The Broad View

Red Alert: Dirty, really DIRTY, in my own backyard

Hat tip to fellow blogger and TBV broad Jillian for this one:

Stealth signature gatherers gull students-in-a-hurry at UC Santa Barbara -- I've alerted the California Democratic Party "Fraud Busters" -- but surely there is more we can do to keep the Republicans (and Giuliani) from their nefarious rounds.

Read all about it in the UCSB Daily Nexus.

Red Alert: Don't say I didn't warn ya

Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party, sent an e-mail today, and what it says comes as no surprise.

Word on the street is that some unknown “Sugar Daddy” has infused their coffers and the California Republican Party is now paying $2 bucks per signature and they are back on the street with their "Steal the State" plot to nab 22 of California's electoral votes.

The CDP has an effort it calls "Fraud Busters," a sort of citizen watch looking out for petition gatherers at malls, festivals, etc.

Art says:

Please email cdpfraudbusters@cadem.org if you see the Electoral College initiative signature gatherers in your community. Let us know their location so we can dispatch local activists, like you, to shine a light on Republican disinformation.

Or you can call the CDP office at (916) 442-5707.

Please keep your eyes wide open.

Red Alert: Rats desert sinking ship

It ain't over till it's over, so I'm keeping my eyes wide open until the signature-gathering deadline has passed, just to make sure.

But there does appear to be very good news today for opponents of the GOP "dirty tricks" ballot initiative. The L.A. Times leads the front page with this:

GOP electoral initiative dealt major blows

Two key consultants for an effort to change California's winner-take-all system quit over money and disclosure woes.

Thomas Hiltachk and Kevin Eckery, the front names, have jumped ship. " 'Shambles" is the wrong word," said strategist Marty Wilson, who curtailed his fundraising efforts weeks ago. "The campaign never got off the ground."

Who knows — this could be some sort of crazy fake-out, to get us to let down our guard. I don't trust anything or anybody these days. So yes, the whole nefarious project still bears watching. Meanwhile, both Rick Jacobs (on behalf of the online Courage Campaign) and Chris Lehane (on behalf of the Democratic group that filed competing initiatives, Californians for Fair Election Reform) are both claiming victory.

My problem with that is that it sounds just a little bit too much like "Mission Accomplished."

Update: To be fair, Rick does also warn us to stay on the qui vive. And there is a second initiative, pretty much a twin, whose signature-gathering deadline isn't until February 4 (the original one's deadline is November 29), so truly, we must remain vigilant.

Red Alert: "Josh Lyman" speaks out

Brad Whitford, beloved as Josh Lyman in Jed Bartlet's White House, speaks out against the Republicans' newest dirty trick, the California Electoral College vote grab.

Whitford, along with Jane Hamsher (Firedoglake), John Amato (Crooks & Liars) and Rick Jacobs (Courage Campaign), will be on a blogger conference call this afternoon. I'll report on it here later. Meanwhile, please watch the video. And click on the Red Alert! box, in the right sidebar below. It's got lots of good links to information and analysis — and at the very top a link to Courage Campaign's "No Dirty Tricks" website, where you can sign up to fight the good fight.

Red Alert: John Koza helps us frame the debate

John Koza is the creator of the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote." He is one of the co-authors of Every Vote Equal, the book that describes the plan in detail. And he was kind enough to leave an extensive comment on my most recent post in the Red Alert! series. (See also www.NationalPopularVote.com.)

His comment bears reproducing here, in full:

The ballot measure to divide California’s 55 electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated system of electing the President.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Obviously, if the district approach were installed in only one large state (such as California), it would greatly increase the chance that the winner of the presidential election would not have received the most votes nationwide.

The district approach would not, as claimed, make California relevant in presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to campaign in districts (or states) where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Currently, candidates concentrate over two-thirds of their money and visits on just six closely divided “battleground” states, and 99% of their expenditures in just 16 states. Thus, two thirds of the states are ignored in presidential elections (including California). In California, the presidential race is a foregone conclusion in 50 of the state’s 53 congressional districts. Candidates would have no [more] incentive than they do now to pay attention to California remaining 50 districts. Even if the district approach were used nationally, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that are competitive in presidential elections, so seven-eighths of the count[r]y would be left out of presidential elections. This is even worse than the current system, where two-thirds of the states are spectators.

A national popular vote is the way to guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President. It is the way to make every person’s vote relevant, regardless of where that person lives.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President. When the legislation is in effect in that sized group of states, all of the electoral votes in the participating states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Thus, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states will win the Presidency.

The bill has 320 legislative sponsors in 47 states. It has been signed into law in Maryland. The bill has passed by 11 legislative houses since its introduction in February 2006 (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, and North Carolina, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and California).

Red Alert: Tom Gangale explains it all for you

The other day, while checking the California Attorney General's initiatives page for new news, I found that yet a third group has submitted an initiative meant to change the allocation of California's Electoral College votes. On my Red Alert! page I noted it, and asked the question:

And who the hell are these guys (CURE "California United to Reform Elections")??? Their initiative was received in the Attorney General's office on August 27. I read it quickly — and it doesn't pass the smell test. Besides, it appears to be very badly drafted. Some clarification on this soon, I hope.

Clarification comes from Tom Gangale, who is really on top of this issue and seems to be as obsessed by it as I am. He answers my question at his blog, Out of the Blue, Into the Black. [Gangale's bona fides: he's an aerospace engineer, Democratic activist and author of From the Primaries to the Polls: How to Repair America's Broken Presidential Nomination Process. At the California Progress Report he has a great piece casting the math behind the GOP initiative in the familiar terms of baseball.]

Gangale explicates this most recent initiative and tells us just what's wrong with it. (And he brings up the whole question of whether changing the method of choosing electors by initiative — rather than by legislative action — would pass Constitutional muster):

Yet another proposal to change the way California casts its 55 electoral votes may result in voters being so confused that they'll vote down all three initiatives. Note that the report states, "A surprise third initiative filed last week by a small, relatively unknown group would allocate electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote in California once a majority of states adopt a similar system." First of all, it is NOT proportional allocation by popular vote; it is allocation by congressional district like the Hiltachk (Republican) initiative. Secondly, the proviso "once a majority of states adopt a similar system" makes it sound more reasonable than the Hiltachk initiative, but is it? Which states? Red states? Blue states? A majority consisting of mostly small states could total far less than 270 electoral votes, which constitutes an electoral majority.

While we're going crazy with filing one initiative after another, it might be important to point out that the 1969 Maine law and the 1991 Nebraska law allocating those states' electoral votes by congressional district were enacted by their legislatures. The US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 states: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...." The legislature may direct the manner of appointing electors, but may the people do so via a ballot initiative? It may be that James Madison trumps Hiram Johnson.

The report he cites is an excellent piece by John Marelius at the San Diego Union-Tribune. It's a terrific roundup. Read it and keep it handy.

Red Alert: Efforts underway to stymie GOP Electoral College grab

But, since we're Democrats, it ain't that simple.

---

By now you all know about the egregious effort GOP operatives are making to steal the 2008 election by forcing California to allocate its 55 Electoral College votes according to which candidate wins individual congressional districts rather than by the current "winner-take-all" system. (See my post, below, and click on The New Yorker and NY Times links.)

And you are undoubtedly eager to know what we in California, with the help and support of Democrats across the country, are doing to overcome this pernicious bit of ballot legerdemain that could have the effect of installing another Republican administration, no matter what the country wants.

I wish I could tell you I knew, with clarity and certainty, that we are developing the very best ways to fight back. But since we're Democrats there's a certain amount of overlap, confusion and disagreement. I've spent the last week or so trying to pick apart the threads.

[Update: August 31] —The Red Alert box in the right sidebar links to a page (which will be regularly updated) with lists of blog posts, press reports, and lots of other information on the issue...including links to the initiatives...and ACTION ITEMS. Please go there now and sign the Courage Campaign pledge.

You can also sign another petition at the Fair Election Reform website. That petition is meant to, um, encourage the Democratic presidential candidates to speak out against the GOP initiative. (So far Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and John Edwards have done so.)

The Courage Campaign folks, and the posters at Calitics, are my people — the 'Netroots. The 'Netroots with a proven track record of mobilizing the grassroots. I will be happy to follow where they lead. Well, almost. CC is promoting yet another sign-up, this one to prod Gov. Schwarzenegger to do the right thing and decry the GOP initiative. I think it's unnecessarily snide — and will perhaps serve to turn him off — but if you choose to send him the e-mail, you can edit the suggested text, and I hope you will. My own version is at the end of this post.

On the face of it (but please note the caveat, below), it would make great sense for the 'Netroots and the grassroots to get solidly behind the Fair Election Reform people, who have sent up to the Secretary of State two ballot initiatives to counter the GOP initiative. (I've carefully read the text of both, and there's some coy procedural reason there are two versions instead of one. More about this another time if it proves germane.)

The text of those initiatives closely matches the principles put forward in the National Popular Vote legislation which was passed last year by both houses of the California legislature but was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger. It has once again passed in the California Senate. (And has been passed and signed into law in Maryland.) For those of us who crave a system far more fair than the Electoral College can possibly be, whatever the tweaks, the notion of electing a President and Vice-President by direct popular vote is seductive — but the National Popular Vote plan, as written, presents its own problems.)

Well, why would we not be thrilled with those counter-initiatives? My own view is that it would have been far preferable NOT to put a competing initiative on the ballot, but to put all our energies into mobilizing the Democratic grassroots to fight the GOP initiative by voting it down come June. And then to continue promoting the National Popular Vote idea — as flawed as it is — through the legislative process.

We (yes, the 'Netroots, and our "boots-on-the ground" cohort, the grassroots) will have to explain why and how to vote Yes on one, No on the other, thus muddying the waters and sowing confusion. And if, to make things simpler, we say, "Vote No on both," and both are defeated, the National Popular Vote legislation will stall indefinitely — it will be seen as something the voters didn't want. Not good.

Ah well. We'll be clever, innovative, and use every tool at our disposal. And we must prevail — otherwise, the GOP will have won what is a dreadful game of Cows & Cemeteries, with the most dire of consequences.

Our broken nation cannot bear another Republican administration — I doubt we would survive it.

---

My E-mail to the governor:

Dear Gov. Schwarzenegger,

On August 23, 2007 you were asked about the so-called "Presidential Election Reform Act" -- the initiative your former lawyers are attempting to place on the June 3, 2008 ballot in California.

This unprecedented partisan power-grab would dictate a re-allocation of about twenty of California's 55 Electoral College votes, thus handing the White House to a Republican no matter whom the country chooses in November.

You said: "I haven't looked at the language and I'm not saying I'm against it or I'm for it or anything."

But you have said, "In principle, I don't like to change the rules in the middle of the game." Please read the initiative closely and go behind the Rovian language the proponents are using. Be true to your words -- and your principles -- and condemn this pernicious effort to stack the electoral deck.

Please stand up, Governor. You will make us proud of you for doing the right thing for California and the country.

Sincerely,

Red Alert: Cows & Cemeteries

My late husband, Robert, was what the French call a "pince sans rire" — someone who can say the most outrageous thing with a straight face and have you believe it. Mr. All-innocence. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth. Hah!

An early brush with this talent (but before I'd recognized it for what it was) came when, shortly before we were married, we drove from New York City to Ithaca — Robert was a devoted Cornell alumnus and wanted to show me 'round.

On the last long stretch of country road, Robert suggested we pass the time by playing Cows & Cemeteries. It was spring, and herds of cows were grazing in the fields bordering the road. We'd count the cows on our own side of the car and keep a tally — at the end of the road, whoever had the most cows won. But if one of us announced seeing a cemetery (not an unusual sight; lots of pretty country churches in that part of the world) on our side, it would wipe out the other's cow total and he (or she) would have to start counting all over again from one.

This went on for a while, and it was fun. "Twenty cows," Robert would sing out. A few miles later, I'd come back with "cemetery!" As we approached Ithaca it was clear that I was winning; I had many more cows than he did. But at the last minute, just before we turned into town, there was a cemetery on Robert's side of the car!

Of course it was only later that I realized that he'd fixed the game. (I not only forgave him, of course, but I thought he was oh so clever. Adorable. Hell, I was in love!)

He knew this road like the back of his hand. He knew that the church with its graveyard would be on the driver's side coming into town, well beyond the last of the grazing herds. He knew that no matter how many more cows I had than he did, he'd emerge the victor. He had stacked the deck. He'd gulled me. Duped me. Mr. All-innocence.

The GOP, with its effort to steal the presidential election, is playing an infinitely more pernicious version of Robert's game. No matter how many cows we count, they'll have the last cemetery on their side of the road: those ill-gotten votes in the Electoral College.

And cemetery here is the operative word: another Republican administration will bury us.

Red Alert: Watch out, California Democrats. There's danger ahead.

Red Alert!!!

If you read Hendrik Hertzberg in the August 6 New Yorker, or Jonathan Alter in the August 13 Newsweek, or Hannah-Beth Jackson at her Speak Out California website, then you'll know that we California Democrats may be facing a daunting challenge in June 2008.

Note how the three authors have slugged their pieces: Hertzberg calls his "Votescam." Hannah-Beth tells us that the Republicans are "Trying to steal the Presidency — again!" Alter goes with a three-fer: "Is California GOP Trying to Steal the 2008 Election?" "A Red play for the Golden State" "There's some malicious mischief at play in efforts to reform our electoral system." Bam! Bam! Bam!

This is serious stuff, and will require us to be on our activist mettle at the very moment we'd most like to take a breather. Dammit, we have another election — in June 2008. It's only the presidential primary that's been unbundled from our usual June ballot. The primaries are held then for all the other offices up for a vote in November. It's the perfect opportunity to put stealth initiatives on a ballot that too many people will regard as ho-hum.

The Repubs will be angling to get us to vote for something they've named with perfect Rovian pitch. Here's how Alter describes its intended effect:

The Presidential Election Reform Act would award the state's electoral votes based on who wins each congressional district. Had this idea been in effect in 2004, Bush would have won 22 electoral votes from California, about the same number awarded the winners of states like Illinois or Pennsylvania. In practical terms, adopting the initiative would mean that the Democratic candidate would likely have to win both Ohio and Florida in 2008 (instead of one or the other) to be elected.

[Alter tells us that Democrats are hoping to do a similar deal in North Carolina, where far fewer votes are at stake. In all fairness, we should stand in opposition to that ploy as well.]

The California effort may, in fact, not be constitutional — the Constitution gives only state legislatures the power to change how electors are chosen — so it will face a court challenge. Will it pass muster? We don't know that yet. But this is a development that bears close watching, and major action when and if the initiative is cleared for the ballot.

Meanwhile, please read the linked articles, know the stealth terminology, and stay wary.