A hard-fought victory, civil rights leaders struggled for decades in the face of racial discrimination. These efforts reached a fever pitch in the 1960’s, culminating in a triad of legislation — the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 — which substantially improved the living conditions in the United States.

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case from Shelby County, Alabama which challenges Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 requires certain states and counties with a history of voter disenfranchisement to have any changes to voting procedures approved by the U.S. Attorney General before they are implemented. Though a final decision on the case could be months away, the justices appear to be leaning 5–4 against Section 5.

States currently covered by Section 5 include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. Counties in a few other states are also covered, including Monterey County in California. Shelby County asserts that black Alabamians no longer face voting discrimination such as poll taxes and literacy tests and that Section 5 therefore constitutes an unfair intrusion of the federal government into state responsibilities.

The idea of “states’ rights,” cherished by many Republicans both modern and in the past, has sadly become a code word for racism.

The kick-off of Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign of 1980 was held in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964 with the cooperation of members of Neshoba County’s Sheriff’s Office.

Reagan did not acknowledge the tortured history of this town but instead told the white audience he was a champion of “states’ rights.” Considering that “states’ rights” had formerly allowed the state of Mississippi to disenfranchise almost all black voters, Reagan’s statement can be viewed as thinly veiled race-baiting.

Opponents of Section 5 who argue voter discrimination no longer exists are either naive or making a purposeful attempt at deception.

Voter ID laws — which largely affect people of color, poorer Americans, students and the elderly — exist in 30 states, including Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas. Each of these states have a history of voter disenfranchisement, according to the Section 5 provisions. Each of these states have made their voter ID laws more stringent in the last 10 years.

Arizona, a state covered by Section 5, printed 50 Spanish-language voter registration cards with the wrong election date in Maricopa County — a county that has a long history of issues existing between Hispanic residents and white officials. Officials said the misprint was a mistake.

Five counties in Florida are covered by Section 5. Each of those counties attempted to cut early voting hours in the 2012 election.

In Cleveland, Clear Channel Communications put up 30 billboards reading “Voter fraud is a felony!” These billboards were placed in predominantly Hispanic and black neighborhoods.

Gerrymandering, the process of redrawing district lines to ensure that a particular party has a majority of support in that district, is also a continuing issue.

After the 2010 elections, in which Republicans gained a large measure of power in state legislatures, Republicans led redistricting in seven states. As a result, in 2012, it took over three votes to elect a Democratic House member compared to one for a Republican House member in North Carolina. In Ohio, it took over two and a half votes to elect a Democratic member as compared to one to elect a Republican member.

A major impetus for the passage of the Voting Rights Act was “Bloody Sunday” in 1965, when dozens of young people protesting voter discrimination were beaten by police while attempting to march from Selma, Ala. to Montgomery. March 7 marked the 48-year anniversary of Selma. And yet the Supreme Court is threatening to invalidate these struggles by reversing the legislation they devoted their lives to winning.

If the Supreme Court eliminates one of the most significant provisions of the Voting Rights Act, the civil rights movement will have suffered a major blow. It has been almost half a century since those battles were won. Let’s not allow Shelby County to force us to fight them again.

Photo by Salvador Ingram

Money is often seen as one of the biggest problems with politics in the United States. This year, both major presidential candidates raised staggering amounts of money, with Obama having raised $1.08 billion and Romney, $1.13 billion, according to The Washington Post. With such a flood of money, it certainly seems like this money must be a key in winning elections, and that our politicians are up for sale. But how much does all that money matter really?

Throughout history there seems to be a general trend, though not a certainty, of the candidates who raise the most money winning their election. However, it is important to question whether or not raising money and winning the election are an example of causation, or merely correlation.

To understand the important difference between these two concepts, imagine a classroom. The teacher turns, goes to the wall and turns off the lights. As soon as the lights go off, a student sneezes. The events are correlated, one happened, then the other happened. But they lack causality. That the student sneezed when the lights went off was merely coincidental. It is with the question of causation, or just correlation that the money in politics should be approached.

The economist Steven D. Levitt, co-writer of the book “Freakonomics”, did a study on this issue, entitled: “Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the Effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes in the U.S. House”, in which Levitt attempted to isolate the effects of campaign spending by comparing candidates to themselves in different elections.

The main question was, do candidates who spend the most money usually win? Or do the most electable candidates also get the most people willing to give them money? Levitt’s findings strongly suggest the latter.

“When a candidate doubled their spending, holding everything else constant, they only got an extra 1 percent of the popular vote,” said Levitt, explaining his finding in a Freakonomics podcast. “It’s the same if you cut your spending in half, you only lose 1 percent of the popular vote. So we’re talking about really large swings in campaign spending with almost trivial changes in the vote.”

The candidates who are most likely to win attract the most money, but it is not the money that wins them the election.

Now it can be assumed that candidates need money to be elected. After all if no one knows who you are it makes it difficult to win. But the hundreds of millions of dollars that candidates are raising and spending seems absurdly excessive.

Illustration by Christine Hipp

How much does an election cost? For the upcoming election the answer looks to be in the millions or higher as both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have raised over a billion dollars for their presidential race. Much of this money is being given by large corporations due to the success of Citizens United in the 2010 Supreme Court case. This case said that corporations are able to give vast amounts of money to whatever political candidate or cause they choose.

But corporations are only part of the problem. It isn’t about who is putting money into politics, but how much is going in. Period.

Enormous sums have been going into politics long before Citizens United, and unless we demand a cap on campaign spending, it will continue into the future.

A current example of political money run amok is California’s Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified organisms (GMOs), particularly foods, to be labeled. Many agricultural businesses that have investments in GMOs have thrown their money against the proposition. The agricultural giant Monsanto has alone given over $7 million to the

committee No on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme, sponsored by Farmers and Food Producers. Many other food and agriculture corporations like Mars Incorporated, Sunny Delight Beverages Company and the Hershey Company are also generously giving to the committee. But Prop 37 isn’t the only proposition affected by money, and not all of it is coming from corporations.

Campaigns both for and against California’s Proposition 30, which would raise sales tax and income taxes on individuals earning over $250,000 in order to help fund K-12 schools and community colleges, are getting a lot of money from non-corporate sponsors. Campaigns supporting Proposition 30 have received $1.2 million from Laborers’ Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition. Meanwhile the No New Taxes, No on 30 committee, and A Project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association received over $93,000 just from non-corporate individuals in California.

This problem is not a new one or unique to the current election. Money has been influencing politics well before Citizen’s United. In 2008, for example, money raised in support of Proposition 8, which prevented same-sex couples from marrying, was over $22 million.

Such vast amounts of money mean that our elections are up for sale to the highest bidder. What power does that leave the people? As citizens and voters, we must demand not only that the Citizens United decision be overturned, but that a national general campaign funding cap be put in place. Massive amounts of money from many different sources have been influencing our government for far too long, and with this presidential campaign already the most expensive in history, it is high time to take a stand.

Compiled by Monica Thunder & Daniel Green

Illustration by Leigh Douglas

Local:

Santa Cruz business owners and politicians donated primarily to city council candidates Don Lane, Cynthia Mathews, Pamela Comstock and Richelle Noroyan as of Oct. 22, according to the Santa Cruz Sentinel. Big names on the local scene, including boardwalk owners Charles and Tom Canfield, former California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson and county treasurer Fred Keeley have donated the bulk of their support to these four candidates. Comstock remains the frontrunner in campaign contributions, having raised $31,791.

As of Oct. 28, 153,574 people have registered to vote in Santa Cruz County, an increase of over 5,000 compared to voters registered for the 2008 presidential election. County clerk Gail Pellerin attributes this success to the new online voter registration system. In Santa Cruz County alone, 7,843 voters have used the online system to register, according to the Santa Cruz Sentinel.

State:

Californians donated more money to the Democratic Party than any other state in the 2011–12 election year, with a total of $185.6 million. California is also the second-largest state contributor to the Republican Party, donating $123 million to Republicans — an amount surpassed only by Texas. Of a total $314.6 million donated to federal candidates, three out of every five dollars were donated to a candidate outside of California, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

As of Oct. 21, according to a Los Angeles Times poll, support for Gov. Jerry Brown’s Proposition 30 tax initiative has dropped to 46 percent. Forty-two percent of respondents oppose the proposition, while 13 percent are undecided. In the last week, Brown has been campaigning more aggressively for the tax initiative, including a visit at UCSC on Oct. 26. The rival tax initiative to Brown’s proposal, the Molly Munger-backed Proposition 38, has a support rating of only 28 percent, according to the same poll.

An Arizona non-profit group has made an $11 million donation to the campaigns for “No on 30” and “Yes on 32.” The people behind this donation, which is the largest anonymous political contribution in California history, remain unknown. The Fair Political Practices Commission has demanded documentation from the group, which thus far has refused to provide any further information, claiming that they are protected from releasing documentation under the first amendment. California law states that the names of donors must be disclosed if they donate to an organization with the knowledge that their money will be used for political purposes. The California Superior Court has set a hearing for Tuesday, according to the Los Angeles Times.

National:

ABC News, based on their analysis of which candidate is likely to obtain the electoral college votes from each swing state, said on Tuesday that the 2012 presidential race may end with each candidate receiving 269 electoral votes, just one shy of the 270 needed to win. The most plausible scenario consists of Obama winning Ohio, New Hampshire and Wisconsin, with Romney winning Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa. Were this scenario to occur, the Constitution states that the newly elected House of Representatives would choose the presidential winner, whereas the Senate would select the vice president. According to ABC, such an outcome could result in a Romney/Biden administration.

According to CNN, third-party candidates Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) and Virgil Goode (Constitution Party) could siphon off a few thousand votes from candidates Mitt Romney and Barack Obama in key “battleground” states. Although, third-party candidates have less influence than they did two decades ago — take for instance the fact that in 1992 Ross Perot won 19 percent of the vote — even a relatively minor number of votes for a third-party candidate can swing the election by taking votes away from the major candidates.

Polls conducted on Oct. 23–24 show Obama and Romney tied at 48 percent each in Colorado, while Obama has 50 percent to Romney’s 47 percent in Nevada, according to CNN. Romney has gained in each state since September, from 43 percent in Colorado and 45 percent in Nevada. Following the third presidential debate, in the realm of foreign policy Obama had an edge of 51 percent to Romney’s 44 percent in both Colorado and Nevada.

Compiled by Kayla Sikes & Jessica Tran

“I think Proposition 30 is important because it directly impacts us and the rest of the state. I think that while our tuition would rise if it doesn’t pass, the tax’s focus on high income earners may not be completely fair.”

Also, Jake Fusari is quoted as saying, “I understand the needs of students and am willing to do anything and everything to make sure they get the best opportunities both now and when they graduate. The future of our city depends on it,” when in fact this quote belongs to Pamela Comstock. City on a Hill Press apologizes for this mis-attribution. This post was updated on 10/16/12 to reflect this change.

The Santa Cruz Municipal Elections will be held on Nov. 6, the same date as the California Presidential General Election. The Municipal Elections will be for four full-term council members. The elections will start at 7 a.m. and end at 8 p.m.

The four seats that are up for election are currently held by Katherine Beiers, Ryan Coonerty, Don Lane and Tony Madrigal. Of the four, Lane and Beiers are the only council members eligible for re-election. Lane is the only current council member who intends to run.

Also running are non-profit executive director Cece Pinheiro, former PeoplePower director Micah Posner, former Santa Cruz mayor Cynthia Mathews, local youth advocate Jake Fusari, American Civil Liberties Union board member Steve Pleich and software executive Pamela Comstock, according to the Santa Cruz County Election Department website.

All photos courtesy of the candidates.

Cynthia Matthews

Cece Pinheiro

Cece Pinheiro has spent seven years directing a non-profit for special education families. She is an advocate for gay rights and has spent 15 years on the board of Santa Cruz City Schools. As a potential council member, Pinheiro believes in working toward new and creative projects.

“I am poised to develop innovative and challenging projects with city staff and the community at large. As a Santa Cruz City council member I will focus on sustainable economic development in the community.”

 

 

 

Pamela Comstock

Pamela Comstock is a former business owner who founded Lollipops Boutique in downtown Santa Cruz. For the past three years, Comstock has been a secretary for the local rotary club and she is currently a Santa Cruz city commissioner for the Prevention of Violence Against Women and a board member of Take Back Santa Cruz. She has helped re-establish the local chapter of Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbian and Gays (PFLAG). She is also an advocate of students.

“I understand the needs of students and am willing to do anything and everything to make sure they get the best opportunities both now and when they graduate. The future of our city depends on it.”

 

 

Don Lane

Incumbent Don Lane is the current mayor of Santa Cruz and is a graduate of UC Santa Cruz. He has made efforts to improve homeless services in the city and was one of the founders of the non-profit Homeless Community Resource Center. Lane also helped found Youth Opportunities, a non-profit organization that provides employment for teens.

“I’m…happy to be working with many folks in the community to support business and the arts, address social needs, and make our city a great place to live and work. I believe my record of collaboration demonstrates my continuing ability to serve Santa Cruz well.”

 

Steve Pleich

Steve Pleich is a former research lawyer who currently holds a position as a board member for the Latino Democrats of Santa Cruz County. Since 2006, Pleich has worked as a volunteer and freelance grant writer for the Santa Cruz AIDS Project. In 2007, Pleich served with the Walnut Avenue Women’s Center as a domestic violence victims advocate. Pleich was also a founding member of Santa Cruz Syringe Access. For Pleich, the big issue is voters feeling connected to their council members.

“It’s about access for ordinary people, I want people to be able to have access to make important decisions that will impact them and I want people to be able to have access to me as a councilmember.”

 

Jake Fusari

Jake Fusari is a 28-year-old, third-generation native of Santa Cruz who decided to become involved in local politics because he believes that the younger demographic should have a voice in the city council.

“There are very serious decisions that will be made in the near future that will affect our community for generations to come, and I think the younger demographic deserves a voice, I want to be that voice.”

 

 

Illustration by Christine Hipp

THE MEASURES

Measure P

An amendment to the city charter that requires voter approval for desalination projects. Desalination is projected to have extensive effects on electors and the community, and because of such far-reaching concerns, the decision of its implementation must first be approved by a majority of voters.

Measure Q

A measure to increase the transient occupancy tax rate from 10 percent to 11 percent. The 1 percent tax increase would go toward efforts to support local jobs, fire, police, parks and recreation and other essential city services. The tax would be levied on those individuals staying in local hotels and motels.

REGISTRATION INFORMATION

Illustration by Leigh Douglas

State funding for education is shrinking — not just for public universities, but for the California school system as a whole. Tuition hikes toward higher education is one thing, but diminishing the quality of the state’s educational foundation for its youth through cuts to California K-12 funding is another.

As the June 5 local city elections approach, it is more important than ever for voters to renew the parcel tax that currently supplements dwindling state funds for Santa Cruz City Elementary and High School Districts.

The renewal of this parcel tax through a two-thirds vote for Measures I and J would not only bring in $2 million in supplemental funding towards maintaining the quality of education at Santa Cruz school districts, but also provide access to resources, supplies and instructors that schools would not be able to afford otherwise.

A parcel tax involves a special tax in which a parcel is defined as any unit of land in a given school district that receives separate real property tax bills from Santa Cruz County. All property that would be exempt from property taxes would also be exempt from the imposition of the parcel tax outlined in Measures I and J.

Measures I and J, which serve as District Protection of Quality Education acts for both Santa Cruz elementary and high school districts, were last renewed in 2006 by Santa Cruz voters. Renewal of the parcel tax has been voted on the ballot every eight years.

Measure I proposes a renewal of the parcel tax from $28 to $38 per parcel annually beginning July 1, 2013 for eight years. It is aimed at directing funds not only toward retaining highly qualified teachers and librarians in local schools, but preparing students for college and careers. Supplemental funding would also provide more opportunities for academic counseling for at-risk youth, in addition to ensuring the quality of classroom academics.

The parcel tax outlined in Measure I would combat state funding cuts which, according to the California State Senate, are projected to reach $8.3 billion for the 2012–13 budget. With California’s budget crisis making little progress toward recovery, further cuts toward educational funding can be expected to threaten both the quality of academics offered in public schools in addition to electives, libraries, counseling resources and teachers within Santa Cruz school districts.

Measure J, which proposes a renewal of the parcel tax from $70 to $85 per parcel annually beginning July 1, 2013 for eight years, will be allocated toward retaining high quality teachers in addition to art and music instruction — both subjects that have been quick to receive program cuts due to a lack of funding. Supplemental funding provided through the measure would also keep school libraries open longer and served by credentialed librarians.

As revenues collected through both measures would be prohibited from use towards administrators’ salaries and benefits, the tax would solely be aimed toward maintaining and protecting the quality of education in Santa Cruz County.

With increasing state funding cuts towards education, voter renewal of measures like I and J is vital to the quality of education offered at local schools. Investment in education starts with individual communities committed to positive change through voter action.

The parcel taxes outlined in Measures I and J are a small price to pay for the betterment of educational opportunities in Santa Cruz school districts. National politics may be moot on the June 5 ballot, but making sure you get to the polls and vote in support of these measures is necessary to preserve the quality of education in the city of Santa Cruz as a whole.