Don’t eliminate the recall. Just reform it.
Now that Governor Gavin Newsom has soundly defeated the recall attempt on September 14, there are demands to change or even eliminate the recall process in California. While I opposed both recent recall elections against governors Davis and Newsom, I continue to support the recall process. Don’t eliminate the recall. Just reform it.
First, let’s look at the history of the recall that is a part of the direct democracy reforms advanced by the Progressive Party at the turn of the 20th Century. A good overview is provided by Ballotpedia, History of Initiative and Referendum in California.
The Progressives gave us those ballot reforms in 1911 that included the initiative and referendum. Yes, many Progressives were Republicans, the liberal party at the time. They were frustrated by the state legislature being controlled by special interests, especially the big railroads. The initiative allows voters to act on important legislation when the state legislature is unable or unwilling to act. The referendum gives voters the power to repeal laws enacted by the legislature.
Those ballot reforms continue to be useful tools to further democracy. However, they have been abused. The initiative process has been abused the most. Special interests with a lot of money have been able to buy a place on the ballot with paid signature gatherers and heavy advertising.The referendum process has been used less, although it is being used more in recent years. Recall has not been used much at all, although the two recent gubernatorial recalls have attracted the most interest due to the flaws in the recall structure that makes it undemocractic. A governor can be removed by a vote of 50% plus one. However, the candidates vying to replace an ousted governor only need a simple majority, not even 50% of the vote. That is what needs to be changed.
As I stated earlier, I opposed the last two gubernatorial recalls, though I support the process in principle. The recall continues to be a useful tool that should be available, yet not too easy to use. The case of the former mayor of San Diego, Bob Filner, is a good example. Filner was dealing with serious sexual harassment claims, just like Andrew Cuomo in New York. In both cases, the issue made it impossible for each to do their jobs. They had lost the public trust. In San Diego, a recall campaign quickly gathered the needed signatures to qualify for the ballot. Seeing that a recall was on track to be successful, Filner resigned. So even though there was no recall election, the process worked because that tool was available. Cuomo ended up resigning, as well, as the New York state legislature debated impeachment. However that impeachment process would have been long and caught up in partisan politics. We know how that worked in the case of Donald Trump.
Another issue with impeachment is the implication that a crime needs to have been committed. In the case of the United States Constitution, a president can be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” In the case of recall, the elected official is not being put on trial to prove either guilt or innocence. The voters are simply saying, “You are doing a lousy job. You’re fired.” If I buy a product in the store that fails to meet my expectations, why can’t I return it for a refund? A recall works the same way, though it needs more than just a receipt. A majority of the voters need to approve. They could wait until the next election. However, if the elected official is corrupt and/or incompetent and causing real damage, it would be necessary to remove that official from power as quickly as possible.
A simple reform to the recall of a governor would be to put an end to the second question; who should be elected as the next governor. Instead, the current lieutenant governor assumes the office until the end of the term. That was Cruz Bustamante’s argument when he placed his name on the 2003 recall ballot. Many of did vote for Bustamante while voting no on the recall, and he did come in second after Arnold Schwarzenegger. Unfortunately, the run hurt Bustamante’s career, and he was never elected to higher office since then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruz_Bustamante
There have been times when the governor and lieutenant governor are from different parties. Most often they are in the same party. Currently, the lieutenant governor is Eleni Kounalakis, a Democrat. Having both offices being held by the same party, would make it less likely for a party to use the process as a power grab. In addition, the lieutenant governor is elected with over 50% of the vote.
Any changes to the state constitution will have to be approved by the voters. We should do that in the next election, and we should consider reform for the initiative and referendum in addition to the recall. As I wrote earlier, the initiative has been abused more than the recall has. We could increase the number of signatures required to qualify for the ballot. A friend of mine suggested a requirement of a minimum of signatures from every California county. We could require signature gatherers to tell potential signers which people and companies are funding the initiative effort. People should know who the funders are before signing.
Instead of getting rid of the recall, other states might be better off adopting this feature of direct democracy that we have in California. There are a lot of voters in Florida wishing they could recall their governor. Considering, how badly DeSantis is handling the pandemic, he deserves to be recalled.
Staying Home, Part 2
I am beginning my second week of obeying my state’s stay-at-home orders. I have decided to remain in my house until at least the end of the month. As I wrote in my previous blog post, I consider this my job now. I need to send the message that I take this pandemic seriously and am willing to do whatever it takes to stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2.
Over the next week, I will be watching the news closely. If I feel comfortable, I may decide to return to work on April 1. In the meantime, I have been assured that my insurance benefits through Alameda Alliance are not in jeopardy if I fail to work the required 80 hours per month. I do want to get back to serving my recipients. I expect that I would be going directly to work and then directly home, avoiding any other social contact. Then I will consider if it is OK to return to regular shopping. Yes, we are running low on toilet paper, and my prescription for my cholesterol-lowering drug needs to be refilled by April 5.
Like many I am spending more time online. My weekly Quaker meetings for worship (Strawberry Creek Meeting and Berkeley Meeting) are now conducted via Zoom. I have another Zoom meeting coming up this week to decide if we are going to cancel our spring quarterly meeting that is scheduled for mid-May.
My biggest disappointment is that we won’t be holding our annual Berkeley CROP Hunger Walk next Sunday, as planned. It is organized by the international relief organization, Church Word Service, and allows us to fundraise for local hunger relief agencies. Our Berkeley agencies are the Berkeley Food Pantry (run by Berkeley Friends Church), Dorothy Day House, and Youth Spirit Artworks. The money is split with CWS getting 75% and the local agencies receiving 25%. Even though the walk is cancelled you can still donate online to our Berkeley Quakers Team, https://www.crophungerwalk.org/berkeleyca/BerkeleyQuakers . Thanks.
Why I’m Staying Home
Why I’m Staying Home
3/17/2020
While I have been considering how I would need to respond the COVID-19 epidemic for a number of weeks now, it all became very real for me when I watched Governor Gavin Newsom’s press conference on Sunday, March 15. Right off the bat, he announced that everyone 65 years and older need to stay in their homes and not go anywhere; no work, no shopping, nothing.
Yes, he was talking to me. I am a couple of weeks away from my 70th birthday. The day before, I was standing with the crowd at Berkeley Bowl West, buying milk and thinking that this may not have been a good idea. However, I needed milk, just like I needed to do my work as an in home care provider earlier that day. I just got on my bicycle and rode to the places I needed to go.
I didn’t need another job. However, Governor Newsom has given me a new job. I now have the job of staying home. That changes the other jobs I have.
Even though I don’t smoke or have any other health problems that put me at risk for serious complications from COVID-19, I do care for people who have those risks, such as diabetes. I have not been experiencing any of the symptoms, and the chances I have come in contact with a person with the virus are low. If people without symptoms are able to spread the virus to others, however, that justifies me staying away from others who are at risk.
My IHSS work mostly involves housekeeping and shopping. While another person could fill in for me and do my jobs, finding a person to work in my place will not be easy. I am hoping for guidance from my union, SEIU 2015. Governor Newsom said at his press conference that he was talking with the union.
If I get COVID-19 and do recover, there is still the chance that I would become seriously ill, possibly needing a hospital bed and a respirator, I would become a part of the overload that our hospitals are facing right now. By keeping myself away from the virus, I would be part of the solution and not be an additional burden on our healthcare system.
So this is my new job. I am letting the world know I am taking this crisis seriously by complying with the Governor’s directive. That directive came one day before the counties in the entire Bay Area decided that everyone, regardless of age, need to limit their activities and stay home as much as possible. I am working at home, doing the jobs I don’t get paid for. I have been spending more time on Zoom, including two Quaker meetings for worship on Sunday, a Quaker clerks’ meeting before that, and a meeting of the Alameda County chapter of Citizens’ Climate Lobby last night. I am not hurting financially. I do have 8 hours in sick pay through my union contract. I will be getting my social security check by direct deposit next week. On my birthday, I will get a nice, new present from New York Life, as I start drawing down on my 403b retirement account. in addition to Social Security, I am on Medicare. My main concern is that I have a health plan through my work, Alameda Alliance, that is my supplemental insurance for what Medicare does not pay for, such as dental care and prescription drugs. For that benefit I need to work 80 hours per month. I know I will fall short this month. I am hoping for some guidance from my union.
I am optimistic that I will be celebrating my 70th birthday, even if it is at home. After that my goal is to be alive on Tuesday, November 3, when I cast my ballot in the presidential election. I will vote to remove the incompetent and corrupt Donald Trump from office. Join me in voting for the Democratic Party nominee for President and replacing the cowardly Republican senators who failed to do their duties to remove Trump from office by impeachment.
Barbara Graves Memorial
The following minute was approved at Strawberry Creek Friends Meeting in Berkeley, CA for peace activist Barbara Graves who died in December at age 104. Though it is not mentioned in the memorial minute, Barbara was arrested a number of times at Lawrence Livermore Lab to protest the development of nuclear weapons. Her memorial will be held at Berkeley Friends Church, 1600 Sacramento Street in Berkeley, on Saturday, February 24, at 2:00 PM.
Memorial Minute for Barbara Graves
Barbara Graves, beloved member of Strawberry Creek Friends Meeting in Berkeley, died at her home at the Redwoods in Mill Valley, CA on December 22, 2017 at age 104, after a long life serving humanity in direct, humble, often remarkable ways.
She was born in Geneva, New York in 1913, the youngest of seven. Following college in North Carolina, she worked in New York City for the 1939 World’s Fair, then with the British War Relief Society, from which she learned about the involvement of the American Red Cross. In 1942 she was hired by the Red Cross and sent to England.
She was appointed Director of Red Cross Rest and Convalescent Homes Division in Britain, providing recovery furloughs for Allied airmen from 1943-45. For this group’s service she was awarded a military Bronze Star, unusual for a civilian. After returning to the U.S., she began to explore pacifism and Quakers. She was hired by the American Friends Service Committee in 1948 as administrator for AFSC relief work in Occupied Germany, working and living with local Germans for five years, establishing neighborhood centers to address severe conditions of inadequate food, shelter, and social community.
In 1953 she obtained her Master of Science degree in Social Work at Columbia Univ. and became a psychiatric social worker in Philadelphia. In1962 she was recruited by AFSC as director of the VISA program (Voluntary International Service Assignment) in Tanzania, Haiti, Guatemala and India for six years.
During 1969 Barbara consulted and taught at Atlanta University’s School of Social Work, a time when the black social work environment was developing strength and influence despite the background of segregation. In 1971 she was appointed Associate Professor of Social Work at Temple University in Philadelphia, where she could continue professional connections with Atlanta. She moved to U.C. Berkeley in 1972 as Director of Field Studies in Social Work.
She retired officially from U.C.. in 1978 but continued both staff and volunteer work for
U.C. as well as for Alameda County and the City of Berkeley. Barbara served as a leader in the Northern California AFSC, often as a consultant to solve organizational problems. She volunteered weekly in San Francisco’s Tenderloin with residents on the margins of society.
She deeply opposed U.S. military activities in Nicaragua and traveled with a delegation of religious activists to learn conditions and to protest. She risked arrest many times in opposition to U.S. wars in Central America and the Middle East. In 1986 she returned her Bronze Star in a ceremony at the Vietnam Memorial to protest the U.S. role in the conflict in Nicaragua.
Barbara was appointed Brinton Visitor for Pacific, North Pacific and IntermountainYearly Meetings of Friends in 1989. She was able to visit widely and contribute her energetic, inquiring spirit and experience.
In 1993 Barbara and her close friend and housemate, Glendora Patterson, decided together to co-parent infant Nia, who later became Glendora’s adopted daughter and Barbara’s goddaughter. Nia Marie Patterson brought great love and joy into their lives. Together they attended Nia’s college graduation when Barbara was 100.
Barbara made her home at The Redwoods Retirement Community during her last years, as did three other women who had remained steadfast friends since their Red Cross service in England.
One of Barbara’s personal notes quoted Abraham Lincoln: “I have an irrepressible desire to live till I can be assured that the world is a little better for my having lived in it.”
Barbara’s irrepressible wit and joy of life was expressed not only through serious work, but through singing, dancing, generosity and exuberant appreciation of people of all sorts and conditions. She will be greatly missed by her home Meeting, Strawberry Creek, where she provided great spiritual and practical service for decades.
Barbara Graves at her 100th birthday celebration at Strawberry Creek Friends Meeting in Berkeley, CA
Rejecting Trump is the best way to save the Republican Party
I have been blogging whenever I can on the reasons why I believe Donald Trump is completely unfit to be president and why he should be rejected by the voters on November 8. I suggested there may be 50 reasons, probably more. I doubt I will come even close to listing 50 before election day. I think I can do a few more. Today, I want to explain why I believe rejecting Trump is the best way to save the Republican Party.
In my last post, I shared my response to a fundraising letter from the Trump campaign that included a postage paid envelope. (BTW I received a second letter and envelope several weeks after the first. I’m still thinking about what to send back.) In that response I wrote, “I have voted for Republicans in the past. Would I vote for Republicans in the future? When I find a Republican who takes global warming seriously and listens to scientists. When I find one who doesn’t engage in immigrant bashing or appeals to white supremacists. When I find one who really supports LGBTQ rights. Until then, you’ve lost me.”
It is true that I have previously voted for Republicans. I voted for John McCain in the 2000 primary and Arnold Schwarzenegger in his re-election as California governor . Being a Republican on the right side of the climate issue was a major factor in my selections. I want to support Republicans who share my concerns on issues that are important to me.
My Irish Catholic parents were lifelong Democrats. Growing up in the depression, they idolized FDR. Electing an Irish Catholic president in 1960 was a dream come true for them. While I maintained my liberal bent in adulthood, I drifted away from the Democratic Party and viewed myself more as an independent. I came to reject the two-party system that has defined American politics since the early nineteenth century. There has to be a better way to select candidates. My late housemate Bob Berry also believed in a multi party system. His efforts to revive the Whig Party was mostly a joke that reflected his own frustration with the system that has come to be known as choosing between the lesser of two evils. For a number of years I was registered as a Whig.
When I have changed my registration to Democratic or Republican, it has been to be eligible to vote in that party’s presidential primary. in 2012, I registered Republican to vote for Jon Huntsman, another Republican who understands climate change. Obama was running unopposed as a Democrat, so no contest there. Unfortunately, Huntsman dropped out before the California primary. I ended up voting for Fred Karger, the first openly gay presidential candidate for either party. Since then, I have been on a number of Republican email lists. The emails keep coming, even though I have not given a penny.
This year, there was no question which party I would be selecting for the primary election. I could not find a single Republican that I could vote for in good conscience. I found several good candidates running as Democrats and finally selected Clinton as the best fit for that office with the best chance to win.
Then Trump became the Republican nominee. That is when they lost me. I can no longer go back to the Republican Party in its present form. Thanks to Donald Trump, I am for now a committed Democrat.
If the Republicans lose control of the Senate, they can blame Trump for their loss. In all of those fundraising emails I receive from Republican candidates, Trump’s name has not appeared even once. Democratic emails proudly align themselves with their presidential ticket.
In addition, to being unfit for the office of president, Trump has shown himself to be an incompetent campaigner. The California primary is a good example. We now have two Democrats running to replace Barbara Boxer, who is retiring from the Senate. That is because Harris and Sanchez received more votes than any of their Republican challengers. In California, the top two vote getters move onto the general election, regardless of their party affiliation. Meanwhile, Trump had sewn up the nomination before the primary. He came to the state and campaigned anyway, for himself. A seasoned candidate in Trump’s position would have looked at the field of Republican candidates and selected one that would have the best chance of coming in second and going to the general. Then campaigning across the state with that Senate candidate would have made sense. Even if the Democrat has the overwhelming advantage, the Democratic Party would still need to divert resources to prevent an upset. Guaranteed that the next senator will be a Democrat, the party is free to spend more in battleground states. Then again, the Republican candidates may have found Trump so toxic that none of them wanted his support. Trump ended up with less primary votes than Bernie Sanders, anyway. His time in California was a complete waste.
I feel for the conservatives’ dilemma. For them, Clinton is too liberal and Trump is completely unfit. I once suggested that they vote for Gary Johnson. He did, at one time, have the opportunity to gain the 15% of the polling numbers he needed to get into the debates. Since then, he has been fading with a series of “Aleppo moments.” Even before that, conservatives where jumping ship to the Clinton camp, including newspapers that have never endorsed a Democrat in their entire publishing histories. They know that a vote for a third party candidate only improves the chances of a Trump win. For them, that is reason enough to support Clinton.
As a Californian, I know I could easily vote for a third party candidate without fear of losing the state to Trump. I would certainly do that if I felt the Democratic candidate was as equally unfit for office. On the contrary, Clinton has shown herself to be quite fit and worthy of my vote. More importantly, I want to make sure that Trump is soundly defeated by double percentage digits. Then Trump would have less of an argument that the election was rigged against him, though I am sure he will argue that anyway. More importantly, I want the Republican Party to reassess its direction and return to the mainstream with candidates who could earn my vote.
I am still dissatisfied by our current to two-party system. A one-party system would be even worse. If Trump succeeds at destroying the Republican Party, we will need to create a better party or parties to take its place.
Shoot the Gays?
There has been a lot of commotion about the filing of an initiative in California that calls for killing LGBT people and imprisoning their allies.With $200, Huntington Beach attorney Matt McLaughlin filed the Sodomite Suppression Act, which calls for gays to be shot or killed by some other “convenient method.” Lawyers have pointed out a number of ways the proposed law violates the state and federal constitutions. There have been calls to have Mr. McLaughlin disbarred. Attorney General Kamala Harris has asked the state Supreme Court to relieve her of her duties to prepare a summary and title for the initiative that would have to happen before supporters can print copies of the petition and gather signatures. Lt. Gov Gavin Newsom has blasted out an email expressing his outrage, and by the way, reminds us he is running for governor. While I am happy to have their support, I disagree with Harris’ and Newsom’s efforts. How do I feel about the circulation of the Shoot the Gays petition? I say, “Bring it on!”
I would like to see the folks behind the initiative get their chance to gather the 365,880 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. The first thing I would do is send a request to Mr. McLaughlin to send me 100 copies. If each copy has space for 10 signatures on a page, I am sure he would be eager to get those 1,000 signatures from me. Then, with petitions in hand, I will head straight to 18th and Castro in San Francisco and set up a table. There, I will invite the voters of California to write on the petitions exactly what they think of Mr. McLaughlin and his Sodomite Suppression Act. Being a believer in free speech, I promise not to censor any of the responses. I will send those “completed” petitions back to Mr. McLaughlin and, of course, ask for another 100 copies.
Even if the Sodomite Suppression Act sees the light of day on the streets of California, I doubt seriously it would becoming to a street corner near me. It takes a lot of money to circulate a petition and usually depends on paid signature gatherers. Initiative backers focus their efforts in places where those efforts will pay off with the most signatures. The plastics industry recently qualified a referendum to overturn the state’s plastic bag ban. I don’t know how many signatures they gathered in the Bay Area, but I did not see any signature gatherers here. I am sure a vast majority of those signatures were obtained from central California and other conservative parts of the state.
When Proposition 8 took away marriage rights from same sex couples, people began to question whether the initiative should be abolished. That was not the first time the California ballot has been used to take away rights. In the November 1964 election, a majority of voters overturned the Rumford Fair Housing Act that had been approved by the legislature and approved a proposition financed by theater owners to ban pay television. As with Prop 8, those propositions were invalidated by the courts.
We learned in history class that the ballot reforms of initiative, referendum, and recall are gifts of the Progressive movement. Progressives were alarmed about the power of the railroads and other big business interests to control the state government and act against the best interests of the people. Through initiatives, people can act when the legislature is inactive. Referendums can repeal unpopular laws enacted by the legislature. Recalls can remove elected officials when the people realize they made a mistake electing them in the first place.
Of the three, the recall has been used the least. The 2003 Gray Davis recall gave the state a ballot with 135 candidates for governor that included a former child actor and a porn actress. As with Prop 8, critics have cited that recall as an example of a dysfunctional process. However, the recall still has a reason to exist. It was an active recall campaign that convinced Bob Filner to resign as mayor of San Diego after being charged with sexual misconduct. While he could have been removed by impeachment, a lengthy trial process would have deprived San Diego of an effective, full time mayor. It should not be easy to recall a public official, but it a tool that should be available when needed.
The initiative process can and should be reformed. One method suggested by a friend is to require that a certain percentage of signatures come from every California county. That means the Shoot the Gays supporters would have to collect signatures from San Francisco and Los Angeles. If most of their signatures came from Kern County and very few from San Francisco, they will fail to make the ballot.
There is one easy way to keep bad propositions off the ballot. When someone approaches you to sign a petition, don’t sign it unless you really understand what the initiative would do and you really want to see it on your ballot. Many initiatives are deceptive and signature gatherers will not tell you what you are really signing, many times because they don’t know themselves. Besides, the time they spend explaining it is less time they have to gather more signatures. To make you feel better, they’ll say, “Just sign it and get it on the ballot. You can still vote against in the election” They assure you that your signature will not count as an endorsement. Of course, when the backers file their petitions with the state, they will boast that all of those signatures show how much support they have.
Many times we sign because we know the gatherer is being paid for each signature. Petitioning has become a creative spare change scheme, a way of giving to a poor person without that change coming from your own pocket. Unfortunately, the money financing the initiative campaign is coming from special interests that are probably working against your interests and the interests of the person asking for your signature. It may be difficult to say no, but there are better ways to give people employment.
Finally, you can keep a lot of petitions off the ballot by doing one simple thing—vote. The number of signatures required to qualify an initiative is based on a percentage of the people who voted in the last general election The more people who vote in a general election, the more signatures the campaigns have to get, and they have go get them within a 3-month time period.
Some of the most satisfying political work I have done involved collecting signatures to get propositions on ballots, both state and local.Sometimes I was paid, and sometimes it was strictly volunteer. When I was paid, it wasn’t much. Sometimes, the campaign was successful, and other times, we fell short. In every case, it was an issue that was really important to me. Even in those losing campaigns, it was an opportunity to meet voters directly and discuss issues they probably would not have considered. I don’t want to abolish the ballot initiative. I want to return it to be what the Progressives intended it to be; a tool to make democracies even more democratic. The judicial branch would continue to protect minorities from being denied their rights, such as Prop 8 or repeal of the Rumford Act. California will certainly survive such silliness as “Shoot the Gays.”
-
Archives
- May 2022 (1)
- September 2021 (1)
- March 2021 (1)
- October 2020 (2)
- September 2020 (1)
- May 2020 (1)
- April 2020 (1)
- March 2020 (2)
- January 2020 (1)
- December 2019 (1)
- April 2019 (1)
- July 2018 (1)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Tomyamaguchi's Weblog 