New study finds California lawmakers receive 79% of campaign money from out-of-district

This week Maplight, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization shining a light on money in politics, released a new study, titled Remote Control, highlighting the findings of a data analysis of California lawmakers' campaign contributions.  The study found that 79 percent of the funds raised by California lawmakers come from outside of the district.  Maplight uses data compiled by the National Institute for Money in State Politics, which gets its raw data from California's online campaign finance disclosure data.

The study highlights how many incumbents who are in what would be considered "safe seats" nonetheless raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, generally to ensure their place of power within their caucus in the Capitol.  Not surprisingly, the Remote Control study found that four zip codes in Sacramento rate among the top ten donor zip codes; Sacramento is home to hundreds of lobbyists who attend dozens of fundraisers every year in order to gain the access they need to succeed in the legislative process.

It's exciting to see this kind of advanced analysis being conducted of California political fundraising.  This is not the only eye-opening research study that Maplight has conducted; the web site offers a bounty of fascinating findings as well as the opportunity to look up your own legislator's outside money and donations from interest groups.  While the Secretary of State's Cal-Access disclosure site is a fantastic resource, many voters do not have the time, computing power or familiarity with campaign disclosure to make much sense of raw online campaign finance data.  Maplight is providing a great public service by analyzing that data and turning into knowledge that voters will find useful.

On Monday, May 24 at 10 a.m. I will be on Capital Public Radio's Insight show along with Maplight's executive director, Daniel Newman, discussing this new study and campaign finance trends in California. Tune in online for a live audiocast.

Santa Clara first county in the nation to accept voter registration forms signed via e-signature pad

Last Friday Santa Clara County announced it was accepting voter registration forms completed and signed using a new technology developed by California company VeraFirma.  Earlier this year VeraFirma made headlines when the company attempted to submit initiative petitions signed with an electronic-signature pad such as an iPad or iPhone. San Mateo County rejected those signatures, the matter went to the courts and the ruling came down on the side of the county (Verafirma is appealing the decision).

Things are going much better for Verafirma in the neighboring county, where the company won support from Santa Clara county supervisors, county counsel and registrar of voters Jesse Durazo to use its technology for voter registration.

I'm cautiously optimistic about these developments.  For many young people, using a computer screen to complete a voter registration form will be a much more user-friendly experience than filling out a paper form.  However, the state lacks standards, statutes and regulations to specifically govern these signatures and their use in elections and voting.  All of the election statutes that exist today are based on the presumption that voters are signing on paper, not an e-pad.  And as anyone who has signed with an e-pad knows, the signature that results may only vaguely resemble one made on paper.  If registrars are to verify an absentee ballot request that comes in on paper against a voter registration form signature that was made on an e-pad, will they be able to successfully do so?

Other counties may follow Santa Clara's lead and given the absence of a robust statewide voter registration database that would facilitate online voter registration, the Verafirma technology may be the next best avenue for utilizing new technology to get more of California's 6.5 million nonregistered, eligible voters into the voting habit.

For more on these developments, see Ken McLaughlin's May 14 story in the San Jose Mercury news. Excerpts are featured below.

Some election officials have raised concerns about possible voter fraud, as well as privacy and security issues, in regard to electronic signatures. But the founders of Verafirma point out that Wells Fargo Bank is so confident in the technology that it allows customers to open a bank account with an electronic signature. 

The new technology also appears to be speeding ahead of current election laws. Nicole Winger, spokeswoman for California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, expressed some concern that the state's election codes don't mention things such as the three-year-old iPhones or the brand-new iPad. But Bowen does not have the authority to tell the county registrar to reject the signatures of the Santa Clara County voters who agreed to be guinea pigs, Winger said. Unless someone sues to stop Durazo from registering the voters, the electronic signatures will stand.

Barry, who called electronic signatures "the future of voter registration," said Verafirma has developed new software on a website that will allow people to use the National Voter Registration Act form to produce a "secure electronic signature" in the same way shoppers sign their name after swiping a credit card at supermarkets and large drugstores.

Sacramento County pioneers Ballot-on-Demand in California

Today I became one of the first voters in California to receive a ballot-on-demand.  Sacramento county, where I live and vote, has implemented a new ballot-on-demand voting process where a voter can come to the county election office, request a ballot, and the ballot is printed on the spot.  This new approach to balloting will save Sacramento county potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars each election year by avoiding pre-printing thousands of ballots for early voting purposes.  In the long run, it may open the door to new approaches to voting altogether, enabling county-wide voting centers to serve voters from all precincts.  Kudos to Sacramento County for pioneering this innovation in California voting!

Certified list of candidates for June ballot now online

The Secretary of State recently published the final, certified list of candidates for state and federal offices that will appear on California's June 2010 Primary election ballot. Open seat contests for statewide offices such as Governor have attracted a large number of candidates from all parties. The 177-page PDF-format list features candidate contact information and web sites.

Controversy over Prop. 14 ballot language

Today's Los Angeles Times features this column by George Skelton outlining the controversy over the ballot title and summary for Proposition 14, a measure on the June 2010 that, if passed, would create an open primary process for California elections. Excerpts from Skelton's column are below.

The fate of an open primary proposal on the June ballot may well hinge on the outcome of a bitter court fight this week over a dozen or so words.

The words will be seen by millions of voters -- everyone who casts a ballot in the June 8 primary. They will summarize what Proposition 14 is all about and undoubtedly influence more votes than any endorsement or mail piece.

It's language that will be used in the "ballot label" printed right on the ballot, and the "title and summary" included in the secretary of state's official voter guide mailed to households.

"If we win the case, we win the election," says David Townsend, a strategist for the Prop. 14 side. "If they get their language, we lose the election."

At issue is whether the proposed open primary amounts to "reform" or merely "change." The current ballot language states the former; opponents contend the latter. Also, would Prop. 14 really lead to "greater participation in elections," as the language claims? Not necessarily, opponents argue.

There are other disputes: Opponents want to point out that candidates would not be required to list their political party. They could list it voluntarily. Also, the anti-14 side wants the summary to state that the measure eliminates the guaranteed rights of political parties -- and write-in and independent candidates -- to be on the general election ballot.

And they dispute the nonpartisan legislative analyst's finding that an open primary system would result in "no significant" increase in government costs. It could raise costs by "between $10 million and $20 million," they say, and insist the summary should point that out.

Accusations are flying all around the Capitol, mainly from Prop. 14 backers, who claim they were blindsided when a labor union, the California School Employees Assn., filed a suit against the Legislature without notifying them.

Most legislators -- both parties -- strongly oppose an open primary system. But they placed Prop. 14 on the ballot as part of a late-night deal last year to buy the budget-and-tax vote of Sen. Abel Maldonado (R-Santa Maria).

Now proponents suspect that the union and legislative leaders conspired to change the ballot language in the opponents' favor by attempting an out-of-court settlement -- a sort of bait-and-switch on Maldonado.

----

But let's back up: Prop. 14 would create a "top-two" open primary. There would no longer be party nominating elections, except for president.

There would be one primary ballot, open to all candidates and voters. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, would advance to the general election. In a heavily Democratic district, it's possible that two Democrats could face each other in the runoff. Ditto for two Republicans in a GOP district.

The goal is to force candidates in primaries to appeal to a wider range of voters than merely their own party members -- and elect some pragmatic moderates who can crack Sacramento's partisan gridlock.

Because the Legislature produced Prop. 14, it was allowed to write the ballot label and title and summary. When a ballot measure originates as a voters' initiative, the attorney general composes the language.

The legislative counsel wrote the Prop. 14 language with aides to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who strongly supports an open primary.

Testimony from SoS hearing on the Future of Voting in California

On Monday I attended a hearing sponsored by the Secretary of State to examine the future of voting in California. The hearing was well-attended, although there were some notable absences, including Secretary of State Debra Bowen herself, who was held up in Washington, DC due to weather.

I know many folks were watching the hearing online via the Secretary of State's web site and a few even stuck around until the bitter end when I delivered my testimony in the "Public Comments" portion of the agenda around 5:15 p.m. I believe there may be a video archive of the hearing available at a later time. Staff did inform the audience yesterday that there would be transcript and that public comments will be posted on the Secretary of State's web site.

My remarks are available here.

What do you envision as the future of voting in California? The Secretary of State is still accepting public comments, which can be sent via email to votingsystems@sos.ca.gov.

Secretary of State hearing Monday - Future of Voting in California

On Monday, February 8th California Secretary of State Debra Bowen will hold an informational hearing, on the topic of "The Future of Voting in California: the People, the Equipment, the Costs". The Secretary of State has arranged for speakers from across the country to come to Sacramento for this event (see the agenda for a complete lineup of speakers).

In her media advisory announcing the hearing, Secretary Bowen had this to say:

“Demands for increased transparency and services, shrinking government budgets, and technological advances that outpace elections laws and regulations have combined to challenge what many thought were ‘permanent’ solutions developed as part of the 2002 Help America Vote Act,” said Secretary Bowen, California’s chief elections officer. “Many in California and across the nation are ready to move in a new direction. The question is, what should Californians seek in the next generation of voting equipment and how can new products truly serve the interests of voters?”

The hearing begins at 10 a.m. in the Secretary of State's auditorium in downtown Sacramento, at 1500 11th Street, first floor. For those who cannot attend in person, there will be a live webcast available online.

Application deadline for Citizens Redistricting Commission is Feb. 12

California's first-ever Citizens Redistricting Commission will be created by the end of this year. According to the Bureau of State Audits, which is responsible for managing the commission selection process, the Bureau has received over 15,000 eligible applications from Californians to serve on the commission! The response is overwhelming and inspiring. I had thought maybe a few hundred people would apply -- I never imagined it would be more than 15,000! This tremendous groundswell of interest shows that many Californians care deeply about the quality of representative democracy in our state.

The Bureau has been compiling statistics showing who is applying by gender, party, ethnicity and geographic location -- they can be found online here. The deadline to apply is February 12. Visit www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov for additional details and to access the application process. The Dec. 18 edition of CVF-NEWS also provides additional information about what will be expected of applicants and those who are selected to serve on the new commission.