No tags :(

Share it

It’s hard to take a snapshot meaningfully in the midst of political turmoil; is the chaos excuse for policy impropriety? Is it indelicate to reference? Improvident? Distracting?

LACDP’s September general meeting, filled with the business of endorsements for November’s elections, was understood to be vital as no other. There can be little question that our democracy is threatened. Who leads us forward, with attention to which issues, matters.

The business of the Democratic Party (DP) may be to elect Democrats, but the selection of who, focusing on what, is its quotidian work. So when September’s general meeting of over 400 participants agendized the ratification of more than 125 races, including more than 175 candidates, it was fair to imagine that 90 minutes might be insufficient.

Indeed September’s general meeting adjourned at 3:23am, after nearly 11 hours online (including advance time for online certification of voting members). The above 125 races were slated for endorsement by consent of the full assembly, in deference to the decisions over the previous month of members in their local Assembly District (AD) endorsement meetings. Candidates who received <60% of members’ votes at this first level, are considered to have achieved “no consensus” and these candidates were heard by the full membership.

There were 44 such candidates from among twenty two of “no consensus” races. Further, a long slew of consensus candidates were individually voted on for severance from the consent list, and subsequent individual consideration from the full assembly. The list of “no consensus” races and candidates was not even distributed to the membership before 1am. It is little wonder that adjournment after 3am was without consideration of the controversial Proposition 24 (CA Privacy Rights Act) and local ballot measures.

But the time spent in individual consideration of candidates endorsed at the first level, resulted in important reconsiderations. Three candidates were denied endorsement by the full LACDP despite initial support at the local AD level, all for similar cause:  let’s call it “leadership temperament” (cf judicial temperament”). Two candidates faced “MeToo” allegations and another attestation of bullying. In the latter case the local committee itself made clear that late-information would likely have changed the initial endorsement. In the first two instances consideration from the full membership differed substantively from that of local members.

The full list of LACDP candidates, including local races (by AD) to date is here. More will be added after Tuesday’s special meeting (9/22/20). A livestream youtube link will be posted here on Monday; unfortunately the meetings though public, are not recorded; I believe they should be. Please consider watching live at 7pm. Minutes for September’s regular meeting are not yet posted.

Proposition 24, concerning internet privacy, will be discussed at the Special Meeting. Supported with vast sums of shielded monies by Emerald Fund real estate developer Alastair MacTaggart, this is a trickily-devised proposition, appearing to secure internet privacy when in fact it devises half-measures and new loopholes that hurt privacy. So this is not a case of “the perfect being the enemy of the good”, here the enemy is immutable compromises and provisions that preclude future refinement. There is a reason Google, Apple and Facebook all support the measure. The estimable Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) at first failed to oppose the resolution outright but seems to have clarified its stance here, presenting one reason after another for its opposition. This is a good article referencing the raft of consumer-watchdog opponents to the initiative, this discusses the controversy. Here is another expert’s take. Vote NO! on 24 please.

Sara Roos, AD54 sararoosmv@gmail.com

Please forward to any who might be interested. I’m happy to add you or them to my email list directly – drop me a line!