Jessica Levinson's latest post on KCET.org is here.
Here is an excerpt:
"This week, by a vote of 4 to 1, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors passed a redistricting plan. Supervisor Gloria Molina was the lone dissenter. The new lines will help determine the makeup of the little known, but very powerful, Board of Supervisors."
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
"New campaign finance proposal questioned"
Jessica Levinson is quoted in this article in the Redlands Daily Facts.
Here is an excerpt:
Jessica Levinson, a professor of law at Loyola Law School, said Rutherford's call for the FPPC to enforce its ordinance should it pass is a sad reflection of the times in the county.
"It's so depressing when you think about it, the acknowledgement by lawmakers that if we're the ones who appoint people to do this . . . then no one will think that it's bonafide," Levinson said. "That's just a sad statement of the state of civic affairs in San Bernardino County. I think it speaks to all past corruption and scandal."
Here is an excerpt:
Jessica Levinson, a professor of law at Loyola Law School, said Rutherford's call for the FPPC to enforce its ordinance should it pass is a sad reflection of the times in the county.
"It's so depressing when you think about it, the acknowledgement by lawmakers that if we're the ones who appoint people to do this . . . then no one will think that it's bonafide," Levinson said. "That's just a sad statement of the state of civic affairs in San Bernardino County. I think it speaks to all past corruption and scandal."
"Can Californians Gamble Their Way Out of the Budget Deficit?"
Jessica Levinson's latest post on KCET.org is here.
"While fears about consequences to individual gamblers are not unwarranted, neither are worries about the state's lack of funds. We need money, now. This is not a time when we can be picky about the source of revenue coming into the state."
"While fears about consequences to individual gamblers are not unwarranted, neither are worries about the state's lack of funds. We need money, now. This is not a time when we can be picky about the source of revenue coming into the state."
"Street Art: Benefit or Detriment?"
Jessica Levinson's post on KCET.org is here.
Here is an excerpt:
Prohibiting art, particularly on private property, is a dangerous business. While the City has an interest in ridding the city of violent or offensive graffiti, or even less than that - blight, our lawmakers must be careful not to outlaw murals because they do no like or agree with the message or the messenger.
Here is an excerpt:
Prohibiting art, particularly on private property, is a dangerous business. While the City has an interest in ridding the city of violent or offensive graffiti, or even less than that - blight, our lawmakers must be careful not to outlaw murals because they do no like or agree with the message or the messenger.
"FBI, IRS 'anteing up' in Colonies case, says legal expert"
Jessica Levinson is quoted in this article in the Contra Costa Times.
Here is an excerpt:
Jessica Levinson, a professor of law at Loyola Law School and no relation to Levenson, said that the federal government anteing up in the Colonies case means something even more far-reaching and serious is at play.
She couldn't say whether the targets of the federal probe could face charges with greater penalties than those in the state's case.
"That totally depends on what they're charged under, and what and if they're convicted of, and which judge sentences them," Levinson said.
She said RICO cases typically apply to organized crime and criminal street gangs, and she isn't aware of any RICO cases that involved government corruption.
"But that doesn't mean it's never happened," she said.
Here is an excerpt:
Jessica Levinson, a professor of law at Loyola Law School and no relation to Levenson, said that the federal government anteing up in the Colonies case means something even more far-reaching and serious is at play.
She couldn't say whether the targets of the federal probe could face charges with greater penalties than those in the state's case.
"That totally depends on what they're charged under, and what and if they're convicted of, and which judge sentences them," Levinson said.
She said RICO cases typically apply to organized crime and criminal street gangs, and she isn't aware of any RICO cases that involved government corruption.
"But that doesn't mean it's never happened," she said.
"S.B. COUNTY: Contribution limits eyed"
Jessica Levinson is quoted in this piece in the Press Enterprise.
Here is an excerpt:
San Bernardino County supervisors Tuesday endorsed a plan to limit campaign contributions, describing the step as a sign that they are trying to turn around the county's scandal-plagued image.
Jessica Levinson, a law professor specializing in campaign finance and government at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the board action was a step toward reform but that the proposal still allows donors to give large sums of money.
She suggested San Bernardino look into smaller limits, similar to other cities or counties instead of state races that might be more expensive to run in. In Los Angeles for example, city-wide candidates are limited to $1,000 and council candidates are limited to $500 per election cycle.
"I think it's a reform that does a little bit of work around the edges but I don't see this as a sweeping overhaul of the government," Levinson said.
Here is an excerpt:
San Bernardino County supervisors Tuesday endorsed a plan to limit campaign contributions, describing the step as a sign that they are trying to turn around the county's scandal-plagued image.
Jessica Levinson, a law professor specializing in campaign finance and government at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the board action was a step toward reform but that the proposal still allows donors to give large sums of money.
She suggested San Bernardino look into smaller limits, similar to other cities or counties instead of state races that might be more expensive to run in. In Los Angeles for example, city-wide candidates are limited to $1,000 and council candidates are limited to $500 per election cycle.
"I think it's a reform that does a little bit of work around the edges but I don't see this as a sweeping overhaul of the government," Levinson said.
Monday, September 19, 2011
"What Will Become of California's Newly Drawn State Senate Districts?"
Jessica Levinson's latest post on KCET.org is here.
Here is an excerpt:
For the first time in the state's history, an independent redistricting group drew state legislative and federal congressional district lines. Thanks to two successful ballot measures, those who stand to benefit the most from drawing district lines - sitting lawmakers - were extricated from the process. The independent redistricting commission's charge was, among other things, to create legislative districts which fairly reflected communities of interest, and to pay no heed to whether districts would benefit or harm incumbent lawmakers.
Here is an excerpt:
For the first time in the state's history, an independent redistricting group drew state legislative and federal congressional district lines. Thanks to two successful ballot measures, those who stand to benefit the most from drawing district lines - sitting lawmakers - were extricated from the process. The independent redistricting commission's charge was, among other things, to create legislative districts which fairly reflected communities of interest, and to pay no heed to whether districts would benefit or harm incumbent lawmakers.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
"Our View: Veto the ban on primary election initiatives"
Jessica Levinson is quoted in this piece.
"If the people must vote on ballot initiatives, it does make some sense to only permit initiatives to appear during higher turnout elections," wrote Jessica Levinson, a visiting professor at Loyola Law School, in her Monday column on KCET.org. "However, it will also mean that members of the electorate will face perhaps double the number of initiatives on a single election ballot (meaning) …. voters, with limited time and attention spans, could gloss over important decisions.
"Who stands to benefit from SB202? Not surprisingly, it is quite likely that Democrats would profit from the passage of the bill," Levinson writes.
Levinson is right about the number of initiatives. In the 2008 general election, 13 initiatives were on the ballot, which already had voters' heads spinning. If S.B. 202 had been in effect back then, the number would have been 15. In 2000, the combined June-November number would have been 28.
"If the people must vote on ballot initiatives, it does make some sense to only permit initiatives to appear during higher turnout elections," wrote Jessica Levinson, a visiting professor at Loyola Law School, in her Monday column on KCET.org. "However, it will also mean that members of the electorate will face perhaps double the number of initiatives on a single election ballot (meaning) …. voters, with limited time and attention spans, could gloss over important decisions.
"Who stands to benefit from SB202? Not surprisingly, it is quite likely that Democrats would profit from the passage of the bill," Levinson writes.
Levinson is right about the number of initiatives. In the 2008 general election, 13 initiatives were on the ballot, which already had voters' heads spinning. If S.B. 202 had been in effect back then, the number would have been 15. In 2000, the combined June-November number would have been 28.
"Three Cheers for the Expo Line!"
Jessica Levinson's latest post on KCET.org is here.
Here is an excerpt:
"While it is certainly expensive, so is the cost of so many hours of productivity lost to traffic. That is to say nothing of the hours we don't get to spend with family and friends. In addition, the cost and use of gas is no small issue. I for one would enjoy paying fewer visits to my neighborhood gas station."
Here is an excerpt:
"While it is certainly expensive, so is the cost of so many hours of productivity lost to traffic. That is to say nothing of the hours we don't get to spend with family and friends. In addition, the cost and use of gas is no small issue. I for one would enjoy paying fewer visits to my neighborhood gas station."
"Good News From the Republican Presidential Debate!"
Jessica Levinson's latest piece on the Huffington Post is here.
"Even though, according to many of the Republican presidential candidates who participated in this week's debate, our country is going on a collision course with disaster, it is time to rejoice."
"Even though, according to many of the Republican presidential candidates who participated in this week's debate, our country is going on a collision course with disaster, it is time to rejoice."
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
"Editorial: Veto the ban on primary election initiatives"
Jessica Levinson is quoted in this editorial in the OC Register.
Here is an excerpt:
“If the people must vote on ballot initiatives, it does make some sense to only permit initiatives to appear during higher turnout elections,” wrote Jessica Levinson, a visiting professor at Loyola Law School, in her Monday column on KCET.org. “However, it will also mean that members of the electorate will face perhaps double the number of initiatives on a single election ballot [meaning] …. voters, with limited time and attention spans, could gloss over important decisions.
“Who stands to benefit from SB202? Not surprisingly, it is quite likely that Democrats would profit from the passage of the bill,” Ms. Levinson writes.
Ms. Levinson is right about the number of initiatives. In the 2008 general election, 13 initiatives were on the ballot, which already had voters’ heads spinning. If SB202 had been in effect back then, the number would have been 15. In 2000, the combined June-November number would have been 28.
Here is an excerpt:
“If the people must vote on ballot initiatives, it does make some sense to only permit initiatives to appear during higher turnout elections,” wrote Jessica Levinson, a visiting professor at Loyola Law School, in her Monday column on KCET.org. “However, it will also mean that members of the electorate will face perhaps double the number of initiatives on a single election ballot [meaning] …. voters, with limited time and attention spans, could gloss over important decisions.
“Who stands to benefit from SB202? Not surprisingly, it is quite likely that Democrats would profit from the passage of the bill,” Ms. Levinson writes.
Ms. Levinson is right about the number of initiatives. In the 2008 general election, 13 initiatives were on the ballot, which already had voters’ heads spinning. If SB202 had been in effect back then, the number would have been 15. In 2000, the combined June-November number would have been 28.
Monday, September 12, 2011
"Should We Limit How Often We Can Vote on Ballot Initiatives?"
Jessica Levinson's latest piece on KCET.org is here.
Here is an excerpt:
If Governor Brown signs SB 202, California would join the great majority of other states with this initiative process, which limit voting on such measures to November elections. As with so many proposed changes to the initiative process, SB 202 is an incremental change that would largely benefit the sponsors of the bill. SB 202 does not provide the type of comprehensive reform that our initiative process so desperately needs.
Here is an excerpt:
If Governor Brown signs SB 202, California would join the great majority of other states with this initiative process, which limit voting on such measures to November elections. As with so many proposed changes to the initiative process, SB 202 is an incremental change that would largely benefit the sponsors of the bill. SB 202 does not provide the type of comprehensive reform that our initiative process so desperately needs.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
"Los Angeles Mayor Urges End to Tax Limits for Businesses"
Jessica Levinson was quoted in this article in the WSJ by the brilliant Tamara Audi.
"Calling California's law limiting property taxes "a corporate tax giveaway," Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said Tuesday he wanted businesses removed from the protections of the measure, known as Proposition 13.
In pressing for the change, Mr. Villaraigosa took on a law considered sacrosanct in state politics, and as antitax sentiment is high nationwide.
Mr. Villaraigosa, a Democrat and president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, said the law—which limits annual property-tax increases to no more than 2%—should apply to homeowners but not corporations.
That change would generate an estimated $2.1 billion to $8 billion annually, he said.
"We could take half the money we generate to fund schools and use the other half to cut taxes for homeowners," Mr. Villaraigosa said during a speech in Sacramento. "We can spur the housing market in the process. Phase it in over time to soften the impact on business."
Supporters of the law rejected Mr. Villaraigosa's suggestion.
"It's the single most devastating policy decision that California can make to adversely affect our economic rebound," said Teresa Casazza, president of the California Taxpayers Association, an advocacy group that represents businesses in the state. "It will significantly increase taxes on small businesses that are trying to create jobs."
Proposition 13, passed by a majority of voters in 1978, transformed California property-tax law and set off a national tax-overhaul movement. and in some cases, forcing residents out of homes when they could no longer afford their tax bills
Under the law, the state's property-tax rate is fixed at 1% of a home's current assessed value, and annual increases are limited unless the property is sold.
Changing Prop 13 most likely would require a ballot initiative approved by voters.
Businesses interests have quashed past attempts at changing the law, said Lenny Goldberg, executive director of the California Tax Reform Association, who has been pressing for this type of change for 15 years.
"I call it the Empire's new clothes. We avert our eyes from this big hole in the system. So thank you Antonio Villaraigosa for making us look at it,'' said Mr. Goldberg. "This is a linchpin of reform for the entire tax system of California.
According to the California Taxpayers Association, which opposes the change, homeowners pay about 40% of the property-tax burden, while "non-homeowners" including businesses and owners of rental properties, pay 60%.
Critics of Prop 13 have said it unfairly burdens homeowners, while letting corporations get around triggering a tax increase when companies change hands or take on new partners.
Still, attempts to change the law, which enjoys wide support among California voters, haven't succeeded. But there has been some support for taxing businesses separately, known as a "split roll." Mr. Villaraigosa's speech reignited the debate over such a change.
"I think it's a step in the right direction," said Lanny Ebenstein, president of the California Center for Public Policy, which supports the mayor's idea.
"This issue comes up every once in a while. It's like a recurring nightmare," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which pushed for Proposition 13 and opposes a split roll. Mr. Coupal says if the mayor's plan moves forward, "we will do what we've done for 30 years which is to defend Prop. 13."
Both critics and supporters of making such a change said they were unsure if Mr. Villaraigosa's decision to weigh in on the matter would have an impact.
Others wondered at the timing of the speech. The mayor's term ends in 2013, and his political future is unclear.
"I think the mayor is positioning himself to the left of Jerry Brown for governor or for Senate or he wants to go out in 2013 in a blaze of glory saying I was the real Democrat in the state," said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor and expert in California politics."
"Calling California's law limiting property taxes "a corporate tax giveaway," Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said Tuesday he wanted businesses removed from the protections of the measure, known as Proposition 13.
In pressing for the change, Mr. Villaraigosa took on a law considered sacrosanct in state politics, and as antitax sentiment is high nationwide.
Mr. Villaraigosa, a Democrat and president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, said the law—which limits annual property-tax increases to no more than 2%—should apply to homeowners but not corporations.
That change would generate an estimated $2.1 billion to $8 billion annually, he said.
"We could take half the money we generate to fund schools and use the other half to cut taxes for homeowners," Mr. Villaraigosa said during a speech in Sacramento. "We can spur the housing market in the process. Phase it in over time to soften the impact on business."
Supporters of the law rejected Mr. Villaraigosa's suggestion.
"It's the single most devastating policy decision that California can make to adversely affect our economic rebound," said Teresa Casazza, president of the California Taxpayers Association, an advocacy group that represents businesses in the state. "It will significantly increase taxes on small businesses that are trying to create jobs."
Proposition 13, passed by a majority of voters in 1978, transformed California property-tax law and set off a national tax-overhaul movement. and in some cases, forcing residents out of homes when they could no longer afford their tax bills
Under the law, the state's property-tax rate is fixed at 1% of a home's current assessed value, and annual increases are limited unless the property is sold.
Changing Prop 13 most likely would require a ballot initiative approved by voters.
Businesses interests have quashed past attempts at changing the law, said Lenny Goldberg, executive director of the California Tax Reform Association, who has been pressing for this type of change for 15 years.
"I call it the Empire's new clothes. We avert our eyes from this big hole in the system. So thank you Antonio Villaraigosa for making us look at it,'' said Mr. Goldberg. "This is a linchpin of reform for the entire tax system of California.
According to the California Taxpayers Association, which opposes the change, homeowners pay about 40% of the property-tax burden, while "non-homeowners" including businesses and owners of rental properties, pay 60%.
Critics of Prop 13 have said it unfairly burdens homeowners, while letting corporations get around triggering a tax increase when companies change hands or take on new partners.
Still, attempts to change the law, which enjoys wide support among California voters, haven't succeeded. But there has been some support for taxing businesses separately, known as a "split roll." Mr. Villaraigosa's speech reignited the debate over such a change.
"I think it's a step in the right direction," said Lanny Ebenstein, president of the California Center for Public Policy, which supports the mayor's idea.
"This issue comes up every once in a while. It's like a recurring nightmare," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which pushed for Proposition 13 and opposes a split roll. Mr. Coupal says if the mayor's plan moves forward, "we will do what we've done for 30 years which is to defend Prop. 13."
Both critics and supporters of making such a change said they were unsure if Mr. Villaraigosa's decision to weigh in on the matter would have an impact.
Others wondered at the timing of the speech. The mayor's term ends in 2013, and his political future is unclear.
"I think the mayor is positioning himself to the left of Jerry Brown for governor or for Senate or he wants to go out in 2013 in a blaze of glory saying I was the real Democrat in the state," said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor and expert in California politics."
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Friday, September 2, 2011
"Will nonpartisan redistricting maps transform California politics?"
Jessica Levinson is quoted in this article in the CSM.
“We lose a lot of expertise when people cycle through and then leave the legislature,” says Jessica Levinson...Lobbyists have more opportunity to pressure novices, she adds.
“It’s an endless dinner buffet for lobbyists because the meal keeps changing,” says Ms. Levinson. “This is not because they are evil people but because their target legislators by definition have a less-entrenched perspective.”
“We lose a lot of expertise when people cycle through and then leave the legislature,” says Jessica Levinson...Lobbyists have more opportunity to pressure novices, she adds.
“It’s an endless dinner buffet for lobbyists because the meal keeps changing,” says Ms. Levinson. “This is not because they are evil people but because their target legislators by definition have a less-entrenched perspective.”
"Republicans Target California's Independent Redistricting Commission"
Click here for more on KCET.org.
"So what are unhappy Republicans to do? As this is California, the answer is: circulate a ballot measure. A handful of Republican State Senators have contributed to a proposed ballot measure, which would repeal the newly drafted Senate districts. Former Governor Pete Wilson has also joined the effort. Thus far, those spear heading the effort to eviscerate the new district lines have raised approximately half a million dollars. The biggest donors are the California Republican Party, and groups that tend to support the GOP."
"So what are unhappy Republicans to do? As this is California, the answer is: circulate a ballot measure. A handful of Republican State Senators have contributed to a proposed ballot measure, which would repeal the newly drafted Senate districts. Former Governor Pete Wilson has also joined the effort. Thus far, those spear heading the effort to eviscerate the new district lines have raised approximately half a million dollars. The biggest donors are the California Republican Party, and groups that tend to support the GOP."
"If You Get A Dreaded Red Light Ticket, Do You Have to Pay?"
Jessica Levinson's latest post on KCET.org is here.
Here is an excerpt:
"It would be nice of one branch, any branch, of our municipal government could work on giving motorists a clear answer. If there is one thing that unites most Angelenos, it is driving and traffic. Now the consequences of what unites us also befuddles us. So much for getting a clear edict from the government."
Here is an excerpt:
"It would be nice of one branch, any branch, of our municipal government could work on giving motorists a clear answer. If there is one thing that unites most Angelenos, it is driving and traffic. Now the consequences of what unites us also befuddles us. So much for getting a clear edict from the government."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)