Sorry, folks — you can just be wrong. Vergara reframes the way the public looks at schools in such a fundamentally anti-teacher union way that it’s going to make some of the most familiar teacher arguments seem idiotic. For example, the frequent CTA refrain that it is “fighting for children” is going to seem laughable (or Orwellian) to anyone who has read Vergara coverage.

To those in denial — to the folks I still meet who think the CTA’s noble talking points are truly reflective of how the CTA wields its power — I’m happy to present evidence that three of the four most influential liberal newspapers in America agree with me. (The other one — the Boston Globe — may also be down on teacher unions, but I couldn’t find evidence it had written a Vergara editorial.)

N.Y. Times: ‘a new chapter in equal education struggle’

When states are sued for providing inferior education to poor and minority children, the issue is usually money — disproportionately more money for white students, less for others. A California judge has now brought another deep-rooted inequity to light: poor teaching.

In an important decision issued on Tuesday, Judge Rolf M. Treu of the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled that state laws governing the hiring, firing and job security of teachers violate the California Constitution and disproportionately saddle poor and minority children with ineffective teachers.

The ruling opens a new chapter in the equal education struggle. It also underscores a shameful problem that has cast a long shadow over the lives of children, not just in California but in the rest of the country as well.

The plaintiffs in the case, Vergara vs. California, are nine public school students who charged that state laws forced districts to give tenure to teachers, regardless of whether they can do the job, making it virtually impossible to fire even the worst of them.

In a blistering decision, Judge Treu agreed: ”The evidence is compelling. Indeed, it shocks the conscience.”

Washington Post: ‘groundbreaking ruling’

A judge who struck down California’slaws on teacher tenure and layoffs said the decision was based solely on the legal aspects of the case but added that he was mindful of the intense political debate about these issues. It is “beyond question,” he wrote, that there will be further political discourse. We certainly hope so. The issues about education equality laid bare by this groundbreaking ruling cry out for new ways of thinking. …

Treu … found that job protections afforded to teachers violate the rights of minority and low-income students to an equal education because they are the ones disproportionately stuck with the incompetent teachers who are hard, if not impossible, to fire. Constitutional rights in education typically have been tied to equitable funding, so the judge entered new territory by declaring a basic right to an effective teacher.

The trial featured powerful testimony about the effect of incompetent teachers on students. “The evidence is compelling. Indeed, it shocks the conscience,” the judge wrote.

Los Angeles Times:  Lawmakers ‘too deferential’ to CTA

California’s extraordinary protections for public school teachers were dealt a heavy blow Tuesday when a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled that the state’s tenure laws unconstitutionally deprive students of an adequate education. To this extent, the judge’s opinion was absolutely correct: The tenure laws are bad policy. In almost no other field of work is it remotely as hard to fire someone for incompetence, or for not doing the job at all. Lawmakers have been far too deferential to the powerful California Teachers Assn. over the years, and now they have been given a strong prod to change their ways.

I’m glad that this ruling has gotten as much coverage as it has. But it’s odd that no newspaper I could find on Nexis or Google had done an analysis piece about how this might affect the Dem coalition. How can all the party’s minority lawmakers stand proud with the CTA and CFT after this?

I truly am baffled by the absence of stories on this obvious angle. The intraparty fight pitting Asian lawmakers vs. Latino and black lawmakers over Prop. 209 has been covered by the Sacramento media. Why not this?

As I explained in Part 1 of this series, one of the biggest features of Covered California, the state’s new health benefit exchange, is how it was set up. Established to implement the federal Affordable Care Act, usually called Obamacare, the state program covers health care.

But it also uses activist organizations connected to the Democratic Party to register people to vote. The funding also will boost the budgets of these organizations.

In addition, the newly created Obamacare health exchange “Assisters” will be trained to sign people up for social services, including welfare, food stamps and housing assistance, according to Community Health Councils, Inc.

In 2012, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 35, by Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Pacoima. It required that voter registration be part of the health insurance exchange.

SB35 creates “voter registration agencies” largely through state social services agencies. The law requires anyone applying online for service or assistance, or submitting a recertification, renewal or change of address form, to be provided an online “voter preference form.”

Effective January 1, the California Department of Social Services issued a new All County Information Notice to county welfare directors and state and local National Voter Registration Act agencies regarding compliance with SB35.

CalFresh, California Work Opportunity and the Responsibility to Kids (formerly CALWORKs) programs are now required to provide welfare and food stamp recipients a voter registration card, “regardless of whether they indicate they want to register of not,” according to the Department of Social Services. “Under federal law, the NVRA requires states to provide voter registration opportunities at all offices that provide public assistance and all offices that provide state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to person(s) with disabilities. All applicants and continuing clients must be given a voter registration card (VRC) and an NVRA Voter Preference Form, regardless of whether they indicate they want to register or not.”

The agencies are required to “Provide and collect a voter registration card, and
 provide and collect a NVRA Voter Preference Form.”

Covered CA originally exempted from open record keeping

A state law passed in 2010 granted Covered California broad exemptions from the California Public Records Act. This would have limited the public’s right to access information about the contracts issued by Covered California, and the rates of payment to companies and individuals.

Five Republican U.S. senators sent a letter in June to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius demanding a federal investigation into California’s exchange policies on concealing information. “We see no reason why a state that has been awarded nearly $910 million in federal taxpayer dollars should not disclose how that money is being spent once a contract is finalized,” the senators wrote.

After the letter, the state Legislature made an about face and passed new legislation, SB332. State Sens. Bill Emmerson, R-Redlands, and Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, co-authored SB332, to ensure that Covered California is subject to the Public Records Act. “This bill requires that non-health plan contracts entered into with the exchange — such as those for consulting, marketing, and other professional services — as well as the payments for those contracts be accessible to the public immediately, just as they would be with any other state agency,” explained think tank California Healthline in a recent op ed.

It was signed into law on Sept. 11 by Gov. Jerry Brown.

Immediate issues with Obamacare implementation

According to Craig Gottwals, health insurance expert and attorney, there will be several immediate issues with Obamacare implementation in California:

1. There will be technical and computer glitches everywhere in the new system.
2. There will be rationing. With millions of newly insured in the market, companies like Blue Cross said they plan to be using roughly only half of their network for the health exchange. This is bound to cause  shortages, which will also impact those not insured on the health care exchange.
3. Subsidies will be abused. Even the super rich in California will be able to get health care subsidies because the subsidies are solely based on income, and not net worth. Assets don’t matter. Someone with a $100 million stock portfolio might earn just $60,000 in salary and so be eligible for the subsidies.
4. Because there are four different subsidies within the $20,000 to $90,000 income range, lower-income employees will tell employers to hold off on raises if it throws them into a different subsidy bracket with lower payouts.

By John Seiler

Californians still are shunning political parties more than in the past. But Republicans are losing registered voters faster than Democrats. According to the new report by Secretary of State Debra Bowen:

“The percentage of California voters registered with a political party decreased from 78.9% to 77.1% since this time two years ago, according to a California Secretary of State report published today….

“In the last two years, the percentage of voters registered with the Democratic Party decreased by 0.1% and voters registered with the Republican Party decreased by 2%. The number of registered voters with no party preference has increased by more than 259,000 during the same time frame.”

The new registration numbers for Feb. 2013 are in:  Democrats 43.93 percent; Republicans 28.94 percent. No Party Preference 20.86 percent.

The news obviously is bad for Republicans, who are trying to rebuild their party under new Chairman Jim Brulte. They’re falling fast and could soon be surpassed by the No Party Preference category.

Part of the reason might be the Top Two reform, Proposition 14 from 2010, which effectively makes parties irrelevant in the primaries (except for votes for party posts, which most people don’t care about). Top Two lets voters pick any candidate, of any party or no party, in the primary. The two winners then face off in the general election.

Top Two also was supposed to hurt third parties. Curiously, most have done better on voter registration. The American Independent Party is tops with 2.64 percent of registrations, up from 2.43 percent in 2011.

Greens were down a bit, to 0.66 percent from 0.63 percent. Libertarians were up to 0.61 percent from 0.54 percent. And the Peace and Freedom Party was the same, at 0.34 percent.

Democrats didn’t benefit

Democrats also should not be too happy. They just won a major election, with President Obama trouncing Mitt Romney in California, 60 percent to 37 percent. The party also pushed through the Proposition 30 tax increase and defeated the Proposition 32 union reform measure.

The Democratic Party also conducted well-publicized voter-registration efforts at the national and state levels. Yet that effort only keep registration from falling much; it didn’t add to the rolls.

Indeed, Brulte has promised to revamp the GOP’s lackluster efforts in that area. For example, at a speech he gave before the Orange County Republican Party in February which I attended, he lamented that the party didn’t even have an online registration form.

Unless Brulte can reverse things, what seems to be happening is that voters gradually are abandoning the Republican Party, but not shifting to the Democratic camp, instead remaining aloof as independents. It’s a general trend across the country as neither party, once in power, seems able to solve the country’s endemic problems.

Especially intractable are an economic “recovery” so slow it seems like a recession, stubbornly high unemployment, schools that never seem to get better, public-employee pension liabilities that keep rising and the $17 trillion federal budget debt.

Voters want real solutions but aren’t being given them.

JAN. 8, 2012

By JOHN HRABE

California’s 2012 redistricting already is shaking up state and even federal politics. The candidates’ dogfight for the new 26th congressional district could determine whether Democrats or Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives after the November election — or at least the degree of Republican control.

Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Simi Valley, announced on Saturday that he’ll retire from Congress. He currently represents the old 24th Congressional District, which was drawn after the 2000 U.S. Census.

Gallegly would have had to run an uphill challenge against Rep. Buck McKeon in the new 25th District, based on the 2010 U.S. Census. McKeon has been in Congress since 1993 and is chairman of the powerful Armed Services Committee.

Gallegly’s other option was a tough general election fight in the 26^th Congressional district. The new Ventura County-based district, which includes Oxnard, Thousand Oaks, Moorpark and Camarillo, gives Democrats a slight voter-registration advantage.

However, the district has conservative tendencies and voted in favor of Proposition 8, California’s anti-gay marriage initiative. According to Redistricting Partners’ analysis of the district, it went handily to Obama in 2008 and slightly favored Whitman in 2010.

Gallegly’s retirement creates the opportunity for several county politicians to make their moves on the long-coveted seat. The Democratic side already features five announced candidates: Ventura County Supervisor Steve Bennett, Moorpark Councilman David Pollock, community activist Zeke Ruelas, businessman David Cruz Thayne and Oxnard Harbor District board member Jess Herrera.

On the Republican side, state Senator Tony Strickland, R-Santa Barbara, could be challenged by County Supervisor Linda Parks, a slow-growth environmental activist.

What to Watch for in CD 26

10. State Senator Tony Strickland Will Clear the Republican Field

Strickland will have the support of the Republican establishment, both in the county and on Capitol Hill. Ventura County’s field of top-tier Republican candidates has winnowed in the past five years. Bob Brooks, a popular Republican county sheriff and close Gallegly friend, passed on the chance to take over the seat in 2006, when Gallegly first flirted with retirement. Tom McClintock, another longtime county Republican stalwart, couldn’t wait for Gallegly’s retirement and moved to a Northern California congressional seat in 2008.

Other than Strickland, there’s only one Republican elected official in Ventura County with grassroots support, name ID and a strong fundraising prowess: County Supervisor Peter Foy. He told me Saturday night that he’s supporting Strickland. It’s perhaps Strickland’s most important local endorsement because it clears Strickland’s right flank.

Ventura County Supervisor Linda Parks, a registered Republican, won’t gain any traction with any of the county’s Republican establishment if she decides to enter the race. Ventura County Republican Chairman Mike Osborn, a close Strickland ally, led the county party’s independent expenditure campaign against Parks in 2010. Republican women proved to be the key voter demographic in that race. Expect the same in this match-up between Tony Strickland and Parks. If Parks is able to make the runoff, Republican women will be the most crucial voting bloc.

On Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., expect House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, to quickly lock down key endorsements and financial support for Strickland. The Strickland-McCarthy friendship dates back to McCarthy’s tenure as Assembly Republican leader.

Strickland served as an important member of McCarthy’s inner circle in Sacramento, and he’ll want to add Strickland as a loyal member of his team in Washington. (Fun fact: The pair overcame a one-time “young Republican” feud. McCarthy came up through the Bill Thomas machine; Strickland the more conservative crowd. The split was so bad it led to the creation of two separate young Republican organizations.)

9. Left-Wing Fight: Latino Democrat vs. Environmentalist Liberal

The CD 26 race could turn into a nasty fight between a Latino Democrat and a progressive environmentalist. Ruelas and Herrera will fight to be the consensus Latino candidate, while Bennett and Parks jockey to be the environmentalist candidate. (Yes, even though Parks is a registered Republican.) One quarter of the voting age population is Latino. Unless another Latino candidate enters the race, Herrera, a five-term commissioner on the Oxnard Harbor District, likely has the advantage over Ruelas.

The environmentalist battle might be avoided altogether. Bennett and Parks share the same base of anti-growth supporters. Both have served for decades as leaders in the SOAR movement (Save Open-Space and Agricultural Resource). SOAR opposes property rights in favor of protecting obscure wildlife.

In late December, the Ventura County Star reported that Bennett was having second thoughts about the race. If Bennett drops out, he’ll likely support Parks, despite her Republican registration. Bennett has endorsed Parks in the past and even contributed money to her supervisorial campaigns. Expect environmentalists to unite early in an “anyone but Strickland” coalition.

8. Regional Split: West County (Oxnard) vs. East County (Thousand Oaks)

Ventura County’s natural geographic divide is the Conejo Grade.  East County includes Thousand Oaks, Newbury Park and Moorpark. It’s wealthier, more Republican and increasingly moderate.

West County, which includes Port Hueneme, Oxnard and Ventura, is the major source of Democratic votes, due to its working class and primarily Latino population.

The first signs of a geographic split will be internally, between the environmentalists Bennett and Parks. Bennett represents West County; Parks East County. Parks should have the edge because she’ll have support from a broad base of community leaders in the East, while some of Bennett’s Democratic support will go to the Latino consensus candidate. Prior to her election to the county board, Parks served as a member of the Thousand Oaks City Council. Assuming the environmentalist crowd consolidates behind Parks, there’ll still be a geographic split with the Latino candidate from Oxnard.

Strickland has represented all of these areas in either the state Assembly or Senate, with most of his support coming from Camarillo, Moorpark and Thousand Oaks.

7. The Heretofore Unknown Wealthy Republican Who Wants to be Called “Congressman”

Strickland’s biggest competitor for traditional Republican votes could come from the heretofore unknown wealthy Republican who wants to be called “congressman.”

In 2006 and 2008, wealthy attorney and businessman Michael Tenenbaum ran to replace Gallegly. He seized on Gallegly’s “will-he-or-won’t-he” moment to fill that role.

Another wealthy Republican could follow the Tenenbaum model. Gallegly has held the seat for 24 years, so you can expect a few wealthy businessmen to think twice before passing on their chance at a congressional seat.

6. Big Labor Will Decide Who Makes the Runoff

Big Labor will play heavily in this race, but it’s unclear whom they’ll support. Both Parks and Bennett have strong, pro-union records on the Board of Supervisors. Herrera and Ruelas are former and current longshoremen.

Labor could stay out of the primary and keep its powder dry for a general election fight against Strickland. Or, it could decide to get behind the potentially stronger candidate, Parks.  There’s even the possibility that a few unions might consider supporting Strickland.

Whomever Big Labor gets behind will be the candidate to make the runoff.

5. Strickland’s  Pre-Primary GOP Endorsement Undermined by … Tony Strickland

Parks’s Republican registration, despite being in name only, complicates Strickland’s chances for a pre-primary endorsement from the California Republican Party. A party endorsement could provide crucial financial support. During last year’s internal party endorsement debate, party kingpins Jon Fleischman and Mike Schroeder proposed an easy pre-primary endorsement process that would favor conservative candidates. Their plan was defeated in favor of a complicated local convention system.

Under the current party rules, two-thirds of the county central committee members in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties must approve a pre-primary endorsement. Then, two-thirds of the California Republican Party Board of Directors must authorize the endorsement.

It’s a complicated but feasible hurdle for Strickland to overcome. Of course, Strickland has no one to blame but himself. He provided critical support for the more complicated plan. It was the brainchild of none other than McCarthy. The question will be if fringe, anti-Strickland Republicans can marshal enough votes to block an endorsement at the local level.

4. Outside Groups Will Play Heavily in the Race

Environmental groups, labor unions, Indian tribes and business interests will all play in this congressional race. Strickland, a former president of the California chapter of the influential Club for Growth, can expect major support from anti-tax, pro-growth advocates.

Parks is a quintessential RINO — Republican in Name Only. She’ll ignite the ire of anti-tax, anti-union activists throughout the country. Think Dede Scozzafava, the New York Republican politician just appointed to a post by liberal Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo; but Parks sports a record of quashing property rights to save squirrels. The Sierra Club and state public employee unions will play in the race in favor of the consensus liberal candidate.

3. The Most Expensive Congressional Race in California History

If you’re a Republican donor in California, chances are you’ve already received a fundraising pitch from Strickland. It’s been 24 hours since Gallegly announced his retirement. That’s enough time for Strickland to contact several hundred donors.

One of the best fundraisers in the state, I’d look for Strickland to post a massive fundraising number at the end of the first reporting period. (Yes, I just raised expectations.) The combination of Strickland’s fundraising and outside groups will make the 26^th congressional district one of the most expensive races in California history.

2. Linda Parks Will Re-Register as a Democrat

A potential game changer in this race is when Parks re-registers as a Democrat. In a debate, I’d ask Parks to name the last Republican presidential candidate she has supported. (Not that anyone can blame her for abandoning the anti-freedom Sen. John McCain.)

If Parks re-registered as a Democrat, she’d have the formal support of her Democratic friends and allies. Check Parks’s past endorsement record and you’ll find a “Who’s Who” of Democratic activists. It’d be so much easier for her to campaign as a Democrat instead of as a moderate Republican.

If Parks fails to make the runoff, look for her to endorse the Latino Democrat, regardless of her party registration.

1. The Race Will Remain Undecided for Days, Possibly Weeks

Get the lawyers ready for a heated ballot review process in November. It is easier to list the races that “Landslide Tony” has won easily than identify the races he’s barely squeaked out. Most of his victories have been decided weeks after Election Day.

The only race Strickland has won by a comfortable margin was his final re-election to the State Assembly in 2002. In 1998 and 2000, Strickland beat schoolteacher Roz McGrath by a hair. The 2008 state Senate race against former Assemblywoman Hannah Beth Jackson took weeks of ballot checking before a winner was declared.

And then there’ll be the rematch for District 26 in 2014.

Bonus Prediction: Epic Ground War Between Strickland and Parks

The best ground campaign activists in California Republican politics will reunite to run the ground campaign in this race. Strickland has trained a network of activists and should be expected to reinstitute his flop-house walk program. That’s where poor college students are convinced to spend day and night walking for the cause. Look for the best political operatives in conservative politics to forgo their lucrative state salaries and temporarily take LWOP — leave without pay — to support Strickland’s bid.

The Strickland machine will face its toughest test yet in Parks’s environmental operation. Every activist who has chained himself to a tree to save the spotted owl will mobilize to support Parks. She is a serious and credible candidate with high name ID. If she doesn’t re-register as a Democrat, this may be the first and only race to feature a Republican versus Republican general election match-up.

(Full disclosure: The author previously worked for Tony Strickland, a candidate for District 26.)

A year and a half ago I was the first person to predict that, in 2012 or 2014, redistricting would bring Democrats two-thirds majorities in both houses of the California Legislature. My March 10, 2010 article, “Census Pushing Dems to 2/3 Majority,” still is relevant reading.

Demographic changes were the main reason. Immigrants in recent years have voted about 70 percent Democratic. More immigrants, more Democrats.

Looks like it will be 2012, thanks to a boost from the so-called “independent” California Citizen Redistricting Commission. Reports the Bee:

An independent California commission has set the stage for what could be the largest shake-up of the state’s political system in decades – and potentially give Democrats a two-thirds majority in both houses of the Legislature.

As John Hrabe has reported on CalWatchDog.com in a series or articles, the commission has been seriously compromised by the previously undisclosed, radical political ties and high Democratic partisanship of commissioners Gabino Aguirre and Jeanne Raya.

The Bee:

California Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro was laying the groundwork Monday to fight some or all of the maps, saying attorneys were considering either a lawsuit or a referendum that would place the issue before voters.

Asked if the commission’s final product would give Democrats a two-thirds majority in the Legislature, Del Beccaro said simply, “I think it has raised the stakes for that considerably.”

Legal challenges could get the whole mess thrown out, with the maps drawn by the state Supreme Court, as happened in 1991. Meaning the entire process of involving “independent” citizens was a typically Californian waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

They would have been better off turning a state map into a gigantic jigsaw puzzle, throwing the pieces up in the air, then reassemblying them at random.

July 26, 2011