The Case for Write-in Voting

January 25, 2012 By gautam Leave a Comment

Ed. Note: This piece was first published in Fox and Hounds.

Voter Voice

Co-chair of the Green Party of the United States and a former Mayor and City Councilman in Santa Monica, Calif.

Monday, January 23rd, 2012

A bill about to be passed by the Legislature – AB 1413 – would rob us of our right to vote for write-in candidates, a right we’ve enjoyed and exercised since California statehood in 1850.

With such a major change, one would assume it’s imminent passage is the culmination of a long public process, where the proposed change has been publicly vetted, with broad participation by civic and good government groups in debates, public forums, op/eds and talk shows.

But AB1413 hasn’t gone through such a process. Instead it’s come through the back door in a “gut and amend” bill, gutted a few days before the end of the August 2011 legislative session and now back for a quick ‘emergency’ 2/3 vote so it can go into effect immediately.

AB1413 is being pushed hard by the County Clerks, because it addresses ballot-printing requirements they believe could create an unnecessary burden and significantly increase election costs. Great, let’s address this. But there is no reason to mix such a technical fix with such a profound voting rights issue.

Where is this coming from?

There are currently both state and federal lawsuits challenging Senate Bill 6 (SB6); a federal appeals court will soon hear the federal lawsuit (Chamness v. Bowen). SB6 was the implementing statute for Proposition 14, which created the jungle primary/top two general election process for California and is slated to be tried for the first time this year.

The authors of Proposition 14 specifically avoided putting the write-in question on the ballot before the people, by hiding it in SB6. What SB6 says is that even though voters’ ballots include a space to cast write-ins, such votes won’t be counted! This violates our state constitution, which guarantees the right for everyone to have his or her vote counted. This is one of the main points of both lawsuits.

But instead of eliminating the portion of SB6 that deprives us of our ability to cast write-in votes and thus protecting our right to have our votes counted, AB1413 would get rid of the ability to cast write-ins entirely — and do so without meaningful public debate.

This dark way of doing politics is exactly how we got Proposition 14 in the first place. Proposition 14 was placed on the ballot (and SB6 approved by the legislature at the same time) between 3:40 am and 6:55 am, in February 2009 – fifteen months before Proposition 14 appeared on the ballot. This was in response to political extortion by then State Senator Abel Maldonado, who named that as his price to give the legislature the final ‘yes’ vote it needed to reach 2/3 to approve that year’s eight months’ overdue state budget.

Whether one cares or not about write-in voting, good government demands that the people have a say before Sacramento makes such a radical change to our election laws. At a minimum this proposed change should’ve been introduced in a regular bill to allow for months of public hearings. More appropriately, if the legislature truly believes that Californians should lose their right to write-in voting, it should put that question before us via the initiative process and let the people decide.

But for the immediate present, with the County Clerks pushing hard for passage before the end of the month, the Assembly should amend AB1413 to ensure that voters can continue to vote for write-in candidates, and send it back amended to the Senate, which passed it in its present form last week.

Who would oppose this? One of the three listed supporters of AB1413 is the mis-named ‘Californians to Defend the Open Primary’, a San Rafael-based non-profit ‘educational’ organization funded by the same large California corporations and individual billionaire that funded Proposition 14.

Without disclosing their reasons, these “Defenders” of democracy have pushed hard for Californian’s write-in option to be taken away. Why?

Perhaps jungle primary supporters oppose write-in voting because they want to limit – not encourage – competition. One only has to look as recently as the November 2010 US Senate election in Alaska, where Lisa Murkowski was elected via write-ins after voters decided that neither the Democratic nor Republican nominees were acceptable. Such a popular outcome would’ve been forbidden under SB6. Here in California, voters elected two members to the US House and one to the US Senate via write-ins between 1930 and 1983.

By contrast, the absence of write-in votes gives the misleading appearance of public embrace for such limited options, because there is no way for voters to register their differences or dissent.

But even without the Top Two, AB1413 is still a bad idea. Californians have successfully used the write-in option for 161 years. In some cases, it’s been a democratic safety valve for voters who don’t agree with the choices before them. In others, it allows the system itself to adapt to changing issues and circumstances by allowing new candidates into our extraordinarily long election process. What if a major new issue arises during the fall that has no champion, or if a candidate falls gravely ill or is convicted of a crime days before the November election?

By ensuring our right to choose a candidate of our choice, write-in votes protect our fundamental right to vote. There has been no evidence that the presence of the write-in option is hurting our democracy. By contrast, it gives voice to voters that don’t feel they have one.

Whether to do away with write-in voting is an important choice that must be made by the voter, not the Legislature. Let’s hope Sacramento makes the right call and preserves this fundamental right of democracy.

– Michael Feinstein

Filed Under: California, Grassroots Activism, Guest Blogger, Media, Political Reform, Voting Rights

Steven Hill: Ranked Choice Voting Is Right for San Francisco

November 2, 2011 By Richard Chen Leave a Comment

The below is a re-posting of “Ranked Choice Voting Is Right for San Francisco.”.

Ranked Choice Voting Is Right for San Francisco

By Steven Hill
November 1, 2011 4:51 p.m.

San Francisco is in the final days of hotly contested elections for mayor, district attorney and sheriff. These offices will be elected using ranked choice voting (RCV), also known as instant runoff voting, which allows voters to rank a first, second and third choice. San Francisco has used RCV since 2004 in three dozen races to elect the mayor, Board of Supervisors and other citywide offices.

So far, RCV’s accomplishments have been inspiring for those who believe that American democracy needs reform. San Francisco’s 11-member Board of Supervisors has become far more diverse, with the number of racial minority supervisors doubling to eight, including four Asian-Americans. The gay community is well-represented, as are progressives, moderates …even a San Francisco conservative.

Using RCV, San Francisco has avoided fifteen separate runoff elections held in December (which was the method previously used). Those December elections usually were marred by very low voter turnout – as low as 12% of eligible voters for the city attorney runoff in 2001 — and a quadrupling of Citizens United-type independent expenditures from special interests (according to a study by the San Francisco Ethics Commission). They degenerated into mudslinging slugfests between the two final candidates in which voters usually learned nothing new and everything bad about the finalists. They also were expensive for taxpayers, costing millions of dollars to administer. San Francisco will save $3 million this year alone by avoiding a December runoff.

But under RCV, old-fashioned door-to-door politics and coalition-building have given grassroots candidates a better chance against big money. Voters aren’t stuck anymore with a single shot vote for the lesser of two evils, instead they are liberated to rank their three favorite candidates. With RCV, voter choice is king.

Despite its impressive track record, RCV has its critics. Some critics argue that this year RCV has encouraged too many mayoral candidates — sixteen — which has made it harder for voters to tell them apart. But in 1999 and 2003 — before RCV was used — the mayoral elections drew 18 and 9 candidates respectively; in Board of Supervisors races, some had a dozen or more candidates, with one race having 15. The same complaint was heard before RCV, i.e. hard to differentiate the candidates.

Some critics say that returning to December runoff elections would allow voters to have a “second look” at the top two finishers in a crowded field. But when San Francisco used that system, voter turnout usually plummeted in the second election. In ten of the city’s 14 December runoffs between 2000 and 2003, voter turnout declined by more than a third, with most runoff winners having fewer votes than the first-place candidate had in November. Clearly, most voters did not take a “second look” at the candidates

But under RCV, candidates are winning with far more votes than they would have received in a low turnout December runoff or June primary. When Supervisor Sean Elsbernd won his District 7 race with RCV in 2004, he had nearly 50% more votes than his predecessor elected in a December runoff. In Oakland, Jean Quan won more votes in her mayoral election in November 2010 than any other candidate for mayor in a generation, with a 43% increase in turnout over the 2006 June primary election that elected Ron Dellums as mayor. That’s been true in virtually every RCV race, and it’s good for democracy.

Let’s imagine what this year’s race for mayor would be like if San Francisco were using a separate runoff election in December. There would still be a large field of candidates, and according to the latest polls all of them except for front runner Ed Lee would be bunched together with less than 8% support. So it STILL would have been a challenge for voters to discern one candidate from another. But even worse, as candidates vied to face off against Lee, those candidates with the most in common would be trashing each other in order to beat all the others and finish second.

The five Asian mayoral candidates would be knocking each other in order to be the sole candidate winning the Asian vote, instead of appealing for second or third rankings from voters beyond their base, as they are doing now with RCV. The same for progressive candidates Avalos, Adachi and Ting, and moderates like Herrera, Alioto-Pier, Hall and Rees. All of these candidates and their consultants would be engaging in complex strategies and targeted mudslinging to figure out how to knock off their opponents one by one, as if in a shooting gallery. Independent expenditures would have soared.

And then, having attacked each other in the first round, the surviving candidate would face the challenge of unifying the supporters of the candidates they had just finished attacking. And quickly raise a lot of money to defend against the expected fourfold increase in independent expenditures. Good luck.

Those who are pining for the “good ol’ days” of December runoff elections don’t remember what those elections were actually like. They were brutal and expensive. That’s why voters decided in 2002 to switch to ranked choice voting.

Some RCV critics have proposed that instead of going back to December runoffs that San Francisco should move to a June primary followed by a November runoff election. But that method was used by Oakland for many years and suffers from similar problems as December runoffs. That’s why Oaklanders also voted to change their elections to RCV.

That doesn’t mean that San Francisco’s RCV elections can’t be improved, and the Board of Supervisors should hold hearings about ways to do that. Although voters are handling RCV well (about 99.7% of voters cast valid ballots in most races, and about two-thirds of those voting in competitive races use all three of their rankings), voter education efforts could include more information on how the ballots are counted and not just the mechanics of how to rank candidates.

For those desiring more than three rankings, San Francisco’s voting machines could be modified. RCV elections this year in St. Paul (MN) will allow six rankings (using equipment similar to San Francisco’s), while Portland (ME) is allowing 15 rankings. San Francisco also could tweak public financing rules to ensure it is fulfilling its worthy goals. Debate organizers could begin limiting the number of participating candidates to no more than the six front runners as Election Day draws closer.

San Francisco has rightly been recognized as a national leader with RCV, with more cities using it every year. Next year, we’ll certainly wish we had RCV for presidential elections if more than two candidates run, to prevent another Gore-Nader-type split. The freedom to rank your three favorite candidates is a blessing that we should treasure and make work. Mend it, don’t end it.

Steven Hill (www.Steven-Hill.com) is the former director of the political reform program at the New America Foundation and author of “10 Steps to Repair American Democracy” (www.10Steps.net). He is the architect of the ranked choice system in San Francisco and Oakland.

Filed Under: 2011-2012 Campaign, California, Guest Blogger, Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)

Ja-Rei Wang: Occupy Wall Street: ‘Working Families Are Struggling’

October 19, 2011 By Richard Chen 2 Comments

Ed. Note: The below comes from our friends at the AFL-CIO. The writer is Ja-Rei Wang, an AFL-CIO Media Outreach fellow, who wrote “Occupy Wall Street: ‘Working Families Are Struggling’. We also ” We on this timely and important issue of working America.

Occupy Wall Street: ‘Working Families Are Struggling’

Ja-Rei Wang, AFL-CIO Media Outreach fellow, writes about her experience with Occupy Wall Street in New York City.

I was one of more than 1,000 students, working families, parents, freelance artists, union members, health care providers and immigrants who weaved through Manhattan’s sidewalks to Washington Square Park to protest the growing wealth inequality in our country, rising unemployment, powerful corporate influence on politics and the need for financial reform, among other concerns. The marching contingent was made up of a diverse group of people of all ages, genders and ethnicities taking part over the weekend in Occupy Wall Street’s “International Day of Action.”

Parents marched in tow with their young children, some of whom even led protesters in chants. There were supportive honks and cheers from people passing by in cars and on the streets when protesters chanted: “We are the 99 percent! You are the 99 percent!”

The energy, spirit and camaraderie from the march followed protesters into Washington Square Park after a stop at a Chase bank to support people moving their money from large banks to local banks. At a General Assembly organized by physicians practicing in the Bronx, doctors shared their personal stories as health care providers and the stories of their patients that led them to believe we need “Healthcare for the 99 Percent.”

One doctor from the Bronx described the links between the economic crisis, persistent poverty, food insecurity, unemployment, lack of education and poor health:

The Bronx is the poorest urban county in the nation for the umpteenth year running. My patients come to clinic every day and I feel I can’t give them what they need. They need jobs. They need education. They need health care for all. And I just give prescriptions—it’s not enough. When I go to work in the morning…people in the Bronx are lined up waiting for food stamps and unemployment….My patients live in the shadow of Wall Street. The wealth that comes to this city when banks get bailed out do not come to my patients. That is why I am here supporting health care for the 99 percent.

Artists, students and parents also shared their stories and touched on the health care system. One woman talked the anxiety she feels about losing her job and health care:

Right now I’m fortunate to have health insurance. My job is only guaranteed until December. I hate the anxiety of wondering whether I’ll have job or health care after December. Even though I’m married, my husband’s work, if you want to join the family plan, it’s $700 a month. We can’t afford it.

Cameron Kelly, a dance teacher from Westchester, N.Y., and mother of three daughters in their 20s, said that “working families are really struggling.” Neither she nor her daughters have health insurance and her daughters all face student loans.

While people shared stories of their struggles and frustrations, the group was supportive and eager to come together to discuss collective concerns as well as ideas for change. I was happy to see so many different people come out in support of Occupy Wall Street and be a part of the national (and international) dialogue to discuss the intersecting problems we face today and to think about what kind of world we want to live in. There are many issues to address and much work to be done, but I am excited to see what we all can do together.

Print This Article | E-Mail This Article |Comments (3)

Tags: corporate wealth, greed, JPMorgan Chase, labor, New York, Occupy Wall Street, protestors, rich, union, union blogs, unions, wealthy, Zuccotti Park

Channels: Corporate Greed, Organizing & Bargaining

See the original “Occupy Wall Street: ‘Working Families Are Struggling’” at the “AFL-CIO blog.”

Ed. Note: We include some photos from a OWS protest a few days ago. We encourage you to share your OWS photos, most easily done by commenting with the URL of your Flickr album.

Filed Under: Economy, Grassroots Activism, Guest Blogger, Healthcare

The Costs of War

July 2, 2011 By gautam Leave a Comment

Ed. Note: This important piece was first published at The Washington Note.

Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies just released an ambitious study that attempts to quantify many of the complex costs of America’s last decade of wars. Drawing on the expertise of economists, political scientists, legal experts, anthropologists, and others, the group has mapped out the “soft” price of these wars–including the human, social, and political impacts on the United States, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The group also put a price tag on more traditional economic costs of war.

Their conclusions are startling:

While most people think the Pentagon war appropriations are equivalent to the wars’ budgetary costs, the true numbers are twice that, and the full economic cost of the wars much larger yet. Conservatively estimated, the war bills already paid and obligated to be paid are $3.2 trillion in constant dollars. A more reasonable estimate puts the number at nearly $4 trillion.

Such huge numbers are difficult to comprehend. The group’s estimate puts the price somewhere around one of every four dollars of America’s 2010 GDP. Such a massive financial commitment to our national security should be evaluated alongside investments of a comparable scale (the healthcare industry, by contrast, represents close to one of every six dollars in the US economy). However, the price of these wars must be measured not only in their human, socio-political, and economic dimensions, but also in terms of opportunity cost. It is appropriate, then, that the group from Brown University is called the Eisenhower Research Project.

While President Eisenhower’s warning to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence… by the military-industrial complex” is well known, a less quoted speech may be more appropriate in this case:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people…

This is one of those times in the affairs of nations when the gravest choices must be made, if there is to be a turning toward a just and lasting peace. It is a moment that calls upon the governments of the world to speak their intentions with simplicity and with honesty. It calls upon them to answer the questions that stirs the hearts of all sane men: is there no other way the world may live?

These words echo as a question and a challenge to be answered by the United States as we continue to balance our competing commitments to freedom, prosperity, and security. As we continue to operate in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, Eisenhower’s warnings serve as an important reminder to weigh all the costs of war against its benefits before committing to an uncertain future.

– Jordan D’Amato

Filed Under: Economy, Education, Environment, Foreign Affairs, Guest Blogger, Healthcare, Obama Administration, Political Reform, Social Justice

SF Chronicle Called on the Carpet

June 2, 2011 By gautam Leave a Comment

Ed. Note: This piece by our friend Steven Hill was first published at BeyondChron.com.

Community Leaders Accuse Chronicle of Attacks on Minority Representation

In a hard-hitting exposé, two community leaders from the Bay Area have accused the San Francisco Chronicle and the Chamber of Commerce of attacks on political reforms that have boosted minority representation. Writing for the New America Media, a collaboration of over 2000 ethnic news organizations across the United States, Esperanza Tervalon-Daumont, executive director of Oakland Rising and Alicia Garza, co-executive director of People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER) in San Francisco, have criticized the Chronicle and Chamber for their current campaign to repeal political reforms like ranked choice voting and public financing of campaigns that have resulted in greater minority representation (see “Reforms That Helped Elect Candidates of Color in SF, Oakland Under Attack.”)

Ranked choice voting (RCV, also known as instant runoff voting) allows voters to rank their first-, second- and third- choice candidates when they cast their ballots for city officials, thus avoiding costly runoff elections. In last November’s mayoral election in Oakland, RCV helped Jean Quan overcome a 4-to-1 spending disadvantage by the favored candidate, former Senate pro tem and state powerbroker Don Perata, to become the first Asian-American woman directly elected mayor of a major U.S. city. In San Francisco, RCV and public financing have helped elect the most diverse Board of Supervisors in the city’s history. Currently, 8 out of 11 supervisors are people of color, including four Asians (three of whom are Chinese); three are female and two are openly gay. Since RCV and public financing became the law, the number of ethnic minorities elected to the Board of Supervisors has doubled.

“What do the Chronicle and the Chamber of Commerce have against representation from communities of color?” ask Tervalon-Daumont and Garza in their article. They provide an account of the Chronicle’s recent reporting, showing that the Chronicle has published more than three dozen articles, columns and blog posts since the November 2010 election highlighting RCV, many with a negative slant. One column calling for repeal of RCV was written by the Chronicle’s editorial page editor. Another recent anti-RCV article, featured on the top of page one as the Chronicle’s lead story, was based on a methodologically dubious poll commissioned by the Chamber of Commerce, a known RCV opponent. In that poll, a confusing question unsurprisingly led most respondents to say “I don’t know” which was then spun as evidence of massive voter confusion (one close source says that the Chamber refused to release other polling results that showed RCV in a positive light).

Not coincidentally, “voter confusion” is one of the claims that the San Francisco Chronicle has consistently featured in its anti-RCV reporting. Yet the Chronicle has entirely ignored the fact that a highly respected research organization at San Francisco State University has conducted exit polls following two different RCV elections and both showed the same result – 87% of respondents said they “understood” RCV. And those positive results cut across all ethnic and racial lines. The Chronicle also ignored an exit poll conducted by the Asian Law Caucus which had similar findings as the SFSU polls. “Wouldn’t those SFSU polls have been worth a mention in an article about voter confusion?” ask Tervalon-Daumont and Garza in their article. “If the Chronicle truly believes RCV is confusing, why didn’t it publish more articles aimed at educating voters before last November’s election?”

Their article also connects the dots to reveal the collusion between the Chronicle and the Chamber of Commerce by pointing out that the president of the Chamber of Commerce, Steve Falk, is the Chronicle’s former publisher. In addition, the Chronicle’s current president, Mark Adkins, is on the Chamber’s board of directors, a type of interlocking directorship that is frowned upon by media watchdogs.

A doubling of minority representation is not the only “RCV positive” that the Chronicle has ignored. Tervalon-Daumont and Garza point out that ranked choice voting has significantly boosted voter turnout, especially in communities of color. In the November 2010 election for Oakland’s mayor that elected Jean Quan, nearly 119,000 voters participated, compared to 84,000 voters in the June 2006 mayoral election. That’s a huge increase of 42% in voter turnout (see this report on the Oakland election, and this one on turnout in city council districts, which all saw large increases in voter turnout). By holding the decisive election in November, when minority voters turn out in far greater numbers to vote for president and governor than they do in June elections, a lot more Oaklanders voted in the mayoral contest.

In the 34 races held in San Francisco since the first RCV elections in 2004, nearly all of them have seen more voters participating in the final RCV tally than in the old December runoffs. A study of the 2005 Assessor Recorder’s race found that RCV had increased citywide voter participation in the decisive round of that race by 168%, or 120,000 voters more than likely would have voted in a December runoff. Moreover, the study found that voter participation tripled in six of the poorest and most minority neighborhoods due to having a RCV election in November rather than a December runoff. In short, a lot more voters in San Francisco and Oakland are having a say in who their local elected officials are, and that has been especially true for ethnic minorities. Yet the Chronicle has never reported on any of this.

Tervalon-Daumont and Garza also point out that ranked choice voting has been good for communities of color because the ranked ballots allow these communities to build coalitions and prevent vote-splitting if there are multiple minority candidates. For example, RCV allowed four major Latino candidates to run in San Francisco’s District 9 supervisorial race in 2008. Under the old December runoff system, the four Latino candidates likely would have split the Latino vote. But with RCV, voters were able to rank several of those candidates on their ballot. In 2010 in San Francisco’s District 10 race, an African-American candidate won by picking up the second and third rankings from many of the supporters of other black, Asian and white candidates in a district that historically has elected a black supervisor. In the 2005 assessor recorder’s race, people feared that the Asian vote would split between Phil Ting and Ron Chun, but that didn’t happen when Ting won by picking up second rankings from most Chun supporters.

In short, minority voters and their candidates have preserved the voting cohesiveness of their communities by making smart, strategic use of ranked ballots. That ability will be particularly important in the November 2011 mayoral election in San Francisco where there are three Asian candidates running – State Senator Leland Yee, Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting, and Board of Supervisors president David Chiu. If San Francisco was still using the old December runoff system, write Tervalon-Daumont and Garza – which the San Francisco Chronicle and Chamber of Commerce want to go back to – there is no doubt that the Asian vote would split among these three candidates, possibly resulting in none of them making a separate runoff. “To prevent that from happening, the Asian community would have already seen all sorts of backroom wheeling and dealing,” they write, “as powerbrokers twisted arms to keep two of those candidates out of the race. But with RCV, all of them can run—generating unprecedented excitement in the Asian community. Whichever candidate proves strongest will emerge with the most Asian first-, second- and third-place votes.”

I asked nearly a dozen San Francisco Chronicle editors and reporters to respond to these pointed accusations from these minority leaders. I specifically asked them why their articles had never mentioned the fact that ethnic minority representation on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has doubled since the onset of RCV and public financing of campaigns. I’ve always thought that the Chronicle employs a few decent reporters, yet not a single one of them was able to articulate a coherent response to that very specific question. Instead, one editor at the Chronicle got very defensive and testy, calling the charge “nonsensical” and saying my e-mail to her was “unprofessional and attacking.”

Tervalon-Daumont and Garza concluded, “Apparently the Chronicle does not value diversity and broad representation.” That’s putting it mildly. In fact, the Chronicle’s masthead, editorial office, columnists and newsroom are still for the most part as white as the Pillsbury Dough Boy. So it should be no surprise that communities of color see the Chronicle as not very “representative” of the diversity of the Bay area. Which is a shame, because this region badly needs a good daily newspaper. San Francisco is the 12th largest city in the nation by population, but the Audit Bureau of Circulation ranks the Hearst-owned Chronicle 24th in the nation in circulation. So the Chronicle is clearly punching far below its weight when it comes to selling its newspaper. Indeed, the Chronicle is a mere shadow of its former self, having lost half of its readership since 2004, with a whopping 26% loss in 2009 alone, reportedly the largest percentage drop in circulation of any major newspaper in the United States.

While many newspapers have lost readership to online news sources, I really believe that the Chronicle’s ill fortunes also stem from the fact that it is so woefully out of touch with the broad array of communities that inhabit this region. The demographics of the Bay Area are changing rapidly, and the Chronicle would receive a desperately needed boost in its readership if these diverse communities thought the Chronicle reflected their interests. Look at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors — 8 out of 11 members are ethnic minorities. Do the Chronicle editors and reporters really think their newspaper reflects the values and priorities of this city’s diverse communities as much as the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, elected by ranked choice voting?

If the Chronicle can’t figure out how to represent and serve this region, it might as well go the way of newspaper dinosaurs like the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, another Hearst-owned daily, and the Rocky Mountain News (Denver), which not that long ago closed up daily operations and shriveled to online-only newspapers.

[Steven Hill (www.Steven-Hill.com) is a political writer and columnist whose books include “Europe’s Promise: Why the European Way is the Best Hope in an Insecure Age” and “10 Steps to Repair American Democracy.” His op-eds and articles have been published by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, the Guardian, Financial Times, The Nation, Beyond Chron, and many others, including the San Francisco Chronicle.]

Filed Under: California, Civil Rights/Liberties, Grassroots Activism, Guest Blogger, Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), Media, Running for Office, Social Justice, Voting Rights

CA Top Two Primary Hearing Set for June 13

June 1, 2011 By gautam Leave a Comment

From our friends at Ballot Access News:

On May 30, the plaintiffs in Chamness v Bowen filed this rebuttal brief. Chamness v Bowen is the federal lawsuit that challenges two particular details of California’s top-two primary election system: (1) although California prints write-in space on November ballots for Congress and state office, those write-ins can never be counted, even if a write-in candidate receives the most votes; (2) California lets some party members list their party on the ballot but won’t let others do so.

All briefs are now in, and the hearing will be on June 13 in Los Angeles.

Detailed information about this important lawsuit can be found here.

Filed Under: California, Civil Rights/Liberties, Grassroots Activism, Guest Blogger, Political Reform, Voting Rights

CA's Top Two Election Foibles

May 19, 2011 By gautam Leave a Comment

Will Top Two Primary Ever Get Its Shot?

By Joe Mathews

Ed. Note: This piece was first published at NBC Bay Area.com.

The top-two primary, also known as the open primary, was approved last year by voters as part of an effort to produce more moderate elected officials in California. In these primaries, the top-two candidates, regardless of party, advance to the genearl election. The theory behind top-two is that, in a partisan district, the top two candidates might be from the same party, so the winner would likely be the more moderate candidate — the one most appealing to independents and voters of the other party.

The problem in the first few elections under top-two has been that there’s no test of the theory. The top two candidates have been one Democrat and one Republican in a handful of special legislative elections this year. The 36th Congressional District primary this Tuesday was supposed to end this trend, with two Democrats — LA City Councilwoman Janice Hahn and California Secretary of State Debra Bowen– favored to advance.

But a little known Republican, businessman Craig Huey, may have spoiled the party. He holds a narrow lead over Bowen for second place — and a spot in the general election — with provisional ballots to be counted later this week.

If Huey triumphs, it will be a reminder of a fundamental problem with top-two. There are few districts and elections that will produce the conditions that could produce a moderate winner.

– Joe Mathews

Filed Under: 2011-2012 Campaign, California, Guest Blogger, Media, Political Reform, Republican Party, Running for Office, Voting Rights

Survey: Uses and Users of Online Sources of Political Information

May 12, 2011 By Richard Chen Leave a Comment

Ed. Note: The below is from Dr. Thomas Johnson, a professor at the University of Texas School of Journalism. We repost his query to our readers.

Hello: I am a senior scholar in the School of Journalism at University of Texas. My research partner and I are conducting our seventh online survey, investigating social media use and political attitudes and behaviors. We ask the Asian American Action Fund‘s readers to help provide us data. We include questions about how people found out about Osama Bin Laden’s death, what sources they used to get further information and how they shared information about his death. We are still in the process of gathering data, but will post results later, particularly on our Bin Laden questions. The survey is online at http://survey.utk.edu/mrIWeb/mrIWeb.dll?I.Project=SOURCES2011.

Our survey has been approved by the Internal Review Board at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville. As part of the permission process it is guaranteed that all submissions are anonymous and confidential. Any identifying information (i.e. IP address) will be deleted by the researchers upon receipt.

– Tom Johnson

Filed Under: Culture, Demographics, Guest Blogger, Media, Texas Tagged With: culture, Media

Inside the proposed EPA budget cuts

April 5, 2011 By Richard Chen Leave a Comment

Ed. Note: The below is from Nicholas Scott, a University of Central Florida graduate and a guest writer to the AAAF. His other posts include “Slashing EPA Funds Is Not The Answer“.

With an increased aim to cut the entire federal budget, the GOP is primarily looking to reduce the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The proposed cuts from congress would eliminate about a third of the EPA’s 2010 budget of $10.5 billion. This would likely cut down on some of the major initiatives of the EPA such as the monitoring of water contamination and the Clean Air Act. While those in support of the cuts see improved gas prices and more successful business as the end results of the takeaway, others like EPA administrator Lisa Jackson see the cuts evolving into increased health risks for Americans.

Jackson sees this reduction in resources as a major problem for the future, claiming “If Congress slashed EPA’s funding, concentrations ofharmful pollution would increase from current levels in the places Americans live, work, go to school, fish, hike, and hunt. The result would be more asthma attacks, more missed school and work days, more heart attacks, more cancer cases, more premature deaths, and more polluted waters.”

The GOP leaders behind the bill see flailing business as a major issue in backing this cut of the EPA’s budgets. Many business leaders have been outspoken about the amount of money that EPA regulations are costing them in the long run. This is mainly involving the EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, refineries, factories and other sources. Of course, giving these factories free rein to bypass regulations would likely mean an increase in some areas of business revenue and more jobs.

While some of what Lisa Jackson of the EPA has to say is certainly frightening, some of these health risks are not to be taken lightly. Without the full pallet of resources for the EPA, air quality and pollution control will likely take a hit. That hit will likely accompany an increase in long term health risks such as cancer, mesothelioma, and some less severe risks such as breathing problems and asthma. The end result can also be risking lives, as mesothelioma life expectancy is usually under 14 months following diagnosis.

Lisa Jackson also points towards the fact that reducing health risks will also be saving citizens thousands in medical bills that would arise, given the increase in poor air quality and toxins. She says “changes would prevent 6,800 to 17,000 premature deaths a year, and save as much as $140 billion in annual medical bills and work days lost to asthma attacks and other breathing problems.”

It’s important to remember that many of the businesses losing money will indeed continue to push contaminants into the air if EPA emission restrictions end up being dropped. Certainly Jackson has her points and health risks would likely increase as well, with increased emissions, particularly in areas around these factories.

When it comes to federal budget cuts, they should be calculated and benefit the people of the country at the end of the line. The cutting of the EPA budget has certainly sparked a give and take debate with two sides that have valid points. While the thought of reduced gas prices and increased jobs in factories may fulfill happiness in the short run, the long term health risks associated with pollution, toxins and chemicals are not to be taken lightly.

– Nicholas Scott

Filed Under: Congress, Environment, Guest Blogger, Republican Party Tagged With: Environment, Republican Party

CA's Caffeinated Politics

March 3, 2011 By gautam Leave a Comment

Ed. Note: This piece was first published at CAIVN.org.

Chamness v. Bowen: Top Two Open Primary Faces Legal Challenge in Race for Harman’s Seat

By Damon Eris

The top two open primary system is facing a legal challenge from an Independent activist affiliated with the Coffee Party movement.

On February 17th, former State Senate candidate Michael Chamness filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking an injunction against the implementation of the top two open primary in the upcoming special election to replace Congresswoman Jane Harman in California’s 36th Congressional District. Harman announced her retirement from the office on Monday, triggering a special election to fill the seat.

A non-profit consultant and Coffee Party activist, Chamness was a candidate in the special primary election for State Senate District 28 last month, one of the first elections to be held under the top-two system in California. Because Chamness is not affiliated with a ballot-qualified party, the legal scaffolding for the top two open primary system – namely SB 6 – prohibited him from stating his party preference on the ballot, nor was he permitted to identify himself as an Independent, as would have been the case under the old primary system. Instead, he was listed on the ballot as having “No Party Preference.”

Running in opposition to the top two system, Chamness received less than 1% of the vote. Democrat Ted Lieu won the contest outright with just under 57% support. There were six other candidates in the election. Less than 12% of the nearly 500,000 registered voters in the district bothered to cast a ballot.

As he intends to run in the primary race for CD 36, the lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction blocking the implementation of SB 6 in that election on the grounds that Chamness has already been forced “to lie to voters about his political views” and would be made to do so again if he must state on the ballot that he has “no party preference.”

“It’s unconstitutional, undemocratic, and just plain wrong to force any candidate to lie to voters,” said Gautam Dutta, Mr. Chamness’ attorney, in a February 23rd press release.

The suit names California Secretary of State Debra Bowen and Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk of Los Angeles Dean Logan as defendants. Coincidentally, Chamness and Bowen will also face off in the primary election for CD 36. Bowen has already officially declared her candidacy for the House seat being vacated by Jane Harman. As the complaint points out, Bowen will seemingly benefit from what some view as a double standard established in SB 6: while she will be allowed to state her particular party preference on the ballot, Chamness will be prohibited from doing so.

According to the suit’s motion, Bowen’s current office has already effectively admitted to the substance of Chamness’s legal challenge. It states that an email from the Secretary of State’s Legislative Analyst to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor affirms that the “party preference ban” instituted by SB 6 “is not “permissible” because it deprives minor-party candidates of the ballot label of “Independent”.” The first hearing in the suit is scheduled to be held on March 21st. The special primary election will likely take place in June.

Chamness is likely to use the race for CD 36 to continue his campaign to reform Proposition 14. As he wrote in an op-ed for the Daily Breeze prior to the special election for state senate in February:

“SB 6 forces minor-party candidates to lie to voters and does them a grave disservice. And that needs to change.”