Bay Area members of Congress and California elected officials reacted with joy at today’s repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy against openly gay and lesbian service members.

From Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland:

“Today, we celebrate the end of a discriminatory era against gay and lesbian service members in America with the official repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ For too long, this failed policy unfairly denied fundamental civil liberties to highly qualified individuals who wished to serve our country. As a Vice-Chair of the Congressional LGBT Equality caucus, I am pleased that the tireless work of my Congressional colleagues, the Administration, and the LGBT community resulted in the end of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’

“Although this is a remarkable step forward, we still have a long way to go to attain full equality for LGBT people. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered people continue to be targets of discrimination in our policies, our laws, and our society.

“I have always said that discrimination is un-American and we, as a nation, must continue to fight for policies that bring us closer to fulfilling the principles we espouse. I encourage my constituents, my colleagues and our country to stay committed to ensuring that sexual orientation and gender-identity are no longer a cause for inequality.”

From Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove:

“Embedded in American patriotism is the hope and expectation that our country’s best days are still to come. Today, as we celebrate the end of the discriminatory Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, I’m proud to say that America the country is one step closer to living up to America the idea.

“Since the founding of our great Republic, LGBT service members have selflessly fought and died in defense of our country. For too long, our country in return forced these brave heroes to live a lie in order to serve. This has led to thousands of dismissals and jeopardized national security by denying skilled Americans the opportunity to serve. As of today, this injustice is relegated to the dustbin of history – where it belongs.

“This is a day of celebration for gay and lesbian troops who can now serve openly, and for their families, who can now comfort their loved ones without fear. This is also a day of celebration for every American who believes that we must live up to our ideals. The leaders of the free world, the great defenders of democracy, should not promote policies that are discriminatory, harmful, and against the principles of a free and just society.

“Because of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, somewhere a young LGBT American is coming to the realization that the discrimination and barriers to equality they’ve grown up with are eroding. For people who have been marginalized all their lives, to know that someday soon they will no longer be excluded from their American dream can make all the difference in the world.”

From U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.:

“Today, after nearly two decades of discrimination and injustice, the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy has officially come to an end. When this policy was put into effect, I said it was ‘just plain un-American.’ I am so grateful that equality, freedom and justice have won out over fear and prejudice. A barrier has been lifted, and our military and our nation will be stronger because of it.”

More, after the jump…
Read the rest of this entry »

Those for and against the California law that sought to ban sales of violent video games to minors have now weighed in on today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that shoots the laws down. (Read more on the ruling here.)

State Sen. Leland Yee, the law’s author, said Monday at a news conference in San Francisco that he’s disappointed that the court “has decided it’s going to side with corporate America and Walmart against our children.”

Yee, D-San Francisco, who holds a doctorate in child psychology, said he believes the fact that this ruling came at the very end of the high court’s term meant it was a complex, tough decision.

San Francisco Deputy Police Chief Kevin Cashman, at Yee’s news conference, said kids see too much violence at too early an age, and police are also concerned that violent games too often depict law enforcement officers as targets.

Dr. George Fouras, representing the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the San Francisco Medical Society, said these games, unlike Saturday-morning cartoons, “expose kids to behavior that is not acceptable in reality” and can harm kids’ cognitive development and decision-making ability. Dr. Shannon Udovic, speaking for the American Academy of Pediatrics’ California branch, said the law’s supporters are resolved to “continue the work that so many of us have been doing in bringing this important issue to parents’ minds.”

Entertainment Software Association President and CEO Michael Gallagher, whose video game industry trade group was one of this case’s plaintiffs, told reporters on a conference call that the ruling is “an overwhelming endorsement of the first amendment, the right to free expression and free speech, and also of the rights of parents.”

Gallagher noted this was the 13th consecutive decision, albeit the most important, upholding video game makers’ rights; meanwhile, he said, various governments have spent uncounted millions only to create uncertainty in the marketplace. He said he appreciated the 180 signatories to 27 friend-of-the-court briefs filed on his cause’s behalf, including various social-science and medical professionals as well as 10 state attorneys general.

Paul Smith, the ESA’s lawyer, said we seldom see so strong, clear and sweeping a decision from the Supreme Court the first time it tackles an issue such as this. He said the court found games are speech no different than books or movies, and the court isn’t in the business of carving out new exceptions to the First Amendment; science doesn’t bear out claims that the games are harmful, he added, and the law merely took control away from parents and gave it to government.

Lots of tough words are flying back and forth across the aisle as the Legislature has sent a Democratic party-line budget to Gov. Jerry Brown.

From state Senate Majority Leader Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro:

“Today Democrats have passed a balanced budget and respected the state constitutional deadline and voters’ wishes. While this was the responsible thing to do, it is heartbreaking. Republicans were unwilling to give voters the option to avoid cuts and slashing funding for courts and education.”

“This deadline, and our commitment to meet it, has been known to all, including Republicans, since Proposition 25 passed last November. Republicans’ steadfast resistance to putting another option before voters – to ask whether to continue taxes at their current level instead of letting them expire – is undemocratic.

“The truth is we have no other option to pass a budget that is balanced. Without more revenue, the only option left is to make awful cuts. And these come after we already made $11 billion of tough cuts in March.

“There is no doubt we can do better – we must do better – for California and its future. I call on Republicans to consider the consequences of what is happening here today, and ask all Californians to contact Republican legislators and demand another option.”

“The bill now goes to the governor, who will continue to seek Republican support for an alternative to this harsh, all-cuts budget. All Californians should contact the governor and Republican legislators today to demand a more equitable solution.”

From state Senators Tom Berryhill, R-Modesto; Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres; Bill Emmerson, R-Hemet; and Tom Harman, R-Huntington Beach, the four Republicans seen as pivotal to a budget deal:

“Today’s actions prove that the bridge tax isn’t a stumbling block – it’s political theater. The real stumbling block for the Majority Party are the unions and trial lawyers demanding they block the reform proposals we have been pushing for months.

“Instead of a political drill, today we could have had a real bipartisan budget – one that allows voters to weigh in on Governor Brown’s tax proposal as well as a hard spending cap, significant reforms to our broken pension system, and improvements to California’s business climate to spur the economy and get people back to work.”

From Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom:

“Today, through their inexplicable refusal to engage in a responsible and balanced budget solution, Republican legislators have forced an additional $300M in devastating cuts to our public universities.

“For six months, Governor Jerry Brown and Democratic leaders have tried to work with Republican legislators to reach common-sense, common-ground solutions to California’s budget problems that would have minimized already enormous cuts to the University of California and California State University systems, the cornerstone of California’s economic engine.

“But, even after Democrats passed $12.5B of budget cuts in March, including $1B from higher education, Republican lawmakers have been incapable and unwilling to meet anywhere near the middle.

“These cuts are penny wise and pound foolish and threaten to further damage a stretched-to-the-limit public university system that was once the envy of the world. In volatile economic times, we should be investing in our universities to ensure we are producing the highly-skilled, educated workforce California needs to compete in the global economy.

“If Republicans want to walk the walk on job creation and attract and retain businesses in California, they should immediately return to the table and negotiate a good-faith solution that reverses these additional cuts to the State’s universities.”

From Board of Equalization member George Runner:

“Make no mistake, this Democrat budget isn’t about solving California’s fiscal problems—it’s only goal is to ensure lawmakers keep their paychecks flowing.

“When voters last fall granted Democrats their wish of majority-vote budgets, they demanded lawmakers forfeit their pay if those budgets are not approved on-time. But it was never the voters’ intention for lawmakers to approve a sham budget simply to keep their paychecks coming.

“What’s worse is that to protect their own pay, Democrats are poised to sacrifice the paychecks of thousands of California small businesses known as affiliates. Up to 25,000 of these Internet entrepreneurs will lose their affiliate status if Democrats approve a so-called ‘Amazon tax.’ According to the Board of Equalization’s analysis, ‘termination of affiliate programs would have an adverse impact on state employment’ and ‘lead to lower revenues.’

“The dumbest idea of all is the Democrats’ plan to sell state buildings for one-time revenue. If lawmakers want real one-time dollars, they should consider my proposals to raise billions in revenue by (1) granting an interest and penalty holiday to spur collection of delinquent tax payments and (2) selling-off aging debts owed the state.”

More, after the jump…
Read the rest of this entry »

Even as Congress prepares to re-consider some controversial sections of the Patriot Act, the California State Senate unanimously approved a bill today that would preclude state law enforcement from using one of the investigative tools now at issue.

Many Patriot Act provisions have been made permanent after being passed in October 2001 to extend law enforcement’s reach following the 9/11 attacks. At issue now are provisions that authorize roving wiretaps on surveillance targets; provisions that let the government access “any tangible items,” such as library and bookstore records, as a part of surveillance; and a “lone wolf” provision that allows surveillance of those in the United States without citizenship, a green card or political asylum who are not connected to an identified terrorist group.

But SB 602, by state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, would require government agencies to seek a warrant in order to access consumers’ reading records from bookstores and online retailers, bringing those protections in line with those already afforded by state law to library records. Today’s Senate vote sends the bill to the Assembly for consideration.

“I am very pleased that both Democrats and Republicans agree that current law is completely inadequate when it comes to protecting one’s privacy for book purchases, especially for online shopping and electronic books,” Yee – who also is a San Francisco mayoral candidate – said in a news release today. “Individuals should be free to buy books without fear of government intrusion and witch hunts. If law enforcement has reason to suspect wrongdoing, they can obtain a warrant for such information.”

Yee spokesman Adam Keigwin acknowledged that the bill “states all government agencies, but obviously federal law could supersede and allow federal agencies access if so approved.” Among those supporting the bill are the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Google, Consumer Federation of California, and Californians Aware.

Many bookstores already collect information about readers and their purchases, and digital book services can collect even more detailed information including which books are browsed, how long each page is viewed, and even digital notes made in the margins. Supporters say it’s vital that state law be adapted to the digital age, considering that electronic or digital books now outsell paperbacks on Amazon.com and more than 18 million e-readers are expected to be sold in 2012.

“California should be a leader in ensuring that upgraded technology does not mean downgraded privacy,” said Valerie Small Navarro, a legislative advocate with the ACLU’s California affiliates. “We should be able to read about anything from politics, to religion to health without worrying that the government might be looking over our shoulder.”

Californians would be able to register online to vote, under a bill introduced today by state Sen. Leland Yee.

Some states already offer online registration but California has put it off, awaiting implementation of a “VoteCal” statewide online database system now delayed at least until 2015. Yee’s bill instead would allow online registration through county registrars’ offices.

Under his SB 397, citizens would input their voter information online and the county elections office would use the voter’s signature from the Department of Motor Vehicles to verify authenticity. That signature would have to match the voter’s signature at the polling place; currently, polling place signatures only need to match the paper registration signature, which Yee says potentially allows for greater occurrences of fraud. (Ed. note: Steve Weir, quoted below, correctly noted there’s no checking of signatures at the voting precincts against registration signatures unless there is an allegation of a problem with a voter; Yee’s office said it had misunderstood the process, but still believes matching registration signatures to DMV signatures will stymie fraud.)

“In the 21st century, especially here in California, it is long overdue to have online voter registration,” Yee, D-San Francisco, said in his news release. “SB 397 will not only help protect the integrity of the vote, but will allow many more individuals the opportunity to register and participate in our democracy.”

Yee says county elections officers believe this would save money and eliminate administrative errors from mistyping the data entry from a paper registration; after Arizona implemented online voter registration, he said, some counties saw their costs decrease from 83 cents per registration to 3 cents per registration.

If Yee’s bill becomes law, it would let counties start using online voter registration for the 2012 Presidential Primary and General Election. Paper registration would still be available.

Contra Costa County Voter Registrar Steve Weir agrees the bill would help with data entry error avoidance. “We make mistakes in data entry and sometimes, people’s handwriting is difficult. In addition, with the 15 day close of registration, we can still be receiving legitimate registrations 5 days before an election and for major elections, it is very difficult to get all registrations into our system so that the voters name appears on the roster (or supplemental roster).”

“I like the idea that people register themselves and don’t depend upon “drives” for registration and for signature gatherers as these folks bend the rules,” Weir continued. “We have a drive that did not pay the return postage. The SOS sent them to us this month even though the registrants actually registered in time for the November Gubernatorial General Election.”

But Weir said the DMV signature is key. People going to DMV for the first time must produce an identifying document – a birth certificate or some naturalization documentation, for example – whereas signatures on standard voter registration cards aren’t checked against citizenship/identifying documents.

“I am not convinced that the DMV is able (legally, we’re told that a private vendor owns those signatures) to physically attach those signatures to on line registrations,” Weir said. “So, in concept, we like this option, although we want to see the actual language of the bill. Our Association will have a Legislative meeting on March 4 where we’ll go over the details of the bill.”

State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, indicated this morning he has no regrets about his vote against the state budget deal put forth by Democratic legislative leaders, even though it has cost him his own leadership post.

Yee’s office released a copy of a letter he sent this morning to state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento:

I understand that your Chief of Staff, Kathy Dresslar, informed my Chief of Staff, Adam Keigwin, last night via email that I have been removed as Assistant President Pro Tempore.

I am proud to have been the first Asian American to ever hold this position. However, I am more than willing to relinquish this title if that is the price for voting my conscience on the state budget and standing up against severe cuts to education, social services, and health care.

While the title is a symbolic achievement for my community and the constituents I serve, it is more important that I represent their interests in the Legislature and fight to protect schools, the elderly, and working families.

I will comply with your request to reorder letterhead and other office materials to no longer include the title of Assistant President Pro Tempore.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed a bill that would’ve let pharmacies all over California sell sterile syringes to an adult without a prescription, a measure that health experts called a key protection against the transmission of HIV, hepatitis and other blood-borne diseases.

“When I signed legislation my first year in office allowing for a pilot program to allow the sale of syringes through participating counties and registered pharmacies, I was seeking to balance the competing public health, law enforcement and local control issues that this issue requires,” the governor wrote in his veto message. “I believe this balance was achieved and SB 1029 would remove the ability of local officials to best determine policies in their jurisdiction. Some counties have not sought to implement this pilot program, citing competing priorities, lack of pharmacy interest and law enforcement opposition.”

“I respect these local decisions and while I appreciate the author’s hard work and dedication to this issue, I cannot sign this bill,” Schwarzenegger wrote.

The governor instead signed AB 1701 by Assemblyman Wes Chesbro, D-Arcata, to extends the existing Disease Prevention Demonstration Project for eight more years, still leaving it to city councils or county supervisors to decide whether to opt in and let pharmacies choose to take part.

But state Senator Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, who had authored SB 1029, issued a scathing statement Friday saying the governor apparently “was not interested in an effective public health measure that would reduce health care costs to taxpayers. Not only did he ignore the recommendation of doctors and other health experts, but he ignored the fact that HIV-AIDS and hepatitis do not recognize county borders. Such epidemics are certain to continue without implementing these comprehensive strategies.”

Sharing of used syringes is the most common cause of new hepatitis C infections in California and the second most common cause of HIV infections. The state Department of Public Health estimates that approximately 3,000 California residents contract hepatitis C through syringe sharing every year and another 750 cases of HIV are caused by syringe sharing.

Among SB 1029’s supporters were the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, AIDS Project Los Angeles, American Civil Liberties Union, California Hepatitis Alliance, California Nurses Association, California Psychiatric Association, California Retailers Association, County Alcohol & Drug Program Administrators, Drug Policy Alliance Network, California Medical Association, California Pharmacists Association, City and County of San Francisco, Health Officers Association of California, and Equality California.

It was opposed by the California Narcotic Officers’ Association, California Peace Officers’ Association, California Police Chiefs’ Association and the League of California Cities. The California Narcotic Officers’ Association had opposed Wesbro’s bill, too.

Glenn Backes, a public policy consultant to both the Drug Policy Alliance and the California Hepatitis Alliance, had said in July that Yee’s bill was better than just extending the county-by-county pilot program.

“Basically, if it is good policy for the residents of Bay Area counties, then it is good policy for the residents of Central Valley counties,” Backes said. “Especially given that the indigent ill are a burden on all taxpayers, a burden on the state general fund, no matter where they reside in the state. Allowing adults to spend their own money to protect their health and the health of others is the only proven way to reduce the rate of HIV and hepatitis without spending a dime of city, county or state money.”

Yee said SB 1029’s approach “has been evaluated extensively throughout the world and has been found to significantly reduce rates of HIV and hepatitis without contributing to any increase in drug use, drug injection, crime or unsafe discard of syringes. In fact, there is not one credible study that refutes these findings. The Governor’s veto is a moral and fiscal dilemma.”

Laura Thomas, the Drug Policy Alliance’s deputy state director, said the governor’s veto is “tragic and infuriating”

“It is an irrational attachment to drug war hysteria, at the expense of human life and fiscal responsibility to the California taxpayer,” she said. “Nothing would have worked better and cost less in reducing the spread of HIV and hepatitis C than SB 1029.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in the challenge to California’s law against sale of excessively violent video games to children for Nov. 2.

The 2005 law — authored by then-Assemblyman and now state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — never took effect because it was immediately challenged by video game industry trade groups and struck down by a federal judge in 2005 and by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2009.

The nation’s highest court agreed in April to review the case; State Attorney General Jerry Brown last month submitted the state’s written argument, while Yee joined the California Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, California, in submitting a “friend of the court” brief. Eleven other states – Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia – also submitted an amicus brief in support of California’s law.

The video game industry trade groups challenging the statute have argued it violates First Amendment rights to free expression and 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law. They said it’s unnecessary because of the voluntary ratings education and enforcement programs already in place, and would provide no meaningful standards to know to which games it applies.

But the state’s brief argues the law promotes parental authority to restrict unsupervised minors’ access to a narrow category of material in order to protect their physical and psychological well-being — a vital state interest — and it’s well-recognized that minors don’t always have the same First Amendment freedoms as adults to see sexual or violent material.

Yee issued a news release today saying he intends to attend the arguments in Washington, D.C.

“I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will help us give parents a valuable tool to protect children from the harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games,” he said. “We need to help empower parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder. The video game industry should not be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.”

Remember how state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, announced in February a bill to stop doorstep delivery of telephone directories in California unless a customer opts in to receive it? Well, even after being softened so that it merely would have strengthened already-existing rules to allow customers to opt out, the bill now is as dead as the trees those books are printed on, and Yee says a telecommunications giant is to blame.

Yee said Californians Against Waste, Environment California, Natural Resources Defense Council, Planning and Conservation League, and the Sierra Club agreed with him that Unused phonebooks are a major source of waste and a significant environmental burden for local municipalities, but AT&T convinced his legislative peers otherwise. SB 920 went down to defeat on the state Senate floor today on a 12-18 vote.

“AT&T put their own financial interests before the interests of their customers,” Yee said in a statement issued afterward. “At a time when we are looking for ways to reduce our carbon footprint, Californians deserved a choice and the opportunity to opt-out of receiving a directory. Killing this bill will result in further degradation of our environment, a loss in much-needed local resources, and millions of consumers forced to accept unneeded and unwanted phonebooks.”

More than 78 million telephone directories are distributed annually to California business and residential telephone consumers. The Product Stewardship Institute says telephone books represent 660,000 tons of waste per year, with local governments bearing the costs to recycle or otherwise dispose of them. Yee cites a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report which says not publishing a phone book reduces greenhouse gases by about three times as much as recycling.

The California Chamber of Commerce had argued against the bill, saying these directories are still the main source of phone-number information for consumers, especially those over age 45 and those with income under $25,000 per year. It also said the bill unfairly saddles the phone companies with responsibility to ensure no other, third-party directories are delivered to customers who haven’t opted in. And, it said, doing away with the books would both hurt small businesses that advertise in the directories and diminish the market for recycled paper.

UPDATE @ 5:07 P.M. MONDAY 6/7: The Yellow Pages Association – a trade organization representing an industry worth an estimated $12 billion in the United States – weighed in, calling the bill’s defeat good riddance.

The group said the bill would’ve added layers of government regulation on companies that help small businesses market themselves, employ thousands of Californians and contribute millions in state taxes.

“The defeat of this legislation is welcome news to local businesses that rely on directory advertising to get customers in the door during this difficult economy,” YPA President Neg Norton said in a news release. “We’re pleased that California officials made the right decision by rejecting unnecessary government regulation on companies that help small businesses market themselves and risk thousands of jobs and millions in state taxes from directory publishers.”

The YPA says almost three of every four California adults used the print Yellow Pages at least once in the past year for local information, according to research released in March by an independent marketing reseach firm.; one in three used it at least once in the past week. Yee’s urban constituency is more online-savvy, the group noted, but the bill overlooked the needs of suburban and rural users. And an industry website provides a tool for people wishing to limit or stop home delivery.

California lawmakers over the past three years raised 79 percent of campaign funds from outside their districts, according to a new study by the data-crunching wizards at Berekeley-based nonpartisan nonprofit MAPLight.org.

MAPLight.org (that’s “MAP” as in “Money In Politics”) found California legislators serving as of Aug. 31, 2009 – 79 Assembly members and 40 Senators – raised $97.9 million in campaign funds from January 2007 through March 2010, with $77.5 million coming from outside the district. About $11.9 (12 percent) came from in-district, while the remaining $8.6 million (9 percent) couldn’t be definitively located.

More than half of the lawmakers (68 out of 117 members, or 58 percent) raised 80 percent or more of their campaign funds from outside their districts; 19 lawmakers raised 90 percent or more of their funds from outside their districts.

“Not a single legislator in California raised the majority of their campaign funds from in-district, where their voters live.” MAPLight.org Executive Director Daniel Newman said in a news release. “Instead of a voter democracy, we have a donor democracy.”

“With out-of-district fundraising at a staggering 80 percent, the problem is not with a few bad apples, but with a rotten barrel,” he said. “This report shows that our campaign finance system is broken. This remote control system works well for wealthy interest groups, but not for voters.”

Here’s how the Bay Area delegation stacked up in percentage of contributions from out of district, and rank among the 119 lawmakers surveyed:

And, in case you’re wondering where the money comes from, the top 15 ZIP codes of contributions to legislators were:

1 Sacramento, CA 95814 – $23,149,034 (23.66%)
2 San Francisco, CA 94105 – $2,034,877 (2.08%)
3 Sacramento, CA 95833 – $1,408,211 (1.44%)
4 Los Angeles, CA 90020 – $1,395,635 (1.43%)
5 Burlingame CA, 94010 – $1,280,137 (1.31%)
6 Los Angeles, CA 90071 – $1,054,345 (1.08%)
7 Newport Beach, CA 92660 –$972,717 (0.99%)
8 Sacramento, CA 95811 – $843,928 (0.86%)
9 Sacramento, CA 95816 – $839,730 (0.86%)
10 Los Angeles, CA 90017 – $741,449 (0.76%)
11 Oakland, CA 94612 – $698,200 (0.71%)
12 Sacramento. CA 95834 – $669,150 (0.68%)
13 Pasadena, CA 91101 – $625,373 (0.64%)
14 Los Angeles, CA 90010 – $621,677 (0.64%)
15 San Francisco, CA 94111 – $583,888 (0.60%)

MAPLight.org is among supporters of Proposition 15, the California Fair Elections Act, which would try out a system of public financing of election campaigns in the 2014 and 2018 elections for Secretary of State, funded by an increase in lobbyist registration fees.