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.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By David Dayen
d-day

So, let's see. You're the New York Times. You're a national paper, but you have a significant readership in California, so you want to cover the Left Coast every now and again. You're not on the ground in California, but you have a few reporters hither and yon, and press releases a go-go from the Governor's office. There's a space in the paper for a California story, something that can show to the world the innovation and forward-thinking at work in the nation's largest state.

So you look over what they've done for the last few days.

On the one hand, the Governor, just months from failing in a quest to massively expand health care to millions of uninsured Californians, has decided to go in the complete opposite direction and force Medi-Cal enrollees to fill out all kinds of paperwork in the hopes of knocking thousands off the rolls to save money. So reports the San Francisco Chronicle:

“Administration officials expect the rule will result in 122,000 people being dropped from the rolls next year, saving the state $92 million - money that the governor's staff has already counted against the state's deficit.

by David Dayen [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

by David Dayen [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

The Secretary of State set up a page listing uncounted ballots from last night's election, including provisionals, vote-by-mail, and "damaged" ballots.  It's incomplete so far, but some things jumped out:

? San Diego County has 160,000 uncounted ballots.  That could absolutely affect CA-50 (where there's a 100-vote split for Clinton right now) and CA-53 (200-vote split) and be a potential swing of two delegates.

? Overall, 356,000 ballots are uncounted, and that doesn't even include LA County or absentees that were postmarked on time but haven't arrived.  Frank Russo sez there could be up to TWO MILLION ballots out.

? There's really no way of knowing who these benefit; last-day deciders broke for Clinton in some exit polls, and the 100,000-plus provisionals may never be counted.

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

I feel a bit left out of this whole Obama/Hillary back and forth. Like many Californians, I voted by mail and did so nearly three weeks ago. I voted for John Edwards.
 
Some friends, who knew I already voted, asked me if I wish I could retrieve my ballot. I do not. I have been an Edwards supporter since I first met him in 2002 when I was asked by a DC friend to take Edwards around the CDP convention after his speech and introduce him to folks. Super Bowl weekend in 2004 I campaigned for him in Columbia, South Carolina. And, this cycle, I was again firmly on board. I felt and still feel that he most closely represents my hopes for the future of my country.
 
That does not mean that I am not proud that our party's nominee will be a woman or an African American. I am. And, I think both Obama and Clinton are fine people. But, I believe in what Dr. King said about reaching a point in time where we judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin (or, by extension, gender). I take Dr. King's comments to mean that we should aspire to be a country where we should consider the positions of the candidates rather than their outward characteristics to determine who to support. I would no more vote for a candidate because of that candidate's race, religion, ethnicity or gender than I would vote against a candidate for those reasons.

by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

Barack Obama has decisively won the South Carolina primary over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. At this point, all that remains to be seen is how far Clinton will fall back of Obama. Edwards likely third place finish will surely be a big disappointment.

So, how does this affect California's February 5 primary? Surely there will be some kind of SC bump for Obama, but will it be enough to challenge Clinton who was running solidly ahead as of last week's Field Poll. And with vote-by-mail turnout being pretty low up to this point, were people waiting for this election before casting their votes. What do you think? Did this affect your vote?