Phoblographer*

Gender and Reinvestment

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:48:00 +0000

I finally got around to reading a recent (maybe not that recent anymore) issue of Newsweek covering the global status of women. I was heartened to see the many countries where women have been elected to the top executive office (so long as I ignored America's baffling absence in this category). But what's been repeating in my mind since I read it? This passage:

Economies flourish when women are included, in no small part because women reinvest some 90 percent of their income into communities and family, compared with the less than 40 percent reinvested by men.

Is that because we love to shop?

No, I'm serious. Maybe I'm falsely applying a western, American lens to that statement (well, I'm surely applying a western, American lens). Historically, men were sole-breadwinners. Women tended to the domestic sphere. Men worried about investments. Women worried about groceries, clothes, and Christmas gifts. My close male friends growing up worked hard to earn money to buy cars from their parents and were taught the value of the dollar. One peek at my finances will indicate that this lesson didn't really get imparted to me. Women now make up a majority of undergraduate and graduate students and keep growing in numbers in health and education employment areas. While this seems tied to a rise in two-earner households, perhaps eventually, you'll see more woman-breadwinner households (like mine). But guess what I don't do? Invest. In anything. The market, my 401k, nada.

I'm assuming a TON of data in making this argument and I'm not lifting a finger to see if any exists to support my theory. But I know that I hear on NPR that flagging consumer confidence (ie: we aren't buying enough) is hampering our economic recovery. And we aren't buying enough because all we did was spend the last 10-15 years buying stuff [we couldn't afford] and now we're slowing down a bit.

So, women reinvest their income into their communities and family. We shop more. We leave it in locally owned businesses, big box stores, and at school bake sales. That's great for the economy but what does it do for our own financial security?

Old, But Still Useful

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 19:28:00 +0000

Meant to post this, um, a long while ago. Still interesting, however.

The lesson here boils down to: don't put all your money into yard signs, especially when the yard in which the signs will be posted will only be visited by non-constituents.

Texas, Messed With

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:07:00 +0000

Dear Texas,

Shut up already. You are not better than California. Your budget is about to be as mangled as ours has been. You'd rather have your people be poorly paid, poorly educated, and uninsured than provide proper public services.

If I ever start a business, it will be in California.

Love,
me.

p.s. Someone forward this article to Megs.

Borrowing from Bob Dole

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 23:06:00 +0000

Could failed California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman be taking a page from Bob Dole's post-candidacy handbook? Signs point to yes: she'll be featured on local Sacramento television station KCRA this evening shopping at Costco. Star-Billionaires - they're just like us!

For those two young or just to busy to recall, failed presidential candidate Bob Dole emerged from the wreckage of that campaign to be a pretty damn likeable guy. He's neither the first nor last candidate to be convinced to hide his personality and go hard-core in pursuit of higher office. During the presidential campaign, Dole was stiff, unfunny - he was a cranky old man. After? He was the best Daily Show guest and eventual Daily Show correspondent ever. Yes, really. Yes, that Bob Dole.

So it's time for Meg to show she's a person. It is remarkable: a wealthy person who still eats food and needs to leave the house to acquire it. Food and household supplies. Wow. What's the end game on this too-little-too-late effort to play nice with the media and show nice to the public? Guess we'll have to wait to see.

Can Maps Be 'Covertly-Partisan?'

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:48:00 +0000

John Eastman and Chuck Bell - two high-profile GOP-leaning election lawyers - wrote a Flash Report piece last Friday. Here's the summary:

The Citizens Redistricting Commission process has gone seriously awry, hijacked by covert Democrat and leftist partisans who have violated open meeting, public records and conflict of interest laws, playing a “shell game” with draft district maps that likely will cement Democrat 2/3ds control of the State Legislature when finalized. Proposition 11 provided a remedy – Republican commissioners can defeat the final district maps if three Republican commissioners simply vote no. Then, redistricting can be conducted by the State Supreme Court which did an exemplary job in 1974 and 1991 in creating truly fair and impartially drawn districts.

They argue that the California Republic can only be saved from the devious, shadowy hands of Democratic cartographers by a GOP-led block of the vote to adopt the CRC's plans. This GOP block would not signify the Commission's failure, rather, "it would be an acknowledgement that the gravitational pull of partisanship and leftwing ideology in the Redistricting Commission process can be resisted by partisan Commissioners voting to deadlock the Commission’s attempt to draw overtly- or covertly-partisan or ideological district plans, allowing the Supreme Court to perform its designated constitutional role."

So, to repeat, if one partisan set of commissioners blocks (bloc voting!) the insidious actions of another partisan set of commissioners, it is a win for non-partisans everywhere. Solid.

Also - this section heading strikes me as amusing: "Commission Process Was Hijacked by the Left & the Commission[.]" The Commission was hijacked by . . . itself?

And: "The Commission’s selection process favored educated elites, mostly with left-wing backgrounds." Well, shoot, if the right-leaning would-be commissioners weren't well-educated, how is that the left's fault? Also, Eastman and Bell seem critical of the commissioner selection process having favored applicants with advanced educational backgrounds. Said the two lawyers. With advanced educational backgrounds. And will the GOP never tire of the party that advances the cause of less-education for all? How do they say these things with a straight face? This process is damn complicated. No matter how smart these people are, they still had to retain outside specialists (which defeats the entire point, but hey, whatever). I don't want idiots creating my electoral maps. Sure, formal education and intelligence (or smarts) don't necessarily go hand-in-hand, but it's as useful a cue as is usually available.

And back to this notion of covert maps:

Commission’s Maps Are Unfair, Covertly-Partisan Gerrymanders
Were the objections to the Commission’s activities limited to process only, there would be an insufficient basis to urge Republican commissioners to take what may seem a drastic step – to block the Commission’s maps. However, the Commission’s likely product, the maps, appears to be unfair and partisan. Even Democrat redistricting effort Paul Mitchell has concluded that the Commission’s districting plans are likely to secure 2/3ds Democrat majorities in the State Senate and State Assembly. Republican redistricting expert Dr. Tony Quinn agrees. The analysis that accompanied the Commission’s June 10th release of draft maps suggested that the commissioners had drawn districts likely to offer some competitive districts and no clear partisan tilt. This promise has faded as the commissioners have continued to tinker with the draft maps, with each draft veering more in favor of Democrats

Dear Eastman & Bell: either it's covert or it's apparent to everyone. It can't be both. Here, let me fix that section header for you:

Commission’s Maps Are Unfair, Covertly-Partisan Gerrymanders

Better?

I suppose their bottom line is that Partisanship in defense of Partisanship is no vice.

But I'm still waiting for an explanation of how a map based on public data can take any sort of covert action. If you can explain to me how that's possible, I'd love to hear it.

It's about transparency, stupid

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:26:00 +0000

Now that California's Citizen Redistricting Commission is thisclose to imposing a new political map on the state, charges of various forms of gerrymandering and threats of litigation and referendum are blooming like sunflowers along the 80.

Republicans will force a court remapping! Congressional African-Americans are pissed! San Pedro . . . still getting screwed but so accustomed to that now that no one showed up at commission meetings to complain. But dammit! There will be blood! Or at least, there will be some very happy lawyers in about 2 week.

I pause in this regularly scheduled redistricting analysis to bring you the following message: do you need someone to blog, write, tweet, or post about redistricting? Public policy? Labor law? Law generally? Are you a legislative office in need of an experienced - and more importantly super fun - staffer? Well look no further. You can retain this author for a reasonable rate. Available August 15. Because she got laid off. And the lay-off didn't have the decency to come when she could've devoted her full-time to CRC stuff. #blackflyinyourchardonnay, team. #deathrowpardontwominutestoolate. We now return you to your regularly scheduled witty commentary.

Anyway, time to saddle-up, election lawyers of California! The most qualified among you were excluded from the process, so now you get to take out all that bitterness-paired-with-extensive-experience on the very people who didn't hire you. This should be FUN to watch.

But more importantly, are the various pods of anger off the mark? I think they are. Take Cal Watchdog, a site that, well, you can figure it out from the title, can't you? They have a 4 part series on the scandalous conflicts of CRC commissioners. Scandalous! And the punditry responds by reminding the public that Propositions 11/20 intention was to establish a commission comprised of members without significant partisan interests. To which I ask: who is truly with out significant partisan interests? Also, would you want that person in charge of a process like this?

Since the start, I've argued that the public should value transparency instead of this faux non-partisanship that forces a person's leanings to take cover in euphemistic alternative interests. Ethnicity subs for one party, economics subs for another. We needed a commission made up of people from each party and at the same time expected those people to be not really so party-ish after all. Can't have it both ways, California.

Instead, the easier method would've been to require all applicants to air their allegiances free from concern that doing so would disqualify them from the process. How many experienced, enthusiastic people were excluded from this process because they had participated in a partisan fashion in a process that, until now, was itself partisan? It's nonsensical. (If you think this theme sounds a lot like my argument against non-partisan judicial races, you are correct.)

Of course, the real bottom of the lines here is that Republicans will waste now time co-opting other causes to help them challenge the 2/3ds majority Democrats have within their grasp. (Should they be so worried? I'd argue no, but in grand CAGOP tradition, they will get worried about the wrong thing too late anyway) Except, well, the GOP can't count half the state among its members anymore. Why do they think they get half the Legislature? No seriously, why? That wasn't a rhetorical question. Tony Quinn hasn't answered this yet. I'm still waiting.

The voters enacted, and the State Auditor upheld, an unrealistic standard when it aimed for a conflict-of-interest free commission. This standard laid the groundwork for a thousand blog posts aimed at revealing telling information about Commissioners and calling into question the CRC's work. It didn't have to be that way.

Changing Minds On Marriage Equality

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:42:00 +0000

So David Frum is no longer opposed to marriage equality. His piece makes me think two things:

1.) I can't believe New damn York is going to get credit for leading on this issue over California. We did it first, we just did it badly and it got undid. Sort of. So far. Also, somewhere, Gavin Newsom is making a small voodoo doll of Andrew Cuomo and muttering "leader on marriage equality? HE'S a leader on marriage equality? 2004, much, Cuomo? Please don't steal my White House." I have this same sort of anger over a possible seriously-treated Michelle Bachmann presidential campaign. Because if the GOP lands a woman in the White House before the Dems, so help me God . . . .

2.) Frum, noting the slowing trend of dissolving families, writes:

What's new and different in the past 20 years is the collapse of the Hispanic immigrant family. First-generation Latino immigrants maintain traditional families: conservative values, low divorce rates, high fertility and -- despite low incomes -- mothers surprisingly often at home with the children.

But the second-generation Latino family looks very different. In the new country, old norms collapse. Nearly half of all children born to Hispanic mothers are now born out of wedlock.

Whatever is driving this negative trend, it seems more than implausible to connect it to same-sex marriage. How would it even work that a 15-year-old girl in Van Nuys, California, becomes more likely to have a baby because two men in Des Moines, Iowa, can marry?

Which to me indicates something that should be apparent to everyone: we're our own enemy. "We" being dominant American culture. It's not the gays. It's not the dirty immigrants. It's us. There's something wrong with our mores or institutions or paradigms or whatever you'd like to call these decaying values - values embodied in public policy - that are to blame.

When immigrant communities begin to assimilate - as all immigrant communities do, over time - and through that process they lose what we identify as positive attributes we should take note and look at our own problems, not seek to build walls that will only seal in what's wrong.

Five-Cent VRA Review

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 18:22:00 +0000

Whether anyone is getting worked by the CRC's lines, who is getting worked, how hard, and how it's being done is something that might end up in court and if so, will get there under a Voting Rights Act review. So what's this VRA business anyway? Here's your nickel tour of the issue. (Warning, gross simplification of complex and consistently evolving area of law follows. Please correct my outright inaccuracies in the comments section.)

The United States Constitution, through the 14^th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, prohibits redistricting that intentionally dilutes the voting strength of minority groups.

Additionally, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act further prohibits plans that have the effect of diluting minority voting strength, whether or not the effect was intentional.

To establish a Section 2 violation, litigants must show that based on all the circumstances, the electoral process is not equally open to participation by the members of a minority group in that its members have fewer opportunities than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.

Who Doesn't Love Some Prongs?

As with all great topics of common litigation, the Court has developed a three part test as a threshold for establishing a Section 2 violation, commonly referred to as the Gingles requirements after the case of the same name:

The harmed group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single district.
The minority group is politically cohesive.
The majority votes sufficiently as a block to enable it usually to defeat the minority group’s preferred candidate.

If a group can show it meets the above threshold factors, it still must demonstrate that based on a totality of the circumstances, the group possesses less relative opportunity to elect a representative of its choice. Don't forget this last, umbrella test. It can be more important and decisive than you might think.

How might a violation look?

Frequently, the first sign of some bad district mojo is a bad-looking district. Ribbons of connective fiber, the skipping of populations, demonstrating a love of the zen by making a lot of yins and yangs on the map can give groups a reason to lawyer up. Of course, the courts have discussed these non-compact works of abstract art.

The courts' evolution on district shape goes roughly like this:

1.) To look closely at it on behalf of any one group, you need to show us some numbers first.

2.) But those numbers won’t necessarily prove anything.

3.) Also, we no longer care if you were trying to discriminate or not, if you ended up discriminating, you’re toast.

4.) And if the district looks a little wacky, that might be enough for us to look at it.

5.) But don’t think drawing a perfectly circular or square district gets you off the constitutional hook.

6.) And we didn’t mean there could never be a Rorschach-shaped district.

Everyone clear?

The Pipeline

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:42:00 +0000

In college, my frequent criticisms of legislative term limits were met by reminders that my female, Mexican counterparts successfully winning office were doing so because term limits cleared out all the old, white dudes who were blocking my cohorts' entry. And briefly, after the implementation of term limits, the legislature did see a spike in diversity and an increased number of women.

Except, it didn't last. Especially the women part.

Because after all the eligible lower-office holders were elected, they too were limited, and passed right on through both houses leaving them ...no where. (Especially since [Dem] female bids for statewide office frequently seem thwarted by back-room agreements between old, white dudes on who gets what and when.)

We'd exhausted the pipeline - those typical paths by which people usually found their way into office were emptied quickly and we hadn't done any work to fill them up again.

This notion of paying attention to the pipeline and taking at least a 15-or-so year view on potential California legislative leadership seems to run throughout this Bee post on Interest Groups' salivating over the potential to "shake up" the legislative bench.

Seems there was a meeting of the American Association of Political Consultants (the mind reels) recently here in Sacramento and during this meeting, several leading interest group related consultants are already counting on new district lines and the jungle primary to present new opportunities to find leaders:

"I think after this election cycle you're going to see much, much more turnover in the Legislature, and it just gives us a great opportunity to have an impact, to start to try to look for candidates who are going to try to do things differently, to bring a new era in the Legislature and find people that can be partners," said Hegyi, a former legislative aide and Republican Assembly candidate.

Liz Snow, of the California Dental Association, echoed Hegyi's comments, saying interest groups are "tired of insignificant issues moving and being the focus and really tired by the lack of leadership on the part of average members."

"People are sick of playing it safe," she said. "It hasn't really gotten us anywhere."

Snow said those frustrations and the state's changing political landscape will mean that "increasingly being an incumbent doesn't guarantee you anything in terms of support for future elections." She later noted, however, that re-electing freshman Assemblyman Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, will be one of her organization's top priorities in 2012 because of his work on health care issues.

Of course, one group's insignificant issue is another group's . . . you know the drill.

And incumbency is STILL likely to be a pretty damned good indicator of electoral success after a brief adjustment period with new districts.

But if I'm running a group bent on electing more of my kind or more people friendly to my kind (women, Mexicans, dentists, podiatrists, whatever), I'm going to spend that period of adjustment seeding lower, local offices to make sure I don't turn around in 6-12 years and find myself with no more friends.

Related: Here, give these gals some money.

Of Dems and Demos

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:24:00 +0000

Tony Quinn tosses an ethnicity-charged grenade into the redistricting discussion with a piece titled "How the Redistricting Commission Screwed Latinos." Now, I like Tony Quinn. I've met him. We share some Rose Institute connections. But lately, I've disagreed with a lot of his thoughts about the California Redistricting Commission (though I agree with his ire over the possibly unfair disqualification of, um, half of my previous employers, I am not taking it quite as personally as he seems to be taking it all).

This latest piece starts with a quote from a NALEO redistricting official that reads, in part, "The lines drawn by the Commission gerrymander Los Angeles Latinos into a district with the millionaires of Beverly Hills and Pacific Palisades. These lines would disenfranchise Latinos by denying them a fair voice in the democratic process." Okay, first, not ALL Los Angeles Latinos are in that district. We're everywhere - we're far beyond the Pico-Union borders, right?

Next, Quinn rhetorically asks whether the Arizona Legislature has snuck into California to draw the new lines Because AZ hates Latinos, right? I kind of think that's true - but the joke rings false to anyone who follows redistricting since AZ also uses an independent commission? Too fine a nerd point? Can't help it - this is as nerdy a topic as exists, so I think it's fair to call Quinn out on this.

I think what bothers me most in all of this is Quinn's lack of actual demographic references to back up his assertions. I assume he's looking at the data, so why not mention it? No, that's not true, what bothers me most are lines like this one: "The incumbent in this area is Congresswoman Judy Chu, an Asian American, who took the former Latino seat held by Hilda Solis when she became Labor Secretary in 2009." Asians are stealing Latino seats! It's minority vs. minority in an ethnic/racial slugfest that can only be won by . . . nobody at all.

All of this seems to me like a set-up: if we make the Dems and Latinos fight themselves, may we can repack some minority districts and get, like, one more GOP seat? Maybe? How 'bout can we save David Dreier? No? Come-on, give us one....

I'd like to see Dems and Latinos (the Venn diagram of which is going to be, what, like 80% overlapping circles?) have a little closed door meeting and really hash this out and conclude that we're not going to take the bait on this.

Know Your Competition

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 20:10:00 +0000

One of the CRC's much-vaunted goals was to create more competitive districts in California. As this article by David Dayen highlights, it's probable that voters, political scientists, political consultants, and CRC Commissioners might not all view the attributes of a competitive district in the same way.

I have a Facebook friend whose personal priority for the CRC could be described as the Incumbent Reemployment Act of 2011 - knock 'em all out and make the next batch more fearful of wrathful, attentive voters. This view likely identifies a competitive district as one in which a D or an R has a relatively equal shot at winning.

There's one teensy tiny problem with that view.

California's demographics would make it impossible to draw a majority - or even a substantial number - of so-competitive districts. The 2001 incumbent protection plan drawn by the legislature preserved the status quo but artificially maintained higher numbers of Republican safe zones than the 2000 census data could support under a more pure, good-government plan. The CAGOP certainly hasn't trended up in the last ten years and so, accordingly, the 2010 census data isn't going to make it easier to make partisan/mathematically competitive districts.

So is the CRC falling down on the job of presenting us with a seventh-grade civics class's view of competitive and fair districts? No, of course not, did you miss what I just said about about demographics?

So what realistic notion of competition is supported by the data and the CRC's draft maps? As the Bee notes, it's an increase from "barely any" to "a couple" or from "a couple" to "a few." This, in a democracy, is progress, kids.

And another thing: this isn't supposed to be a partisan-directed process. So what can we/do we substituted? I know, I know! Like-minded coalitions of surrogate interests. And in California, that means minority interest groups - frequently Latino ones. And leave us not forget the Voting Rights Act - very much a player in this process on an academic level (as groups survey the draft maps for possible Section 2 violations) and on a legal level as four California counties are subject to Section 5 preclearance requirements - those concerns necessarily effect the entire map because when you change one square . . . )

Here's the story:

According to 2010 Census data, Latinos accounted for 90 percent of California’s population growth since 2000. But the draft map released Friday only includes seven Latino "opportunity districts" out of 53 congressional districts—the same number as currently held by Latinos.

“When you look at the combined number of districts statewide that would be effective Latino districts, we could actually end up with fewer than what we have now,” Gold said. She said the map appears to violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

It isn’t only Latinos who are reeling. If the proposed map were adopted, Republicans could find themselves at risk of losing four to eight of their current 19 seats in the House of Representatives, some analysts said. "It's an earthquake with a tsunami," Doug Johnson, a redistricting scholar with the Republican-leaning [Ed's note: um, no it's not, stop saying that] Rose Institute at Claremont McKenna College, told the San Jose Mercury News.

First - where was that growth? Second, and not to sound like I don't care about my people, but, it's not all about you anymore - there are other minority groups that may actually see some gains out of this plan with far less political clout than Latinos currently enjoy. The article notes that civil rights activists say the maps disadvantages Latinos, citing Loretta Sanchez who would potentially now live in a district with fewer Latinos and more Vietnamese-Americans, who tend to vote Republican. Okay, two things:

That disadvantages that Latino, and
Who cares about her current home address? (See e.g.: Lungren, Dan)

Another quote that I find amusing:

[Voting rights program director for the Asian Pacific American Legal Center Eugene] Lee and other said the redistricting commission—which, ironically, is more ethnically diverse than the state as a whole—seems to have been swayed by people who turned up at hearings in April and May pleading with members to keep their towns and cities intact and arguing that ethnicity and race should not be the most important factors in drawing new political maps.

So the problem here is that the commission listened to the people who showed up to rally for the preservation of their communities of interest? Wasn't that what the initiative was supposed to -- okay, okay, sorry, I know. It's hard to credit the process too much when it, like everything, could likely be orchestrated by connected, monied interests who are nothing if not adept at laying down some fine looking astroturf. Except - well - MALDEF and others can do that too and, in fact, groups like NALEO pushed long and hard to get Latinos involved in the commission from the start.

Eventually, it will be harder to reconcile the VRA's mechanics and assumptions with California's demographic and electoral realities. The time may come (and may have already arrived) that short of tremendous Latino losses and really, really clear-cut bloc voting, the argument that similar-on-paper Latinos should be afforded more compactly drawn lines than communities who speak up and demand recognition as such.

(Side note: I've read much about this Pico-Union + Beverly Hills district but much of the objecting comes from the Pico-Union side not the 90210 side. Similarly, San Pedro has been split a few ways and part of it is in with tony Palos Verdes and the beach cities. The wealthy bloc - read that white bloc - isn't pissed about the poors dragging them down. is that because they are confident their interests will be served above others? I don't know - just thinking out loud here)

Anyway - let's get back to the point here: pundits, voters, and electeds need to redefine competition if they're going to get any satisfaction out of the CRC's produdct. The CRC, in turn, needs to be talking about demographics whenever it opens its collective mouth. Until another massive political realignment, California (and most states, really) isn't going to be able to draw a competitive map. What California deserves, however, is a map that, by virtue of its respect for well-defined communities of interest, is as competitive as it can be.

Further reading - honorary mention to these articles for addressing the primary voting change:

Jack Pitney fulfills his duty as a CMC professor and weighs-in on redistricting.
New America Foundation weighs in on . . . oh look, The Great Competition Issue.

GIANT TOPIC ASTERISK HERE: As ever, most discussions of what these maps might mean for the future of the "can we get a timely budget" balance in the state legislature don't wonder at the affects of the jungle primary system that will be in full swing in 2012. GIANT ASTERISK TWO: If MALDEF et al. sue over the VRA side of these equations, in what districts will these jungle primaries take place anyway?

California Democrats Would Be Wise To Resist Early Chicken-Counting

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:09:00 +0000

Where chicken-counting = future budget votes.

So, long-time readers who haven't yet cleared this largely inactive site from their RSS feeds may recall that I used to have a thing or two to say about redistricting. Well, it's that time of the ~~year~~ decade again and last Friday saw the California Redistricting Commission's first set of draft maps release and the requisite freaking out/celebrating by various interest groups.

From a visual standpoint, the draft maps appear to fix a lot of what was horribly wrong with the 2000 iteration (SD 25, CD 46, I'm lookin' at you!). Of course, in a state this complex, populous, and, well Californian, there are bound to be some unhappy populations because the boundaries must go somewhere and some communities will be split. (This does not satisfy my parents whose house is perpetually along the dividing line in San Pedro. The division may be threefold in this tiny port town this time - which is lame. But more on that later.)

Some Republicans, however, peeved about the CRC process since it selected Q2 (too many Bruce Cain links! Too liberal! The horror!) and other procedural decisions viewed as partisan-motivated, are now decrying the results: the strong possibility that Dems will achieve the long-sough 2/3 majority in the Assembly and Senate.

As the WSJ's Carl Kelm summarized:

Californians can expect a greater number of competitive races under the plan. An analysis by the Sacramento Bee estimated that the number of true swing districts will increase to two from one in both Congress and the state Senate, and to five from two in the state Assembly. Still, that competitiveness comes largely at the expense of the GOP. Given the party’s continued decline in California — only 31% of voters are registered Republicans — the map necessarily gives a boost to Democrats. It does so, however, in a qualified manner. Some seats that used to be unflinchingly Democratic are now just marginally so.

Still, for the first time in decades Democrats have a mathematical possibility of reaching a two-thirds supermajority in each legislative chamber, which would allow them to raise taxes without Republican consent. That gives the GOP little electoral margin for error. Then again, the prospect of having to face competitive elections might induce a move toward the center in both parties.

It's the demographics, y'all. It's not a Democratic conspiracy - as much as some Dems probably want it to be.

What isn't being said in all of this? That Democrats should be careful what they wish for and should be cautious before celebrating these gains as a harbinger of on-time, easy budget votes. Why am I a Demmie Downer about this? Because I know my partisan-composition history.

We can look to Congress - and we needn't look too far back - for an excellent illustration of the perils of commanding a seemingly unstoppable majority party. (See also: North Dakota's 3/4 GOP majority's difficulties.) It isn't large majorities that prove effective at pushing policy changes - it's more frequently razor thin lines that demand strict party discipline to maximize efficacy.

There's always a spoiler and in California, you'll likely see Democrats assume that role once Republicans become mathematically irrelevant. With a wide majority, each Democrat assumes more power because if they step out of line, that magic 2/3 disappears quickly. An embattled minority (or in California's 2/3 requirement situation, an embattled majority) has far more motivation to stick together - the benefits of that collective power are more visible. If too many members assume, however, that they can strike out on their own due to the comfortingly high number of Democrats, you'll soon see them realize their new power and their new opportunity. It's going to take a mightly powerful, Unruh-esque leader to keep that group in line.

Combine these demographic shirts and border realignments with the as-yet untested effects of the new free-for-all, top 2 primary system and who knows what sort of personalities and agendas walk into the Capitol in 2012 and 2014. One can easily envision splits in the Democratic party forming similar to the traditional GOP/new Tea Party fracture causing all sorts of unlikely coalitions and testing newly loose cannons (and canons).

Here's What

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Mon, 02 May 2011 18:32:00 +0000

It seems appropriate to return to this site on this day - a site born from my anger at the US foreign policy reaction to 9/11 and its subsequent political warfare.

They say this will be another one of those remember-where-you-were world events.

Much as I was on 9/11, I was in the middle of nowhere - or at least - somewhere less populated than my usual residence - driving home on Route 99 through California's Central Valley when my parents informed us, insulated from the world through the power of corporate, pre-programmed radio, that Osama bin Laden had been killed.

We searched for news on the FM dial and found none, but AM gave us the CBS news feed where we listened to the latest. Driving along the dark highway, I was reminded of my feelings on 9/11 when I sat in the midst of the mountains glad to be away from concentrated population areas.

My husband and I were both somber. The fatigue of driving lifted as we sat listening to the coverage of groups converging at the White House to chant "USA" and wave flags. Without speaking to each other, we already knew we agreed. We didn't want to hear celebration. We didn't want to hear chanting. We didn't want to hear hubris and ignorance excitedly ruling the day.

Something that should be marked with solemnity happened in a far off city to actual people who lived.

And so we come back to the notion of killing starfish.

It is hard to kill a starfish because if so much as a single cell of the starfish's core is present in the limb, the limb will grow a new starfish. There are an endless number of new starfish to be created from one, supposedly dead starfish.

In this case, the starfish may be Osama bin Laden, but more likely, the starfish is the idea of Osama bin Laden.

You cannot kill an idea. Ideas are bulletproof.

The only new posts are sad posts

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:29:00 +0000

Senator Jenny Oropeza died last night. She was only 53.

I've known her most of my life. She was a good friend of my dad's and given the number of political functions I attended growing up, she was one of a few electeds who still remembered me and said hello whenever I'd see her. I always thought she was beautiful - a glamorous role-model, if you will, who spoke her mind, stepped up to leadership, but remained friendly to the people back home.

When I came to Sacramento as an Assembly Fellow, she was a familiar and friendly face. She encouraged the Fellows - especially the women - to seek out mentors to help them in their careers.

I'll miss you, Jenny. Rest in peace.

OMG

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 01:51:00 +0000

Want to blog, old skool Phoblog style, sooooo bad this evening . . . .

You know why.

On Why He Was Mad

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:30:00 +0000

Well put, Mr. Weiner.

The Gentleman Is Correct In Sitting

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:30:00 +0000

This is hot.

Shrug. This probably won't last long

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:50:00 +0000

I dunno. Kinda, blah. Maybe more 2.0 blah, but still blah. We'll keep playing . . . .

What Keeps Me Up at Night

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:34:00 +0000

This is the first of what may become a recurring feature of Plinky answers. Plinky is a question service that prompts writing. And since we're looking for that sort of thing around here, may as well hop on that bandwagon for a bit.

These days, being up at night keeps me up at night. Currently being up. The fear of being up again. Having been up too long already. It's a meta-worry. A worry that devours itself.

This is life with a baby.

New Curtains?

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 04:06:00 +0000

Blogger has a ton of new template design options. Not quite as customizable as I'd like, but light years ahead of the oldskoolcool going on here. Upgrade? Or keep it real, y'all?

Cloudy Days

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 03:49:00 +0000

What up, 'sphere. Are we even still calling it that? No, right? I didn't think so. It's been however long it's been since I last posted. Two reasons, no wait, three reasons: 1) I had a baby and babies are HUGE time sucks. 2) Blogger ditched FTP publishing and I had no idea how to migrate and change whatever needed to be changed. Fortunately, Josh Orum of the fabulous Loud Dog still helps my digitally stupid arse when I need it. Thanks, Josh! 3) My day job doesn't allow me to comment on the upcoming statewide election nor really any of the juicy state goings-on right now. Which sucks but how else will I pay my $4/month hosting bill? Exactly.

So where do we go from here, then? I know, let's check out a visual representation of what life is about, blog-wise. Or what blogging still goes down nowadays anyway.

Crap, really? Pregnancy is the biggest word? Out of 5 years of blogging? Some of it substantive? Much of it engaging. C'mon, it used to be, you thought so too or you wouldn't be reading this now, still. I demand a new algorithm! I didn't think I'd written that much about it, but it must have been frequently and recently part of the blog to get such big word-cloud billing.

But really, where do we - I - where do I go from here? There are some great, compelling . . . mommyblogs out there. Is there any room left in that market? Is there any point in asking that question when I haven't written much at all lately despite desperately, desperately needing to write?

Media criticism? TV reviews? Weight-loss? (har har, like I have time for that yet.) What's relevant without stinking of a thirst for relevance?

Tap Tap, Is This Thing On?

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 03:59:00 +0000

I've been a bit busy lately tending to my offspring. But more on that later. In fact, probably a whole 'nother site on that later - once I sort out Blogger's no-more-FTP business. Because I have time to migrate a bunch of websites. Whatevs.

In the meantime, you might have noticed there's this whole statewide election thing going down right now - or soon. The upside of maternity leave is much more time in front of the tube. The downside, however, is the truly awful number of political advertisments I must watch - for one candidate in particular. Getting through an episode of Jeopardy is very difficult.

There won't be any commentary on that race here, however, as much as that pains the holy living hell out of me. It doesn't take a tremendous amount of thought to predict what I'd be saying, of course, but I like to think I say it so much more entertainingly than other similarly-minded folks. Oh well.

So I'll toss out a placeholder complaint about the Prop 16 ads: Thanks so much, PG&E for protecting my right to vote on municipal entries into the electricity market. I just didn't know you cared. I'm touched.

Why do people sign any initiative petitions? Why do people vote for them? Not. Democracy. Y'all.

On Voting And Not Voting

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:04:00 +0000

Please note that this post is about no candidate or person in particular. It just exists on its own in a little blog vacuum. Not a dyson vacuum, just, like, a dirt devil vacuum. One with less suck.

So, why and how should we use individual's voting records to evaluate their qualifications for a particular job, to determine their character, or otherwise judge them? Should we at all?

A few things seem clear to me.

First, I can't think about individual voting records without recalling my first day in Gov 20 at CMC. Professor Pitney pushed us all to defend the argument that every vote counts. You want to piss off and frustrate the hell out of a class of government nerds, by the way, this is the best way to do it. We all but shouted "yes." We used the "if everyone picks a flower from this garden, eventually it will be bare, thus of course each individual action matters" argument.

But you know what. In most elections (and there's a big * here, post 2000, of course), a single vote doesn't count. That's not say it doesn't matter, in the virtuous sense, but it probably doesn't count. Again, in most elections.

Second, I used to be angry at non-voters. Really, viscerally angry. Until I realized I should thank them. Every person who doesn't vote makes my vote that much stronger. I'm happy to be left to make the decisions, thanks.

Anyway - what's clear to me . . . .

There seem to be one main reason and one main excuse employed by non-voters. The reason: I was busy. The excuse: doesn't matter anyway. Is either the reason or the excuse valid? Ish.

Some people really are busy. I'd argue no one could ever be too busy to register to vote, but perhaps one could be too busy to cast a ballot.

What's the more, er, politic excuse, however? Certainly not "doesn't matter anyway." A candidate can't use that line and go on to ask for electoral support.

A better excuse: I didn't get it before! I was so moved by 9/11/Obama/California's budgetary woes/abortion/marriage equality/whatever that I just couldn't stay home, finally paid some attention, and got my ballot in this time. We love a lesson-learned narrative in this country, no?

What if, however, we tweak that a bit? What if, instead of "I had a come-to-Jesus moment with myself," the candidate instead explains that, while facing business challenges stemming from government regulation, the candidate realizes that "politics" is perhaps the only route to success?

What do we do with that explanation?

Do we allow a candidate to use politics and government interchangeably? Are they interchangeable? In all cases?

In the absence of a lesson-learned narrative, what will we accept as a legitimate storyline?

Many Important People In My Life Are Democrats, Too

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:22:00 +0000

It's much, much too soon to be writing another post like this after Will's death, but I am again grieving the loss of another mentor and role model - Charmette Bonpua.

I met Charmette during my Assembly Fellowship on the first day I reported to my assigned office - then Assembly Member (soon to be Speaker) Herb Wesson. I had been warned by the previous fellow not to try to talk to Charmette before she had her morning coffee. Soon enough, in stormed a short, fiery Filipina with a single, burning mission to get some coffee. She may have grunted hello, but not much else. Ten or so minutes later, coffee in hand, she came over to my desk full of fire for the days work and enthusiasm over my arrival. The difference that coffee made was impressive.

Charmette was Herb's chief of staff and most trusted aide at many levels of his public service - most recently as he serves on the LA City Council. They were great friends and partners in politics - a perfect match of skill and temperament and vision.

The woman was scary smart. Emphasis on the scary. Well, and the smart, too. She passionately devoted her life to public service and whatever time was left after her day job went to working with young people and encouraging others to think past low expectations, to aspire to great things. I recall her once saying, tearfully (in a rare display of that sort of emotion), that she was told once she'd never amount to much in the US because of her accent, because she was just an Asian immigrant female. I think her core mission was making sure every girl in the state knew she had the potential to lead and affect change. And man did she have fun and love her job.

Charmette was only 44 when she died.

Rest in peace, Charmette, you will be greatly missed. Thank you for your service and your example.

Sex Ed's Biggest Failure

noreply@blogger.com (cd) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:15:00 +0000

I can vividly remember my high school sex-ed instructor showing us slides of genital warts. Really, really bad cases of genital warts. There were slides of genitalia infected with other sorts of sexually transmitted diseases as well, but the warts earned the biggest gasps and yelps of any photo flashed up on the screen. These were heinous cases: gardens of complex fungal structures like something you'd grow in a crystal growing kit Santa brings you in the fifth grade. Except on your junk. Certainly, those images helped convince many of us to wait and all of us to use protection.

I wonder, however, why pregnancy isn't more fully discussed in sex ed classes.

Yeah, it's discussed: you can get pregnant after just one sexual encounter; condoms aren't 100% effective; pregnancy will derail your college plans; babies are expensive. Yes, the notion that childbirth as a teen is something to avoid is well established. But I don't recall PREGNANCY being fully discussed at all. Or even glossed over, really.

Before we get to what details I'd like to see shared, I'll ponder why educators don't dwell on pregnancy more. First, I think there's a predominate "oh it's not THAT bad" opinion amongst many mothers whose shining babes erase from their minds the memory of how much pregnancy actually sucks nuts. Second, culturally, how could we expect young women and girls to continue to strive for the feminine ideal of motherhood if we spent a good chunk of time discussing its medical realities, rather than its romanticized ideals. Third, gotta procreate, so let's not make it seem ALL bad, mmm k? And motherhood is SO rewarding, why dwell on the other stuff?

But aren't we missing out on a key tool in the fight against teen pregnancy? How have we managed to take pregnancy out of the fight against teen pregnancy?

I keep looping a scene from a recent Private Practice in my head. In the episode, the 15 year old daughter of a main character admits to her parents she is pregnant. After much fighting and hand-wrining, the mother pulls the 15 year old into a birthing suite at said private practice and points to the panting, suffering, sweating, screaming, pain-riddled woman in labor and asks the 15 year old, roughly, look at that! Is that what you want?

A moment later, out pops a newborn, the woman stops moaning, and the 15 year old says, "yeah, but look at THAT." Read: look at the miracle of life mom, recognize what's really important.

Even if we take that as true for a 15 year old, does that negate the bad that comes before it?

I'm going with no and I think we should stop hiding the ball from young women about what pregnancy means, how taxing it is, and just how committed they'll need to be for 40 long weeks.

This blog has a good run down of stuff THEY won't tell you about pregnancy as well as the really awful, demoralizing way in which people respond to you if you bring up how crappy pregnancy is.

Not for one second has the notion that "it's okay, you'll forget the pain, the hormones have a good amnesiac effect and you'll just be in love with the baby" made what I'm going through NOW any better. That's great, later, but it's not great now.

The duration of recovery, what's involved in recovery, pregnancy sickness (good luck getting me to call it "morning" sickness), tearing, contractions, tearing, swelling, bleeding, crying, irrationality, weight gain, did I mention tearing?, and that final moment of actually birthing the child . . . . we don't think ANY of this might convince a girl to either wait to have sex or to tell her partner she doesn't care how much he needs proof of love or how much of a downer condoms are, it's condoms or no deal?

Are we cheating young woman out of information they should have to help make decisions about their sexual behavior? I think we are.

Yet even I am made to feel defective for "complaining" - as it is labeled by others; explaining as I would label it - by some people who are very close to me. And even I fear that I'm giving pregnancy a bad rap - because it's not supposed to be that bad and it's all supposed to be worth it, right? Our culture has a strong hold on us, ladies. I can barely fight it in my own head.