Petaluma Tomorrow

Absentee Voting in Sonoma County

Research conducted as part of Petaluma Tomorrow’s Election Watch examined trends in absentee voting.  Some of the highlights:

1. Since AB 1520 passed in 1991 absentee voting has grown from an accommodation  of those unable to go to the polls on Election Day to the method used by most Sonoma County voters in 2010.

In the 2010 election, 63.4% of the ballots came from absentee voters.  By  comparison, statewide, 48.4%, of 2010 votes were cast absentee.   By way of reference Marin voters are just below Sonoma in the percent of votes cast absentee while Napa voters rely on precinct voting.

Absentee Votes as a % of Total Turnout: Statewide and Sonoma, Marin & Napa Counties

(General Elections)

2. Most absentee voters cast their votes relatively close to Election Day.

In Sonoma absentee ballots are mailed 29 days before Election Day and voters can return them as soon as they get them.  The Registrar’s office states anecdotally that they have received ballots as early as the day they are mailed.  Nonetheless, most votes are returned close to election day and a significant percent of the ballots are returned on election day.

3. Absentee voters have higher turnout rates than precinct voters.

In the 2010 election 76% of registered absentee voters in Sonoma turned out versus 67% of precinct voters.

Absentee Voter Profile

Most studies of the profile of the absentee voter indicated that before the 2008 showed that they were similar to voters overall.  A Project Vote Policy Paper, “Early In-Person Voting: Effects on Underrepresented Voters, Voting Turnout, and Election Administration” by Teresa James states that absentee voters ”tended to look very much like Election Day voters: they were older, more educated, and wealthier than the general population.  Lower-income and minority individuals tended to use EIP* at lower rates than the general population.

The 2008 Presidential election, in contrast, marked a dramatic change in the use of EIP by minority voters.  African Americans cast EIP ballots in 2008 at a rate that exceeded that of White voters, and Hispanic voters increased their use of EIP to rates that matched that of White voters.”

For additional information on the complete report please contact greg@petaluma-tomorrow.org

*EIP/Early In-Person voters referred to in the Project Vote policy paper are the same as absentee voters as referred to in the PT research.

 

 

 

New Challenge to solving the County Budget Deficit

“Bad Decisions that Have to be Made” David Rabbitt

The March 17 Petaluma Argus Courier article, “Rabbitt weighs in on county budget shortfall” exposes a new challenge to solving the county’s budget deficit: David Rabbitt.

Rabbitt tells the Argus that he found the budget learning curve to be “pretty steep.” This should come as no surprise for a person who, mind with well over a hundred errors in his campaign finance statements, showed that he cannot do basic math. Appears that the addition and subtraction learning curves are a bit too steep for Mr. Rabbit. Not a good sign for someone interested in fixing our budget.

His next quote is a frightening characterization of the quality of the decisions he sees himself making.  He states, “The decisions to be made are not good.  They are all bad decisions that have to be made.”  If you have ever listened to Rabbitt’s ramblings you might want to give him the benefit of the doubt – that what he meant to say was that none of the alternatives are good and the decisions will be difficult. But, it is equally likely that he does not know what he said, or, maybe he is planning on playing to his strength – bad decision making.

A few quotes later Rabbitt suggests that the Board of Sups shares fairly close ideological backgrounds and feelings, then says, “Here I’m considered a moderate, but I’m a lifelong Democrat.”  There are a lot, perhaps too many, ‘moderates’ calling themselves Democrats so it is difficult to understand what he means by the statement: “but I’m a lifelong Democrat.”  Rabbitt is no champion of the Democratic Party, was not endorsed by them, campaigned with Republicans and found no reason to complain when racism was used on his behalf – hardly what the Democratic Party stands for these days.  Rabbitt added the comment that “people make more out of (ideological differences) politically.”  Sorry to disappoint you Mr. Rabbitt – informed voters are concerned about ideology, especially when you call yourself a Democrat but act out an ideology of a corporatist Republican.

Back to the budget.  With all of the originality and uniqueness of a Big Box shopping development, Rabbitt is focused on “pension reform” as a key solution.   Speaking of what he sees as needed changes he says, “It’s a leadership thing.” He then dismisses raising revenues/taxes (especially ones on businesses) as ‘not being popular.’  So much for that “leadership thing”.  Sounds like he did mean bad decisions, not difficult ones.

 

PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA, FEBRUARY 28: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING COUNCIL VACANCY

The City Council has its regularly scheduled meeting this coming Monday, February 28 beginning at 7:00 P.M. A key item of interest will be a revisit of the vacant council seat.

Background on the Council Vacancy and Action the January 31st Council Meeting

The vacant seat was last discussed at the January 31st meeting. The minimum objective on the 31st was to “winnow down” the number of applicants to a small number that could be discussed. The ultimate goal was to reach agreement on filling the seat. Using a list of 19 applicants, three successive “expressions of interest” or preference votes were taken. By the end of the evening the minimum objective had been partially met. On the third vote preferences were expressed for 10 of the 19 applicants. Those ten were:

Gene Beatty               Jeff Mayne
Harry Clifford           Rick Parker
Jason Davies             Dennis Pocekay
Ray Johnson              Lou Steinberg
Christina Kauk          Pamela Torliatt

There was no overlap between those supported by the developer funded coalition of Healy/Albertson/Harris and the community supported coalition of Glass/Barrett/Renee. Of particular note:

• Not one of the developer funded HAH coalition “expressed interest” in Jason Davies. Davies received more voter support for council than any of the other 19 applicants;
• Healy has commented and made clear in an Argus Courier letter to the editor that Jason Davies should not be considered for the vacancy. According to Healy the Council would be best served by selecting an applicant who was above the political fray. Yet, Healy “expressed interest” (aka voted) three times, along with Mike Harris, for Ray Johnson, a losing council candidate and Jeff Mayne, a losing Mayoral candidate (Albertson agreed two of the three times but dropped his interest in Mayne on the third vote);
• The community supported coalition of Glass, Barrett and Renee “voted” for what could be considered a compromise candidate – Dennis Pocekay.

Click Record for a full accounting of the “expressions of interests”/votes made at the January 31st meeting was compiled by Council Watch. Click on Agenda for the full agenda including a full list of the 19 applicants and their applications.

Comment: What to Look For

It will be interesting to see if both coalitions stick to the applicants they ended up with on their third vote at the January 31st meeting or go back to the original list of 19. Back tracking will essentially eliminate any of the previous progress made.

Also of interest will be if to see if HAH is totally wedded to development interests. HAH did not take the opportunity to accept Pocekay as an interesting possible compromise candidate in January.

The level of enthusiasm – perhaps demonstrated by the level of vigorous, intelligent debate versus the pabulum of “consensus” – will be an interesting indicator of whether the HAH coalition wants to fill the seat or continue with its obstruction of progress.