California Voters May Get to Choose Between Two Different Death Penalty Related Ballot Propositions

Faster Executions or None at All? Californians May Get to Choose

If there’s one thing supporters and opponents of the death penalty can agree on, it’s this: The system is broken. Since California reinstated capital punishment in 1977, 117 death row inmates have died. But only 15 of them have been executed. The vast majority have died of natural causes or suicide.

When he was chief justice of the California Supreme Court, Ronald George caused a stir when he said “the leading cause of death on death row in California is old age.” The system, he said, is dysfunctional  — and few would disagree.

Even before a federal judge blocked executions in 2006, the pace of implemented death sentences was slow. It wasn’t unusual for condemned inmates to spend two decades on death row, as their legal appeals slowly wound through the courts. But to death penalty opponents, the seemingly endless delays prove that capital punishment is unworkable and should be scrapped altogether.To death penalty supporters, that delay is a travesty of justice and disrespectful to crime victims and their families who, they say, deserve to see the ultimate sentence implemented.

Come November, California voters could have two completely different options for fixing the system. Two groups are preparing to collect signatures for ballot measures that would present stark choices.

One, the Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016, would limit inmate appeals, which can drag on for decades, and expedite executions. It would also give the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation more latitude in housing condemned inmates and require them to work, with 70 percent of their wages going to crime victims.

The other proposal, which ballot measure proponent Mike Farrell calls “The Justice That Works Act of 2016,” would ban executions altogether and convert all existing death sentences to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016 is current being reviewed by the Attorney General’s Office. A similar measure was proposed last year and endorsed by three former California governors. It never made it to the ballot.

An attorney advising proponents of the current death penalty reform measure told me that first effort was “controlled by crime victim families,” suggesting it didn’t have the kind of professional political consultants needed to make it to the ballot.

This time around, he said, Sacramento-based strategist Aaron McLear and his firm, Redwood Pacific, will guide the effort.

This week the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office released its fiscal review of that measure. While acknowledging the measure would affect various costs, “the magnitude of these effects would depend on how certain provisions in the measure are interpreted and implemented,” the LAO wrote.

In conclusion, it wrote:

• Increased state costs that could be in the tens of millions of dollars annually for several years related to direct appeals and habeas corpus proceedings, with the fiscal impact on such costs being unknown in the longer run.
• Potential state correctional savings that could be in the tens of millions of dollars annually.
• Proponents of the measure to ban capital punishment must be more pleased with the LAO analysis of their measure. The LAO estimates a “net reduction in state and local government costs of potentially around $150 million annually within a few years due to the elimination of the death penalty.” You can be sure that will end up in a TV commercial for the measure.
• 
  
• Proponents of both measures have yet to collect a single signature. Assuming they get a green light from the attorney general and the secretary of state, they’ll have 180 days to collect the necessary signatures to put it before voters.
• 
  
• If both succeed, they’ll likely join a November 2016  ballot with measures related to legalizing pot, raising the minimum wage and strengthening gun control. All that, plus a presidential election and the race to replace retiring U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer.
• In other words, a political junkie’s dream come true.

By Scott Shafer

Via http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/12/14/faster-executions-or-none-at-all-california-voters-may-choose

California prison population drops under Proposition 47, but public safety impact still unclear

Citrus Heights police Officer Wesley Herman recently arrested a parolee carrying stolen jewelry and a deceased man’s identification card.

If the property was valued at more than $950, the case was a felony that would let him take the man into custody. If not, it was a misdemeanor and he’d get a citation.

The first words out of his mouth, Herman said, were, “Am I going to jail?”

It’s been nine months since California voters approved a ballot measure reducing charges for some nonviolent drug and property crimes, and Herman says repeat offenders are getting savvy about the new limits of the law.

“These guys know that if they are running around with less than $950 of stolen property on them, they’re not going to jail,” he said. “They’re always trying to stay a step ahead of us.”

Continuing the recent trend away from decades of tough-on-crime policy, nearly 60 percent of voters last November supported Proposition 47, which reduced from felonies to misdemeanors offenses including drug possession for personal use. Savings on correctional spending, estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars annually, is intended to go to mental health and drug treatment, anti-truancy efforts and victim services.

Only a spotty picture has emerged of the law’s early effects: Supporters celebrate that tens of thousands of current and former convicts have already had the felonies on their records changed to misdemeanors, opening up new opportunities for jobs, housing and public benefits. Police and prosecutors argue that it has made their jobs more difficult.

Communities across the state fret about the connection to spikes in crime, but those familiar with public safety statistics say it’s too soon to know whether anecdotes from the street are evidence that Proposition 47 is responsible.

“Law enforcement isn’t a place where change is readily embraced,” said Tom Hoffman, a longtime police officer and former director of California’s parole operations, who advised the Proposition 47 campaign. For this sentencing overhaul to succeed, it will take “a lot of time and a lot of patience and, quite candidly, a lot of courage.”

Proposition 47 has accomplished at least one of its objectives already.

As of this week, 4,347 inmates have been released from state prisons due to resentencing, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The releases helped push the overcrowded prison system below court-mandated capacity levels by February, a full year ahead of its deadline.

Many more individuals have successfully petitioned at the county level to have their records changed, including approximately 1,400 so far in Sacramento County. As some inmates are released from jail and cramped facilities clear out, more serious offenders are serving longer portions of their sentences.

“We want to be very careful about who we’re putting in a cage,” said Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, because incarceration can sometimes “work at cross-purposes” with those people turning their lives around.

Nearly 3,600 defendants in Santa Clara County have had their felonies reduced to misdemeanors since November. Rosen, one of only three district attorneys in California to endorse Proposition 47, said they are sending fewer people to prison for these crimes than before.

“The benefits to our society from locking up fewer nonviolent offenders will in the long run translate into safer communities, a better economy, and stronger services,” he said.

Increases in crime during the first half of the year, however, have raised early doubts in many communities.

Preliminary statistics for the city of Sacramento show a 25 percent rise in violent crime, including homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, through June, compared with the same period in 2014. Property crimes, such as burglary and motor vehicle theft, are up about 5 percent, though larcenies have dropped slightly.

The Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office has seen a 9 percent increase in filings so far this year for cases it is pursuing – an 11 percent drop in felonies offset by a 27 percent jump in misdemeanors.

Magnus Lofstrom, a researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California who has studied the impacts of realignment, cautioned against drawing conclusions from the data.

Upticks in violent and property crime rates during the first year of realignment caused similar concerns, Lofstrom said. With the exception of a boost in auto thefts, however, the spike was in line with increases in states that did not undergo realignment, and crime rates have since dropped again.

With a surge of releases under Proposition 47, “it’s fair to say it puts an upward pressure on crime rates” for the types of low-level offenses those inmates committed, he added. But he said it’s very difficult to attribute a particular change in law to a change in crime rates. Cities and counties vary in their staffing levels, law enforcement priorities and reentry services for released offenders.

Law enforcement officials feel more certain of the connection, pointing to “unintended consequences” of the law.

Herman of the Citrus Heights Police Department said Proposition 47 has limited the ability of police to respond to drug-related crimes.

Previously, he said, he was able to take someone to jail for simple possession, where at least “he’s going to be clean a few days.”

“Now you have to show that this is a crime heinous enough to take them out of the community,” he said.

Instead of being arrested, the suspect might instead receive a citation to appear in court in 30 days. Herman said that allows addicts to keep using – and potentially commit thefts to support their habit.

“It’s been difficult for us to prevent as many crimes as we could have before,” he said. “Our hands do sometimes get tied.”

The changes have also had a detrimental effect on California drug courts, according to prosecutors.

Those programs provide offenders with the option of seeking treatment for substance abuse rather than facing prison time. But without the “hammer” of a felony now hanging over them, Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert said, those arrested for drug-related crimes have little incentive to choose rehabilitation over the lesser charges.

“Logically, many of those people who have the addiction problems that we want to address are not going to avail themselves of that because it’s too much work,” she said, adding that it creates a “revolving door” for petty criminals to return to the streets and reoffend. “If you don’t have accountability for criminal behavior, there’s no reason not to commit that criminal behavior.”

The number of cases in Sacramento County’s two drug courts has fallen to 587 from 970 since the passage of Proposition 47. In Fresno County, one drug court has halved to 280 cases, while another lost all 80 of its participants.

San Bernardino County District Attorney Mike Ramos said proponents of the measure went about their aims in the wrong way. Established diversion programs in his county are collapsing – drug court participation is down 60 percent – and there are not yet resources to create new ones.

While 65 percent of any savings on correctional spending from Proposition 47 is earmarked for mental health and drug treatment programs to keep at-risk individuals out of custody, counties won’t see any of that money until August 2016, after the next budget cycle.

“What are they going to do in the meantime?” Ramos said. “They should have had a plan in place.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article30455739.html#storylink=cpy

AM Alert: Legislators discuss declining voter turnout

A record-low 42.2 percent of California voters participated in last November’s statewide general election, five months after a mere 25 percent of them voted in the June 2014 primary.

Lawmakers, political consultants and other experts will discuss the reasons for the growing election apathy and possible solutions at “Understanding California’s Voter Turnout Crisis: The Decline of Civic Participation,” an event hosted by the Leadership California Institute.So far this year, lawmakers have put forward proposals for automatic voter registration and other efforts to help reverse the voter drought.

The lineup of speakers includes state Sen. Ben Allen D-Santa Monica, and Assemblywoman Ling-Ling Chang R-Diamond Bar. Kim Alexander, president and founder of the California Voter Foundation, and Anthony York, editor and publisher of the Grizzly Bear Project, will also contribute to the forum.

The event is at 11 a.m. at the Citizen Hotel, 926 J Street.

FRACKING: Two years ago, Gov. Jerry Brown signed California’s most comprehensive legislation on the controversial oil and gas drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing. The measure mandates permits and groundwater monitoring for energy companies seeking to begin new fracking wells, as well as requiring the state to conduct an independent scientific assessment of well stimulation in California. The second set of those reports is set to be released today. The California Council on Science and Technology will present its findings, including how well stimulation could affect water, atmosphere, seismic activity, wildlife and vegetation, and human health, 3 p.m. at the California Environmental Protection Agency on I Street.

BREAST CANCER SEMINAR: Recent research suggests that women with dense breast tissue may not need the additional cancer screenings often recommended by physicians – well-intentioned caution that can lead to false positives and burdensome costs. Joy Melkinow, director for the Center of Health Policy and Research at UC Davis, will discuss the changing evidence on cancer screenings and prevention, and its effect on public health guidelines, noon at the UC Center Sacramento on K Street.

By: ALEXEI KOSEFF AND CATHERINE DOUGLAS MORAN

Via: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article26824324.html

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article26824324.html#storylink=cpy

IMMIGRATION: Legality of effort to repeal Prop. 187 is questioned

Some California legislators are poised to repeal Proposition 187, a controversial 20-year-old initiative that was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court and never enforced. But law scholars question whether the elected officials have the legal authority to act on their own.

“The California Constitution says you can’t amend or repeal an approved measure without submitting it to the voters unless there’s a waiver clause,” said Jessica A. Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who specializes on election law.

Prop. 187, which sought to cut off public education, health care and welfare benefits to undocumented immigrants in California, had no such waiver, said John C. Eastman, a Chapman University Law School professor and founding director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

“These guys are acting lawlessly,” Eastman said. “They’ll do it if they think they can get away with it and no one will challenge them.”

California voters approved Prop. 187 – also known as the “Save our State” campaign – in November 1994 with almost 60 percent approval. A federal court ruled most of the provisions unconstitutional, and the measure was not enforced. But some of the language remains embedded in various codes, including education codes.

Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, said he learned of its existence in California codes accidentally. He was recently talking to his staff about his personal history and recounting how he “cut my teeth politically against the 187 campaign.” Chief of Staff Dan Reeves decided to look into the proposition and found it had not been removed.

“These code sections are unenforceable. The Legislature has the right and power and authority to maintain the codes with our statutes and that’s we’re doing,” Reeves said.

“Essentially, it’s code cleaning,” he said.

De Leon’s staff consulted with the state’s legislative counsel, Diane Boyer-Vine, whose opinion was that “it’s not necessary to go back to the voters,” Reeves said.

State Sen. Richard Roth, D-Riverside, said unconstitutional laws should not remain on the books.

“The Constitution is the highest law of our nation, and I support any effort to remove any statute or language found unconstitutional,” he said.

Sen. Mike Morrell, a Rancho Cucamonga Republican who represents parts of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, said in a statement that he has not yet decided whether to vote for de Leon’s bill.

“I have not yet had a chance to review the specific language of the bill or the legal questions surrounding it,” he said.

Robin Hvidston, executive director of the anti-illegal-immigration We the People Rising and an Upland resident, urged legislators to keep the law in California codes.

“To me, it’s important because this was the direct voice of the people,” she said. “The people’s voice, the people’s will was overruled by the courts.”

She worried that stripping Prop. 187 language from state codes would set a dangerous precedent and lead to other voter initiatives being gutted.

But Maria Rodriguez, an activist with the Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Coalition, said passage of de Leon’s bill would be another signal by the Legislature that California is “an immigrant-friendly state.”

Jerry Brown pushes his plan for state reserve fund

SACRAMENTO — Raising the stakes in his campaign to strengthen California's finances, Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday called a special session of the state Legislature for next week to consider a new plan to save money and pay off state debt, an election-year pitch that he must make to lawmakers without the benefit of a Democratic supermajority.

Brown's proposal is aimed at cushioning the state against recessions and calming its turbulent fiscal waters. It would require Sacramento to capture spikes in revenue and either save the money to prevent budget cuts during a downturn or pay off debt and cover long-term liabilities such as public pensions.

"We simply must prevent the massive deficits of the last decade, and we can only do that by paying down our debts and creating a solid rainy-day fund," Brown said in a statement.

California voters approved the creation of a rainy-day fund in 2004, but it has mostly sat empty amid persistent budget crises.

Brown's move forces lawmakers to address the issue more publicly while burnishing his own credentials as a financial steward for California. It is also his first major test of the new political landscape in the Legislature, where multiple criminal investigations have cost Democrats their two-thirds majority in the state Senate.

The governor needs some GOP support for his measure because it is a constitutional amendment that requires a two-thirds vote for passage, and Democrats are now shy of that threshold. If the proposal passes, it would go before voters inNovember.

Republicans have wanted a rainy-day fund that functions differently from the one Brown proposes, and the governor risks a political black eye if they don't go along. But the special session offers Republicans a way to collaborate across the aisle on an issue likely to have broad public appeal.

"There's a huge opportunity for Republicans to demonstrate they are willing to join us in the interest of long-term stability for this state," Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) said in an interview.

The special session convenes April 24, concurrent with the legislative session already under way.

The GOP plan for new reserve-fund rules, which passed with bipartisan support during a 2010 budget standoff, includes spending restrictions that Democrats find objectionable.

That measure is already scheduled for the November ballot. Brown's plan would replace it.

The leader of the Assembly's Republicans, Connie Conway of Tulare, warned that the GOP would be wary of any plan that does not sufficiently limit lawmakers' ability to dip into reserves.

"Republicans will oppose any effort to replace the strict proposal that is already before the voters with a faux rainy-day fund scheme," Conway said in a statement.

Still, there are signs that Republicans are willing to work with the governor.

Assemblyman Jeff Gorell (R-Camarillo), the top Republican on the Assembly budget committee, said in a statement that "changing circumstances require a new look at the measure." He added: "Although the devil is in the details, the conversation is going in the right direction."

Senate Republican leader Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar), whose caucus members Brown will need to win over for his plan to be successful, also praised the governor's interest in the issue.

"It's just common sense for California to put away money during the 'boom' years to avoid future tax increases and spending reductions in the 'bust' years," he said in a statement. 

"However, we are mindful that legislative Democrats have undermined similar efforts in the recent past."

It's possible that Brown could face a challenge from his own Democratic Party. Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said there was no need for lawmakers to pass a new reserve plan until later in the year.

"Constitutional Amendments must be done right, not rushed," he said in a post on Twitter.

Brown's proposal would create a new budget mechanism that kicks in when there is disproportionately high revenue from capital gains taxes, which can rise and fall sharply with the stock market. The governor and Legislature could then choose whether to save the extra money in the reserve fund or use it to chip away at long-term costs such as public pensions and maintenance projects.

"Both of them are absolutely critical to the state's future," said Brown's finance director, Michael Cohen. "But how you balance them in a particular year is really what elected officials are elected to do."

The fund could grow to 10% of general-fund spending under Brown's plan and would be accessible to lawmakers only after the governor declared a financial emergency.

Brown's latest budget proposal includes $1.6 billion for the reserve fund and $1.6 billion to pay off bonds used to balance the budget during the recession.

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-brown-legislature-20140417,0,5769485.story#ixzz2zGKAPAT7

Affirmative action non-action still causing waves in Sacramento

SACRAMENTO — When the state Senate took up the issue of affirmative action in late January, it was a relatively tepid affair. 

After 20 minutes of polite debate, senators passed a measure that, if approved by voters, would overturn California's ban on affirmative action in public higher education.

But within weeks, the debate turned fractious. Backlash arose among some Asian Americans who feared their children could lose access to the state's universities if more places were granted to students from other minority groups.

The measure is now shelved, derailed by the sudden opposition and the majority Democrats' slow-footed defense of it.

But political ramifications remain.

The controversy has caused unusual friction among the Capitol's ruling Democrats as lawmakers differ over how to control the fallout. Several legislators cited hard feelings among the party's Latinos, African Americans and Asian Americans.

State Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), chairwoman of the Legislative Black Caucus, said she had "deep concerns" about how some of her colleagues backed off the legislation.

The Democrats, who passed the proposal on party lines, are now trying to redirect a debate that threatens their "big tent" of ethnic and racial alliances. Republicans, sensing an inroad to an increasingly powerful group of voters, are keeping the spotlight on the issue.

The debate is rooted in a law voters passed in 1996 that forbids the state to consider race, ethnicity or gender in hiring, contracting or admissions to public institutions of higher education.

A 2003 report by the University of California found that implementing race-neutral admissions policies led to a "substantial decline" in the proportion of black, Latino and American Indian students entering the system's most selective institutions.

David A. Lehrer, president of Community Advocates, a Los Angeles public affairs group that opposes affirmative action, said that if admissions are meant to more closely reflect the state's demographics, Asian Americans are the one group that is "obviously disproportionately represented."

Asians make up 14% of California's population, according to 2012 data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Last year, Asian Americans were 30% of the University of California's total enrollment, although supporters of affirmative action say the proportion of Asian American students increased by only a few points after the race-neutral admissions policy took effect.

News of the proposal to reinstate affirmative action spread mostly among the Chinese community through social networking sites such as WeChat, a Chinese version of Facebook.

An online group called the 80-20 Initiative, run by S.B. Woo, a former Democratic lieutenant governor of Delaware who now has no party affiliation, was particularly adept at harnessing its email list to exert pressure on Asian American lawmakers.

It worked. Three Chinese American senators — Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance), Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) and Sen. Carol Liu (D-La Cañada Flintridge) — who had voted for the measure sent a public letter to its author, Sen. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina), urging him to delay it to ensure that Asian Americans' concerns were heard.

In the Assembly, several lawmakers, such as Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park), said they'd oppose the proposal in its existing form, sinking its prospects.

Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), chairman of the Latino caucus, said he was "disheartened" by that response.

But within weeks, Hernandez — who said his Facebook page had attracted so much invective about the hot-button issue that he had to shut it down — withdrew his measure.

In the past, he had introduced a number of proposals to roll back the anti-affirmative-action law, none of which were enacted. He said he had never heard objections from Asian Americans worried that they would be harmed.

"I hadn't thought that would be a constituency that would have a concern," Hernandez said.

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-affirmative-action-20140331,0,2270777.story#ixzz2yLJdoie6

Website allows tracking of Prop. 30 money to schools

Proposition 30, enacted by voters in 2012 to temporarily raise sales taxes and income taxes on the wealthy, was touted by Gov. Jerry Brown and other proponents as an alternative to making billions of dollars in cuts to state school spending due to state budget deficits.

Since its enactment, state Controller John Chiang reported Wednesday, Proposition 30 has pumped about $13 billion into local school district coffers. Chiang unveiled a new website, entitled Track Prop. 30, that allows users to plug in their local school districts and see their total budgets and the portions being financed through Prop. 30.

As large as the $13 billion may be, it's still a relatively small portion of K-12 and community college finances, which approach $70 billion a year from all sources. The website reveals, for instance, that during the 2012-13 fiscal year, the latest for which complete data are available, Los Angeles Unified, the state's largest district, had $5.7 billion in revenues from all sources, but Proposition 30 provided just $659.4 million or 12 percent.

Proposition 30, which raised sales taxes fractionally and imposed surtaxes on high-income taxpayers, generates about $6 billion a year and by long-standing constitutional law, a large chunk of the revenue stream must go to schools.

The tax hikes will begin expiring in 2017-18, however, and whether - and how - their revenues to schools will be replaced is still uncertain. Tom Torlakson, the state superintendent of public instruction, has called for making the tax increases permanent, but that would take another ballot measure or two-thirds votes in both houses of the Legislature, plus Brown's signature.

PHOTO: Students, dignitaries and supporters cheer on Gov. Jerry Brown who holds up a campaign sign and encourages students to vote yes for Proposition 30 at Sacramento City College. Thursday, October 18, 2012. The Sacramento Bee/Randy Pench

Categories: Ballot initiatives, Budget, California by the Numbers, Education, Gov. Jerry Brown

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/04/website-allows-tracking-of-prop-30-money-to-schools.html#storylink=cpy

via: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/04/website-allows-tracking-of-prop-30-money-to-schools.html

California lawmakers push off college affirmative action bill

California voters will not decide in the 2014 election whether race, gender or ethnicity ought to be considered in college admissions, after lawmakers postponed deliberation on a bill that intends to amend the state constitution.

Spurred by an onslaught of opposition to the proposal, Assembly Speaker John Perez announced Monday that he was sending Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5 back to the senate — without any action on behalf of the lower assembly — at the request of Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina, the author of the bill.

Perez said although the bill addressed issues pertinent to most members of the legislature, some lawmakers articulated qualms about the bill’s logistics and its effect on potential college applicants. Certain constituents have expressed concern — for example, some members of the Asian American community worried that the amendment would ostracize them in college admissions.

In response, three prominent Asian American senators — Ted Lieu, D-Torrance; Carol Liu, D-La Canada Flintridge; and Leland Yee, D-San Francisco — wrote a letter last week imploring Hernandez to hold SCA-5 until “he has an opportunity to meet with affected communities and attempt to build a consensus.”

“We felt it was necessary to have a discussion based on facts (before further action),” Hernandez said in a press release.

The proposed amendment seeks to overturn Proposition 209, a 1996 ballot initiative that prohibits the consideration of race, sex or ethnicity in state institutions. Following the passage of Prop. 209, UC Berkeley saw a significant drop in the number of minority students admitted to the university.

If the bill is ratified, the amendment would be placed before voters as a ballot measure. Perez expects that the delay won’t upset the current timeline and that a proposition will be on the 2016 ballot.

“I believe in affirmative action, and I believe it is an important tool to bring diversity,” Yee said. “I don’t want anyone to believe that SCA would negatively impact any community, and I asked (Hernandez and Perez) to have a discussion so that people are all on the same page.”

Hoping to placate anxieties provoked by the measure, Perez called for the creation of a nonpartisan and bicameral task force that will discuss issues related to the comprehensive access to higher education. He intends to include members from all three segments of higher education in California as well as legislators, academics and other key stakeholders.

“It is important that we engage in a very broad conversation … so that we can fully address the issues that our universities are dealing with and give them the tools to expand access and not retract it,” Perez said in a statement.

Some UC Berkeley students have expressed concern about the amendment. In particular, ASUC presidential hopeful David Douglass, who is running with the Defend Affirmative Action Party, doubted the lawmakers’ intent to place the amendment before voters, though he supports affirmative action policies. He debated ASUC Senator Solomon Nwoche about such policies Friday.

Nwoche, who is against affirmative action policies, said that in the long run, the amendment might “actually hurt those students who the campus is recruiting as a whole.”

But representatives from the campus organization REACH! — an Asian Pacific Islander recruitment and retention center — support the measure and think the basis for opposition to SCA-5 is rooted in misinformation.

“There are a lot of misconceptions about SCA-5,’” said Victor Phu, a UC Berkeley junior and REACH! associate director of retention. “(But) Berkeley is engaged in a comprehensive review of admission. We want to take race, sex, ethnicity and sexual orientation into consideration with admissions.”

Senate passes measure asking voters to repeal Prop. 209

Democrats in the California Senate used their two-thirds supermajority Thursday to pass a measure that would ask voters if they want to repeal the state's ban on race- and gender-based preferences in government hiring and contracting and university admissions.

With the bare minimum number of votes needed - 27 - the upper house passed and sent to the Assembly Senate Constitutional Amendment 5, which would ask voters if they want to repeal provisions that became law 18 years ago with the passage of Proposition 209.

The measure by Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina, prompted lively debate between Democrats and Republicans on the Senate floor. Democrats argued that California's preferences ban has hampered opportunities for Latino and African Americans in the state to get into college and ultimately achieve economic mobility. Republicans argued that the way to make college attainable for more students of color is to improve the K-12 schools in their communities.

"Why aren't we challenging the education system in California, which in many cases is doing a terrible job," said Sen. Ted Gaines, R-Roseville, adding that charter schools and vouchers would allow parents more choices.

Sen. Kevin de León, the Los Angeles Democrat who is in line to become the next President Pro Tem of the Senate, countered that California's earlier use of preferences advanced his opportunities in life.

"If it weren't for affirmative action, I,Kevin de León, wouldn't be here today," he said.


PHOTO: Senator Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina during session in the Senate chambers in Sacramento, Calif. on Monday, March 11, 2013. The Sacramento Bee/Hector Amezcua.

via: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/01/senate-passes-measure-asking-voters-to-repeal-prop-209.html

Whites a Minority in California, but still Majority of Voters

Although whites have dropped to well under 50 percent of California's population, they are still a strong majority of the state's voters, according to new studies by the Public Policy Institute of California.

The PPIC reports also confirm the state's shift to dominance by the Democratic Party, even though its share of registered voters has declined to well under 50 percent - largely because the increasing numbers of independents lean Democratic.

The statistical studies of the partisan leanings of the state's registered voters, as well as likely voters, were generated from both official statistics and PPIC's polling.

PPIC's research found that while whites are now just 44 percent of California's adult population, they are 62 percent of the state's likely voters. In contrast, Latinos are 33 percent of adult population and just 17 percent of likely voters. With all ages counted, the white and Latino populations are virtually equal at about 38 percent each.

As past studies have shown, likely voters are "older, more educated, more affluent; they are homeowners, and born in the U.S."

Another finding: 45 percent of likely voters are Democrats, 32 percent are Republicans, 19 percent are independents and 5 percent identify with other parties. But 41 percent of independents lean toward Democratic Party candidates, while 29 percent lean toward Republicans.

PHOTO: Caption: Naomi Johnson, 93, never thought she would see the day that a black president might win as she left the voting booth where she cast her vote for Obama on Nov. 4, 2008. The Sacramento Bee/Randall Benton

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/08/whites-a-minority-in-california-but-still-majority-of-voters.html#storylink=cpy