by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

I do some web work for No on 98.

A while back, I mentioned a lawsuit against AG Jerry Brown regarding the ballot title for prop 98, "EMINENT DOMAIN. LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY." You see, that really doesn't clearly articulate what Prop 98 does.  But, let's just think about the amount of people this actually impacts. Eminent domain? A few hundred per year. Rent Control? Several hundred thousand.

So which one should be in the ballot title? Hmmm. Nonetheless, the judge ruled that Brown, while perhaps wrong, didn't actually overstep his authority. Under the law, being wrong isn't enough, but rather you must be super-wrong. So wrong that you didn't have authority to be that wrong. So, when you get that June ballot in the mail, for prop 98 it will say "Eminent Domain. Limits on Government Authority." despite the fact that it will impact far more people through its rent control provisions than through eminent domain.  

You know, the thing that I don't get here is why Brown wouldn't include it. After all, it's pretty clear he has designs on reliving the 80's by running for governor again. You'd think he wouldn't try to intentionally mess with the tenants organizations.  But, alas, the enigma that is Jerry Brown continues.

by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Gary A. Patton
Executive Director
Planning and Conservation League

The Governor wants the Legislature to authorize a new bond issue for dam construction. In fact, he wants the people of the state to borrow more than $9 billion dollars, and to spend at least $5.6 billion dollars of that to build more dams. The measure would also provide funding for a Peripheral Canal or Peripheral Pipe.

While the Governor wants to spend big money on new, economically inefficient and environmentally destructive dam projects, he doesn't want the voters to know. Hidden in the text of the Governor's proposal is an unusual provision that would essentially repeal the normal procedures that ensure that voters receive an impartial ballot title and summary. Instead, the summary would emphasize "environmental restoration projects,"
even though the vast majority of the funding would be to construct dams!

by juls [courtesy of Calitics: Soapblox California - Front Page]

Kate Folmar starts out her article today with this line:

Californians aren't quite sure how long legislative term limits are. But they like them. Then again, they're willing to change them.

The statement is an accurate reading of the PPIC poll Brian wrote about earlier.  Only about 1% of Californians could accurately state the maximum years legislators are allowed to serve (14 years).  PPIC then informed them of the current rules and 61% of likely voters indicated their support for the current limits.  Then they read them the official ballot title and summary, the one that has been subject to some controversy.  53% of likely voters said they would vote for the initiative, including majorities from both Democrats and Republicans.

So what does this mean?