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
Bartuska's Furniture closure leaves void on Main Street - Citizen's Voice
NANTICOKE - After 78 years on the same street, downtown Nanticoke landmark Bartuska's Furniture is going out of business.
Brothers Denis and Jim Bartuska, the third generation owners of the family business on East Main Street, say they can no longer compete with larger furniture stores selling lower-quality and cheaper imports from China.
Bartuska's Furniture took pride in exclusively selling quality American-made furniture in a moderate price range. Amid a weak economy, the Bartuskas said many people aren't buying furniture at all.
"You fill up your gas tank and you buy your food and there's nothing left for furniture," Jim Bartuska said.
A lack of businesses and slow-moving plans to revitalize downtown Nanticoke also contributed to their decision to close, they said. Downtown redevelopment projects such as Luzerne County Community College's two new buildings - the Health Sciences Center and the Joseph Paglianite Culinary Arts Institute - have not helped their business, they said.
"We had hoped with the improvements downtown with the college coming downtown things would turn around and we tried to hang on," Jim Bartuska said. "But we can't hang on anymore."
Bartuska's Furniture employed seven, including the Bartuska brothers, who will lose their jobs. They began a going-out-of-business sale by slashing prices 20 to 50 percent. The store will remain open until everything is sold. After that, the Bartuskas could not say what they will do next.
Denis Bartuska said the family business tried to hang on as the Nanticoke General Municipal Authority tried to spur downtown development. The Bartuskas hoped an empty lot next to LCCC's two new buildings would be developed.
Tenants are interested in the property, he said.
"That's going to take so long that it's going to be hard to hang on that long," Denis Bartuska said.
"There is development hopefully headed for this town. But, with the economy, people just aren't buying furniture," he said. "We had a lot of good years here and we really wanted to stay. If there was any way that we knew things would turn around in the economy and things were going to start developing in this town, we would definitely stay. But right now, business is slow."
Their grandparents, Peter Bartuska Sr. and his wife, Anna, opened the store in 1934. They originally sold new and used sewing machines. In the late 1930s, Bartuska's became one of the first appliance dealers in the area. The store also sold washers, gas stoves and refrigerators.
Today, it is the only furniture store left in Nanticoke, which had more than eight furniture stores 50 years ago. Their father, Peter Bartuska Jr., retired in the early 1990s and Jim, 47, and Denis, 48, have been running the business since that time.
"Literally, we grew up in the business," Jim Bartuska said. "It was part of our lives for our whole lives."
Chet Zaremba, vice president of Nanticoke Historical Society, called the closing of the landmark store "disheartening."
"It certainly leaves a void in Nanticoke," Zaremba said. "They certainly made their mark on the history of the downtown."
Zaremba agreed development in downtown Nanticoke has been slow.
"There's a lot of talking but nothing seems to be getting done," Zaremba said.
Nanticoke council President Steve Duda, who is also a member of the municipal authority, said tenants are interested in empty lots in Nanticoke, but that it's too early to say more because negotiations are still ongoing.
"We're working to bring business to the city," Duda said.
At a meeting Monday night, the General Municipal Authority agreed to buy Bartuska's Furniture's warehouse across the street from the store for $145,000 to try to spur economic development there. Duda said the closing of Bartuska's Furniture is unfortunate and "very sad news for the community."
"They have been a pillar in the community," Duda said. "They braved the storm for many years."
dallabaugh@citizensvoice.com, 570-821-2115
Source: citizensvoice.com
California cigarette tax vote too close to call - CNN
(CNN) -- The fate of California's controversial Proposition 29, a proposed tax on cigarettes, was still unclear early Wednesday.
Just before 1 a.m. (4 a.m. ET), one percentage point separated the sides in the battle over the proposed law that would raise taxes on every pack of cigarettes by $1, yielding an estimated $735 million a year for the state.
With close to 70% of the precincts reporting, the preliminary vote tally stood at 49.5% in favor and 50.5% against the law, election officials said.
Opponents of the law say three-quarters of money raised would go to cancer research.
"The American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association wrote the initiative carefully," Lori Bremner of the American Cancer Society told CNN's "Sanjay Gupta MD."
"The money is going to be invested in cancer research here in California and on tobacco prevention and cessation programs to protect kids and reduce smoking here in California."
Studies show the tax will help decrease smoking and save lives, she said.
But those opposed slam the tax as a misguided burden in an already tough economy.
"What we're seeing in the state of California is a lot of frustration on the part of our citizenry that it's just another tax," said Dr. Marcy Zwelling, a general practitioner. The tax, she said in an interview with CNN, "goes to build bigger bureaucracy, build business, build buildings, not necessarily to go to cancer research."
The opposition in California was fueled by a huge influx of cash from big tobacco. About $47 million was raised in efforts -- including TV advertising -- to defeat "Prop. 29," including $27.5 million from Philip Morris and $11 million from R.J. Reynolds, according to figures from MapLight, a nonpartisan research firm.
About $12 million was raised in support of the bill, including $8.5 million from the American Cancer Society and $1.5 million from the Lance Armstrong Foundation, known as Livestrong. Armstrong himself appeared in ads urging people to "vote yes on 29." (Gupta, CNN chief medical correspondent, is a board member of the foundation.)
There is already an 87-cent tax on each pack of cigarettes in California.
According to California's official voter guide, the health groups behind Prop. 29 say it will "save lives, stop kids from smoking, and fund cancer research," while those opposed say the initiative "doesn't require revenue be spent in California to create jobs or fund schools."
Bremner insists the campaign against Prop. 29 has traded in "deceptions." The biggest misconception is that the money collected "will be somehow wasted or used otherwise," she said.
But Zwelling says it will heavily affect poorer Americans, who are more likely to smoke. And other efforts, including the state's ban on smoking in public places, have succeeded at pushing people to quit smoking, she says.
John Seffrin, CEO of the American Cancer Society, says if the bill passes, "It would make California the second-largest funder of cancer research after the (National Cancer Institute) in the entire country."
Some grant proposals that currently go unfunded would find a source of revenue, he said.
"So, it's a tremendous opportunity for California to do the right thing -- not only for California, but for the whole world."
CNN's Caleb Hellerman, Nadia Kounang and Josh Levs contributed to this report.
Source: www.cnn.com
California's Proposition 8 case headed to U.S. Supreme Court - San Jose Mercury News
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.mercurynews.com
Brandenberry Amish Furniture and Other Local Businesses Ready for Shipshewana Visitors - YAHOO!
Shipshewana, Indiana is hosting a variety of events for summer visitors, including a flea market, antique auction and Amish furniture sales.
Shipshewana, Indiana (PRWEB) June 06, 2012
Over the past decades, the tiny Amish town of Shipshewana (located in Northern Indiana) has fashioned itself into a tourist destination for thousands of annual visitors. While the Amish are traditionally noted for their privacy, the Shipshewana Amish’s strong work ethic and genuine hospitality translated into the opportunity for creating a network of Amish merchants, such as the Brandenberry Amish furniture store. With this in mind, here are some upcoming events in Shipshewana:Furniture Shopping – Shipshewana is the Amish furniture capital of the Midwest, and many retailers, including Brandenberry Furniture, support local summer events (such as the Fourth of July weekend flea market sale and antique gallery market), and welcome furniture-enthusiasts and interested travelers to browse their selection of locally-crafted solid wood furniture. Brandenberry Amish Furniture client service representative Floyd says, "Brandenberry is excited to welcome visitors to our store and community this summer!"
Flea Market – The Midwest’s largest flea market (over 100 acres) will feature a special market event: the Independence Day Market (July 2-4). This event will draw larger-than-normal crowds, so be sure to come prepared: good walking shoes, bottled water and a map are recommended. The flea market is open Tuesday and Wednesday, May 1st through October 31st.
Antique Gallery Market – The Fourth of August will bring a special sale to the popular antique gallery market. Boasting over 100 antique dealers (both indoors and outdoors), the Shipshewana antique gallery not only boasts a huge selection of antiques, but old-fashioned music and antique car and tractor displays. The gallery hosts special events year round.
About Brandenberry Furniture:
LeRoy and Ida Weaver established their first Amish furniture store in 1989 in Shipshewana, Indiana, before opening Brandenberry Amish Furniture in 2008. They maintain two family-owned and operated businesses offering a full line of solid wood, Amish Furniture at affordable prices. In addition to providing a wide selection of home furniture, Brandenberry Amish Furniture offers a range of services, including layaway and delivery options, custom furniture design consultation, price quotes and exclusive sales.
Marty Weaver
Brandenberry Amish Furniture
(260) 768-3270
Email Information
Source: news.yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment