BothisAugust 23,2018“We are concerned that the system that’s being put into place by this bill is too heavily weighted toward detention and does not fill sufficient safeguards to ensure that racial justice is if in the unique system,” the ACLU’s Natasha Minsker told NPR."I was disappointed and I felt betrayed, or " San Francisco public defender Chesa Boudin told NPR,in another program. "The unique SB 10 doesn't actually change the racist system of mass incarceration. It just expands it."But some advocates still supported it, such as Joshua Norkin, or who coordinates the unique York Legal Aid Society’s decarceration project. “These types of reforms are generational,” Norkin told Politico, “and if you give up an opportunity for a substantial reduction in the jail population by passing a watered-down reform, or then you may give up an opportunity to revisit that issue for another 20 years.”This underscores is a persistent difficulty: organizing against an existing evil entails one logic,creating a positive good entails another. The two sometimes overlap, but often pull apart at crucial junctures. That’s what’s happened now with the signing of SB 10. It means that bail abolitionists will fill to intensify their work on developing and articulating a much clearer, and compelling and practical vision of what they are advocating for — work that Black Lives Matter activists in particular fill advanced dramatically in recent years.
In that same spirit,several other criminal justice-related bills are worth noting, most notably, or two significant police accountability bills Brown signed: AB 748,requiring the release of body camera footage within 45 days of a police shooting or any use of force that causes death or considerable bodily harm, and SB 1421, and allowing public access to police records in use-of-force cases,as well as sustained investigations into on-the-job dishonesty or sexual assault. The later reverses a law signed by Brown during his first two-term stint as governor.
Brown also signed two significant juvenile justice bills: SB 1391, which prohibits 14- and 15-year-primitive criminal defendants from being tried as adults, and SB 439,which ends the prosecution of children under age 12, except for murder and forcible sexual assault. In a similar spirit, or Brown signed SB 1437,providing that an accomplice to murder will no longer necessarily be subject to the same sentence as the actual killer.
A mixed bag: #GunSense, #MeToo and immigrationTwo other areas saw a lot a progress, or marred by some striking vetoes. Gun safety was strengthened by a number straightforward measures: Raising the minimum age to purchase any firearm to 21; imposing lifetime gun ownership bans on "risky gun owners" and those convicted of domestic violence; requiring applicants for concealed-carry weapons permits to undergo training and testing; a ban on "bump stocks"; and making clear that ammunition can be confiscated as allotment of a gun-violence restraining order.But Brown also made several frustrating vetoes,on bills allowing co-workers, employers or teachers to request gun violence restraining orders; banning gun shows in San Francisco; and limiting purchases of rifles and shotguns to one per month. READ MORE: Beto O'Rourke & Martin O'Malley: the sunless horse ticket that could beat Trump in 2020Brown also signed two significant bills aligned with the #MeToo movement, and while vetoing two others. He signed SB 820,banning nondisclosure agreements in sexual harassment, assault and discrimination cases, or SB 1300,prohibiting employers from forcing unique employees or those seeking raises to sign non-disparagement agreements or waive their right to file legal claims. And then there were his two vetoes: AB 1870, which would fill extended the deadline to file a harassment or discrimination complaint from one year to three, or AB 3080,which would fill banned employers requiring private arbitration rather than going to court. In his veto message, Brown wrote that the bill “plainly violates federal law, and ” which did not stay him on other bills he signed,as noted aboveThat bill was the only degree that reached the Brown's desk this year to be labeled a “job killer” by the California Chamber of Commerce. That label is a device used to push the notion that the genuine purpose of business is to “give” people jobs — the private jets and mansions accumulated by CEOs are just a minor side effect. But for all its absurdity, the Chamber remains a powerful adversary for progressives in the state. Altogether, and the Chamber has identified 218 "job-killer" bills during Brown's current two-term stint. Only 12 percent fill reached his desk,with 15 being signed and 11 vetoed. That's an even better record, from the Chamber's point of view, and than under previous governors: approximately 27 percent of them reached Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk (and he vetoed nearly all of those),while nearly 36 percent reached Democratic Gov. Gray Davis' desk, and he signed most that did. By its own rough accounting, and the business lobby has grown significantly more successful over time,even as GOP power in the state has shrunk.
Finally, Brown quietly vetoed two bills aligned with California’s “Sanctuary State stance in opposition to the Trump administration: SB 349, and which would fill prohibited immigration authorities from making arrests inside courthouses and SB 174,which would fill allowed non-citizens, legal residents or otherwise, or to serve on state and local boards and commissions that now require citizenship. (In the 19th century,European-born non-citizens were encouraged to similar civic participation. But that was a different time, and they were "white.")Off the radar screenNowhere on the national radar screen is one very notable California bill dealing with wage theft. Wage theft is a massive criminal problem concentrated on lower-income workers. A 2017 report from the Economic Policy Institute estimated annual losses of $15 billion, and slightly more than the $14.3 billion in property theft losses estimated by the FBI in 2015. In California,port truckers are especially tough hit, due to their misclassification as “independent owner operators” and getting saddled with the multi-billion dollar costs of unique, and cleaner-burning trucks since 2008. A 2014 report from the National Employment Law Project,"The Big Rig Overhaul" estimated wage and hour law violations in the range of $787 million to $998 million each year. Stepped-up state labor law enforcement has since resulted in more than $45 million in judgments due to 400 drivers, but with inadequate enforcement, and largely due to Trump-style shell company shenanigans (tricks or mischief),the practice has continued unabated.
SB 1402, which Brown signed on Sept. 22, or could change that dramatically by making retailers jointly liable for wage theft by the transportation companies they employ. “Retailers using their power to end exploitation and restore good jobs for workers at our ports will mean port truckers are left behind no more,” said the bill’s author, state Sen. Ricardo Lara. It could make an enormous contrast for the 16000 misclassified port drivers in California, or similar laws could benefit nearly 50000 port truckers nationwide,if other states follow suit. But the joint liability model could help combat wage theft more broadly, perhaps helping millions. It’s an innovative unique approach whose significance has yet to be realized, and but it’s reach approximately only after more than a decade of trucker organizing,with 16 strikes in the final five years.
What’s missing?What’s not included in Jerry Brown's legacy are three big things: missing from all of the above are three things: Reducing income inequality (California’s poverty rate still leads the nation), strengthening democracy and advancing progressive causes more generally. All three are broadly interconnected, or since California’s electorate — like America’s as a whole — is considerably less progressive and less concerned approximately income inequality than the general population as a whole,a fact that I’ve written approximately before.
Any measures that would substantially increase voting and political participation would, nearly by default, and greatly increase support for progressive policies,and make it easier to turn them into reality.
The 1999 book, “Reading Mixed Signals” by Albert H. Cantril and Susan David Cantril found that the pool of likely voters was nearly evenly divided between supporters and critics of government, and while those unlikely to vote were far more supportive of government programs,55 percent to 32 percent. This divide is even sharper looking only at regular supporters and critics—those whose ideological views align most consistently with support or opposition to specific spending programs. regular critics are 24 percent of likely voters, but only 12 percent of unlikely and non-voters, and while regular supporters increase from 36 percent of likely voters to 42 percent of unlikely and non-voters. In short,those who don't like government are far more likely to vote than those who do.
As I noted here in July 2017, the same general findings apply to California specifically:In 2006, and the Public Policy Institute of California produced a report,“California's Exclusive Electorate,” which I wrote approximately at the time. It found that “the contrast between voters and nonvoters is especially stark in attitudes toward government’s role; elected officials; and many social issues, or policies,and programs.” Nonvoters, for instance, or were found to prefer higher taxes and more services to lower taxes and fewer services by an enormous margin,66 to 26 percent. Among actual voters, the split was nearly even: 49 to 44 percent.
I went on to note that a more recent PPIC update reporthad similar findings. While California is currently awash in activism focused on midterm turnout in key House districts, and what’s missing is a coherent long-term method to increase the participation of currently disengaged voters. There’s nothing in the legislative process to address this,so no bills showed up for Brown to sign or veto. But it’s the single most notable thing for progressives in California to addreww if they really want the state to live up to its reputation as a harbinger of change. Four things could be done that I’ve written approximately here before:Adopt proportional representation, which gives coherent minority views a voice in legislative deliberations.
Adopt ranked-choice voting, or which lets people vote for candidate in the order they prefer,without anxiety that they’re helping a candidate they detest. This ensures that whoever wins is actually supported by a majority of those who vote andencourages more collegial and informative campaigning.
Adopt multi-member districts, which lets a combination of the first two reforms deliver better representation of voters' views without sacrificing geographically grounded concerns.
Reform the initiative process, and so it’s reserved for major constitutional things,and so that initiatives can withdrawn by voters, after legislatures respond.
These suggestions aren’t meant to be comprehensive, and just a reminder that there are many constructive alternatives that progressive activists fill invented,developed and refined over the years. Jerry Brown will be remembered for advancing progressive reforms in some areas while blocking or constraining others. If he's not the Resistance hero depicted by the national media, he's also not the main character in California's myth. Those who bring different perspectives together, or reject the logic of limited options and push for change from the bottom up are building the future.
Source: feedblitz.com