DOCSLIB.ORG

Tobacco Policy Making in California 2001-2003: No Longer Finishing First

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tobacco Policy Making in California 2001-2003: No Longer Finishing First UCSF Tobacco Control Policy Making: United States Title Tobacco Policy Making in California 2001-2003: No Longer Finishing First Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/037948rj Authors Ibrahim, Jennifer K., Ph.D. Glantz, Stanton A., Ph.D. Publication Date 2003-06-02 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Tobacco Policy Making in California 2001-2003: No Longer Finishing First Jennifer K. Ibrahim, Ph.D. Stanton A. Glantz, Ph.D. Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education Institute for Health Policy Studies School of Medicine University of California, San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94118 June 2003 Tobacco Policy Making in California 2001-2003: No Longer Finishing First Jennifer K. Ibrahim, Ph.D. Stanton A. Glantz, Ph.D. Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education Institute for Health Policy Studies School of Medicine University of California, San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94118 June 2003 Supported in part by National Cancer Institute Grant CA-61021and grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund. Copyright 2003 by J.K. Ibrahim and S.A. Glantz. Permission is granted to reproduce this report for nonprofit purposes designed to promote the public health, so long as this report is credited. This report is available on the World Wide Web at http://repositories.cdlib.org/ctcre/tcpmus/CAPolicy2003/. This report is one of a series of reports that analyze tobacco industry campaign contributions, lobbying, and other political activity in California and other states. The other reports are available on the World Wide Web at http://repositories.cdlib.org/ctcre/. i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY * Tobacco control efforts in California during the 2001-2002 legislative session were hampered by the resurgence of the tobacco industry and a lack of commitment from the Davis Administration. * During the 2001-2002 legislative session, the tobacco industry spent a total of $5.95 million in political expenditures, which is an increase of $1.3 million over the previous legislative session. * Campaign contributions from the tobacco industry to legislators, legislative candidates, political parties and constitutional officers totaled $1.66 million, a 13% increase over the previous election cycle. * Tobacco industry to campaign contributions continue to favor Republicans over Democrats, although the divide is not as great as in previous years. Thus, of the $1,153,466 that was contributed to an identifiable party (including candidates, constitutional officers, legislators and political parties) during the 2001-2002 legislative session, $706,150 went to Republicans (61%) compared to $447,316 to Democrats (39%). This is an increase from the previous election cycle, when Republicans received 58% ($857,023) of the tobacco industry’s contributions in California and Democrats received 42% ($613,587). * An additional $513,000 was contributed to non-partisan committees in 2001-2002. * The largest recipients of tobacco industry funds during the 2001-2002 legislative session were Assemblyman Tony Strickland (R-Dist.37), who received $63,000 and Senator James Brulte (R-Dist.31) who received $67,500. * On average, for every one point increase in a legislator's tobacco policy score, tobacco industry campaign contributions decreased by $3,270. This is a slight decrease from the 1997-1998 legislative session when a one point increase in the policy score resulted in a $3,690 decrease in tobacco industry campaign contributions *During the 2001-2002 legislative session, 74 candidates and elected officials did not accept contributions from the tobacco industry; 16 Republicans (23% of 69 Republicans) and 59 Democrats (59% of 100 Democrats). * Among the committees that review tobacco control policy, members of the Assembly Governmental Organizations Committee received the highest average tobacco industry campaign contribution among those recipients who accepted tobacco industry funding: $16,988 per member accepting tobacco funds. The Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee ranked a close second ($16,750 per accepting member), followed by the Senate Governmental Organizations Committee ($14,694 per accepting member) and the Assembly Health Committee ($12,778 per accepting member). With the exception of the Assembly Budget and Appropriations Committees, all of the Republican members of these committees accepted tobacco industry campaign contributions. ii * The tobacco industry spent $4.29 million on lobbying expenditures during the 2001-2002 legislative session, including $3.64 million paid directly to lobbying firms and an additional $649,076 on activities and other expenditures to influence policy making in California. Excluding activity and other expenditures, the tobacco industry increased its lobbying expenditures by $1.05 million (a 41% increase) between the 1999-2000 and 2001-2002 legislative sessions. * The tobacco industry has adopted a new strategy of using independent expenditure committees, which are not required to report political expenditures, to attack and discredit policy makers sympathetic to tobacco control in California. * Of the 10 tobacco-related bills that were enacted during the 2001-2002 legislative session, the tobacco lobbying firms reported lobbying against seven of them. The three bills not lobbied on included: a) AB2205 which increases the penalty for knowingly holding or selling tobacco products without having paid the appropriate tobacco tax, b) AB 1867 which expands the area around totlots in which smoking is prohibited and c) SB 322 which prohibits the sale of bidis. * Of the 17 tobacco-related bills that were not enacted during the 2001-2002 legislative session, the tobacco lobbying firms reported lobbying against 12. * The tobacco industry has also made efforts to gain legitimacy in the public’s eye through youth prevention programs and image changes, such as Philip Morris changing its name to Altria and renewing its efforts to donate funds to community projects. The result is that policy makers, such as Carole Migden, are starting to state that the tobacco industry has changed as a justification for accepting tobacco industry campaign contributions. * The effectiveness of California’s tobacco control efforts were recognized by the tobacco industry in September 2002 when R.J. Reynolds filed suit against the California Tobacco Education Media Campaign, claiming that the media campaign made it impossible for the tobacco companies to receive a fair trial with an unbiased jury. Judge Michael T. Garcia ruled against the tobacco company. * R.J. Reynolds made a second attempt at legitimacy in the court of public opinion, this time in conjunction with Lorillard, by returning to the California Courts in April 2003, filing allegations of vilification by the Media Campaign. * The tobacco industry spends more than $1.2 billion annually on advertising and promotions in California alone. At the same time, California’s Tobacco Control Program was funded at only about 12% of the tobacco industry’s expenditures on advertising and promotions. * The Tobacco Control Program’s budget has continued to erode at the hands of the Davis Administration. The Governor’s Proposal for the 2003-2004 Budget appropriates approximately $86 million for the program, which is a decrease from $108 million in 2002-2003 and $154 million in 2001- 2002. The decline in revenues is due to a decrease in Proposition 99 revenues as a result of decreased tobacco consumption and a lack of new funds dedicated to the Tobacco Control Program. At the same time, inflation has reduced the purchasing power of the funds that are available. iii * In 2001, Governor Davis increased funding for the Media Campaign $19 million in FY1999-2000 to $45 million for FY2000-2001 and FY2001-2002. In 2001, Governor Davis also allocated $20 million from the state’s share of MSA revenues for a youth anti-smoking campaign. However, this commitment to the Tobacco Control Program was short-lived, as Governor Davis withdrew the additional funds in 2002. * While rates of tobacco use in California have remained stable at about 17% between 2000 and 2001, the prevalence decreased to 16.6% in 2002. This drop may be a reflection of the additional funds provided in 2000 and 2001. * In 2002, there were three proposals introduced to increase the cigarette excise tax. Governor Davis introduced a 50 cent increase which was changed to a 63 cent increase in the Senate’s revision of the budget, Senator Deborah Ortiz introduced a 65 cent increase, and Speaker Herb Wesson proposed a $2.13 increase. While Senator Ortiz intended the revenues from a tax increase to go to tobacco control and access to health care programs, neither the Governor nor Speaker Wesson earmarked any portion of the tax for tobacco control efforts. None of these proposals were enacted. * In January 2003, Governor Davis included a $1.10 cigarette tax increase in his 2003-2004 Budget proposal, but these funds were intended to bridge the $34.6 billion budget deficit and as of April 2003, none of the revenues were earmarked for tobacco control efforts. * In his May 2003 budget revision, Governor Davis proposed only a 23 cent tax increase in 2003-2004 and an additional 40 cent tax increase in 2004-2005. This decision was made despite a 61% public approval for a cigarette tax increase of $2.00 and a 68% approval for a cigarette tax increase of 75 cents. * While state officials decided to securitize $2.5 billion in Master Settlement Agreement revenues in January 2003, the Governor's May 2003 budget revision indicated that the state would not securitize its remaining share of funds. Instead, the $173 million expected for the next fiscal year would be used to cover General Fund expenditures for the Healthy Families Program. *. While the Governor's May revision of the 2003-2004 Budget did not reflect the Tobacco Education and Research Oversight Committee’s funding recommendations, funding for the Tobacco Control Program was increased by 6% as opposed to a decrease or a diversion of funds as a result of a one time increase in the Proposition 10 backfill.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    No. __________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SOUTHWEST VOTER REGISTRATION EDUCATION PROJECT; SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE OF GREATER LOS ANGELES; and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COLORED PEOPLE, CALIFORNIA STATE CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KEVIN SHELLEY, in his official capacity as California Secretary of State, Defendant-Appellee. On appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California The Honorable Stephen V. Wilson C. D. Cal. Case No. CV 03-5715 SVW (RZx) APPELLANTS’ OPENING BRIEF Mark D. Rosenbaum Erwin Chemerinsky Laurence H. Tribe Peter J. Eliasberg University of Southern Hauser Hall 420 Ben Wizner California Law School 1575 Massachusetts Ave. Catherine Lhamon 600 Exposition Blvd. Cambridge, MA 02138 Daniel P. Tokaji, of counsel Los Angeles, CA 90089 Tel: (617) 495-4621 ACLU Foundation of Tel: (213) 740-2539 Fax: (617) 495-3383 Southern California Fax: (213) 740-5502 1616 Beverly Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90026 Tel: (213) 977-9500 Fax: (213) 250-3919 Attorneys For All Plaintiffs-Appellants (See next page for additional counsel) Alan L. Schlosser, SBN 49957 Margaret C. Crosby, SBN 56812 ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 1664 Mission Street, Suite 460 San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 621-2493 Fax: (415) 255-8437 Attorneys for All Plaintiffs-Appellants Jordan Budd, SBN 144288 ACLU OF SAN DIEGO & IMPERIAL COUNTIES P.O. Box 87131 San Diego, CA 92138 Tel: (619) 232-2121 Fax: (619) 232-0036 Attorneys for All Plaintiffs-Appellants John C. Ulin Jilana L. Miller HELLER EHRMAN WHITE & MCAULIFFE, LLP 601 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel: (213) 689-0200 Fax: (213) 614-1868 Attorneys for All Plaintiffs-Appellants Except Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Los Angeles STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The AFL-CIO ■ the California Labor Federation ■ IBEW Local 1245
    Vol. 49 • No. 2 February 2000 Unity Is Strength UtilityRe orter 58 PBEW LOCAL 1245 • AFL CIO Millionaires IBEW warns DOE that downsizing take aim at has compromised service reliability working folks ocal 1245 Business Manager Jack Power Outage Study Team in McNally told federal energy regu- Burlingame. L lators last month that utility The budget crunch retards needed workforce reductions contributed to maintenance activity and pressures a spate of power outages last year and utilities to reduce training, McNally warned that it will take a proactive said. public sector to assure electric reliabil- "This puts us on a collision course ity in the dawning era of competitive where reduced maintenance inevita- markets. bly leads to bigger reliability prob- McNally's testimony came in the lems, but with fewer skilled employ- first of three public ees to respond to meetings sponsored by Text of McNally's testimony these emergencies." appears on Page 2 the Department of En- McNally's con- McNally testifies at DOE hearing. ergy last month to ex- cerns were echoed Prop. 25 lets amine recent electric reliability prob- by IBEW officials at subsequent 1.■•=l■E millionaires spend more lems and look for solutions. hearings in New Orleans and New- on political campaigns, "As utilities struggle to stay in some ark, NJ. GRC delayed...again but curbs spending aspect of the electric service busi- James Hunter, president of IBEW by labor unions ness, they will continue to see Local 1900, testified in Newark that The CalifomiaPublicUtilffiesCommission utility staffing levels had declined delayed its decision on the PG&E General downsizing as a quick fix for their Rate Case until Feb.
    [Show full text]
  • Aimee Dudovitz (SBN 203914) 2 Law Office of David C
    1 David C. Codell (SBN 200965) Aimee Dudovitz (SBN 203914) 2 Law Office of David C. Codell 9200 Sunset Boulevard, Penthouse Two 3 Los Angeles, California 90069 Telephone: (310) 273-0306 / Facsimile: (310) 273-0307 4 Shannon Minter (SBN 168907) Courtney Joslin (SBN 202103) 5 National Center for Lesbian Rights 870 Market Street, Suite 570, San Francisco, California 94014 6 Telephone: (415) 392-6257 / Facsimile: (415) 392-8442 7 [Additional attorneys listed on following page] Attorneys in Case No. 03AS07035 for Defendant-Intervenor Equality California 8 and in Case No. 03AS05284 for Defendant-Intervenors Equality California and Michele Graham-Newlan and Debrah Armitage, Willard Kim Halm and Marcellin Simard, 9 Donna Hitchens and Nancy Davis, Deborah Lynn Johnson and Valarie Joi Fiddmont, Christine Kehoe and Julie Warren, Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, and 10 William Rogers and John Griffith Symons Jon W. Davidson (SBN 89301) 11 Jennifer C. Pizer (SBN 152327) Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund 12 3325 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300, Los Angeles, California 90010 Telephone: (213) 382-7600 / Facsimile: (213) 351-6063 13 Attorneys in Case No. 03AS07035 for Defendant-Intervenor Equality California 14 and in Case No. 03AS05284 for Defendant-Intervenors Brittany Bouchet and Deven Bouchet, Christopher G. Caldwell and 15 Richard H. Lewellyn, Jr., Frederick Echeverria and Clinton Oie, Mina Meyer and Sharon Raphael, and Kay B. Smith and Carolyn Confer 16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 17 SENATOR WILLIAM J. KNIGHT, et al., ) TO BE FILED IN BOTH CASES 18 Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) Consolidated Cases: 19 ) ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., ) Case No.
    [Show full text]
  • ED444608.Pdf
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 444 608 JC 000 457 AUTHOR Martinez, Katherine, Ed. TITLE FACCCTS: The Journal of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, 1998-1999. INSTITUTION California Community Colleges, Sacramento. Faculty Association. PUB DATE 1999-00-00 NOTE 146p.; Published four times a year. PUB TYPE Collected Works Serials (022) JOURNAL CIT FACCCTS: The Journal of California Community College Faculty; v5 n1-4 Sep 1998-May 1999 EDRS PRICE MF01/PC06 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *College Faculty; *Community Colleges; Educational Finance; Educational Trends; *Governance; Legislators; Political Candidates; *Retirement Benefits; Two Year Colleges IDENTIFIERS *California Community Colleges ABSTRACT This document contains the four Faculty Association of California Community Colleges (FACCCTS) newsletters published during the 1998-99 academic year. In the September 1998 issue, faculty members talk about what shared governance means and how to improve it on individual campuses. The issue also features Gray Davis' plans forthe community colleges if he is elected governor and presents endorsements to support education-friendly candidates for the November 3 election. The December 1998 issue explains how to calculate new retirement benefits in the State Teachers' Retirement System, how the changes affect all faculties, andwho faculty should thank for the improvements. Faculty member Carolyn Russell gives a first-person account about the grassroots efforts that successfully convinced state legislators to pass the retirement package. The February 1999 issue features Assemblywomen Gloria Romero and Charlene Zettel and their commitment to helping community colleges receive the funding they need to do their jobs well. It also provides a list of legislators and their primary community college districts.
    [Show full text]
  • 2003 California Gubernatorial Recall
    THE 2003 CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL RECALL FLOYD FEENEYt California is one of eighteen American states that authorize the recall of statewide officers,1 and one of the approximately thirty-six states that authorize the recall of local elected officials. 2 Although a few states purport to authorize the recall of members of Congress, 3 the t Floyd Feeney is the Homer and Ann Berryhill Angelo Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. He would like to express his appreciation to the editors and staff of the Creighton Law Review, and particularly to Sara Gude, for their very helpful assistance with this article. Parts of this article were presented in 2003 at a workshop sponsored by California State University, Sacramento, the host for the second recall debate and at the Eighth International Conference on Elections spon- sored by the Italian Society for the Study of Elections (SISE). The author would like to thank California State University, Sacramento, the Italian Society (SISE), Mario Caciagli, Tim Hodson, Tony Miller, and Pier Vincenzo Uleri for their valuable contribu- tions to the article. The author is solely responsible for the opinions expressed. 1. See app. A. The District of Columbia also authorizes use of the recall. 2. See app. B. In 2006, 60.3% of U.S. cities had recall provisions. This exceeded the percentages for the two other major direct democracy devices-the initiative (57.5%) and the citizen-generated referendum (45.3%). In the five years between 2002 and 2006, recall petitions were filed against a council member in 4.5% of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • News Corporation and Its Subsidiaries Corporate Political Contributions 2011 Calendar Year (January 1 – June 30)
    News Corporation and its Subsidiaries Corporate Political Contributions 2011 Calendar Year (January 1 – June 30) Amount Payor Payee/Recipient Party State Motion Picture Association of $5,000.00 Fox Group America Illinois PAC N/A IL Motion Picture Association of $4,000.00 Fox Group America New York PAC N/A NY Friends of Bill Monning for $1,500.00 Fox Group Assembly 2012 Democrat CA Motion Picture Association of $6,500.00 Fox Group America California PAC N/A CA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa $1,000.00 Fox Group Officeholder Account Democrat CA Friends of Eric Garcetti $500.00 Fox Group Officeholder Democrat CA $250.00 Fox Group Friends of Bill Monning 2012 Democrat CA $3,000.00 Fox Group Fiona Ma for Senate 2014 Democrat CA $2,000.00 Fox Group Mary Hayashi for Senate 2014 Democrat CA Ted Lieu for State Senate $1,000.00 Fox Group 2014 Democrat CA Ricardo Lara Political Funds $1,000.00 Fox Group (Lara for Assembly 2012) Democrat CA $2,000.00 Fox Group Price for Senate 2012 Democrat CA Tom Torlakson for State Superintendent of Public $1,000.00 Fox Group Instruction Democrat CA Re-Elect Attorney General $5,000.00 Fox Group Kamala Harris 2014 Democrat CA $1,000.00 Fox Group Fletcher for Assembly 2012 Republican CA Senator Bob Dutton for $2,000.00 Fox Group Assembly 2012 Republican CA $1,500.00 Fox Group Juan Vargas for Senate 2010 Democrat CA $1,000.00 Fox Group Solorio for Senate 2014 Democrat CA Toni Atkins for State Assembly $1,000.00 Fox Group 2012 Democrat CA News Corporation and its Subsidiaries Corporate Political Contributions 2011 Calendar
    [Show full text]
  • Sweetheart Deal Ingredients.Pdf
    1. Pay $32 million in direct and indirect political contributions to state elected officials, candidates, political parties and committees - all while your casino expansions are pending in the Legislature. 2. Wine and dine one in every two state lawmakers during the same time period. 3. Spend $4,300 on dinner and drinks at your casino for leader of the State Assembly and his top aides. 4. Spend $2,000 on lunch for the State Senator (and his friends) who will author the bill ratifying your huge casino expansion. 5. Give $64,876 worth of Justin Timberlake concert tickets, Sacramento Kings NBA games, Disney on Ice shows, steak dinners, cocktails and other gifts and perks to state legislators and their staff 6. Spend $2.07 million on Sacramento lobbyists to influence state l legislators 7. (don't forget to hire convicted felon DC lobbyist Jack Abramoff for $150,000 a month). 8. Buy $3.2 million worth of paid precinct walkers, phone callers and statewide TV ads to blanket the state as the Legislature votes on your casino deal. 9. Spend $55 Million (at press time) to sell your deals to California voters. Big 4 Contributions Recipient DATE Reported Purpose AMOUNT Agua Caliente Independent Expenditure AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTER REGISTRATION, EDUCATION, A 6/21/2007 $5,000 AGUA BAR & GRILL 10/26/2004 GENERAL PLAN USE - SECTION 14 U $1,000 AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS 10/22/2004 GENERAL PLAN USE - SECTION 14 U $6,169 AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS 10/1/2004 GENERAL PLAN USE - SECTION 14 U $5,609 AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
    [Show full text]
  • SUP Ballots Counted —
    Organized 1885 Official Organ of the Sailors' Union of the Pacific Volume LXIII No. 2 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Friday, February 25, 2000 U.S. cargo preference SUP ballots counted — laws questioned by government agency Officers elected, amendments decided The General Accounting Of- preference sustains the domes- Connolly elected Vice President posed amendments to the fice has included U.S. cargo tic merchant marine, a vital ele- Union's Constitution, three were ment of national security, and preference laws on a list of gov- adopted by the necessary two- provides employment for Ameri- Burgess wins Wilmington ernment programs that should be thirds majority and one failed. reduced or eliminated. can mariners. Duvall on top in Honolulu The membership voted to "The U.S. cargo preference Testifying before the Senate transfer the proceeds from the laws, by guaranteeing the avail- Henneberry is San Francisco BA budget Committee this month, sale of the old Seattle and Wilm- ability of cargo for U.S.-flag ships, David Walker, U.S. Comptrol- ington halls to the General Fund; are important to the financial vi- Lundeberg and O'Halloran re-elected ler General, said that higher-cost approved a proposal to allow ability of U.S.-flag vessel opera- U.S. ships raise federal shipping dues-paying pensioners all the tion companies,” MarAd said. The recently concluded Sailors’ ring. Wayne Burgess defeated costs $578 million a year, based rights of active members, except Preference requirements en- Union of the Pacific biennial elec- Keith Miller and Bob Burns. on a 1994 GAO report. the right to work in covered em- sure that the vessels, trained tion resulted in the biggest change Preference cargoes include de- In Honolulu, where incum- ployment or to run for office; American crews and the vessel in officers in recent memory.
    [Show full text]
  • Back to Paper: a Case Study
    FEBRUARY 2008 BriefingBriefing Back to Paper: A Case Study n the not-too-distant past, American elections got an overhaul. The Iproblems identified in the 2000 presidential election with punch- card voting systems convinced policymakers in state capitals and on Capitol Hill that change was needed – particularly in the method by Inside which ballots were designed, cast and counted. Bolstered by public discontent and the availability of federal Executive Summary . .3 dollars, voter-rich states including Florida, California and Ohio New Mexico . .4 replaced older voting systems with touch-screen or scrolling-wheel electronic voting machines. Florida . .5 The newer machines offered flexibility and features the older California . .8 systems, mostly punch cards, never could – no more over-votes, the ability to display multiple languages on the same machine, accessibility Ohio . .11 for a wide range of voters with disabilities and no more ambiguity Colorado . .15 when determining a voter’s intent. Requirements for Paper Machines were bought. Millions of dollars were spent. Votes were Usage in Voting Systems . .17 cast. Controversy ensued. Not long after their introduction, computer scientists, voter Back to the (Paper) Future . .18 advocacy groups and others called into question the integrity, security Timeline . .20 and accuracy of the next generation of voting machines. By 2003, the Methodology/Endnotes . .22 calls of computer scientists for further research had blossomed into a movement. Problems at polling places strengthened their arguments and lawmakers listened. Misprogrammed machines in one North Carolina county failed to record votes, throwing a statewide race into confusion. Statistically Introduction By 2007, a second overhaul was underway in some states.The experiment with direct-recording electronic machines would end abruptly or be phased out.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Et Al. V. Shelley
    FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2003 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CATHY A. CATTERSON U.S. COURT OF APPEALS SOUTHWEST VOTER REGISTRATION EDUCATION PROJECT; SOUTHERN No. 03-56498 CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE OF GREATER LOS ANGELES; NATIONAL D.C. No. CV-03-05715-SVW ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE; CALIFORNIA STATE CONFERENCE OF BRANCHES, OPINION Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. KEVIN SHELLEY, in his official capacity as California Secretary of State, Defendant-Appellee, TED COSTA, Intervenor - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted En Banc September 22, 2003 San Francisco, California Filed September 23, 2003 Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, KOZINSKI, O'SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, GRABER, McKEOWN, GOULD, TALLMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This matter has been reheard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, upon the vote of a majority of the non-recused active judges pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35. We thank all the parties and their counsel, as well as the amici, for the prompt and professional presentations to this court on an expedited basis. BACKGROUND The following summary is largely adopted from the district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction. On October 7, 2003, California voters are scheduled to decide whether Governor Gray Davis should be recalled and, if so, who should replace him. Also on the ballot are two statewide initiatives: Proposition 53, a proposed constitutional amendment sponsored by the state legislature that would require a portion of the state’s budget be set aside for infrastructure spending; and, Proposition 54, a measure that would ban government agencies from collecting certain racial information.
    [Show full text]
  • Secretary of State Bruce Mcpherson Urges Legislative Leaders to Join
    BM06:153 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Nghia Nguyen Demovic Thursday, October 19, 2006 916-653-6575 Secretary of State Bruce McPherson Urges Legislative Leaders to Join Him in Calling on the Attorney General to Recover Funds Misspent by Kevin Shelley Calls on Election Committee Chairs to join request for immediate legal action on behalf of California’s taxpayers SACRAMENTO, CA - Secretary of State Bruce McPherson sent a letter to the chair of the Senate Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments Committee, Senator Debra Bowen and the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee, Assemblyman Tom Umberg urging them to join him in requesting that the Attorney General take legal action on behalf of California’s taxpayers to recover nearly $3 million misspent by Kevin Shelley. The Election Assistance Committee (EAC) released the final findings of its audit of the mismanagement of Help America Vote Act (HAVA) funds by former Secretary of State Kevin Shelley on Monday. The EAC has informed Secretary McPherson that due to the misuse of funds and the dereliction of duty on the part of the Shelley administration, the California taxpayers will be required to pay back a total of $2,917,583 in general fund dollars. On Monday, Secretary McPherson sent a letter to Attorney General Bill Lockyer urging immediate action to hold Kevin Shelley personally responsible for the nearly $3 million dollars so the burden does not unfairly fall on California’s hardworking taxpayers. Below is the letter to Senator Bowen and Assemblyman Umberg. Attached
    [Show full text]
  • UCLA Office of Government & Community Relations
    UCLA Office of Government & Community Relations OVERVIEW OF 2014 LA COUNTY, STATE, AND FEDERAL ELECTIONS Dear Colleagues: The November 4th General Election was important for our campus. With the retirements of Congressman Henry Waxman and Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, UCLA will be represented by a new member of Congress for the first time since 1975 and a new Los Angeles County Supervisor for the first time in 20 years. Also, voters selected a new State Senator that will represent the 26th District and includes the entire UCLA campus. Additionally, there were many other important races throughout Los Angeles County. This document prepared by Government & Community Relations staff, summarizes the preliminary results from key races in Los Angeles County at the federal, state and local levels of government. The election results are current as of November 5th. The final results have not been certified at this time, with absentee and provisional ballots still being counted in some races. Further updates will be provided if there are significant changes. LA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESULTS Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors District 3: Sheila Kuehl was successfully elected (52.7%) defeating Bobby Shriver (47.2%). Her term will begin on December 1, 2014. UCLA Community and Local Government Relations co-hosted a candidate forum in September on campus for the two candidates. The third district covers the western part of Los Angeles County, including the UCLA campus, the Westside and the Santa Monica Mountains to the Ventura County line, the San Fernando Valley and east to Atwater Village. Sheila Kuehl (’62) served for eight years in the California State Senate and six years in the State Assembly.
    [Show full text]