Here's how I'm going to vote (UPDATED WITH THE FEW RACES I MISSED LAST NIGHT):
Yes on 19.
I know some stoners and activists are against it. I think some of their critiques are legitimate. But a lot of it's just crazy paranoid fantasies about what will totally happen if there's, like, legal weed, man. The market will get involved!
In terms of what it'll mean for most recreational stoners, and because I love an underdog, I'm voting yes. This is one area where experimental democracy can have real dividends, and give other states a model for how to start the march toward full decriminalization.
Yes on 20.
California voted for the redistricting committee in 2008, but it hasn't meant anything because there's been no redistricting — the Census comes every ten years. Given that the Prop 11 in 2008 that authorized this also removed the prior law keeping legislators from gerrymandering districts to favor parties, incumbents or candidates, voting no on 20 is remarkably stupid. Carl Pope of the Sierra Club out to be ashamed, having his name next to the crazed invective from the voter guide, especially since it sounds like he doesn't know what the prop says. Yes on 20, no on 27.
Yes on 21.
Would you pay $18 a year to have free access to all state parks? Hell yes. Conservation, education, whatever, don't care. Free trips to state parks whenever I want to go? I realize I'm betraying hints of my class here, but goddamn, I love me some free parks and will go all the time. It already costs about six bucks a visit, depending on which ones and how long you park. So figure that you just have to go three times a year to break even, or four times to come out ahead? The argument against is just that it's some sort of car tax or something, and really just comes across as Rob Stutzman hates parks.
No on 22.
Really, trying to put up structural barriers to stop cash flow treasury abuses only works when we're running a surplus. Right now, 22 is just a measure from folks who don't believe government ever works wanting to prove themselves right by making it harder for government to work.
No on 23.
Part of the problem with global warming is that it really is a problem that we have to deal with even when it's not politically or economically convenient. It is happening, deniers are flat earthers, and the economic effects are going to be devastating, so letting them cascade earlier is dumb. Combine that with the loss of green jobs just so that current businesses can keep polluting? Ugh.
Yes on 24.
This one, I could go either way on. I do think that the business tax exemptions as passed were a terrible compromise to an elite group of national and multinational chain businesses that should never have even been necessary. I understand the LA Times position that it's not the voters' place to hash out tax code, especially not through the initiative process, but given that they're bad policy and that the voters are the last chance to catch them before they go into effect, it's hard not to see this as a good opportunity. Especially because the remedy proposed by the Times is to vote out the representatives, but that's easier said than done and only really speaks of single-issue voting anyway. I don't like the initiative system, but when given the choice between voting for 24 and voting against it? I'm voting for it grudgingly.
Yes on 25.
As you hear on every single campaign ad, "Sacramento is broken." A lot of that is because of the two-thirds majority required to get a budget through the legislature. We waste millions, hundreds of millions, every year, and during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, no less. The two-thirds requirement entrenches partisanship and destroys compromise, just like it does in the US Senate. It may mean higher taxes. It will also mean better budgets sooner, with fewer cuts to services. If you like good government, vote yes.
No on 26.
Everything I just said about 25? Reverse it for 26, which would require a two-thirds vote on any fees raised by the government. Now, fees were supposed to be the libertarian approach to taxes, where people pay based on how much they use and can decide how much they use. Sure, it seems a little naive to tell some kid up in Tehachapi that he's choosing to drive his car to work, and so he can ration his other trips to stay within budget, but revenue's gotta come from somewhere. Sorry, you just don't get a good government for free. You get a Somali government for free. Anyway, I'm rambling. Twenty-six would be bad for California. Don't vote for it.
No on 27.
Why would we want to get rid of that redistricting board? Twenty-seven gets rid of it, in concert with Prop 20. It doesn't "save us money," it's sponsored by lunatics and incumbents (with some overlap between the two).
Barbara Boxer for US Senate.
Fiorina was terrible for HP and got fired. Now she's running a cynical campaign, the only real advantage of which is that she brought out a mean, petty Boxer. On some level, it was fun to see Dems fight nasty. On the other hand, it gets old real fast. I'll probably vote early, but if it looks like a blowout, I gotta admire Duane Roberts from the Greens running on a Vote for Duane platform. You know, if you just gotta vote for someone you could have a beer with.
Jerry Brown for Governor.
"I am Governor Jerry Brown. My aura smiles and never frowns." As a big fan of punk rock, I always hoped I'd get to vote for California Uber Alles.
Karen Bass for US Rep.
She got elected two years ago, and I haven't heard boo from her since. Still, when in doubt, this year I'm going Dem.
Curren Price for State Senate.
Endorsed by EQCA, so at least there's that.
Mike Gatto for State Assembly.
Also endorsed by EQCA, Gatto looks a bit sleazy and I couldn't tell from his ads if he was Dem or GOP, but he's a Dem and is apparently for marriage equality. Why not?
Gavin Newsom for Lieutenant Governor.
His cousin's Joanna the screechy harpist. I once worked with a guy named Ted Newsome, which'll make it hard to remember how to spell Gavin's last name. He might get to be governor if Brown dies. Why not?
Debra Bowen for Secretary of State.
She's done a pretty good job for the last four years, so might as well keep her going. I went to a DMV a couple years ago, it was pretty nice, but I'm not sure she's responsible for that. Pretty fast. I'm not sure if she's responsible for that, but in Michigan she would be and she's on a down-ticket race. She's running against a bootstrapping NFL player who sounds like a total dumbass. I'm not going to lie, I think focusing on voter fraud is kinda silly, but that's what she's gotta do, and he's just kinda saying that he'll provide hope for kids and give companies exit interviews when they leave the state (WTF?).
John Chiang for Controller.
I keep wanting to find out that Controller is some sort of super comic book villian position that, through a fluke of California's initiative process, is put up for election every four years. "As the Controller, I will use implanted brain chips to reduce techno-waste by thirty percent! Mind-erase collars and tele-helmets are costing us millions per year!" Chiang's been a pretty good controller, and I voted for him before, so I'd like to keep the streak alive.
Bill Lockyer for Treasurer.
I honestly had no idea what party Lockyer was from, given his ads about being independent and chastising both major parties. He's done well holding California together as much as it has been, and if the sucker wants another term, he should get it. He's up against someone endorsed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, who fill the voter guides with so much nonsense that it must be a front group for guys who drink the blue fluid at barbershops.
Kamala Harris for Attorney General.
The LA Times endorse Steven Cooley as a bit better than Harris, though they concede that both of the candidates are strong ones (for a change). But what doesn't bother them about Cooley, that he's stridently pro-death penalty, anti-gay rights and that he said he'd join in the bullshit lawsuit against "Obamacare," does bother me. These aren't little things, and that he's from LA and is a "good manager" isn't enough for me to get over my reluctance to put the defense of rights that I cherish in his hands.
Dave Jones for Insurance Commissioner.
Dave Jones has been so good as Insurance Commissioner that I won't even make a Monkees joke.
Larry Aceves for Superintendent of Public Instruction.
He's actually been a superintendent, seems to not have dogmatic positions one way or another, and is up against a guy touting his endorsement from the California Professional Firefighters. Has Torlakson (a mysteriously Swedish name) promised to require fire safety classes as graduation requirements? Don't vote for big fire!
Mike Gatto for
No endorsements on Board of Equalization.
Frankly, I just don't know enough. As the people who split up the public excise revenues in California, it's a position just absolutely ripe for a noir novel to be written about it, the dirty unsupervised moneys that go through the vaguely named bureaucracy. I'm pretty much just gonna vote straight Democrat, because what the hell. In all but one of the districts, that's who's already the incumbent; in the last, the Dem gives "Former Honorary Mayor of Pacific Beach" as a qualification, so why not?
John Nuguez for County Assessor.
He's endorsed by the Dems, at least. Scant info on the lower races.
Randy Hammock and Alan Schneider for Superior Court Judges. Rrrrrandy. Rrrrrrandy Hammock.
LA Times says "Yes" on all the judges. After that, the punditocracy thins out quickly. The only real No that I've seen going around is on Ming W. Chin, because he voted that Prop 8 was constitutional under the California state constitution. I'm as against Prop 8 as anybody — hell, I worked against it for a year — but I can understand that in his legal opinion, it was allowed under California law, even if I disagree with that. It was always going to be a federal thing, anyway. So, I'm voting for all of 'em; you can leave out Chin if you like.
Whew. I think that's all from my ballot.
Showing posts with label california. Show all posts
Showing posts with label california. Show all posts
Monday, November 01, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
I think I passed that once
The story of Zzyzxx.
A fellow MetaFilter member also made the film mentioned in the article and sent me a copy. I don't remember it that well, (there was another movie around the same time with a similar name — honest! — and I always get them confused) but I think I still have the DVD around here somewhere.
A fellow MetaFilter member also made the film mentioned in the article and sent me a copy. I don't remember it that well, (there was another movie around the same time with a similar name — honest! — and I always get them confused) but I think I still have the DVD around here somewhere.
Monday, July 26, 2010
California Political Solicitation
Since I'm canvassing, and I have the police called on me pretty regularly, I decided that I should actually know what the law is when I'm out there getting into the most polite, shit-eating conversations I can with the police and management, while still not doing what they want.
Turns our that the law is a lot more complex than what we've been led to believe, at least in our vague employee verbal culture (Ott'd have a field day—maybe I should write a thesis on that some time) at the office, where the sense is generally distilled down to "If it's a shared parking lot, there's nothing they can do."
This also explains why we don't ever canvass Targets.
A quick google for "california political solicitation law" brought up the Target page on their policy. It certainly sheds a lot more light on what the Redondo Whole Foods manager was on about, claiming that a "recent decision" made this all illegal and how she was going to get us all locked up.
What she was referring to was (likely) the California Supreme Court decision of Albertson's v. Young 107 Cal. App. 4th 106 (2003)(pdf), in which it was found that Albertson's had the right to prohibit petitioners from setting up a table and collecting petitions.
A little context here: In a 1980 decision, Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, the California Supreme Court found that California's state constitution gives not only the same protections of free speech as the federal constitution, but also an affirmative right to free speech that is more expansive. The case revolved around a group of high school students who were protesting against a proposed UN resolution condemning Zionism. In a broad finding, the California court found persuasive the argument that because of the increased suburbanization of California culture, supermarkets were taking the place of the public square, thus infringing on property owners' rights to control the content of the speech promulgated thereon… Ugh. That just reads like third-rate legalize. Basically, they ruled that subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, people could exercise their rights to expression in "quasi-public" places.
It was a bold ruling, and both liberal and populist. Which is part of why the California courts have spent the last 30 years chipping away at it. In Trader Joe's Co. v. Progressive Campaigns, Inc. (1999)(pdf), petitioners were banned from a stand-alone Trader Joe's in Santa Rosa; similar outcomes resulted from Costco Companies, Inc. v. Gallant 96 Cal. App. 4th 740 (2002) and the Albertson's case. In all, the court found that a lack of things like coffee shops and areas where customers were invited to linger or congregate placed the stores firmly outside the free speech protections.
Granted, the property owners were greatly aided by the behavior of the canvassers. If the store managers are to be believed, the canvassers not only hassled people outside, but also went into the stores to continue petitioning, and even got into fights while they were in there. But, conversely, because I frequently hear similar stories from grocery store owners, without a lot of proof I tend to assume they're apocryphal. Given that a fair portion of my job is shooting the shit with folks who stop, I've got a pretty good ear for what truth sounds like and what's a convenient, half-remembered story that's simply what you tell someone when you have neither the time nor the inclination to explore an issue fully. Don't shit a shitter, as my Papa Fred used to say.
It's also worth noting that many of the decisions cite prior restrictions on free speech enacted to keep things like violent or disturbing anti-abortion rallies from happening. There's something keenly ironic in noting that when the Planned Parenthood canvassers are run off, it's at least in part because of the laws enacted to keep Planned Parenthood clinics open and operating.
Where does that leave us? Well, in reading through the decisions, it's worth noting that the stores were excellent in picking test cases—the petitioners behaved badly and the stores themselves were able, likely due to good counsel and the inclination of judges to rule in favor of property rights, to get fairly minimizing readings on their businesses. That and a frankly more conservative court has ended up with Pruneyard all but overruled, and more than a few calling to have an explicit ruling doing so.
However, it does appear that the canvassers made their points remarkably poorly, unable to answer questions of fact which the court gave them, instead relying on things like mothers testifying to the good character of their sons and expansive, novel interpretations. They seemed to do a poor job arguing that the notions of public squares have largely become obsolete—no doubt in part due to the fact that much of the public would rather not be engaged with their fellow citizens, a point made repeatedly in the latest Harper's. An emphasis on modern ennui and how that by disallowing political discussions by virtue of a lack of political discussions does seem to beg the question—these are not public spaces because politics is already banned, but that doesn't support the argument that these should not be public spaces. Further, over the last decade, grocery stores have explicitly enlarged their business model to encourage behavior that they explicitly denied prior—the decisions noted that their "convenience" character was at least somewhat based on not having places to linger, nor "coffeeshops or entertainment." That's simply not true of many modern supermarkets, of which many have at least a Starbucks and a set of benches outside as an eating area. A well argued case could, at the very least, expand the time, place and manner restrictions, though the best remedy would likely be legislative, and in California, the grocery lobby is so huge that I'm not very hopeful. They've been able to crush nearly every labor fight in recent memory.
Back to us: So, if a business is able to ban canvassers, how does it do so? Well, it has to enjoin a canvassing group through a preliminary injunction against its canvassing, a civil action. At which point, and hopefully with smarter legal counsel than in prior cases, a canvassing group should be able to countersue and at the very least get the time, place and manner restrictions declared unreasonable. But it's important to note that this is civil law, and that the actions take place between the two corporate entities—those of the business that runs the canvass and the business where the shoppers are. So, while they can ask us to leave, we don't really have to—their remedy is to sue the company we work for.
Further, our—or at least my—technique should leave me in a more defensible position. I only canvass people on their way out, and if they disagree, I tell them to have a nice day. It's hard to construe that as harassment nor as damaging to the business model, and given that they have to prove that the specific company I work for is responsible for damages to their business… Eh. It's a gray area, at least so far as I can tell (though I hasten to add that I'm not an attorney and not giving anyone else any legal advice here). It's simply far too much of a hassle to deal with it, and one of the few areas that is explicitly protected is direct criticism of the store itself, which means that if a store did pursue banning canvassers in a way that harassed or injured them, the canvassers would be within their rights to picket the store and hand out literature about it.
One of the few regular impediments that I deal with is when the business calls the police. They come, sometimes ask me to leave, and I tell them that I have to have a direct order to leave. Sometimes, they'll call the city attorney and ask about what we're doing. It is explicitly political—we are funding a grassroots campaign for EQCA, at least as far as I know. I'll probably look more into that later. But frankly, the understanding of the law that the police have is just as blinkered as that of the store managers or the canvassers themselves, except in one important regard, and that's that nothing we're doing is criminal.
Robert C. Phillips, the deputy D.A. for San Diego, writes about it under the title"Who You Gonna Call? and both views the issue more expansively than the courts appear to, but also concludes that in the vast majority of cases, the police officer should do nothing, in large part because there are no applicable statutes. Of course, canvassers will leave if given an order, and police can enforce a civil injunction, but aside from that… Well, welcome to the ambiguity and ambivalence of public/private life in the 21st century.
I'll end this with one more note, and that's this: Because business owners only ever hear from folks that disagree with the canvassers, they don't realize that we really are supported by the majority of folks that we see. That's why we go to the places that we do. If you like us, or don't mind us, or would like to keep the world a little bit more politically aware and active, or even just have a post-modern view of space and delocalization, tell the managers you like having us there and thank them for the canvassers. It'll make our lives easier and will work to undermine the negative perception that a lot of business management has of us.
Turns our that the law is a lot more complex than what we've been led to believe, at least in our vague employee verbal culture (Ott'd have a field day—maybe I should write a thesis on that some time) at the office, where the sense is generally distilled down to "If it's a shared parking lot, there's nothing they can do."
This also explains why we don't ever canvass Targets.
A quick google for "california political solicitation law" brought up the Target page on their policy. It certainly sheds a lot more light on what the Redondo Whole Foods manager was on about, claiming that a "recent decision" made this all illegal and how she was going to get us all locked up.
What she was referring to was (likely) the California Supreme Court decision of Albertson's v. Young 107 Cal. App. 4th 106 (2003)(pdf), in which it was found that Albertson's had the right to prohibit petitioners from setting up a table and collecting petitions.
A little context here: In a 1980 decision, Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, the California Supreme Court found that California's state constitution gives not only the same protections of free speech as the federal constitution, but also an affirmative right to free speech that is more expansive. The case revolved around a group of high school students who were protesting against a proposed UN resolution condemning Zionism. In a broad finding, the California court found persuasive the argument that because of the increased suburbanization of California culture, supermarkets were taking the place of the public square, thus infringing on property owners' rights to control the content of the speech promulgated thereon… Ugh. That just reads like third-rate legalize. Basically, they ruled that subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, people could exercise their rights to expression in "quasi-public" places.
It was a bold ruling, and both liberal and populist. Which is part of why the California courts have spent the last 30 years chipping away at it. In Trader Joe's Co. v. Progressive Campaigns, Inc. (1999)(pdf), petitioners were banned from a stand-alone Trader Joe's in Santa Rosa; similar outcomes resulted from Costco Companies, Inc. v. Gallant 96 Cal. App. 4th 740 (2002) and the Albertson's case. In all, the court found that a lack of things like coffee shops and areas where customers were invited to linger or congregate placed the stores firmly outside the free speech protections.
Granted, the property owners were greatly aided by the behavior of the canvassers. If the store managers are to be believed, the canvassers not only hassled people outside, but also went into the stores to continue petitioning, and even got into fights while they were in there. But, conversely, because I frequently hear similar stories from grocery store owners, without a lot of proof I tend to assume they're apocryphal. Given that a fair portion of my job is shooting the shit with folks who stop, I've got a pretty good ear for what truth sounds like and what's a convenient, half-remembered story that's simply what you tell someone when you have neither the time nor the inclination to explore an issue fully. Don't shit a shitter, as my Papa Fred used to say.
It's also worth noting that many of the decisions cite prior restrictions on free speech enacted to keep things like violent or disturbing anti-abortion rallies from happening. There's something keenly ironic in noting that when the Planned Parenthood canvassers are run off, it's at least in part because of the laws enacted to keep Planned Parenthood clinics open and operating.
Where does that leave us? Well, in reading through the decisions, it's worth noting that the stores were excellent in picking test cases—the petitioners behaved badly and the stores themselves were able, likely due to good counsel and the inclination of judges to rule in favor of property rights, to get fairly minimizing readings on their businesses. That and a frankly more conservative court has ended up with Pruneyard all but overruled, and more than a few calling to have an explicit ruling doing so.
However, it does appear that the canvassers made their points remarkably poorly, unable to answer questions of fact which the court gave them, instead relying on things like mothers testifying to the good character of their sons and expansive, novel interpretations. They seemed to do a poor job arguing that the notions of public squares have largely become obsolete—no doubt in part due to the fact that much of the public would rather not be engaged with their fellow citizens, a point made repeatedly in the latest Harper's. An emphasis on modern ennui and how that by disallowing political discussions by virtue of a lack of political discussions does seem to beg the question—these are not public spaces because politics is already banned, but that doesn't support the argument that these should not be public spaces. Further, over the last decade, grocery stores have explicitly enlarged their business model to encourage behavior that they explicitly denied prior—the decisions noted that their "convenience" character was at least somewhat based on not having places to linger, nor "coffeeshops or entertainment." That's simply not true of many modern supermarkets, of which many have at least a Starbucks and a set of benches outside as an eating area. A well argued case could, at the very least, expand the time, place and manner restrictions, though the best remedy would likely be legislative, and in California, the grocery lobby is so huge that I'm not very hopeful. They've been able to crush nearly every labor fight in recent memory.
Back to us: So, if a business is able to ban canvassers, how does it do so? Well, it has to enjoin a canvassing group through a preliminary injunction against its canvassing, a civil action. At which point, and hopefully with smarter legal counsel than in prior cases, a canvassing group should be able to countersue and at the very least get the time, place and manner restrictions declared unreasonable. But it's important to note that this is civil law, and that the actions take place between the two corporate entities—those of the business that runs the canvass and the business where the shoppers are. So, while they can ask us to leave, we don't really have to—their remedy is to sue the company we work for.
Further, our—or at least my—technique should leave me in a more defensible position. I only canvass people on their way out, and if they disagree, I tell them to have a nice day. It's hard to construe that as harassment nor as damaging to the business model, and given that they have to prove that the specific company I work for is responsible for damages to their business… Eh. It's a gray area, at least so far as I can tell (though I hasten to add that I'm not an attorney and not giving anyone else any legal advice here). It's simply far too much of a hassle to deal with it, and one of the few areas that is explicitly protected is direct criticism of the store itself, which means that if a store did pursue banning canvassers in a way that harassed or injured them, the canvassers would be within their rights to picket the store and hand out literature about it.
One of the few regular impediments that I deal with is when the business calls the police. They come, sometimes ask me to leave, and I tell them that I have to have a direct order to leave. Sometimes, they'll call the city attorney and ask about what we're doing. It is explicitly political—we are funding a grassroots campaign for EQCA, at least as far as I know. I'll probably look more into that later. But frankly, the understanding of the law that the police have is just as blinkered as that of the store managers or the canvassers themselves, except in one important regard, and that's that nothing we're doing is criminal.
Robert C. Phillips, the deputy D.A. for San Diego, writes about it under the title"Who You Gonna Call? and both views the issue more expansively than the courts appear to, but also concludes that in the vast majority of cases, the police officer should do nothing, in large part because there are no applicable statutes. Of course, canvassers will leave if given an order, and police can enforce a civil injunction, but aside from that… Well, welcome to the ambiguity and ambivalence of public/private life in the 21st century.
I'll end this with one more note, and that's this: Because business owners only ever hear from folks that disagree with the canvassers, they don't realize that we really are supported by the majority of folks that we see. That's why we go to the places that we do. If you like us, or don't mind us, or would like to keep the world a little bit more politically aware and active, or even just have a post-modern view of space and delocalization, tell the managers you like having us there and thank them for the canvassers. It'll make our lives easier and will work to undermine the negative perception that a lot of business management has of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)