Angelenos: United in Voter Apathy?

Mayoral candidates Eric Garcetti and Wendy Greuel are now in the final stretch of their campaign to become the next mayor of Los Angeles. Following the March 5 election, both candidates will seek to motivate voters to go to the polls. But what voters? According to preliminary numbers, only 16 percent, yes that's right, only one out of six voters went to the polls or mailed in ballots. In a city divided over so many issues, it seems elections have managed to unite 84 percent of eligible Angelenos in laziness, boredom, apathy, or all of the above.

In Los Angeles, the second most populous city in the nation, there are approximately 1.8 million eligible voters and 3.8 million residents. This means approximately 290,000 voters weighed in on decisions that will affect nearly four million people. Another way of thinking of this is that each voter voted for the interests of 12 people living in Los Angeles.

I cannot claim to have a comprehensive knowledge of the reasons behind this significantly depressed turnout, therefore I cannot seek to propose solutions to this problem. But I do know that by sitting out elections we are giving a few of our fellow Angelenos, those who cast ballots, a great deal of power over the face of our city government. In essence what we have is a city of residential representatives who chose our political representatives. But, of course, no one appointed or elected this first group -- they merely decided to take part in our democracy.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Candidate-Controlled Ballot Measure Committees: Corruption Potential?

Candidate-controlled ballot measure committees arguably represent a legal gray area. They live somewhere in between candidate campaigns and ballot measure campaigns. The Supreme Court has said that contributions to candidates can lead, or at least appear to lead, to corruption and can therefore be limited. The Court has also said that contributions to ballot measure committees cannot lead, or cannot appear to lead, to corruption because there is simply no one to corrupt. But what about those committees which are controlled by candidates?

On the one hand, these ballot measure committees are separate from candidate campaigns. Their purpose, at least ostensibly, is related to the passage of a ballot measure, not a candidate. (But it is important to note that these committees can be formed to support proposals which may or may not ever make their way to the ballot).

On the other hand, it strains common sense to believe that candidates who control these committees are not aware of the identity of contributors, and would not in some cases feel predisposed to express their gratitude for contributions. Under this view, the ability to give unlimited sums to these ballot measure committees represents a huge loophole in our state's system of contribution limits.

The Sacramento Bee recently published a piece detailing how committees use campaign contributions. It shows that contributions are sometimes used for questionable purposes, such as out-of-state fundraisers, contributions to non-profit organizations, and even a legislator's tuition. However, it is also the case that not all donations to candidate controlled ballot measure committees raise red flags.

Given the current legal landscape, it seems highly unlikely that states and localities will be able to impose limits on contributions to these candidate controlled ballot measure committees. The most practical step is to impose robust transparency and disclosure provisions. 

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Outside Groups, Teachers Union Fight to a Draw in L.A.

Quoted in this article in the WSJ. 

The teachers' union, United Teachers Los Angeles, threw resources at the races, sending volunteers to help get out the vote.

Mr. Zimmer's win shows "the teachers union is still powerful" in L.A., said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School and a local-government expert. "They may not have spent as much money, but they have a lot of foot soldiers."

Top 2 candidates for L.A. mayor share a lot in common

Quoted in this article in the Christian Science Monitor. 

Garcetti has positioned himself as the frontrunner, which you can tell in his ads because they are overwhelmingly positive,” says Jessica Levinson, professor of law at Loyola Law School and former director of political reform for the Center for Governmental Studies. “Greuel is capitalizing on her time as city controller by fashioning herself as the one who can clean the fiscal house.”

As Eight Candidates Vie to Be Los Angeles’s Next Mayor, Voters Tune Out

Quoted in this article in the Daily Beast.

Unless a candidate breaks 50 percent Tuesday, the two top contenders will face off May 21. “The expectations are it is Greuel and Garcetti in the runoff,” says Jessica Levinson, an associate clinical professor at Loyola Law School. “It is their ability to raise money, get endorsements, and garner independent expenditures on their behalf. They’re gathering the lion’s share of both.”

Garcetti, a Navy reservist and Rhodes scholar who served as council president between 2006 and 2012, is running as “a big-picture visionary,” says USC’s Schnur. His pitch is “I am going to create jobs and get the city moving,” adds Levinson.

...

[Re Greuel] “Her connections with the business community are probably better than any of the candidates’,” says Levinson.

Although Perry has been called a champion for local business interests, supported dozens of housing projects in the downtown core that led to a steady flow of jobs, and did more for Skid Row residents than any councilperson before her has done, she has had difficulty raising money and has been battered by attack ads from Greuel over long-ago financial problems. Perry admitted that she filed bankruptcy twice 20 years ago, but blamed the bulk of the problem on her former husband’s law practice.

“She has been fairly anemic in terms of fundraising,” said Levinson. “The name of the game in politics is fundraising prowess, and she hasn’t been able to match Greuel and Garcetti.”

..

[Re Kevin James] “He is the archetype of the outside candidate,” says Levinson. “The ad screams, ‘I want to go viral.’”

California lawmakers avoid campaign contribution limits with ballot measure accounts

Quoted in this article in the Sacramento Bee. 

... 

In addition to their campaign accounts, legislators create "ballot measure" committees of their own that set no limits on the amount donors can contribute. The committees allow legislators to ask special interests for far more than the $4,100 per election they can solicit for their own campaigns.

State regulations require the accounts to be used to support or oppose any ballot measure, including proposals still under development that might not pan out.

A Bee review found that some of the more than $2.7 million lawmakers collected through these committees in the last two years paid for items with tenuous connection to such measures, including thank-you gifts to donors, a lawmaker's tuition and contributions to nonprofits. In some cases, they also spent heavily on extravagant, out-of-state fundraisers.

Any company or other large donor interested in spending on a ballot measure can do so directly.

But after California voters approved campaign contribution limits in 2000, committees controlled by lawmakers became another vehicle for raising the large amounts of campaign cash needed for ballot measure campaigns.

Routing contributions through the candidate-controlled committees can "kill two birds with one stone" for donors, said Jessica Levinson, a campaign finance and ethics expert at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

"If you support the ballot measure and you want to just support the candidate because of just emotional support, or you want to support the candidate because you want to get something in return, it's kind of a win-win," Levinson said.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/10/5250295/california-lawmakers-avoid-campaign.html#mi_rss=Top%20Stories#storylink=cpy

Talking about the LA Mayoral Election

Looking forward to being on "Take Two" on KPCC this morning talking about the Los Angeles mayoral election.

Let's Stop Celebrating the 'Record' Number of Women in Congress

Here is my latest on HuffPo Politics. 

As we watch and wait for news about the sequester, I have seen an increase number of stories about how the sequester will affect women. Some of these news items mention the record number of women in Congress as if these two developments will cancel each other out. The thinking goes, I believe, that the sequester could disproportionately affect "women's issues" but that the "historic" number of women in the halls of Congress could work to prevent that from happening.

I am eagerly awaiting the day I do not read stories these stories. Both about women's issues and about the record number of women in Congress. This is not because I think there are too many female political representatives, quite the opposite.

In January the 113th Congress was sworn in. Amidst the predictions and prognostications for this Congressional session, came a number of stories about the historic number of women now in Congress. Specifically there are now 101 women in both chambers. This number includes three nonvoting members. There are 535 people in Congress total. Simple math tells us that less than 19 percent of our representatives are women. Women account for slightly more than 50 percent of the population of the United States.

By any stretch of the imagination women are still woefully underrepresented in the halls of Congress (not to mention board rooms and executive offices). Yes, given recent history women are "making progress," however, it is difficult to take too much solace in this lopsided number.

I am frankly deeply saddened that we must find cause for celebration when fewer than one in five representatives, but approximately one out of two members of the population, are women.

I am not someone who advocates voting for (or hiring or promoting) any individual solely because of their gender. Our nation faces real and serious issues; we need the best representatives advocating for their constituents, not the second or third best. 

What we need is a society in which we can vote for the best candidates and in which our representatives are actually (at least roughly) representative of the American population. There are many systemic reasons why they are not more and better female candidates, and I do not endeavor to outline them here.

My point is that we are quite far from that place in which roughly equal gender representation is accepted as the norm. This may be why I sometimes cringe when I hear about "women's issues" or how a particular issues (such as the sequester) affect women. Its time to start talking about how issues affect people, period.

Women's issues are conventionally used to mean issues related to healthcare (including issues related to abortion and childcare), education, and workplace issues such as fair hiring and pay equity. These are "people issues" not women's issues. Certainly laws related to abortions more directly affect women, but it speaks volumes about our society that basic issues related to educating children, and pay in the workplace are still considered to be mainly the province of women. A paradigmatic shift is in order.

So please forgive me if I fail to scream my excitement about the record number of women in Congress from the proverbial rooftops. The day there is nothing to write on this topic because it is expected that fifty percent of the population will account for roughly fifty percent of our representatives, and that "women's issues" simply become "issues," is the day I will celebrate.

California Supreme Court Considers the Legality of Banning "Pot Shops"

You can watch my appearance on SoCal Connected discussing the California Supreme Court's upcoming decision regarding medical marijuana here. 

Under California law, it's legal to buy medical marijuana, but it's not so under federal law. That's why some localities have banned pot shops.

California's highest court heard arguments Tuesday over whether cities can do that. In essence, the court will decide, when it comes to medical marijuana, whether federal or state laws prevail here in California, and whether cities can regulate dispensaries through zoning laws.

Medical Marijuana, Regulation, and the California Supreme Court

This week I was honored to be on "SoCal Connected" to speak with Madeleine Brand about the California Supreme Court's consideration of whether localities can prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries (watch it here). Our state's highest court is wading into a confused thicket of laws concerning marijuana, and more specifically medical marijuana. Here is a quick synopsis of the legal landscape.

Under federal law, marijuana is a schedule 1 drug. This means it is an illegal narcotic and there is no accepted use for it. Recently a federal appeals court rejected a suit seeking to change that classification. It is now up to Congress and the Drug Enforcement Administration to act. The federal government could take a number of different routes. First, it could classify medical marijuana. Second, it could legalize medical marijuana. Third, it could reduce penalties for the use and/or possession of medical marijuana.

Next we move on to California State laws. In 1996 the voters passed Prop 215, commonly known as the Compassionate Use Act. That law, among other things, allows doctors to recommend that certain patients use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Patients with such a recommendation can possess and grow marijuana for medicinal purposes. The law was later amended to allow collective distribution of medical marijuana. Still, the contours of the law are far from clear. 

In the local level, cities and states have four primary options. First, they can prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries (maybe -- more on that in a moment). Second, they can impose moratoriums on such dispensaries. Third, they can impose regulations, like zoning laws, which restrict such dispensaries. Fourth, they can impose no local regulations. To date many localities have taken the first route and banned medical marijuana dispensaries. These include Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, and Culver City. As I have previously noted in Los Angeles voters will likely face three different ballot measures dealing with medical marijuana this May.

This week the California Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the issue of whether localities have the power to ban medical marijuana dispensaries in light of State laws, primarily the Compassionate Use Act, which address this topic. 

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Debating the Mayoral Debates

In Los Angeles, elections are non-partisan and, despite the state's new top-two law, send two candidates to a run-off unless a one garners more than 50 percent of the primary vote. Considering the competitiveness this year -- five frontrunners seen in dozens of debates -- it is assumed two will move from the March 5 primary to the May 21 general.

Therefore, I'm curious how voters will decide which candidates to send to the May election. After all, what do we really know about them?

Judging by the number of debates -- some 30 of them -- we should know a lot about them. However, having watched a number of these increasingly predictable forums, I'm simply not sure if the voters are able glean tons of useful information.

It brings up questions. Are there new and better ways for candidates to reach the voters? Can't we do better? I'm not convinced that the debates so far do much more than allow the candidates to hit their talking points in different forums. Many of those talking points are, quite understandably, less than surprising by the time the 30th debate rolls around.

But there are certain groups that have benefitted from the dozens of mayoral debates held over the past couple of months. Those are the groups hosting the event. Often those groups, or the interests supporting those groups, are able to extract pledges and promises from the candidates.

Perhaps if we made the debates fewer and further between they would feel more like special events worth watching or listening to. In addition, making debates more rare would reduce the repetition we hear in the candidates' answers.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Will localities in California be able to ban medical marijuana dispensaries?

I spoke with Madeleine Brand about this question on an episode of SoCal Connected.

The Case of Lady Gage and California Political Fundraising

Wondering if legislators ever go back to their offices and "just dance?" Don't think your elected officials have a "poker face?" Dubious as to whether your lawmakers were "born this way?" Curious as to whether, just like us, our lawmakers sometimes have a "bad romance?" 

We may not know the answer to those questions, but we do know that State Senators Ricardo Lara and Ron Calderon were at Staples Center this past weekend to take in a Lady Gage concert. Is this official business?

Well, it's officially a fundraising event for them. Lara is running for re-election to the Senate and Calderon is running for state controller next year. The two democratic senators were slated to hold a joint campaign fundraiser at the concert. Contributors who gave $3,900 were rewarded with a ticket to the concert and a night in a nearby hotel.

Lara and Calderon's joint fundraiser at Lady Gaga's concert likely says less about their devotion (or lack thereof) to the performer than it does about their desire to raise large campaign donations at popular venues. In our current system, in which campaign contributions to candidates are limited, but expenditures by candidate campaigns are not, the third for campaign funds is all but unquenchable. Put another way, once candidates get on the fundraising treadmill, it is difficult to see when and how they will ever get off that treadmill.

The seemingly endless fundraising race is not, of course, the fault of the candidates and officeholders. The current legal framework breeds the almost ceaseless need for campaign cash. This actually harms not only the public, but also officeholders who spend so much of their time fundraising rather than legislating or governing.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

The Phil Mickelson effect: Do millionaires flee states with high taxes?

Quoted in this article in the Christian Science Monitor. 

Here is an excerpt:

The issue is a politically sensitive one for California. In November, state voters passed Proposition 30, which raises tax rates 1 to 3 percent for those making more than $250,000 a year. The initiative is integral to California's new budget, which shows a surplus. But along with Washington's "fiscal cliff" solution – which also will raise taxes on the rich – there are questions about how California's millionaires will respond.

“If there is anything that can be termed a mass exodus, then I think that will be symbolically very important,” says Jessica Levinson...

Experts acknowledge that any migration effect is hard to gauge.

Will Medical Marijuana Be Legal in California?

Looking forward to being on SoCal Connected tomorrow (Monday 2/4/13) to discuss this issue.

"Jessica Levinson sits in for Ian Masters: Political Reform in California"

In case you missed it, here is a link to the radio show I guest hosted on KPFK. I had a great time discussing political reform issues with Ann Ravel, Chair of the Fair Political Practices Commission, Kathay Feng, Executive Director of California Common Cause, and Torey Van Oot, reporter for the Sacramento Bee. 

Should We Just Let Doctors and Legislators Do Their Jobs?

Having just recovered from a nasty bout of the flu, I have spent altogether too much time watching television, and thanks to the wonders of TIVO, a type of television I rarely watch otherwise: commercials. I learned some important lessons as a result of this experience. Apparently I would be happier, healthier, and far more productive if I simply started taking more prescription medication. Many of these medications have potentially terrifying side-effects, but I assume that there must be other medications for those as well. In sum, all I need to do is to ask my doctor, and then I will quickly be on the road to being a happier, healthier me.

This kind of patient-consumer choice about my medical care got me thinking about our political representatives. If pharmaceutical companies are to suggesting that I ask (and presumably to forcefully ask) my health care professional about my need for various prescription drugs, then what is to prevent me from directing my government representatives about my need for various programs, services, and tax increases?

In both cases am I simply being a smart consumer? An informed advocate for myself?

In the case of medical care I am a firm believer in asking questions, educating yourself, and being your own advocate. Should the same be true in the case of political representation? It's my representative's job to make decisions for the public good, and they often use my money (in the form of taxes and fees) to do that. It seems the same set of directives -- to inquire, educate, and advocate -- would also be useful to employ in the political arena.

But in both cases the patient or constituent may want to recognize that at a certain point it is beneficial for all involved to respect the expertise of the health care provider or political representative. We shouldn't try to bully doctors into giving us prescriptions for medications we don't need simply because the people on the commercials just look so darn happy. Similarly, we should let our representatives do their jobs, acknowledging that their job is to legislate for the best interests of their constituents, and our job is to advocate for our best interests and determine whether or not they have done so effectively. And in general we certainly shouldn't bypass our representatives, enacting legislation through the initiative process (legislation which we think will make us happier, but too often has unintended side effects). Sometimes the solution is worse than the ailment.

As patients and constituents we must always balance the need to be alert and informed with the need to allow those with expertise to do their jobs.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org.

Will Pot Shops Be Legal in Los Angeles?

Welcome to Los Angeles where pot shops are legal, maybe, or used to be, or might be in the future. In the past the City of Angels has tried, and seemingly failed, to regular or prohibit pot shops. The City Council banned pot dispensaries, but then lifted the ban. There are approximately 700 to 1,000 pot shops in the City.

Because this is Los Angeles, it looks like the voters will weigh in. But because it is Los Angeles they might not. Welcome to local politics.

Thus far the City Council has failed to put forward specific plans. Two groups, both medical marijuana advocates, are proposing competing ballot initiatives. One measure would allow people who have passed a background check to sell medical marijuana and would increase taxes on medical marijuana by approximately 20%. The increased tax revenue would like pay for the increased cost of regulation, and is also the reason the measure must go to a vote of the people. Owners and operators of those businesses would also have to abide by other requirements, such limited operating hours as zoning laws. Proponents of the measure contend that because of the zoning requirements, which would keep pot shops away from schools and parks, the number of pot shops in the city would be about 150.

The other measure would allow only those pot shops that were open before September 2007, when the City imposed a ban on new shops, to stay in business. That would mean about 100 pot shops would be allowed to operate in the City. Because this measure does not include a tax increase, it may not be put to a vote of the people.

Law makers and enforces in Los Angeles still have to contend with competing state and federal laws. Under state law it is legal to possess medical marijuana and for pot shops to sell it. However, under federal law it is still illegal to possess and sell marijuana.

It will be interesting to see how much of an issue this topic becomes as the race to become the next mayor of Los Angeles heats up.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Will Money Matter in the Los Angeles Mayoral Race?

Depending on who you believe, there are five top tier candidates vying to become the next mayor of Los Angeles. Two are women. One of those women is African American. Four are Democrats; one is a Republican.
Running for the highest elected office in the City of Angels is not an inexpensive undertaking. The question is how much fundraising and spending will matter. Certainly money helps candidates get their message out to the voters. This is why the Supreme Court has long equated money with speech.

But beyond the opportunity to reach the voters, does spending beyond a certain point sway the voters? There may, however, be a tipping point, or a saturation level at which more increased spending on political advertisements does not equal an increase in support. In addition, it may matter whether a candidate is spending her own funds, or the funds of contributors. In other words, candidates who have raised money from others may have a base of support, even if that base is only comprised of people who can and want to give money to political candidates.

A second question relates to how much weight the voters give to outside spending. Spending by so-called independent groups can fill a candidate's fundraising gap. But do the voters listen to political communications by candidates more than they do to communications by outside groups? Or do voters not differentiate?

Thus far in the current mayor race those two questions are at play. Republican Kevin James, who has never held public office, spent more than any other mayor candidate in the fourth quarter of 2012. However, he raised much, much less than the top tier candidates. James raised slightly more than $42,000. City Controller Wendy Greuel raised $672,230, and City Councilman Eric Garcetti raised $727,503 during that period.

James does have the support of an independent committee, which thanks to recent court decisions can raise and spend unlimited sums. This spending could play a key role in James' bid for mayor, even though legally he is not allowed to direct that outside spending. The group may run negative advertisements against the other contenders.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Political Committee Funds: Not for Love Interests or Business Startups

A word to the wise: Just when you thought "silly season" ended with the election, it did not.

Last week, California's political watchdog agency imposed two fines on treasurers of political committees for misuse of funds. In the first case the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) fined a treasurer of a committee formed to support the decriminalization of prostitution for loaning dancer at a strip club money. Strangely enough (insert sarcasm here), a treasurer of a political committee cannot use committee's funds to make loans to love interests.

The loan was apparently to pay expenses related to a family law case and plastic surgery. Again, oddly enough, those expenses do not count as proper expenses for the political committee formed to decriminalize prostitution.

The FPPC acted quickly and fined Luke Briet almost $10,000. The apparent loan of $3,000 has not been repaid.

But the fun doesn't stop there. The FPPC also fined another treasurer, Michael Gunter, of a different political committee. Gunter's violation was based on using $10,000 of the committee's funds to start his own business. He was the treasurer for the Californians for Privacy Committee -- I'm guessing he would have preferred to keep many of his activities private (ba-dum ching!).

None of these violations rise to the level of now-infamous campaign treasurer Kinde Durkee. She, thanks in large part to the investigation and subsequent actions by the FPPC, was recently sentenced to eight years in prison and ordered to pay $10.5 million in restitution to her victims.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Did Super PACs Make a Difference in the 2012 Election?

Across the country during the last election cycle, billions of dollars in outside spending were put into races, and right here in Southern California, there is one race that appears to exemplify how much that influence can have on campaigns.

Incumbent Congressman Joe Baca recently lost to another Democrat, State Senator Negrete McLeod. Baca and McLeod had raised less than $1 million between the two of them. But then a funny thing happened on the way to Election Day. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg poured more than $ 3 million of his very sizable personal fortune (estimated at about $25 billion) into the San Bernardino County race.

Bloomberg's Super PAC, Independence USA, spent money on television advertisements and campaign mailers. Why? Well, Bloomberg is a staunch gun control advocate and Baca is a pro-gun Democrat.

While we may never know the true effects of outside campaign spending in races throughout the country, the Baca-McLeod race points to the strong influence that outside spending can have in some instances. In this case Bloomberg's Super PAC spent more than three times the amount raised by both candidate campaigns combined. It is possible that Independence USA simply grabbed the biggest microphone in the race and the people listened.

In addition, it is notable that paid forms of communication (television advertisements and mailers) are still the primary mode of electoral communication. Although members of the electorate may increasingly get their information on the internet, they are still watching and reading advertisements that cost money.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org.

New court rules; clinic break-in

Quoted in this one in the Press Enterprise.


Picketing and proselytizing are prohibited at San Bernardino County courthouses under an order issued Nov. 19 by Presiding Judge Marsha Slough.

Does the new order trample the First Amendment?

The central courthouse has been picketed by people protesting judges’ decisions or county supervisors’ actions. Did that prompt the ban? No, picketers were not the target, Slough said.

The order came in response to complaints from people waiting in lines to get into the Rancho Cucamonga courthouse who were being aggressively proselytized by people for religious views.

Waits to get through security checkpoints can be as long as half an hour or more, and people who have business with the court were a captive audience, she said.

In order not to target any group or viewpoint, the order simply bars threatening, confronting, interfering with or harassing anyone entering any county courthouse.

I spoke to two First Amendment experts. Both said the order appears within constitutional bounds.

“Whenever the government makes restrictions on who’s speaking … we’re very nervous about censorship,” said Jessica Levinson, professor at Loyola Law School.

But if the order is neutral regarding the content of the speech, the court can place restrictions on “time, place or manner,” she said.

Terry Francke, general counsel for open-government advocates Californians Aware, said courts are allowed to control expressive activities on property they own. But that doesn’t extend to the public sidewalk.

Slough’s order applies just to the walkways where people gather to enter the courthouses. Volunteers who monitor the lines and help people with directions will watch for violators; deputies are in charge of enforcement.

Did Our Electoral Reforms Make Any Difference?

This month Californians experienced a full round of elections under our new open primary, top-two election system and our new legislative lines, drawn for the first time in the state's history by an independent redistricting commission.

So did the systems fulfill their purposes? With respect to the top-two system, the terrific Joe Mathews recently said "no."

Under the top two system any voter can vote for any candidate in the primary election, regardless of party affiliation, and the top-two voter-getters, again regardless of party affiliation proceed to the general election. Instead of our typical primary elections in which we nominated a party representative to proceed to the general election, we have one large "open primary." And instead of our typical general election in which party nominees face off, we have something more like a runoff election in which only the top two candidates compete.

The purpose of the top-two system was to elect more moderate candidates. The idea was that the winner of each election would have to appeal to the entire electorate twice, and would therefore have to appeal to voters from both major parties.

First, there were 28 races in which two candidates from the same party competed against each other. The best-known example of these intra-party fights may be the scorched-earth contest between incumbent Democratic Congressmen Bran Sherman and Howard Berman. Sherman ultimately came out ahead in that race. Second, Democrats now control a super majority of both legislative state houses. An increase in the number of registered Democrats in California is also an important factor in allowing Democrats to obtain a two-thirds majority in the state assembly and state senate, but as Mathews pointed out, this could show that the top-two election system has not led to less partisanship or more independents in the legislature.

We also held a full round of elections under new legislative maps drawn by an independent redistricting commission rather than legislators. One of the purposes of the creation of the independent redistricting commission was to eliminate the ability of incumbents to draw legislative lines in order to keep their seats safe, instead of drawing legislative legislatives lines to keep communities of interest together.

Shortly after the election, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) issued a reportdetailing a number of interesting facts, some of which can be attributed, at least in part, to the new reforms. The biggest sign on how they made a difference was the competitiveness, which led -- in what Mathews and I seem to both agree -- to more costly elections.

Additionally, Mathews may well be correct (as he is about so many other things) that the top two is worth ditching. He points to a lack of increased engagement in state races, a lack of benefit to independents and moderates, and no change to partisanship or number of incumbents. In addition, as Mathews explains, and as I have written about in depth, the top-two system all but guarantees that third party candidates will not appear on the general election ballot.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org.

Jessica Levinson sits in for Ian Masters: Political Reform in California

Here is a link to the radio program I guest hosted on 11/26/12 on KPFK.

We covered topics related to politics and political reform in California. My terrific guests were Ann Ravel, Chair of the Fair Political Practices Commission, Kathay Feng, Executive Director of California Common Cause, and Torey Van Ooot, political reporter for the Sacramento Bee.

Budgets, Pensions & Political Reform...

Looking forward to being on KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO today around 11:55 am talking about the budget, and then guest hosting a show on KPFK 90.7 FM Los Angeles / 98.7 FM Santa Barbara at 5pm today w/ guestsAnn Ravel Kathay Feng & Torey Van Oot.

Viewpoints: Initiatives are controlled by backers with bankrolls

I published this Op-Ed in today's Sacramento Bee.

Here is the first paragraph:

As we enter a state commonly known as campaign withdrawal, we can look back and sigh, knowing, with few exceptions, who we elected to represent us. But we didn't just elect representatives; we also enacted laws, on our own.

How To Oust A Congressman, SuperPAC-Style

Interviewed for this story on NPR.

Time for 'Educational Trips' for Our Elected Officials

As the holidays approach many of you may feel like getting out of town. So do our elected officials.

Many take this time before the legislative session begins to go on so-called "educational" trips. In and of itself this could, at least in some cases, be a good idea: Officials can learn about various business and environmental issues. But the wrinkle is that special interests groups largely, if not exclusively, fund many of these trips, meaning they are often categorized as gifts.

The educational experience appears to vary widely among the trips. In some cases our officials meet with foreign officials; in other cases they appear to spend much of their time on recreational activities -- like golf.

Our elected officials should not be expected to stay home and/or avoid any contact with lobbyists and special interests as they often serve important purposes. However, it is of course important to remember that almost by definition these lobbyists and special interests are seeking to obtain favorable outcomes from elected officials and those officials must at times regulate those interest groups. Close relationships can, in other words, create or appear to create conflicts of interest.

Appearances are important. When it appears that elected officials obtain perks like trips paid for by the very interests seeking to influence them, the public can reasonably have questions about the propriety of those arrangements.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org.

Money Out / Voters In Conference

Here is a link to a portion of my speech. (A better link to the full discussion to follow shortly). My charge was to detail the history of campaign finance law, in 20 minutes or less.

Welcome to the New California -- Politically Speaking

Hello, readers. Welcome to the "new California." Californians have now lived through a full election cycle with two big election reforms.

First, Californians recently approved redistricting by an independent redistricting commission. That, for the first time in the state's history, gave an independent (or bipartisan, or better yet: multi-partisan) group of citizens the power to draw our state's district lines -- now gone are the days of legislators drawing district lines to ensure their safe re-election.

Second, in 2010 Californians approved open primary, top-two elections. That means any voter now can vote for any candidate in the primary election, regardless of party affiliation. In the general election (which is really more like a run-off election) the top-two vote-getters competed (one good example: two congressional Republican candidates faced off in a traditionally blue district of San Bernardino County. Learn more here).

Shortly after the election the Public Policy Institute of California crunched the numbers and published a report which sheds some light on the effect of those electoral reforms.

One prediction came true: On the average, elections were more competitive. Those making this prediction (myself included) hardly went out on a limb. In 2001, California legislators drew district lines, in large part, to ensure their safe re-election. Once an independent redistricting commission took over and ignored incumbency protection concerns and instead drew lines to do things like maintain communities of interest, it a virtual sure thing that at least some races would become more competitive.

Similarly, under our old system, because of registration numbers, the winner of a primary election was all but assured success in the general election. Put another way, there were a good number of districts, which were either so heavily Democratic or Republican, that the majority party's primary winner did not need to wage much of a battle in the general election. The top-two election changed that, and we saw competitive races between members of the same party in a number of districts.

We may want to promote more competition in our elections for a number of reasons, but with increased competition comes increased cost. Anyone who lives in a competitive district no doubt heard their share of radio advertisements and received a plethora of campaign mailers. Those campaign advertisements, and others, cost money.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Redistricting, SuperPacs had large influence on election in California

Quoted in this one in the Daily News.

Here is an excerpt:

"The redistricting (process) favored Democrats," said Jessica Levinson, associate clinical professor at Loyola Law School.

But it also resulted in "costly and competitive races," she added.

...

But California may quickly lose many of its veteran members if other states don't follow suit, and also do away with politically-charged line drawing.

"That's the danger," Levinson. "Unless every state does redistricting with an independent commission, California risks losing its senior members."

Calif. proposition results mixed, liberal or not

Quoted in this one in the SF Chronicle.

Here is an excerpt:

While Californians were approving higher taxes to fund schools and state programs, they were also voting to maintain the status quo by rejecting two ideologically charged initiatives, a liberal measure to repeal the death penalty and a conservative attempt to enfeeble labor unions politically.
... 
One message is that "public opinion on the issues takes a long time to change," said Jessica Levinson, an associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. She said voters were presented with a different question on three strikes - whether to scale it back while retaining the core of the law - than the up-or-down decision they faced on the death penalty.
...
In general, said Levinson, the Loyola associate professor, "money spent against ballot measures is much more effective than money spent in favor of them."

Controversy Brewing in Huntington Park Over Water District, City Attorney

Here is a link to my appearance on SoCal Connected. 

Here are a few excerpts:

Gonzales: But soon the chorus of jeers turned towards this man, the city attorney, Francisco Leal.
...
Gonzales: Francisco Leal has made millions as an attorney for Huntington Park and other southeast L.A. cities. He's moved from town to town for years, often serving as lobbyist and a contract city attorney. And sometimes, controversy followed him. In 2005, he was terminated from his job as lobbyist and city attorney of Commerce. He settled with the city and agreed to pay $70,000. Questions about his firm have been raised in places like Lynwood and Alhambra, but not in Huntington Park. Since 2000, the city has paid Leal’s various firms over $4 million to be a lobbyist, the city attorney, and legal counsel for the city's redevelopment department.
...
Levinson: So we have one person who is simultaneously a consultant, which is an undefined grey term in this situation, a lobbyist that seems to look like a consultant, and an attorney. And it’s just not only the same person wearing all these hats, but wearing them for various parties that are all involved in the same litigations. There are too many relationships going on here.
...
Levinson: Lawyers put things in writing all the time, this is kind of our bread and butter. Not all of what we do is just a handshake or a wink and a nod, particularly when it comes to ethical duties, when it comes to duties of loyalty, when it comes to confidential information.