April 18
Los Angeles Times on the Supreme Court delivering a victory for due process for deportees:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in a case from California that if a law is deemed to be so vague that it is impossible for the government to use it to impose a prison sentence, then it is also too vague to be used to deport a lawful permanent resident. It was another welcome recognition by the court that being expelled from this country can be as devastating a consequence as confinement to a prison cell.
By a 5-4 vote, with President Trump’s appointee, Neil M. Gorsuch, joining the court’s four liberals to form a majority, the court ruled in favor of James Garcia Dimaya, a native of the Philippines who was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident at the age of 13. Dimaya pleaded no contest in 2007 and 2009 to two charges of residential burglary.
Concluding that burglary was a crime of violence and thus an “aggravated felony” under federal immigration law, the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that Dimaya should be deported. The Immigration and Nationality Act’s definition of “crimes of violence,” borrowed from federal criminal law, includes felonies that involve “a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used during committing the offense” - a definition that might apply to some burglaries but not others.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, said that definition was simply too unclear to serve as the basis of a deportation. She said it suffered from the same sort of unconstitutional vagueness as a law the court struck down in 2015 in a criminal context. Referring back to the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision in that prior case, Kagan wrote: “How does one go about divining the conduct entailed in a crime’s ordinary case? Statistical analyses? Surveys? Experts? Google? Gut instinct?”
Kagan noted that the court long had recognized that “grave nature of deportation” and only last year had said that deportation was “a particularly severe penalty” that may be of greater concern to a convicted alien than “any potential jail sentence.”
If vagueness in a statute provides grounds to challenge a criminal conviction or a sentence, it ought to be available to immigrants seeking to remain in this country even if they have been convicted of a crime. At a time when the executive branch is giving short shrift to due process for immigrants, it’s gratifying that the court is willing to protect their rights.
___
April 18
Santa Cruz Sentinel on voting yes on propositions 71, 72; No on 70:
Proposition 70, on the June 5 California primary ballot, is an attempt by opponents of California’s lamdmark cap-and-trade law regulating greenhouse gas pollution to hoodwink voters into giving Republicans and the oil industry more control of how the money is spent.
It’s a bad idea and should be rejected.
The measure came out of efforts by opponents who hope to water down the state’s climate change legislation - and from a last-minute deal between Republicans and Gov. Jerry Brown, who needed GOP votes to extend the law. Proposition 70, if passed, would set up a 2024 battle in which the money to be allocated from cap-and-trade would be put to a two-thirds vote.
Anyone remember the wearying legislative gridlock when the state budget required a two-thirds vote? If you don’t, that’s because since it went to a majority vote in 2010, the gridlock and quarreling went with it.
No need to recreate those scenarios.
By law, cap-and-trade money is collected from factories, oil companies and other industries that produce greenhouse gas emissions; these companies either agree to reduce emissions, or they pay into a fund. The revenue is used for energy efficiency programs along with consumer rebates for buying electric or hybrid vehicles and for anti-pollution programs.
Some cap-and-trade money also is targeted for Brown’s pet high-speed rail project, which is facing increasing opposition, even from some Democrats. If voters don’t like cap-and-trade, however, they should elect opponents of the law to state office, where they can then try to overturn it and reverse the bullet train as well. But until then, the intent of the law, approved by a Republican governor, should stand. Vote no on Proposition 70.
Proposition 71, on the other hand, is straight forward, providing a common-sense solution to a non-political election issue that has widespread, bipartisan support.
Currently, under the state constitution, all propositions that are deemed to have been approved by voters on election night automatically become law the next day.
But in this age of widespread mail-in voting, absentee and provisional ballots, it can take weeks to determine election results. The changes in voting habits means ballot measures may appear to have been passed, only to be defeated and then rolled back.
That’s what almost happened in the 2016 election, when a measure banning plastic bags statewide went into effect, although thousands of ballots had not yet been counted. The bag ban in the end was approved, but the potential for an expensive mistake that could lead to long legal battles was recognized by Ralph Shaffer, a Cal Poly Pomona historian who has contributed to these pages. Shaffer got the attention of Kevin Mullin, D-South San Francisco, who authored ACA 17, a constitutional amendment making ballot propositions effective on the fifth day after the election results are certified by the secretary of state.
Vote yes on Proposition 71.
Proposition 72 also seems common sense. The measure would eliminate any tax penalty for homeowners who install rainwater capture systems. The reused water can irrigate lawns and gardens - a worthwhile goal in a state where the next drought is more frequently than not just over the horizon. But since the systems, which can cost thousands of dollars, are considered an improvement, homeowners can be dinged on their property taxes for setting them up.
A Walnut Creek homeowner was the inspiration for the legislation that led to Proposition 71, telling Orinda Democratic state Sen. Steve Glazer there should be incentives for conserving water, not penalties. Because it removes a tax penalty, it requires voter approval.
Vote yes on Proposition 72.
___
April 17
Ventura County Star on not letting rankings dominate college choice:
April can be an agonizing month for high school seniors trying to decide where to go to college in the fall, especially for those with multiple admission offers.
The May 1 deadline for making a choice and paying a deposit at many universities, known as National College Decision Day, is less than two weeks away, meaning it’s crunch time for students choosing the next path of their lives.
We don’t profess to have any magic advice for making this personal decision. We just hope students and parents don’t get caught up in all the college rankings these days by websites, educational groups and others. The rankings are subjective and do not answer the key question for any senior: What college is the best fit for me?
The UC and CSU systems (including Channel Islands), California Lutheran University and Thomas Aquinas College all have a May 1 decision deadline for freshmen entering this fall. Students still undecided can find a host of basic tips online.
U.S. News & World Report, perhaps the biggest perpetrator of the college rankings obsession, suggests undecided students continue researching the colleges they’ve been accepted to, ask them questions and identify potential “deal breakers.” CollegeCovered.com suggests revisiting campuses, connecting with current students at a university via social media, crunching the cost and financial aid numbers again, and talking it over some more with parents, high school counselors, teachers and good friends. The Fastweb! scholarship site suggests making sure a college offers a backup plan for the student in case he or she changes majors - something about half of all students do.
All of the sites agree that whatever advice a student gets, the decision must be his or her own. Following a boyfriend or girlfriend, choosing a college just because a parent went there, or caving to peer pressure or parental ego are all bad ideas.
The Cappex.com college-decision website analyzed college search behavior and issued a report in 2016 that found high school freshmen seem to gravitate toward the rankings and big-name universities, but by the time they’re seniors, they prefer colleges closer to home.
That’s a good thing. A Purdue University and Gallup survey found attending a top-rated college had nothing to do with success or happiness later in life. What did matter, it found, was the quality of teaching and emotional support in college. That sounds like a good starting point for those struggling with a decision this month.
___
April 16
The San Diego Union-Tribune on Chula Vista native making history in Boston:
The San Diego region’s remarkable connection to the Boston Marathon was reinforced Monday when Chula Vista-born Desiree Linden became the first American woman to win the world-famous event since 1985. Linden, 34, who finished second in 2011 and fourth in 2015 in the annual Boston race, braved gusty wind and temperatures in the 30s. “It’s supposed to be hard,” said the two-time Olympian and Hilltop High graduate. “It’s good to get it done.”
San Diego High School graduate Meb Keflezighi staked America’s Finest City’s claim to Boston Marathon fame in 2014 when he became the first American man to win the race since 1983. The former Olympic silver medalist and UCLA track star emigrated from Eritrea to San Diego with his family as a child. Last year, Bryce Miller - a columnist for The San Diego Union-Tribune - wrote that Keflezighi, 42, belongs on San Diego’s Mount Rushmore of sports, along with such luminaries as Tony Gwynn, Bill Walton, Ted Williams, Junior Seau and Maureen Connolly.
Room on that mountain needs to be found for one more sporting great: Desiree Linden. On behalf of the San Diego community, the U-T Editorial Board offers congratulations to Linden on her Boston triumph. It’s good she got it done.
___
April 12
The Modesto Bee on giving residents a chance to vote on tunnels:
Dino Cortopassi saw this coming in 2016, but too few voters believed him.
The businessman, farmer and founder of Modesto’s Stanislaus Food Products, knew that Gov. Jerry Brown and the Metropolitan Water District would eventually try again to re-route the Sacramento River south to Southern California. Their first attempt, during Brown’s first stint as governor in 1982, ended when voters profoundly rejected the Peripheral Canal (voting 9-to-1 against it in some districts).
This time, they devised a scheme to build a pair of tunnels, each 40-feet in diameter, capable of sending the entire Sacramento River beneath the Delta and directly to the southbound pumps. The key was to keep voters from interfering. Brown and Met decided to finance their tunnels with bonds paid for by those who get the water, thus requiring no statewide vote.
That’s why Cortopassi came up with Proposition 53 - the No Blank Checks initiative. It would have required any infrastructure project financed with $3 billion or more in general revenue bonds to get statewide voter approval. Though he built in exemptions for local projects, an intensely deceptive advertising campaign muddied the public’s perception. In the closest vote for any proposition, Prop 53 lost by just 1 percent - 151,646 votes among 13.2 million cast.
Metropolitan didn’t need nearly that many votes last Tuesday to get its way. Met’s 38-member board approved an $11 billion plan to finance the two tunnels they believe will deliver ever more water south. But don’t blame every Southern Californian.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti called the tunnels a “Mulholland moment,” referring to a previous generation’s water grab which turned the once abundant Owens Valley into a desert. The San Diego Water Authority objected because Met low-balled the impact on consumers, saying bills would rise only $5 a month. San Diego says it will be closer to $16.
Such a decision shouldn’t be left up to a few dozen water board members or even a few dozen judges, who surely will see this issue in their courtrooms. The people of California should have gotten a say.
Farmers, fishermen, environmentalists and most of the editorial writers north of Bakersfield have railed against the tunnels - including The Modesto Bee. We don’t believe Brown’s contention that restoring the Delta is part of his so-called California WaterFix plan. There are better and less costly ways to fix the Delta and save fish species.
Thursday, the San Jose Mercury News called for a statewide vote, saying the tunnels offer the “potential for a Southern California water grab of historic proportions.” Well said. Unfortunately, the Mercury News didn’t see the wisdom in Cortopassi’s Prop 53 - which would have guaranteed such a vote.
Neither did we - at least not unanimously. The Bee’s editorial board was split, and we made no endorsement, trusting voters to make their own wise decisions. And they did. San Joaquin County voters passed Prop 53 with 57 percent of the vote. In Stanislaus County, 58 percent voted for it - the highest approval rate of any county in the state.
Voters are entitled to vote on something that will profoundly and irrevocably alter our state. Perhaps Cortopassi will revive his “No Blank Checks” proposition. Someone should.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.