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.

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).

Sponsors

Books

Prop 11, Prop 93, the California Democratic Council and the California Democratic Party

Steve-Cummings.gif
By Steve Cummings
Member
Ventura County Democratic Central Committee

Since its founding at Asilomar in January 1953, the California Democratic Council (CDC) has generated controversy between itself and the California Democratic Party (CDP). The 2008 election was the latest chapter in this saga with the battle over Proposition 11, the redistricting initiative. As the only statewide Democratic organization to support Prop 11, CDC found itself in the crosshairs of the ire of the CDP who passionately opposed the initiative.

I found myself in the unusual position of being squarely on both sides of this ballot measure. Personally, I was opposed to the measure, as were three of the four statewide officers. As a statewide officer of CDC, I was bound to support the wishes of the delegates to the CDC Convention in May of this year in Fresno who supported Prop 11. However, as the late absentee ballots are being counted, it appears that once again, as was the case on Vietnam and a number of contentious political items, CDC has been ahead of the party with regard to public sentiment on a key issue.

However, when one looks at the full scope of political activity in the past year, CDC’s endorsement and vote on Prop 11 is not all that surprising. The results had been foretold at the CDP Executive Board meeting in Anaheim a year before. At that time battle was not over Prop 11, but Prop 93, the term limits reform initiative. Prop 93 was put on the ballot by the legislature for the February 2008 primary and was supposed to have a tandem bill on redistricting. The legislature broke the deal, and California Common Cause, having been burned on the deal, put Prop 11 on the ballot this November. But when Prop 93 came to be endorsed by the party E-Board meeting in November 2007 in Anaheim, all was not well in the provinces.

Several red areas of the state, who did not want to be saddled further with their termed out Republican incumbents, revolted at the idea of term limits being extended and opposed the endorsement. There was also a faction of delegates who recognized that 2008 would be a good year to pick up Democratic seats in the legislature and did not want to lose it; they opposed Prop 93 as well. On Sunday, when Prop 93 came up for a vote, it was pulled off the consent calendar and a substitute motion to stay neutral on Prop 93 was made from the floor. Eventually, the substitute motion failed and the endorsement of Prop 93 carried the floor, but the vote for the substitute motion (which needed 60%) failed by only 91 to 81—hardly a resounding vote of confidence for the measure. Ultimately, Prop 93 failed at the ballot box.

The failure of Prop 93 illustrated the environment that Prop 11 would be fighting in—an anti-legislature environment. Many of the people who had opposed Prop 93, voted for Prop 11 at the CDC Convention, since CDC has always had a large contingent of members from red areas and the convention was held in Fresno, in the red part of the state. For many CDCers, it was payback time for a legislature that had ignored them in the last redistricting, and a party that had ignored them until they had agitated for a 58 county plan.

When the votes were finally tallied, it was clear that voters in the state shared the same sentiments about the legislature that the delegates at the CDC Convention had expressed. An October poll on the initiative showed that late in the battle, Democrats supports Prop 11 by a 37% to 36% margin—clearly the CDP had trouble in its own rank and file voters. And interestingly, at the recent party E-Board meeting, also in Anaheim, there was much discussion about Proposition 8, but very little on Prop 11.

Proposition 11 may very well display the faults that its critics says it does. I certainly have problems with. But in the final the analysis, if Proposition 11 passes, the Democratic in the legislature and the party leadership will have only themselves to blame for not heeding the earlier warnings from the fallout of Proposition 93.

Steve Cummings is a member of the Ventura County Democratic Central Committee, Controller for CDC, and the Southern VP for the California Federation of Democratic Central Committee Members. His book, Red States, Blue States, and the Coming Sharecropper Society, was published by Algora Publishing, NY in April.

Posted on November 20, 2008

Comments

Goodness, Mr. Cummings is striving to challenge Comrade Cavala as propaganda minister by his re-interpretation of history. He said here:

"Prop 93 was put on the ballot by the legislature for the February 2008 primary..."

and, "Several red areas of the state, who did not want to be saddled further with their termed out Republican incumbents, revolted at the idea of term limits being extended (Via Prop 93)and opposed the endorsement."

Prop 93 was put on the February 08 ballot by the DEMOCRATS in the legislature, not "the legislature" which includes republicans. Democrat Speaker Fabien Nunez and Senate Pro Tem Don Perata were to be TERMED OUT unless 93 passed. They moved the Presidential Primary from June to February for theire own selfish political career asperations at the additional taxpayer cost of $85 million mind you for the additional election in February. Had 93 passed in February, these clowns who couldn't balance a budget or lead anything would have been able to participate in the still held June primary elections for state offices and the general election in November.

It wasn't just the "red parts of the state" who "only" wanted republicans termed out Mr. Cummings, it was a MAJORITY OF VOTERS, in a MAJORITY DEMOCRAT PARTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA, who REJECTED Prop 93 in February and it's obvious retention of ANY politicians beyond existing term limits, with "being saddled" with termed out democrats Nunez and Perata obvious reasons to reject Prop 93 in of itself.

Just a bogus analysis here or party cool aid being dispensed? Or both?

Posted by: Jay Gould at November 20, 2008 12:32 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!

Get Email Updates

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



© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.

RSS

Stat tracker