May 23, 2013

The Importance of Family Immigration

Editor’s Note: The below is a re-posting our Endorsed Candidate Rep. Mike Honda‘s piece in the May 17, 2013 edition of Roll Call. Our Chicago has made a statement on family reunification. Our AAA-Fund Endorsed Canadidate Sen. Hirono pushes her amendment for family reunification for financial aid for DREAMers. Our own Board Member Bel Leong-Hong why family reunification is so import to AAPIs. Our ongoing Blogathon is on this very topic. We encourage you to advance this important issue in any way you deem fit. Comment or contact us if we can help in any way.

For too long our immigration system has had an exclusionary effect, leaving families separated and causing unimaginable heartache. Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders know this too well. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, for the first time in our nation’s history, excluded a group of people based purely on ethnicity.

The Chinese immigrants strengthened our nation’s infrastructure, only to be persecuted when their labor was seen as competition and when the dirtiest work was done. Their families excluded from our shores, these immigrants had to choose whether to remain in their new country, never to see their relatives again — or return permanently to China. Today, because of our broken immigration system, AAPIs experience a similar predicament. AAPIs sponsor nearly half of all family-based immigrants, yet wait decades in an immigration backlog. The wait time for a U.S. citizen petitioning for a brother or sister from the Philippines exceeds 20 years.

I commend the Senate “gang of eight” for forging a bipartisan immigration reform bill. I am concerned, however, that eliminating the ability of U.S. citizens to sponsor their brothers, sisters and married adult children for legal permanent residence will be disproportionately detrimental to AAPI families. The Philippines, Vietnam, India, China, Pakistan, South Korea and Bangladesh rank among the top countries with the largest number of siblings and married children awaiting immigrant visas. Exclusionary immigration legislation erodes the values that make America great; principles of love and family unite our nation. Now is the time to learn from our mistakes. Comprehensive immigration reform can correct ills of the past and honor the founding values of our nation.

As comprehensive immigration reform moves through the legislative process, we must ensure that family reunification remains the cornerstone of our immigration system. That is why I proudly stand with, and commend, Sen. Mazie K. Hirono of Hawaii for her courageous amendments filed in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Hirono’s amendments strengthen the bill’s family immigration system by restoring the adult married child and sibling categories for families looking to reunite with their loved ones. They also recognize the value of siblings and adult married children to families and America as a whole — they join the military, become teachers and work in our health care sector, among many other things.

The family is the basic unit of our society. That is why today’s immigration dialogue should not pit family against employment. Strong immigrant families start businesses that create jobs and contribute to our nation’s social and economic fabric. They enhance opportunities to establish roots in their communities and prosper together.

AAPIs, whether they are high-skilled tech workers, small-business owners, students or health care professionals, make profound contributions to America’s economic prosperity. My colleagues in Congress must not underestimate the power and concerns of the AAPI community.

A broad consensus of business, academic and policy leaders warn that the U.S. is on the verge of science and technology workforce shortages. AAPIs are twice as likely to hold jobs in these fields as any other immigrant group, with as many as 1 in 5 workers employed in the engineering and technology sector. Additionally, more than 63 percent of foreign-born science, technology, engineering and math graduates are Asian and Pacific Islander. These aspiring citizens and drivers of our global economic competitiveness should not be separated from their families. The community’s growth rate, buying power and political power are explosive and irrefutable. This is a presence that must not be ignored.

On both sides of the aisle, my colleagues agree that family values are quintessential to the moral, social and economic fabric of our society — and that families knit this nation together. As Congress deliberates comprehensive immigration reform, we must stay true to a shared vision of preserving and strengthening our families, and therefore, our economic prosperity.

We know, unquestionably, the value each family member brings to the table. Immigration issues are not new to AAPIs. The AAPI community’s history is the story of immigration in our nation. We have a story to tell — a dog in the fight. No family should be left out of the immigration system, and only by forging truly comprehensive immigration reform can we forge a more perfect union.

– Mike Honda

Rep. Michael M. Honda is a Democrat who represents California’s 17th District.

Our Day in Court: Defend Democracy on Wed (2/13)

Ed. Note:  We wanted to share this important post from our friend Michael Feinstein, the former Mayor of Santa Monica, California.

Wanted: Come Defend Democracy

Where: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Pasadena, CA

When:  Wed., Feb. 13, 2013, 9 am

What’s at stake is political voice and voter choice in California elections. This court challenge is to the heart of the undemocratic Top Two system imposed on our state in 2010. If the challenge prevails, it’s unclear whether the Top Two system will survive, and we may be able to overturn it and pursue truly democratic reforms like proportional representation. Please come to Pasadena on February 13th and attend this hearing. It’s critical that the courtroom is full of people to let the judges know we care about democracy in California.

In Chamness v. Bowen, a number of candidates and voters have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit) to decide whether the Top Two Primary’s implementing law is unconstitutional. In short, does the State have the power to force candidates to lie on the ballot, or to disenfranchise people who vote for write-in candidates? The Ninth Circuit appeals court will devote a full 40 minutes of oral argument for this case – a large amount of time it reserves for only a small fraction of cases. This shows how important they are taking this and why your attendance is critical.

The Top Two Primary’s implementing law (Senate Bill 6) has violated the rights of Californians in two troubling ways. First, it violated the rights of minor-party candidates, by forcing them to falsely state on the ballot that they have. Second, Senate Bill 6 disenfranchised all voters who cast write-in votes in the general election.

The hearing will be held at 9 am, Feb. 13, 2013, in Courtroom 3 of the Richard H. Chambers Courthouse, 125 South Grand Avenue, Pasadena, California.  The courtroom opens at 9 am and the hearing is open to all members of the public. Parking is available in the lot opposite the courthouse. Please attend to stand for democracy in California!

– Michael Feinstein

Penn Loh: Alternatives to Walmart?

Editor’s Note: The below is a reposting of “Alternatives to Walmart?” from our friend Penn Loh. Read more of his work at pennloh.wordpress.com.

walmart map

Having harvested rural and suburban retail markets, Walmart is now ploughing new ground in cities with their smaller urban groceries. From Los Angeles to Chicago and now in Boston, communities are debating over Walmart. On the one hand, residents of economically struggling neighborhoods (often also food deserts) want jobs and access to affordable groceries. On the other, Walmart has become identified with everything that’s wrong with the global economy: workers exploited, environment trashed, local businesses destroyed, and governments paid off.

Walmart’s entry into cities raises vexing questions for community revitalization and development. If you think Walmart will eventually come, then how do you fight for a better deal for workers and the community? If you just say no, then what are other development possibilities? This latter question is the one that a community-university partnership recently started exploring. This article shares some of the learning from the spring 2012 Practical Visionaries Workshop, which brought together 20 organizers from Boston area community groups and graduate students from the Tufts Department of Urban & Environmental Policy and Planning.

We took on this bigger question because it’s the one that rarely gets asked in the heat of battle. But it is the question that must be addressed if, in the longer term, we are to move towards a more just and sustainable economy. Many of the community partners were equivocal about waging intensive campaigns against Walmart, though some are involved in the ChangeWalmartMA coalition. If Walmart ultimately prevails, then the best prospect after several years of struggle would be slightly higher wages and perhaps a package of other community and environmental benefits. If Walmart is defeated, then the community is still left no better off than it was before. Worse yet, if you successfully keep Walmart out of one location, it still may end up in the neighborhood next door. (Though Walmart recently abandoned plans for stores in Somerville and Watertown, it still is looking for sites in Greater Boston.)

Thus, we felt that it was time to begin answering the question of alternatives to Walmart. Unfortunately, despite best efforts, there are not many examples of community economic development that have significantly reversed the tide against lower income communities. What are touted as best cases are often not much different from a Walmart or other big box store: mixed-use commercial developments with an anchor tenant, often a national chain (think Stop and Shop or Target). Some of these developments have been vital additions to communities. But are they creating good jobs? Are they generating shared wealth that recirculates locally? Are they leading to transformation of an unjust and unsustainable global economy?

Envisioning a New Community Economy

As we began exploring these questions, we found that we lacked the language to even talk about other models. In part, this difficulty stems from the dominance of free-market ideology (often called neo-liberalism outside the US). In part, we had trouble because we have put our own community organizing work into a box of civic engagement; we rarely think of local organizing as shaping “the economy”, which we perceive to flow down from the national and global levels.

Therefore, our first step was to better understand the existing (or “old”) economy. By looking at the 60 years since World War II, we started to grasp that there is a relationship between how the economy works (and who it works for) and public policy and politics. What we have today is not inevitable due to technological progress or “natural” market forces.

While we are told in fairy tale style that capitalism has triumphed over all alternatives, we felt the need for new stories about the economy, as we are not all living happily ever after. These new narratives are also frameworks to help us understand the differences and similarities between development models. What makes Walmart better or worse than another national grocery chain, from the perspective of workers, the community, and the global economy? Perhaps one pays better wages and benefits, helping stabilize families and community. But perhaps both still suck profits out of the neighborhood back to corporate headquarters and shareholders.

We found that we are searching for the same things as many others across the globe that some are calling a new economy movement. The Occupy movement helped open up more space to imagine life beyond the current economy. In Latin America, Canada, and Europe, there are already well developed networks and emerging governmental strategies to support the social or solidarity economy – one that doesn’t operate solely for private profit, but based on cooperation, mutual support, equity, and sustainability.

The new economy is not a singular and top-down vision, but a set of diverse but interlinked practices that can sustain us materially and spiritually. The economy is not just what’s sold in the marketplace, but also the gifts that we give, the caring for family and friends, and the food we grow for ourselves. It’s not just about having a job, but a livelihood. It’s not just making more things more cheaply while exhausting our Earth’s resources and causing climate chaos; it’s about bringing economy and ecology into one circle. It’s not just about choosing an alternative lifestyle, but doing what’s necessary to survive and thrive.

Emerging Models

We found inspiration in the many places outside of the US that have been cultivating a new economy. Launched in 1956, Mondragon in Spain has built a network of more than 100 worker-owned cooperatives employing more than 80,000. In Argentina, we learned about the workers who occupied their factories and took them over when the economy collapsed in 2001. In Quebec, we were inspired by the formation of a social economy network in the late 1990s, which with labor union partnership created its own investment fund to support nonprofit and cooperative businesses. A number of South American countries, such as Brazil and Venezuela, have national-level secretariats for the solidarity economy, providing technical assistance and investment funds.

While the movement outside the US may seem light years ahead, we also discovered that the seeds of a new economy are being sown right here at home. Some of these efforts are more recent and consciously about laying the foundations for a new economy. However, some are decades old, even if they don’t yet see themselves as part of a new economy. Here in Massachusetts, we can point to a number of well established worker cooperatives, such as Equal Exchange, a worker owned fair trade coffee company and Red Sun Press. We also have large numbers of socially-owned housing developments, where tenants have significant level of ownerhip control. In Springfield, the Alliance to Develop Power has leveraged tenant ownership of 4 housing developments to build their community economy. Perhaps the best case from Boston is the community land trust established by Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative in 1988, where they took control over a swath of vacant land and have since built several hundred units of affordable housing as part of their “urban village”.

The Evergreen Cooperatives in Cleveland have gained much attention for launching several worker-owned cooperatives serving the City’s universities and hospitals. So far, they have launched a green commercial laundry, solar-installation/weatherization company, and commercial greenhouse producing fresh lettuce. With significant support from City and institutional leaders, this initiative is fashioning itself after Mondragon, aspiring to build a network of 10 cooperatives with 500 worker-owners in the next several years.

Evergreen has inspired a number of similar efforts in cities across the US. We had the opportunity to learn directly from two such initiatives – one from Springfield, Massachusetts and one from the Bronx. In Springfield, the Wellspring project has brought together anchor institutions and community partners with University of Massachusetts and the Center for Popular Economics to plan for launching a food hub and green building business in the next year. The Bronx Cooperative Development Initiative has also been in planning mode for more than a year, with key community groups, a labor union, and MIT CoLab anchoring the process.

Then What?
As we were learning and being inspired, we also drilled down into the specific question of how to envision alternatives to Walmart in the Boston area. A group of five masters students completed a major report, guided by our community partners, entitled “If Not Walmart, Then What? Envisioning a Different Paradigm for Local Economic Development in Roxbury and Somerville”. The first half of this report tells the stories (in popular terms) of the local economy with Walmart and with a new community economy. The second half frames out a systems alternative to Walmart and sketches out the possibility of a food cooperative in Somerville and a community-owned organics repurposing facility in Roxbury.

Perhaps the biggest lightbulb moment for our exploration this spring is that an alternative to Walmart is not simply a different development on the same site. Walmart doesn’t just bring a new store, but a whole global supply chain, with goods produced across the country and world. A different paradigm starts with thinking about the regional economy and what can be produced here. Thus, we started to look not just at where food is sold but where it is grown and produced. We also looked at what happens to energy and waste flows. The possibility of turning organic waste into fertilizer and energy inspired the idea of an organics facility in Roxbury. In short, we needed to look more holistically at the system.

This exploration is only a beginning. As inspired as we are by efforts such as Evergreen, we also have major questions about how these models are coordinated with community organizing, policy change, local democracy, and building community power. In the end, we have even more questions than answers. But we know that there will have to be work on a number of fronts, including:

  • Popular education – the work of redefining the economy has to proliferate to the streets. This is tough work, but community organizers are looking for ways to connect short-term campaigns to long-term vision.
  • Assessing assets – we already have a lot to work with, but it often goes unrecognized and synergies left untapped. Mapping of existing businesses, residents’ skills, and community-controlled institutions will be critical.
  • Demonstration and pilot projects – functioning enterprises, even if not perfect, are important for showing that other economies are possible. They are also fertile learning grounds for how to build our own solidarity economy.
  • Public policy and resources – a new economy will need public support in the form of policies and resources. Policies should start to tilt the playing field towards the new economy while curbing the worst practices of the old economy.
  • Coordination – the new economy can bring together many partners who have not traditionally worked together, including community groups, unions, environmentalists, local businesses, social investors, and anchor institutions.

Look here for future posts related to the new community economy and our partner efforts here in the Boston area.

An Indian, A Texan, And A Democrat Go To Charlotte

When I first realized I was going to the Democratic National Convention, I was beyond ecstatic. It was my first convention, so naturally I wanted to make the most of it. Every day I got to go to a different event, attend another party, and meet some great new people.

I started my convention experience by attending the AAPI Caucus meeting. There, I heard from Asian-American leaders from around the country, including a panel introduced by Governor Neil Abercrombie featuring Tammy Duckworth, Tulsi Gabbard, and Mike Fong. My takeaway from that session is that minorities are going to be a force to be reckoned with in 2012. Honestly, that was the theme I witnessed the entire convention. And those of us privileged enough to be Texans felt a personal connection to that particular theme.

For the first time in history, we witnessed a Latino deliver the keynote address at a major party convention. Mayor Julian Castro’s speech was the perfect balance of inspiration and fight, but what really resonated with me was what he represented. His story is America’s story — a family who moved to America in search for a better life, who worked tirelessly to achieve the American dream, who live up to the ideal of America as a mosaic of race and religion, where hard work and smarts are rewarded, regardless of where they may have come from.

His story resonates with me, and in today’s ever-changing America, it resonates with so many others. His selection shows that Democrats are ready to embrace this new era; while at the Republican convention, we were lucky to see any minorities in the crowd. Of course, there is no reason they would be there. While Democrats are showcasing this new generation of minority leaders, the Republicans are doing everything in their power to make sure we can’t even exercise our most basic democratic right.

The rest of the convention did not disappoint. The speeches by Michelle Obama and President Clinton were two of the best speeches I have ever heard, and seeing President Obama speak in person for the first time was as amazing as I imagined. This convention proved to me that minorities are the future of the party and this country. Both parties have made their decision on how they want to handle the future, and after this convention, I know I picked the right party.

The magic of Barack Obama as President of the United States has not faded. The enthusiasm and passion have not faded. The ability of so many Americans to relate to him has not faded. I got to see it first hand: Democrats are fired up, and ready to go!

- Palak Gosar

Top Two Backers: Crushing Dissent?

Editor’s Note: This below is a re-posting of “Are Top Two Backers Seeking to Crush Dissent in California?” from our friends at FairVote.

Are Top Two Backers Seeking to Crush Dissent in California?

by Drew SpencerRob Richie // Published September 15, 2012

FairVote

Latest News: The Field case interveners have asked for an emergency hearing to kick out the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the ruling on paying interveners’ legal fees. The judge scheduled to hear the case is Curtis Karnow, the same judge who made the initial ruling in favor of the interveners. The hearing will take place at 11 am on Monday September 17th in Department 302 of San Francisco Superior Court in downtown San Francisco (400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102). Despite the short notice, plaintiffs hope supporters can join them in the courtroom.

In 2010, two remarkable allies of electoral reform and independent politics– Richard Winger, a longtime editor of Ballot Access News, and Steven Chessin, president of the all-volunteer group Californians for Electoral Reform – joined four other plaintiffs in challenging California’s new “Two Two” election system. They brought the case as individuals, but represented the views of many advocates of the rights of minor parties who believed that two key aspects of the Top Two law (how it handled write-in votes and association rights) were unconstitutional. Their lawsuit, Field v. Bowen, ultimately lost in court, but led to improvements in the law that better ensure that voters and candidates can adequately assert their electoral rights.

That’s why it was a shock – not only to us, but to Top Two backes like UC-Irvine law professor Richard Hasen (who called  the ruling “absolutely outrageous” and “nonsense”) and columnist Thomas Elias  – when Judge Curtis Karnow hit Winger, Chessin and their fellow plaintiffs with a bill for their opponents’ attorney fees to the tune of $243,279.

Those opponents weren’t the state of California, which did not seek fees. Rather they were interveners in the case (meaning parties whom the plaintiffs did not sue) associated with multi-millionaire proponents of the Top Two system. They include former Lieutenant Governor and current congressional candidate Abel Maldonado, the California Independent Voters Network, and Californians to Defend the Open Primary. These latter two organizations are closely enmeshed with the politically well-connected law firm Nielsen, Merksamer; Nielsen, Merksamer’s senior partner Vigo “Chip” Nielsen maintains the books for both groups and sits on the board of Californians to Defend the Open Primary.

Nielsen is joined on that board by Charles Munger Jr.. Munger is one of California’s biggest political donors and in 2010 gave more than $12 million to the successful ballot measure establishing a more independent redistricting process in California — a donation far more than our organization FairVote’s entire budget over our 20 year history.

Both organizations pay substantial amounts of money to Chip Nielsen’s law firm. Recent Form 990 reports reveal that Californians to Defend the Open Primary doled out $379,637 to Nielsen, Merksamer in 2011, and $699,102 in 2010. The California Independent Voters Network paid $141,610 to Nielson, Merksamer in 2010. (CIVN also had the funds to sponsor “a lavish Hawaii junket for California lawmakers ,” as highlighted by Common Cause.)

Now they seem to want their money back, taking it from plaintiffs like the selfless Winger who earned all of $6,000 in 2011 as the nation’s unquestioned expert on issues relating to ballot access, with a monthly newsletter and website that has a steady stream of timely information about elections and election reform. Given Winger’s outspoken opposition to Top Two, the interveners’ drive for fees comes across as showing more interest in crushing dissent than simply defending their proposals.

Here’s more of the back story. Californians adopted the Top Two system by initiative in June 2010. Top Two ends partisan primaries and replaces them with a two-step election process: a “preliminary” election in June open to all candidates followed by a general election between only the two candidates who received the most votes in the first round, irrespective of party labels and what percentage of the vote they received in the first round.

Although many of our close reform allies oppose all forms of Top Two, FairVote applauds Top Two supporters’ recognition that many issues of political dysfunction can be traced to unfair election systems. But our August 2010 analysis shows that California’s  version of Top Two is flawed, although in ways that we believe can be addressed without going back to the state’s previous rules.

Our analysis of the June 2012 primary confirmed the legitimacy of our concerns. California had its lowest presidential year primary turnout in history, with an unrepresentative balance of participation, a near decimation of third party presence on the November ballot and several disturbing outcomes that included a congressional race where two Republicans advanced in a majority-minority, Democratic-learning district because of low turnout among racial minorities and several Democratic candidates splitting the Democratic vote.

Some of our concerns were among the motivations for the Field plaintiffs to go to court. As one example, the law implementing Top Two included a ballot line for write-ins in the final election in November, but stated that any actual write-in votes would not be counted. The plaintiffs argued that aspect of the law conflicted with constitutional principles. Although the California Court of Appeals rejected their arguments, California legislature ultimately amended the law, effectively (if still incompletely) remedying that problem

Nevertheless, the Field interveners asked for legal fees against the plaintiffs — and Judge Karnow agreed. There’s a special irony for FairVote in the role of Nielsen Merksamer as the firm representing the interveners. Nielsen, Merksamer represented the plaintiffs in the meritless – and ultimately unsuccessful  – Dudum v. Arntz lawsuit to block the instant runoff voting form of ranked choice voting in San Francisco. Among those defending RCV in the Dudum case was the New America Foundation, which filed an amicus brief written by Gautam Dutta; Dutta is same civil rights lawyer who represents the plaintiffs in Field.

The Dudum lawsuit lost in district court and in a unanimous ruling of the Ninth Circuit. Unlike Field, however, the lawsuit did not lead to any policy changes. Despite that fact and despite the case being flimsy and costly to San Francisco taxpayers, the city did not seek fees.

Unfortunately, the Field interveners and their wealthy backers see it differently. Once their case was back in district court on remand, they demanded that the court force Winger, Chessin and the other plaintiffs to pay more than $200,000 for their attorneys and fees. They made this demand, despite the fact that Winger and the other plaintiffs did not pursue attorney fees against them.

What makes the judge’s ruling so troubling is that in the United States, each party in a legal case is generally expected to pay their own legal costs. To do otherwise is to punish one side in litigation for asserting or defending their rights and interests in court. There are exceptions, to be sure. For example, plaintiffs who bring frivolous or bad faith lawsuits might have to pay the legal fees of their opponents. Similarly, a defendant who is being sued for violating important public rights or an important public policy might have to pay the fees for the individual who sues attempting to stop them.

But that was clearly not the case here. The plaintiffs brought a non-frivolous lawsuit in good faith to protect the rights of voters as they saw them. The interveners decided to join the case ensure its position was well-represented. Nonetheless, the district judge ordered the plaintiffs to pay those interveners, effectively punishing them for asserting their rights and the rights of California voters.

The court order at least has spurred a quick response. The plaintiffs promptly filed a motion to reconsider – asking the court to reverse its prior decision – and four separate parties have filed amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” briefs in their support. In FairVote’s brief, we note the devastating effect on public interest groups that this award of fees could have and detail the order’s patent unfairness.

Americans have many options for how to conduct our elections – some good and some bad. The Top Two system is a credible reform idea that, properly constructed, could uphold majority rule without undercutting First Amendment rights of association and limiting voter choice in November elections. But no one should be punished for opposing it, whether before a legislative body,  the public, or our legal system.

As more jurisdictions consider Top Two – better forms of it, we hope — and other reform ideas. we must take a vigorous look at each proposal and be ready to determine whether any of it may violate our constitutional commitments. Seeking to take revenge on reform advocates or reform opponents when raising legitimate concerns is a dangerous precedent. We hope the interveners stand down from their position and show greater willingness to consider ways to improve their proposal. Regardless, we hope that Judge Karnow reverses his initial ruling.

– Drew Spencer and Rob Richie

Reformers or Intimidators?

Ed. Note:  We wanted to share an excerpt of this important piece by syndicated writer Thomas D. Elias.

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

          By the second week of November, most Californians will probably believe they were correct when they set up the “top two” primary election system used for the first time this year.
          In more than 20 legislative and congressional districts, candidates from the same party are now facing off in general election campaigns, with the strong possibility that at least some will moderate hard-line views in an effort to win votes from members of the other party who have never had a voice in districts dominated by one major party or the other.
          But that doesn’t mean opponents of the new system aren’t entitled to object to some aspects of it, and they have. A lawsuit filed by longtime election analyst Richard Winger, operator of a newsletter called Ballot Access News, and several others associated with minor parties claimed the new primary setup is flawed because it almost always excludes minor parties from runoff elections, because it doesn’t allow for write-in votes in runoffs and because it doesn’t allow candidates to call themselves Independent, but lists those without party affiliation as “no party preference.” Write-ins are still counted in primaries.
          Those plaintiffs may have been wrong in some of their assertions – minor parties, for instance, get a place on runoff ballots if one of their candidates is among the top two vote-getters in the primary – but they made a valid point on write-ins.
          Those votes are usually inconsequential, but there have been cases where they accomplished a lot. One example: In 2010, after losing in the Alaska Republican primary, where no top two system exists, U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski ran as a write-in during the general election and won. She was the first senator elected that way since South Carolina’s Strom Thurmond in 1954.
          Of course, had she been in a top two primary, Murkowski’s write-in drive appealing to many Democrats would not have been needed, as her name would have been on the ballot to start with. But no similar write-in effort can now occur in California.
          The lawsuit by Winger and friends was filed against the state of California, which defended it and won. When the case landed in San Francisco Superior Court, others intervened. These included billionaire Charles Munger, chief financier of the 2010 Prop. 14 that set up top-two, and moderate Republican congressional candidate Abel Maldonado, the former appointed lieutenant governor who pushed hard for top-two. Both billed themselves as reformers and both claimed Attorney General Kamala Harris could not or would not defend the new primary system as well as they would like.
          And so, while Winger and his fellow plaintiffs await a related hearing in federal appeals court, they’ve been hit with a state court order demanding they pay the wealthy interveners in the case $243,000 because they lost. Winger, for one, is liable for one-sixth of that sum, which he says would represent more than 10 percent of all his assets. Other plaintiffs have not said anything definite, but some could be pushed into bankruptcy by the attorney fee claim.
          This is just plain wrong. First, it serves to intimidate the not-so-wealthy from even attempting to challenge rich folks like Munger and Maldonado (whose family farm employs about 250 persons). And second, it is probably illegal. In a 1983 case called Christiansburg Garment Co. vs. EEOC, the U.S. Supreme Court held that attorney fees like those charged to Winger and his fellow plaintiffs can only be assessed if a case is “frivolous.” This lawsuit may have been wrong in some ways, and it may have lost – so far – but it raised legitimate questions that are anything but frivolous.
       Neither Munger nor Maldonado has said why they went after Winger & Co., knowing full well the plaintiffs have few resources and used an attorney who works from his home. Neither Maldonado nor Munger/Maldonado attorney Chris Skinell of the San Rafael office of the large law firm Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni nor named partner Steve Merksamer, a former top aide to ex-Gov. George Deukmejian, responded to telephone and email inquiries about the case.

          Their refusal to provide any other explanation leads to the obvious conclusion that their intent is to intimidate Winger and the other plaintiffs from proceeding with their federal appeal, for fear of an even larger fee assessment. Should they win out, they could also intimidate other not-so-wealthy potential plaintiffs from filing many kinds of lawsuits.
Read the full article here.

The Cost of Taking on California “Reformers”

Editor’s Note: This piece by guest blogger Joe Mathews was originally printed by NBC Los Angeles.

Opinion: The Cost of Taking on California "Reformers"
Photo:  Charles Munger Jr.

Prop 14, the initiative to put in place California’s new top-two primary system, was backed by business interests and rich folks, such as Charles Munger Jr.

This year, as it is being used for the first time in a California election cycle, it has so far been a bust — except for adding considerably to the nastiness and expense of campaigns.

A small group of less-than-wealthy citizens — many of them longtime supporters of minor political parties — has gone to the courts to challenge Prop 14, on multiple grounds.

Among their objections are that the top-two primary limits the rights of people who would choose to vote for minor political parties (since they no longer appear on the general election ballot) and also excludes write-ins.

In other words, people at the margins of the debate have less of a voice. A study of the new system by the Public Policy Institute of California provided some confirmation, by explaining that under the new system, fewer minor party candidates had run.

That’s not the only problem with top two.

The measure eliminated party primaries and thus weakened parties, which remain the best known force for citizen engagement and can be, if strong at the local level, a bulwark against the power of wealthy individuals, unions and corporate interests.

It also says something that, despite promises that top two would create more debate and engagement and participation by voters, the first election in which it was used — this June’s — saw the lowest turnout of any presidential primary in the history of California.

But the citizens lost their challenge in court, with judges finding that the top-two primary law was valid and constitutional. But unfortunately for these citizen-challengers, that’s not the end of the story.

The citizens sued the state, but the wealthy backers of the top-two primary system intervened in the case. Once the ruling went against the plaintiffs, the top-two backers sought to get the citizens to pay their attorneys’ fees, and this week a San Francisco judge agreed, ordering the six citizens to pay $243,279.50. I’m told that for some of these defendants, paying one-sixth of that amount would be a huge financial hit.

The judge’s order, which is likely to be appealed, says that the backers of the initiative are owed the fees because they lost and because they didn’t achieve anything in the public interest.

For this non-lawyer, that’s a hard argument to understand, given the real, ongoing questions about whether top two is in the public interest (I just participated in a debate on the subject Thursday in front of the Sacramento Press Club).

But one consequence of the judge’s decision is the message it sends to those who might challenge California’s community of wealthy reformers and good government groups: if you get in our way, we’ll make you pay.

Lead Prop Zero blogger Joe Mathews is California editor at Zocalo Public Square, a fellow at Arizona State University’s Center for Social Cohesion, and co-author of California Crackup: How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It (University of California, 2010).

Ichiro is a Yankee – Forget Jeremy?

Ichiro Yankees

In other news involving Asians in New York sports, ten-time all-star Ichiro Suzuki has been traded to the New York Yankees after 11 seasons with the Seattle Mariners.

He’s still around?

Much to  people’s surprises, yes he is, and now he will be playing on the biggest stage in the world. People argue that at 38 years old, he is past his prime, but when you look at the potent lineup that Yankees have, all they need is a situational role player, and that is more than what Ichiro can bring. He’s trying to make his last push at winning a World Series ring and being a Yankee gives him an opportunity to do so.

Of course, you might be wondering, could he “replace” Jeremy Lin as the next Asian sensation to hit the big apple? There’s no doubt Ichiro will re-energize Asian baseball fans since the departure of beloved Hideki Matsui (they actually currently have Japenese-born pitcher Hiroki Kuroda right now, but he’s not as obvious a name as Ichiro or Matsui) . When people here the name “Ichiro” in a New York Yankees uniform,  it’s hard not to associate him with an abundance of business opportunities and a rebirth in NYC’s Asian faith in New York sports.

As for replacing Lin, we need to wait a couple months to see how effective truly can be with the Yankees. If he can contribute to New York winning a 28th title this year, it might be a little easier to forget about Jeremy.

– Thomas Tsang

Blaming the Asian, Blaming Jeremy Lin

Just last week it was the news heard around the world- Jeremy Lin is no longer a New York Knick. Many people don’t know the whole story, or simply just don’t seem to care why he left the mecca of professional basketball with one of the largest Asian-American populations in the world. There are plenty of articles out there detailing his departure from New York.  Here is an accurate one.

The Knicks have repeatedly stated they let Lin go for financial reasons, but in this article here, it makes a compelling point that Knicks owner James Dolan felt betrayed that the Jeremy would go out and explore other options like he did. It befuddles me that a billionaire could feel blindsided by a young up-and-coming basketball player trying to seek the best deal to provide for him and his family. Let’s face it-it wasn’t about the money; Dolan could pay for anything (see Carmelo Anthony, Amare Stoudemire, and Tyson Chandler’s contracts). It was all personal.

The team really never had Lin’s back during this process. Carmelo called Lin’s contract ridiculous and J.R. Smith stated he was skeptical. It’s clear the whole team felt like pointing the finger and blaming the Asian, blaming Jeremy.

Of course they would. Dolan’s not going to point the finger at himself. And if anyone has watched Jeremy play with Carmelo, the two never really meshed, so of course Carmelo would blame Lin for his so called egregious contract. And of course, Lin is an Asian Harvard grad. Nobody from the Knicks front office thought this humble, classy, good-willed Asian would  speak up and actively pursue a better contract or sought a team that would pay him more. Well they were dead wrong. Nobody from the Knicks front office thought this Asian was so powerful.

How are you going to fault someone that wants to have the best opportunity for himself and provide for family?

– Thomas Tsang

Asian-Americans in Congress 2012

10- The number of Asian Americans who launched bids for Congress in 2010

30- The number of Asian Americans who have launched bids for Congress in 2012.

In a recent article written by CNN, it states that Asians are among the fastest growing groups in the U.S. and that because three times as many Asian-Americans have been running for Congress this year than in the past election, it signifies “changes in demographic trends and reflects the recent political awakening of a minority group long confined to the margins of American society.”

In addition, candidates from New York, Tennessee, and Florida are looking to become the first people of Asian descent from their state to join Congress.

If you continue to read the article, Judy Chu (D-California) makes a great point about the significance of these numbers beyond politics. She talks about the typical Asian American and Pacific Islander stereotype of how we are always quiet, don’t speak up, and don’t fight back. As an Asian-American youth, I can’t help but agree.

Aside from all the differing views of political policies from Democrats or Republicans, this issue of a minority group propelling itself to hold positions in Congress is truly a huge step towards not only influencing other Asian politicians, but also the youth in America to hold leadership positions and oust stereotypes.

Of course, no issue would be complete without its critics. In this case, many critics still debate about how much trustworthy and loyal these Asians are to America. Absurd, right?

But for now, let’s toast to the recent wave of new Asian-American faces making a run at Congress!