VOTER-April-2008

LWVO will be holding forums at City Hall in early April for candidates in the June election. These forums will be broadcast on KTOP throughout the campaign period.
Thurs., Apr. 3, 6 - 9 pm
6 pm City Council, District 3
6:45 pm School Board, District 3
7:30 pm City Council, District 7
8:15 pm School Board, District 7

Fri., Apr. 4, 6 - 9 pm:
6 pm Assembly District 14, Dem. candidates
7 pm City Council At-large
8:15 pm City Council, District 5

Sat., Apr. 5, 10 am - 2:30 pm:
10 am Alameda County Board of Education Area 2
10:45 am Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 4
11:30 am Alameda County Board of Ed, Area 3
12:30 pm Superior Court Seat 9

Fri., Apr. 11, 7pm - 10 pm:
7 pm State Senate District 9, Dem. candidates
8 pm City Council District 1
8:45 pm School Board District 1

On April 24 at 7 pm, the League is cosponsoring a forum with Merritt College for the candidates for the At-large City Council seat. This forum will be held on the Merritt College campus, with ample parking for the public. League members who are not helping with the forums should plan on attending them as audience members.
As always, we can use workers for these forums. If you are available to help, please contact Nikki Harris, nikkihar@aol.com or Judi Bank, judibank@aol.com or 531-5449.

STIR THE POT

April Meeting features League advocacy on June Ballot Measures

Two state measures will be on the June 3 ballot. Both are on the same subject--eminent domain. The League of Women Voters opposes Prop. 98 and supports Prop. 99. Come to a discussion meeting to find out why the League thinks one is bad and the other is good. This is not a presentation of pros and cons. It is an advocacy meeting.

Monday, April 28
6:30 to 8:00 p.m.
Dimond Library
3645 Fruitvale Ave.

Bring your favorite food and/or beverage (no alcohol at the library).

NOTE LATER STARTING TIME.

2008 Making Democracy Work Awards

The 2008 Making Democracy Work Awards, to be presented at the League's April 2 All-City Luncheon, will go to the English Center for International Women, currently located at Mills College, and to Patricia Arabia, a social studies teacher at Mandela High School.
The mission of the English Center is "to realize the participation of international students in the social, political and economic opportunities of the 21st century world". Through English language, technology and career readiness training, the English Center fosters cross-cultural communication and career advancement, enabling non-native speakers of English to achieve their fullest potential. They have trained more than 4,000 students from more than 75 countries in their 30 years of work.
Their program is recognized as a model for English acquisition and is used as a case study of "best integration and program practices" in a recent toolkit for grantmakers.
Patricia Arabia teaches 11th and 12th graders at Mandela High School, one of four small, autonomous high schools that make up what we once knew as Fremont High School. As part of her teaching she makes sure that every one of her students who is eligible is registered to vote. She inspires spirited discussions of ballot measures as well as candidates.
At every election she uses materials like the League's Easy Voter Guides in her classroom. In addition, for this February's election, she asked for a speaker to come to her classes to talk about the ballot measures. The speaker was so impressed and excited by what she saw that it led to this award!
Come to the luncheon on April 2 at 11:45 am to hear more about these inspiring awardees.

Reservations for the luncheon accepted until 4 PM March 31. Call 834-7640.

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE -

By Helen Hutchison
2008 - it will be the year of elections in my memory. We're moving right from the February Presidential Primary to the June Statewide Primary. In February we concentrated our energy on Voter Service and did no action on the ballot measures. For the June election we will be doing the reverse. There are only 2 ballot measures on the state ballot, both on the same issue (eminent domain), and we have strong positions on both.
The Voter Service Committee determined that with only 2 measures it would be hard to fill an hour's program, so we're not going to do our regular Pros and Cons speakers' bureau. Instead, we will offer an advocacy speakers' bureau, with a shorter program. The Action Committee will offer 15 to 20 minute presentations on Propositions 98 and 99, explaining why the League opposes Proposition 98 and supports 99. These presentations will also explain what a Primary Election is and call attention to the many contested races, candidate forums, and Smart Voter.
If you are interested in joining the Action Committee in making these presentations, please contact Marion Taylor at mariontaylor@mac.com or 510 532-5797.
REMINDER: As you do your taxes, remember to "check the box" in the first question and designate three dollars of your tax payment to the Presidential Election Fund. Checking the box will not increase the taxes you pay or reduce your refund. It simply puts three dollars of the tax you've already paid into the Presidential Election Fund. The size of the Fund and the strength of our democracy depends entirely on the number of people who choose to check the box.

BOARD NOTES

At its March meeting the LWVO Board:

Approved luncheon awards to the English Center and Patricia Arabia, a social studies teacher at Mandela HS
Approved the recommendation of the Voter Service Committee that we not do Pros and Cons presentations for the June election, but instead offer shorter advocacy presentations on the state ballot measures
Discussed questions to be posed on Smart Voter for the candidates
Discussed a letter to the Mayor on truancy; decided that this needed to be put on hold to be part of a larger, more coordinated campaign
The next Board meeting is Monday, April 14, 6:30 pm at Piedmont Gardens. All League members are welcome to attend.

Single Payer: It's Time to Have Hope

By Sara Rogers, Consultant to Senator Kuehl
"Politically feasible" is just another way of saying that folks are scared to stand up to insurance companies. I don't accept that. It's time to take a stand for what we really want. It's time to have hope.
- Senator Sheila Kuehl
SB 840 is alive and well in the Assembly Appropriations committee, much further along in the legislative process than it was in 2006, just before its historical passage out of both houses of the legislature and onto the Governor's desk. Legislative deadlines for passage out of fiscal committees aren't until August 15th and, between now and then, grassroots organizing and education efforts are really taking off. Every day, Senator Kuehl and her staff receive requests for presentations regarding SB 840, the truly universal healthcare bill.
On Sunday, January 27th and Monday, January 28th, the American Medical Students' Association held their hugely successful third annual rally and lobby day in Sacramento, which included a day long training that drew nearly 400 med students from all over the state. The fact that so many overworked medical students spent an entire weekend, even taking a rare day off from school, to advocate for single payer health care shows an unparalleled level of dedication and passion. AMSA students give every single payer supporter hope and inspiration as they push for passage of the bill.
Single payer advocates are also busy preparing for a historical strategy summit taking place in Los Angles later this month that will bring together representatives from the broad coalition of organizations dedicated to bringing single payer to California. The summit demonstrates the unprecedented development of the organized and operational single payer movement necessary to bring universal health care to California. It's the kind of grassroots movement that has been largely absent in the history of health reform, and it's just one example of the changing landscape of health care politics.
On that note, my "leisure" reading lately is a book called, One Nation Uninsured: Why the US Has No National Health Insurance. It chronicles the 20th century's long line of failed attempts at achieving national health insurance. There's an unmistakable pattern to each major attempt, in that there seems have been an attempt once every decade and, each time national health insurance is within our grasp, it is defeated with a capitulatory "compromise".
I couldn't help but notice that, historically, the compromises are forged by the exact same powerful interests every time, working like scavengers randomly picking through the ideas of national health insurance, with little consideration given to whether any "reform" was actually going to improve the health care system for the average American.
In fact, a century of such "health care reform" has brought our health care system to the point where it is deeply fragmented, unimaginably costly and the least effective system in the entire developed world at delivering either health or care. I can't help but wonder where we might have been in terms of universal health care had proponents not forfeited their goal quite so fast.
Most striking: The grassroots role that physicians repeatedly played in defeating national health insurance. The American Medical Association functioned as an exceptionally effective grassroots movement that was embedded in every community across the nation. They organized education and lobbying campaigns against universal health care, labeling their efforts as "protecting the public health". They hired PR consultants who admitted that they were attempting to label national health insurance as "socialized medicine" for the simple reason that Americans were opposed to socialism.
The litmus test for "politically feasible" has historically been largely defined by where doctors, insurers, business and labor stood on the issue. Throughout the last century, there was no grassroots group as singularly focused on the passage of single payer health care as the physicians and insurers were opposed to it. That's changed considerably, especially in California, as the 500 or so organizations that support SB 840 continue their evolution into an effective coalition that works tirelessly (and largely under the radar of many in Sacramento) to educate and organize Californians on universal health care.
More importantly, groups that traditionally oppose single payer, like physicians, are no longer unified against it. The American College of Physicians made history last year in their endorsement of single payer and the California Medical Association includes a large and growing minority of members that strongly support single payer. The American Medical Students Association has quickly risen to become one of the most passionate and inspired groups advocating for passage of SB 840.
Another powerful provider group, the California Nurses Association has gone "all in" for single payer and is working in much the same way for single payer as the American Medical Association once worked to oppose it. Their dedication unites with that of organizations like Health Care for All - California, school employees, the League of Women Voters, retired teachers, and others who are deeply embedded in communities across the state.
The lesson that advocates of single payer should take from history is to observe how the AMA was able to defeat national health insurance through steady community education and organizing. This is why single payer has the best shot, politically, as well as on a policy basis, for winning passage. Only single-payer boasts the kind of unified and dedicated grassroots movement for something that makes large reform possible.
In the midst of an unprecedented and inspiring presidential primary, the theme for 2008 is unmistakable - it's time to have hope.
To learn more about Single Payer Health Care, or to join the LWVO Health Care Committee, contact Jean Jackson, jeandjac@comcast.net or 533-2945.

League Stand on June Ballot Measures

The June 3, 2008 ballot features two propositions on the subject of eminent domain. The first, Proposition 98, The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, is similar to Proposition 90, which the LWVC opposed on the November 2006 ballot. However, it goes much farther in limiting the ability of public agencies to acquire land to provide water resources, to regulate land use, to protect natural resources, and even to continue rent control laws. The League OPPOSES Proposition 98, and has signed the ballot argument against the measure. Any League member wishing to work on the campaign should contact Meghan Callahan via email (mcallahan@bickerassociates.com) or by calling 916-443-0872.
The second, Proposition 99, The Homeowners Protection Act, simply addresses a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision by clarifying that single-family occupied properties may not be condemned for transfer to other private parties. It reinforces the right of local governments and others to regulate land use and to acquire property for valid government purposes. The League SUPPORTS Proposition 99 and signed the ballot argument in favor of the measure.

Carbon Offsets - What Is Your Footprint?

Jane Turnbull, LWVC Energy Program Director jaturnbu@ix.netcom.com
Are you treading lightly? Or are you wearing galoshes? We all have considerable discretion in terms of the size of our environmental footprints - including the size of our personal carbon footprints. PG&E has estimated that a typical home in northern California emits 5.3 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually. And that's not counting the CO2 from our personal vehicles or airplane trips.
Even before the California Air Resources Board issues its regulatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions from major point-source polluters, individuals and businesses can compensate for their routine day-by-day carbon emissions. And not just in a token way. Rather, it begins to look like a major emerging national financial market opportunity - the latest entrants into this arena include major financial and legal institutions, such as Morgan Stanley and Beveridge and Diamond.
This new financial product is called a Carbon Offset. In California the agency charged with validating a registered offset is the California Carbon Action Registry (CCAR). This non-profit, public-private partnership has been verifying and registering carbon mitigation activities for the past seven years. Nationally, a new entity is becoming active, the Chicago Carbon Exchange (CCX), which will function as a carbon commodities market. It will bring buyers and sellers together to define the prices and conditions for acceptable contracts. The current CCX price for offsetting a ton of CO2 is $1.80.
Just what is the nature of a carbon offset project? It can be any activity that leads to a reduction in CO2 or methane emissions. (Other greenhouse gases are not presently included as offset commodities.) The buyers and sellers negotiate the conditions for each contract, and these conditions must be such that emissions reductions are real, verifiable, measurable, additional and permanent. For there to be a market, the reductions (or credits) must also be monetized.
In California, there are only three types of carbon early action projects for which performance standards have been defined by the Air Resources Board. These include forestry "best practices" and improvements in how forest lands are managed, and methane reductions at dairies and at landfills. Such projects are assessed by CCAR to attribute Carbon Reduction Credits (CRCs) to each specific project. It is possible that these credits may be accrued to be used in future cap and trade transactions, if the state institutes such a program. Many carbon reduction projects also have co-benefits, and the sponsors of those projects are then in a position to advertise these associated good deeds. Outside of CCAR, other types of projects are acceptable, but each must be validated by an accredited verification specialist.
Since carbon offsets are presently entirely voluntary, who are the purchasers? While I certainly don't have a complete list of them, in California they include: the governor's office, Yahoo, Google, Whole Foods, Safeway and PG&E. The rationale being given by these entities is that they have an ethical responsibility for addressing their contributions to climate change. PG&E has also set up a Climate Smart program to encourage its customers to purchase offsets of the carbon emissions associated with their own electric and-natural gas use. The customer funds are invested directly into either methane capture at dairies or native forest restoration.
Just what are the anticipated merits of this whole endeavor? Quite simply, as Karen Douglas of the Environmental Defense Fund puts it, carbon offsets may hold "transformative power" by getting the unregulated sectors of our society to acknowledge their roles and responsibilities in addressing climate change. Furthermore, investments in offsets will provide a funding stream to foster incremental, and hopefully innovative, approaches to reducing carbon emissions. Carbon offsets are expected to remain a voluntary means for encouraging the nonregulated parts of our society to address greenhouse gas emissions.
They certainly are attractive in many ways. However, Chris Page, Yahoo's "Climate Smart" person, recently posed an important question deserving of near-term attention: "Just where does energy efficiency fit into the Carbon Offsets equation?"
The LWVC's Energy Committee is waiting for an answer to her question.

We STILL Need You to Make Redistricting Reform Happen!

The campaign to effect fair and open redistricting reform in California is off and running. In order to get the California Voters FIRST initiative on the ballot, we need a million signatures. The League has pledged to do its part. We're calling all League members to rally to the cause and help us get those signatures.
How? First, every League member will receive a petition with three signature spaces. Sign it yourself, get two more signatures from your family, friends or colleagues, and send it in. It's easy!
Second, volunteer to take more petitions and get signatures at meetings, rallies, parties, supermarkets, movie lines, wherever you go.
Contact Helen Hutchison (helen@helenhutch.com, 510 654-2216) to get more petitions.
Allowing legislators to draw their own districts is a serious conflict of interest that harms voters. This reform will put the voters back in charge. Read the text of the initiative, see the talking points, and get the very latest news about the campaign on our Web site. votersfirstca.com
Sign on for an exciting, hands-on experience in making democracy work!

STORYBANK

Do you miss reading the stories that we have had from our members in past VOTERS?
Read some of the stories at the LWVUS Storybank: Go to the LWV homepage: http://www.lwv.org, and click on "For Members", and choose "Membership Recruitment Initiative". You will then be given the option to read some stories from League members around the country, as well as find hints on sharing your own story.
Contact Lorraine Force, RANIEF@aol.com or 510-848-7859 for more about sharing your story.

Membership Update

Welcome New Member:
Miriam Dickman
Change to Roster:
Rosalee Schubert
Helen Moss

Longtime League member, Sister Ethel Mary Tinnemann, died on March 11 at the age of 91. Ethel was a wonderful hard-working member of LWVO for many years especially in areas of Voters Service. One League member said that she is probably responsible for registering more voters in Oakland than any other individual.

LWVUS NEWS

League Expresses Concern With New Ethics Procedures
Office of Congressional Ethics "Will Prove Inadequate" Due to Lack of Subpoena Power
March 12, 2008 Washington, DC + The League of Women Voters today expressed concerns about the new ethics procedures passed by a House vote of 229 to 182 last night.
"This does not provide the independent ethics enforcement process that is needed to clean up the House and protect the public interest," said Mary G. Wilson, national president of the League of Women Voters.
"The investigative powers of the Office of Congressional Ethics are simply insufficient," Wilson continued. "Without access to subpoena power, investigators will not be able to compel cooperation from outside entities and individuals, congressional staff and Members," she said.
"Voters in 2006 clearly reacted to the `business as usual' approach that Congress took to the scandals that plagued the House. Voters continue to have high expectations for ethics reform. They want changes that will be strong and effective," Wilson said. "This agreement falls short," she said.
"This proposal will prove to be inadequate and will have to be revisited, probably when the next wave of public scandals arrives," Wilson said.
"The League is disappointed that this proposal is the best the House is willing, or able, to achieve," Wilson concluded.
Groups to Bring Together International Women Leaders:
Women in the Americas: Paths to Political Participation
Washington, DC + On March 28, the League of Women Voters will join the Inter-American Development Bank, the Inter-American Dialogue, the Organization of American States Summits of the Americas Secretariat, and women political leaders from throughout the Americas in sponsoring "Women in the Americas: Paths to Political Participation."
Event Hosts include Senator Dianne Feinstein (D CA) and Representatives Jo Ann Emerson (R MO), Kay Granger (R TX), Sheila Jackson Lee (D TX), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D TX), Loretta Sanchez (D CA), Jean Schmidt (R OH), Hilda Solis (D CA) and Jerry Weller (R IL).
"Since our foremothers held their first Pan +American Conference of Women in 1923, the League has strived to encourage and celebrate women's political leadership throughout the world," said League of Women Voters president Mary G. Wilson. "Not only is this event an occasion to celebrate the incredible women who are bringing a new face to civic empowerment in the Americas; it also serves as a crucial opportunity to foster that inspiration and know-how in other aspiring leaders."

Comments, suggestions, questions? Contact our webmaster. Last revised: May 15, 2008 20:23 PDT.