SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Two of California's biggest cities were on the verge of adopting sweeping pension reform plans on Tuesday, with early election results showing measures in both cities passing by 2-1 margins.
Voters in San Diego, second in population to Los Angeles, favored moving new employees to plans similar to private-sector 401(k)s, instead of pensions with guaranteed benefits.
The capital of Silicon Valley, San Jose, will force employees to choose between reduced benefits or sharply higher employee contributions to maintain current benefits, which now cost the city about a quarter of its budget.
"A big win here gives mayors across the country confidence that if they bring this to their voters, the voters will get it," San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed said as the votes came in.
Union representatives said the cities should have worked harder at the bargaining table. "These results will mean broken promises and less retirement security for working families and seniors," Dave Low, chairman of Californians for Retirement Security, said in a statement.
California's budget gap, currently near $16 billion, pales in comparison to a pension shortfall estimated as high as a half trillion dollars. That bill doesn't come due at once, but payments are approaching crisis levels for some local governments, such as San Jose.
Stanford economist Joe Nation estimates the largest state pension plan, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, Calpers, and two plans for school and state university employees, are underfunded by a total of nearly $500 billion. Major cities such as San Jose and San Diego, which are not part of the big state plans, are billions more in the hole.
Nation said huge victory margin would catch the eyes of politicians across the country, if not necessarily in Sacramento, where Governor Jerry Brown's pension reform efforts have stalled.
"Anyone in the political business understands what a 2-1 margin means. It means that voters get it and you better get it," Nation said.
San Diego's Proposition B was ahead 68 percent to 32 percent with mail-in ballots and a half of precincts reporting, and San Jose's Measure B was ahead 70 to 30 percent with mail-in ballots and 47 percent of precincts reporting.
California dramatically raised pension promises in the aftermath of a 1990s stock market boom, predicting that stock returns would pay for increases.
A 1999 law, adopted overwhelmingly by legislators on both sides of the aisle, knocked five years off the retirement age for many workers, bumped up payments - or both. Every career government worker could quit at 50 or 55 with a solid, and sometimes lavish, pension.
Cities eager to keep workers followed suit.
But unions facing vastly higher costs are not likely to accept the changes without a fight. San Diego Municipal Employees Association General Manager Mike Zucchet said his group had already launched one court challenge and was ready with more. The pension measure was full of holes, he said.
"This was written like a full employment law for lawyers," he said.
(Reporting by Peter Henderson; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)
Source: news.yahoo.com
California's Proposition 8 case headed to U.S. Supreme Court - Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
When a coalition of gay rights advocates challenged California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage three years ago, they made no secret of their ultimate goal: force the U.S. Supreme Court to tackle the same-sex marriage issue.
Now, the legal showdown over Proposition 8 is headed to the nation's highest court. And most legal experts predict the justices will take up the case and for the first time decide the legality of a state law forbidding same-sex nuptials.
In a brief order Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reconsider its ruling this year that struck down Proposition 8, finding the 2008 law unconstitutional because it stripped gay and lesbian couples of the right to marry.
The appeals court denied a request from Proposition 8 backers for a rehearing before a special 11-judge panel. Under the court's order, same-sex couples will not be allowed to marry during the 90 days Proposition 8 supporters have to appeal to the Supreme Court.
That next step is inevitable. Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the measure's sponsor, vowed to "promptly" file the petition, saying supporters look forward to a "positive outcome" in the Supreme Court.
As a result, the Supreme Court would jump headlong into the national debate over gay marriage in its next term, which will begin on the eve of the November presidential election. The 9th Circuit's order
comes less than a week after a federal appeals court in Boston found the federal government's ban on same-sex marriage rights unconstitutional, heightening the prospect the Supreme Court may be forced to consider both state and federal gay marriage restrictions.If the justices take up the California legal battle, they would be expected to hear arguments early next year and rule by June 2013.
Kristin Perry and Sandy Stier, of Berkeley, one of two couples challenging Proposition 8, said Tuesday they are ready for their fight to reach the high court. They had hoped to have their case resolved before their twin sons graduate from high school, but it appears the outcome may coincide with their graduation next year.
"For me, it feels like it's the decision that launches the case out of California to the national stage," Perry told this newspaper.
The 9th Circuit's action was widely expected. A majority of the court's 25 full-time judges must vote to rehear the case with an 11-judge panel, but the court is dominated by Democratic appointees who were considered less inclined to take a fresh look at the case.
Three conservative judges -- Diarmuid O'Scannlain, Carlos Bea and Jay Bybee -- dissented, saying they would reconsider February's three-judge ruling. Judge N. Randy Smith, who dissented from that ruling, also would have reheard the case but did not sign O'Scannlain's dissent.
In its earlier 2-1 decision, the 9th Circuit invalidated Proposition 8, saying it took away the legal right to marry without any social or legal justification other than bias against gays and lesbians. The decision upheld former Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, who presided over an unprecedented trial in early 2010 and declared the law unconstitutional.
Legal experts, however, have noted the narrowly crafted decision avoided finding a constitutional right for same-sex couples to wed. Instead, the 9th Circuit ruling could be limited to California's unique circumstances -- voters taking away the right to marry established in spring 2008, when the state Supreme Court struck down the state's previous same-sex marriage ban.
That decision allowed more than 18,000 gay and lesbian couples to marry before voters approved Proposition 8, and those marriages remain intact. Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt stressed that point to say the state cannot create separate, unequal classes of relationships without violating the constitution.
Reinhardt and Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, who joined in the decision, said in Tuesday's brief order that their ruling was confined to California.
"We did not resolve the fundamental question that both sides asked us to: whether the Constitution prohibits the states from banning same-sex marriage," the two said. "That question may be decided in the near future, but if so, it should be in some other case, at some other time."
While the 9th Circuit did not specifically establish a broader fundamental right for same-sex couples to marry, legal experts say the Proposition 8 case could still pose that question to the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit relied heavily on a 1996 Supreme Court ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, striking down a Colorado law that denied gays and lesbians protection against discrimination.
Kennedy is considered a crucial swing vote on the gay marriage question.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a lawyer for the couples, said he would argue in the "broadest possible way" when the case reaches the Supreme Court that same-sex couples should have the equal right to marry.
Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, said there should be the four votes necessary for the Supreme Court to take the case. Marc Spindelman, an Ohio State University law professor, agreed.
"I do think there is pressure on the more conservative justices on the Supreme Court to get this issue heard and decided sooner rather than later," he said.
The Proposition 8 case is on the same track as the federal case decided last week in Boston, which struck down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. The 9th Circuit is expected to hear a similar DOMA case in the fall.
The Supreme Court could avoid the larger constitutional questions in the Proposition 8 case. There is lingering doubt over whether Proposition 8 supporters have a legal right to appeal when the state's top elected leaders, Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris, refuse to do so. The 9th Circuit and state Supreme Court allowed the measure's proponents to defend the law, but the U.S. Supreme Court could take a different view.
The Obama administration has not taken a position in the Proposition 8 case, but it has refused to defend the federal ban and deemed it unconstitutional. President Barack Obama recently announced his support for marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.
Howard Mintz covers legal affairs. Contact him at 408-286-0236. Follow him at Twitter.com/hmintz.
WHAT'S Next in Proposition 8 battle
Here are the likely steps after Tuesday's federal court ruling against considering California's voter-approved ban on gay marriage lines up the issue for a Supreme Court hearing.
Proposition 8 sponsors can ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case within the next 90 days.
The Supreme Court could consider the request at a weekly conference as soon as October. Four justices' assent is required to take the case.
If the Supreme Court hears the case, arguments could be scheduled for early next year.
A decision would come by the end of the next term in June 2013.
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES
Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, leaving 9th Circuit ruling intact. Gay marriage would be legal in California.
Supreme Court takes case and lets 9th Circuit's decision stand. Result could be limited to California, or reach more broadly into whether states can outlaw same-sex marriage.
Supreme Court takes case and wipes 9th Circuit's ruling off the books. Gay marriage would remain illegal in California unless voters overturn Proposition 8.
Source: Staff reporting
Source: www.dailybulletin.com
California voters OK changes to term limits for state legislators - Los Angeles Times
In Southern California contests, the nonpartisan race for Los Angeles County district attorney was locked in a three-way contest among Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey, Deputy Dist. Atty. Alan Jackson and L.A. City Atty. Carmen Trutanich. Lacey, who was leading the pack, would become the first African American or female D.A. in county history if elected in a November runoff to replace the retiring Steve Cooley.
Three incumbent Los Angeles County supervisors — Mark Ridley-Thomas, Don Knabe and Michael D. Antonovich — appeared to be breezing to new four-year terms, with only Antonovich facing a challenger.
With both Democratic President Obama and GOP challenger Mitt Romney already having sewn up their party's nominations, California's presidential primary was anti-climactic, deflating voter enthusiasm and turnout at the polls.
Those who cast ballots made state history, however, with the first test of California's newly drawn political districts and the first comprehensive use of the top-two primary — which in races for the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives and state Legislature sends the two candidates who collect the most votes to the November election, regardless of party affiliation.
Both changes were tailored to favor candidates with at least somewhat wide appeal, including those not hitched to any political party, and mute the hyper-partisan rancor consuming Washington and Sacramento. Among the offspring of these changes were some political oddities.
San Fernando Valley Democratic Reps. Howard Berman and Brad Sherman, both shifted into the same district, were on pace to collect enough votes Tuesday to continue their intraparty grudge match through the November general election — sans a Republican challenger — and a party-backed Democrat was battling to survive until this fall's race for a Ventura County congressional seat that tilts slightly to the left.
"Candidates of both parties are being forced to talk to a much wider range of voters than ever before, instead of relying on the ideological bases of their parties, to get to the general election," said Dan Schnur, director of USC's Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics. "We're going to see a greater number of competitive elections, and that'll lead to the election of more responsive candidates."
Bucking that trend was U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who finished far ahead of a pack of 23 mostly unknown, scantily funded challengers in her bid for a fourth full term. Danville autism activist Elizabeth Emken, endorsed by the state Republican leadership, collected enough votes to face the popular, well funded Feinstein in November — a task so daunting that the Senate race failed to attract even an adventurous GOP middleweight.
Many races remained too close to call as votes were being counted late Tuesday, especially in contests with crowded fields and candidates separated by mere percentage points. Low turnout only added to the volatility.
Katrina Eagilen, a dentist who was in charge of a precinct at the base of Mt. Washington on Tuesday morning, shook her head in dismay at the paucity of voters.
"I'm a little bit disappointed," she said, gesturing at the empty voting booths and the quiet room. "Something so important, we should have the place crowded."
Tobacco companies poured nearly $47 million into their campaign to defeat Proposition 29, a tax designed to raise an estimated $860 million a year for research on tobacco-related diseases and prevention programs.
The American Cancer Society and other proponents predicted that the increase in cigarette prices would stop 220,000 kids from starting to smoke and encourage 100,000 current smokers to quit. They raised more than $11 million, including $500,000 from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and $1.5 million from cycling champ Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation.
Backed by the tobacco money, a coalition of anti-tax and business organizations mounted an aggressive campaign against the initiative, including a flood of television commercials and campaign mailers. The proposition, they argued, would create an unaccountable bureaucracy and allow the tax dollars to be siphoned out of California.
Voters were less conflicted about Proposition 28, which would limit lawmakers to 12 years in the Legislature, but allow them to serve the entire stretch in the Assembly or Senate. In 1990, Californians limited lawmakers to three two-year terms in the Assembly and two four-year stints in the Senate, for a total of 14 years in Sacramento.
The League of Women Voters of California and other supporters of the proposition said lawmakers spend too much time raising funds for the leap from one legislative house to the other and need to be allowed more time in one office to master complex issues and the lawmaking process.
Opponents, including term limits activist and former game show host Chuck Woolery, said the initiative was deceptively pitched as a toughening of term limits when, in fact, legislators could camp longer in one seat.
Holding onto one of California's 53 congressional seats also proved to be tougher than at any other time in a decade, thanks to political boundaries drawn by a panel of citizens instead of politicians or the courts. Longtime incumbents found themselves vying for votes in unfamiliar territory or in districts merged with those of other House members.
Source: www.latimes.com
California voters approve term limit reform - RealClearPolitics
California voters approve term limit reform
Hannah DreierCalifornia voters tweaked term limits Tuesday to shave two years off the total time lawmakers can serve in the state Legislature, but will allow them to spend their tenure in one house.
Supporters said Proposition 28 will establish consistency and reduce the influence of lobbyists.
"California will have the best of both worlds when it comes to the state Legislature," said Dan Schnur, a former Republican consultant who helped pass the 1990 term limits initiative and now directs the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. "On the one hand, term limits will be even tougher, which will mean fresh voices in Sacramento, but it also will mean lawmakers will have the tools to do their job before they return home."
The measure had about two-thirds support with more than 2 million votes cast.
Proposition 28 will limit lawmakers to 12 years, but allow them to spend that time in one house or a combination in both houses of the state Legislature. Currently, lawmakers can serve up to three two-year terms in the Assembly and two four-year terms in the Senate, for a total of 14 years.
The 1990 ballot measure that gave California some of the strictest term limits in the country was sold as a way to reduce the power of special interest groups. Good government organizations argued that it accomplished the opposite, assuring the statehouse would be filled with inexperienced politicians who are overly reliant on lobbyists and bureaucrats to help them write legislation.
Mindful that term limits remain popular with voters, proponents of Proposition 28 emphasized that the measure would reduce lawmakers' total time in the statehouse.
Opponents, including the California Republican Party, said the initiative was dishonest because few lawmakers actually serve 14 years. For example, Assembly members often fail to move to the Senate because there are 80 seats in the lower house and just half that in the upper house. They warned the change would lead to entrenchment in the state Capitol.
Paul Jacob of the Liberty Initiative Fund, a conservative organization that donated $100,000 to defeat the measure, said it was only a matter of time before voters realize they've been tricked.
"You're going to see people awfully upset when they find out that the limits are not tougher, they're looser," he said.
The campaign in favor of Proposition 28 raised more than twice as much money as the opposition campaign from a diverse coalition that included business and labor groups.
California voters narrowly rejected a nearly identical term measure in 2008 that would have applied to incumbent lawmakers. This one applies only to future legislators.
Source: www.realclearpolitics.com
No comments:
Post a Comment