WILL RECALL ELECTIONS GET A LOT SIMPLER?

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS

FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2024, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“WILL RECALL ELECTIONS GET A LOT SIMPLER?”

        If anything seemed like a lock, a sure thing for passage during last year’s state legislative session, it was recall reform. The need for changes in the way voters can rid themselves of officials they no longer want was one key takeaway from the abortive 2021 attempt to oust Gov. Gavin Newsom.

 

        Not that the recall attempt hurt Newsom. It gave him both a chance to campaign for an extra few months and the added status of having crushed a movement to oust him. Traditionally, both have strengthened candidates who survive such attacks.

 

        But recall reform went nowhere last year, and its fate this year is essentially unknown. Both last spring and right now, the recall reform efforts have been spearheaded by another recall survivor, Democratic state Sen. Josh Newman of Fullerton.

 

        Newman was recalled in 2018, but then won his seat back two years later. He suggested a straight-up yes-or-no vote for recalls, with a special election to follow when the yes side wins.

 

        This would differ somewhat from many local recall rules, as when voters in San Francisco in 2022 nixed then-District Attorney Chesa Boudin, with his successor named by the city/county mayor, London Breed. That system is unique because San Francisco is the state’s only locale where city and county lines are nearly identical.

 

        His last recall reform effort having failed, Newman is back with a new plan, focusing especially on gubernatorial recalls, of which California has seen two in the last quarter century – Newsom was not recalled, but in 2003, then-Gov. Gray Davis was emphatically removed, with muscleman actor Arnold Schwarzenegger taking his place after coming in first in a field of 135 replacement candidates.

 

        In both the Davis and Newsom recalls, voters faced two questions: First, did they want the incumbent removed, and second, who should replace him, with no limit on the number of replacement candidates.

 

        Almost two decades later, the no side easily won and the votes for potential replacements became largely irrelevant. Meanwhile, leading replacement candidate Larry Elder drew 3.5 million votes, or 28 percent of the 12.8 million cast. But more than 5 million recall election voters did not bother voting for a replacement candidate.

        Seeing all this, Newman proposed a plan last year to have ousted governors who have served less than two years replaced by the lieutenant governor until a special election can be held. Only one question – the recall itself – would face voters in future elections.      

It was somewhat surprising that this planned state constitutional amendment got nowhere in the Legislature, as it would have made lawmakers a bit more difficult to recall than they are now.

It’s anyone’s guess what will befall Newman’s newest measure, which quickly passed the state Senate in a 31-7 vote. It awaits action in the Assembly, where Newman’s previous effort was killed.

Like his previous effort, the new measure – a proposed

state constitutional amendment that, if passed, would appear as a proposition on the November ballot – would set up a system considerably more democratic than today’s.

 

        Under today’s system, if Newsom had lost on the first question, the yes-or-no vote on dumping him, Elder would have replaced him even if Elder got far less votes than the no’s recorded on question one, which were essentially votes to keep Newsom.

 

        Newman claims his new plan, which allows the lieutenant governor to take over if a governor is removed, is far more democratic. He also claims it would keep recalls personal, preventing them from being diverted into “political opportunism and gamesmanship.”

 

        Of course, it would also take some of the fun out of recalls, which have featured candidates from former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer to Republican Kevin Kiley, an former state assemblyman who used his recall candidacy to propel him into a congressional seat. There were also gadfly entertainer Angelyne and Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Hewitt.

 

        Removing lists of potential replacements from recall ballots would make them far less entertaining and engaging, but also more democratic and serious-minded. So, for sure, if Newman’s latest proposal makes the fall ballot, future recall elections would be a lot less flashy than the last few have been, but also far sounder.     

-30-
    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It"

 

ZOOM LEARNING GETS ITS GRADE: F FOR FLOP

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2022, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
     “ZOOM LEARNING GETS ITS GRADE: F FOR FLOP”

 

        The official results of more than a year of full- and part-time Zoom learning are in, and the practice that became almost universal for schoolchildren in 2020 has gotten its final grade: F for flop.

 

        Here are a few of the most salient facts that emerge from state data on student performance in the 2020-21 school year that ended last June:

 

        Less than 25 percent of California students took standardized tests in 2021, one result of the disengagement brought on by scarcity of in-person teaching. Graduation rates dropped by 1 percent, with Latinos almost doubling the overall drop and Black student graduation rates falling four times that much. By the end of the last school year, only 83.6 percent of students who started high school four years earlier were able to get diplomas. And the younger students were, the worse they fared with Zoom.

 

        Some realities of Zoom learning, mostly done via laptop computers passed out by schools, were obvious long before the figures were in.

 

        Students were less involved than when taught in person. They could simply walk away from their computers and not participate in classes, and in millions of cases there would be no one present to steer them back. Kids could eat all they wanted during class and phones would ring, too, distracting them further.

 

        The results of all this were seen in student performances on standardized tests. After five years of steady improvement, test scores declined for the least privileged groups of students, mainly Blacks and Latinos.

 

        These were the conclusions of the Smarter Balanced assessment test scores, even though so many fewer students actually took the tests in 2021. They were canceled in 2020. The small turnout for the tests probably indicates that only the most involved pupils were included – and scores dropped even for them.

 

        English language arts results fell by 4 percent from 2019 to 2021, with just 48 percent meeting or exceeding national standards (another term for passing the test), and by 5 percent in math, with just 33 percent meeting or exceeding standards, compared with 38 percent two years earlier – already a lousy performance.

 

        Pass rates fell by 12 percent in math and 6 percent in English language arts testing.  The drops were much sharper for Latinos (22 percent in math, 10 percent in English) and almost as bad for Blacks (down 9 percent in math and 7 percent in English).

 

        In short, Zoom – or distance – learning proved disastrous to the students it was aimed to keep involved through the worst times of the pandemic.

 

        So California’s public schools, already considered a disgrace by many parents and others, grew far worse when students couldn’t attend them in person.

 

        And that was just for kids who can speak English proficiently. For the state’s approximately 1.1 million English learners, matters went from bad to worse. Their performance drops were even greater than the overall results for ethnic minorities overall.

 

        All this appalls adults who work to improve the futures of today’s schoolkids. “(This) has the potential to have life-altering impacts, especially for our youngest (students),” Samantha Tran, managing director for education policy for the Children Now advocacy group, told a reporter.

 

        State officials tried to downplay the disastrous results. The kids taking the tests, they said, might not have been representative of all California students. In a normal year, they pointed out, 95 percent of all students must take these tests, but only about one-fourth that number actually did last year.

  

        But this reality indicates the real scores, had the usual number of students been tested, would have been far worse than what was recorded.

 

        For by their very presence, those participating were selecting themselves as more interested than others. And the more interested kids are in school, the better they usually test.

 

        The bottom line is that despite legitimate worries about contagion, schools must stay open if at all possible, or the future of their students – and all California – will be seriously at risk.

-30-
    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It" is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

HARRIS AS PREZ? STRANGER THINGS HAVE HAPPENED

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2019 OR THEREAFTER


BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

 “HARRIS AS PREZ? STRANGER THINGS HAVE HAPPENED”

          There’s a tendency among some pundits, political consultants and other so-called “experts” to label the presidential candidacy of Kamala Harris as a fanciful, wishful-thinking effort by a first-term senator better known for hectoring presidential appointees than almost anything else.

          And yet…it might not be smart to simply dismiss Harris, California’s third woman U.S. senator and the state’s former attorney general.

          For one thing, it’s usual to compare the achievements of Democrats who are relative newcomers on the national political scene and have the gall to declare themselves presidential material with Barack Obama, a community organizer, part-time law school professor and ex-Illinois state senator who spent not quite two years in the U.S. Senate before running for president in 2008.

          Obama lacked many solid achievements, other than having written a best-selling autobiography “Dreams From My Father” about 12 years before he began his first run for president.

          Compared with this record, Harris is a virtuoso politician. She beat two-term ultra-liberal incumbent Terence Hallinan to become district attorney of San Francisco in 2003 and was unopposed for reelection four years later. In 2010, she beat the popular Republican Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley in a race not decided until three weeks after Election Day, then was easily reelected four years later.

          She won consumerist victories in both jobs, started anti-recidivism programs for ex-convicts and got California a large share of a national mortgage fraud settlement that followed the Great Recession of 2008-11.

          As a senator, she’s been in the minority party, where it’s hard to get legislation passed, making performances in televised committee hearings a key part of the job. Harris stands out there.

          Her record before becoming a presidential hopeful dwarfs Obama’s.

But at 54, should she wait another four years to run? Probably not, despite the massive Democratic field around her. Among the other known and likely candidates: Former Vice President Joe Biden, ex-New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Kirsten Gillebrand of New York, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro is running; so will failed Texas Senate candidate Robert (Beto) O’Rourke and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. There could be more, like California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

          All relish the idea of taking on incumbent Donald Trump, whose ratings both in surveys of popularity and trustworthiness are among the lowest in American history. And yet…Trump was written off as a sure loser in 2016 until the last moment, when he won by a slim Electoral College margin while losing the popular vote. Since then, he’s alienated myriad interest groups from farmers to auto workers.

          So there’s little doubt the Democratic nominee will have a chance. It could be Harris. Said South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham, a firm Trump supporter, “Anyone who underestimates her will do so at their own peril.”

          One who downplayed her was former Trump chief of staff John Kelly, a retired Marine Corp. general. Just after Kelly was confirmed in his prior Trump-appointed job as secretary of Homeland Security and was tasked with enforcing Trump’s travel ban on people from several Muslim-majority nation, Harris got hold of his home phone number and called him unexpectedly at night.

          “He was not too happy,” she said. “Later, I learned that’s just not something senators normally do.”

          She seemed to wonder why they don’t.

          So that prospective huge field of Democratic possibilities can be sure of one thing: In their debates starting early this summer, Harris likely will not take a back seat to anyone. As a junior senator, she may have to wait her turn asking questions in Senate hearings. There is no such pecking order in political encounters, something Trump demonstrated while interrupting, insulting and badgering rival Republicans all through the 2016 primary season.

          All of which means Graham is probably right: Taking Harris lightly just because she hasn’t been on the national scene very long could be a serious mistake.

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visitwww.californiafocus.net.

CEQA BATTLE LINES: ‘NEEDLESS DELAYS’ VS. ‘DO NO HARM’

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 2013, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“CEQA BATTLE LINES: ‘NEEDLESS DELAYS’ VS. ‘DO NO HARM’”

          The battle lines over what may become this year’s most contentious, intractable legislative battle began to form within a day or two of when Gov. Jerry Brown uttered two key sentences in his mid-January state of the state speech:

          “We also need to rethink and streamline our regulatory procedures, particularly the California Environmental Quality Act,” he said. “Our approach needs to be based more on consistent standards that provide greater certainty and cut needless delays.”

          A huge portion of the Internet chatter that followed Brown’s talk centered around those 34 words, which made up about one percent of what his talk.

          The two sentences embellished only slightly on Brown’s oft-quoted previous sentiment: “I’ve never seen a CEQA exemption I didn’t like.” That feeling stems from his eight years as mayor of Oakland, where, among other projects, his efforts to start a military academy for inner-city youth suffered CEQA-related delays.

          Brown’s speech spurred enthusiasm from major business groups who have never cared for the sometimes voluminous environmental impact reports (EIRs) required by the early 1970s law (originally signed by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan) for almost all significant projects.

          “Modernizing CEQA is essential if we’re to successfully grow our economy,” said Gary Toebben, president of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. “…CEQA can be modernized in a way that contributes to, not stands in the way of, the economic and environmental vitality of California.”

          Chimed in Carl Guardino, head of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, “CEQA is a great law that has unfortunately been misused, discouraging investments in our communities that not only foster economic growth and job creation, but help us meet our environmental and greenhouse gas reduction goals.”

          When business leaders say CEQA discourages investment and has been misused, they mean there have been times when opponents of projects, often in the NIMBY (not in my back yard) mode, challenged the adequacy of EIRs and delayed things for weeks, months or years, costing developers large sums.

          Businesses sometimes also use CEQA to hold up their competitors’ projects and labor unions have been said to threaten developers with CEQA lawsuits (sometimes labeled extortion) and delays if they use non-union labor.

          But CEQA also has created open space and parks, as developers can use these kinds of amenities to mitigate some ill effects of their projects. It has helped cities and neighborhoods limit building heights and forced builders to provide adequate parking, organize carpools and expand streets and public transit.

          CEQA also has not prevented major projects like AT&T Park in San Francisco, the San Francisco 49ers new stadium under construction in Santa Clara, Staples Center and the LA Live complex in Los Angeles, Petco Park and a host of major hotels in San Diego. And much more.

          Just because Brown wants change does not mean it will take the precise shape he eventually recommends to the Legislature, which he has not yet discussed in any detail.

          Whatever he seeks will likely meet resistance from environmentalists there. State Senate President Darrell Steinberg and fellow Democratic Sens. Noreen Evans of Santa Rosa and Michael Rubio of Bakersfield, for example, told a meeting of the state Planning and Conservation League that they will approach any change with a “first do no harm” test.

          Like Steinberg, Democratic state Assembly Speaker John Perez has said he’s open to discussing CEQA changes that might make the law less of a tool for manipulative special interests than it sometimes has been. Perez says he wants full public discussion of proposed changes before allowing any votes.

          Steinberg, who last year blocked a last-minute, end-of-session attempt to make major changes easing CEQA without any public hearings or input, has said he feels similarly.

          It’s not certain yet just where the CEQA reform effort will lead, although the law has already been altered in the past few years to promote projects near public transit and speed up judicial reviews of projects.

          But momentum toward changing CEQA to streamline its processes and avoid duplication with other state and federal permitting requirements has probably reached the point of being unstoppable. The remaining question is how extreme the change will be.

-30-

Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net