Petaluma Tomorrow

The Prominence of Non-Voter, Out-of-Town and Developer Interests

During the 2010 campaign candidates for Petaluma City Council raised, through their campaigns approximately $150,000.  Chris Albertson’s campaign, one of eight, raised $17, 518  which ended up equaling, appropriately enough, 1/8^th of the total.

His campaign total was just under the average (however, it is worth noting that the average was heavily skewed by the monies of the Harris campaign which spent over $58,000). When independent expenditures are included the total raised on his behalf was $19,288 – a bit more than the average including IE money for all candidates.

While there is nothing particularly noteworthy about the monies raised, Albertson was third behind Harris and Johnson and just ahead of Barrett in dollars, the source of his monies is concerning and leaves little doubt as to how he might be expected to vote on developer related issues.  A review of his campaign contributions reveals the following:

1. Albertson’s campaign was dominated by out-of-town and business       money.  Only about a third of the campaign money used to elect Alberston came from Petaluma Voters.2
2. Developer Interests dominated as the largest single source of money. Over 40 percent came from this one special interest group.

For additional information see the full report.

As part of Petaluma Tomorrow’s commitment to open government we examine and report on the source of contributions to the campaigns of candidates for mayor and city council.  Research  indicates that people contribute to a given candidate for two reasons.  Not surprisingly, people contribute to candidates with whom they share like views.  Also, not surprisingly, contributors see their contributions as a way of having influence on the candidate.  In that context a review of contributions to a given candidate provides insights into their views on issues and, those who will seek to influence their decisions.

Separate reports will be prepared on each candidate beginning with those most recently elected, then with appointee Kearny, other sitting council members and finally, non elected candidates with contributions of over $2500.

 

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.