Senator Arlen Specter Switches Parties
April 28, 2009
PHILADELPHIA - Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania announced today that he will leave the Republican Party and join the Democrats in the Senate. The 79 year old Specter has represented Pennsylvania in the Senate for nearly 30 years since 1981. In the press conference announcing his party switch, Specter said his decision to leave the Republican Party was “painful, but I need to keep with my principles and the direction the Republican Party appears to be headed does not align with my beliefs.” Specter also accepted that many of his Senate colleagues have expressed disappointment in him at his decision, but that “the disappointment runs both ways.” Specter came to the decision to join the Democrats after several months of talking with state leaders of both parties. The Senator says he found the direction the state and national Republican Party has been going is at odds with his philosophy.
Specter’s switch to the Democrats is a godsend to President Clinton and her party. Despite winning substantial majorities in both houses of Congress, Clinton has had difficulty passing her agenda in the first months of her term due to what some in the Democratic Party are calling a folly in her election campaign in selecting Tom Daschle as her running mate. The Democrats should have reached 60 votes in the Senate to create a filibuster proof majority, but with both Clinton and Vice President Daschle leaving the Senate and Republicans replacing them, the number of Senate Democrats dipped back down to 59 including two independents caucusing with them. The party was initially reported as looking to convince the third independent in the Senate, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, to caucus with them instead of the Republicans, but Chafee refused. Now, it appears the party has finally found its last Senator for a filibuster proof majority in Arlen Specter. However, Specter noted in the news conference that he would not be an automatic 60th vote in the Senate for Clinton and Harry Reid, and would be a more independent conscience for the Democrats. Other Democratic Senators such as North Dakota’s Kent Conrad also cautioned against assuming Clinton would now be free to pass her agenda. Conrad warned that there “is a lot of disagreement in the Democratic caucus” and dumped cold water on the idea that Specter’s switch would be a “great watershed event,” noting, “I don’t think so.”[1]
While many have rejoiced at Specter’s party switch and lauded his principled stance, others particularly in Republican circles are viewing the move in a much more cynical light. Specter was already facing what promised to be a difficult primary challenge after Club For Growth president Patrick Toomey announced on April 15 that he would run for the Republican nomination for Senate. Toomey, who chose the date of his announcement to fall on Tax Day, was already surging in Republican primary polling with a Quinnipiac poll showing Toomey had pulled ahead of Specter by over 10 points at the end of March. After Toomey’s announcement, another poll from Rasmussen Reports found Toomey even further ahead, cracking 50% and leading Specter by over 20 points. Specter even admitted that his decision to switch was influenced by the plummeting polling against Toomey in the primary. While Specter is now out of the GOP primary, Toomey’s path to the nomination might not be clear sailing. Representatives Jim Gerlach and Melissa Hart, lieutenant governor Joseph Scarnati, and former governor Tom Ridge have all been floated as potential entrants into the Senate race even before today’s events.
For his part, Specter’s party switch will not grant him an easy path to the Democratic nomination either should he choose to seek reelection. While he fled the Republicans to avoid losing to Toomey, he has merely switched one primary challenger for another and is now lined up in the path of Congressman Joe Sestak. Sestak, a former Navy officer who represents the suburban Philadelphia 7th district, had been the front runner for the Democratic nomination before Specter’s switch. While Specter now has the early backing of some high profile names who encouraged him to switch such as governor Ed Rendell and majority leader Harry Reid, Sestak could capitalize on the cynicism surrounding Specter’s switch if voters do not view the decision as a genuine change of heart. Having earned the acrimony of some members of both in his old party and his new party, Specter’s best path might just be to announce his retirement soon and work with Democrats now while he still has what’s left of his reputation.
***
California Universities to Raise Tuition for Third Year In Row Citing State Budget Cuts
May 9, 2009
DAVIS, CA - It seems like the financial crisis and the global recession has hit practically every corner of the state hard, from homeowners to businesses to the state government, and everyone has had to make adjustments in the aftermath to try and keep afloat. Higher education is no exception. The University of California and California State University systems, the two largest public university systems in the state, announced decisions this week to raise tuition for students beginning in the fall for the 2009-2010 academic year. Spokespeople for both educational institutions cited the state budget passed earlier this year that cut funding for higher education by over $2 billion as the main reason for the decisions to increase tuition.
The University of California system which includes UC Davis reported the system will raise student fees by 9.3% after the Board of Regents voted 17-4 for the decision in the recent budgetary planning meeting. The tuition hike is the latest measure in the UC system to attempt to make up for the cuts to state funding, after having already frozen administrator salaries, issued a hiring freeze across the campus system, and cutting freshman enrollment. The Regents say the university system still faces a $450 million shortfall in the budget and expect the planned rise in student fees to raise approximately $150 million. Tuitions at the University of California will increase for in-state undergraduate, graduate, and professional students by between $650 and $750 per year, bringing in-state undergraduate tuition to around $8,700. Out of state students will see a 10% rise in tuition, bringing total out of state student fees to approximately $22,000. Meanwhile, the California State University system’s Board of Trustees voted to raise tuition by 10%, raising student fees to $3,968. While that is still rather low compared to other universities in the state and elsewhere in the nation, it brings student fees to more than double where they were ten years ago and brings total annual student costs at Cal State to between $15,000 and $20,000 per year.
The reaction among faculty and students to the news was mixed. Some students were understanding of the decision and agreed that with California cutting state funding for higher education by the level that it has, the universities needed to find somewhere to make up for the shortfall. However, other students and faculty were not as forgiving. Many students were upset with the decision to raise their tuition rates in an already difficult economic time, and some faculty worried that with students already distressed over the economic hardships created by the financial crisis, they would see student attentiveness and performance decline as students would need to work more to pay their tuition. “I’ve seen it with past fee raises. They’re working two to three jobs, and because they don’t have a degree, they’re working low or minimum wage jobs,”[2] one faculty member said.
University officials said they understood the backlash, but pointed out that they have done all they could. Some also noted that not all students would be affected equally by the tuition hikes. Of the projected $150 million raised by the tuition hike at the University of California, one third of that revenue would be put back into financial aid programs. Additionally, officials stated the fee hikes would be offset by aid and tax credits from the federal stimulus package passed in the OERA earlier in the year, and by the UC Blue and Gold Opportunity Plan which waives student fees for applicants from families earning under $60,000 per year. Administrators at Cal State also said in a meeting before the vote on the tuition hike that about half of the system’s undergraduate students would not see an overall increase as the fee raise would be covered through grants, scholarships, and other financial aid programs.
For many students and followers of higher education, however, these assurances were not enough. In particular the University of California Board of Regents has received criticism following the tuition hike over past financial conduct taken by the board. Part of the revenue the UC system takes in comes from investment portfolios, and over the decade prior to the recession these investments included an increasingly large amount of money put into equity and real estate investments. As of March of this year according to the University of California’s financial reports, the system had $4.5 billion in real estate investments and nearly $6.7 billion, or over 10 percent of the system’s total investment fund, in private equity partnerships largely consisting of leveraged buyout bonds. The recession has, to put it mildly, not been kind to these investments. Private equity investments saw a loss of nearly 20 percent since their inception, and the university’s real estate portfolio has lost nearly 40 percent of its value[3]. Adding on the drastic cuts to state funding for higher education this February, it is abundantly clear that the University of California is in deep financial trouble. However, passing the costs and the mistakes of the university’s investments onto the students is going to be a hard solution for many to swallow.
***
President Clinton to Nominate Elena Kagan to Supreme Court as Souter’s Replacement
May 11, 2009
WASHINGTON, DC - Two weeks after Associate Justice David Souter announced his retirement, President Clinton has named her choice for the nomination to replace him. Clinton has selected the 49 year old dean of Harvard Law School Elena Kagan. If she is confirmed, Kagan would join Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the only other female Justice on the current Court and as the third female Justice overall. Souter’s retirement announcement was somewhat of a surprise as he is only 69, far from the oldest member of the Supreme Court, but speculation built in the first months of Clinton’s administration as Souter had been less proactive in pursuing law clerks for the next Supreme Court term. While Souter was appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1990, he has since been a fairly reliable vote in the Court’s liberal bloc, though Souter fell on the more moderate side of that group. Clinton’s choice of Kagan seems likely to reflect a similar ideological bent to the retiring Justice.
Kagan grew up in a Jewish neighborhood in Manhattan before going to Princeton and then Harvard Law School and starting her legal career. She clerked for DC Circuit Court judge Abner Mikva in 1987 and for Justice Thurgood Marshall in 1988. While clerking for Justice Marshall, he gave her the nickname “Shorty.” After working in private practice and then as an assistant professor for a time, Kagan began her professional relationship with the Clintons after she was tapped by President Bill Clinton to be associate White House Counsel. Kagan served in multiple roles during the first Clinton administration, as associate White House Counsel then on the Domestic Policy Council where Kagan gained a reputation for her expertise in reasoning arguments around difficult policy issues. The current nomination is actually her second judicial nomination by a President Clinton. In June 1999, Bill Clinton nominated Kagan for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to replace James L. Buckley. However, Judiciary Committee Chair Orrin Hatch did not hold any nomination hearings letting her nomination to the court lapse. The vacancy would later be filled by John Roberts. After the failed nomination, Kagan returned to academia in 1999 and was named Dean of Harvard Law School in 2003, the position she currently holds.
Kagan’s nomination should have an easy time getting through the Democratic controlled Senate. She has a history of making decisions that are designed to appease conservatives and give off a more bipartisan appeal. As Harvard dean, Kagan pushed to appoint more conservative professors to overcome the law school’s perceived liberal tilt, and she has built personal friendships with many influential conservatives in the judiciary sphere. Charles Fried, one of Reagan’s Solicitor Generals and now a Harvard colleague of Kagan, praised Kagan’s “savvy” and related an anecdote of how Kagan received a standing ovation from the Federalist Society in 2005[4]. These and other stories of Kagan’s career have led some liberals to be concerned she might be too safe a pick. The New York Times’ Eric Lichtblau even went so far as to call Kagan “too bipartisan.”[5]
However, conservatives are already finding issues to criticize Kagan on. The first concerns her stance on gays and specifically on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. While dean of Harvard, Kagan has pushed back against the military policy barring gays from serving and caused controversy by barring military recruiters from Harvard because of the policy. That the policy was put in place by Bill Clinton does not seem to be a concern for Hillary in her nomination. Second, and more likely to stick during the nomination hearings, is the supposition that Kagan has too many connections to the Clintons. Kagan’s previous work in the Bill Clinton administration will likely be brought up by Republicans during her hearings. In particular, Kagan’s work as associate White House Counsel could bog down the nomination. Republicans have not specified whether they will attempt a filibuster. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked on the nomination with a complaint about the nomination of “activist judges”, but indicated no firm stance on whether he would try to hold up nomination proceedings. One reason for this might be the more positive reception from other Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even Orrin Hatch, who let Kagan’s nomination to the DC court lapse in 1999, called Kagan a “brilliant woman” and said he “look[ed] forward to examining the evidence of her entire record to determine her judicial philosophy.”[6] Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy of Vermont seemed confident of a smooth confirmation of Kagan over the summer. If Kagan replaces Souter, she will be the first step in Hillary Clinton establishing her judicial legacy.
***
California Back On The Brink As Budget Vote Sinks
May 20, 2009
SACRAMENTO, CA - Californians went to the polls yesterday to vote on a special slate of ballot propositions related to the budget deal from February. As part of the tripartisan budget agreement signed by the governor in February, seven law changes meant to either increase taxes or cut spending would be sent in front of the public for a vote. Proposition 1A proposed an extension of a series of income, sales, and vehicle tax increases that were set to expire in 2010 and put the revenue from them into the state’s rainy day general fund. Proposition 1B, contingent on 1A passing, would have shifted 1.5% of the money going into the general fund from 1A’s taxes toward public education until the $9.5 billion gap in education spending was filled. 1C modernized the state lottery and permitted California to borrow up to $5 billion against future revenue from lottery proceeds. 1D and 1E proposed to move $268 million from the tobacco tax revenue allocated to pre-kindergarten education funding, $300 million of unspent allocated revenue, and $420 million from the fund for the state’s mental health programs into the general fund in order to help balance the budget. 1F and 1G were both spending cut propositions. 1F proposed to prohibit pay raises for the state legislature, the governor, and other state officials during years when the state was running a deficit. 1G proposed to halve the state contributions to transit agencies, which would save $200 million in annual state spending.
Of these, only 1D and 1F passed. Only one of the measures that would immediately cut the deficit passed, and the tobacco tax revenue reallocation will only raise $568 million to try and fill the over $40 billion hole in the state’s budget. The most devastating defeat is of 1A, which would have raised $16 billion for the general fund, nearly half of the necessary revenue to fill the gap that has caused so much crisis over the past year. With current budget estimates, California is now plunged right back into the crisis after it took so much work to even get this close to a resolution. So how did this happen? Early on, voters seemed to agree with the legislature and with governor Schwarzenegger on the urgency of the budget crisis. A March 3 poll showed all seven propositions with a majority of voters supporting them. As time wore on and interest in the elections grew, however, so did opposition to every proposal. A majority of the propositions saw voters disapproving of them in late March with only limiting pay raises for state officials showing wide support. By April a poll of California voters showed them opposing every single measure on the ballot. The failure of the majority of the budget measures has emboldened Republicans in the legislature to call it a victory for spending cuts and for solving the budget crisis without raising taxes. However, Democrats don’t seem to be cowed by the popular rebuke. “Solving this thing is simply not possible without raising revenue, and Republicans only control a third of the Senate. We’re going to keep working at this until we get a solution that works for everyone,” said Senate President Darrell Steinberg. Even if a solution can be found, Steinberg and the legislature will have to work fast as California is running out of time and money. The state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office warned that the state could be forced to borrow $20 billion in short term loans if the deficit isn’t drastically reduced or California could run out of cash by the end of July[7].
While the budget measures were the biggest impact of Californians going to the polls yesterday, for some it was not the only item on their ballot. Primaries for two special congressional elections were held for the 9th, 10th, and 32nd districts in addition to the runoffs for the 26th state senate district special election and for the Los Angeles mayoral election. The congressional special election primaries are nonpartisan primaries, with the highest vote getters of each party advancing if nobody receives a majority. In the 9th district, several candidates lined up to replace HUD Secretary Barbara Lee in the Oakland and East Bay district. Most of those in the race were Democrats, including Don Perata aide Kerry Hamill, Oakland councilwoman Jean Quan, assembly members Sandré Swanson and Nancy Skinner, state senator Loni Hancock, Berkeley mayor Tom Bates, and Berkeley councilman Darryl Moore. Insurance adjuster Jim Faison ran as a token Republican, while the Green Party put forth Berkeley lawyer Paul Glusman. The race was almost always going to end up with Democrats leading the pack, but only one would make the runoff despite the nonpartisan primary of the special election. Swanson was highly expected to be the winner, but with so many candidates it quickly became a free for all and thanks to Perata’s stumping for her, Kerry Hamill emerged the Democratic victor narrowly ahead of Swanson and Bates. Hamill will now face Faison and Glusman in July, but Hamill is pretty much guaranteed to go to Washington.
The rest of the elections were far less crowded and far less contentious. The 10th district, while initially looking like a race among the Democrats, became much less of a contest once Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi entered the race. Garamendi only narrowly finished ahead of Republican David Harmer 24 to 22, but handily beat the next Democratic opponent, state senator Mike DeSaunier. Garamendi will face Harmer and three other minor candidates in the runoff election in November. The 32nd district primary was a more standard two way fight for the Democratic nomination in the largely Democratic Los Angeles area district. The race was primarily between board of equalization member Judy Chu and state senator Gil Cedillo. With few Republicans of note entering the race, the most prominent of which was former Covina mayor David Truax, the race was centered around Chu and Cedillo. While Cedillo received over 30 percent of the vote and a smattering of Democratic votes went to other candidates, Chu was able to win the election with a majority and avoid a runoff. In the 26th state senate district, assemblyman Curren Price Jr. defeated Republican Nachum Shifren and Peace and Freedom candidate Cindy Henderson, and in the LA mayoral race mayor Villaraigosa handily defeated Walter Moore for reelection.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/specter.party.switch/
[2] Quoted from here: https://www.courant.com/sdut-san-marcos-proposed-fee-hike-would-add-305-to-2009may09-story.html
[3] Source: https://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content/the-regents-club/1854684/
[4] Source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/18/is-the-supreme-courts-fate-in-elena-kagans-hands
[5] An actual headline about Kagan: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/us/17kagan.html
[6] A lot of this bit came from statements here on Kagan’s OTL nomination: https://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/10/scotus.kagan/index.html
[7] Source: https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/State-s-future-at-stake-in-May-19-vote-3242857.php
April 28, 2009
PHILADELPHIA - Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania announced today that he will leave the Republican Party and join the Democrats in the Senate. The 79 year old Specter has represented Pennsylvania in the Senate for nearly 30 years since 1981. In the press conference announcing his party switch, Specter said his decision to leave the Republican Party was “painful, but I need to keep with my principles and the direction the Republican Party appears to be headed does not align with my beliefs.” Specter also accepted that many of his Senate colleagues have expressed disappointment in him at his decision, but that “the disappointment runs both ways.” Specter came to the decision to join the Democrats after several months of talking with state leaders of both parties. The Senator says he found the direction the state and national Republican Party has been going is at odds with his philosophy.
Specter’s switch to the Democrats is a godsend to President Clinton and her party. Despite winning substantial majorities in both houses of Congress, Clinton has had difficulty passing her agenda in the first months of her term due to what some in the Democratic Party are calling a folly in her election campaign in selecting Tom Daschle as her running mate. The Democrats should have reached 60 votes in the Senate to create a filibuster proof majority, but with both Clinton and Vice President Daschle leaving the Senate and Republicans replacing them, the number of Senate Democrats dipped back down to 59 including two independents caucusing with them. The party was initially reported as looking to convince the third independent in the Senate, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, to caucus with them instead of the Republicans, but Chafee refused. Now, it appears the party has finally found its last Senator for a filibuster proof majority in Arlen Specter. However, Specter noted in the news conference that he would not be an automatic 60th vote in the Senate for Clinton and Harry Reid, and would be a more independent conscience for the Democrats. Other Democratic Senators such as North Dakota’s Kent Conrad also cautioned against assuming Clinton would now be free to pass her agenda. Conrad warned that there “is a lot of disagreement in the Democratic caucus” and dumped cold water on the idea that Specter’s switch would be a “great watershed event,” noting, “I don’t think so.”[1]
While many have rejoiced at Specter’s party switch and lauded his principled stance, others particularly in Republican circles are viewing the move in a much more cynical light. Specter was already facing what promised to be a difficult primary challenge after Club For Growth president Patrick Toomey announced on April 15 that he would run for the Republican nomination for Senate. Toomey, who chose the date of his announcement to fall on Tax Day, was already surging in Republican primary polling with a Quinnipiac poll showing Toomey had pulled ahead of Specter by over 10 points at the end of March. After Toomey’s announcement, another poll from Rasmussen Reports found Toomey even further ahead, cracking 50% and leading Specter by over 20 points. Specter even admitted that his decision to switch was influenced by the plummeting polling against Toomey in the primary. While Specter is now out of the GOP primary, Toomey’s path to the nomination might not be clear sailing. Representatives Jim Gerlach and Melissa Hart, lieutenant governor Joseph Scarnati, and former governor Tom Ridge have all been floated as potential entrants into the Senate race even before today’s events.
For his part, Specter’s party switch will not grant him an easy path to the Democratic nomination either should he choose to seek reelection. While he fled the Republicans to avoid losing to Toomey, he has merely switched one primary challenger for another and is now lined up in the path of Congressman Joe Sestak. Sestak, a former Navy officer who represents the suburban Philadelphia 7th district, had been the front runner for the Democratic nomination before Specter’s switch. While Specter now has the early backing of some high profile names who encouraged him to switch such as governor Ed Rendell and majority leader Harry Reid, Sestak could capitalize on the cynicism surrounding Specter’s switch if voters do not view the decision as a genuine change of heart. Having earned the acrimony of some members of both in his old party and his new party, Specter’s best path might just be to announce his retirement soon and work with Democrats now while he still has what’s left of his reputation.
***
California Universities to Raise Tuition for Third Year In Row Citing State Budget Cuts
May 9, 2009
DAVIS, CA - It seems like the financial crisis and the global recession has hit practically every corner of the state hard, from homeowners to businesses to the state government, and everyone has had to make adjustments in the aftermath to try and keep afloat. Higher education is no exception. The University of California and California State University systems, the two largest public university systems in the state, announced decisions this week to raise tuition for students beginning in the fall for the 2009-2010 academic year. Spokespeople for both educational institutions cited the state budget passed earlier this year that cut funding for higher education by over $2 billion as the main reason for the decisions to increase tuition.
The University of California system which includes UC Davis reported the system will raise student fees by 9.3% after the Board of Regents voted 17-4 for the decision in the recent budgetary planning meeting. The tuition hike is the latest measure in the UC system to attempt to make up for the cuts to state funding, after having already frozen administrator salaries, issued a hiring freeze across the campus system, and cutting freshman enrollment. The Regents say the university system still faces a $450 million shortfall in the budget and expect the planned rise in student fees to raise approximately $150 million. Tuitions at the University of California will increase for in-state undergraduate, graduate, and professional students by between $650 and $750 per year, bringing in-state undergraduate tuition to around $8,700. Out of state students will see a 10% rise in tuition, bringing total out of state student fees to approximately $22,000. Meanwhile, the California State University system’s Board of Trustees voted to raise tuition by 10%, raising student fees to $3,968. While that is still rather low compared to other universities in the state and elsewhere in the nation, it brings student fees to more than double where they were ten years ago and brings total annual student costs at Cal State to between $15,000 and $20,000 per year.
The reaction among faculty and students to the news was mixed. Some students were understanding of the decision and agreed that with California cutting state funding for higher education by the level that it has, the universities needed to find somewhere to make up for the shortfall. However, other students and faculty were not as forgiving. Many students were upset with the decision to raise their tuition rates in an already difficult economic time, and some faculty worried that with students already distressed over the economic hardships created by the financial crisis, they would see student attentiveness and performance decline as students would need to work more to pay their tuition. “I’ve seen it with past fee raises. They’re working two to three jobs, and because they don’t have a degree, they’re working low or minimum wage jobs,”[2] one faculty member said.
University officials said they understood the backlash, but pointed out that they have done all they could. Some also noted that not all students would be affected equally by the tuition hikes. Of the projected $150 million raised by the tuition hike at the University of California, one third of that revenue would be put back into financial aid programs. Additionally, officials stated the fee hikes would be offset by aid and tax credits from the federal stimulus package passed in the OERA earlier in the year, and by the UC Blue and Gold Opportunity Plan which waives student fees for applicants from families earning under $60,000 per year. Administrators at Cal State also said in a meeting before the vote on the tuition hike that about half of the system’s undergraduate students would not see an overall increase as the fee raise would be covered through grants, scholarships, and other financial aid programs.
For many students and followers of higher education, however, these assurances were not enough. In particular the University of California Board of Regents has received criticism following the tuition hike over past financial conduct taken by the board. Part of the revenue the UC system takes in comes from investment portfolios, and over the decade prior to the recession these investments included an increasingly large amount of money put into equity and real estate investments. As of March of this year according to the University of California’s financial reports, the system had $4.5 billion in real estate investments and nearly $6.7 billion, or over 10 percent of the system’s total investment fund, in private equity partnerships largely consisting of leveraged buyout bonds. The recession has, to put it mildly, not been kind to these investments. Private equity investments saw a loss of nearly 20 percent since their inception, and the university’s real estate portfolio has lost nearly 40 percent of its value[3]. Adding on the drastic cuts to state funding for higher education this February, it is abundantly clear that the University of California is in deep financial trouble. However, passing the costs and the mistakes of the university’s investments onto the students is going to be a hard solution for many to swallow.
***
President Clinton to Nominate Elena Kagan to Supreme Court as Souter’s Replacement
May 11, 2009
WASHINGTON, DC - Two weeks after Associate Justice David Souter announced his retirement, President Clinton has named her choice for the nomination to replace him. Clinton has selected the 49 year old dean of Harvard Law School Elena Kagan. If she is confirmed, Kagan would join Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the only other female Justice on the current Court and as the third female Justice overall. Souter’s retirement announcement was somewhat of a surprise as he is only 69, far from the oldest member of the Supreme Court, but speculation built in the first months of Clinton’s administration as Souter had been less proactive in pursuing law clerks for the next Supreme Court term. While Souter was appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1990, he has since been a fairly reliable vote in the Court’s liberal bloc, though Souter fell on the more moderate side of that group. Clinton’s choice of Kagan seems likely to reflect a similar ideological bent to the retiring Justice.
Kagan grew up in a Jewish neighborhood in Manhattan before going to Princeton and then Harvard Law School and starting her legal career. She clerked for DC Circuit Court judge Abner Mikva in 1987 and for Justice Thurgood Marshall in 1988. While clerking for Justice Marshall, he gave her the nickname “Shorty.” After working in private practice and then as an assistant professor for a time, Kagan began her professional relationship with the Clintons after she was tapped by President Bill Clinton to be associate White House Counsel. Kagan served in multiple roles during the first Clinton administration, as associate White House Counsel then on the Domestic Policy Council where Kagan gained a reputation for her expertise in reasoning arguments around difficult policy issues. The current nomination is actually her second judicial nomination by a President Clinton. In June 1999, Bill Clinton nominated Kagan for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to replace James L. Buckley. However, Judiciary Committee Chair Orrin Hatch did not hold any nomination hearings letting her nomination to the court lapse. The vacancy would later be filled by John Roberts. After the failed nomination, Kagan returned to academia in 1999 and was named Dean of Harvard Law School in 2003, the position she currently holds.
Kagan’s nomination should have an easy time getting through the Democratic controlled Senate. She has a history of making decisions that are designed to appease conservatives and give off a more bipartisan appeal. As Harvard dean, Kagan pushed to appoint more conservative professors to overcome the law school’s perceived liberal tilt, and she has built personal friendships with many influential conservatives in the judiciary sphere. Charles Fried, one of Reagan’s Solicitor Generals and now a Harvard colleague of Kagan, praised Kagan’s “savvy” and related an anecdote of how Kagan received a standing ovation from the Federalist Society in 2005[4]. These and other stories of Kagan’s career have led some liberals to be concerned she might be too safe a pick. The New York Times’ Eric Lichtblau even went so far as to call Kagan “too bipartisan.”[5]
However, conservatives are already finding issues to criticize Kagan on. The first concerns her stance on gays and specifically on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. While dean of Harvard, Kagan has pushed back against the military policy barring gays from serving and caused controversy by barring military recruiters from Harvard because of the policy. That the policy was put in place by Bill Clinton does not seem to be a concern for Hillary in her nomination. Second, and more likely to stick during the nomination hearings, is the supposition that Kagan has too many connections to the Clintons. Kagan’s previous work in the Bill Clinton administration will likely be brought up by Republicans during her hearings. In particular, Kagan’s work as associate White House Counsel could bog down the nomination. Republicans have not specified whether they will attempt a filibuster. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell remarked on the nomination with a complaint about the nomination of “activist judges”, but indicated no firm stance on whether he would try to hold up nomination proceedings. One reason for this might be the more positive reception from other Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even Orrin Hatch, who let Kagan’s nomination to the DC court lapse in 1999, called Kagan a “brilliant woman” and said he “look[ed] forward to examining the evidence of her entire record to determine her judicial philosophy.”[6] Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy of Vermont seemed confident of a smooth confirmation of Kagan over the summer. If Kagan replaces Souter, she will be the first step in Hillary Clinton establishing her judicial legacy.
***
California Back On The Brink As Budget Vote Sinks
May 20, 2009
SACRAMENTO, CA - Californians went to the polls yesterday to vote on a special slate of ballot propositions related to the budget deal from February. As part of the tripartisan budget agreement signed by the governor in February, seven law changes meant to either increase taxes or cut spending would be sent in front of the public for a vote. Proposition 1A proposed an extension of a series of income, sales, and vehicle tax increases that were set to expire in 2010 and put the revenue from them into the state’s rainy day general fund. Proposition 1B, contingent on 1A passing, would have shifted 1.5% of the money going into the general fund from 1A’s taxes toward public education until the $9.5 billion gap in education spending was filled. 1C modernized the state lottery and permitted California to borrow up to $5 billion against future revenue from lottery proceeds. 1D and 1E proposed to move $268 million from the tobacco tax revenue allocated to pre-kindergarten education funding, $300 million of unspent allocated revenue, and $420 million from the fund for the state’s mental health programs into the general fund in order to help balance the budget. 1F and 1G were both spending cut propositions. 1F proposed to prohibit pay raises for the state legislature, the governor, and other state officials during years when the state was running a deficit. 1G proposed to halve the state contributions to transit agencies, which would save $200 million in annual state spending.
Of these, only 1D and 1F passed. Only one of the measures that would immediately cut the deficit passed, and the tobacco tax revenue reallocation will only raise $568 million to try and fill the over $40 billion hole in the state’s budget. The most devastating defeat is of 1A, which would have raised $16 billion for the general fund, nearly half of the necessary revenue to fill the gap that has caused so much crisis over the past year. With current budget estimates, California is now plunged right back into the crisis after it took so much work to even get this close to a resolution. So how did this happen? Early on, voters seemed to agree with the legislature and with governor Schwarzenegger on the urgency of the budget crisis. A March 3 poll showed all seven propositions with a majority of voters supporting them. As time wore on and interest in the elections grew, however, so did opposition to every proposal. A majority of the propositions saw voters disapproving of them in late March with only limiting pay raises for state officials showing wide support. By April a poll of California voters showed them opposing every single measure on the ballot. The failure of the majority of the budget measures has emboldened Republicans in the legislature to call it a victory for spending cuts and for solving the budget crisis without raising taxes. However, Democrats don’t seem to be cowed by the popular rebuke. “Solving this thing is simply not possible without raising revenue, and Republicans only control a third of the Senate. We’re going to keep working at this until we get a solution that works for everyone,” said Senate President Darrell Steinberg. Even if a solution can be found, Steinberg and the legislature will have to work fast as California is running out of time and money. The state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office warned that the state could be forced to borrow $20 billion in short term loans if the deficit isn’t drastically reduced or California could run out of cash by the end of July[7].
While the budget measures were the biggest impact of Californians going to the polls yesterday, for some it was not the only item on their ballot. Primaries for two special congressional elections were held for the 9th, 10th, and 32nd districts in addition to the runoffs for the 26th state senate district special election and for the Los Angeles mayoral election. The congressional special election primaries are nonpartisan primaries, with the highest vote getters of each party advancing if nobody receives a majority. In the 9th district, several candidates lined up to replace HUD Secretary Barbara Lee in the Oakland and East Bay district. Most of those in the race were Democrats, including Don Perata aide Kerry Hamill, Oakland councilwoman Jean Quan, assembly members Sandré Swanson and Nancy Skinner, state senator Loni Hancock, Berkeley mayor Tom Bates, and Berkeley councilman Darryl Moore. Insurance adjuster Jim Faison ran as a token Republican, while the Green Party put forth Berkeley lawyer Paul Glusman. The race was almost always going to end up with Democrats leading the pack, but only one would make the runoff despite the nonpartisan primary of the special election. Swanson was highly expected to be the winner, but with so many candidates it quickly became a free for all and thanks to Perata’s stumping for her, Kerry Hamill emerged the Democratic victor narrowly ahead of Swanson and Bates. Hamill will now face Faison and Glusman in July, but Hamill is pretty much guaranteed to go to Washington.
The rest of the elections were far less crowded and far less contentious. The 10th district, while initially looking like a race among the Democrats, became much less of a contest once Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi entered the race. Garamendi only narrowly finished ahead of Republican David Harmer 24 to 22, but handily beat the next Democratic opponent, state senator Mike DeSaunier. Garamendi will face Harmer and three other minor candidates in the runoff election in November. The 32nd district primary was a more standard two way fight for the Democratic nomination in the largely Democratic Los Angeles area district. The race was primarily between board of equalization member Judy Chu and state senator Gil Cedillo. With few Republicans of note entering the race, the most prominent of which was former Covina mayor David Truax, the race was centered around Chu and Cedillo. While Cedillo received over 30 percent of the vote and a smattering of Democratic votes went to other candidates, Chu was able to win the election with a majority and avoid a runoff. In the 26th state senate district, assemblyman Curren Price Jr. defeated Republican Nachum Shifren and Peace and Freedom candidate Cindy Henderson, and in the LA mayoral race mayor Villaraigosa handily defeated Walter Moore for reelection.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/specter.party.switch/
[2] Quoted from here: https://www.courant.com/sdut-san-marcos-proposed-fee-hike-would-add-305-to-2009may09-story.html
[3] Source: https://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content/the-regents-club/1854684/
[4] Source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/18/is-the-supreme-courts-fate-in-elena-kagans-hands
[5] An actual headline about Kagan: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/us/17kagan.html
[6] A lot of this bit came from statements here on Kagan’s OTL nomination: https://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/10/scotus.kagan/index.html
[7] Source: https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/State-s-future-at-stake-in-May-19-vote-3242857.php
And Oakland will have its first RCV mayoral election in 2010 (as OTL), which given the circumstances is probably going to be s p i c y.