RECOMMENDATIONS ON CALIFORNIA BALLOT CHOICES

 How I view California's ballot choices:  

With only three hours to go before the polls close:

President:  Joseph Biden

    Because Donald Trump must be defeated.  If he returns to the presidency, the earth will have to absorb a possibly fatal dose of greenhouse gas, environmental poisons and generally an evil one-party government led by a narcissistic bully.

As for vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris, she’s good for identity politics and would step into the presidency if needed with knowledge as a senator.

 

Propositions:

14:   Bonds for stem cell research program

        No, the previous bonds really haven’t produced much, and there simply are more desperate health issues at the present including protecting workers from COVID and the populace from homelessness.   Hopefully the U.S. government and private industry will fund this work.

 

15:   YES!   Splitting proposition 13 properties to allow current assessments of commercial property:    

Commercial properties are subject to numerous ways of evading a sale that would permit reassessment.  Commercial properties should pay for themselves including a reasonable level of taxation.

 

16:   Allows some degree of affirmative action for minorities.   

YES, the need for remediation of the harm from  a history of prejudice is still needed.

 

17:   Restores right to vote for felons who  may be on parole. 

No, but a tossup.  I generally do not feel released felons to be either likely to be thoughtful voters, or society to owe them back full citizenship until their terms are completed.  The outcome either way is unlikely to affect the outcome of any election.    

 

18:  Permits 17 year olds to vote in primary elections.  

No.  Among other reasons, primary elections may also address many other matters, while the rationale is that 17 year olds should help pick the candidates they can vote in or out when they are 18.   Probably a level of maturity and responsibility theoretically reached at 18 years is not a bad requirement for the right to vote.  

 

19:  Revises Proposition 13 to exempt from reassessment more property if seniors and some others move to equal or cheaper homes.  It also allows reassessment for property tax purposes of property (worth over $1 million) inherited by children, or grandchildren, who do not live in the property and merely rent it out.

YES.  The transferability of the reduced assessment for long-term residents would probably result in more “right-sizing” of dwelling units as people age, and the reassessment of rental property upon the death of the owner would be a step toward progressive taxation of families to reduce unearned accumulation of wealth.

 

20:  Restriction of early parole release of certain convicts.  

No:   Generally, this seems to be yet another full employment for correctional officers effort.  There is also no particular reason to ask the electorate exactly how particular offenses should be treated.  That’s why we hire politicians and have courts and parole boards.  

 

21:  Expand various opportunities for rent control. 

No.  Living in the Bay Area, Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco, Richmond, and other communities have passed strict rent control.   We have homelessness, a politics that is all about how much tenants may take advantage of landlords, and no one in their right mind would want to build rental housing or go into the business if they could be prohibited from ever making money.   We need higher wages, more market rate housing, and a lot more highly subsidized housing, paid for by progressive taxation, not more imposition of restrictions on the people willing to provide or invest in housing for others. 

 

22:  Exemption of certain delivery and ride share drivers from wage and hour provisions. 

Yes.   These are not jobs for which the precise, inflexible, wage and hour rules and draconian and one-sided means of enforcement in California labor laws are appropriate.  Laws should be designed to appropriately protect people who choose flexible hours. not force every type of employment into one size fits all box.

 

23:   Rules re kidney dialysis:

No.  This is a medical issue it is a mistake to ask the general public to decide.  We are likely to either get it wrong or make it vastly more expensive.

 

24:  Data privacy:   

No.  This may (or may not) be a good law, though it is very similar to what is already on the books.  The on-line descriptions indicate it is extremely detailed, but rules in the initiative may not work as technology changes.   The California ACLU opposes it but apparently only because they think it does not go far enough.  The industry has been on the sidelines which probably means they want it to pass.   

 

 25:  Replacement of money bail system

YES!.  Although there probably will be flaws in the new system, the existing bail system simply benefits the wealthier and connected (and the bail bond industry) and damages the poor and isolated regardless of their ultimate guilt or innocence.

 

Postmaster General violates Three Criminal Statutes 18 USC 595, 1361, and 1701

If you or I carted away a blue postal box or disabled a mail sorting machine that was needed to handle mail ballots in a presidential election we would probably be charged and found guilty of violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1361. Willful destruction of government property[i] and  Interfering with the mails, violating 18 U.S. Code § 1701.[ii]   If we were employed by the government, we’d also be guilty of interfering with an election, violating 18 U.S. Code § 595.[iii]

Louis DeJoy, the Trump contributor who Trump recently made Postmaster General has admitted to actions constituting hundreds of these violations. 

At his hearing, Friday, August 21, 2020, Louis DeJoy,  Trump’s contributor and minion Postmaster General said that under his brief administration “since my arrival we removed about 700 collection boxes.”

DeJoy’s  has also been busily removing, destroying, or otherwise taking off line mail sorting machines capable of sorting the surge of mail in ballots expected because of their convenience and relative safety during the pandemic.   The machines can label and sort tens of thousands of letters, bills and ballots, each hour.   671 sorting machines, representing about 10 percent of USPS inventory were, or are, slated to be taken off line. 

The Washington Post reports that States with more people and, hence, a larger USPS footprint had more machines taken out. California had the greatest number, 76, New York (52).   Alaska is the only state with no machines on the list.   Many of the machines have been removed in critical swing states: 59 in Florida, 58 in Texas, 34 in Ohio, 30 in Pennsylvania, 26 in Michigan, 15 in North Carolina, 12 in Virginia, 12 in Wisconsin, and 11 in Georgia.  An article by Mother Jones says 600 are gone.   

Dejoy’s destruction of government property and the mails is being done with knowledge that he was intervening (e.g. rigging) the election. 

 

The Economist of August 22, writes:

 “The postal service’s capacity has been particularly reduced in cities in swing states such as Pontiac Michigan; Philadelphia Pennsylvania; Columbus Ohio; and even in Houston Texas.  The USPS warned 46 states that mailed-in ballots could arrive too late to be counted.” 

 

A CNN web article provides photographs covertly taken by USPS employees shoing machines being stored outside, and one in Florida being lifted into a dumpster.  

DeJoy told Congress on August 21, 2020,  that this has nothing to do with intentionally slowing done the mail or the surge capacity of the post office in light of heavy mail-in voting expected in November.  He claimed to not know about removing mailboxes, and that removing 10 percent of mail sorting capacity was a normal way of reflecting reductions in first class mail -  while admitting he was letting it pile up.  

Trump has been running a Twitter storm for months about how mail ballots could cause fraud, despite zero evidence supporting him, and who has been threatening vetos of legislation to make sure the post office has the money it needs.   He appoints an unqualified contributor to run the institution that must deliver these votes to election officials on time.  And that official immediately sets to work castrating the mail system in certain swing districts might affect the Democratic vote.   One need not engage in conspiracy theories, this is one that Donald Trump announced in advance.    

    It is one where his minion, Mr. DeJoy, may need a good criminal lawyer.

---

[i] 18 U.S.C. § 1361. Willful destruction of government property.    

Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or any property which has been or is being manufactured or constructed for the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or attempts to commit any of the foregoing offenses, shall be punished as follows:

 

If the damage or attempted damage to such property exceeds the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both; if the damage or attempted damage to such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

 

[ii] 18 U.S. Code § 1701. Obstruction of mails generally

Whoever knowingly and willfully obstructs or retards the passage of the mail, or any carrier or conveyance carrying the mail, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

 

[iii] 18 U.S. Code § 595. Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments

Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

 

MORE ON HOW BIAS MAY BE ELIMINATED IN CHARGES OF RESISTING ARREST

Expanding on my last blog about resisting arrest,  the following fills in some details of a proposal to discipline the individuals responsible for bias, or avoiding it, as well as looks at the legal implications. 

The proposal is to amend the Government Code and Civil Code to provide:

Each government entity should keep ethnic statistics of the charges of ‘resisting arrest’ California Penal Code Section 148(a) recommended by police or sheriff entities, charged by prosecutors, or adjudged in court including by pleas of guilty. 

These statistics will be reported to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

 Wherever it appears that police, as individuals, or departments, are disproportionately accusing racial minorities of violation of PC section 148(a)  that prosecutors are disproportionately charging this section against such minorities, or that courts are disproportionately convicting or accepting guilty pleas to PC 148(a)  the officers, chiefs, prosecutors, and/or judges should be investigated for bias by the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing. (DFEH). 

The DFEH may then schedule a hearing or refer the matter for hearing by the highest responsible in the policing jurisdiction, the applicable county sheriff, or presiding judge of the applicable county’s superior court.  

A statistical disproportion of 10 percent greater than the population of the ethnic group in the applicable county or police jurisdiction, as determined by the last decennial census, or a later census  count authorized by the Governor, will raise a a rebuttable presumption that bias exists.  Individuals, or if individuals cannot be reasonably identified, then the applicable supervisory person or persons, will be invited to  show a credible neutral explanation for the disproportionate enforcement at a hearing to be scheduled within 60 days.   If such invitees cannot overcome the presumption of bias, the DFEH shall issue a finding of bias that shall be retained by the DFEH as a public record and will be incorporated in the record of the officers, prosecutors, or judges as applicable,  and that must be reported considered in any job performance review, promotion or transfer application of the individual for the next 10 years. 

“Disproportionately” shall be defined as 10 percent greater than the percentage of the population of the ethnic group, in the applicable police jurisdiction, city, or county.

“Ethnic”  shall be defined as identified on a driver’s license, or by an arresting officer, subsequent prosecutor, or judge as of apparent African or Afro-American ancestry,  East Asian or Pacific Island ancestry, Latin American Ancestry. 

Professionally discipline practitioners of biased enforcement

The reform proposed is both limited but powerful.  Civil servants, whether police or prosecutors, or even judges, are probably more sensitive to possible employment related sanctions than to general civil laws which must be enforced by a prosecutor, or brought to court by an aggrieved individual.  This rule makes them individually and personally responsible for avoiding bias, thus making them both personally and institutionally motivated to find ways out of the bias that is statistically pervasive, and so destructive of trust in the institutions of law enforcement.    

The proposal does not involve a treatment of an individual on the basis of their race or ethnicity and so avoids the concerns of the U.S. Supreme Court for color blind responses, in the absence of a narrowly interpreted compelling public purpose.  [1] [2]   

Use of statistical and sociological evidence to permit government policy based on race has been approved to remediate de jure practices which it is certainly arguable based on charging and prosecution history this has been.    The provision does not create an arbitrary standard, only a presumption based on statistical evidence, of wrongdoing that may be challenged, and a narrow tailoring of a remedy.  

In the above respects it is unlike the far more sweeping proposed AB 2542.  That bill allows, but likewise requires to obtain such a remedy, an accused person to engage in discovery to determine if he or she is the victim of biased prosecution for any crime, and then excuses the accused, regardless of how guilty, or how heinous the victimization and crime if the prosecution “fruit” is tainted by the poisonous tree of racial bias.

In contrast the above proposal does not excuse factual behavior of one person because of the bias of another, nor does it involve the legally dubious treating of individuals differently because of their own race or ethnicity.   

---

[1] Parents Involved in Community Schools v Seattle School Dist. (2007) 127 S. Ct 2738,2740

[2] A legislative classification satisfies equal protection of law so long as persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law receive like treatment. (Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 861, 106 Cal.Rptr. 388, 506 P.2d 212.)  Connerly v. State Personnel Bd. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 16 [92 Cal.App.4th 16, 32112 Cal.Rptr.2d 5, 19–20]