Search results for: mary-beth moylan

Every election year, McGeorge Associate Dean Mary-Beth Moylan teaches the California Initiative Seminar. In it, students analyze every Proposition on the California ballot. That work culminates in the publishing of the California Initiative Review, the California Initiative Review – Initiatives At-A-Glance, and the California Initiative Forum. All of these resources are made available to the public, for free. Individual analyses of each ballot initiative can also be found on the California Initiative Review page on McGeorge’s website.

In normal years, the Initiative Forum would have been held in person. This year, to protect the health of everyone involved, the forum was held entirely online and live-streamed on October 21. Below is the recording of the live stream. Some questions we were able to answer live, and you can watch or listen to those questions and answers in the video below. Some questions we did not have the opportunity to answer verbally. Those questions and answers are listed out below and organized by Proposition. Not every initiative had questions that received written answers.

Proposition 14

Q: Why isn’t the stem cell research left to the private sector?

A: One argument – Private sector investment generally occurs during the testing and development phase, rather than the initial basic research. Scientists have referred to the stage right before industry becomes interested in the research as the “Valley of Death.” It is an area where promising therapies often languish because there is not enough federal funding to push the projects through to the later stages.

FAQ, CIRM CALIFORNIA’S STEM CELL AGENCY, https://www.cirm.ca.gov/about-cirm/cirm-faq#funding

Q: Does California spend a lot of money on medical science-related initiatives that end up as a proposition in a ballot or is Proposition 14 an anomaly?

A: Proposition 14 is not an anomaly. We have had other initiatives to fund science-related initiatives. That said, it is definitely within the legislative prerogative to use general fund dollars to fund science initiatives so that we do not need to vote on them.

Proposition 15

Q: On Prop 15: Wouldn’t the $3 Million Dollar kick in floor incentivize property owners to simply “shell off” to other folks they know letting them retain control without ownership in name? Is there a loophole there?

A: That is a current loophole- if the property is not sold it does not get reassessed. Under the new assessment, every property that qualifies is reassessed every 3 years regardless if ownership has changed hands. There is a provision within Prop. 15 that might address this situation. This section also states that any related entities are one taxpayer, thereby not allowing independently managed and operated businesses to qualify for small business exemptions if they are related to a business that does not qualify as a small business. Cal. Proposition 15 at §7(b).  However, California Assessors’ Assoc. (CAA) has noted that this is going to require coordination between counties that does not exist and require a staffing increase of about 1,000 more assessors.  It should be noted that CAA has testified against Prop. 15 for these reasons and other reasons.

Q: Since prop 15 has a negative impact on farmers and ranchers, is it likely we will see a trickle effect in the entire food chain (ie higher food prices)?

A: This is one of the opponent’s arguments. They fear a trickle-down effect on consumers. It is possible, but I don’t think there is any hard evidence that this will happen.

Q: Has anyone seen any studies that quantify the economic effects on the state, of all of the businesses and investors and revenue generators who will add to the stream of such parties leaving California for lesser-taxing states, if this proposition passes?

A: There have been multiple studies looking into this. However, I am not aware of a study that was done since the pandemic began and therefore considers the current economic environment.  We cite a few studies from the proponents and opponents in our paper. Measuring the validity of the studies is slightly outside of the scope of our analysis. Therefore, I cannot make a statement on the validity of these studies or what studies are seemingly more reputable.

Proposition 17

Q: If passed, would payment of restitution have any bearing on a parolee’s ability to vote?

A: Under the language of Proposition 17, restitution does not play into re-enfranchising parolees. While speaking with the proponents of the initiative, it was made clear that they do not expect a challenge like what happened after Amendment 4 passed in Florida during the 2018 midterms.

Q: You note there are some parolees that would still not be able to vote. Can you clarify who these individuals would be? Sexually violent predators? Other violent crimes? White-collar crimes?

A: If passed, all parolees would be allowed to vote so long as they meet the other requirements for voting that everyone else is held to (i.e. at least 18 years of age, California resident, U.S. citizen).

Proposition 18

Q: Isn’t it inconsistent to say 16-17-year-olds are mature and sophisticated enough to vote and determine the fate of millions of Californians, but not mature or sophisticated enough to purchase cannabis or tobacco? How can the state consider someone a juvenile until age 24 for purposes of criminal justice, but an adult for purposes of voting at age 17?

A: The opponents of the measure are making those arguments. We already have 18-year-olds voting and this would only allow those who will turn 18 by November to vote in primaries in March or June. It is a minor adjustment to existing law. Reasonable minds can disagree about whether we have as a society has placed our age limits in the correct spot for all sorts of rights and responsibilities.

Proposition 19

Q: How are renters or first time buyers disadvantaged by this proposition?

A: Opponents argue that because early purchasers (meaning long-time homeowners) will be re-entering the market with more purchasing power than first-time buyers or renters, first-time buyers and renters will be put even more at a disadvantage in the market. The purchasing power that the long-time homeowners would have include capital and experience. In other words, the opponent’s argument is essentially that there will be more goliaths entering the market, rendering first-time purchasers and renters uncompetitive in comparison.

Proposition 22

Q: If the exemption is not passed, would new hires or drivers have longer onboarding times during hiring? My concern is that people who are losing their jobs during the pandemic that are falling back on these gig jobs would have the carpet pulled out from beneath them.

A: Courts required Uber and Lyft to create a plan that implements compliance with AB 5 in case Prop 22 does not pass. I do not think the answer to your question is a known fact, but in practical terms that seems like a very reasonable concern (especially given network companies’ arguments against complying with AB 5). Again, however, network companies are legally required to have a plan in place to comply with AB 5.

Q: Do app-based drivers tends to lean towards favoring or disfavoring passing Prop 22?

A: There are conflicting polls from each side and criticized by each side for their methodology and/or bias. Many ads quote these polls, but it’s not clear what their reliability is.

Q: In the discussion of Prop 22, I think it was mentioned that it repeals AB 5.  Is this the case?  Or does Prop 22 only cover app deliver and drivers, and AB 5 would still cover the other workers that it did before?

A: Prop 22 overrides AB 5 as it applies to app-based drivers only. AB 5 would remain in place for other industries.

Q: How does prop 22 compare to existing exceptions to AB 5?

A: Proposition 22 solely applies to app-based drivers. There is the potential that other industries would adopt this classification model of their employees.

On today’s episode of The CAP⋅impact Podcast we are diving in to California’s primary election. If you listen to news and politics podcasts, it’s very likely that you’ve already heard about California’s Top Two primary system – likely within the context of how the system could have led to Democratic candidates being  shut out of congressional races across southern California and California’s Central Valley or how it could shut out Republicans from the race for Governor.

Ultimately, neither of those scenarios came to fruition. Democrats got their candidates through in the Congressional contests and Republican businessman John Cox advanced to the general election to face off against Democrat and Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom.

That’s enough horse race coverage for this post. If you want a recap of the primary, you can check out last week’s post from Jon Wainwright on the implications of the primary results.

This week’s podcast focuses more on the Top Two primary itself – the structure of it and how it came to be in California – and how the Top Two Primary affects how campaigns talk to voters. For the explainer on Top Two primary, we’re talking with McGeorge professor and elections expert Mary-Beth Moylan, and to discuss how the Top Two primary has changed campaigns, we brought in Democratic consultant Brian Brokaw – no relation to Tom Brokaw.

We hope you enjoy today’s episode. As always, we would greatly appreciate it if you can leave us a five star rating on iTunes or Apple Podcasts. Another great way to help us to subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts.

And lastly, you can always let us know what you think about today’s episode in the comments, or on Facebook and Twitter.

Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper’s initiative to split California into three states, being marketed as Cal 3, qualified for this year’s November ballot. The idea is problematic.

What the three proposed California’s would look like. Credit: Los Angeles Times graphics

But before we dive in to the what if’s of what happens after it passes, or the big if that is if it passes, it needs noting that there is a strong chance that this could not be on November’s General Election ballot even though it received the number of signatures necessary to qualify.

That’s because this initiative is ripe for pre-election review by the California courts, according to McGeorge professor and elections expert Mary-Beth Moylan. And not only is it ripe for review by the courts, but she thinks the likelihood of the courts throwing the initiative out – that is, removing from the ballot – is very high. Here’s her reasoning for that, from an interview that she gave to KCRA 3 News in Sacramento:

The California Constitution gives people the initiative power to make laws. This isn’t really enacting a law. This is attempting to alter the boundary lines of the State of California and to create essentially two new states … The California Constitution itself says that the boundary lines for California are those that were set at the time of the 1849 (state) constitution. Any attempt to change that provision, I think, would amount to a revision, which people don’t have power to make revisions. The only way the constitution of California can be revised is if the Legislature sets a constitutional convention or proposes revisions to the people.”

The first question that comes to mind is, if this initiative passes, could California actually split into three states? The short answer is yes, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t say that there is a very wide gulf between could happen and would happen.

Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution reads: “no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State … without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” So, the constitutional ability to split California exists. There is even precedent for a state to be created by splitting off from another state.

In 1863, West Virginia became a union state after delegates from Union-supporting counties in the northwestern part of the wanted to break off from the Confederate state of Virginia. Should all the necessary hurdles be cleared, splitting California “would be the first division of an existing U.S. state since the creation of West Virginia” according to John Myers at the Los Angeles Times. But the circumstances are worth emphasizing here. The creation of West Virginia happened during the Civil War when a portion of a Confederate state decided to leave and join the Union. These circumstances are not at play today.

That leads to the Congressional hurdle, which appears to be insurmountable given the current Congress, assuming the initiative passes in November. The three proposed states are divided up along existing county lines. When you look at which counties are in each proposed state, it looks like the U.S. Senate would easily add three more Democratic Senators (in addition to current Senators Feinstein and Harris), a proposition that would not go over with Republicans.

But, for the sake of argument, say the initiative passes, Congress approves, it clears every legal hurdle it faces, and California indeed splits into three states. Can Cal 3 deliver on the benefits it says passing the initiative will reap? Let’s take a look at a couple:

  • Lower taxes – The promise is that “Cal 3 would encourage each state set lower tax rates.” For one, taxes are not mentioned at all in the proposed initiative that was submitted. So to claim that the initiative encourages the new states to lower taxes is dubious. Further, there’s no guarantee that elected officials in Northern California (likely to be predominantly from the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento) or in California (predominantly from Los Angeles) would set tax rates lower than they are currently.
  • Local Identity, Autonomy, & Diversity – The promise is “Rather than being managed remotely – and ineffectively – from Sacramento, each state will have the autonomy to make choices based on the most pressing needs and opportunities closest to home.” Considering that 56 of the Legislature’s 120 members come from either Los Angeles County or the Bay Area (19 members of the Senate and 37 members of the Assembly) it’s fair to be concerned that other parts of the state aren’t having their voices heard when weighed against the clout of these two dominant urban population centers. But again, the way Cal 3 divides California doesn’t do much to ease that concern. The new California would be dominated by elected officials from Los Angeles over those from the other central coast counties and Northern California would be dominated by Bay Area and Sacramento electeds over those from the rural north of the state.

There will definitely be money on both sides of this fight. Tim Draper, obviously, support is it and Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio is leading the effort to oppose and has been doing so for months. While there is definitely enough sentiment supporting the idea to split up California that Draper thinks it’s a worthwhile use of time and money, I don’t the votes – at the first step of passing the initiative or at the second step of getting the votes in Congress to sign off on this – for the plan to come to fruition.

This post was updated as of 8:45am on 6/14/17 to include a quote from McGeorge Professor Mary-Beth Moylan on the likelihood of the initiative holding up to legal challenges.

In today’s episode of The CAP⋅impact Podcast we continue to explore the myriad of issues surrounding the shooting of Stephon Clark. To see where we started this series, you can refer back to last week’s episode where we talked with McGeorge alumna and former Deputy District Attorney Alana Mathews; McGeorge alumnus, former Public Defender, and criminal defense attorney Keith Staten, civil rights and criminal defense attorney Justin Ward, and founding member of the American Society of Evidence Based Policing Dr. Obed Magny.

Today’s conversation starts with two people familiar to regular CAP⋅impact readers, Leslie Jacobs – Professor of Law and Director of the Capital Center for Law & Policy at McGeorge School of Law – and Mary-Beth Moylan – Professor of Law and Associate Dean of Experiential Learning at McGeorge School of Law – talking about the issues they know best – free speech and elections, respectively – as they relate to the shooting and death of Stephon Clark.

We also talk with State Assembly Member Kevin McCarty (D-AD 7) who represents Sacramento in the California Legislature. We talk with Asm. McCarty about the impact the shooting and the protests have had in his district. We also discuss the legislation he is working on in response to the shooting as well as his push for independent investigations of instances of use of deadly force.

I hope you enjoy today’s episode. If you did enjoy today’s show, please subscribe to The CAP⋅impact Podcast on iTunes or Apple Podcasts and leave the show a five star review while you’re there. You can also let us know what you think of today’s episode in the comments, or on Facebook and Twitter.

 

 

 

Advocacy In Practice with Chris Micheli

https://soundcloud.com/user-259535370/advocacy-in-practice-with-chris-micheli

Today’s podcast should feel a little familiar and a little different at the same time. On CAP·impact we explore two types of advocacy – advocacy in the courts and advocacy in the legislative/regulatory arena. McGeorge’s Associate Dean for Experiential Learning, Mary-Beth Moylan, has an excellent series of interviews with judges and justices on advocacy in the courts.

Today’s podcast is a spin on those interviews, but talking with legislative and regulatory advocates instead of judges, about their advice to new lobbyists and provide their insights into the lobbying profession. I think back to Ray LeBov’s first rule for effective lobbying and see these interviews that I’ll be doing with lobbyists as an extension of that. If Rule #1 is to be a sponge, these interviews are intended to be a good starting point for soaking up some do’s and don’ts of the lobbying profession.

We are starting out by talking to McGeorge Capital Center adjunct professor, McGeorge School of Law alum, and respected lobbyist, Chris Micheli. Our conversation explores what he thinks makes him as effective as he is at his job. We also go into some general discussion about the lobbying profession a little more broadly, and briefly discuss one of my favorite movies – Thank You For Smoking.

It’s a fun and interesting conversation about the lobbying profession. Enjoy!

 

 

 

Advocacy in Practice with Judge Consuelo Callahan

https://soundcloud.com/user-259535370/advocacy-in-practice-interview-with-justice-consuelo-callahan

Associate Dean for Experiential Learning Mary-Beth Moylan recently sat down with Judge Consuelo Callahan from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

They discussed Callahan’s path to the bench starting from her career right out of law school; her judicial life on the Court of Appeals; and advice, insights, and observations for attorneys appearing before her in the Ninth Circuit.

One thing in particular that stands out is Judge Callahan’s advice to attorneys – especially those working with Court of Appeals justices. She said “The point [of oral argument in the Appellate Court] is addressing the court’s concern and being really targeted and approaching the case thinking what would a judge want to hear? What opinion is the judge going to write in this and how can I assist the court?”

She emphasized the importance of answering the exact question a judge asks in order to help direct the conversation in a way that you want to argue. This way, you can address what the court finds important in their decision-making process.

Another important point that Callahan made was about preparing for court, setting high standards early on, and establishing good work habits. She put it a little more bluntly than that, saying:

we will do our jobs regardless of whether you do your job.”

Callahan also pointed out some resources to help attorneys make the best arguments and be prepared for their time in the Court of Appeals. The Appellate Reps for the Ninth Circuit host a mentorship program, where attorneys are assigned someone that is a specialist in the area of law.

Judge Callahan gave some amazing insight in her interview that would intrigue anyone in the legal field – attorneys and judges alike. You’ll have to listen to the rest of the podcast for all of her advice.

We hope you enjoy listening to the conversation with Judge Consuelo Callahan. Be sure to tune in next time!

This is a slight departure from our usual content. That said, last night’s event – the Belote Lectore on Journalism in the Era of Fake News – warrants the change of pace. The video above is of the entire one-hour discussion. Please enjoy the fantastic conversation between three stellar political journalists who know their craft inside and out.

The Annual McGeorge School of Law Mike Belote Endowed Capital Lecture was held last night at the Sterling Hotel in downtown Sacramento. The topic of last night’s event was Journalism in the Era of Fake News.

A full house of attendees enjoyed a dynamic, frank, and funny discussion which featured three influential journalists discussing the role of journalism today, as well as ethics in the journalism profession, the impact of Facebook and Twitter, and what members of the legal community can do to help journalists with combating the issue of fake news.

McGeorge Dean Michael Hunter Schwartz gave the opening remarks and then handed the discussion off Professor and Associate Dean for Experiential Learning Mary-Beth Moylan, who expertly moderated the evening’s discussion. The speakers were Jonathan Weisman, Deputy Washington Editor for the New York Times; John Myers, Sacramento Bureau Chief for the Los Angeles Times; and Joe Mathews, California columnist and editor for Zócalo Public Square.

The Mike Belote Endowed Capital Center Lecture series was made possible by a generous donation from Mike Belote (McGeorge Class of ’87), who is President of California Advocates, Inc. and a longtime Pacific McGeorge alumni donor and volunteer.

To stay up to date with the McGeorge Capital Center for Law and Policy and CAP⋅impact, you can subscribe to email updates by scrolling up and typing your email into the form just to the right of this post. You can Like CAP⋅impact on Facebook and follow us on Twitter @CAPimpactCA.

 

 

 

Advocacy in Practice with Judge Morrison England Jr.

I sat down with Judge Morrison England Jr., of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

We discussed his “non-traditional” path to the bench – you will have to listen to the podcast to for more information about his interesting background. He also provided  advice, insights, and observations for attorneys appearing before him.

In particular, he gave a couple of pieces of advice that stood out to me. One, he urged attorneys and judges “Don’t try to bluff your way through a situation. If you don’t know, just say so.” He noted that this kernel of knowledge came to him when he was making a challenging transition from being a transactional attorney to a California Superior Court judge.

Another great piece of advice that he gave, that seems obvious but many attorneys do not heed, is to read the scheduling orders that you are given. As he noted, in the federal court, the dates and timelines that you are given in the scheduling order are not easily modified. Once the deadlines are set, they are set. There is no wiggle room except for in extraordinary circumstances.

A few other key pieces of advice that he offered were: “Be prepared. Know your case. Know the law. And if you’re wrong or if you have a bad point, fall on the sword and accept it.” He pointed out that a great way for attorneys to distinguish themselves is to to acknowledge bad facts or adverse authority and then point out how those facts or cases are irrelevant or distinguishable.

We also discussed at length how technology is changing courtroom practice. The days of bringing bankers boxes full of binders of exhibits and depositions are now over, and instead, attorneys are now expected to bring a thumb drive, and perhaps one box of exhibits, to the courtroom.

I hope you enjoy listening to my conversation with Judge England. Be sure to tune in next time.

 

 

 

Advocacy in Practice with Justice Andrea Lynn Hoch

I sat down with Associate Justice Andrea Lynn Hoch from the California Third District Court of Appeal. We discussed the many facets of her work at the Court as well as her insights, observations, and tips for attorneys appearing before her, and the Third District Court of Appeal. Thank you for listening.

 

 

 

Advocacy in Practice with Judge Allison Claire

I recently sat down with Judge Allison Claire, a United States Magistrate Judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. We discussed her advice to attorneys practicing in her courtroom and chambers, and in the Eastern District more generally.   To hear her insights, please visit the links below.

Judge Allison Claire’s page on the District Court’s website.

The Eastern District Court’s Local Rules (effective April 1, 2017).

Judge Claire’s Local, Local rules.

Judge Claire’s rule regarding Informal Telephonic Conferences re Discovery Disputes.