Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

Our latest headlines

Want more? Dive into the archives.

About Us

David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.

About California Progress Report.

Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).

Books

Debates Within California Democratic and Republican Parties on Election Performance

By Frank D. Russo

The discussion is just beginning within both of California's major parties as to how well they mobilized their troops of volunteers and spent their money in getting their voters to the polls on Election Day along with all of their actions leading up to the final result. The entire data is not in on the election as there remain thousands of ballots to be counted that are from voters who dropped off absentee ballots on election day or from voters who showed up at the polls and cast provisional ballots because of questions that needed to be checked out about whether they had already cast an absentee ballot they had received in the mail or other questions about their eligibility and status.

This was a low voter turnout election, part of a trend that has been in place certainly since 1960. The latest figures as of this moment from the Secretary of State's Office is that this was a 46.3% turnout statewide. But with the remaining votes to be counted, swelled by the increasing number of absentee ballots, it remains to be seen if this turnout will be lower than the record low of 50.6% who turned out in the last gubernatorial election in 2002.

If you have a moment to take a look at the latest report from the California Field Poll, the day before the election. Table 1 of that report shows that 88.5% of registered voters cast ballots in 1960, a Presidential election. And in the gubernatorial election years, results were in the range of 78 to 79% during the 60's and have declined steadily since then. The results are startling and the percent of eligible Californians who are registered is also at or near an all time low for any general election. When you combine the two, it means that the largest set of eligible voters did not vote in this election.

With results like these, there is room for discontent. There may be a bloodbath in the state Republican Party and rumors are flying in the California Democratic Party as well.

The Republicans spent a massive amount, estimated at $22 million, on their microtargeting and get out the vote drive. The Democratic Party in California, by contrast, spent around $3 million. But by all accounts, the Republican vote was lower than expected this year. The San Francisco Chronicle on Friday had an article; "Election Aftermath: Republican Voters Didn't Show Up at the Polls", which is worth a read: Here's a part of what they had to say:

California's Republican voters stayed home in droves on election day, as preliminary figures show voter turnout falling well below the state average in some of the most reliably GOP parts of the state. Although the final totals won't be known for weeks, election day turnout in Fresno, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties, which all have Republican pluralities, ran as much as 10 percentage points below the state's 44 percent average turnout. "The turnout in Republican counties was low compared to the turnout in counties where Democrats hold the edge,'' said Patrick Dorinson, a spokesman for the state Republican Party. "The conservative Republican base didn't show up.'' …
By contrast, the Democrats showed up to vote. Turnout in Los Angeles County, home to about 29 percent of California's Democrats, ran slightly above the state average, while about 49 percent of the registered voters cast ballots in the heavily Democratic Bay Area.

The result at the top was a blowout for Arnold Schwarzenegger, but Democrats won all of the other down ticket races except for Insurance Commissioner despite losing the top of the ticket so badly and the feared coattails of Arnold Schwarzenegger and despressed Democratic turnout as a result were blunted. Of course, Democratic turnout was up across the country, and that leads some California Democratic Party critics to crtiticism that we should have done even better here and the down ticket races should not have been as close as they were. It's a glass half empty versus full arguments within the Democratic Party here in California.

But the Republicans are starting a bloodbath over their party's performance. If you want to see the views of a large part of the Republicans, check out the comments of Mike Spence, the Chair of the California Republican Assembly in an article "CRP Needs New Leadership":

In the months following the primary election, I have sat in countless meetings with the Schwarzenegger campaign and CRP leadership. During these meetings, the campaign hierarchy assured conservatives that the Victory '06 program would help down ticket candidates. The "CRP leadership", including Duf Sundheim, addressed conservatives' concerns by stating that Tom McClintock, Tony Strickland, Chuck Poochigian and others would all benefit from the governor's campaign. Around midnight on November 7 th, we realized that we had been lied to, not just once, but repeatedly. In the days and weeks leading up to the election, conservatives expressed our frustration that Victory '06 and the governor were not in fact focused on "the team" but on re-electing a man who continues to search for his core values. I can't tell you how many fellow Republicans I talked to who said that they would not set foot in a Victory '06 center because of their distrust of the governor's self-centered agenda. Many told me that they refused to enter Victory '06 HQ because when they entered, they were forced to use the Arnold-only scripts when calling voters. Conservatives are rightly concerned about the governor's behavior in office because he has sold out the fundamental Republican principles of lower taxes and less government intrusion in our lives.

California Democratic Party Chair Art Torres was ebullient after the election, and issued the following statement as part of a larger message to the party faithful:

The Republican Party heavily hyped its field program going into the election, saying it had invested $20 million dollars to build the most formidable field program ever seen in California. Many reporters and media bought into the hype. The results, though, tell a different story: The California Democratic Party is accustomed to outperforming the Republican Party in the field, and this year was no exception.

Sam Rodriguez, the Political Director of the California Democratic Party, who also served as the Coordinated Campaign Manager for this year's efforts, sent me a message which provided more details. His take:

The election results in California demonstrate that despite a strong gubernatorial candidate, the California Republican Party could not push its down ticket candidates to victory against a strong California Democratic Party field program and our enthusiastic activists who were stationed at 51 Democratic Party and Club offices. The results, though, tell a different story. Across California, volunteers contacted 521,622 voters and personally visited 424,354 homes to seek their support of the Democratic Ticket.
Where the Democratic Party concentrated its field efforts, in Los Angeles, the 45% turnout was an increase compared to the 2002 election.

Los Angeles county turnout was over 8% higher than in Orange, San Bernardino and Ventura Counties, and over 10% than in Riverside County, the same Republican bastions where the state GOP had the bulk of their field program. In Los Angeles County, Garamendi won by over 20% and Chiang and Bowen won by about 25%.

The bottom line: The California Democratic Party is used to outperforming the Republican Party in the field, and this year was no exception.

They say that "victory has many fathers" (and we should include mothers in updating this truism) whereas failure is an orphan. There are groups aligned with the Democratic Party that also want to take credit for the wins last Tuesday, the labor, environmental, MoveOn.org, and others who made a number of voter contacts of their own. Some of them think we can do better and are not happy, despite the fact that we won the bulk of the down ticket races and feel we could have made gains in some races and are alarmed at the closeness of the statewide races (aside from the Governor's race which many see as a foregone conclusion.

In a post on the Courage Campaign blog, Todd Beeton, who works for them, wrote:

It seems to me people get in a rejecting mood when they're feeling apathetic and when there's a lack of inspiration. It's clear that that's the environment we're seeing among California voters as a result largely of entrenched Democratic power in Sacramento. Not only is Democratic registration declining but so is voter participation in elections.
The Courage Campaign's effort to build a progressive infrastructure in the state outside the party will work toward turning that around.

The comments to this posting are also revealing of a level of discontent among some, including that of Christine Frogozo, who also works for the Courage Campaign. She started off her comment with: "The Democratic Party in California “underperformed” because the state party is not at all the party of good government and reform." It goes on from there.

The fact of the matter is that California is a Democratic state. The latest voter registration statistics released just before the election show that 42.5% of those registered are Democrats and 34.3% are Republicans. This is an 8.2% edge.

But a more telling statistic is that of the increase to 18.7% of the total to the ranks of the Decline to State (DTS) ranks. This has grown steadily over the years from just 10.3% in 1994 as you can see plainly from the historical registration section of this report. Since 1994, Democratic Party registration has declined from 49% to 42.5%, a drop of 6.5 points. Republican registration has dropped from 37.2% to 34.3%, a drop of 2.9%. The Democratic advantage that was 11.8 points 12 years ago has eroded to 8.2%. When you factor in the usually lower Democratic turnout than the Republicans, there is cause to worry and not rest on the laurels of the last election.

All the votes have not been counted, but the debates have started within both parties. Rumors heard by many are that departing State Senator Jackie Speier is interested in becoming California Democratic Party Chair and others have mentioned Rick Jacobs, the head of the Courage Campaign. It is not know if the current CDP Chair, Art Torres, will run for another term. He certainly was happy the day after the election surrounded in Oakland by the victors in many statewide races and new Congress Member Jerry McNerney who defeated Richard Pombo in a race of national significance.

There are rumblings within the Republican Party in California as well.

There will be more reading the entrails of this election when all the returns are in. Stay tuned.

Posted on November 12, 2006

Comments

I should point out that the column attributed to me about the CRP is actually I post I made reprinting something wrote by Meredith Turney.

Posted by: Mike Spence at November 12, 2006 05:38 PM

The History of California and the Gold Rush

The history of California is a bloody one that explains the brutality of politics in California today.

Around 1848 men from the East traveled to California in an attempt to strike it rich in the gold mines. They left their families behind back East to seek their fortunes. Very few struck it rich. Ninety percent either died or returned back to their homes in the East. The remaining ones lived a life of debauchery or became exploiters of the remaining workers.

S. Shufelt was one of those gold seekers. Mr. Shufelt reveals his motivation when he tells his cousin that: "I have left those that I love as my own life behind and risked everything and endured many hardships to get here. I want to make enough to live easier and do some good with, before I return." These same thoughts no doubt inspired the majority of those who made the trek to the gold fields - they were not intending to stay, but planned to make some money and return to their origins.

Mr. Shufelt's letter was discovered at an auction in 1924 and is now part of the collection of the Library of Congress.

"There is a good deal of sin and wickedness going on here," wrote Shufelt. He lived in a cabin with six other miners. The miners' diet was poor resulting in scurvy, disease, disappointment and death. Prostitution, stealing, lying, swearing, drinking, gambling and murder thrived in a new world that had left behind their Bible upbringing to seek after gold. Men were hanged for stealing food to survive, their bodies left hanging everywhere as a reminder to the others. Most men wanted to leave but had no money for the treck back East, so they were forced to labor in the gold mines for pennies, barely enough to buy food. The storekeepers price gouged and exploited the workers, keeping them virtual slaves. Children were doubly exploited after their parents were killed either by Indians or common criminals.

Cowboys slaughtered Indians and Mexicans to steal their land and horses. The Indians and Mexicans retaliated by slaughtering the families of the newly arrived gold seekers from the East.

Not much has changed in California today. People come from all over America and the world to seek their fortunes and a better life. Instead, the majority are put in jail without due process for fabricated charges and have their children stolen for exploitation.

We must remember that the Wild West of only about 150 years ago is still dominated politically by the ancestors of the wicked settlers who took control by brutal force, including theft, exploitation, prostitution and murder.

http://www.msnusers.com/FreeVincentBooth

Posted by: Diane Booth at November 13, 2006 09:01 AM

hi
wanted to post the policy, legislative, initiative i am working on that will reduce population growth in california without harming illegal immigrants, nor give them amnesty which allows a financially unsustainable family reunification program

Letter to America: Live Childbirths

We should bill undocumented women and visa holders for live childbirth expenses in California
Why?
46% of all births in the state of California were paid for by Medi-Cal
43% of all children born on Medi-Cal in the state of California were to undocumented women http://www.dhs.ca.gov/MCSS/Published%20Reports/delivery/04/Delivery%20RPT%202004%20FINAL.pdf

“Live childbirths” is the LARGEST expenditure in Medi-Cal

California pay’s more on ”live childbirths”, than on treatments for 200 categories of Medi-Cal service, which include: heart disease, strokes, liver, cancer, diabetes, etc….
http://www.chcf.org/documents/policy/MediCalBudgetAndCostDrivers2006.pdf

Last year funds which were allocated for “working families” were redirected towards paying off expenses for live childbirths

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/60024.php

The term “undocumented” is largely a myth. Most illegal aliens have documentation

Most illegal aliens report their illegal status to U.S. Customs and immigration. Many receive documents stating that they have found the aliens deportable
http://www.health.state.ny.us/health_care/medicaid/publications/docs/adm/04adm-7attb2.pdf

http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/formsandpubs/forms/Forms/mc13.pdf

There are millions of undocumented aliens who have been found deportable, and have a document for “a stay of deportation”, or “an order of deportation”, or “voluntary departure”

Illegal aliens holding these documents are considered “Prucol” aliens, and qualified to receive state and federal benefits, because they have checked in with U.S. Customs and Immigration

Babies born to illegal women qualify for benefits

A baby provides the first step on the ladder of documentation for an undocumented woman

An undocumented woman can take her newborn baby and due to the humanitarian nature of the situation, will most likely get a document for a “stay of deportation”, or any of the other 16 documents which will allow her to stay with her baby. The documents also qualify an undocumented woman for benefits. Then the undocumented alien, becomes a documented illegal aliens, and the documents are not work permits.

There are more illegal aliens that are documented, than there are undocumented aliens

However, documentation for an illegal alien, does not permit them to work. Only to qualify for benefits

Many amnesty protestors claim illegal aliens pay taxes, and don’t create a burden to our welfare system

That is not true

Benefits for Hispanic people which includes Prucol aliens, have grown exponentially over the last ten years

Hispanic, legal, visa holders and Prucol aliens had well over double the amount of foodstamps last year, than all other ethnic categories combined
Add report

And despite what amnesty protestors say

There is already a path to citizenship that already exists for illegal aliens I have met them and I know. It takes years. A relative can petition for them to stay, or a child born to illegal parents can petition the state when they are 21 for legal status, and sponsor their parent(s)

Last year over a million (1,266,264 ) visa upgrades were given to applicants for legal permanent residence
http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/LPR06.shtm

Many of these people that were granted “green cards” started off as “illegal aliens”

Billing Undocumented Women/ Prucol Aliens for live childbirth expenses

The state of California could seek reimbursement for the cost of “live childbirth” from both undocumented aliens, aliens with “Prucol” status, families with employment based visa’s, applicants for legal permanent residence, fiance’ visa’s, applications received in the event of an amnesty

The state of California could inform the Federal U.S Customs and Immigration that it requires repayment of the “live childbirth” expenses, and request a “hold” be placed on the applicant seeking a visa upgrade in the event of an outstanding “live childbirth” bill

Although “public charge” is federally authorized; the state has the right to demand repayment of services to visa holders if it so requests

http://www.nycmccap.org/guide/chap12c.html#publiccharge

Impact Statement

Applicants seeking to upgrade their status often wait for years, for their papers to come through. In the meantime multiple birth’s to these mostly low income unmarried women, create a drain on California’s state budget.

If the average illegal immigrant now with 3 children was required to pay for live childbirth expenses, she would owe the state as much as $21,000.00

By requiring the cost to be repaid, many unmarried women will not be able to afford, or want to pay the average live birth cost of $3,000 -$7,000 for each child, and will not risk putting a future visa upgrade in jeopardy.

This reduction in births could be used for all 200 other categories of spending within Medic-Aid. This measure would also prevent funds from being re-directed from these important programs in the future

Multiple childbirths are an issue for undocumented women, Prucol Aliens, and people seeking upgrades to legal permanent residence

Requiring the cost of “live childbirth” to be paid, could result in significant cost savings over time, due to a drop in multiple births, and repayment of monies owed by Prucol aliens who are applicants for an upgrade in visa status.

Natal care expenses are also a big cost factor in the state of California. By reducing the incentives to have multiple births, a reduction in the birth rate, would also mean a substantial reduction in natal care costs born by the state of California.

Summary

This change in state policy would most likely create a positive financial impact for Medi-Cal, by collecting monies for live childbirth. This initiative has the long term potential of permanently reducing the number of babies born to low income women in the state of California. A reduction in unpaid for births would free up spending for other area’s of Medi-Cal.

A reduction in birth rate would also create a positive impact for expenditures in area’s of government spending, such as education, childcare, TANF, Wic,

Designated Provider Program for Undocumented Women/Prucol Aliens

I would like to see state policy that implements a childcare program, that designates providers for Prucol and undocumented aliens, and allocates a reasonable percentage of available slots which is fair to American’s, green card holders and legal permanent residents

Why?

Births to undocumented and Prucol Aliens are overwhelming the childcare system in California

Right now there are over 280,000 children on waiting lists to receive child care

The state of California does not recognize visa status as a qualifying factor in who receives child care

This means that an American taxpaying mom may be waiting for child care, while an illegal alien who has had a baby, and been granted “Prucol “ status may be given childcare ahead of her

Mother’s in the state of California meeting the income requirements are eligible to receive state sponsored childcare regardless of visa status and can choose what type of care they would like to have

There are three types of care available in California: Licensed center based chilcare, unlicensed child care and unlicensed relative provider childcare

Sixty-two percent of CalWORKs recipients in the initial stage of participation choose license-exempt care

http://www.cpr.ca.gov/report/cprrpt/issrec/hhs/hhs05.htm

http://www.naccrra.org/randd/data/rpt_waitforcca.php?orderby=State

In a study by First Five of California, it was alluded that “Low income Hispanic women, who California perceive the money from relative or unlicensed childcare as second income”. A relative or friend of the mom, is able to receive state sponsored subsidies
For caring for the mom at work, and this has created many “jobs” in California at taxpayers expense.

http://www.ccfc.ca.gov/ffn/reviewLit/ffnLitReview/demographics.htm

The money for some childcare ? research comes directly out of the Department of Education Budget.

Unlicensed provider care has increased over 890% in the last nine years. This is unprecedented and unsustainable growth, and is affecting our education budgets

A shift towards effective policy would require the state of California to develop a program for Prucol/undocumented aliens which designates childcare providers, or services
While restricting their use of all relative childcare programs except Kinship care/Foster Care.

The current caseload of children to undocumented parents, is over 50% in the zero parent category for the year dated 2006

Federal Government, California lawmakers and policymakers could limit the number of “Prucol” participants in state sponsored childcare to no more than 18% of the total number of childcare subsidies.

California could come up with a childcare reduction plan to be implemented over
7 years, which limits the amount of child care undocumented/prucol aliens who are eligible to receive childcare.

While this would create a longer line for childcare subsidies amongst Hispanics, it would increase the number of American children by 4% per year, with funding set aside
A set amount of dollars set aside to help local child care provider programs prepare Hispanic women for a reduction in services over time.

It is anticipated that this would also cause a slow down in the birth rate of children born to undocumented women

calworks
zero parent

zero parent definition

calworks report

Average age of calworks recipient

Average length of service -

Visa Status - majority currently zero parent

Reduction based on current 2007 number of undocumented children enrolled in calworks.

2008 12% reduction………increase participation in other ethnicities by 4.0% per annum
2009 12% reduction
2010 12% reduction
2011 12% reduction
2012 5% reduction
2013 5% reduction
2014 5% reduction

Impact Statement

A program which designates childcare providers to Prucol and undocumented aliens, has the potential to reduce the growth in population amongst undocumented women, who rely on subsidies from unlicensed childcare as a secondary income, created within their extended families and friends

The long term fiscal effects are positive for education spending, childcare spending
and extend to other government services

Posted by: titania jones at August 19, 2007 08:30 PM

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker