May 17, 2012

Money, Politics & the Supreme Court

Ed. Note:  From our friends at Avenidas.  This event will also feature AAA-Fund Executive Director Gautam Dutta.

Another “Ask Not” Forum at Avenidas

THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE CITIZENS UNITED DECISION:

The Role of Corporate and Union Money in the Electoral Process

 

Saturday, November 5 – 9:30-12:00

Avenidas, 450 Bryant Street, Palo Alto

Refreshments will be served from 9:30-10:00

Admission free

 

The Citizens United decision will be reviewed and its possible effects on the electoral process will be discussed. Each speaker will speak for 15 minutes and one question period will follow.

 

“(Business and financial monopolies have) begun to consider the government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt, October 31, 1936

 

SPEAKERS

Gautam Dutta – A lawyer who specializes in corporate, securities, regulatory/public entity, election and voting rights law. Mr. Dutta has been an Enforcement Attorney for the SEC, Executive Board Member of the ACLU of Southern California, and Deputy Director for Political Reform at the New America Foundation.  He also serves as Executive Director of the Asian American Action Fund.

 

Frederick K. Lowell – The leader of the Political Law Group at the Pillsbury law firm. He is the author of The Regulation of Politics in California and has long been active in Republican politics.

 

Nancy Neff  – Northern California Outreach Coordinator for the California Clean Money Campaign since 2009. She is also the Unitarian Universalist Team Leader for its work on Restoring Democracy Professionally.

 

MODERATOR – Ray Bacchetti – Stanford Vice President for Management and Budget, Emeritus. Currently volunteering in Palo Alto and nonprofit affairs.

 

THANKS TO THE SPONSORS FOR THEIR SUPPORT OF THIS EVENT:

American Association of University Women of Palo Alto

Avenidas

The League of Women Voters of Los Altos/Mountain View

The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto

The Mid-Peninsula Chapter of the Northern California ACLU

 

EVENT ORGANIZERS

Ginger Johnson, Tom Kotoske, Alice Smith, Peter Webb

Court Asked to Hear Top Two Primary Case in November

An influential appeals court has been asked to move up a hearing that will decide whether a core part of California’s Top Two Primary law is constitutional.

In papers filed yesterday, Plaintiffs Michael Chamness, Daniel Frederick, and Rich Wilson asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to hear their historic case on Nov. 18, 2011.

Currently, the Top Two Primary is scheduled to kick in for the 2012 statewide election beginning Dec. 30, 2011, the first date on which California candidates may take out papers to run for federal and state office.

To date, the Top Two Primary law has disenfranchised voters in two consecutive special elections:  in Congressional District 36 and Assembly District 4.  Specifically, the law allows voters to cast write-in votes in the general election, but then bans those votes from being counted.

In a related development, 2012 Tea Party candidate Julius Galacki asked the Ninth Circuit to allow him to join Plaintiffs’ lawsuit.  On top of disenfranchising voters, the Top Two Primary law illegally censors minor-party candidates, by forcing them to falsely state on the ballot that they have “No Party Preference”.  To challenge this injustice, Mr. Galacki has switched his party registration from the Democratic Party to the Tea Party.

The Ninth Circuit is expected to rule on Plaintiffs’ hearing request next month.  Click here for more details on this historic case.

– Gautam Dutta

AAA-Fund Defends Write-In Voting

707 H St. NW, 2nd Floor

Washington, DC  20001

September 7, 2011

 

The Honorable Paul Fong
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 94249-0022

Re:       Letter of Opposition to AB 1413

Dear Assemblymember Fong:

Asian American Action Fund opposes AB 1413 in its current form, because it rashly and needlessly bans voters from casting write-in ballots in every general election – a right Californians have enjoyed since 1891.

Since 2000, AAA-Fund, a national political organization (aaa-fund.org & aaa-fund.com), has given Asian Americans a powerful voice in the political process.  Towards that end, we help elect worthy leaders who care about the needs and priorities of the Asian American community and the community-at-large.  What’s more, we organize grassroots events and discussions that enable more Asian Americans to participate in the political process.  Last winter, we hosted a well publicized Los Angeles Town Hall on the 2010 California Attorney General race.

For over a century, write-in voting has provided Californians with an important safety valve.  If a candidate suddenly withdraws, becomes incapacitated or is charged with a crime, it is often too late to remove his or her name from the ballot – depriving the voters of the critical opportunity to vote for a second choice.  Toward that end, write-in voting gives Californians the ability to choose the candidate of their choice.  Over the past century, California has elected one write-in candidate for the U.S. Senate and two write-in candidates for the U.S. Congress.  Recently, Donna Frye nearly won her write-in campaign for San Diego Mayor.

Thank you for hearing our serious concerns about AB 1413.  Please feel free to call me at 415.236.2048 with any questions.

Sincerely,

Gautam Dutta, Esq.

Executive Director

CA Election Law Fight Heads to Appeals Court

For Immediate Release
August 24, 2011

CONTACT:

Gautam Dutta (415) 236-2048, Dutta AT BusinessandElectionLaw.com

Top Two Primary Fight Heads to Federal Appeals Court

Appeals Court Allows In Critical Evidence Challenging the Legality of California’s Controversial New Election Law

Los Angeles, CA:  The legal battle surrounding California’s controversial Top Two Primary has reached an influential federal appeals court.

This afternoon, a federal trial court refused to declare that a core part of California’s controversial new election regime is unconstitutional.  In response, Plaintiffs Michael Chamness, Daniel Frederick, and Rich Wilson immediately asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the lower court’s decision.

Earlier, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a key ruling:  it allowed in critical evidence that directly challenges the legality of the Top Two Primary law.

Last summer, Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s office publicly stated that the Top Two Primary law — Senate Bill 6, passed by the Legislature in the middle of the night without any debate — would (a) trick candidates into believing they could run as write-in candidates, (b) trick voters into believing they could cast a write-in vote that would be counted, and (c) harm minor-party candidates by banning them from stating on the ballot that they are “Independent”:

Since … SB 6 precludes [write-in] votes from being counted, it makes no sense to give candidates the illusion that they can run as a write-in or give voters the illusion that they can write in a candidate’s name and have it counted.  Making these conforming changes is only controversial because there is a lawsuit on this issue that essentially states “SB 6 says don’t count the votes, so it’s misleading to let people think they can write in a candidate’s name and have it counted.”[1]

Proposition 14′s Top Two Primary was the brainchild of former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado.

To date, the Top Two Primary law has disenfranchised write-in voters in two straight elections:  the May 3, 2011 election for Assembly District 4 and the July 12, 2011 election for Congressional District 36.

Last month, the lower court also refused to allow 2012 Tea Party candidate Julius Galacki to challenge the Top Two Primary law, even though it will force him to falsely state on the ballot that he has “No Party Preference”.  In order to bring his constitutional challenge, Mr. Galacki had switched his voter registration from the Democratic Party to the Tea Party.  Mr. Galacki has filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit.

Briefing on the Top Two Primary appeal will begin shortly.

###

Court Refuses to Allow Candidate to Join Top Two Primary Lawsuit

This afternoon, a federal court in Los Angeles court refused to allow a Tea Party candidate to join the lawsuit against a core part of California’s new Top Two Primary.

To call attention to the troubling flaws of the Top Two Primary, Julius Galacki had earlier switched his party registration from the Democratic Party to the Tea Party.  In fact, his constitutional rights have already been violated in two troubling ways.  First, he was deprived of his fundamental right to run as a write-in candidate in the July 12, 2011 special congressional election.  Second, the write-in vote that he had cast for himself was not counted — a brazen violation of his fundamental right to vote.

Mr. Galacki intends to run for Congress next year as a Tea Party candidate.  Unless the Top Two Primary’s rules are put on hold, he will be forced to falsely state on the ballot that he has “No Party Preference” — an outright violation of his right to free speech.

Mr. Galacki will appeal the court’s decision at an appropriate time.  The court will hold a hearing in this litigation (Chamness v. Bowen) on Aug. 22, 2011, 2:30 pm.

– Gautam Dutta

Tea Party Candidate Seeks to Join Top Two Primary Lawsuit

For Immediate Release
July 19, 2011

CONTACT:

Gautam Dutta (415) 236-2048, Dutta AT BusinessandElectionLaw.com

Tea Party Candidate Seeks to Join Top Two Primary Lawsuit

Prominent GOP Candidate Opposes Tea Party Candidate’s Effort; Court Hearing Set for Aug. 22

Tea Party candidate Julius Galacki has asked a federal court for permission to join a lawsuit against Proposition 14′s Top Two Primary.  Unless that lawsuit succeeds, Tea Party and all other minor-party candidates will be forced to falsely state on the ballot that they have “No Party Preference”.

Proposition 14′s Top Two Primary was the brainchild of former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado, who is running for Congress as a Republican.  On Friday, Maldonado and California Secretary of State Debra Bowen asked the court to ban Mr. Galacki from joining the lawsuit (Chamness v. Bowen).

To call attention to two illegal parts of Proposition 14′s Top Two Primary, Mr. Galacki has changed his party registration from the Democratic Party to the Tea Party — and intends to run for Congress next year as a Tea Party candidate.  Mr. Galacki, a Los Angeles resident and playwright, lives and votes in Congressional District 36.

“I’m making a point,” Mr. Galacki said, “that it’s a lie to say I have ‘No Party Preference’.  Of course, I have a preference!

“This law creates an inferior, second-class status for anyone from a small party, and that’s truly un-American, unconstitutional and just plain wrong,” Mr. Galacki said.  “It’s not just the Democrats and Republicans who have a right to label themselves as they see fit, but any American who qualifies to run for political office,” he added.

Chamness v. Bowen challenges the constitutionality of two core parts of the Top Two Primary:  (1) its Party Preference Ban, which forces minor-party candidates to falsely state on the ballot that they have “No Party Preference”, and (2) its Vote Counting Ban, which bans write-in candidates from running and bans lawfully cast write-in votes from being counted in every general election.

Earlier, Mr. Galacki sought to run as a write-in candidate in the July 12, 2011 special general election for Congressional District 36.  Even though state law allows write-in candidates to run in “any” election, Mr. Galacki was not allowed to run for Congressional office.

Subsequently, Mr. Galacki cast a write-in vote for himself in the July 12, 2011 Congressional election.  On July 12, 2011, his write-in vote was not counted.

“On top of censoring candidates, the Top Two Primary illegally disenfranchises voters and disqualifies candidates from running for office.  Simply put, the Top Two Primary must be put on hold until the Legislature has fixed its troubling flaws,” said Gautam Dutta, Mr. Galacki’s attorney.

Mr. Galacki filed his Motion to Intervene in this case late last week, and filed his Reply Brief this morning.  The court is expected to issue a ruling on his Motion to Intervene shortly.

On May 6, 2011, Plaintiffs Michael Chamness, Daniel Frederick, and Rich Wilson filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which asked the trial court to declare that Proposition 14′s implementing law (Senate Bill 6) is unconstitutional.  On May 30, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Reply Brief.

After cancelling oral argument earlier this summer, Judge Otis D. Wright II announced last week that he would reschedule oral argument for Aug. 22, 2011, 2:30 pm, in Courtroom 11, U.S. District Court, 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA  90012.  Judge Wright also indicated that he was inclined to rule against Plaintiffs.  If necessary, Plaintiffs will take this important case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

###

Stop the Government

There’s blame to go around for the risk of the US going into debt at pure power politics, risking making us look no better than Greece and, moreover, our global credibility. Here’s a chart of how conservatives view other situations which’ll become subject to the same brinksmanship:

great scientific deeds, Manhattan Project-style must stop the government
save energy must stop the government
better mass transit must stop the government
lead in the space program again must stop the government
religious freedom for non-Christians must stop the government
adjust marijuana prohibition must stop the government
ease the staggering 16.2% rise in unemployment last month must stop government
stop oil spills in our national parks must stop the government
help America’s government be better must stop the government
publicize political funds and donations must stop the government
reverse how younger generations are worser off than the 1 before must stop the government
reverse the trend of government shedding 500k jobs must stop the government
be a more united United States must stop the government

Ideology is supreme, it seems.

This video is a similar satire:

We need to lower this ideological idiocacy that puts 2-bit-brained folks in control. Narrow-minded, single-tracked stupidity isn’t American though some millions think so.

– Richard Chen

The Costs of War

Photo/Flickr: Truthout.org

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

John Chiang: Keeping Politicians Honest

  Controller John Chiang

Do you know what a State Controller does?  Thanks to John Chiang’s gutsy leadership, a few more people now do.

Yesterday, Controller Chiang incurred the wrath of state lawmakers — especially from his fellow Democrats — when he docked their pay.  The reason?  They didn’t pass a balanced budget by June 15, as a new state law requires.

To be sure, Democratic lawmakers have reason to be frustrated.  Currently, California must eliminate a $10 billion budget deficit.  In response, lawmakers have already slashed state spending — cutting many social services to the bone.

Ironically, no new taxes are required to balance the books.  Instead, the State just needs to temporarily extend a tax increase that is set to expire at month’s end.

Governor Jerry Brown wants to ask the voters to extend those taxes, which is an eminently reasonable proposal given that the State has already slashed its spending.  But here’s the problem:  it takes a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to put a tax measure on the ballot.  Although they’re in the minority, Republicans control just enough votes to block any tax measure from going on the ballot.

I can certainly understand the frustration of Democratic lawmakers.  I certainly wouldn’t want to get my pay docked.  But last fall, the voters sent Sacramento a clear message when they approved Proposition 25:  pass a balanced budget, and pass it on time.  Let’s hope that both sides promptly return to the bargaining table — and strike a deal before it’s too late.

Kudos to AAA-Fund Honorary Board member John Chiang for upholding a simple principle:  no one is above the law.  We need more leaders like him.

– Gautam Dutta

Court Cancels Hearing on CA's Top Two Primary

This morning, a federal judge cancelled oral argument in Chamness v. Bowen, which challenges the constitutionality of two core parts of Proposition 14′s Top Two Primary:  (1) its Vote Counting Ban, which bans lawfully cast write-in votes from being counted in every state and federal general election, and (2) its Party Preference Ban, which forces minor-party candidates to falsely state on the ballot that they have “No Party Preference”.

On May 6, 2011, Plaintiffs Michael Chamness, Daniel Frederick, and Rich Wilson filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which asked the trial court to declare that Proposition 14′s implementing law (Senate Bill 6) is unconstitutional.  On May 30, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their Reply Brief.  Earlier, the trial court had set oral argument for June 13, 2011.

The trial court did not indicate when it would issue a ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment.  Click here for more detailed information about this important case.

– Gautam Dutta