Twelve propositions have earned a spot on the November ballot, where Californians will consider a host of changes. We also discuss a third accusation against Kavanaugh; examine the newly created CA Office of Election Cybersecurity; and more.
A third accuser comes out against Kavanaugh, a day before Senate committee hearing
A third woman, represented by lawyer Michael Avenatti, has come out with allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
This comes a day before the Senate Judiciary Committee hears testimonies from Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, the Bay Area academic who claimed that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party when they were both in high school.
The latest accuser, Julie Swetnick, claims that she was gang raped by a group of boys in high school while Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were present. Furthermore, Swetnick claims that Kavanaugh and Judge had “spiked” the drinks of girls at parties to make them more vulnerable to these attacks.
Larry and guests examine these explosive allegations and their impact on tomorrow’s scheduled hearing.
Guests:
Kate Zernike, political reporter for the New York Times, She tweets
Laurie L. Levenson, professor of law at Loyola Law School and former federal prosecutor
Jenna Parker, attorney in L.A. who specializes in Title IX cases with Werksman, Jackson, Hathaway & Quinn, LLP
Lara Bazelon, professor of law at the University of San Francisco; she was a trial attorney in the Office of the Federal Public Defender in Los Angeles for seven years; she has litigated Title IX cases
Domenico Montanaro, lead editor for politics and digital audience at NPR; he wrote the piece “New Poll Finds Americans Deeply Divided By Gender On Kavanaugh Nomination”
AirTalk debates 2018 ballot initiatives: Prop 3 — Water infrastructure and conservation bond
Californians will see yet another water bond when they head to the polls in November.
After approving Proposition 68 in June and Proposition 1 in 2014, voters will have to decide how they’ll vote on Proposition 3, a bond measure that would authorize the state to borrow almost $8.9 billion in general obligation bonds for projects related to improving water infrastructure. This would include $3 billion for water quality improvement projects, $2.9 billion for watershed and fisheries improvements and $200 million would be put towards a 10-year plan to preserve the Salton Sea.
According to the state legislative analyst, it will cost taxpayers $17.3 billion to repay the bond if approved, as it would generate $8.4 billion in interest additional to the $8.9 billion the bond itself costs.
Proponents say a ‘yes’ vote on Prop 3 is a vote to secure the future of California water by investing now in projects that will mean safe drinking water for those who lack, help towns and cities be better prepared to handle long-term drought, and improve safety for dams like the one in Oroville, which suffered a spillway failure in 2017 that led to tens of thousands of evacuations in the area.
Opponents say that the projects Prop 3 is a “pay-to-play” policy where the special interest groups that drafted the proposition are the ones who would benefit most from the proposition passing. They argue that some of the projects the bond measure would funds could do more harm than good for the environment, citing new dam projects that could disrupt wildlife habitat and forest ecosystems.
Today on AirTalk, we’ll hear from environmentalists on both sides of the debate over whether to pass Prop 3 in November.
Ready for Election Day? Get up to speed on what you need to know with our Voter Game Plan at elections.laist.com. Read up on the candidates and ballot measures, find out about registration deadlines or ask us your questions.
Guests:
Gerald Meral, director of the California Water Program at the Natural Heritage Institute and spokesman for the official “Yes on 3” campaign
Ron Stork, senior policy advocate at Friends of the River and a volunteer with the Sierra Club, which opposes Prop 3
AirTalk debates 2018 ballot initiatives: Prop 5, allowing older Californians to retain their property tax base
Twelve propositions have earned a spot on the November ballot, where Californians will consider a host of changes.
Among the measures certified is Proposition 5, the Property Tax Fairness Initiative. Prop 5 would allow homeowners over 55 and disabled people to keep their lower property tax bill from their older homes if they move. Those who qualify would be able to keep their tax bill regardless of home location, new home’s market value and the number of times they move.
Proponents say the initiative would ease the housing crisis by freeing up more housing for young families. They argue that some homeowners are living in houses too big for them that no longer meet their needs. Meanwhile, plenty of first-time homebuyers are struggling to find affordable homes.
Critics, however, say the measure would cost the local government in California $1 billion in property tax revenue, much of it reserved for public schools. We debate if Proposition 5 would ease the housing crisis or hurt local schools.
Ready for Election Day? Get up to speed on what you need to know with our Voter Game Plan at elections.laist.com. Read up on the candidates and ballot measures, find out about registration deadlines or ask us your questions.
Guests:
Steve White, president of the California Association of Realtors (CAR), a nonprofit that sponsors Proposition 5, the Property Tax Fairness Initiative
Graham Knaus, executive director of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), an advocacy organization that represents county governments at the state level and endorses the “No on Prop 5” campaign
What will be the scope of the newly created CA Office of Election Cybersecurity?
A recently passed Assembly Bill has created a new office under Secretary of State: the Office of Elections Cybersecurity.
According to the bill, the office will work to “reduce the likelihood and severity of cyber incidents that could interfere with the security or integrity of elections in the state, and to monitor and counteract false or misleading information regarding the electoral process that is published online or on other platforms and that may suppress voter participation or cause confusion and disruption of the orderly and secure administration of elections.”
With Russian interference being a big issue in the previous election, Padilla is hoping to get the office on its feet ahead of the November midterms. Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies have begun working on a process for reporting and removing content that spreads disinformation.
Critics of the office are concerned that its goals are vague and that speech protected under the first amendment might be targeted. They also point to Padilla being a democrat, and to the concern that the office might censor speech based on political motivations.
So what will be the scope of this new office? What kind of information will it be targeting? We sit down with Secretary of State Alex Padilla and UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh to discuss.
Guests:
Alex Padilla, Secretary of State of California
Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA; he tweets
Party of 3: A new political party wants to join California politics
California might soon be getting a third political party.
That’s what Chapman University law professor and former California State Senator Tom Campbell is working toward. By 2020, Campbell says the political party dichotomy could be interrupted by a runner-up. “Center Party” and “Bear Flag Party” are among the names discussed to appear on the ballot.
The platform itself remains unclear, too. One potential strategy would be providing an electoral choice for dissatisfied Republicans. Another option would allow candidates to run free from associations to any major platform without the negative connotations of the “No Party Preference” category.
Campbell is optimistic about the prospects, saying that all it’d take would be convincing roughly 60,000 already registered voters to switch over to the new party. By reaching the voters registered with “no party preference” or the American Independent party, the political party could be a success. According to new data by the Secretary of State, nearly half of more than 200,000 pre-registered teens in California are aligning with no party preference and ditching traditional political parties. The other alternative would require gathering around 700,000 signatures.
So how sustainable is a third political party in California? And what are the chances of its success? We discuss.
Guests:
Tom Campbell, professor of economics and law at Chapman University; he is a former California State Senator (R-Campbell, 1993-1995), U.S. Congressman (1989-1993 & 1995-2001), and director of the California Department of Finance under Governor Schwarzenegger (2004-2005)
Raphael J. Sonenshein, executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State Los Angeles