SATURDAY POLITICS: Texas Sup Ct Tells Houston "Repeal Equal Rights Measure Or Place On Ballot"

The Texas Supreme Court issued a ruling yesterday handing opponents of Houston's Equal Rights ordinance (HERO) a victory when it said that the City Council must decide by August 24th to either repeal the measure or place it before voters for a vote on the November 2015 municipal ballot. The Houston City Council enacted HERO last summer with openly lesbian Mayor Annise Parker's strong support. This is a shocking ruling because earlier the religious extremists who opposed HERO had turned in double the number of signatures needed to pace the measure on the ballot but more than half of those petitions were deemed invalid by the City Attorney. However the City Secretary had certified that there were enough signatures and it is this certification that the Texas Supreme Court has said must be obeyed. The court suspended the non-discrimination ordinance, and gave the city counvil 30 days to decide to repeal the ordinance or place it before voters.

In response to the Republican-dominated state high court ruling, Mayor Parker issued a statement which said:

"Obviously, I am disappointed and believe the court is in error with this eleventh hour ruling in a case that had already been decided by a judge and jury of citizens. Nonetheless, we will proceed with the steps necessary for City Council to consider the issue. At the same time, we are consulting with our outside counsel on any possible available legal actions. Houston’s Equal Rights Ordinance is similar to measures passed by every other major city in the country and by most local corporations. No matter the color of your skin, your age, gender, physical limitations, or sexual orientation, every Houstonian deserves the right to be treated equally. To do otherwise, hurts Houston’s well-known image as a city that is tolerant, accepting, inclusive and embracing of its diversity. Our citizens fully support and understand this and I have never been afraid to take it to the voters. We will win!"

Of course t's always a bad idea to be forced to vote on the civil rights of other people but if that's what the haters want, we will be ready!

SATURDAY POLITICS: Openly Gay, Latino Ref Rodriguez Elected To Los Angeles School Board

Dr. Ref Rodriguez was just elected this week to fill the District 5 seats on the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) board of education. He defeated incumbent Bennet Kayser by a surprisingly large margin of 7 points (53.5% to 46.5%). Rodriguez was endorsed by the Victory Fund, which supports only LGBT candidates for elected offices around the country.

Rodriguez is well-known for founding the Partnership to Uplift Communities Schools, commonly known as the PUC Schools, which run many charter schools in the state of California. The Rodiguez-Kayser battle was the most expensive of those contested on May 19th, with the California Charter School Association spending millions of dollars to defeat Kayser, who was aligned with the United Teachers Los Angles (UTLA), the teachers' union.

As KPCC put it:

As was the case in the primary, voter turnout was low as predicted: 7.64 percent of registered voters turned out in the school board election and 13.93 percent in City Council District 4. 

In the school board election, the low turnout gave special interests more influence in the results than had voters turned out in decent numbers. California Charter Schools Association Advocates' PACs spent over $2.2 million, primarily to support charter school administrator Ref Rodriguez. The teachers union, UTLA, spent about $1.3 million while calling on its 31,000-plus members to campaign for its favored candidates. 

The District 5 election got so fierce that I had people knocking on my door (twice) for Kayser even though I am not in District 5 (I'm in District 2 currently held by Monica Garcia).

Because of the ill-advised Charter Amendments that passed earlier this year, Rodriguez will serve a 5.5 year term, coming up for election in June 2020.

MadProfessah Endorsements For March 3, 2015 Los Angeles Municipal Election

Finally, the moment you have been waiting for!  Here are MadProfessah's positions on how I will be voting in the March 3 2015 Los Angeles Municipal Primary Election, compared with endorsements from other organizations like the Los Angeles Times,  California Democratic Party, East Area Progressive Democrats and the Los Angeles County Democratic Party. For more information about judicial candidates, check out the LA County Bar Association.

The Ballot is quite short. Here are my endorsements (how I am voting) along with information about how others are encouraging you to vote.

L.A. City Council        MadProf   LA TIMES LA CO DEMS

District 14              MOLINA    Molina      Yes

Citywide Measures        MadProf   LA TIMES LA CO DEMS
Charter Amendment 1       NO        Yes        Yes
Charter Amendment 2       NO        Yes        Yes

Countywide Races          MadProf  LA TIMES  CA DEMS

Comm. Coll. Board, #1     VEGA     Hoffman   ---

Comm. Coll. Board, #3     KAMLAGER Kamlager  Kamlager

Comm. Coll. Board, #5     SVONKIN* Svonkin   Svonkin

Comm. Coll. Board, #7     FONG     Fong      Fong

Tune in later this week for the results... 

SATURDAY POLITICS: MadProfessah Urges NO Vote On *Both* Los Angeles Charter Amendments

The 2015 municipal primary elections in the City and County of Los Angeles are Tuesday March 3rd and yours truly has been active in the opposition to two duplicitous charter amendments that are on the ballot. The measures' supporters claim that they are intended to increase voter turnout by aligning Los Angeles' city elections with the state and presidential elections by moving the March 2021 primary election to June 2020 and the May 2021 general election to November 2020.  All future Los Angeles elections would be held every two years after that. There are many reasons why voters should reject this attempt to do lasting harm to our local democratic process and vote no on Charter Amendments 1 and 2.

The immediate effect would be to make Los Angeles the largest municipality in the country to have their local elections held in the context of the much more significant statewide elections held in even years. Oh, and for good measure they would give all officials elected in 2015 or 2017 terms of office that last five-and-a-half years instead of four year terms!

Even though the Los Angeles Times half-heartedly recommended a yes vote on these charter amendments, they highlighted the MULTIPLE problematic aspects of the measures:

But although we believe in the idea, we're disappointed in the execution. The City Council chose to align mayoral and citywide elections with gubernatorial elections starting in 2022, and to match the lower-impact council races with the presidential elections starting in 2020. 
If officials wanted the highest possible turnout for the highest-impact elections, they would have paired mayoral elections with presidential elections, which typically draw 70% to 80% turnout in the November runoffs. Also, there are more local races in a mayoral election year, so combining those ballots with the presidential would have meant higher turnout for a greater number of local races. 

 What's more, the city's March mayoral primaries tend to draw more voters than June primaries in gubernatorial years. Since 70% of city races are decided in the primary, some people worry that the city might not see a big boost in turnout by moving the mayoral race to the gubernatorial year. To switch to the new election cycles in 2020 and 2022, the City Council had two choices: either hold special elections in 2019 and 2021 for a shorter-than-usual 18-month term or lengthen the terms of city officials elected this year and in 2017 by 18 months, giving them a one-time, extra-long 51/2-year term. Not surprisingly, the officials chose the second path.  

As a result, voters won't know if they're voting in new City Council members for four years or 51/2 years — and won't find out until they learn whether the amendments have passed. There is also concern that local elections will be overshadowed by the national and state races. Local candidates will appear at the end of a long ballot that could include dozens of high-profile races. Campaigning may become more difficult and expensive as local candidates fight for voter attention and limited airtime. 

 Finally, moving the election won't address the underlying causes of low turnout — the civic malaise that prevents so many Angelenos from becoming engaged in the democratic process and leaves them feeling that local elections don't matter. Charter Amendments 1 and 2 treat a symptom of the disease, but not the disease. It is essential to continue to seek ways to cure that through campaign finance reform, civics education and diverse, engaging political candidates.

And this is what the supporters of the measure say about it to urge you to vote for it! Well, I disagree. We Angelenos deserve better. VOTE NO ON CHARTER AMENDMENTS 1 and 2!

SATURDAY POLITICS: LA Times Endorses Molina for Los Angeles CD14

MadProfessah has been following the race between Jose Huizar and Gloria Molina for the 14th District Seat on the Los Angeles City Council for quite awhile, since I live in the district in question, the incumbent Huizar is my Councilmember and the race seemed interesting, especially after Huizar admitted to an affair with one of his staff. I've generally been in favor of Molina, although Huizar seems to be running the more visible campaign (he clearly has a lot of money in his campaign coffers) because his lawn signs and billboards are EVERYWHERE in the Highland Park/Glassell Park/Eagle Rock/El Sereno sections of the district.

This week comes the news that the Los Angeles Times has made an endorsement in the race, and it is not for the incumbent:

Molina, who also served in the Assembly and had one previous term on the City Council, is the best candidate for the job. She is well known for her independence — a characteristic that is sorely lacking in City Hall at the moment. She has never shied away from questioning the status quo or challenging the power structure, though at times she has been more combative than productive. (A county department head once collapsed and had to be hospitalized during one of her grillings.) She was a fierce advocate for her district, developing neighborhood-level solutions in areas that had been long neglected. Molina became far more fiscally conservative after the county neared bankruptcy in the 1990s; her hawkishness on spending and labor demands is one reason the county didn't face the kind of severe budget crisis the city faced during the recession, and didn't have to lay off employees. Los Angeles needs more leaders who can say “no.”

Interesting development. The election is a little over two weeks away, but absentee voters (like myself have our ballots at home now and can send them in any time before March 3).

SATURDAY POLITICS: Molina Snags Endorsements By Villaraigosa, Boxer, Cedillo

This week former Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina announced endorsements of her race for Los Angeles City Council by three prominent Democratic politicians: U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and current Los Angeles City Councilmember Gilbert Cedillo.

The revelation of three big names at once is being viewed (by some political observers) as a misstep by Molina, since typically one unveils big-name endorsements piecemeal in order to get media attention for each one separately. However, even if that is true, it is pretty significant that Molina was able to get the endorsement of a current colleague of her opponent, incumbent City Councilman Jose Huizar. Additionally, Villaraigosa supported Huizar as his replacement back in 2005 when he ran (and won) his race for Mayor. The current Mayor, Eric Garcetti has not yet endorsed in the race.

The Los Angeles County Democratic Party has endorsed Huizar. The primary election will be held March 3, 2015. If the public approves two disingenuous, dubious and dangerous charter amendments in that same election, the winner of that race will get to serve an unprecedented 5-and-a-half year term.

In other interesting political developments, Villaraigosa is making more encouraging noises about running for Boxer's Senate seat in the June 2016 primary, even though Attorney General Kamala Harris made her intentions known earlier this week and most people expected Villaraigosa to be more interested in the 2018 Governor's race, not the 2016 Senate race. Maybe the former Mayor is getting antsy at waiting, or is he afraid that he won't make the top 2 in a crowded field that will likely include Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, Treasurer John Chiang and many more?

SATURDAY POLITICS: 10 Weeks Until Los Angeles City Elections

Council President Herb Wesson has a plan to control
Los Angeles city politics until 2020

in just ten weeks, on March 3, 2015 Los Angeles voters will go to the polls and decide who will represent them in seven even-numbered city council districts. In two of those districts (#8 and #4) there is no incumbent. However, even more important than City Council, School Board and Community College Board of Trustees races that will be decided is the two Charter Amendments which could change Los Angeles City politics forever.

Voters will be asked whether they want to change the dates of municipal elections to align them with county, state and federal elections, moving them from the current odd years to even years, and moving the primary from March to June and the general election from May to November.

On the face of it, this sounds like a good idea because turnout in municipal elections, which are often at seemingly bizarre times of the year, has been declining precipitously and has recently reached embarrassingly low levels. However, in order to effect the change, the result will be that Councilmembers elected in 2015 and 2017 will get 5½ year terms instead of the typical four year terms. Thus, if voters approve Charter Amendment One and Two current City Council President (if he gets re-elected in March) would be able to serve as City Council president until atleast June 2020!
I'm sure it's a complete coincidence that it is precisely that date when the primary election for the next Board of Supervisors seat currently occupied by Mark Ridley-Thomas (and which is considered the "Black" seat on the 5-member board) would be scheduled. Wesson is currently 63 years old and would be a formidable candidate to join the powerful body. Interestingly, the only member of the 15 Los Angeles City Council to vote against putting the Charter Amendments before voters was Bernard Parks (who unsuccessfully ran against Ridley-Thomas for that Supervisorial seat 2008 and was formerly the Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department).

One bonus of the Charter Member change would be that whoever is elected in 2017 as Mayor would also get to serve a 5½ year term, which would be a great boon for incumbent Mayor Eric Garcetti. Another troubling problem with the proposed charter change to even-year elections is that adding our local elections to the end of a very long federal, state and county ballot may actually reduce the number of people who vote on these races due to "ballot drop-off"

Factoring in the potential drop-off in votes on city races stuck at the end of a long even-year ballot, city races might have attracted just 23 percent of eligible voters last month. That’s because in that election in Los Angeles County, nearly 3 in 10 people who voted for a candidate for governor did not vote for the last judicial race on the same ballot. Calculating that drop-off from 31 percent turnout yields about 23 percent turnout, the same as voted in the 2013 general election for city offices. Even the numerical case for the scheme to change elections for our city and school board officials breaks down under scrutiny based on recent evidence. 

The charter amendments to change election dates are phony “reform.” Real improvements to city voting would consider moving the city election to match the months of even-year elections, to expand early voting and mail balloting, and to hold elections on a Saturday and Sunday, when people are more easily able to vote.

There are less than ten weeks to go  before Los Angeles voters will decide the very nature of municipal democracy but there is very little discussion going on about this critical public policy change. I hope that changes soon!

SATURDAY POLITICS: Huizar-Molina Race For Los Angeles CD14 Heats Up

As you may recall, I live in Los Angeles City Council District 14 which is represented by Jose Huizar. Huizar is running for re-election in the March 3, 2015 primary and in this heavily Democratic region, winning that race basically would insure his position on the council until 2019 at least. I say "at least" because there is a movement to move municipal elections that typically happen in odd-numbered years (i.e. not in presidential or gubernatorial election years) and align them with those larger turnout elections. There are arguments both for and against this idea (for: having city and county races in the same year will mean that they will occur in the same time frame when people are thinking about other political races; against: the big money that dominates state and federal races will be used to swamp local concerns in local races).

However, Huizar is facing a strong challenge from Gloria Molina, the outgoing Los Angeles County Supervisor, who has been a political power center on the East Side of Los Angeles for decades, and at age 66 has decided to challenge an incumbent city councilman to get a job she held more than 30 years ago.

With the primary barely more than four months away, the two candidates are jockeying for endorsements and donations. On Thursday, both candidates (in addition to MadProfesssah) attended the endorsement meeting of the East Area Progressive Democrats in Eagle Rock, seeking that new club's endorsement. They were both greeted politely and asked probing questions by the audience, with Huizar getting a little testy when he admitted that the "municipal election schedule realignment" that he supports would end up in increasing the length of his own term in office. Molina announced her opposition to the plan, showing a keen awareness of her audience, because EAPD has come out strongly against the proposed plan to align the city's elections with the state's. In the end, though, neither candidate received the high threshold required for an official endorsement by the club.

Huizar has built a substantial lead in fundraising. In fact, he is approaching the record amount raised by any City Councilman in the history of Los Angeles, according to Downtown News columnist Jon Regardie:

This puts Huizar on a record-breaking path. I pored through the Ethics Commission’s online fundraising information, which has data on every city council election going back 11 years. In that time, the only person to raise more money during the primary was Antonio Villaraigosa, who scooped up $773,000 in 2003 when he beat incumbent Nick Pacheco. Of course, AnVil used that seat as a springboard to the mayor’s office two years later.  

Huizar is $38,000 short of the record, but still has more than four months until voters head to the polls in March. Curious fact: The next highest tally in a council primary was recorded by now-Mayor Eric Garcetti, who raised $683,000 for a win against Gary Slossberg in 2009. No, I don’t know who Gary Slossberg is either.

It's curious tat the two people to have raised more money than Huizar went on to become Mayor. Is that Huizar's ultimate plan? He is only 46-years-old now and the current Mayor will be termed out in 2021. Some people think the only reason Molina is running for City Council is to make a future bid for Mayor of Los Angeles more palatable. Maybe the people who are giving money to Huizar don't want to see that happen?

Anyway, I'm sure there will be twists and turns in this race as the March 3 date gets closer and closer.

SATURDAY POLITICS: Speaker Pérez Passes On Joining Huizar-Molina Race

Oh well, it would have made many Los Angeles political junkies salivate, but former Assembly Speaker John Pérez has decided not to join the Jose Huizar-Gloria Molina battle royale for the right to represent District  14 on the Los Angeles City Council.

Last weekend on Saturday Politics we got the news that the long-serving Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina had decided to challenge the incumbent instead of retiring peacefully after more than 3 decades in elective office.

It's doubtful that Pérez, who is in his mid-40s is thinking about retirement either, could he maybe be eyeing the United States Senate seat currently occupied by Barbara Boxer which could conceivably be an open seat in 2016 if the now-73-year-old junior senator decided to call it a career. Surely his cousin Antonio Villaraigosa, 2-term Mayor of Los Angeles, former Speaker of the Assembly and former 14th District Los Angeles City Councilman would have a better claim to Boxer's seat.

In another interesting twist, Huizar apparently asked Pérez for his endorsement for re-election and Pérez declined to do so.

David Zahniser of the Los Angeles Times quotes Pérez as saying:

“He wasn’t able to convince me to endorse him. He didn’t make a persuasive case,” said Pérez, adding: “I’m happy to do another meeting, with any and all of the candidates.” 

Hmmm, could it be conceivable that Pérez could endorse Molina over Huizar? The mind boggles....

SATURDAY POLITICS: Molina Announces Challenge To L.A. Councilman Huizar

A political earthquake is reverberating around Los Angeles with the announcement that L.A. County Supervisor Gloria Molina is going to challenge incumbent Los Angeles City councilman Jose Huizar in the March 2015 municipal primary election.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

With less than three months before she is termed-out after serving more than two decades as a supervisor, Molina said she isn't ready to end her work as a public servant. The 66-year-old said she was concerned about the level of city services being provided in parts of Huizar's district, which stretches from Boyle Heights to Eagle Rock. She also voiced alarm over the lack of women politicians at City Hall. 

[...] 

Molina has been a major presence on the Eastside over the last 23 years, representing a district that stretches from East L.A. to Claremont. During a lunchtime interview in El Sereno, Molina said she was concerned about the financial health of the city. She also argued that parts of Huizar's district, particularly Boyle Heights, have not received enough attention from city officials. 

[...] 

Huizar spokesman Rick Coca responded with a statement from the councilman touting his work in the district, which includes El Sereno, part of Highland Park and most of downtown.  

“From revitalizing Broadway and helping create thousands of jobs downtown, to building new parks, to championing groundbreaking pedestrian-, bike- and business-friendly policies that are the model for the entire city, the service to Council District 14 constituents has never been higher and I look forward to continuing to serve as their councilmember for the next four years," Huizar said.

I happen to live in the 14th City Council District so I shall be watching this election quite closely. Some political observers say it will be beneficial to the residents of the district if a competitive electoral battle to represent us at the City Council.