Many of our state's newly drawn legislative districts are under fire. As I previously wrote here, here, and here, those who oppose the new districts have launched a twofold attack against the legislative lines.
Opponents are going both to the ballot box (regarding the State Senate lines) and to the courthouse (regarding the Congressional lines). It remains to be seen whether newly drawn legislative districts -- drawn for the first time in the state's history by an independent redistricting commission -- will stand, or whether they will change as a result of either a judicial decision or the voters' decision.
Finish reading this article on KCET.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
"Which State Senate Maps Will Show the Way?"
Challenges to California's newly drawn legislative lines are abound. As I have written about here, here, and here, opponents of our state's newly drawn district lines have waged a two-step attack and have taken their battles to the ballot box and the courthouse.
No one can predict the success of opponents' challenges. Judges may find that the lines are constitutionally drawn. Voters may decide that the independent redistricting commission did its job and that the current lines will stand.
Finish reading this article on KCET.
No one can predict the success of opponents' challenges. Judges may find that the lines are constitutionally drawn. Voters may decide that the independent redistricting commission did its job and that the current lines will stand.
Finish reading this article on KCET.
"The Housing Authority Gives Nothing But Disappointment"
This morning I spoke with one of my dearest friends, a very smart person, generally about the state of our government. The words we used to describe current events were "poisonous" and "unbelievably disappointing." At one point we agreed that much of what our public officials do is mere "theatrics."
Is this type of contempt and dismay warranted? Unfortunately this week brings yet another -- in a seemingly endless series of examples -- of a public official behaving badly.
Finish reading this article on KCET.
Is this type of contempt and dismay warranted? Unfortunately this week brings yet another -- in a seemingly endless series of examples -- of a public official behaving badly.
Finish reading this article on KCET.
"Think Lobbyists Cannot Give Campaign Donations to California Politicians? Think Again."
Under California law, registered lobbyists are prohibited from giving campaign contributions to state candidates. The purpose of this prohibition is rather straightforward. Contributions from those overtly seeking to influence elected officials could lead to corruption, or at least the appearance of corruption. Simply put, such contributions are or seem particularly unseemly.
However, under federal law, lobbyists are free to give to federal candidates. Federal law controls federal races, while state law dictates the permissible behavior for state races. Therefore, when state elected officials run for federal office, the same lobbyists prohibited from giving to state campaigns are free to give to federal ones. It strains common sense to think that state elected officials would be thankful for contributions to their state campaigns, but not as grateful to lobbyists for contributions in their federal campaigns.
Finish reading this article on KCET.
However, under federal law, lobbyists are free to give to federal candidates. Federal law controls federal races, while state law dictates the permissible behavior for state races. Therefore, when state elected officials run for federal office, the same lobbyists prohibited from giving to state campaigns are free to give to federal ones. It strains common sense to think that state elected officials would be thankful for contributions to their state campaigns, but not as grateful to lobbyists for contributions in their federal campaigns.
Finish reading this article on KCET.
Friday, December 30, 2011
"How Will the Political Landscape Change in California in 2012?"
Jessica Levinson's piece on KCET.org on 12/27/11 is here.
"Tracing the L.A. Coliseum's fiscal decay"
Jessica Levinson is quoted in this piece in the Los Angeles Times.
Here is an excerpt:
Here is an excerpt:
The Coliseum is now so broke that it is unable to make upgrades promised in its lease with USC, whose football Trojans are the stadium's main tenant. As a result, the panel is about to turn over day-to-day control of the taxpayer-owned property to the private school.
Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who studies public corruption, described the commission's failure to spot warning signs of the scandal as a "great tragedy."
"This was below the standards of how you would run a neighborhood lemonade stand," she said.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
"'Think Long' coalition will propose overhauling California's tax system"
Jessica Levinson is quoted in this piece in the Sacramento Bee.
"If this is the way that they really feel you fix California and they have very deep pockets behind them, they may be able to really flood the airwaves with a really effective messaging campaign," said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School.
While voters may be in the "mood for reform because things just aren't getting better," Levinson cautioned that the group's biggest challenge could be breaking down complex changes, and their urgency, to voters.
"If it takes more than two sentences to explain something to the electorate, your chances start decreasing exponentially," she said.
"If this is the way that they really feel you fix California and they have very deep pockets behind them, they may be able to really flood the airwaves with a really effective messaging campaign," said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School.
While voters may be in the "mood for reform because things just aren't getting better," Levinson cautioned that the group's biggest challenge could be breaking down complex changes, and their urgency, to voters.
"If it takes more than two sentences to explain something to the electorate, your chances start decreasing exponentially," she said.
"Will Charges Against former Bell City Council Members Be Dropped?"
Click here for more on KCET.org
"If the defense attorneys for six former Bell City Council members have their way all charges against the officials will be dropped. The officials -- Oscar Hernandez, Teresa Jacobo, George Mirabal, Luis Artiga, George Cole, and Victor Bello -- are accused of, among other things, appropriating public funds. Simply stated, they have been charged with corruption. It may be worth stating the obvious, these officials, elected to serve the public, allegedly duped the public and used their funds for the officials' own benefit. Prosecutors have said that former officials essentially stole up more than $6 million in public funds. As some may remember, former City Manager Robert Rizzo reaped about $1.5 million per year in salary and other compensation."
"If the defense attorneys for six former Bell City Council members have their way all charges against the officials will be dropped. The officials -- Oscar Hernandez, Teresa Jacobo, George Mirabal, Luis Artiga, George Cole, and Victor Bello -- are accused of, among other things, appropriating public funds. Simply stated, they have been charged with corruption. It may be worth stating the obvious, these officials, elected to serve the public, allegedly duped the public and used their funds for the officials' own benefit. Prosecutors have said that former officials essentially stole up more than $6 million in public funds. As some may remember, former City Manager Robert Rizzo reaped about $1.5 million per year in salary and other compensation."
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
The Battles Over Corporate Political Disclosure Move to the SEC
"Obamajam: Is Fundraising During a Los Angeles Rush Hour Essential?"
Here is a piece written during President Obama's most recent visit to Los Angeles (during rush hour).
"Traveling in a secured environment and raising money are necessities for any President. However, query as to whether fundraising in rush hour in Los Angeles is also a must."
"Traveling in a secured environment and raising money are necessities for any President. However, query as to whether fundraising in rush hour in Los Angeles is also a must."
"Will California's Newly Drawn Senate Maps Stand?"
Here is a post on KCET.org about the work done by California's independent redistricting commission, and various challenges to the newly drawn maps.
"[A] cynic would say this is much ado about nothing but sour grapes. Republicans are rightly worried that they could lose their one-third minority membership in the State Senate. If Democrats are able to garner two-thirds of the upper legislative house, it could make it much easier to implement a number of policies, including tax and fee increases."
"[A] cynic would say this is much ado about nothing but sour grapes. Republicans are rightly worried that they could lose their one-third minority membership in the State Senate. If Democrats are able to garner two-thirds of the upper legislative house, it could make it much easier to implement a number of policies, including tax and fee increases."
"New Public Financing Program Implemented in District 15 Race"
Another piece on KCET, this one about public campaign financing in Los Angeles. You can find the piece here.
Here is an excerpt:
"Los Angeles' public campaign financing law has trigger funds provisions similar to those recently struck down by the Supreme Court. However, Los Angeles has found at least a temporary fix to that problem for the November 8 special election. Previously in Los Angeles qualified candidates could receive a 1-to-1 of public funds based on private contributions of up to $250 (e.g., based on a contribution of $100, a qualified candidate could receive $100 in public funds). Under Los Angeles' trigger funds provision, publicly financed candidates could become eligible to (among other things) receive a 3-to-1 match if a privately financed opponent and/or independent expenditure group spent over a threshold amount. However, in the wake of the Arizona Free Enterprise decision, Los Angeles will now provide all candidates with a 3-to-1 match of public to private funds on contributions of up to $250."
Here is an excerpt:
"Los Angeles' public campaign financing law has trigger funds provisions similar to those recently struck down by the Supreme Court. However, Los Angeles has found at least a temporary fix to that problem for the November 8 special election. Previously in Los Angeles qualified candidates could receive a 1-to-1 of public funds based on private contributions of up to $250 (e.g., based on a contribution of $100, a qualified candidate could receive $100 in public funds). Under Los Angeles' trigger funds provision, publicly financed candidates could become eligible to (among other things) receive a 3-to-1 match if a privately financed opponent and/or independent expenditure group spent over a threshold amount. However, in the wake of the Arizona Free Enterprise decision, Los Angeles will now provide all candidates with a 3-to-1 match of public to private funds on contributions of up to $250."
"State Senators Dine on Our Dime While Cutting the State's Budget"
Jessica Levinson's post on KCET.org is here.
Here is an excerpt:
Over the past twelve months the State Senate has spent approximately $111,000 in taxpayer money on meals for themselves. To put this number in perspective over the previous 12 months the State Senate managed to spend over 10% less on taxpayer funded food.
Here is an excerpt:
Over the past twelve months the State Senate has spent approximately $111,000 in taxpayer money on meals for themselves. To put this number in perspective over the previous 12 months the State Senate managed to spend over 10% less on taxpayer funded food.
Monday, October 24, 2011
"Villaraigosa Donor Found Guilty of Money Laundering"
Jessica Levinson's piece on KCET is here.
Here is an excerpt:
"This week the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission found Alexander Hugh, a real estate executive and a donor of Mayor Villaraigosa's re-election campaign, guilty of laundering money to the mayor. The Commission unanimously voted 4-0 to impose the maximum fine allowed under the law, $183,750, for campaign finance violations."
Here is an excerpt:
"This week the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission found Alexander Hugh, a real estate executive and a donor of Mayor Villaraigosa's re-election campaign, guilty of laundering money to the mayor. The Commission unanimously voted 4-0 to impose the maximum fine allowed under the law, $183,750, for campaign finance violations."
"Four ways to reform the initiative process on its 100th anniversary"
Jessica Levinson's piece, which originally appeared in the Los Angeles Daily Journal, is here.
Here is an excerpt:
"Moneyed interests now control the processes meant to give power to all of the citizens. What does one need to qualify a measure for the ballot? Money. Money won't guarantee a measure's success, but it will mean that members of the electoral must invest time and resources on a ballot measure, regardless of the propriety of the idea behind the measure."
Here is an excerpt:
"Moneyed interests now control the processes meant to give power to all of the citizens. What does one need to qualify a measure for the ballot? Money. Money won't guarantee a measure's success, but it will mean that members of the electoral must invest time and resources on a ballot measure, regardless of the propriety of the idea behind the measure."
"Contributors to 'Yes on Proposition 8' Are Not Exempt from Disclosure Laws"
Jessica Levinson's post on KCET.org is here.
Here is an excerpt:
"Democracy can sometimes be unpleasant. People disagree. They fight, they argue, and sometimes, they harass. Sometimes it is productive, sometime it is not. Sometimes we find our fellow voters and the causes they support or oppose -- with time or money -- to be repugnant. But our First Amendment stands as a protection for free discourse in a free society, particularly when political speech is involved. When behavior crosses the line, criminal prosecution is possible."
Here is an excerpt:
"Democracy can sometimes be unpleasant. People disagree. They fight, they argue, and sometimes, they harass. Sometimes it is productive, sometime it is not. Sometimes we find our fellow voters and the causes they support or oppose -- with time or money -- to be repugnant. But our First Amendment stands as a protection for free discourse in a free society, particularly when political speech is involved. When behavior crosses the line, criminal prosecution is possible."
"New Murals for Los Angeles?"
Jessica Levinson's post on KCET.org is here.
Angelenos should keep a watchful eye out to determine the level of discretion the city gives itself in deciding what type of art is permissible. One woman's treasured painting is another's piece of visual noise. By and large, when it comes to determining the permissible content of art, let us live by the adage of "each to her own," not "each to the discretion of the government."
Angelenos should keep a watchful eye out to determine the level of discretion the city gives itself in deciding what type of art is permissible. One woman's treasured painting is another's piece of visual noise. By and large, when it comes to determining the permissible content of art, let us live by the adage of "each to her own," not "each to the discretion of the government."
Monday, October 17, 2011
"California to Allow Political Contributions via Text Message"
Jessica Levinson's latest piece on KCET.org is here.
Here is an excerpt:
"Congratulations to California's political watchdog agency, the Fair Political Practices Commission, for voting last week to allow political contributions by text message. The commission voted 3-0 to approve the change. California is taking a big step toward bringing campaigns into the modern era."
Here is an excerpt:
"Congratulations to California's political watchdog agency, the Fair Political Practices Commission, for voting last week to allow political contributions by text message. The commission voted 3-0 to approve the change. California is taking a big step toward bringing campaigns into the modern era."
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
"California redistricting means many lawmakers might move"
Click here for the SacBee article.
Here are some excerpts:
For some sitting legislators, preparing to run for re-election in 2012 includes packing up boxes and hunting for a new home.
...
"The fact that lawmakers or would-be lawmakers are moving around certainly doesn't support the purpose of putting redistricting in the hands of an independent commission," said Jessica Levinson, a redistricting expert and professor at Loyola Law School.
Here are some excerpts:
For some sitting legislators, preparing to run for re-election in 2012 includes packing up boxes and hunting for a new home.
...
"The fact that lawmakers or would-be lawmakers are moving around certainly doesn't support the purpose of putting redistricting in the hands of an independent commission," said Jessica Levinson, a redistricting expert and professor at Loyola Law School.
"Proposed California regulations spell out gift-reporting requirements for elected officials"
Click here for the entire article in the SacBee.
Here are some excerpts:
The state political watchdog agency is set to consider next month adopting substantial changes to rules governing gifts to public officials and staff, including exemptions from disclosure for presents received from former spouses, dating partners and longtime friends.
Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, agreed that updating regulations to reflect current practices would be a positive move. But she cautioned that any exemptions "will have to be very specifically defined and interpreted in order to prevent endless haggling over what their exact definition is."
"It's difficult because you're drawing this line and you may either tweak them too much, so that people are going to having to disclose what their niece got them for the holidays, or you're exempting certain gifts that you would want to know something about," she said. "The ultimate question is: Is it giving the public enough information and is it preventing actual, apparent corruption?"
Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, agreed that updating regulations to reflect current practices would be a positive move. But she cautioned that any exemptions "will have to be very specifically defined and interpreted in order to prevent endless haggling over what their exact definition is."
"It's difficult because you're drawing this line and you may either tweak them too much, so that people are going to having to disclose what their niece got them for the holidays, or you're exempting certain gifts that you would want to know something about," she said. "The ultimate question is: Is it giving the public enough information and is it preventing actual, apparent corruption?"
Friday, October 7, 2011
"This Doggone Direct Democracy: Would California Be Better Off Without Ballot Initiatives?"
Jessica Levinson has a post on Zocalo Public Square here.
No—but California’s system is horribly flawed

In 1911, Governor Hiram Johnson enacted a series of reforms, including direct democracy, to increase the clout of the citizens across the state. At the time, the Southern Pacific Railroad possessed a stranglehold over our lawmakers. While their names are different—Amazon, Mercury Insurance, and PG&E instead of Southern Pacific Railroad—the sad irony of direct democracy is that it is now controlled by the very interests that it was designed to guard against.
What does one need to force citizens of the Golden State to vote on a pet project? In a word: money. While qualifying a measure for the ballot hardly guarantees the ultimate success of that measure, it does mean that Californians will be required to invest time and resources on a ballot measure, no matter how ludicrous the idea behind the measure is.
Ballot measures present voters with a binary choice; they can either vote “yes” or “no.” This is problematic for numerous reasons. To use but one example, when voters weigh in on budgetary issues they are asked merely, “Do you want this program or service?” or “Do you want lower fees or taxes?” The rational voter will say “yes” to both questions.
However, voters are not asked to reflect on the consequences of their answers. The question should be, “Do you want this program if it means we need to raise taxes or less money can be used for X?” or “Do you want lower taxes if it means less money will be available for Y?” Voters make choices with only part of the pertinent information, and then get irritated with their elected officials when those lawmakers have a difficult time implementing the will of the voters.
In sum, direct democracy presents our state with a number of challenges. The processes created a century ago to give power to the people, and to reduce the influence of special interests over our lawmakers, have now been hijacked by those very interests. Direct democracy also promotes a cycle of discontent by presenting voters with artificially isolated decisions.
Jessica Levinson is a visiting associate clinical professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles.
No—but California’s system is horribly flawed

In 1911, Governor Hiram Johnson enacted a series of reforms, including direct democracy, to increase the clout of the citizens across the state. At the time, the Southern Pacific Railroad possessed a stranglehold over our lawmakers. While their names are different—Amazon, Mercury Insurance, and PG&E instead of Southern Pacific Railroad—the sad irony of direct democracy is that it is now controlled by the very interests that it was designed to guard against.
What does one need to force citizens of the Golden State to vote on a pet project? In a word: money. While qualifying a measure for the ballot hardly guarantees the ultimate success of that measure, it does mean that Californians will be required to invest time and resources on a ballot measure, no matter how ludicrous the idea behind the measure is.
Ballot measures present voters with a binary choice; they can either vote “yes” or “no.” This is problematic for numerous reasons. To use but one example, when voters weigh in on budgetary issues they are asked merely, “Do you want this program or service?” or “Do you want lower fees or taxes?” The rational voter will say “yes” to both questions.
However, voters are not asked to reflect on the consequences of their answers. The question should be, “Do you want this program if it means we need to raise taxes or less money can be used for X?” or “Do you want lower taxes if it means less money will be available for Y?” Voters make choices with only part of the pertinent information, and then get irritated with their elected officials when those lawmakers have a difficult time implementing the will of the voters.
In sum, direct democracy presents our state with a number of challenges. The processes created a century ago to give power to the people, and to reduce the influence of special interests over our lawmakers, have now been hijacked by those very interests. Direct democracy also promotes a cycle of discontent by presenting voters with artificially isolated decisions.
Jessica Levinson is a visiting associate clinical professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles.
"Kinde Durkee's Alleged Fraud Continues to Take Its Toll on California Politicians"
Jessica Levinson's latest post on the Huffington Post is here.
The effects of the stunning fall from grace and subsequent arrest on September 2nd of veteran campaign treasurer Kinde Durkee continue to ripple throughout the California political community. Durkee is accused of stealing and misappropriating campaign funds from Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D). However, many more alleged victims have come forward. The reach of Durkee's alleged fraud is unprecedented. No less than 400 political committees were under her control.
The effects of the stunning fall from grace and subsequent arrest on September 2nd of veteran campaign treasurer Kinde Durkee continue to ripple throughout the California political community. Durkee is accused of stealing and misappropriating campaign funds from Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D). However, many more alleged victims have come forward. The reach of Durkee's alleged fraud is unprecedented. No less than 400 political committees were under her control.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
"Newly Drawn Congressional Districts Under Fire"
Jessica Levinson's latest pieces on KCET.org is here.
Here is an excerpt:
"Last week former Congressman George Radanovich (R) and four others asked the California Supreme Court to declare California's newly drawn congressional districts unconstitutional. The state's 53 congressional districts now hang in the balance. The suit asks the state's highest court to appoint a special master to draw new congressional boundaries."
Here is an excerpt:
"Last week former Congressman George Radanovich (R) and four others asked the California Supreme Court to declare California's newly drawn congressional districts unconstitutional. The state's 53 congressional districts now hang in the balance. The suit asks the state's highest court to appoint a special master to draw new congressional boundaries."
Thursday, September 29, 2011
"A New Redistricting Plan for Los Angeles County"
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."
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."
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."
Friday, August 26, 2011
"California workers wasted state funds, audit says"
Jessica Levinson was quoted in this piece in the SF Chronicle by Joe Garofoli.
Here is an excerpt:
"None of this is going to mean that California doesn't still have a structural deficit," said Jessica Levinson, a professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and political reform expert. "But at a time when people are trying to feed themselves or pay for college, any amount of waste is offensive."
Here is an excerpt:
"None of this is going to mean that California doesn't still have a structural deficit," said Jessica Levinson, a professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and political reform expert. "But at a time when people are trying to feed themselves or pay for college, any amount of waste is offensive."
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
"Dear California Lawmakers: Time to Disclose Your Budgets and Expenditures"
Jessica Levinson's latest post on KCET.org is here.
Here is an excerpt:
It is time to enact common sense rules that allow the public to see the money given to and spent by, their elected representatives. If there is truly confidential information, then it should be determined whether such information can be redacted.
Here is an excerpt:
It is time to enact common sense rules that allow the public to see the money given to and spent by, their elected representatives. If there is truly confidential information, then it should be determined whether such information can be redacted.
"San Bernardino County supervisors reverse course on naming buildings"
Jessica Levinson is quoted in this piece in the Contra Costa Times.
Here is an excerpt:
Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, said campaign-contribution limits for state legislators, who typically have a much larger constituent base and whose campaigns are more expensive to run, may not translate well for San Bernardino County's elected officials.
She said the FPPC may lack the resources to do what Rutherford is proposing.
"I think the FPPC is strapped. They're not awash in extra resources," Levinson said.
Still, the fact that the issue remains on the table in San Bernardino County and proposals are being made is a positive sign, Levinson said.
"I think it's a step in the right direction," she said.
Here is an excerpt:
Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, said campaign-contribution limits for state legislators, who typically have a much larger constituent base and whose campaigns are more expensive to run, may not translate well for San Bernardino County's elected officials.
She said the FPPC may lack the resources to do what Rutherford is proposing.
"I think the FPPC is strapped. They're not awash in extra resources," Levinson said.
Still, the fact that the issue remains on the table in San Bernardino County and proposals are being made is a positive sign, Levinson said.
"I think it's a step in the right direction," she said.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
"Want to give surplus money to California? Proposal would make it easier"
Jessica Levinson is quoted in this article in the Sacramento Bee.
Here is an excerpt:
Jessica Levinson, a political analyst and Loyola Law School professor, said that people tend to prefer giving to a specific cause, not a catch-all like state coffers.
"I think people like more control of their money," she said.
Levinson said she would not be surprised if LaMalfa's program eventually were used as a weapon to argue that people are overtaxed already.
Tax opponents could use it as ammunition if Californians are told they can pay higher taxes if they want to, but few do, she said.
"They'll say, 'Look, no one pays,' " Levinson said.
Friday, August 19, 2011
"How Much Does it Cost to be Mayor of Los Angeles?"
Jessica Levinson's latest post on KCET.org is here.
Here is an excerpt:
One of the problems with our current system is that fundraising prowess is used as a proxy for popularity. There is, of course, some correlation. However, fundraising ability, at most, demonstrates popularity with a certain segment of society, those who can and want to give campaign contributions.
So let's try to hear from all the candidates, and not make the balance of their bank accounts the only thing by which we measure their ability to lead the city. The best fundraiser may make the best mayor. But in the words of the Gershwins, "It ain't necessarily so."
Here is an excerpt:
One of the problems with our current system is that fundraising prowess is used as a proxy for popularity. There is, of course, some correlation. However, fundraising ability, at most, demonstrates popularity with a certain segment of society, those who can and want to give campaign contributions.
So let's try to hear from all the candidates, and not make the balance of their bank accounts the only thing by which we measure their ability to lead the city. The best fundraiser may make the best mayor. But in the words of the Gershwins, "It ain't necessarily so."
Monday, August 15, 2011
"Dear Californians, You Don't Matter"
Click here for a KCET article about California's endorsement of the National Popular Vote program. It would change the way we elect presidents.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)