moved to CA from NY 30 years ago and are know starting to wondering "How the hell did I get back in NY, WWhat happened to the paradise I moved into 30 years ago".

[Senator Sbane]

I wonder how many people moved to CA from NY 30 years ago and are know starting to wondering "How the hell did I get back in NY, WWhat happened to the paradise I moved into 30 years ago".

And I am sure those fukcers voted for prop 13 and other bullsh**t prop measures. They have no one but themselves to blame.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I wonder how many people moved to CA from NY 30 years ago and are know starting to wondering "How the hell did I get back in NY, WWhat happened to the paradise I moved into 30 years ago".

And I am sure those fukcers voted for prop 13 and other bullsh**t prop measures. They have no one but themselves to blame.

Your probably right but I have no idea what prop 13 is. You guys have so many of the damn things its hard to keep track. CA really needs to change its propositions system to prevent the voting in of large spending measures that way or tie them to hikes in sales taxes or something to make them thing a little more about it. Some long term plan has to enacted or CA is going to start having a mass exodus out of the state to the states of the  mountain west.

[Lunar]

Prop 13 is the most epic disasters of all state propositions.  I've ranted about it plenty enough however.  But long story short it's why our state economy is failing, communities are forced to overdevelop, and inner city schools are underfunded.  Google it, there's only one Prop 13.  It's the height of why we need representative democracy and not motherf'n direct democracy.  It addressed some serious issues (our tax system was pretty faulty and hurting people) but by slapping on a poisonous band-aid

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Budget passed, California gave in to some serious blackmail. It's pretty obvious that the 2/3rds requirement has to go. What's weird is that it still needed 27 even though there's only 39 Senators thanks to a vacancy (Democratic seat).

[Meeker]

Here's the low-down on the new primary system. It's basically the same as Washington's.

The California legislature, meeting all night long, passed two bills at about 4 a.m. on February 19 to ask the voters if they wish to revise election systems. SCA 4 changes the California Constitution, and passed 27-12. In the Senate, the “No” votes included two Democrats (Leland Yee of San Francisco and Loni Hancock of Berkeley) and ten Republicans. SB 6 changes the California election law and passed by an almost identical margin. One cannot presume that legislators who voted “Yes” were actually in favor of the proposals; most of them opposed the idea but felt they had to vote for the bills in order to break the budget stalemate.

The two proposals, together, provide for a Washington state-style election system. All congressional elections, and all elections for state office except for Superintendent of Public Instruction and judicial offices, would be designated “voter-nominated” offices. All candidates would qualify for the June primary ballot. Then, the top two vote-getters would compete in November. All voters would get the same ballot for these offices.

The ballot would say, “My party preference is (whatever) party.” However, candidates could only choose the name of a party that is currently qualified for the ballot. It seems plausible that a party like the Socialist Workers Party would have a strong lawsuit to force the state to let its members, who are running for office, specify that they prefer the Socialist Workers Party. The bills say that members of unqualified parties could only have “No party preference” on the ballot. This seems to violate the First Amendment. Since all candidates would get on the ballot by filing fee and a petition of either 40 or 65 signatures, the issue of ballot crowding would no longer have any relevance to party qualification.

Also, the proposals seem to violate the U.S. Supreme Court’s many ballot access precedents, which say that a vote test in a primary is equivalent to a petition (Munro v Socialist Workers Party) and also say that petitions cannot be greater than 5%. The top-two system, in practice, requires a showing of support of approximately 25% to 35% in the primary, and since the U.S. Supreme Court has said that vote tests are equivalent to petitions, and since petitions cannot be greater than 5%, therefore the vote test is also likely an unconstitutional ballot access hurdle.

That theory is only true because the California primary, like the Washington primary, would not be an “election”. An “election” is an event at which someone can be elected. The California proposal does not permit anyone to be elected in the primary, even if that person got 100% of the vote. The only election would be in November. Ballot access to “the” election is protected, even for candidates too weak to have a realistic chance of winning.

For clarification, note that the proposals that passed are not the same as ACA 6, which had been pending in the legislature. ACA 6 did not relate to congressional elections. The original version of the bill that did pass, SB 6, had been originally introduced last month as a bill relating to hazardous wastes. All the language about hazardous wastes was deleted from the bill, and the election law provisions were added into it, before it passed.

[RBH]

Since all candidates would get on the ballot by filing fee and a petition of either 40 or 65 signatures, the issue of ballot crowding would no longer have any relevance to party qualification.

Oh good lord.. that's going to make future gubernatorial elections a lot of fun

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Since all candidates would get on the ballot by filing fee and a petition of either 40 or 65 signatures, the issue of ballot crowding would no longer have any relevance to party qualification.

Oh good lord.. that's going to make future gubernatorial elections a lot of fun

Hey, we already had one with 135 candidates on the ballot, and another 28 write-ins, plus the guy being recalled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_California_recall

[RosettaStoned]

Tony Strickland is a douche.

[Kevinstat]

Here's the low-down on the new primary system. It's basically the same as Washington's.

Also, the proposals seem to violate the U.S. Supreme Court’s many ballot access precedents, which say that a vote test in a primary is equivalent to a petition (Munro v Socialist Workers Party) and also say that petitions cannot be greater than 5%. The top-two system, in practice, requires a showing of support of approximately 25% to 35% in the primary, and since the U.S. Supreme Court has said that vote tests are equivalent to petitions, and since petitions cannot be greater than 5%, therefore the vote test is also likely an unconstitutional ballot access hurdle.

That theory is only true because the California primary, like the Washington primary, would not be an “election”. An “election” is an event at which someone can be elected. The California proposal does not permit anyone to be elected in the primary, even if that person got 100% of the vote. The only election would be in November. Ballot access to “the” election is protected, even for candidates too weak to have a realistic chance of winning.

If that was still the latest Supreme Court precedent, then wouldn't the lower federal court decision nullifying the "top two" primary in Washington State have been upheld?  Perhaps the only "vote tests" that count as petitions anymore are those based on previous elections, like the percentage of the vote a party's candidate for Governor or President must get for a party to have official ballot status for the next biennial election (can that be higher than 5%?).

I agree that the restrictions on a candidate's choice of party preference listing (beyond barring an obscene designation or the like) should be nullified, however.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Why are states switching to the Louisiana method of primary elections that even Louisiana gave up?

[Kevinstat]

Why are states switching to the Louisiana method of primary elections that even Louisiana gave up?

Doesn't Lousiana still use the "jungle primary" (a little different than the method described above, btw, as a candidate who gets a majority of the vote in a Lousiana primary is elected without the need for a runoff, so you aren't necessarily just narrowing the field to the two candidates with the most votes in the primary) for its state-level (Gubernatorial, Legislative, etc.) elections (and perhaps some/all other non-federal ones, I'm not sure)?

Edited to add text in red.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why are states switching to the Louisiana method of primary elections that even Louisiana gave up?

Doesn't Lousiana still use the "jungle primary" (a little different than the method described above, btw, as a candidate who gets a majority of the vote in a Lousiana primary is elected without the need for a runoff, so you aren't necessarily just narrowing the field to the two candidates with the most votes in the primary)?

Louisiana got rid of the jungle primary for federal races. This Proposition, which will be on the June 2010 ballot, would include all partisan races except for President.

[Kevinstat]

Yeah I meant to say for just state-level elections, although some/all parish or local elections might use the jungle primary too, I'm not sure.  Thanks for the info about the proposed scope of use of the top two primary in California, ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ .

[The Ex-Factor]

State Sen. Abel Maldonado, the deciding vote in the big state budget morass, came to see me last week with a very interesting story about his fellow Republicans.

I was telling him what a good name he has, because no one can figure out if it is Spanish, Italian or Portuguese.

He proceeded to tell me that when he was running for state controller in 2006, he commissioned a poll to gauge the feelings of Republican voters in Orange County.

The poll came back showing him losing to the Democrat by almost 2-1.

"This is impossible," Maldonado said. "Orange County is loaded with Republicans."

They did the poll again and the results were the same - the Democrat won.

So Maldonado ran a little test. He had the pollster go back and give voters the same information as before - his age, that he's a rancher and the like - but this time, he said, tell them the candidate's name is Smith.

The result: Smith came out ahead.

So he ran another poll, a Republican named Garcia vs. a Democrat named Smith.

Smith won again, even among Republicans.

At that point, Maldonado said, "We're not spending another nickel - there ain't no way that anyone with a Spanish name is going to win anything in a Republican primary in this state."

He was right, in his case at least - he lost the primary to Tony Strickland.

And that is why Maldonado insisted on an open primary in return for voting for the budget.

lol who needs the Bradley effect when you've got racist OC Republicans.