Voters

Conservative Groups That Successfully Challenged San Francisco’s Noncitizen Voting Law Files Suit Against Oakland

August 18, 2022 By Bob Egelko 1 Comment

The conservative groups that successfully challenged San Francisco’s law allowing noncitizen parents to vote in local school board elections have sued Oakland to remove a similar proposal from the city’s November ballot.

The Oakland City Council voted 6-0 on June 21 to place a measure on the ballot that would enable the city to authorize about 13,000 noncitizen parents or guardians of school-age children to vote in elections for the city’s seven school board members. The ballot measure said noncitizens, including legal residents and undocumented immigrants, make up 14% of Oakland’s population and now lack “representation in key decisions that impact their education and their lives.”

But the lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Alameda County Superior Court, said such a law would violate a provision of the California Constitution that declares “A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.”

Qualifications of voters are “an issue of statewide concern, not subject to local regulation by a charter city,” the suit said. It said the proposal also violates the rights of U.S. citizens in Oakland “by unconstitutionally diluting the impact of their votes.”

The suit was filed by James V. Lacy and two organizations he leads, the United States Justice Foundation and the California Public Policy Foundation, with an Oakland resident as an additional plaintiff.

Lacy and his groups also sued San Francisco over its ordinance, the first of its kind in California. It was approved by the city’s voters in 2016, took effect in 2018 and was extended by the Board of Supervisors in 2021. Turnout has been small, reportedly because of concerns about disclosure of information to immigration officers; election officials said a total of only 92 noncitizens voted in three school board elections between 2018 and 2020, though 328 registered and 235 voted this February, when three board members were recalled. Overall, nearly 180,000 votes were cast in the recall election.

Defending the San Francisco ordinance, the city’s lawyers argued that the state Constitution’s “may vote” language does not prohibit a local government from allowing others to vote. But Superior Court Judge Richard Ulmer said the constitutional provision bars noncitizens from voting.

“Transcendent law of California, the Constitution … reserves the right to vote to a United States citizen, contrary to (the) San Francisco ordinance,” Ulmer said in a June 29 ruling that prohibited San Francisco from enforcing the ordinance or counting noncitizens’ votes in future elections.

He also cited a state law passed by the Legislature that specified “a person entitled to register to vote shall be a United States citizen.” Such laws “address matters of statewide concern: education and voter qualifications,” and cannot be overridden by a local government, Ulmer said.

The judge has refused to put his ruling on hold while the city prepares to appeal it. City Attorney David Chiu’s office told The Chronicle it will ask a state appeals court to reinstate the ordinance.

Ulmer’s ruling prompted City Council members in Santa Ana to delay plans for a ballot measure that would allow noncitizens to vote in all local elections. The measure had been proposed for the November ballot, but according to news reports, city officials needed time to review the legal issues and try to draft a revised proposal for the 2024 ballot.

“We sense the momentum now in California is against allowing for noncitizen voting,” Lacy said in a statement announcing the Oakland suit.

And on June 27, a judge blocked a law that would allow more than 800,000 noncitizen legal residents of New York City to vote in municipal elections, saying it violates a provision of the state Constitution entitling “every citizen” to vote.

City Council member Dan Kalb, a co-author of the ballot measure, said Wednesday the suit was premature because the measure would merely authorize the council to draft an ordinance enabling noncitizens to vote, If it passes, he said, the council will wait until higher state courts rule on the constitutionality of the San Francisco ordinance before acting.

Click here to read the full article in the SF Chronicle

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: California Politics, oakland, Voters

Let’s Educate the Voters About Proposition 13

August 20, 2018 By Jon Coupal 3 Comments

This week, progressive interest groups announced they had sufficient signatures to qualify an initiative for the 2020 ballot that is a direct attack on Proposition 13. Specifically, this so-called “split roll” initiative would raise property taxes on the owners of business properties to the tune of $11 billion every year, according to the backers. Because many small business owners rent their property via “triple net” leases, they too would be subject to radical increases in the cost of doing business.

Although there is a statewide election this November, the “split roll” measure will not appear on the ballot until 2020 because the proponents, either intentionally or not, did not submit their signatures in time for the 2018 ballot. They say they anticipate a better voter turnout in two years, which in itself may be wishful thinking. Ben Grieff, a community organizer with the ultra-progressive group Evolve, also said that the later election would be necessary to lay the groundwork for “a long two-year campaign” and that, “we need all of that to educate people.”

Well, educating people about Prop. 13 cuts both ways. And if past campaigns and polling are any indication, the more Californians learn about Prop. 13, the more they like it.

So let’s start today’s lesson with an overview of a class we’ll call “Why Prop. 13 is Good for California.” Here are the benefits of it in a nutshell.

Prop. 13 limits the tax rate on all real estate in California to 1 percent. Increases in the taxable value of property — often referred to as the “assessed value” — are limited to 2 percent per year. This prevents “sticker shock” for property owners when opening their tax bills compared to the previous year’s bill. Property is reassessed to full market value when it is sold. This system of taxing property benefits homeowners, because Prop. 13 makes property taxes predictable and stable so homeowners can budget for taxes and remain in their homes.

Renters benefit because Prop. 13 makes property taxes predictable and stable for owners of residential rental property, and this helps to reduce upward pressure on rents. If one believes that California’s current housing crisis is bad now, imagine how high rents would be if the owners of the property were forced to pass along their higher tax bills to their tenants. In truth, Prop. 13 increases the likelihood that renters, too, will be able to experience the American dream of homeownership.

Business owners, especially small business owners, benefit because Prop. 13 makes property taxes predictable for businesses, and it helps owners budget and invest in growing their businesses. This helps create jobs and improves the economy. California has ranked dead last among all 50 states in business climate by CEO magazine every year for more than a decade. Prop. 13 is one of the only benefits of doing business in California. …

Click here to read the full article from the Daily Breeze

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: HJTA, Jon Coupal, Prop 13, Proposition 13, Vote, Voters, Voting

The Upside of Low Voter Turnout

December 2, 2014 By John Hrabe 1 Comment

This election, your vote counted double.

“When it’s 50 % turnout, your voting power is doubled #math,” Paul Mitchell of Political Data Inc., the state’s top political data firm, tweeted on Election Day.

Increased voting power — it’s one of several upsides to the state’s record low turnout in this month’s gubernatorial election. With fewer than 75,000 ballots left to count statewide, turnout is expected to top out at 42 percent — the lowest for a general election in California’s history. Of the state’s 38 million residents, just 7.5 million registered voters cast their ballots. That comes out to one in five people deciding who will lead the largest state in the nation for the next four years.

California’s abyssal turnout rate demolished the previous record for worst turnout in a general election. In 2002, just 50.57 percent of registered voters chose between Republican businessman Bill Simon and then-Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat.

It wasn’t unexpected. The June 2014 primary turnout of 25.2 percent set a new record for the lowest voter turnout for any statewide election in California; the previous low was 28.2 percent in June 2008.

The low turnout has inspired a round of news stories about how to improve civic participation. “Democracy works better as more people participate,” incoming Secretary of State Alex Padilla told the San Francisco Chronicle. “Excitement around the particular candidates drives much of the turnout, and that’s hard to legislate.”

KFBK recently asked, “What should California do about low voter turnout?”

The question presupposes low turnout is a problem in need of fixing. For starters, California’s voter turnout isn’t evenly distributed throughout the state. In tiny Sierra County, the second-least populous county in the state, 73 percent of registered voters cast their ballots in the Nov. 4 election. That’s more than double Los Angeles, the most populous county in the country, where 31 percent of registered voters participated. Another half-dozen counties — Nevada, Mariposa, Amador, Alpine, Plumas and Marin — all had turnout of 60 percent or more.

2016: Bumper year for ballot measures

In addition to increased voting power for high-propensity voters, the state’s record-low turnout in 2014 will lead to a bumper year for ballot measures in 2016.

“If voters were a bit underwhelmed by the measures on the California ballot … just wait for the 2016 election,” wrote Joel Fox, publisher of Fox and Hounds Daily, one of the state’s top business and political websites. “Already there is talk of potential initiatives on legalizing recreational marijuana, public pension reform, minimum wage increases and a basket full of tax hikes. The machinations around the tax issues could be most compelling just because so many are being considered.”

A recent memo from a top-notch public affairs firm based in Sacramento made the case that 2016 could break records for the most number of ballot measures on a single ballot.

“The historically low turnout in the 2014 general election will dramatically lower the number of signatures required to qualify ballot initiatives in 2016,” wrote Rick Claussen, Ned Wigglesworth and Aaron McLear of Redwood Pacific Public Affairs. “But the lower signature threshold and extended collection window very likely will make qualifying initiatives far less expensive than ever before, potentially producing a very long ballot in 2016.”

The threshold for qualifying a ballot measure is based on participation in the previous gubernatorial election. Initiative statutes require valid signatures from at least 5 percent of the total votes cast for governor at the last gubernatorial election, while initiative constitutional amendments require at least 8 percent. Based on current figures, that would lower the signature requirement from 504,760 valid signatures to 365,000.

In other words, just 2 percent of registered voters can get a measure on the ballot — or less than 1 percent of residents in the state.

As CalWatchdog.com’s Chris Reed argued, “That is good news for those considering taking on public employee unions in 2016 with ballot measures putting limits on government pensions or scrapping state laws allowing teachers to receive lifetime tenure after less than two years on the job.”

The Marijuana Policy Project, which is pushing for the legalization of marijuana throughout the country, is optimistic about California in 2016.

“This year’s election was a large step forward, but the 2016 election will be a huge leap toward ending marijuana prohibition in this country once and for all,” Rob Kampia, the organization’s executive director, said in a statement after the election.

Redwood Pacific’s memo outlined other changes to the initiative process that will alter the 2016 political landscape. Under a law passed in 2011, all ballot measures arising from signatures are considered on the general election ballot. Additionally, in 2014, the legislature approved Senate Bill 1253, which will extend the signature gathering period by an extra month, add a public review period for title and summary, and require a legislative informational hearing when proponents collect 25 percent of the necessary signatures.

“For a relatively small investment, a proponent can force a legislative hearing on their initiative,” McLear told CalWatchdog.com.

The low threshold won’t last forever. As KQED’s John Myers recently pointed out, “The new low bar for initiatives will last only for two election cycles.”

Probolsky Research: “Surprises may be the norm”

It’s no coincidence that California’s record-low turnout was matched by a record number of legislative upsets. An incumbent Democratic state lawmaker hadn’t lost reelection in 20 years. This year, four incumbents lost reelection, including Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra’s shocking defeat to long-shot Democrat Patty Lopez.

One of California’s top polling firms expects more upsets, courtesy of low turnout and the Top Two elections system.

“Surprises may be the norm,” said Justin Wallin, COO/CMO of Probolsky Research. “Voter behavior is more likely to mimic what we have seen with our jungle primaries, wherein candidates in large fields of contestants can’t rely so heavily on their ballot language.”

Wallin believes candidates need to “ensure that voters arrive at the ballot box intending to vote for them, otherwise they are likely to just get lost in the crowd.”

This article was originally published on CalWatchdog.com

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: 2014 Midterms, Ballot Measures, CalWatchdog.com, Initiatives, Vote, Voters

Millennials & Privacy – An Opportunity for Conservatives

October 8, 2014 By Ben Everard 1 Comment

It is well documented that the Republican brand has had a difficult time connecting with millennial voters. In part, the sophistication of the Obama campaign in both 2008 and 2012 enabled the Left’s message to resonate within the ether of social media, a medium dominated by America’s youth ever since its inception. Seen as aging and uncool, the Republican image can trace some of its ineffectiveness in the last few elections to their inability to connect with younger voters, particularly in urban and campus environments. Pew Research polls indicate that millennials (roughly defined as those aged 18-34) are the most liberal of any voting block, and approximately half of those in the category identify with the Democratic Party, while only a third label themselves Republicans.

This could soon change, however.

Not because the Republicans have ascertained the best method for connecting with millennials, but rather because there is an issue upon which conservatives and millennials are increasingly in sync: privacy. The voting block is increasingly becoming more concerned about the government’s intrusion into their daily lives, both with respect to increased drone surveillance and cyber-spying. This is especially true when millennials become parents themselves, something occurring with greater frequency over the next several years as millennials age into parenthood. Research by FutureCast, an organization with expertise in marketing to millennials, notes that, once they have children, the group is three times more likely to have significant concerns over internet privacy when compared to millennials without children. And as their privacy concerns increase, so does their likelihood to identify with conservatives.

Democrats have long been seen as continuing to increase the government’s reach in the average American’s daily life, and this is equally true over basic privacy matters. California, historically a good barometer of national trends in politics, recently saw its governor veto legislation that would have curtailed the use of unmanned drones by law enforcement personnel for aerial surveillance. The bill, sponsored by Republican Assemblyman Jeff Gorrell, would have required agencies to obtain warrants prior to utilizing the technology. The thought of unmanned drones spying upon Americans going about their daily activities is something that troubles privacy advocates and millennials alike. Combined with the permanence of digital footprints allowing the government to track an individual’s daily habits, the increasingly advanced “Big Brother” nature of government is starting to become a reality. As such, millennials tend to look more favorably on the conservative message of caution with respect to big government.

Republicans, inherently skeptical of the effectiveness of expanded government, have an opportunity to connect with millennials over the issue. As the government’s power to police the skies expands, freedom and liberty for average Americans is infringed. The issue matters to the next generation of America’s leaders, and conservatives and millennials can increasingly find common ground upon it.

Ben Everard is an attorney and producer based in Los Angeles.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Conservative, Jeff Gorrell, liberty, Millennials, privacy, Rebpublicans, Voters