I hate losing elections, but what I REALLY hate is losing after a high turnout. Losing because our base didn't vote is depressing, but at least it tells us what we need to do to win next time - and progressives can take heart in the fact that "the people" are truly on their side, if only they showed up. Last night, Maine's Question 1 passed 53-47 - despite a much higher turnout than expected (we matched last year's Obama level at the University of Maine in Orono, winning the campus 81-19.) The "No on 1" campaign also had a far greater field presence than the opposition, and superior financial resources. It reminds me of 2004, when Bush won despite the progressive base voting in record numbers. When California's Proposition 8 passed last year, everyone could tell that our side ran an awful campaign. It was painful, but gave us many lessons to learn - lessons that the "No on 1" campaign in Maine took to heart, and performed beautifully. That's why this loss is so much worse than Prop 8. I don't know what we could have done differently, and am too sleep-deprived to think it all through.
I'm back home in San Francisco, after spending 10 days on the ground in Maine with the "No on 1" campaign. After my time there, I truly believe that - with our help - Maine will become the first state in the nation to successfully defend marriage equality at the ballot box, providing a roadmap for California to repeal Proposition 8. Maine activists have been working hard for five years to pass gay marriage, but events in the last few days now point to what should be an historic victory on November 3rd. With only 19 days left, what I'm seeing from the "Yes on 1" campaign reminds me of where "No on 8" was at this point last year - outgunned by the opposition, unable to control the message and at a loss about what to do. If Question 1 passes, it will be our fault for not having done more. But if Question 1 fails, those of us who get involved will have made history - which is why I hope to go back for the last four days. Here are the reasons for my optimism ...
BANGOR - "Welcome to the real Maine," said Regional Field Organizer Gabi Bérubé as I arrived yesterday at the "No on 1" office in Brewer, just across the Penobscot River from Bangor. That's what Mainers up here call their part of the state, and it's where I am spending the rest of my time on the campaign. I asked to go to Bangor because I wanted to help our field effort in more challenging places, after "No on 8" spent too much time last year preaching to the choir. The Bangor office covers everything north and east of here - in other words, two-thirds of the state's land mass. Replicating Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy, "No on 1" believes we have gay marriage supporters everywhere - and it's our challenge to organize them. But we're also targeting the University of Maine in Orono, whose 11,000 students make it the largest college in the state. Mobilizing young people on campus - and turning out identified supporters in rural areas - will prevent us from getting creamed in northern Maine, which will help us win statewide.
Tonight, I'm taking a red-eye flight to Maine - arriving in Portland tomorrow. I'll be there for 10 days, volunteering for the "No on 1" campaign to protect marriage equality. And I'm taking my laptop with me - so readers will get my daily dispatches. As a Californian, the fight against Question 1 is personal. Gays and lesbians last year had their rights snatched away, and it can never happen again. Proposition 8 was eminently beatable, but our side ran a bad campaign - and I'm determined to take my work and experience to assist the effort in Maine. The right has long argued that every time "the people" get to vote on same-sex marriage, it loses. It is time to deliver them - and their consultant, Frank Schubert (who ran "Yes on 8" and is now running "Yes on 1") a humiliating defeat, one with national implications. But one person can only walk so many precincts. That's why we'll be working to help send volunteers from across the country over the next 32 days, because everyone needs to chip in for this fight.
Using the same right-wing consultants that passed Proposition 8 in California, the "Yes on 1" campaign in Maine is once again trying to scare voters into believing gay marriage will be "taught" in public schools. But supporters of marriage equality this time have effectively re-framed the issue, arguing that schools should be "safe havens" for all Maine families - and that opponents want the children of gay parents to "feel ashamed." Faced with more savvy adversaries than what they had last year, "Yes on 1" now plans to attack an award-winning film schools have been using for years (and was screened at the Clinton White House) that teaches respect for all families - beyond the children of gay couples to include mixed-race families and adopted children. If they want to re-play the Prop 8 game, it won't work. Yesterday, President Obama issued a proclamation honoring families "from all walks of life" - including those raised by same-sex couples.
"Yes on 1" - the Maine campaign to repeal marriage equality - aired its first San Francisco produced ad this week, which was kind of a dud. It was like the first "Yes on 8" ad in California - minus the Gavin Newsom footage. Within 24 hours, the "No on 1" campaign aired a strong rebuttal - in contrast to the 12 days it took "No on 8" to respond. Rather than simply deny the "gay marriage in public schools" charge, the ad accused outsiders of harming kids - and that schools protect "all Maine families," allowing our side to stay on the offensive. With 53 days to go before the election, a new poll today shows Question 1 narrowly ahead by 48-46. Supporters of marriage equality should realize that every effort will make a difference - and that we now have an opportunity to finally defeat anti-gay bigotry at the ballot box.
Last year, California sent more Obama campaign volunteers to the swing states than any other part of the country - in part due to a website called "Travel for Change." Now, the same activists who organized that effort are working to send volunteers to Maine - where in 55 days, voters will determine the fate of marriage equality. The "No on 1" campaign has welcomed volunteers who can travel to Maine and commit to working for at least a week. Now, thanks to "Travel for Change," supporters can donate money or airline miles to make that possible. Many Californians dejected at the passage of Proposition 8 want to help, and with "Travel for Change" they now can get the resources to make a real difference in Maine. As the right treats Maine as ground zero in their effort to halt the march towards marriage equality, defeating Question 1 on November 3rd can have a national impact in the fight for same-sex marriage.
In just 77 days, Maine voters can set the national agenda for marriage equality. The state legislature passed same-sex marriage earlier this year, but now the right has collected enough signatures to put a referendum ("Question One") on the November 2009 ballot - and has hired the same political consultants who successfully passed Proposition 8. Supporters of marriage equality, however, are determined not to repeat the same mistakes we made in California - and will run an inclusive field campaign with a pro-active and pre-emptive message that (with the right resources) can bring about victory. It does not cost a lot to win campaigns in Maine (only $3 million), and voter turnout is expected to only be about 500,000 people. In other words, the campaign is winnable - but has not yet received the national attention it deserves. While Californians are divided on whether to repeal Prop 8 in 2010 or 2012, they can set aside their differences by helping us win in Maine. If we prevail on November 3rd, it will be easier to take our rights back in California.
(Originally published on Wednesday, I promoted this for weekend frontpage viewing because I think the last 7 months have clearly shown the limits of what can be done on the national stage if we don't significantly beef up our scrutiny from the bottom up. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
It's Wednesday morning, and I have packed my bags for a long flight to Pittsburgh to attend Netroots Nation. It will be my third year going as a blogger from Beyond Chron - but my first as a speaker. Evan Coren, who parlayed his blog activism to win a seat on the City Council in Columbia, Maryland has recruited me for a panel discussion on Friday afternoon called Local Blogs: Covering City and County Government and Empowering Activism. We will be joined by panelists from Philadelphia, Chicago and New Orleans - for a superb line-up of bloggers who play a key role in their local governments. The following is my story about covering San Francisco politics ...
Last Friday at 5:00 p.m. (which he's apt to do when releasing bad news), San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom vetoed three pro-tenant ordinances designed to help renters facing hard times. He even nixed a relatively mild proposal to limit "banked" rent increases to 8% - despite this being consistent with existing policies at the Mayor's Office of Housing. Newsom's record on tenant issues in San Francisco has always been bad, and his latest act does not bode well for next year's statewide elections. California's 14 million renters need a champion in the Governor's Mansion after six years of a hostile Republican Administration, but Newsom currently only has one opponent for the Democratic primary - California Attorney General Jerry Brown. Based on his record as Mayor of Oakland, Brown can be counted on to be just as anti-tenant - if not worse - than Newsom. There is no excuse why a deep blue state like California can't have a pro-tenant Governor, and the current field of Democratic candidates creates an opening for a new person to jump into the fray.
Yesterday's front-page story in the SF Chronicle on the California budget crisis was shocking, dishonest and disgraceful. The piece described Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as a "steely-eyed, sword-wielding strongman" - who will "hold his ground" against Democrats in the state legislature. Never mind the Terminator has driven the state to bankruptcy - after six years of tax cuts for the rich, fiscal gymnastics and borrowing schemes. Never mind that Schwarzenegger lied about a voter mandate in the May 19th election - and says he won't support a "single tax increase whatsoever." Never mind that by vetoing last week's budget stop-gap measure, Arnold forfeited $2 billion that the state can no longer use - and our government now has to pay with I.O.U.'s. Never mind the Governor told the New York Times that despite the state's disastrous plight, he will sit down in his Jacuzzi and "lay back with a stogie." The Bay Area's paper of record would rather portray him as a "tough guy."
When Barack Obama ran for President, he pledged to fully repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - a mean-spirited piece of legislation that Bill Clinton signed in 1996 for crass political reasons. Obama says it's still his intent to do so, but has yet to follow up with any action. Meanwhile, the U.S. Justice Department filed a brief late last week defending a constitutional challenge to DOMA. The brief did not merely argue against the lawsuit on technical grounds such as the plaintiffs' lack of standing, but advanced legal arguments that - if pursued by the courts - could greatly damage gay and lesbian rights. Most lawyers at the Justice Department who write these briefs are civil servants who cannot be replaced by a new President, and one of the authors was in fact a right-wing holdover from the Bush years. But Tony West, an Obama appointee and the brother-in-law of San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, allowed it to be filed in court - and his name appears on the front page. As Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, West may argue that he's "just doing his job" - i.e., defending existing federal law. But the Administration can use discretion in these lawsuits, making this unacceptable.
Mayor Gavin Newsom must assume that when releasing a budget everyone expects to have cuts, the press will just take a few pictures, jot down some snappy quotes, and - maybe - read his one-page press release. Beyond Chron, however, bothered to review the whole proposal, and the numbers contradict what Newsom said in his speech - where he assured us Public Health cuts would be less severe than feared. The budget has over $100 million in cuts for that Department, not $43 million as he claimed. Newsom also said the Mayor's Office would get a 28% cut, but the figures show only 9% of his staff are being laid off - and the division that runs his media operation would actually get bigger. And in a strange twist, Newsom said he really didn't like some cuts that he proposed - and would "count on" the Supervisors to restore them during the add-back process, but left unsaid where to find the money. As San Francisco faces its worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, Newsom bragged that Police and Fire are getting no layoffs - while the rich and Downtown businesses will not be paying more taxes. He also warned more budget cuts are coming from the state, echoing the threats of Governor Schwarzenegger.
In 1964, Stanley Kubrick produced the Cold War film Dr. Strangelove, or "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb." By upholding Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court has learned to stop worrying and love the initiative process. It's an apt analogy, because today's decision leaves an unchecked power of the voters to strike a "bomb" through our basic Constitutional protections. Not only did the Court minimize Prop 8's effect on the right to marry, using logic that contradicted last year's decision on the same subject. It set up a dubious distinction between "amendments" and "revisions" to the state Constitution, which will allow virtually any ballot measure to pass as a mere "amendment." Without adequate safeguards that a "revision" was meant to place, equal protection is no longer sacred - because the power of the ballot is supreme. At the same time, the Court ruled that the 18,000 same-sex couples who legally wed last year are still married - because to invalidate these licenses would be an undue violation of due process and property rights. While that was a wise decision, it remains a mystery why such a right is more important than equal protection.
The California Democratic Party "split the baby" on the six propositions for the May 19th ballot - endorsing Propositions 1B, 1C and 1F, while not supporting Props 1A, 1D and 1E. This shifts the dynamic for the last three weeks. No longer can Prop 1A's defeat be a mandate against tax increases - because the measure's "spending cap" is why progressives oppose it. Likewise, "no" on Props 1D and 1E is now a vote for the state to fund children's health programs and mental health services. And while many liberals fear the short-term "budget gap" if the measures all go down, the Party endorsed a "yes" vote on Prop 1C - which would have the most immediate impact. The Party's support for Prop 1B is a mandate for public schools - and while Prop 1A's defeat would prevent 1B from going into effect, a "yes" vote could pressure Governor Schwarzenegger to stop gutting education money. Democrats in the legislature promoted all six measures as a "budget package" to avert fiscal disaster. But it was a rotten deal, and the strategy would leave us no better off on May 20th towards a long-term solution. With this new dynamic, we can build momentum for scrapping the "two-thirds rule" in the state budget.
Before the California Democratic Convention ended yesterday, delegates bucked the Party leadership on the May 19th ballot measures - by securing a "no endorsement" on Propositions 1A, 1D and 1E. State legislators and Party operatives pushed "yes" on all six measures, but enough of the grassroots who stayed for the tail end of the session refused to go along. I've been attending these Conventions for 12 years, and it's clear now that activists and "reform" types run the Party - a stark contrast to how it once was. That's because Howard Dean and Barack Obama brought in a new wave of rank-and-file members, and now we see the impact. College students have replaced the "professional" types that once dominated the Young Democrats caucus. Reformer Hillary Crosby won the race for State Party Controller, and even John Burton's election as Party Chair is a good thing for the activist wing. Politicians must adapt to this change, and it's clear some of them - like John Garamendi - still don't get it. In the race for Governor, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom was not well received at the Convention by delegates from his hometown - as he painted a rosy picture of how things are in the City. And while Chris Daly ran as a "reformer" in the race for Regional Director, other factors contributed his defeat.
With his fourth run for Governor failing to get traction, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi yesterday announced his plan to run for Congress in the East Bay's 10th District - in a special election to replace Ellen Tauscher. On name recognition alone, Garamendi will be the front-runner in a crowded field - although State Senator Mark DeSaulnier has key endorsements that will make it competitive. But while running for Congress is a smart move for Garamendi, it would be far better for Democrats - and progressive politics - for him to run in District 3 against Republican incumbent Dan Lungren. Tauscher's seat is safe for Democrats regardless of who runs in the special election, while Garamendi is probably one of the few candidates who can win District 3. He has deep roots in the 3rd District - which includes a large swath of the Sacramento suburbs, along with Garamendi's native Calaveras County. It is traditionally a "red" district, but Barack Obama carried it last November - and Lungren came unexpectedly close to losing to an under-funded Democratic challenger. At a time when Democratic activists are pushing the Party to take back "Red California," Garamendi's choice of districts could not be more disheartening and misguided. Expect this to become an issue at this weekend's State Democratic Convention.
In 2007, right-wing political operatives tried to place a measure on the June 2008 ballot that - if successful - would have awarded California's electoral votes by Congressional District. Democrats and progressives strongly opposed it, because everyone assumed it would give the G.O.P. presidential nominee an extra 19 votes. California is a deep blue state, but parts of Orange County and the Central Valley are still reliably Republican. New data from last November's election, however, suggests that "Red California" is becoming less and less relevant. Barack Obama carried eight Congressional Districts that had long voted for Republican presidential candidates, and John McCain came close to losing three more. All these districts are currently represented in Congress by Republicans, but a few incumbents came close last year to losing to Democratic challengers. It's only a matter of time before some of these districts will eventually flip. None of this is a surprise, however, because the state's Republican base is older, whiter and shrinking in size. But the rate of this change is quite staggering, which explains why Republicans in the state legislature have clung to the "two-thirds rule" for passing a budget. After all, it's the only reason they have any power left in the state.
I've been on record supporting a special election to get the budget reform California desperately needs - such as scrapping the "two-thirds rule" in the legislature, or helping local governments raise revenue. But now that a statewide election is set for May 19th, no such measures will be on the ballot. Instead, the six propositions we will get to vote on are Schwarzenegger gimmicks that would cripple the state's ability to function, throw us further into debt, and roll back a small handful of fiscal victories. A campaign must start now to urge a "no on everything" vote, repeating the success that progressives had in 2005 by defeating Arnold's special election. The Governor, however, is a lot savvier this time. Prop 1B (which deals with school funding) is a naked ploy to keep teachers from opposing Prop 1A (an awful spending cap), and there's a dangerous possibility that organized labor will sit out this whole election. Democrats are not unified in their opposition, as State Senate President Darrell Steinberg even gave Schwarzenegger cover last week at a press conference when he promoted the "budget reform" package. Only by exposing this election as another Arnold scam can the state come out winning, helping to map a sane fiscal future for California.
It's depressing to think - after having just lost an expensive and exhausting campaign - that repealing Proposition 8 could mean going back to the ballot. It is unfair and unjust that a slim majority of California voters took a fundamental right away from a minority, jeopardizing equal protection. But the state Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the City Attorney's lawsuit yesterday, and the signs were very discouraging. Justice Joyce Kennard (who last year voted to grant marriage equality) was hostile to the case against Prop 8, and Chief Justice Ron George was skeptical. Not that there isn't any hope: perhaps the extreme arguments made by Prop 8 lawyer Kenneth Starr will inadvertently sway the Court into recognizing the measure's dangerous effects. But no one should expect the Court to repeal Prop 8. Activists must get ready for a 2010 proposition campaign as the next available remedy, however deficient a political solution that would be. We must learn from the colossal mistakes of the past campaign, and a new generation of activists will make it happen.
In 2007, right-wing political operatives tried to place a measure on the June 2008 ballot that - if successful - would have awarded California's electoral votes by Congressional District. Democrats and progressives strongly opposed it, because 