California: Prison Realignment Complicates Voting Rights For Felons | KPBS

California’s prison realignment effort has drawn up a complicated matrix of detention options for felons, and with it a lot of confusion about which ones can vote. It’s the subject of a lawsuit alleging the state has unconstitutionally stripped nearly 60,000 Californians of their right to vote. The American Civil Liberties Union of California and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area filed the petition in Alameda County Superior Court on Tuesday. The suit is on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California and three individuals who cannot vote under new rules enacted in response to realignment. The state constitution prohibits from voting people who are “imprisoned or on parole for conviction of a felony.” The language was clear when offenders fell under two categories: the state’s responsibility or a California county’s responsibility. But realignment has created a hybrid system, putting low-level felons who would have otherwise gone to prison under county supervision, through jail or probation.

California: Secretary of state sued over criminals’ voting | Associated Press

Voting and civil liberties groups sued Secretary of State Debra Bowen on Tuesday over a decision she made in 2011 that said tens of thousands of criminals who are serving their sentences under community supervision are ineligible to vote. The American Civil Liberties Union, League of Women Voters, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and other groups filed the lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court on behalf of nearly 60,000 convicts who are sentenced either to mandatory supervision or post-release community supervision. It’s the second lawsuit challenging Bowen’s interpretation of the 2011 criminal justice realignment law, which is designed to ease overcrowding in state prisons by sentencing those convicted of less serious crimes to county jails or alternative treatment programs.

California: Has California cured its political dysfunction? Not so fast. | Washington Post

The federal government has been something of a train wreck lately. The shutdown was just the latest in a seemingly endless parade of partisan bickering and dysfunction. Not long ago, California’s government suffered from similar problems: intense partisan conflict and late, out-of-balance budgets. In response, voters approved an independent redistricting and a “top two” primary. The first denied incumbents the power to directly draw their own lines and the second let primary voters choose any candidate, regardless of party, with the top two candidates advancing to a fall runoff.  The goals included empowering independent voters and clipping the wings of partisan extremism. California has now seen on-time budgets and progress on several major policy fronts. Democrats have reached a dominance not seen in decades, yet have not passed a tax increase and on many key bills have even supported the position of pro-business organizations more closely associated with Republicans. This has generated a lot of interest outside the state. Could these reforms be the medicine for what ails D.C.? Not so fast. We’re getting ahead of the evidence.

California: Senator Rod Wright convicted of perjury, voter fraud | Los Angeles Times

A Los Angeles jury on Tuesday convicted state Sen. Roderick D. Wright on all eight counts in his perjury and voter fraud trial. The Inglewood Democrat was indicted by a Los Angeles County grand jury in September 2010. He had pleaded not guilty and said he thought he had been following the law in 2007 when he took steps to run for the seat he has held since late 2008. In a trial that began Jan. 8, prosecutors accused Wright of faking a move to a rental property he owned in Inglewood so he could run in what was then the 25th Senate District. They accused him of lying on voter registration and candidacy documents and of casting ballots in five elections he was not entitled to vote in from the Inglewood address.  Prosecutors said Wright actually lived in a more spacious single-family home in upscale Baldwin Hills. He bought the house in 2000, but it was in another district.

California: Sen. Roderick Wright case expected to go to jury Friday | Los Angeles Times

With only the prosecution’s rebuttal remaining in the perjury and voter fraud trial of state Sen. Roderick D. Wright, the case is expected to go to jury Friday. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kathleen Kennedy delivered detailed instructions to the jury Thursday before both sides presented their closing arguments. Wright, 61, an Inglewood Democrat, was indicted more than three years ago on eight counts of perjury and voter fraud stemming from steps he took to run for what was then the 25th Senate District. Prosecutors allege Wright cooked up an elaborate scheme in 2007 to make it appear he was eligible to run when he registered to vote and made other moves to establish as his legal residence an Inglewood rental complex he owns. They allege his true residence, or “domicile” as state law puts it, was a single-family home in Baldwin Hills, outside the district he wanted to run in.

California: Feds: Illegal money funneled to San Diego pols | UTSanDiego

The owner of a Washington, D.C.-based campaign firm and a former San Diego police detective are accused of conspiring with a foreign national to illegally inject more than $500,000 into San Diego political races, including the 2012 mayoral contest, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Ravneet Singh, 41, founder of ElectionMall Inc., was arrested Friday by FBI agents and is charged alongside his company and Ernesto Encinas, 57, the former detective, with conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States. According to Tuesday’s complaint, Singh and Encinas helped a Mexican businessman donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to San Diego candidates. Under federal law, foreign nationals are prohibited from making contributions to election campaigns in the United States at any level.

California: Visalia faces California Voting Rights Act lawsuit | abc30.com

The City of Visalia is facing legal action from a group of people who claim the city is violating the California Voting Rights Act and doesn’t have enough Latinos on the city council. Currently Visalia residents vote for their top city council candidates, and whoever gets the most votes is elected. The lawsuit says the city must instead divide itself into districts to give Latinos a voice. A lawsuit filed against the City of Visalia claims in the history of the city, there has only been one Latino council member voted into office, despite Latinos making up 46% of Visalia’s population. It claims the city’s failure to elect council members based on districts is mostly to blame.

California: Palmdale appeals court decision, says it won’t hold new election | Los Angeles Times

Palmdale officials this week appealed a trial judge’s ruling that their at-large elections violate the California Voting Rights Act and said they will not hold new balloting in June. Last month, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mark V. Mooney ordered a new, district-based elections system for Palmdale and required that it hold a special election in June to replace the city’s November at-large election.  He also ruled that the current council members could not stay in office beyond July 9. The appeal automatically stays the order for a new election but not the prohibition against current council members remaining in office, thus adding to the confusion that has beset the city since the court fight began over the elections system last spring.

California: Opening statements made in State Senator Rod Wright’s voter fraud trial | Los Angeles Times

State Sen. Roderick D. Wright (D-Inglewood) deliberately misled voters and broke the law when he took steps to run for an Inglewood-area seat several years ago, a Los Angeles County prosecutor said Thursday during opening statements in Wright’s perjury and voter fraud trial. But Wright’s lead defense attorney said the veteran lawmaker acted properly and was the victim of a “murky” law governing residency rules for candidates and office holders. More than three years after his September 2010 indictment on eight felony counts of perjury and voter fraud, Wright faced a nine-woman, three-man jury in a downtown Los Angeles courtroom. Before the proceedings began, Wright’s attorney, Winston Kevin McKesson, said outside the courtroom that his client will testify in the case, which could take two to three weeks. Prosecutors, McKesson said, were “trying to make somebody a convicted felon for the most minor” of matters.

California: Anaheim settles minority voting rights lawsuit; residents will weigh in on electoral changes | Associated Press

Anaheim on Tuesday approved a settlement in a voting rights lawsuit that challenged its citywide elections as unfair to the city’s Hispanic majority. Under the settlement, the plaintiffs’ claims will be dismissed and Anaheim residents will vote in November on whether to change the city charter to a district system, which supporters and judges have said is more fair to minority voters, the city announced in a statement. The city didn’t admit in the deal that its current system violates the California Voting Rights Act, under which the American Civil Liberties Union brought the lawsuit on behalf of three residents. City Attorney Michael R.W. Houston said it will allow changes to the system to be decided by voters, “not through court-ordered mandates and judicial oversight of the City’s electoral system.”

California: Turnout in Special Elections Has Declined by 1/3 Since Top-Two Rules Came into Force | Ballot Access News

Many large newspapers in California are bemoaning the very low turnout in special U.S. House and legislative elections recently. Some newspapers are editorializing in favor of eliminating special elections for the legislature, and advocating that the Constitution be changed to let the Governor appoint legislators to fill vacant seats. See this Los Angeles Times editorial, and this Santa Rosa Press Democrat editorial. The newspapers are correct that voter turnout in recent special elections has been low. Ever since the top-two rules were in force, starting in 2011, the median voter turnout in California special legislative and U.S. House elections has been 13.84%. The average has been 15.80%. There have been 19 special elections under top-two rules.

California: Assemblyman Roger Hernandez plans to introduce bill requiring district-based elections | Daily Bulletin

Calling it an effort to strengthen the California Voting Rights Act and address the problem that “it’s difficult for people of color to get elected,” Assemblyman Roger Hernandez says he plans to introduce legislation that would require cities with populations of 100,000 or more to hold district-based municipal elections. The bill, the Municipal Fair Representation Act, as currently written would apply only to general law cities, such as West Covina, El Monte, Fontana, Ontario, and Rancho Cucamonga. It would not apply to cities that are established under charters. “It’s important that we do our best as governmental leaders to have voting systems in place to give our diverse populations the best chance of having reflective representation,” Hernandez, D-West Covina, said in a telephone interview Friday. An aide said Hernandez plans to introduce the legislation in January.

California: State Legislature To Consider Doing Away With Special Elections | KPBS

The San Diego region saw its fair share of special elections for state legislature seats this year. Now a retired California lawmaker is proposing an alternative: empty seats would be filled by the governor, not voters. The state legislature could take up the issue next month. Here’s a refresher on San Diego’s recent musical chair elections: Congressman Bob Filner was elected mayor, leaving his congressional seat open. Juan Vargas won that spot, leaving his state senate seat free, which was filled by Ben Hueso in a special election. But that left Hueso’s state assembly seat vacant, so another special election was called to fill it, which labor council leader Lorena Gonzalez won. The special elections for Vargas and Hueso’s seats cost San Diego County $1.5 million and $1.05 million respectively (the assembly seat election was consolidated with a special election to fill San Diego City Council’s District 4), according to Registrar of Voters Michael Vu. The turnout for both state elections hovered around 14.5 percent.

California: Latino voters sue Visalia to end ‘at large’ voting. | Modesto Bee

A group of Latino men who sued the city Thursday allege that Visalia’s “at large” system of electing council members violates the California Voting Rights Act by making it nearly impossible for Latino candidates to win. The Superior Court lawsuit seeks a court order requiring the city to switch to district elections and hold them in even-numbered years, which would correspond with state and federal election cycles. Council members are currently elected in a citywide vote in odd-numbered years, with the top vote-getters winning. The lawsuit comes less than two months after a City Council election in which the only Latino candidate came in a distant fourth behind three white incumbents in the city of about 127,000 that is 46% Hispanic.

California: Special elections: They mostly just waste money | Los Angeles Times

There was a special election in Los Angeles County last week. Didn’t know? Didn’t vote? Didn’t care? Well, you’re in the majority. Less than 9% of registered voters in the 54th Assembly District bothered to show up at the polls or mail in ballots. Angelenos, a generally disunited bunch, coalesced around apathy. But what does it say about us that the one thing we can agree on is indifference? The appalling turnout last week is a symptom of a much larger problem. Why did we even have a special election Dec. 3 in this district that includes Westwood, Ladera Heights, Culver City, Mar Vista and other neighborhoods in west and southwest Los Angeles? It was held to replace former Assemblywoman and current state Sen. Holly Mitchell. Thanks to term limits, which were enacted as a political “reform,” politicians in Los Angeles and California play an endless game of musical chairs, hopping from one elected office to another, sometimes in the middle of their terms.

California: Anaheim hopes to settle suit over alleged Latino political exclusion | Los Angeles Times

Anaheim is in talks to settle a lawsuit filed by the ACLU accusing the city of effectively excluding Latinos from holding political office and violating the California Voting Rights Act. The case is set to go to trial in March but key hearings and depositions have been delayed because the parties appear to be moving toward a deal, according to court records and a plaintiff. “For me, certainly, any settlement talks are about the city agreeing toward the direction of establishing districts, authentic districts, where the representatives are voted for by the residents of those districts,” said Jose Moreno, a plaintiff in the suit. The ACLU filed the case on behalf of Moreno and two other Latino residents of Anaheim last year in an effort to end the city’s at-large elections. Anaheim is the largest city in California that still elects its leaders at large rather than by districts.

California: Anaheim, ACLU in talks to settle council district election lawsuit | Los Angeles Times

The city of Anaheim is in talks to settle a lawsuit filed by the ACLU accusing the city’s election system of violating the state’s Voting Rights Act. The case is set to go to trial in March but key hearings and depositions have been delayed because the parties appear to be moving toward a deal, according to court records and a plaintiff. “For me, certainly, any settlement talks are about the city agreeing toward the direction of establishing districts, authentic districts, where the representatives are voted for by the residents of those districts,” said plaintiff Jose Moreno. The ACLU filed the case on behalf of Moreno and two other Latino residents of Anaheim last year in an effort to end the city’s at-large elections. Anaheim is the largest city in California that still elects its leaders at large rather than by districts.

California: Palmdale ordered to hold by-district election for City Council posts | Los Angeles Times

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, who earlier this year found the city of Palmdale to be in violation of the California Voting Rights Act, has ordered the city to hold a new by-district election for its four City Council posts. In a ruling dated last week and received by the involved parties over the weekend, Judge Mark V. Mooney ordered that the special election, to replace the balloting for council seats held last month, is to be conducted June 3, the same day as the California primary. Future elections are to be held in November of even-numbered years, to dovetail with state and federal balloting, in the expectation that such coordination will increase voter turnout. The judge allowed Palmdale to continue to elect its mayor by voters throughout the city. That means Mayor James Ledford’s recent reelection will not be affected by the ruling.

California: Palmdale Voting Rights Act Ruling Could Change Political Landscape | KHTS Radio

Palmdale politics could be changed forever if a judge’s ruling in a California Voting Rights Act lawsuit stands. Don’t miss a thing. Get breaking Santa Clarita news alerts delivered right to your inbox. A tentative ruling by Judge Mark V. Mooney called for Palmdale to scrap at-large elections in favor of four districts and a citywide mayoral position, which is currently held by Mayor Jim Ledford. Furthermore, Mooney’s judgment states no member of Palmdale‘s City Council, save Ledford, can hold office after July 9, 2014, calling for a special election in June. “As always, we’re pleased with Judge Mooney’s ruling and reasoning,” said attorney Kevin Shenkman, who represented the plaintiff. “It’s a very well thought-out decision. We’re happy because we think the remedy that Mooney has set out will provide an opportunity for Latinos and African Americans in Palmdale to elect their candidates of choice.”

California: Lack of Justice Department action in Los Angeles County voting rights dispute rankles Latinos | Associated Press

The Obama administration is aggressively pursuing lawsuits over minority voting rights in Texas and North Carolina, but the Justice Department has not moved on evidence that the latest round of redistricting in Los Angeles County unfairly reduces the influence of Latino voters. Nearly half the 10 million people in the nation’s largest county are Latino. But political boundaries redrawn in 2011 make it possible for Latino voters to elect just one of the five supervisors. The administration has resisted calls to sue the county, despite the county’s history of discrimination against Latino voters in earlier redistricting efforts. The inaction rankles some Latino activists who count themselves as strong backers of President Barack Obama.

California: Ballot measure money not political under IRS loophole | news10

It’s considered the equalizer for the most-talked about organizations in politics: an IRS requirement that 501(c)(4) ‘social welfare’ groups spent less than half their cash on politics. But experts say the IRS left a big loophole that could play out big time in California: ballot measure spending isn’t considered political. “You could have a nonprofit doing virtually no traditional charitable work at all and really just being a funnel for campaign funds,” says Gary Winuk, the chief enforcement officer of the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission. The existence of the loophole is understandable; few states have an initiative system that allows voters to write their own laws.  And even fewer have a system that’s used as often, and costs as much, as the one in California. Even so, it’s a loophole not widely publicized and likely to gain more attention as 501(c)(4) groups turn more of their attention — and money — to the Golden State.

California: Probe of campaign donations sheds light on ‘dark money’ | Los Angeles Times

Tony Russo had a multimillion-dollar problem. The Republican consultant and his team had raised piles of cash to use in California politics as last November’s election approached. But a wrinkle in state law meant he couldn’t spend it in the final two months of the campaign without jeopardizing the anonymity he had promised his rich donors. So Russo turned to what he called “the Koch network.” He asked a political consultant who has worked with billionaire Republican contributors Charles and David Koch to shuttle the money through an Arizona nonprofit. That group, which is not required to reveal its donors, could send cash to California causes without names attached. But things went from bad to worse. Although Russo handed over $25 million, only about $15 million ended up back in California. And when the money surfaced, it sparked an investigation by state authorities, who last month[ levied $16 million in penalties against the Arizona group and three others.

California: Group Linked to Kochs Admits to Campaign Finance Violations | New York Times

A secretive nonprofit group with ties to the billionaire conservative businessmen Charles and David Koch admitted to improperly failing to disclose more than $15 million in contributions it funneled into state referendum battles in California, state officials there announced Thursday. The group, the Arizona-based Center to Protect Patient Rights, is one of the largest political nonprofits in the country, serving as a conduit for tens of millions of dollars in political spending, much of it raised by the Kochs and their political operation and spent by other nonprofits active in the 2010 and 2012 elections. The settlement, announced by Attorney General Kamala D. Harris of California and the Fair Political Practices Commission, which enforce California’s campaign finance laws, includes one of the largest penalties ever assessed on a political group for failing to disclose donations. The center and another Arizona group involved in the transactions, Americans for Responsible Leadership, will pay a $1 million fine, while two California groups must turn over $15 million in contributions they received.

California: Alameda County Can’t Dismiss Suit From Blind Voters | News Service

Blind voters in California can advance claims that the voting machines meant for them in Alameda County malfunctioned and violated their rights, a federal judge ruled. The California Council of the Blind and five individual voters sued Alameda County because the accessible voting machines for the blind failed to work properly, forcing them to vote with the help of another person. The county has Sequoia AVC Edge voting machines at each of its polling places. Using voice prompts, headphones and a tactile keypad, a blind person can vote independently. But the machines allegedly malfunctioned several times on Election Day, and the plaintiffs say they endured long delays as poll workers failed to get the machines working. More than one plaintiff said they were shuttled to another voting site, only to discover that the machine there did not work either.

California: County leaders settle dispute over charges for recounting ballots of Riverbank election | Modesto Bee

Stanislaus County leaders have dismissed the balance owed for the recount of the Riverbank mayoral election of 2012. County officials entered an agreement last month with former mayor Virginia Madueño to dismiss a remaining balance of $3,250, with neither side admitting fault. After Madueño lost by 53 votes to Richard O’Brien last year, one of her supporters asked for the Dec. 10 recount, which was stopped after five hours because the results were not changing. Madueño was stunned when county elections sent her campaign an invoice six weeks later showing a $7,817 balance owed in addition to the $2,400 deposit paid the day of the recount. The Registrar of Voters’ total charges for counting about 500 ballots was $10,217, or $20 per ballot. The person who requests a recount is expected to pay for it, but the invoiced costs tend to vary from county to county in California. And critics have suggested that county registrars arbitrarily impose recount charges.

California: Appeals court paves way for Palmdale elections | Los Angeles Daily News

An appeals court has cleared the way for Palmdale’s planned Nov. 5 City Council elections to take place, reversing a lower-court injunction that would have prevented the city’s contested at-large method of voting. In July, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mark Mooney ruled that the Antelope Valley city’s system of electing council members violates the California Voting Rights Act and is discriminatory because representatives are chosen by the city as a whole, rather than by geographic districts. At the time of the decision, he issued an order halting voting until the receipt of further directions. But two judges in the 2nd District Court of Appeal said Tuesday voting can take place, and while the results can be counted, they cannot be certified without further consideration, citing language in Mooney’s ruling. “The certification issue remains to be decided on direct appeal,” the ruling said. “This court is prepared to decide the certification issue on a priority basis.”

California: Political Parties And A Campaign Finance No-Man’s Land | KPBS

San Diego’s political parties are getting into the thick of the fundraising battle in the mayor’s race, spending tens of thousands of dollars on their favored candidates. But most of that money hasn’t come in the form of cash or in-kind contributions to councilmen David Alvarez and Kevin Faulconer. And none of it has come in the form of independent expenditures disbursed to support the candidates. Instead, the Republican Party of San Diego County is spending tens of thousands of dollars in a push to educate its party members and persuade them to vote. According to reports on file with the California Secretary of State, the county Republican committee has spent more than $61,000 on “member communications expenditures” on Faulconer’s behalf. Those communications can include pamphlets and direct mailers to party members.

California: Brown nixes Democrats-friendly initiative reform measure | Washington Post

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) has vetoed a measure that would have severely limited the ability of wealthy activists and corporations to use paid signature gatherers to get initiatives on the ballot. The measure, Assembly Bill 857, would have required 10 percent of signatures for any given ballot initiative to be collected by volunteers, rather than by paid signature gatherers. The number of signatures supporters need to turn in is based on the number of votes in the last gubernatorial election; that means groups would have to rely on volunteers to gather a little more than 50,000 of the 504,760 valid signatures required to get an initiative on the ballot. “The initiative process is far from perfect and monied interests have historically manipulated it at will,” Brown wrote [pdf] in a veto message. “Requiring a specific threshold of signatures to be gathered by volunteers will not stop abuses by narrow special interests — particularly if ‘volunteer’ is defined with broad exemptions as in this bill.”

California: Study finds downsides for off-year local elections | Los Angeles Times

Off-year municipal elections like those held this year in Los Angeles reduce overall voter turnout and appear to draw disproportionately small numbers of voters from minority groups, according to a study by the Greenlining Institute to be released Monday. “Our analysis strongly suggests that holding local elections in odd years … almost certainly skews the makeup of the electorate,” said Michelle Romero, director of the group’s Claiming our Democracy program. In addition, holding local elections separately from state and federal elections raises per-voter costs, the study found.

California: Ten years after Gray Davis recall, California still feels effects | Los Angeles Times

Ten years ago, California erupted in an anti-government, anti-establishment convulsion unlike any ever seen. Disgruntled voters seized the chance for a rare do-over, recalling their staid and serious governor, Gray Davis, and replacing him less than a year after his reelection with one of the most famous and exuberant personalities on the planet. It was only the second time in U.S. history a sitting governor was booted from office. The spectacle — a snap election featuring a color wheel of 135 candidates, including a former child actor, a porn star and a handful of professional politicians — shook California from its usual political slumber and captivated an audience that watched from around the world. A decade on, the effects are still being felt, albeit subtly, and not the way proponents imagined, or the way actor-turned-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the chief beneficiary, so grandly promised.