California Voters in Favor or Arizona Immigration Law
State’s voters tilt toward Arizona law
Field Poll results show 49% in favor, 45% oppose illegal-immigration move
By Michele Clock, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Thursday, July 15, 2010 at 10:18 p.m.
California voters are sharply and strongly divided over Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law, according to a new Field Poll.
Nearly half of the state’s voters, 49 percent, approve of the law; 45 percent disapprove.
The survey also shows major differences of opinion among voters of various ethnic groups and political parties, and whether they were born in the United States.
Overall, a majority of voters continue to believe that illegal immigrants have a negative effect on California, though less so than in past decades.
Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo said he was struck by the strength of voters’ opinions on both sides.
“It certainly pits two very strongly held opposite factions against one another,” DiCamillo said.
Passage of the Arizona law this spring reignited the already intense debate over illegal immigration. The law gives police the right to question people suspected of being in the country illegally and ask them for verification of their legal status.
Andrea Guerrero of the San Diego chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said Thursday that she had seen higher poll numbers in favor of the Arizona law in the past and that as more people learn that it is “not a fix to the immigration system,” support for it will wane.
“This is an aggressive attack on civil liberties and civil rights,” she said.
Andy Ramirez, who has spent time monitoring the U.S.-Mexico border in East County for illegal crossings, said the federal government is “refusing to allow their agents to enforce immigration” laws, so states and communities are trying to fill the gap.
Ramirez, the founder of a Southern California nonprofit that supports law enforcement, said he believes officers will enforce the law while respecting people’s rights.
Critics say the law will encourage racial profiling and harassment; defenders contend it is necessary because the federal government has failed to curb the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants across the border. The law has triggered protests across the country and this month the federal government took the unusual step of filing a lawsuit seeking to throw out the law, saying it violates the Constitution.
In contrast to California, a recent national poll that showed 60 percent of Americans support the law, DiCamillo said.
He attributed the difference in part to stronger opposition to the law among state Latino voters than was seen nationally.
According to the new poll, 71 percent of California Latino voters oppose the Arizona law, while 24 percent support it.
Most other ethnic groups surveyed came out on the opposite side of the debate, with white non-Hispanics backing the law 58 percent to 37 percent and African-Americans supporting it 53 percent to 39 percent. Asian-Americans were the most closely divided, with 50 percent saying they supported the law and 43 percent opposing it.
“(On) most issues the ethnic groups, generally speaking, tend to be on the same sides,” DiCamillo said. Here, he added, “you have very different views on this issue across those populations.” The data also showed a wide disparity depending on the respondents’ place of birth.
U.S.-born voters favored the Arizona law 54 percent to 41 percent; just 28 percent of those born outside the U.S. said they backed it.
One of the strongest single blocs of support came from registered Republican voters, 77 percent of whom said they favored the law. Meanwhile, 62 percent of Democrats said they disagreed with the law, and nonpartisans were about evenly divided.
Only about one in four voters who said they preferred the gubernatorial bid by Attorney General Jerry Brown , a Democrat, or a re-election bid by U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., approved of the Arizona law. But four of five supporters of former eBay executive Meg Whitman, the Republican running for governor, or former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina , the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, said they backed the law.
Whitman has come out against the Arizona law; Fiorina favors it. Voters who are undecided in the governor’s race support the new law and undecided voters in the Senate race are divided with 49 percent in support.
Opinions were strong on both sides. Of the 49 percent of voters who said they approve of the Arizona law, 37 percent said they approved strongly. Likewise, of the 45 percent who disapproved of the law, 34 percent said they disapproved strongly.
The poll shows that most California voters continue to believe illegal immigrants have a negative effect overall on the state, but that view has steadily diminished for three decades. Fifty-six percent of those surveyed said illegal immigrants have an unfavorable effect on the state, compared with 75 percent in 1982 and 67 percent in 1994.
The poll was based on telephone interviews in six languages and dialects of 1,390 registered state voters between June 22 and July 5.
California Election Results
Here are the preliminary California Election Results
a third of California’s 16.9 million registered voters casting ballots.
Governor
Democrats
Brown 83% WINNER
Repubicans
Whitman 68% WINNER
Poizner 23%
Lieutenant Governor
Democrats
Janice Hahn 34.5%
Gavin Newsom 53.5%
Eric Korevaar 12.0%
Republicans
Abel Maldonado 45.9%
Sam Aanestad 27.89%
Dave Harris 8.1%
Scott L Levitt 6.83%
Yvonne R Girard 6.01%
Bert Davis 5.27%
Secretary of State
Democrats
Debra Bowen 100%
Republicans
Damon Dunn 74.2% WINNER
Orly Taitz 25.8%
Controller
Democrats
John Chiang 100%
Republicans
David Evans 39.%
Tony Strickland 60.7%
Treasurer
Democrats
Bill Lockyer 100%
Republicans
Mimi Walters 100%
Attorney General
Democrats
Rocky Delgadillo 7.7%
Kamala D. Harris 28.9%
Chris Kelly 18.4%
Ted W. Lieu 13.9%
Pedro Nava 9.8%
Mike Schmier 6.7%
Alberto Torrico 14.6%
Insurance Commissioner
Democrats
Hector De La Torre 34.3%
Dave Jones 65.7%
Republicans
Brian Fitzgerald 45.9%
Mike Villines 54.1%
Board of Equalization
Superintendant of Public Education
U.S. Senate
Democrats
Boxer WINNER
Republicans
Tom Campbell 22.4%
Chuck DeVore 16.1%
Carly Fiorina 58.7% WINNER
Tim Kalemkarian 1.0%
Al Ramirez 1.8%
Republicans
Steve Cooley 52.2%
John Eastman 29.5%
Tom Harmon 18.3%
Senate District 37 Special Election — Riverside County
Assembly District 43 Special Election — Los Angeles County
LOCAL RACES
ORANGE CO SHERIFF
OC Sheriff Sandra Hutchens 56.1%
Former sheriff’s Lt. Bill Hunt 24.5 %.
Anaheim Deputy Police Chief Craig Hunter 19.4%
MEASURE E – LOS ANGELES CO – LAUSD PARCEL TAX
YES 51.57%
NO 48.43%
(needs 2/3 of the vote to pass)
MEASURE C- ORANGE CO – FAIRGROUNDS USE
YES 88.2%
NO 11.8%
STATE BALLOT MEASURES
PROPOSITION 13 — Limits on property tax assessment, seismic retrofitting of existing buildings, legislative constitutional amendment.
YES 86% WINNER
NO 14%
PROPOSITION 14 — Elections. Increases right to participate in primary elections.
YES 60.1% WINNER
NO 39.9%
PROPOSITION 15 — California Fair Elections Act.
YES 43%
NO 57%
PROPOSITION 16 — Imposes new 2/3 voter approval requirement for local public electricity providers, initiative constitutional amendment.
YES 51.5%
NO 48.5%
PROPOSITION 17 — Allows auto insurance companies to base their prices in part on a driver’s history of insurance coverage. Initiative statute.
YES 54.3%
NO 45.7%
Independent California Voter’s Guide
Today California Goes to the Polls. Here are our recommendations for all of the Propositions.
Proposition 13-VOTE YES
Earthquake proofing your house shouldn’t trigger a tax increase until you’re ready to sell. Any questions?
Proposition 14-VOTE NO!
This was the result of the corrupt deal for the tax increase engineered by Abel Maldonado that included this measure to by-pass party primaries in a manner Maldonado believed would enhance his future election prospects. Instead of voters of each party putting their best candidate forward, this jerry-rigged system is designed to disguise the difference between the parties and force those pesky third parties off the general election ballot entirely.
Proposition 15-VOTE NO
The real purpose of this measure is to allow the legislature to tap taxpayers to finance political campaigns. Jefferson said it best: “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
Proposition 16-VOTE YES
Cash-guzzling city governments have been taking over the territory of utilities through eminent domain and PG&E wants to put it to a vote. This measure gives you the choice upon whose mercy your future electricity bills will depend: the monopoly of city hall or the monopoly of your utility. Here’s a better idea: restore the freedom of individual consumers to choose among competing providers who actually have to earn their business. Alas, that part was left out by the suits at PG&E.
Proposition 17-VOTE YES
A simple question: should drivers be able to take their “continuous coverage” discount with them when they change insurance companies? A simpler question: why are our laws such a micro managing mess that we have to vote on something as self-evident as this in the first place?
Any Questions?
Rep. Tom McClintock shares his take on California Propositions and Offices
McClintock Ballot Recommendations
On the Propositions:
Prop. 13. Seismic Retrofits. YES: Earthquake proofing your house shouldn’t trigger a tax increase until you’re ready to sell. Any questions?
Prop. 14. Distorted Primary. NO: This was the result of the corrupt deal for the tax increase engineered by Abel Maldonado that included this measure to by-pass party primaries in a manner Maldonado believed would enhance his future election prospects. Instead of voters of each party putting their best candidate forward, this jerry-rigged system is designed to disguise the difference between the parties and force those pesky third parties off the general election ballot entirely.
Prop. 15. Taxpayer Funded Elections. NO: The real purpose of this measure is to allow the legislature to tap taxpayers to finance political campaigns. Jefferson said it best: “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
Prop. 16. Utility Elections. YES: Cash-guzzling city governments have been taking over the territory of utilities through eminent domain and PG&E wants to put it to a vote. This measure gives you the choice upon whose mercy your future electricity bills will depend: the monopoly of city hall or the monopoly of your utility. Here’s a better idea: restore the freedom of individual consumers to choose among competing providers who actually have to earn their business. Alas, that part was left out by the suits at PG&E.
Prop. 17. Insurance Rates. YES: A simple question: should drivers be able to take their “continuous coverage” discount with them when they change insurance companies? A simpler question: why are our laws such a micro managing mess that we have to vote on something as self-evident as this in the first place?
On the statewide races:
For Governor, Steve Poizner: Steve had the courage to support Arizona’s decision to enforce our immigration laws when Meg Whitman cut and ran. He opposes the bank bailouts, rampant borrowing and environmental extremism that Meg Whitman embraces. And unlike Whitman, Steve Poizner was never “a huge fan” of radical leftist Van Jones. This time, let’s have a governor from the Republican wing of the Republican Party.
For Lt. Governor, Sam Aanestad: Sam was my seatmate for many years in both the Assembly and the Senate. He never wavered from his devotion to Republican principles of limited government. Abel Maldonado broke his signed taxpayer pledge and bears responsibility not only for the biggest tax increase in California’s history, but also the budgets that ran California off the fiscal cliff. No single race on the ballot more clearly defines the difference between the Party of Reagan and the Party of Schwarzenegger.
For Attorney General, John Eastman: I worked with John Eastman at the Claremont Institute – a public policy think tank devoted to restoring American founding principles to the public policy debate. John is a nationally renowned Constitutional advocate and scholar whose leadership is desperately needed in the Attorney General’s office. Imagine having an Attorney General who not only respects the Constitution but who understands and reveres it.
For Insurance Commissioner, Anybody But Villines. Mike Villines was another of the sell-out Republican votes on the massive tax increase that crushed what was left of our state’s economy last year, after signing a no-new-taxes pledge. Liars don’t belong in government.
For U.S. Senate, Chuck DeVore: Chuck is a conservative’s conservative who has always stood on principle, even when it has meant standing virtually alone. I’ve never heard him give a speech without thinking “I wish I’d said that.” I rank him up there with Sam Aanestad as one of the finest people I’ve had the opportunity to serve with in the legislature. He would become an instant leader in the United States Senate.
President Obama Delcares Davidson County a Disaster Area
President Obama has already declared Davidson County in Middle Tennessee a Disaster Area. Were you affected by this?
Tell us your story. We want to hear from you if you are in Davidson County, Knox County, Roane County, Rutherford County, or Sevier County.
Congress agrees to redistribute 2 Billion more Tax Dollars to boost auto sales
Pedal to the metal, Congress sent President Barack Obama legislation Thursday night with an additional $2 billion for “cash for clunkers,” the economy-boosting rebate program that caught the fancy of car buyers and instantly increased sales for an auto industry long mired in recession.
The Senate approved the money on a 60-37 vote after administration officials said an initial $1 billion had run out in only 10 days. The House voted last week to keep alive the program, which gives consumers up to $4,500 in federal subsidies if they trade in their cars for new, more energy-efficient models.
Without action, lawmakers risked a wave of voter discontent as they left the Capitol for a month long vacation.
“Cash for clunkers has been a proven success,” Obama said in a written statement issued shortly after the vote. [What he meant was people love being handed thousands of dollars to buy a car they can't afford while the local bank is foreclosing on the house they live in that they can't afford.] “The initial transactions are generating a more than 50 percent increase in fuel economy; they are generating $700 to $1000 in annual savings for consumers in reduced gas costs alone, and they are getting the oldest, dirtiest and most air polluting trucks and SUVs off the road for good.” [This was not the intention of Obama's plan, but a happy accident that he is now playing up as a well orchestrated manuver, when in fact it was luck.]
Senate supporters of the program hailed its effect on the auto industry — which had its best month in nearly a year in July — as well as its claimed environmental benefits.
“The reality is this is a program that has been working. Consumers believe it’s working. Small business people believe it’s working. People who make steel and aluminum and advertisers … and everyone who’s involved in the larger economic impact of the auto industry believe it is working,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. [Now the administration can claim it's getting people back to work and when this $2 billion dries up, they'll announce more layoffs.]
The legislation had its share of critics, though, most of them Republicans. [Really, this is your reporting?]
“What we’re doing is creating debt. … The bill to pay for those cars is going to come due on our children and grandchildren,” said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. [Fact]
Officials said the program’s initial $1 billion probably already has been spent, but a paperwork backlog prevented an accurate accounting. The additional $2 billion is enough to help consumers purchase a half-million more new cars, they added.
There was no suspense about the outcome in the Senate, where supporters of the legislation focused their energies on defeating all attempts at amending the measure. Passage of any changes would effectively scuttle “cash for clunkers,” they said, since the House has already begun a summer vacation and is not in session to vote on revisions.
An attempt by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, to limit the program to lower and middle-income consumers was jettisoned on a vote of 65-32. Gregg’s call for Congress to offset the $2 billion with spending cuts elsewhere also failed, 51-46.
On the final vote, 51 Democrats, two independents and seven Republicans supported the bill, while 33 Republicans and four Democrats opposed it.
The Senate’s debate capped an unusually swift response by lawmakers, who were informed scarcely a week ago that the program was quickly running short of money.
The government said Wednesday that more than $775 million of the original funds had been spent, accounting for the sale of nearly 185,000 new vehicles. Administration officials estimate the extra funding will last into Labor Day.
Under the program, passenger car owners are eligible for a voucher worth $3,500 if they trade in a vehicle getting 18 miles per gallon or less for a new car getting at least 22 mpg. Vouchers of $4,500 are available for owners who trade in a passenger car getting 18 mpg or less for a model that gets at least 28 mpg.
There are similar guidelines for SUVs and pickup trucks.
AP – David Espo Read More
Obama’s approval rating takes a big hit
WASHINGTON, Aug 6, 2009 (AFP) – US President Barack Obama’s approval rating has slumped to 50 percent, the lowest since his inauguration, according to a poll released Thursday on the eve of his 200th day in office.
Quinnipiac University said the president’s job approval rating dipped to 50 percent, versus 42 percent who disapprove — a reflection of growing unease over Obama’s handling of the economy, which sank into a devastating recession last year prompting his administration to unleash a deficit-stretching stimulus package, and health care which faces a critical overhaul in Congress.
The figure is a substantial drop from the 57-33 percent approval rating he had on July 2, and far less than the numbers he enjoyed in the honeymoon first 100 days of his tenure.
The poll of 2,409 registered voters nationwide found they disapproved 49-45 percent of the way Obama was handling the economy, and disapproved 52-39 percent on his handling of health care, but approved 52-38 percent of his foreign policy.
AFP – Michael Mathes
Twitter Me This…Where’s the Beef in Mayoral Control?
Mayoral control of NYC schools is restored. And, all my little twittees would know this already if twitter were working.
The first speaker was the freshman, Senator Squadron, who presented a well-rehearsed rendition of Bloomberg’s fight song…”Bringing Daddy the Schools.” He was very good, made some good points, I see why they voted for him…doesn’t make me any happier about it. So, moving on…Danny Boy seems to heavily supported by the goppers…wonder why. Moving on…bring in the clown.
So, as is often the case in controversial legislation, I’m treated to at least 20 minutes of gibberish from Senator Diaz. Often, since he’s so anxious to jump to the mike, I don’t even know what legislation he’s talking about and today was no different. Even though Danny had prepped me, Rubie was so far out there that I had no idea what was going on.
While the Mayoral Control bill was scheduled to be “on deck” the only words I kept hearing from Diaz were “Where’s the beef?” I’m not sure why…and it seemed as if after 14 utterances, none of his colleagues got the connection. At one point…after muttering the same phrase 3 times in a row, he says, (I think) where does that come from anyway….one of the goppers yells…Wendys. At which point (I think) Diaz tells everyone sad enough to be in the chamber that that’s his daughter’s name. Hmmmm….
So then the honorable (I say that with sarcasm) Senator Huntly rises to speak about the bill. First she shows her professionalism (I’m wondering if she learned her manners in the NYC school system) by saying Senator Squadron spoke surprisingly eloquently since he was not much older than the children in the school system he spoke about. Then she goes one to say that she felt pressure…hey baby, what did you say you do for a living? Apparently, Danny boy sent out some letter (which miss manners says is a nono…right, babe, I’m going to you for lessons) support for Bloomie. (At least that’s what she got around to explaining while she was seething.)
She continues to say that the school control was not her problem, and owing bloomie was not her problem…and for all this “dissin”…she be votin’ down yo resolution. I have such pride for our legislators.
At that, some guy over on yon gopper side stands to defend young Danny…long/short…the resolution was approved…the rich guy down in the city proves that money can make anything happen and we’ve crowned yet another king of New York. I’m puttin’ on my top hat and headin’ for the door when Senator Diaz rises to explain the vote…hahahaha!!! The goppers all laugh and shout…naw…you’ve already don’t enough (I’m sure the dems are doing the same but I can’t see them from where I sit….I can see Senator Robach, however.)
So, Rubie goes off one more time. I didn’t understand a word. The schools in NYC are safe in the hands of Mayor Bloomie until 2013 with a vote of a whole bunch to 8. Unfortunately, I believe all 8 were from the city. So much for downstate power.
Paul Stanley, Tennessee State Senator, Sleeps with 22-Year-Old Intern – Resigns
Tennessee lawmaker Paul Stanley resigned from the state Senate on Tuesday after his extramarital affair with a 22-year-old intern was revealed by an investigation into an extortion case.
“Due to recent events, I have decided to focus my full attention on my family and resign my Senate seat effective August 10,” Republican Sen. Paul Stanley wrote in his resignation letter.
Court records show that Stanley, 47, told agents investigating a blackmail case that he had a sexual relationship with intern McKensie Morrison.
Her boyfriend, Joel Watts, is charged with trying to extort $10,000 from Stanley in April. Investigators say Watts demanded the money in exchange for not releasing to the media explicit photos of Morrison that Stanley had taken in what appears to be Stanley’s apartment.
The senator, a married father of two who represents suburban Memphis, had signaled he would remain in the legislature, but he said Tuesday that he decided to step down about an hour before submitting his resignation letter. Stanley, who was elected to the Senate in 2006 after serving six years in the state House, had resigned last week as chairman of the powerful Senate Commerce Committee.
A special election will be held to fill the seat in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Stanley’s legislative proposals were largely focused on pro-business issues, but he also sponsored failed measures to ban gay couples from adopting children. He also spoke out against funding for Planned Parenthood because he said unmarried people should not have sex.
“Whatever I stood for and advocated, I still believe to be true,” he said during an interview Tuesday with Memphis radio station WREC-AM. “And just because I fell far short of what God’s standard was for me and my wife, doesn’t mean that that standard is reduced in the least bit.”
Morrison’s phone numbers are redacted from her legislative internship application, and efforts to reach her were unsuccessful Tuesday. Her father said he didn’t want to talk about the situation.
“It’s a family matter, and I’m going to approach it that way,” Will Morrison said.
According to court records, Morrison is married to a man who is serving a seven-year prison sentence in Florida but that he has filed for divorce.
Watts said in an interview with a Nashville TV station last week that he blamed Stanley for taking advantage of Morrison
Source: Erik Schelzig – Huffington Post
California Senator Barbara Boxer Accused of Racism
The President and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) tore into Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) Thursday for what he said were “condescending” and “God awful” racial statements at a hearing.
NBCC head Harry C. Alford took strong exception to Boxer having referenced an NAACP report favoring climate change legislation during a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which Boxer is the chairwoman.
“Madam chair, that is condescending to me,” Alford said. “I’m the National Black Chamber of Commerce, and you’re trying to put up some other black group to pit against me.”
Boxer defended including the report, however, saying the report reflects a “diversity” of support behind climate change legislation facing the Senate.
“If this gentleman were here, he would be proud he’s being quoted,” Boxer said in defense of the NAACP support.
Alford, however, struck back against Boxer, accusing her of “getting racial” in the climate change debate.
“All that’s condescending, and I don’t like it. It’s racial. I take offense to it. As an African-American and a veteran of this country, I take offense to that,” he said. “You’re quoting some other black man — why don’t you quote some other Asian or some other… You’re getting racial here.”
“You’re speaking on behalf of the black community?” Alford asked. “Why are you doing the colored people association’s study with the black Chamber of Commerce?”
He finally concluded:
“We’ve been looking at energy policy since 1996. And we are referring to the experts, regardless of their color. And for someone to tell me, an African-American, college-education veteran of the United States Army, that I must contend with some other “black group” and put aside everything else in here — This has NOTHING to do with the NAACP, and really has nothing to do with the National Black Chamber of Commerce. We’re talking about energy. And that — that road the chair went down, I think is God awful.”