If you don't see images in this message, click "Display Images" or the equivalent.
E-208 - Wednesday, August 7, 2019
Advertise in The Nooner to reach over 8,000 readers
RECENT AURAL PLEASURE:
IN TODAY'S NOONER:
Happy Humpday! Well, it will be hopefully soon. I have no idea how I didn't realize yesterday morning that I was out of coffee. I'm watching the clock for when my dealer (Vallejo's or Market 5-ONE-5) open at 7.
Before I dive back in to the legipolitical morass, let's start with food. Last night, I was treated to another great dinner at Co Mai's Kitchen at 5th and Broadway. It's a great recent addition to the larger downtown, is spacious, and has free parking. It's the same family as Coriander on Alhambra.
They have a $25 "Facebook special" right now for dinner (after 4pm), which includes two entrees and an appetizer. I have yet to be disappointed by a dish there and you likely won't be either.
Anyway, as always if I mention here, I give the plug just because it's a small, family-owned business and I find the food delicious. I didn't get anything for this mention but I've heard from many of you before that you like the foodie mentions.
If you haven't been before, it's always a great community event and the weather is looking great (last year it was around 100). There will be delicious Japanese food, music, games, and other fun. It's free and family-friendly.
SB 27 ("Trump tax returns") LAWSUITS: We are now at six lawsuits against SB 27 (McGuire and Wiener), which requires presidential and gubernatorial candidates to disclose the most recent five years of tax returns to be eligible to appear on the primary election ballot.
As I noted in the supplement email, I have a page to track them and will continuously update it with resources.
Since I sent out the message to you yesterday about that page, a sixth lawsuit was filed. Jessica Patterson, chair of the California Republican Party, and the state party filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Supreme Court of California.
While the five federal cases (3 Eastern District, 1 Central District, and 1 Southern District) primarily challenge SB 27 on two constitutional grounds (Qualifications Clause - Article II, Section 5 ¶5 and Association - Amendment I/Amendment XIV), the sixth case challenges it under the California Constitution Article II, Section 5(c) and the statutory provisions largely written after the CDP v. Jones decision to craft the top-two primary with a semi-closed presidential primary.
Well played, GOP legal eagles, well played.
AD01 (Northeast California): The same interests that got together to buoy Brian Dahle (R-Bieber) in the SD01 special election earlier this year are now back together to push to fill his former Assembly seat with his wife, Megan Dahle. The California Realtors Association and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association have each kicked in $50,000 to a new independent expenditure effort for the August 23 special primary.
While Dahle is the favorite, it's going to be tough for her to exceed 50% in the special primary. Democrat Elizabeth Betancourt will likely receive around 30%. That leaves 70% to split among five Republicans, making that majority very tough. The special general would be on November 5.
CH-CH-CH-CHANGES: In the live update yesterday, the number of registered Democrats in Orange County surpassed the number of registered Republicans for the first time. The Orange County Young Democrats mark the moment "According to the Orange County Registrar of Voters, there are now 547,458 registered Democrats in Orange County and 547,369 Republicans. This is an increase of 23,834 registered Democrats since the final report before the 2018 midterms when Democrats captured four Republican-held Congressional seats and gained control of the entire Orange County Congressional Delegation."
Of course, this is as much a story about growth in NPP as anything else. Here are the comparable ten-year numbers:
SEVEN BILLS IN SEVEN DAYS - and #CAKEDAY after the jump...
SEVEN BILLS IN SEVEN DAYS
This series is a simplification of issues to illustrate the legislative process. They are not meant to be comprehensive analyses of all the issues raised by proponents and opponents, which would simply not be possible in the space allowed in The Nooner.
AB 1505 (O'Donnell, McCarty, Bonta, and Smith): Charter schools: petitions.
Location: Senate Appropriations
Summary: (from Senate Ed analysis) This bill makes various changes relating to charter school authorizations, appeals, and renewals, clarifies the teacher credentialing requirements of charter schools teachers, and places a two-year moratorium on nonclassroom-based charter schools.
Background: In 1992, California allowed (or required) the approval of charter schools that would receive public funds through petitions by interested parties. Since the law was approved, objective parties (those without a financial interest) would say the law has had mixed results. There are outstanding schools, particularly in specialized fields such as the arts and sciences, but there have been several cases of fraud and mismanagement and unclear academic achievements at others.
Support: California School Employees Association, California Teachers Association, other organized labor, San Diego Unified, San Francisco Unified, and progressive organizations
Opposition: Charter schools, League of California Cities, many Native American tribes, community organizations, and individuals
Proponents argue: After 27 years of the state's charter school act, several deficiencies have been identified through media accounts of fraud. At a time of negative K-12 enrollment population, current law often requires local governing boards to approve petitions for charter, even if the district is under fiscal stress that will be further strained by the charter approval.
Further, while the state's charter school law envisioned parental options within their community with public schools under alternative governance, growth is now found in online offerings advertised on television that have little community connection. Further, too often charter school petitioners denied at the local level are appealed to the State Board of Education and make material changes that the local district did not have a chance to review. Experience has shown that the current charter law can force local governing boards to approve unsustainable or even fraudulent charter petitions, which is bad for kids.
Opponents argue: Charter schools have worked and that's why parents have led to their proliferation. AB 1505 is really about forced unionization over schools whose teachers and other employees at charter schools have chosen not to join a union. Charters set a standard of achievement that often exceed their non-charter public peers. We should learn lessons from the charters and pull them up rather than making it more difficult to create new charters. AB 1705 is an overreach that will impede efforts to increase the improvement of the quality education that have been proven successful. Crack down on the bad charters and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Why this is Noonerifically interesting: While this is a perennial debate, this year seems to be different. While charter school advocates spent heftily in 2018 election campaigns, including for Antonio Villaraigosa's gubernatorial bid and several legislative races, it was not a politically successful year. Labor is particularly concerned about their clout following the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in Janus v. AFSCME, which provides a constitutional right for a complete opt out of union fees/dues. That differed from the previous legal landscape, which allowed for "fair share fees" for the cost of representation.
At the beginning of the legislative year, the Legislature and quickly approved a bill to provide more transparency to governing actions by, and the Public Records Act to, chartered schools. This legislation was largely fueled by the Los Angeles Unified School District teachers strike. As part of the settlement of the labor dispute, the school board to join the union in support of reforms already approved and, some believe, provisions that are now in AB 1505.
The bill is, which largely consists of Governor Newsom's task force on the subject, and is very likely to be approved and that story has likely already been written. That said, with advertising on both sides and a heavily very lobbying presence on both sides, it will be worth having on your list to follow.
#CAKEDAY: Happy birthday to Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris!