California's ballot could be a blockbuster next November

Call it a dream for California political consultants, a nightmare for voters or an electoral extravaganza: The November 2016 ballot could feature a bigger crop of statewide propositions than at any time in the past decade.

"The voters pamphlet is going to look like the Encyclopaedia Brittanica," said Steve Maviglio, a Democratic campaign strategist.

The list of measures is very much a work in progress. Most campaigns are still gathering voter signatures or waiting for their proposals to be vetted by state officials.

But political strategists have identified at least 15 -- perhaps as many as 19 --measures that all have a shot at going before voters next fall.

The last time California’s ballot was that long was in November 2004, when there were 16 propositions. The March 2000 ballot had 20.

Here are the expected 2016 ballot initiatives

A number of political forces help explain why so many are lined up now. For starters, there’s the 2011 law that moved everything but measures written by the Legislature to the general election ballot. As a result, June primary ballots are now almost barren of contentious campaigns.

There is also a lingering hangover from the state's record-low voter turnout in 2014: a new and extremely low number of voter signatures needed to qualify an initiative for the ballot.

Sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter

"There’s no real obstacle this time," said Beth Miller, a Republican campaign consultant.

State law sets the signature threshold at a percentage of votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election. That has lowered the bar to a level not seen since 1975, opening the door of direct democracy more widely for activists with smaller wallets.

“It’s made it cheaper to qualify an initiative,” said Gale Kaufman, a longtime Democratic campaign consultant who is leading the charge on initiatives to legalize marijuana and prolong a temporary tax increase approved by voters in 2012.

Which of the likely propositions might become a centerpiece campaign next year remains unclear; only five have qualified for the ballot. But perhaps a dozen more are close to securing a spot or have substantial funding behind their signature-gathering efforts.

The effort to legalize recreational use of marijuana, boosted recently by former Facebook and Napster executive Sean Parker, will undoubtedly make national headlines. So, too, might the effort spearheaded by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom to ban the possession and sale of large ammunition clips for guns and require background checks on those who buy ammunition.

Tax measures also typically have high profiles. Last week, an alliance of teachers, state and local employees, hospitals and doctors announced a new push to extend the 2012 tax hike. Healthcare groups are backing a proposal to raise California’s cigarette tax by $2 a pack.

Other proposals form a political potpourri of ideas and issues. School groups have qualified a $9-billion school construction and renovation bond measure; organized labor and several Democratic officeholders are backing a proposed increase in the state minimum wage; and two efforts would impose new rules of public disclosure on the legislative process and campaign contributions.

There is a also a closely watched effort to lower the cost of taxpayer-subsidized prescription drugs, with the pharmaceutical industry promising a well-funded campaign to defeat it.

Wild cards that could dramatically affect the state’s electoral landscape include a much-discussed move to substantially shrink the pensions of public employees.

All of this may be the equivalent of a full employment act for political professionals, but a lengthy and dense ballot can turn off voters.

"What ends up happening is voter fatigue," Kaufman said.

Political scientists say voters simply give up on trying to follow so many disparate propositions and skip many of them -- or simply vote no.

A plethora of ballot measures also could raise the costs of television and online advertising to record levels, leaving initiative backers scrambling to raise cash.

"There’s only so many places you can tap the well," said Fiona Hutton, a public affairs strategist in Los Angeles. "And if there are multiple measures, how far does that donor base get stretched?"

And more campaigns will be competing for a limited amount of television and radio ad time.

"Some campaigns are never going to get enough oxygen to be able to inform voters," said Rob Stutzman, a GOP consultant working on the school bond effort.

Perhaps the biggest unknown is whether a 2014 law designed to offer a release valve for the pressure of initiative campaigns will have any effect. It allows backers of an initiative to withdraw their measure if they strike a deal on similar legislation at the state Capitol.

"Are there things that there’s an appetite for the Legislature to deal with?" said strategist Miller. "It's a new wrinkle, and it’s not one that anyone’s ever dealt with before.

By John Myers, Los Angeles Times
Via http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-california-ballot-measures-2016-20151108-story.html

Secretary of State Padilla drops efforts to prevent felons from voting

Today, with Secretary of State Padilla’s withdrawal of the challenge of his predecessor to the voting rights of people on mandatory supervision and post-release community supervision, formerly incarcerated people and their allies celebrate an important milestone in their ongoing struggle for voting rights. 

"We have always recognized that our voting rights are larger than the right to cast a vote - it's about the struggle for formerly and in some cases currently incarcerated people to be respected as citizens,” said Dorsey Nunn, Executive Director of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and a taxpayer plaintiff in the lawsuit. “Our votes belong not just to us, but to our communities and families." 

Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union of California, along with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, filed a lawsuit on behalf of three individuals who had lost their right to vote, as well as the League of Women Voters of California and All of Us or None, a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of formerly and currently incarcerated people and their families. 

“Secretary of State Padilla is bucking a national trend in which voting rights are under attack,” said Lori Shellenberger, Director of the ACLU of California’s Voting Rights Project. “We are thrilled that this administration has effectively said ‘no’ to Jim Crow in California, and instead is fighting for the voting rights of California’s most vulnerable communities.” 

The lawsuit charged then-Secretary of State Debora Bowen with violating state law when she issued a directive to local elections officials in December 2011 stating that people are ineligible to vote if they are on post-release community supervision or mandatory supervision, two new local supervision programs for people sentenced for low-level, non-violent felonies. 

California law states that only people imprisoned or on parole for conviction of a felony are ineligible to vote. Thus, last spring, an Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled that Bowen’s directive illegally stripped nearly 60,000 of people of their voting rights. In spite of the judge’s determination, Bowen appealed and continued the fight to disenfranchise the formerly incarcerated, a disproportionate number of whom are people of color. 

“Formerly incarcerated people should not be disenfranchised and have to fight for their voting rights. Restoration of these voting rights is long overdue and the League is pleased that California is leading the way to protect voting rights for all,” said Helen Hutchinson, President of the League of Women Voters of California. 

“While some may see this as a struggle simply for voting rights, formerly incarcerated activists see it as something much larger – a demand for the fundamental acknowledgement of our citizenship, said Dorsey Nunn. “In addition to voting, we also want the right to serve on juries, to have a jury of our peers when we are on trial, and to hold elected office. We want all the rights that are supposed to attach to citizenship.”

Via: http://www.prisonerswithchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Voting-Rights-Lawsuit-Victory_Aug-2015_AOUON.pdf

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

California 2014 primary election complete results

This page will update through the night with the latest results from today's California primary. In contests for statewide office, Congress and the Legislature, candidates who finish first and second—regardless of party—will compete against one another in November. This “top two” system, modeled on nonpartisan local elections, was approved four years ago by voters. Local contests in which no candidate captures a majority of votes may also lead to fall runoffs.

http://graphics.latimes.com/calif-primary-election-results-2014/

California voter registration: ‘No party preference’ increase, Republican decrease

A voter fills out her ballot during early voting before the 2012 presidential election at the Gila County Recorder's Office in Globe, Ariz., on Oct. 26. Voter registration data published by Secretary of State Debra Bowen Tuesday show 17,660,486 Californians are registered to vote and of that number more are registered as “no party preference” compared to the last gubernatorial primary.; Credit: Joshua Lott/Reuters/Landov

Voter registration data published by Secretary of State Debra Bowen Tuesday show 17,660,486 Californians are registered to vote and of that number more are registered as “no party preference” compared to the last gubernatorial primary.

No party preference voters comprised 21.06 percent of the state’s total registered voters, a slight increase from 20.1 percent in April 2010.

Republican voter registration in California also had a notable change, from 30.8 percent of the total in 2010 to 28.5 percent.

The voter data is included in a 60-day report of registration, which reflects data across California’s 58 counties gathered 60 days before the June 3 statewide primary election.
Alpine, the California county with the smallest amount of eligible voters—881—had the highest voter registration, with 86.7 percent of the eligible voter population.

Tulare County had the lowest voter registration, with almost 53 percent of its 255, 378 eligible voters registered.

Of the eligible voters in Los Angeles County, the largest county in the state, 80.1 percent of them were registered to vote, according to the data.


“The clock is ticking and the May 19 voter registration deadline will be here before you know it,” said Secretary Bowen, the state’s chief elections officer, in a statement. “If you aren’t one of the 17.7 million Californians already registered to vote, take five minutes at the newly designed RegisterToVote.ca.gov which is now offered in 10 languages.”

via: http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/04/22/43693/california-voter-registration-no-party-preference/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+893KpccSouthernCaliforniaNews-Politics%2FpublicAffairs+%28KPCC%3A+Politics+News%29

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

Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Part of Voting Rights Act

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, ruling that Congress had not provided adequate justification for subjecting nine states, mostly in the South, to federal oversight.

“In 1965, the states could be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were.”

The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and gave very different accounts of whether racial minorities continue to face discrimination in voting.

President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling. “Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent,” he said.

The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Changes in voting procedures that had required advance federal approval, including voter identification laws and restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.

“With today’s decision,” said Greg Abbott, Texas’ attorney general, “the state’s voter ID law will take effect immediately. Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government.”

Chief Justice Roberts said that Congress remained free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights were at risk, but must do so based on contemporary data. When the law was last renewed, in 2006, Congress relied on data from decades before to decide which states and localities were covered. The chances that the current Congress could reach agreement on where federal oversight is required are small, most analysts say.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The majority held that the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and most recently updated by Congress in 1975, was unconstitutional. The section determines which states must receive preclearance from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before they make minor changes to voting procedures, like relocating a polling place, or major ones, like redrawing electoral districts.

The current coverage scheme, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no relationship to the present day.”

“Congress — if it is to divide the states — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions,” he wrote. “It cannot simply rely on the past.”

The decision did not strike down Section 5, which sets out the preclearance requirement. But without Section 4, which determines which states are covered, Section 5 is without significance — unless Congress chooses to pass a new bill for determining which states would be covered.

It was hardly clear, in any event, that the court’s conservative majority would uphold Section 5 if the question returned to the court in the unlikely event that Congress enacted a new coverage formula. In a concurrence, Justice Thomas called for striking down Section 5 immediately, saying the majority opinion had provided the reasons and merely left “the inevitable conclusion unstated.”

The Supreme Court had repeatedly upheld the law in earlier decisions, saying that the preclearance requirement was an effective tool to combat the legacy of lawless conduct by Southern officials bent on denying voting rights to blacks.

Critics of Section 5 say it is a unique federal intrusion on state sovereignty and a badge of shame for the affected jurisdictions that is no longer justified.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of the towering legislative achievements of the civil rights movement, and Chief Justice Roberts said its "strong medicine" was the right response to "entrenched racial discrimination." At the time it was first enacted, he said, black voter turnout in the South stood at 6.4 percent in Mississippi.

In the most recent election, by contrast, “African-American voter turnout has come to exceed white voter turnout in five of the six states originally covered by Section 5.”

The chief justice recalled the Freedom Summer of 1964, when the civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were murdered near Philadelphia, Miss., while working to register black voters. He mentioned Bloody Sunday in 1965, when police officers beat marchers seeking the right to vote in Selma, Ala.

“Today,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “both of those towns are governed by African-American mayors. Problems remain in these states and others, but there is no denying that, due to the Voting Rights Act, our nation has made great strides.”

In summarizing her dissent from the bench, an unusual move and a sign of deep disagreement, Justice Ginsburg called on the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to make a different point.

“The great man who led the march from Selma to Montgomery and there called for the passage of the Voting Rights Act foresaw progress, even in Alabama,” she said. “'The arc of the moral universe is long,’ he said, but ‘it bends toward justice,’ if there is a steadfast commitment to see the task through to completion.”

“That commitment,” she said, “has been disserved by today’s decision.”

She said the focus of the Voting Rights Act had properly changed from “first-generation barriers to ballot access” to “second-generation barriers” like racial gerrymandering and laws requiring at-large voting in places with a sizable black minority. She said Section 5 had been effective in thwarting such efforts.

In any event, she said, Congress, which reauthorized the law by a large majority in the House and unanimously in the Senate, was the right body to decide whether the law was needed and where.

The Supreme Court had once before considered the constitutionality of the 2006 extension of the law in a 2009 decision, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder. But it avoided answering the central question, and it seemed to give Congress an opportunity to make adjustments. Congress, Chief Justice Roberts noted on Tuesday, did not respond.

Justice Ginsburg suggested in her dissent that an era had drawn to a close with the court’s decision on the Voting Rights Act, or V.R.A., in Shelby County v. Holder, No. 12-96.

“Beyond question, the V.R.A. is no ordinary legislation,” she wrote. “It is extraordinary because Congress embarked on a mission long delayed and of extraordinary importance: to realize the purpose and promise of the Fifteenth Amendment,” the Reconstruction Era amendment that barred racial discrimination in voting and authorized Congress to enforce it.

“The court errs egregiously,” she concluded, “by overriding Congress’s decision.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: June 25, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a civil rights worker murdered in 1964. He was Michael Schwerner, not Schwermer.

Via NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

California City to Vote on Banning Drones

 City Council here is set to vote on a proposal Thursday to ban drones in residential areas, what could be the first law of its kind in California.

The proposed ordinance bans the flying of "unmanned aircraft that can fly under the control of a remote pilot or by a geographic positions system (GPS) guided autopilot mechanism" up to 400 feet above areas zoned residential. Anything flying higher is in Federal Aviation Administration jurisdiction.

A "drone permit" from the city would be required to make recordings of a single residence, along with written permission from the homeowner.

"Technically, people can use these things to tape people's homes and backyards and put it on YouTube," said Steve Quintanilla, city attorney in this Palm Springs, Calif., suburb of about 20,000.

Remote-controlled drones, capable of flying at low altitudes while equipped with cameras or even weapons, have raised fears of inescapable surveillance by law enforcement from civil liberties advocates. Some 30 states are considering laws curbing their use by authorities, generally by requiring them to first get a probable cause warrant.

In February in Charlottesville, Va., home of the University of Virginia, the council passed a resolution urging the state to limit the use of police spy drones but does not ban drones in the city's air space. St. Bonifaciuis, Minn., population 2,300, followed later in February with its version of an ordinance initiated by the Rutherford Institute civil-liberties group that also forbids operating a drone in the city except on an owner's land.

But the genesis of Rancho Mirage's proposal was a homeowner, annoyed at the buzz of his neighbor's hobby.

"It sounded like a weed-eater, or weed whacker, and I wondered, 'Who's out doing their landscaping on a Sunday afternoon?" said Steve Sonneville, who was trying to relax in his backyard about six weeks ago. "Then I heard it getting louder and louder, and I looked up and realized it was coming from overhead."

The airborne drone, held up by four rotors, was about 50 feet above him.

"It was slowly going back and forth over the backyard of my home," said the defense contractor who works out of the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, Calif. "I knew right away what it was and what was going on."

It took Sonneville a few minutes to find two men in the common area of his gated community piloting the drone remotely.

"I told them, 'I don't think you should be flying that in a subdivision, we have an expectation of privacy.' And they were very cooperative, and basically understood what I was trying to get at," Sonneville said.

The next day he emailed Rancho Mirage Mayor Scott Hines to voice his concerns.

Quintanilla said he never considered expanding the ban to cover the wider concerns. "Law enforcement is a whole different issue. This is an issue of privacy between neighbors."

Quintanilla said nothing in current law can halt bold invasions of privacy or stop a sex offender from using a drone to search for prey.

Hines, whose family gave him a drone for his birthday last year, said he has played with his iPad-controlled drone in his backyard and taken it to Joshua Tree National Park.

He believes the current language in the draft ordinance might be a little too broad.

"I think individuals should be able to use their own property and perhaps common areas of communities to enjoy the technology with their families. Where one crosses the line is by infringing on the privacy of others," he said.

Councilwoman Iris Smotrich said she's never had a personal encounter with a drone but has read up on the new technology and favors passing tougher regulations as well as the exemption for law enforcement.

"I think law enforcement should be able to use whatever technology is available to them to enforce our laws and make our citizens safe," she said.

Sonneville said he hopes the council will consider adding protections against excessive law enforcement surveillance, not in the proposal now.

Peter Bibring, a senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said he's not aware of any proposed or passed laws clamping down on non-law-enforcement use of drones statewide.

A bill has been introduced in the California Senate to clarify that drones do fall under existing invasion of privacy laws, he said.

Use of commercial drones for everything from package delivery to crop dusting is expected to explode once the FAA, which now bans them, comes up with regulations allowing them in, expected to happen by 2015.

via USA Today

Yes on Proposition 30--San Bernardino Phonebank

When: Every Saturday from 10:00-2:00 p.m. Monday 5:00-8:30 p.m.

Where:

El Sol Promotores--Neighborhood Center

972 N. Mt. Vernon Avenue

San Bernardino, CA 92411

Cross Streets: Mt. Vernon Avenue Between 9th and 10th Street

Food and Beverages will be provided.

Proposition 30 "Local Schools and Public Safety Protection Act"

-10.3% income tax bracket for singles who make $250,000-$300,000 and couples who make $500,000-$600-000

-11.3% income tax bracket for singles who make $300,000-$500,000 and couples who make $600,000-$1 million

-12.3% income tax bracket for singles who make $500,000 and more and couples who make $1 million and more

-A four year temporary sales tax increase of 1/4 of a percent, equaling an increase of 1 penny for every four dollars spent

-This would raise an estimated $9 billion dollars which would mostly be earmarked for realignment and the Prop 98 funding guarantee

If Prop. 30 Does not pass:

We can either ask the wealthiest in the state to pay a fairer share or we can further shift the burden of cuts onto the rest of us.

With your YES vote on Prop 30, we can:

K-12

-Stop another $6 billion in cuts to our schools this year.

-3 week reduction and elimination of summer school Higher Ed

- Prevent steep tuition hikes for college students and their families.

-Invest in our schools and colleges so we can prepare the next generation for the jobs of the future.

Health and Human Services

-Low income children and adults will lose access to medical care and medicine due to higher co pays

--reduced funding

-Elderly and Disable Adults will see reduced access to critical medical and support services which may include: In Home-Support Services, wheelchairs, oxygen tanks, hearing aids, prosthetics, and physical and occupation therapy

Event Sponsored by: California Partnership and Students/Staff/Faculty from Colton and San Bernardino City high schools.

For further questions or want to volunteer contact:

Maribel Nunez: (909) 300-1478

Californians sentenced under realignment have the right to vote, argue civil rights advocates

Today’s lawsuit asks the Court of Appeal to clarify the voting rights of more than 85,000 Californians in time to allow them to register before Oct. 22 deadline

San Francisco – Three organizations concerned with voting rights have filed a lawsuit in the First District Court of Appeal today to clarify that people who have been sentenced for low-level, non-violent offenses under the state’s historic reform of criminal justice known as Realignment are entitled to vote in the 2012 elections and beyond.

Petitioners in the case are All of Us or None, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and the League of Women Voters of California, three organizations committed to voting rights and reintegration of people with convictions, as well as a woman confined in San Francisco jail for a narcotics conviction who wishes to vote. Secretary of State Debra Bowen and San Francisco Director of Elections John Arntz are named as respondents.

At the center of the lawsuit is a 2006 ruling (League of Women Voters vs. McPherson) in which the same court clarified that people who are confined in county jail as a condition of felony probation are entitled to vote under California law. Individuals sentenced to county jail under Realignment are not “in state prison” or “on parole” as required by McPherson. The organizations that brought McPherson have returned to the Court of Appeal to protect the voting rights of people living in their communities, in county jails or under probation-like supervision, following Realignment.

In December, Secretary Bowen issued a memorandum (#11134) to all county clerks and registrars stating that none of the individuals sentenced under Realignment are eligible to vote. But according to the McPherson ruling, the California Constitution deprives individuals of the right to vote on the basis of criminal convictions only if they are “imprisoned in state prison” or “on parole as a result of the conviction of a felony.”

Petitioners are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Social Justice Law Project, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, A New Way of Life Reentry Project, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and the Law Office of Robert Rubin. Petitioners argue that excluding Californians with criminal convictions from voting is at odds with the California Constitution and contradicts a central purpose of Realignment, which is to stop the state’s expensive revolving door of incarceration by rehabilitating and reintegrating individuals back into society.

Jory Steele, managing attorney of the ACLU of Northern California, explained that the suit seeks an order allowing Californians statewide to register for the November elections. “California’s courts have a proud tradition of protecting our fundamental right to vote. Here, this is particularly important because disenfranchisement has such a disproportionate impact on people of color.”

“We are trying to intervene and hold offenders accountable, to ask them to step up to be productive, responsive citizens,” explains Santa Cruz County’s Chief Probation Officer Scott McDonald. “Reintegration can’t just be about punishment. It’s also about taking responsibility and participating fully in the community. Voting encourages literacy and positive civic engagement. It reinforces the goals of re-entry.”

“Being deprived of the right to vote is civil death,” said Joe Paul, who coordinates a re-entry program that focuses on workforce development and life skills in conjunction with the Los Angeles County Sheriff and the Department of Corrections. “To reintegrate, you need to exercise the rights of citizenship - to get a job, to serve on a jury, to vote. For democracy to work, especially in the inner city, everybody needs to be a part of the franchise. If we are not inclusive, we cannot be indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

The people who will now be in their communities following implementation of Realignment are men and women whose offenses are neither violent nor serious. They include, for example, people who have forged a train ticket, possessed morphine, taken items from an empty building during an emergency, received stolen metal from a junk dealer, or counterfeited a driver’s license.

“When I cast my vote, I feel a sense of collective power. Everyone should have the opportunity to do that,” says Susan Burton, founder and executive director of A New Way of Life, a successful re-entry program emphasizing leadership development for women and girls based in South Central Los Angeles.