latimes--2020-10-19--Law enforcement reform roils L.A. County supervisor race

L.A. City Councilman Herb Wesson was early into his bid for a seat on the Board of Supervisors when the endorsements and donations from law enforcement started flowing in .
The biggest prize : $ 500,000 from the union that represents a majority of county sheriff ’ s deputies .
But that was all before the police killing of George Floyd in late May and a spate of local police shootings that prompted protests and renewed calls for increased police oversight .
The law enforcement endorsements , initially celebrated by Wesson , have now put him on the defensive as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , tries to gain ground in a close race that has the two veteran politicians scrambling for a powerful seat long held by Black politicians .
The candidates are vying to replace term-limited Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas in the 2nd Supervisorial District , a swath of the county from Culver City to Carson that represents 2 million people , including a growing Latino population and about half the county ’ s Black residents .
In a district with high rates of unemployment and poverty , issues of affordable housing , access to healthcare and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race , but this year ’ s civil unrest and growing calls for police reforms have reshaped the campaigns in surprising ways .
Both candidates have scrambled for key endorsements from Black Lives Matter leaders and other activist groups and big-name politicians , hoping to edge ahead in a contest that will hinge , in part , on the two leaders ’ records on criminal justice issues .
Wesson has hit back against Mitchell , pointing out that she too has accepted donations from law enforcement unions in previous campaigns .
Mitchell , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cash from cops ” pledge in this race and argued that past contributions never stopped her from introducing legislation they didn ’ t support .
Such endorsements have long been routine among “ all stripes of candidates ” and rarely made a difference , said Earl Ofari Hutchinson , a political analyst and longtime L.A. community activist .
“ But post-Floyd , it is an issue with some who feel that this endorsement signals a much too cozy relationship with the sheriffs who are under intense fire for abuse and misconduct , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut across gender and generational lines .
Mitchell , 56 , came to politics in 2010 after leading a large L.A. child and family care organization , and she is known among her peers in the Legislature as an astute anti-poverty policymaker .
A mother of an adult son , Mitchell had a big break in the Senate five years ago when she stood up to her fellow Democrats , arguing their budget failed to appropriately serve poor Californians .
Wesson , 68 , has held public office for 22 years , most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A father of four , including one son experiencing homelessness , Wesson is known as a savvy negotiator who pushed for multiple increases in the city ’ s minimum wage but has been dogged by accusations that he gives in easily to special interests , including real estate developers .
While Wesson was serving as council president , the FBI launched a corruption investigation into City Hall , which focused largely on Councilman Jose Huizar , who faces charges of bribery and money laundering , and whom Wesson once called his “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Wesson has not faced allegations .
In January 2019 , his chief of staff was included in an FBI search warrant seeking evidence for its investigation but has not been publicly accused of any wrongdoing .
Mitchell has highlighted the corruption scandal in her TV ads .
“ When he continues to talk about and remind us that he was the leader of the council and all that power afforded him to do , one has to wonder , ” Mitchell said in an interview .
Wesson , who has distanced himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be questioned because of Huizar ’ s alleged crimes .
“ I am disgusted by what occurred , and no matter what we do it is virtually impossible to legislate integrity , ” Wesson said , saying he had no idea what Huizar did .
In a district filled with service industry and essential workers , the government ’ s response to the pandemic has driven some of the campaigning .
Wesson has run ads showing himself handing out food and supplies to residents hit hard by COVID-19 .
The supplies — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yellow bags with Wesson ’ s name , others in boxes with his name on them — include 500,000 diapers , 1 million pounds of food and 40,000 masks , some of which were branded with his name .
In one of these ads his campaign tries to paint a contrast between the candidates : that Wesson has been helping people during the pandemic while Mitchell has been at home .
Mitchell called this a “ false narrative , ” noting that she has provided direct action , such as free coronavirus testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she had a bigger impact helping to craft a budget that avoided teacher layoffs and big cuts to social service programs .
Mitchell has focused her most aggressive attacks on Wesson ’ s political ties with law enforcement organizations .
She has criticized Wesson for siding with the Los Angeles Police Protective League , the union that represents almost 10,000 rank-and-file LAPD officers , on a ballot measure that passed in 2017 that created an all-civilian board to oversee disciplinary cases involving officers .
Black Lives Matter , the American Civil Liberties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups opposed the measure , Charter Amendment C , arguing that civilians are generally more lenient on problem officers .
Wesson said in an interview that he wished he had gathered more community input before proposing the measure but that his intention was to address the lack of diversity among hearing officers who assessed police misconduct .
The measure , Wesson said , improved police oversight and , though it isn ’ t perfect , brought some change to a bad system .
“ I brought people together , and I got everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Wesson said .
“ I am not afraid and have never been afraid to sit up , look law enforcement in the eyeballs and say , ‘ No , you got to do it this way.
’ ” Mitchell and her supporters say she has been a champion of criminal justice reform during her 10 years at the state Legislature .
She represents the 30th Senate District , which stretches from Century City to South L.A .
Among legislation that she has written is a law that reduces sentencing disparities between powder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grand juries in cases of deadly shootings by police .
Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager ( D-Los Angeles ) credited Mitchell for taking significant criticism when she proposed legislation that limited law enforcement ’ s ability to permanently seize the property of suspects when they haven ’ t been convicted of a crime .
“ In the meetings with law enforcement agencies , they were sticking their finger in her face and saying ‘ Don ’ t do this , ’ or ‘ How dare you , ’ and the types of microaggressions that happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be up in your business , ” Kamlager said .
“ It was in those moments that she was like , ‘ Absolutely I ’ m going to continue to fight.
’ ” Mitchell ’ s attacks appear to have scrambled Wesson ’ s campaign strategy .
This month , Wesson pulled his endorsement of L.A. County Dist .
Atty .
Jackie Lacey , who has been criticized by activists and is viewed as too cozy with police compared with her more progressive challenger , George Gascón .
Wesson has responded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being hypocritical .
He said Mitchell also sought the sheriff ’ s union endorsement for this campaign — as it ’ s customary for supervisor candidates to present their platforms to each union representing county workers .
Wesson also said the sheriff ’ s union did not give directly to his campaign but instead donated to an independent expenditure committee supporting his supervisorial bid .
One of Wesson ’ s ads highlights three $ 1,000 donations that Mitchell received during previous reelection campaigns from CoreCivic , a private prison company that also runs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of America , the company has given millions to Republicans and Democrats , including Wesson when he was in the Assembly .
Although both have pulled in big-name endorsements — including both receiving an endorsement by Rep. Maxine Waters ( D-Los Angeles ) — arguably the most notable are their endorsements from Black Lives Matter leaders .
In February , Mitchell received an endorsement from Black Lives Matter co-founder and executive director Patrisse Cullors .
On Oct. 1 , Wesson snagged his own key endorsement from a Black Lives Matter leader when Melina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Matter Los Angeles , pledged her support .
The endorsement surprised some community activists .
Longtime South L.A. activist Najee Ali , who decided last week to endorse Mitchell , said he has seen a “ tremendous shift ” in Wesson ’ s politics over the last few months .
“ And his recent rescindment of his Jackie Lacey endorsement , he is only trying to appease progressives , and it ’ s pandering , ” Ali said .
But Abdullah says this is not so .
Although Wesson and Black Lives Matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things in the past , he has always told them the truth and never gone back on a commitment , Abdullah said .
He has also been supportive of the People ’ s Budget , a policy initiative advanced by activists that would divert significant money from the police budget into social services .
“ We ’ re in a really great position that nobody is terrible , ” Abdullah said , referencing her respect for Mitchell .
“ I think that Herb Wesson ’ s long-standing commitment to the community , his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process that brings everybody in , where there ’ s ongoing conversations — and he ’ s been willing to even engage those who are critical of him — I think that speaks volumes.
” Mayor Eric Garcetti , who has known Wesson for about 20 years , said it is “ absolutely wrong ” to suggest Wesson hasn ’ t been committed to racial justice .
When Garcetti became mayor , he saw that Wesson was one of the first people trying to build bridges between the city and Black Lives Matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Charlie Beck and Abdullah .
Although Wesson probably has more name recognition , both candidates have long histories of serving the region , said Dermot Givens , political analyst and executive director of BlackMenVoting.com .
Givens said his sense is that the district ’ s Black population will be mostly split between Mitchell and Wesson .
“ Now , where do get the rest of your votes ?
” The race will probably be close , he said .
“ They will be the most powerful African American politician in California and will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , ” Givens said , “ because their endorsements [ of others ] and putting people in positions is going to be absolutely tremendous , and they ’ re going to have 12 years to do it.
” Times staff writers David Zahniser and Melanie Mason contributed to this report .

State Sen. Holly Mitchell and Los Angeles Councilman Herb Wesson are in a close contest for the 2nd Supervisorial District.
L.A. City Councilman Herb Wesson was early into his bid for a seat on the Board of Supervisors when the endorsements and donations from law enforcement started flowing in. The biggest prize: $500,000 from the union that represents a majority of county sheriff’s deputies.
But that was all before the police killing of George Floyd in late May and a spate of local police shootings that prompted protests and renewed calls for increased police oversight.
The law enforcement endorsements, initially celebrated by Wesson, have now put him on the defensive as his opponent, state Sen. Holly Mitchell, tries to gain ground in a close race that has the two veteran politicians scrambling for a powerful seat long held by Black politicians.
The candidates are vying to replace term-limited Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas in the 2nd Supervisorial District, a swath of the county from Culver City to Carson that represents 2 million people, including a growing Latino population and about half the county’s Black residents.
Advertisement
In a district with high rates of unemployment and poverty, issues of affordable housing, access to healthcare and better paying jobs loom large in any race, but this year’s civil unrest and growing calls for police reforms have reshaped the campaigns in surprising ways.
Both candidates have scrambled for key endorsements from Black Lives Matter leaders and other activist groups and big-name politicians, hoping to edge ahead in a contest that will hinge, in part, on the two leaders’ records on criminal justice issues.
Wesson has hit back against Mitchell, pointing out that she too has accepted donations from law enforcement unions in previous campaigns. Mitchell, however, has taken a “no cash from cops” pledge in this race and argued that past contributions never stopped her from introducing legislation they didn’t support.
Such endorsements have long been routine among “all stripes of candidates” and rarely made a difference, said Earl Ofari Hutchinson, a political analyst and longtime L.A. community activist.
“But post-Floyd, it is an issue with some who feel that this endorsement signals a much too cozy relationship with the sheriffs who are under intense fire for abuse and misconduct,” Hutchinson said.
Advertisement
The candidates’ profiles cut across gender and generational lines.
Mitchell, 56, came to politics in 2010 after leading a large L.A. child and family care organization, and she is known among her peers in the Legislature as an astute anti-poverty policymaker.
A mother of an adult son, Mitchell had a big break in the Senate five years ago when she stood up to her fellow Democrats, arguing their budget failed to appropriately serve poor Californians.
Wesson, 68, has held public office for 22 years, most recently on the Los Angeles City Council.
A father of four, including one son experiencing homelessness, Wesson is known as a savvy negotiator who pushed for multiple increases in the city’s minimum wage but has been dogged by accusations that he gives in easily to special interests, including real estate developers.
While Wesson was serving as council president, the FBI launched a corruption investigation into City Hall, which focused largely on Councilman Jose Huizar, who faces charges of bribery and money laundering, and whom Wesson once called his “best friend” on the 15-member council.
Wesson has not faced allegations. In January 2019, his chief of staff was included in an FBI search warrant seeking evidence for its investigation but has not been publicly accused of any wrongdoing.
Mitchell has highlighted the corruption scandal in her TV ads.
“When he continues to talk about and remind us that he was the leader of the council and all that power afforded him to do, one has to wonder,” Mitchell said in an interview.
Wesson, who has distanced himself from Huizar, said his reputation should not be questioned because of Huizar’s alleged crimes.
“I am disgusted by what occurred, and no matter what we do it is virtually impossible to legislate integrity,” Wesson said, saying he had no idea what Huizar did.
In a district filled with service industry and essential workers, the government’s response to the pandemic has driven some of the campaigning. Wesson has run ads showing himself handing out food and supplies to residents hit hard by COVID-19. The supplies — some of which were handed out in yellow bags with Wesson’s name, others in boxes with his name on them — include 500,000 diapers, 1 million pounds of food and 40,000 masks, some of which were branded with his name.
In one of these ads his campaign tries to paint a contrast between the candidates: that Wesson has been helping people during the pandemic while Mitchell has been at home.
Mitchell called this a “false narrative,” noting that she has provided direct action, such as free coronavirus testing and masks to child-care workers, but that she had a bigger impact helping to craft a budget that avoided teacher layoffs and big cuts to social service programs.
Mitchell has focused her most aggressive attacks on Wesson’s political ties with law enforcement organizations.
She has criticized Wesson for siding with the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union that represents almost 10,000 rank-and-file LAPD officers, on a ballot measure that passed in 2017 that created an all-civilian board to oversee disciplinary cases involving officers.
Black Lives Matter, the American Civil Liberties Union and other justice and civil rights groups opposed the measure, Charter Amendment C, arguing that civilians are generally more lenient on problem officers.
Wesson said in an interview that he wished he had gathered more community input before proposing the measure but that his intention was to address the lack of diversity among hearing officers who assessed police misconduct.
The measure, Wesson said, improved police oversight and, though it isn’t perfect, brought some change to a bad system.
“I brought people together, and I got everything out of this that I could,” Wesson said. “I am not afraid and have never been afraid to sit up, look law enforcement in the eyeballs and say, ‘No, you got to do it this way.’”
Mitchell and her supporters say she has been a champion of criminal justice reform during her 10 years at the state Legislature. She represents the 30th Senate District, which stretches from Century City to South L.A.
Among legislation that she has written is a law that reduces sentencing disparities between powder and crack cocaine and a law prohibiting grand juries in cases of deadly shootings by police.
Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager (D-Los Angeles) credited Mitchell for taking significant criticism when she proposed legislation that limited law enforcement’s ability to permanently seize the property of suspects when they haven’t been convicted of a crime.
“In the meetings with law enforcement agencies, they were sticking their finger in her face and saying ‘Don’t do this,’ or ‘How dare you,’ and the types of microaggressions that happen when folks feel a Black woman shouldn’t be up in your business,” Kamlager said. “It was in those moments that she was like, ‘Absolutely I’m going to continue to fight.’”
Mitchell’s attacks appear to have scrambled Wesson’s campaign strategy.
This month, Wesson pulled his endorsement of L.A. County Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey, who has been criticized by activists and is viewed as too cozy with police compared with her more progressive challenger, George Gascón.
At this time, I’ve decided to focus on my own campaign and will not be supporting any candidate in the District Attorney’s race. — Herb J. Wesson, Jr. (@HerbJWesson) October 2, 2020
Wesson has responded to the attacks by accusing Mitchell of being hypocritical. He said Mitchell also sought the sheriff’s union endorsement for this campaign — as it’s customary for supervisor candidates to present their platforms to each union representing county workers. Wesson also said the sheriff’s union did not give directly to his campaign but instead donated to an independent expenditure committee supporting his supervisorial bid.
One of Wesson’s ads highlights three $1,000 donations that Mitchell received during previous reelection campaigns from CoreCivic, a private prison company that also runs ICE detention facilities. Formerly Corrections Corporation of America, the company has given millions to Republicans and Democrats, including Wesson when he was in the Assembly.
Although both have pulled in big-name endorsements — including both receiving an endorsement by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) — arguably the most notable are their endorsements from Black Lives Matter leaders.
In February, Mitchell received an endorsement from Black Lives Matter co-founder and executive director Patrisse Cullors.
LA County is home to the largest jail population in the world. Shifting our failing criminal justice system to restorative justice models requires the leadership of the Board of Supervisors. This is why I'm with @HollyJMitchell for County Supervisor. Vote March 3! — fund the us postal service - defund the police (@OsopePatrisse) February 16, 2020
On Oct. 1, Wesson snagged his own key endorsement from a Black Lives Matter leader when Melina Abdullah, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, pledged her support.
The endorsement surprised some community activists. Longtime South L.A. activist Najee Ali, who decided last week to endorse Mitchell, said he has seen a “tremendous shift” in Wesson’s politics over the last few months.
“And his recent rescindment of his Jackie Lacey endorsement, he is only trying to appease progressives, and it’s pandering,” Ali said.
Dr. Melina Abdullah & Pete White are two of the best organizers & civil rights leaders I know. Together we’ll root out systemic injustices in our institutions, reimagine our public safety system, get folks off the street & into housing, and make LA a more equitable place to live. pic.twitter.com/BTnZ4pxUeV — Herb J. Wesson, Jr. (@HerbJWesson) October 1, 2020
But Abdullah says this is not so.
Although Wesson and Black Lives Matter have “absolutely not” agreed on things in the past, he has always told them the truth and never gone back on a commitment, Abdullah said. He has also been supportive of the People’s Budget, a policy initiative advanced by activists that would divert significant money from the police budget into social services.
“We’re in a really great position that nobody is terrible,” Abdullah said, referencing her respect for Mitchell. “I think that Herb Wesson’s long-standing commitment to the community, his willingness to really engage in a democratic process that brings everybody in, where there’s ongoing conversations — and he’s been willing to even engage those who are critical of him — I think that speaks volumes.”
Mayor Eric Garcetti, who has known Wesson for about 20 years, said it is “absolutely wrong” to suggest Wesson hasn’t been committed to racial justice.
When Garcetti became mayor, he saw that Wesson was one of the first people trying to build bridges between the city and Black Lives Matter, setting up meetings between then-LAPD Chief Charlie Beck and Abdullah.
Although Wesson probably has more name recognition, both candidates have long histories of serving the region, said Dermot Givens, political analyst and executive director of BlackMenVoting.com.
Givens said his sense is that the district’s Black population will be mostly split between Mitchell and Wesson. “Now, where do get the rest of your votes?”
The race will probably be close, he said.
“They will be the most powerful African American politician in California and will be able to build a legacy from that,” Givens said, “because their endorsements [of others] and putting people in positions is going to be absolutely tremendous, and they’re going to have 12 years to do it.”
Times staff writers David Zahniser and Melanie Mason contributed to this report.


latimes--2020-10-19--Column: In Proposition 22's battle between the old economy and the new, taxi drivers look for hope

The state of California is locked in a $ 200-million battle with some of the largest companies in the world over a ballot measure that could not only drastically affect Uber and Lyft market share but also change the nature of employment in California .
But Feliz Melkumyan , a taxi driver since 1999 , is at peace .
The former physicist and Armenian immigrant from Uzbekistan has long enjoyed protection of a higher power .
“ If you want to make money , all you need to do is be loved by the taxi gods .
And the taxi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , without a trace of irony .
“ I know that for sure.
” And what can a taxi driver do in 2020 except appeal to a higher power ?
Proponents of Proposition 22 , which seeks to exempt ride-hailing companies from a new state law that would require them to classify their drivers as employees and pay benefits , have raised $ 187.5 million to the opposition ’ s $ 15 million .
In a rapidly evolving modern economy , gig workers say they need flexibility and multiple forms of employment and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality clashes with the traditional terms of the American social contract — the idea that with enough hard work , every job could become a comfortable career , with health benefits and enough income to raise a family and purchase a home .
And in this proxy battle between the old economy and the new , taxi drivers in Los Angeles — almost entirely composed of immigrants — it seems , are an acceptable casualty .
So last week I decided to pay a visit to the asphalt lowlands of Los Angeles International @ @ @ @ @ @ @ miniature at two separate parking lots just a few yards from each other where drivers compete for arriving travelers .
It ’ s a lopsided competition , and the advent of LAX-it , the airport ’ s new off-site pickup for cars and taxis , has had the unintended but brutal side effect of throwing that imbalance into sharp contrast .
Shuttles unload travelers at a crossroads where signs instruct them to turn right for ride-hail drivers and left for taxis .
I ’ ve never seen anyone turn left .
Ride-hail drivers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times the size of the taxi driver lot , and the waits are much shorter .
Perhaps unsurprisingly , every ride-hail driver I spoke to , many of whom were also immigrants , was in favor of Proposition 22 .
No one wanted to lose the flexibility of their jobs , which helps them pay bills but also have a completely different lifestyle .
They spoke of trips to Las Vegas , vacations whenever you want it , and even funding start-ups and apps with ride-hail income .
Gustavo Sanchez , 32 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his employment as a driver .
His last job before driving for a ride-hailing company was for minimum wage at an Olive Garden , and to him there ’ s no argument as to which job offered the better lifestyle .
“ I don ’ t want to have a boss telling me when to show up and how much to work and what to do , dealing with angry customers , ” Sanchez said .
“ We need to evolve with the technology.
” Also unsurprisingly , every taxi driver I spoke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many feel resisting it is futile .
Taxi rides have plummeted since 2012 , the year ride-hailing companies set up shop , and taxi drivers have gotten little help from policy makers .
Taxi drivers initially protested the end of curbside pickup , which had been their main competitive advantage at LAX .
Some drivers I spoke to floated the idea of taking up a collection among the drivers and hiring a lawyer , but they are simply outnumbered .
Uber and Lyft simply have more drivers , more attorneys and more support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some drivers to see what separates them from ride-hail drivers aside from a coat of paint , especially those with taxi driver friends who have simply repainted their cars and begun to drive for Uber .
And they can ’ t help but notice that many of the needed regulations for ride-hailing companies — requirements for background checks , accountability for crimes committed in vehicles , the provision of benefits and set hours — bear a striking resemblance to laws that the companies ignored in the first place , laws that taxi companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America .
If you have money , you can pay to have your own rules .
If you don ’ t have money , shut up !
” At LAX , taxi and ride-hail drivers function symbiotically .
First , arriving passengers call Uber and Lyft drivers , and those who accept the standard fare rates line up at the LAX-it lot .
When the price surges , another wave of ride-hail drivers line up to collect the premium fares .
After the ride-hailing price has been surging for a while , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the lines for the ride-hail drivers get too long , some travelers finally turn left and enter the taxi line .
Then , and only then , does the long line of taxis in the lot begin to move .
The pace is frustratingly slow , more the speed of a daylong tailgate than rush-hour traffic .
Many younger drivers couldn ’ t take the wait and switched to Uber , said Jesus Flores , 54 , of Northridge .
“ Older guys , we don ’ t mind waiting , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been driving a cab for the last five years , his second career after traveling the country to sell educational software .
A Mexican American in a taxi industry dominated by Armenians , Iranians , Bangladeshis and Nigerians , he ’ s amused to be in the relatively unfamiliar position of being a minority .
His skin is a particularly ambiguous shade of brown and everyone tends to assume that he is a countryman , so he has good relationships with everyone .
He bears no ill will toward the ride-hailing companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invested in their vehicles and are still trying to pay them off .
Older drivers prefer taxis because they ’ re more profitable per mile .
And with language barriers , it ’ s also harder for them to provide the type of chatty , five-starred service people have come to expect from ride-hail drivers .
To survive , the drivers try to look out for one another , giving advice and sharing opportunities .
A day at LAX is worth about $ 300 compared with a regular day ’ s earnings of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are allowed to park there only once every five days in order to spread the earnings equitably .
Many of the drivers know each other and pass the time drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes .
There are playful elbows and fist bumps , even between Azerbaijani and Armenian drivers as a war rages anew in their homelands over the contested territory of Nagorno-Karabakh .
Sergey Pogosov , a taxi driver since 1999 , is Armenian but he was born in Azerbaijan and grew up in Russia .
He lost his uncle to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His grandma lives in the contested region , which Armenians call Artsakh .
He remembers visiting her village — the second highest on the mountain — every summer and watching the clouds glide beneath his feet .
“ No one will win .
It will only be done .
I don ’ t have hate for the Azerbaijani people .
I don ’ t care which country they decide Artsakh is a part of .
I just want to be able to visit my grandma ’ s village again , ” Pogosov said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He came to the U.S. for a break .
“ When I came to Russia , they said go back to Azerbaijan .
In Azerbaijan , they said go back to Armenia .
In Armenia , they say I ’ m too Azerbaijan .
But when I came to the U.S. , no one said anything , and that ’ s why I am here.
” During our conversation , he suddenly breaks into a smile of recognition .
“ See , he is Azerbaijani , ” Pogosov said , pointing at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friends .
I haven ’ t seen him in months , ” and then he ends our talk to go catch up .
Armenians once dominated the taxi industry in Los Angeles , but not anymore , Pogosov said .
Armenian taxi companies were dealt a huge blow when they were shut out of the valuable tourist market of Santa Monica in 2011 , when the city voted to narrow its list of approved taxi providers and failed to approve any Armenian taxi companies .
The taxi companies sued the city alleging discrimination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drivers have entered the industry over the last few years .
And Bell Cab has recently become popular in Koreatown , where there are a lot of older , language-isolated residents who can ’ t use ride-hailing apps .
The company is known for having a Korean-speaking dispatcher and about 25 % Korean drivers , according Kyung Lim , 62 , who drives for Bell Cab .
Flores thinks Proposition 22 will pass , and he ’ s accepted it .
He ’ s still making money , and he thinks there will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Immigrants have long remained in jobs that our economy has moved past because they don ’ t have the same economic flexibility as workers born in America .
Behind a language barrier , technology tends to lag a generation behind .
That ’ s why there are still DVD rental stores in immigrant enclaves , why people still pay their Department of Water & Power bills and parking tickets in person and why the taxicabs still gather in a small lot near LAX .
A common ethos among Silicon Valley chief executives is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and Uber and Lyft have certainly delivered on that .
Ride-hailing companies have destroyed the taxi industry very quickly .
But in every economy , there are people who can move fast and people who have no choice but to move slow .
We need to make room for both .

Ara Sahakyan waits for taxicab passengers at LAX-it, the Los Angeles airport lot for curbside ride-hailing and taxi pickups. Taxi drivers, many of whom are immigrants, oppose Proposition 22 but many feel resisting it is futile.
The state of California is locked in a $200-million battle with some of the largest companies in the world over a ballot measure that could not only drastically affect Uber and Lyft market share but also change the nature of employment in California.
But Feliz Melkumyan, a taxi driver since 1999, is at peace. The former physicist and Armenian immigrant from Uzbekistan has long enjoyed protection of a higher power.
“If you want to make money, all you need to do is be loved by the taxi gods. And the taxi gods love me,” Melkumyan said, without a trace of irony. “I know that for sure.”
Advertisement
And what can a taxi driver do in 2020 except appeal to a higher power?
Anoushavan Setagaya places luggage in the trunk of his taxicab for a departing passenger Sunday near LAX, where a lopsided competition between taxis and ride-hail drivers plays out. (Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times)
Proponents of Proposition 22, which seeks to exempt ride-hailing companies from a new state law that would require them to classify their drivers as employees and pay benefits, have raised $187.5 million to the opposition’s $15 million. In a rapidly evolving modern economy, gig workers say they need flexibility and multiple forms of employment and income to stay afloat.
But that reality clashes with the traditional terms of the American social contract — the idea that with enough hard work, every job could become a comfortable career, with health benefits and enough income to raise a family and purchase a home.
And in this proxy battle between the old economy and the new, taxi drivers in Los Angeles — almost entirely composed of immigrants — it seems, are an acceptable casualty.
Advertisement
So last week I decided to pay a visit to the asphalt lowlands of Los Angeles International Airport, where the conflict unfolds in miniature at two separate parking lots just a few yards from each other where drivers compete for arriving travelers.
It’s a lopsided competition, and the advent of LAX-it, the airport’s new off-site pickup for cars and taxis, has had the unintended but brutal side effect of throwing that imbalance into sharp contrast. Shuttles unload travelers at a crossroads where signs instruct them to turn right for ride-hail drivers and left for taxis. I’ve never seen anyone turn left.
Ride-hail drivers wait in a massive lot about five times the size of the taxi driver lot, and the waits are much shorter. Perhaps unsurprisingly, every ride-haildriver I spoke to, many of whom were also immigrants, was in favor of Proposition 22.
No one wanted to lose the flexibility of their jobs, which helps them pay bills but also have a completely different lifestyle. They spoke of trips to Las Vegas, vacations whenever you want it, and even funding start-ups and apps with ride-hail income.
Gustavo Sanchez, 32, said he had no desire to formalize his employment as a driver. His last job before driving for a ride-hailing company was for minimum wage at an Olive Garden, and to him there’s no argument as to which job offered the better lifestyle.
“I don’t want to have a boss telling me when to show up and how much to work and what to do, dealing with angry customers,” Sanchez said. “We need to evolve with the technology.”
Also unsurprisingly, every taxi driver I spoke to was against Proposition 22, though many feel resisting it is futile. Taxi rides have plummeted since 2012, the year ride-hailing companies set up shop, and taxi drivers have gotten little help from policy makers.
Taxi drivers initially protested the end of curbside pickup, which had been their main competitive advantage at LAX. Some drivers I spoke to floated the idea of taking up a collection among the drivers and hiring a lawyer, but they are simply outnumbered. Uber and Lyft simply have more drivers, more attorneys and more support.
It’s been hard for some drivers to see what separates them from ride-hail drivers aside from a coat of paint, especially those with taxi driver friends who have simply repainted their cars and begun to drive for Uber.
And they can’t help but notice that many of the needed regulations for ride-hailing companies — requirements for background checks, accountability for crimes committed in vehicles, the provision of benefits and set hours — bear a striking resemblance to laws that the companies ignored in the first place, laws that taxi companies have been following.
Melkumyan offered a blunt summary of the situation.
“This is America. If you have money, you can pay to have your own rules. If you don’t have money, shut up!”
At LAX, taxi and ride-hail drivers function symbiotically. First, arriving passengers call Uber and Lyft drivers, and those who accept the standard fare rates line up at the LAX-it lot. When the price surges, another wave of ride-hail drivers line up to collect the premium fares.
After the ride-hailing price has been surging for a while, or if it gets too high, or if the lines for the ride-hail drivers get too long, some travelers finally turn left and enter the taxi line. Then, and only then, does the long line of taxis in the lot begin to move.
The pace is frustratingly slow, more the speed of a daylong tailgate than rush-hour traffic. Many younger drivers couldn’t take the wait and switched to Uber, said Jesus Flores, 54, of Northridge.
“Older guys, we don’t mind waiting,” Flores said with a smile.
Flores has been driving a cab for the last five years, his second career after traveling the country to sell educational software. A Mexican American in a taxi industry dominated by Armenians, Iranians, Bangladeshis and Nigerians, he’s amused to be in the relatively unfamiliar position of being a minority. His skin is a particularly ambiguous shade of brown and everyone tends to assume that he is a countryman, so he has good relationships with everyone.
He bears no ill will toward the ride-hailing companies, and explains that many taxi drivers invested in their vehicles and are still trying to pay them off. Older drivers prefer taxis because they’re more profitable per mile. And with language barriers, it’s also harder for them to provide the type of chatty, five-starred service people have come to expect from ride-hail drivers.
To survive, the drivers try to look out for one another, giving advice and sharing opportunities. A day at LAX is worth about $300 compared with a regular day’s earnings of $100 or less. Taxi drivers are allowed to park there only once every five days in order to spread the earnings equitably.
Many of the drivers know each other and pass the time drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes. There are playful elbows and fist bumps, even between Azerbaijani and Armenian drivers as a war rages anew in their homelands over the contested territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Sergey Pogosov, a taxi driver since 1999, is Armenian but he was born in Azerbaijan and grew up in Russia. He lost his uncle to the last conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. His grandma lives in the contested region, which Armenians call Artsakh. He remembers visiting her village — the second highest on the mountain — every summer and watching the clouds glide beneath his feet.
“No one will win. It will only be done. I don’t have hate for the Azerbaijani people. I don’t care which country they decide Artsakh is a part of. I just want to be able to visit my grandma’s village again,” Pogosov said.
Pogosov is weary of the conflict. He came to the U.S. for a break.
“When I came to Russia, they said go back to Azerbaijan. In Azerbaijan, they said go back to Armenia. But when I came to the U.S., no one said anything, and that’s why I am here.”
During our conversation, he suddenly breaks into a smile of recognition.
“See, he is Azerbaijani,” Pogosov said, pointing at another cab driver. “We are friends. I haven’t seen him in months,” and then he ends our talk to go catch up.
Armenians once dominated the taxi industry in Los Angeles, but not anymore, Pogosov said. Armenian taxi companies were dealt a huge blow when they were shut out of the valuable tourist market of Santa Monica in 2011, when the city voted to narrow its list of approved taxi providers and failed to approve any Armenian taxi companies. The taxi companies sued the city alleging discrimination and lost.
More Bangladeshi and African drivers have entered the industry over the last few years. And Bell Cab has recently become popular in Koreatown, where there are a lot of older, language-isolated residents who can’t use ride-hailing apps. The company is known for having a Korean-speaking dispatcher and about 25% Korean drivers, according Kyung Lim, 62, who drives for Bell Cab.
Flores thinks Proposition 22 will pass, and he’s accepted it. He’s still making money, and he thinks there will always be a need for taxis.
Immigrants have long remained in jobs that our economy has moved past because they don’t have the same economic flexibility as workers born in America. Behind a language barrier, technology tends to lag a generation behind. That’s why there are still DVD rental stores in immigrant enclaves, why people still pay their Department of Water & Power bills and parking tickets in person and why the taxicabs still gather in a small lot near LAX.
A common ethos among Silicon Valley chief executives is “move fast and break things,” and Uber and Lyft have certainly delivered on that. Ride-hailing companies have destroyed the taxi industry very quickly.
But in every economy, there are people who can move fast and people who have no choice but to move slow. We need to make room for both.


latimes--2020-10-19--Column: These 3 propositions could have a big impact on California's criminal justice system

This should be a no-brainer : The rape of an unconscious woman is a violent crime .
But under current California law , such an assault is categorized as nonviolent .
So is trafficking a child for sex .
Or firing a gun into a house if no one is hit .
It matters because under previous ballot propositions approved by voters , state prison inmates who have been convicted of felonies categorized as violent are not eligible for early release and parole .
Proposition 20 on the Nov. 3 ballot would tweak Propositions 47 and 57 , passed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct what 20 ’ s law enforcement and prosecutor backers consider flaws .
Supporters claim that too many potentially violent criminals are being set free .
Opponents , including Gov .
Gavin Newsom and his predecessor , Jerry Brown , contend that Proposition 20 represents a step backward in forward-looking criminal justice reform .
“ Prop .
20 wants to basically eliminate all hope in the prison , ” says Brown , the architect and chief backer of Proposition 57 , which reduced sentences for many crimes .
The former governor has donated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leftover political stash to the No on 20 campaign .
“ Men who have given decades will have no chance to earn their way back to society , ” Brown asserts .
“ And that ’ s fundamental to any kind of criminal justice system — that while you impose punishment , you make room for redemption and rehabilitation in the prison.
” Sure .
But we should be able to reform sentencing while acknowledging that the rape of someone who ’ s unconscious or the trafficking of a child are violent crimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” says Assemblyman Jim Cooper ( D-Elk Grove ) , a retired sheriff ’ s captain , referring to child trafficking .
“ You shouldn ’ t get out early.
” Proposition 20 would add 22 crimes — including felony domestic violence and assault with a deadly weapon — to the list of offenses making prisoners ineligible for early release through the parole program created by Brown ’ s Proposition 57 .
Proposition 47 lowered many property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors .
For example , it reduced the theft of property @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felony to a misdemeanor .
No prison time .
Probably a wrist-slap .
Grocery stores and other retailers reported an increase in thefts .
“ People are stealing and there are no consequences , ” said Richard Temple , a campaign strategist for Proposition 20 .
So , the ballot measure would create two new crimes : serial theft and organized retail theft .
They ’ d be punishable by up to three years in county jail — not state prison .
Anyone with two previous theft convictions who shoplifted or committed petty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 250 could be charged with serial theft .
Someone teaming with others who shoplifted or committed petty theft of property exceeding $ 250 twice within 180 days could be charged with organized retail theft .
Also , DNA collections would be expanded under Proposition 20 .
They ’ d be taken from those convicted of such misdemeanors as shoplifting , check forgery and domestic violence .
I ’ m a “ yes ” vote .
We should be able to provide more rehabilitation in prison and shorter sentences for truly nonviolent , repentant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for scum who rape unconscious women or traffic children .
And habitual thieves should be locked up for a while .
There are two other crime-related measures on the state ballot .
Proposition 25 would eliminate the old , unfair bail system that jails criminal defendants while they await trial if they ’ re too poor to pay for freedom .
Rich guys go home .
Poor people languish in cells .
Two years ago , the Legislature passed a bill to end money bail , and Brown signed it .
That should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry in California .
It issued about $ 6 billion in bail bonds that year , collecting $ 560 million in fees from jailed defendants .
The industry immediately filed a ballot measure to repeal the legislation .
The repealer is Proposition 25 .
Repealers can be confusing .
“ Yes ” is a vote to implement the legislation banning money bail .
“ No ” is a vote to repeal it .
It ’ s unconscionable to require payment as a condition of being freed from jail before a defendant even has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old system , when someone is busted , a judge sets bail based on the crime ’ s severity and the accused ’ s perceived flight risk .
The amount varies from county to county .
If the defendant doesn ’ t have enough cash , he can contact a bail agent who will post the money .
But first the defendant typically must pay the agent 10 % of the bail amount .
It ’ s a nonrefundable fee .
And poor people don ’ t have it .
Five years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimated the median bail amount in California was $ 50,000 — five times higher than the rest of the country .
That meant $ 5,000 for the bail agent .
Forget it .
If Proposition 25 passes , judges will decide whether the defendant remains in jail or is freed based on flight risk and public danger .
A bank account won ’ t matter .
This is an easy “ yes ” vote .
Proposition 17 would return voting rights to citizen felons who have served their prison sentences but are still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t vote until they ’ re off parole .
Seventeen states allow parolees to vote .
It should be their right as Americans .
And it helps them integrate back into society .
This is another no-brainer — a “ yes .
”

The bail bond industry profits from California’s cash bail system, but the system often leaves cash-poor defendants sitting in jail while wealthier defendants go free. Voters could end cash bail with passage of Proposition 25.
This should be a no-brainer: The rape of an unconscious woman is a violent crime.
But under current California law, such an assault is categorized as nonviolent.
So is trafficking a child for sex. Or firing a gun into a house if no one is hit.
Advertisement
It matters because under previous ballot propositions approved by voters, state prison inmates who have been convicted of felonies categorized as violent are not eligible for early release and parole.
Proposition 20 on the Nov. 3 ballot would tweak Propositions 47 and 57, passed in 2014 and 2016, respectively, and correct what 20’s law enforcement and prosecutor backers consider flaws. Supporters claim that too many potentially violent criminals are being set free.
Opponents, including Gov. Gavin Newsom and his predecessor, Jerry Brown, contend that Proposition 20 represents a step backward in forward-looking criminal justice reform.
“Prop. 20 wants to basically eliminate all hope in the prison,” says Brown, the architect and chief backer of Proposition 57, which reduced sentences for many crimes. The former governor has donated $1 million of his $15-million leftover political stash to the No on 20 campaign.
“Men who have given decades will have no chance to earn their way back to society,” Brown asserts. “And that’s fundamental to any kind of criminal justice system — that while you impose punishment, you make room for redemption and rehabilitation in the prison.”
Advertisement
Sure. But we should be able to reform sentencing while acknowledging that the rape of someone who’s unconscious or the trafficking of a child are violent crimes.
California Prop. 20 sparks debate over effects of criminal justice reform in California A group of prosecutors and law enforcement leaders is pushing Proposition 20, arguing that it is needed to fix what they say are flaws in past criminal justice reforms. Former Gov. Jerry Brown, an opponent of the measure, has called it “very inhuman.”
“That shocks the public conscience,” says Assemblyman Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove), a retired sheriff’s captain, referring to child trafficking. “You shouldn’t get out early.”
Proposition 20 would add 22 crimes — including felony domestic violence and assault with a deadly weapon — to the list of offenses making prisoners ineligible for early release through the parole program created by Brown’s Proposition 57.
Proposition 47 lowered many property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. For example, it reduced the theft of property valued under $950 from a possible felony to a misdemeanor. No prison time. Probably a wrist-slap.
Grocery stores and other retailers reported an increase in thefts.
“People are stealing and there are no consequences,” said Richard Temple, a campaign strategist for Proposition 20.
So, the ballot measure would create two new crimes: serial theft and organized retail theft. They’d be punishable by up to three years in county jail — not state prison.
Anyone with two previous theft convictions who shoplifted or committed petty theft of goods worth more than $250 could be charged with serial theft. Someone teaming with others who shoplifted or committed petty theft of property exceeding $250 twice within 180 days could be charged with organized retail theft.
Also, DNA collections would be expanded under Proposition 20. They’d be taken from those convicted of such misdemeanors as shoplifting, check forgery and domestic violence.
I’m a “yes” vote. We should be able to provide more rehabilitation in prison and shorter sentences for truly nonviolent, repentant felons without opening the cell doors early for scum who rape unconscious women or traffic children. And habitual thieves should be locked up for a while.
There are two other crime-related measures on the state ballot.
Proposition 25 would eliminate the old, unfair bail system that jails criminal defendants while they await trial if they’re too poor to pay for freedom. Rich guys go home. Poor people languish in cells.
California California voters to decide whether to end cash bail system with Proposition 25 The referendum vote comes more than two years after a bitter legislative fight that pitted the multibillion-dollar bail industry, criminal defense attorneys and some civil liberties advocates against Democratic leaders.
Two years ago, the Legislature passed a bill to end money bail, and Brown signed it.
That should have finished off the lucrative bail bond industry in California. It issued about $6 billion in bail bonds that year, collecting $560 million in fees from jailed defendants. The industry immediately filed a ballot measure to repeal the legislation.
The repealer is Proposition 25. Repealers can be confusing. “Yes” is a vote to implement the legislation banning money bail. “No” is a vote to repeal it.
It’s unconscionable to require payment as a condition of being freed from jail before a defendant even has been convicted.
Under California’s old system, when someone is busted, a judge sets bail based on the crime’s severity and the accused’s perceived flight risk. The amount varies from county to county.
If the defendant doesn’t have enough cash, he can contact a bail agent who will post the money. But first the defendant typically must pay the agent 10% of the bail amount. It’s a nonrefundable fee. And poor people don’t have it.
Five years ago, the Public Policy Institute of California estimated the median bail amount in California was $50,000 — five times higher than the rest of the country. That meant $5,000 for the bail agent. Forget it.
If Proposition 25 passes, judges will decide whether the defendant remains in jail or is freed based on flight risk and public danger. A bank account won’t matter.
This is an easy “yes” vote.
Proposition 17 would return voting rights to citizen felons who have served their prison sentences but are still on state parole. Now, they can’t vote until they’re off parole.
Seventeen states allow parolees to vote. It should be their right as Americans. And it helps them integrate back into society.
This is another no-brainer — a “yes.”


latimes--2020-10-18--Woodland Hills mom found alive after going missing in Zion National Park

A Woodland Hills hiker who was reported missing for two weeks inside Zion National Park in Utah was found and reunited with her family Sunday .
A vigorous search for 38-year-old Holly Suzanne Courtier had been underway after she failed to show up for a scheduled shuttle departure from the park Oct. 6 .
Courtier , who had been dropped off for a hike earlier that day , was reported missing Oct. 8 , according to the National Park Service .
“ We are overjoyed that she was found safely today .
We would like to thank the rangers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day and night and never gave up hope , ” her family said in a statement provided by the park service .
The statement said a “ credible tip ” from a park visitor , who said they had seen Courtier within the park , led to her rescue .
But officials did not provide information about Courtier ’ s condition or the location where she was found .
A park service spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment Sunday .
Courtier ’ s daughter , Kailey Chambers , chronicled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 148,000-acre park and sought tips through the website helpfindholly.com .
Last week , Chambers posted on Instagram : “ The rangers have informed me that unless they gather additional intel they will only be continuing their search for 1-2 more days .
It ’ s getting down to the final few days of survival without food.
” Chambers has said her mother is an experienced hiker who was familiar with Zion National Park and had done solo hikes in the past .
She told KCBS-TV Channel 2 last week that Courtier had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a converted van after losing her job as a nanny during the pandemic .
Officials from numerous agencies , including the park service , Washington County Sheriff ’ s Office and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources , as well as volunteers , aided in the search for Courtier .
“ We are also so grateful to the countless volunteers who were generous with their time , resources and support .
This wouldn ’ t have been possible without the network of people who came together , ” Courtier ’ s family ’ s @ @ @

The Virgin River winds through the red rock canyon walls near the Temple of Sinawava inside Zion National Park in Utah.
A Woodland Hills hiker who was reported missing for two weeks inside Zion National Park in Utah was found and reunited with her family Sunday.
A vigorous search for 38-year-old Holly Suzanne Courtier had been underway after she failed to show up for a scheduled shuttle departure from the park Oct. 6. Courtier, who had been dropped off for a hike earlier that day, was reported missing Oct. 8, according to the National Park Service.
Holly Suzanne Courtier, an experienced hiker, who had been reported missing after she was dropped off at Zion National Park is pictured in this handout photo. Courtier was reported Courtiers was missing for two weeks inside Zion National Park in Utah was found and reunited with her family on Sunday. (National Park Service)
“We are overjoyed that she was found safely today. We would like to thank the rangers and search teams who relentlessly looked for her day and night and never gave up hope,” her family said in a statement provided by the park service.
The statement said a “credible tip” from a park visitor, who said they had seen Courtier within the park, led to her rescue. But officials did not provide information about Courtier’s condition or the location where she was found. A park service spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment Sunday.
Courtier’s daughter, Kailey Chambers, chronicled the search for her mother in the 148,000-acre park and sought tips through the website helpfindholly.com.
Advertisement
Last week, Chambers posted on Instagram: “The rangers have informed me that unless they gather additional intel they will only be continuing their search for 1-2 more days. It’s getting down to the final few days of survival without food.”
Chambers has said her mother is an experienced hiker who was familiar with Zion National Park and had done solo hikes in the past. She told KCBS-TV Channel 2 last week that Courtier had been visiting national parks across the country in a converted van after losing her job as a nanny during the pandemic.
Officials from numerous agencies, including the park service, Washington County Sheriff’s Office and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, as well as volunteers, aided in the search for Courtier.
“We are also so grateful to the countless volunteers who were generous with their time, resources and support. This wouldn’t have been possible without the network of people who came together,” Courtier’s family’s statement said.


latimes--2020-10-20--With Prop. 17, voters to decide whether parolees can vote in California

Californians will soon decide whether to allow nearly 50,000 people convicted of felonies who are on parole to vote in future elections in the state , an issue that has divided the state ’ s leaders along party lines .
California ’ s Constitution disqualifies people with felony convictions from voting until their incarceration and parole are completed .
Proponents of Proposition 17 say the constitutional amendment was proposed to help people who leave prison reintegrate into their communities .
The measure is supported by Democratic leaders including Gov .
Gavin Newsom , state Sen. Steven Bradford ( D-Gardena ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee for vice president .
“ It is unacceptable that in 2020 we continue to suppress voters and disenfranchise tens of thousands of individuals in marginalized communities , ” said Bradford , vice chairman of the California Legislative Black Caucus .
“ Voting is the easiest way of reintegrating people back into society and letting their voices matter.
” The initiative , which was put on the ballot by the Legislature , is opposed by the California Republican Party , Crime Victims United of California and GOP lawmakers including state Sen. Jim Nielsen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victims will be deprived of justice if felons can vote without completing the parole part of their sentence under supervision .
“ It ’ s a great affront to victims and private citizens , ” said Nielsen , a former chairman of the agency that is now the state Board of Parole Hearings .
“ The parole period is an integral part of the sentence to allow the individual to readjust to society and to sustain themselves to know that they really have changed.
” If Proposition 17 passes , those convicted of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to be ineligible to vote .
The current restriction on voting for those on parole does not extend to people who are convicted of crimes and placed on probation and who avoid time behind bars .
The state Constitution allows people on probation to vote .
Voters are weighing Proposition 17 as the Black Lives Matter movement has shone a bright light on the impact of the criminal justice system on communities of color .
“ Taking away the fundamental right to vote is one example of how mass incarceration is designed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Angeles County Public Defender Ricardo Garcia said .
“ Restoring parolees ’ voting rights will give them not only a chance at redemption , but also add their valued voice back to our communities.
” The campaign for the initiative cites data from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation indicating that indicates 3 out of 4 men leaving California prisons are Black , Latino , or Asian American , which the campaign blames on “ persistent and systematic racial inequalities ” in the criminal justice system .
“ This means California ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the voting booth , ” the campaign says .
Parole , Bradford added , “ is not supposed to be a punishment.
” California and Connecticut currently mandate that people convicted of felonies must complete their prison and parole sentences before having their right to vote reinstated .
An additional 19 states allow people convicted of felonies , but who are on parole , to vote .
Maine , Vermont and the District of Columbia allow those convicted of felonies to vote even while they are incarcerated .
The California Legislature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direction of giving the power to vote to more people convicted of crimes .
In 2016 , lawmakers decided to allow voting by those in county jails .
A year later , lawmakers required that voter registration information be provided to formerly incarcerated people .
The California Legislature narrowly achieved a two-thirds vote in both houses to place the new constitutional amendment on this year ’ s ballot after Democratic lawmakers argued that providing voting rights gives people leaving prison a greater stake in their communities .
But requiring people to complete parole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to Harriet Salarno , founder of Crime Victims United of California , who said nearly half of those released from prison commit a new crime within three years .
Salarno , whose eldest daughter was 18 when she was murdered , said the three years of parole that many released inmates get is an integral part of the process .
“ That is a re-entry program to see if they can conform and live based on what they learned in prison , ” she said .
“ We have to make sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are rehabilitated .
If they complete the three years and they are good citizens we have no problem with it.
” The group Initiate Justice also sought to extend the right to vote to people convicted of felonies who are still in prison , but a petition drive for an initiative on that more ambitious proposal failed to collect enough signatures .
A survey by Initiate Justice of more than 1,000 people convicted of felonies who are in prison or on parole found that only 37 % voted before incarceration , but 98 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could because they want to have a voice in society , according to a legislative analysis of the initiative .
While no organized campaign committee has been formed to oppose the initiative , the campaign for the measure has raised $ 847,007 , with a political committee controlled by Secretary of State Alex Padilla among the top spenders , raising $ 176,000 .
Padilla , a Democrat and California ’ s top elections official , said there are public safety reasons why voting rights should be expanded .
Padilla said that jurisdictions that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felonies see lower rates of re-offending by those leaving prison .
“ And we know civic engagement gives communities a stake in driving positive change , ” he added .
A 2004 study published in the Columbia Human Rights Law Review found that among people who had been arrested previously , 27 % of non-voters were rearrested , compared with 12 % of voters .
“ Voting appears to be part of a package of pro-social behavior that is linked to desistance from crime , ” said the study by researchers Christopher Uggen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professors at the University of Minnesota and New York University respectively .
Nielsen said the initiative is part of an effort by Democrats to expand their party ’ s voter rolls , which already give them a substantial lead in voter registration in California .
In New York , which has similar demographics to California , people convicted of felonies and later released from prison were registered overwhelmingly as Democrats , according to a paper published in 2013 by researchers including University of Pennsylvania political scientist Marc Meredith .
Of those discharge records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ file record , 61.5 % match only to Democratic voter records , said the study published in Annals of the American Academy of Political Science .
In New Mexico , 51.9 % of paroled people convicted of felonies appeared to have been registered Democrats while 18.9 % matched to Republican registrations , according to the paper .
“ It ’ s absolutely about Democratic votes , ” Nielsen said of Proposition 17 .
After Florida voters approved a ballot measure two years ago allowing people convicted of felonies to vote , Republican lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with prior felony convictions unless they can show they have paid all fees , fines or other debts from their past crimes .
But Bradford said he supports Proposition 17 “ because people on parole are our family , colleagues , and neighbors .
They go to work , pay taxes , and do their part to reintegrate , but are left with no voice at all to participate in our democracy .
”

Nearly 40,000 Californians who’ve been released from prison are still on parole. Proposition 17 would allow them to regain their right to vote.
Californians will soon decide whether to allow nearly 50,000 people convicted of felonies who are on parole to vote in future elections in the state, an issue that has divided the state’s leaders along party lines.
California’s Constitution disqualifies people with felony convictions from voting until their incarceration and parole are completed. Proponents of Proposition 17 say the constitutional amendment was proposed to help people who leave prison reintegrate into their communities.
The measure is supported by Democratic leaders including Gov. Gavin Newsom, state Sen. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) and Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for vice president.
“It is unacceptable that in 2020 we continue to suppress voters and disenfranchise tens of thousands of individuals in marginalized communities,” said Bradford, vice chairman of the California Legislative Black Caucus. “Voting is the easiest way of reintegrating people back into society and letting their voices matter.”
Advertisement
The initiative, which was put on the ballot by the Legislature, is opposed by the California Republican Party, Crime Victims United of California and GOP lawmakers including state Sen. Jim Nielsen (R-Gerber), who said crime victims will be deprived of justice if felons can vote without completing the parole part of their sentence under supervision.
“It’s a great affront to victims and private citizens,” said Nielsen, a former chairman of the agency that is now the state Board of Parole Hearings. “The parole period is an integral part of the sentence to allow the individual to readjust to society and to sustain themselves to know that they really have changed.”
If Proposition 17 passes, those convicted of felonies who are still in prison would continue to be ineligible to vote. The current restriction on voting for those on parole does not extend to people who are convicted of crimes and placed on probation and who avoid time behind bars. The state Constitution allows people on probation to vote.
Voters are weighing Proposition 17 as the Black Lives Matter movement has shone a bright light on the impact of the criminal justice system on communities of color.
“Taking away the fundamental right to vote is one example of how mass incarceration is designed to perpetuate racial inequities,” Los Angeles County Public Defender Ricardo Garcia said. “Restoring parolees’ voting rights will give them not only a chance at redemption, but also add their valued voice back to our communities.”
The campaign for the initiative cites data from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation indicating that indicates 3 out of 4 men leaving California prisons are Black, Latino or Asian American, a fact the campaign blames on “persistent and systematic racial inequalities” in the criminal justice system.
Advertisement
“This means California’s constitution disproportionately locks people of color out of the voting booth,” the campaign says.
Parole, Bradford added, “is not supposed to be a punishment.”
California and Connecticut currently mandate that people convicted of felonies must complete their prison and parole sentences before having their right to vote reinstated. An additional 19 states allow people convicted of felonies, but who are on parole, to vote.
Maine, Vermont and the District of Columbia allow those convicted of felonies to vote even while they are incarcerated.
The California Legislature has for years been moving in the direction of giving the power to vote to more people convicted of crimes. In 2016, lawmakers decided to allow voting by those in county jails.
A year later, lawmakers required that voter registration information be provided to formerly incarcerated people.
The California Legislature narrowly achieved a two-thirds vote in both houses to place the new constitutional amendment on this year’s ballot after Democratic lawmakers argued that providing voting rights gives people leaving prison a greater stake in their communities. The legislation was introduced by Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento).
But requiring people to complete parole before they can vote is justified, according to Harriet Salarno, founder of Crime Victims United of California, who said nearly half of those released from prison commit a new crime within three years.
Salarno, whose eldest daughter was 18 when she was murdered, said the three years of parole that many released inmates get is an integral part of the process.
“That is a re-entry program to see if they can conform and live based on what they learned in prison,” she said. “We have to make sure they do not commit crimes and they are rehabilitated. If they complete the three years and they are good citizens we have no problem with it.”
The group Initiate Justice also sought to extend the right to vote to people convicted of felonies who are still in prison, but a petition drive for an initiative on that more ambitious proposal failed to collect enough signatures.
A survey by Initiate Justice of more than 1,000 people convicted of felonies who are in prison or on parole found that only 37% voted before incarceration, but 98% said they would vote if they could because they want to have a voice in society, according to a legislative analysis of the initiative.
While no organized campaign committee has been formed to oppose the initiative, the campaign for the measure has raised $847,007, with a political committee controlled by Secretary of State Alex Padilla among the top spenders, raising $176,000.
Padilla, a Democrat and California’s top elections official, said there are public safety reasons why voting rights should be expanded.
Padilla said that jurisdictions that restore voting rights for people convicted of felonies see lower rates of re-offending by those leaving prison.
“And we know civic engagement gives communities a stake in driving positive change,” he added.
A 2004 study published in the Columbia Human Rights Law Review found that among people who had been arrested previously, 27% of non-voters were rearrested, compared with 12% of voters.
“Voting appears to be part of a package of pro-social behavior that is linked to desistance from crime,” said the study by researchers Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza, sociology professors at, respectively, the University of Minnesota and New York University.
Nielsen said the initiative is part of an effort by Democrats to expand their party’s voter rolls, which already give them a substantial lead in voter registration in California.
In New York, which has similar demographics to California, people convicted of felonies and later released from prison were registered overwhelmingly as Democrats, according to a paper published in 2013 by researchers including University of Pennsylvania political scientist Marc Meredith.
Of those discharge records that match to at least one voter file record, 61.5% match only to Democratic voter records, said the study published in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
In New Mexico, 51.9% of paroled people convicted of felonies appeared to have been registered Democrats while 18.9% matched to Republican registrations, according to the paper.
“It’s absolutely about Democratic votes,” Nielsen said of Proposition 17.
After Florida voters approved a ballot measure two years ago allowing people convicted of felonies to vote, Republican lawmakers enacted a law barring voting by residents with prior felony convictions unless they can show they have paid all fees, fines or other debts from their past crimes.
But Bradford said he supports Proposition 17 “because people on parole are our family, colleagues, and neighbors. They go to work, pay taxes, and do their part to reintegrate, but are left with no voice at all to participate in our democracy.”


latimes--2020-10-20--California voters will again consider new dialysis center regulations with Prop. 23

California voters will again weigh in on a costly ballot-box fight between a healthcare union and the dialysis industry , with both sides saying the care of 80,000 people will be affected by Proposition 23 .
The measure would require dialysis clinics to employ at least one doctor who is on-site whenever patients are receiving treatment .
Backers of the proposition , the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West , say dialysis clinics are favoring profits over patient care by not having a doctor available in the event of complications or an emergency .
The dialysis industry has put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the measure , arguing that doctors ’ and nurses ’ associations agree that Proposition 23 is unnecessary and that the added cost would lead to dialysis clinics closing , which would put patients at even greater risk .
There are roughly 600 dialysis clinics in California , each treating thousands of residents suffering from kidney failure with machines that remove a patient ’ s blood and filter it to remove waste and excess fluids before returning the blood to their body .
Patients would die without dialysis , which requires a session of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Because of the high demand for dialysis , clinic operators say they are typically open six days a week for up to 16 hours a day .
“ I ’ m all for anything that improves care for patients , ” said Dr. Edgard Vera , a kidney specialist who works at hospitals in the high desert cities of Victorville and Apple Valley .
“ But having a full-time doctor there doesn ’ t do that.
” The measure comes amid a national shortage of physicians , with a June report by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projecting that the United States will be short 54,100 to 139,000 physicians by 2033 .
Like other states , California ’ s doctor shortage is growing as the state ’ s residents are growing older , with an aging baby boomer population increasing the need for healthcare workers .
Opponents say the measure will exacerbate the doctor shortage and that there are already a sufficient number of medical staff required at dialysis clinics .
Federal regulations mandate that each clinic has a medical director who is a board-certified physician , but that person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all times .
Federal and state laws also require clinics to have a nurse manager , dietitian , social worker and registered nurse on staff .
Proponents of Proposition 23 say they have accounted for concerns over doctor shortages by allowing clinics to hire a doctor of any speciality , not just nephrologists , who specialize in diseases and conditions affecting the kidneys .
Under Proposition 23 , clinics that are unable to hire a doctor due to a shortage of physicians could apply for a waiver from the California Department of Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nurse practitioner or physician ’ s assistant for a year .
“ Anytime someone tries to regulate this industry , they say clinics will close and patients will die , ” said Steve Trossman , a spokesman for SEIU-UHW .
“ It ’ s an attempt to put fear in people .
They are making too much money off these clinics to walk away.
” The independent legislative analyst ’ s office has estimated that dialysis clinics in the state have total revenues of more than $ 3 billion annually .
Nearly three-quarters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or operated by two companies — DaVita Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care .
The dialysis industry and the healthcare union have been locked in a years-long fight , which resulted in SEIU-UHW pushing Proposition 8 in 2018 .
That measure would have required business with revenues exceeding 115 % to provide rebates to insurers and pay a penalty to the state .
A coalition led by DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care spent a record-setting $ 111 million in 2018 to blanket the airwaves with opposition ads and successfully defeated the measure .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 105.2 million to fight Proposition 23 , according to a Times analysis of campaign contributions .
Of that amount , DaVita has contributed $ 66.8 million .
“ It ’ s obscene how much they are spending , ” Trossman said .
“ We obviously can ’ t keep up with that kind of spending.
” Proponents have so far raised $ 6.9 million for Proposition 23 , with almost all of it coming from SEIU-UHW .
Opponents argue SEIU-UHW has been weaponizing the ballot measure process to force the dialysis industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the union ’ s real interest is getting workers in clinics to unionize .
“ UHW is using Prop .
23 to advance its union-organizing agenda , nothing else , ” said Kathy Fairbanks , a spokeswoman for the opposition campaign .
“ Patients don ’ t want to be in the middle of this political fight , especially since their lives are the ones at risk.
” The union has tried to unionize dialysis workers , but SEIU-UHW alleged in 2017 that DaVita was retaliating against employees who supported forming a union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot following labor disputes , including one with the California Hospital Assn .
Trossman denied that adding new members was the motive for Proposition 23 .
“ They are trying to impugn our motives , ” Trossman said .
“ We have members on dialysis , members with family on dialysis .
We have a strong interest in seeing this industry improve and trying to get dialysis corporations to act respectably and responsibly toward patients.
” Proposition 23 would require clinics to report dialysis infection information to the California Department of Public Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be posted on the state agency ’ s website .
Clinics could face a fine of up to $ 100,000 for failing to report the data or reporting inaccurate information .
Clinics are currently required to report dialysis-infection-related information to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
The measure would also require clinics to obtain approval from the state ’ s public health department before closing or substantially reducing services .
And it would bar clinics from refusing access to a patient based on their insurance .
A majority of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medicare , which extends coverage to people with kidney failure regardless of age or disability status .
Rick Barnett , president of Satellite Healthcare , which operates more than 60 nonprofit dialysis clinics in California , questioned the legality of requiring clinics to obtain approval to close and said discrimination based on insurance wasn ’ t an issue since nearly all patients had Medicare .
“ So I have to ask , what is the problem this ballot measure is actually trying to solve ?
” Barnett said .
Robert Villanueva , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot measure would provide him peace of mind while receiving treatment .
Villanueva , a 62-year-old Realtor , said he had lost consciousness while undergoing dialysis and had to be taken to an emergency room .
He said dialysis centers could afford to hire full-time doctors so that patients , many of whom have significant additional health issues , could receive immediate attention when needed .
“ There are too many situations where patients are wheeled off to emergency rooms , ” Villanueva said .
“ It makes you think , why isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after me ?
”

California voters will again weigh in on a costly ballot-box fight between a healthcare union and the dialysis industry, with both sides saying the care of 80,000 people will be affected by Proposition 23.
The measure would require dialysis clinics to employ at least one doctor who is on-site whenever patients are receiving treatment. Backers of the proposition, the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, say dialysis clinics are favoring profits over patient care by not having a doctor available in the event of complications or an emergency.
The dialysis industry has put more than $100 million into fighting the measure, arguing that doctors’ and nurses’ associations agree that Proposition 23 is unnecessary and that the added cost would lead to dialysis clinics closing, which would put patients at even greater risk.
There are roughly 600 dialysis clinics in California, each treating thousands of residents suffering from kidney failure with machines that remove a patient’s blood and filter it to remove waste and excess fluids before returning the blood to their body. Patients would die without dialysis, which requires a session of about four hours three days a week. Because of the high demand for dialysis, clinic operators say they are typically open six days a week for up to 16 hours a day.
Advertisement
“I’m all for anything that improves care for patients,” said Dr. Edgard Vera, a kidney specialist who works at hospitals in the high desert cities of Victorville and Apple Valley. “But having a full-time doctor there doesn’t do that.”
The measure comes amid a national shortage of physicians, with a June report by the Assn. of American Medical Colleges projecting that the United States will be short 54,100 to 139,000 physicians by 2033. Like other states, California’s doctor shortage is growing as the state’s residents are growing older, with an aging baby boomer population increasing the need for healthcare workers.
Opponents say the measure will exacerbate the doctor shortage and that there are already a sufficient number of medical staff required at dialysis clinics. Federal regulations mandate that each clinic has a medical director who is a board-certified physician, but that person is not required to be on-site at all times. Federal and state laws also require clinics to have a nurse manager, dietitian, social worker and registered nurse on staff.
Proponents of Proposition 23 say they have accounted for concerns over doctor shortages by allowing clinics to hire a doctor of any speciality, not just nephrologists, who specialize in diseases and conditions affecting the kidneys. Under Proposition 23, clinics that are unable to hire a doctor due to a shortage of physicians could apply for a waiver from the California Department of Public Health in order to instead hire a nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant for a year.
“Anytime someone tries to regulate this industry, they say clinics will close and patients will die,” said Steve Trossman, a spokesman for SEIU-UHW. “It’s an attempt to put fear in people. They are making too much money off these clinics to walk away.”
The independent legislative analyst’s office has estimated that dialysis clinics in the state have total revenues of more than $3 billion annually. Nearly three-quarters of dialysis centers in California are owned or operated by two companies — DaVita Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care.
Advertisement
The dialysis industry and the healthcare union have been locked in a years-long fight, which resulted in SEIU-UHW pushing Proposition 8 in 2018. That measure would have required business with revenues exceeding 115% to provide rebates to insurers and pay a penalty to the state. A coalition led by DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care spent a record-setting $111 million in 2018 to blanket the airwaves with opposition ads and successfully defeated the measure.
This year, opponents have so far raised $105.2 million to fight Proposition 23, according to a Times analysis of campaign contributions. Of that amount, DaVita has contributed $66.8 million.
“It’s obscene how much they are spending,” Trossman said. “We obviously can’t keep up with that kind of spending.”
Proponents have so far raised $6.9 million for Proposition 23, with almost all of it coming from SEIU-UHW.
Opponents argue SEIU-UHW has been weaponizing the ballot measure process to force the dialysis industry to spend heavily to defend itself when the union’s real interest is getting workers in clinics to unionize.
“UHW is using Prop. 23 to advance its union-organizing agenda, nothing else,” said Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for the opposition campaign. “Patients don’t want to be in the middle of this political fight, especially since their lives are the ones at risk.”
The union has tried to unionize dialysis workers, but SEIU-UHW alleged in 2017 that DaVita was retaliating against employees who supported forming a union. SEIU-UHW has previously turned to the ballot following labor disputes, including one with the California Hospital Assn.
Trossman denied that adding new members was the motive for Proposition 23.
“They are trying to impugn our motives,” Trossman said. “We have members on dialysis, members with family on dialysis. We have a strong interest in seeing this industry improve and trying to get dialysis corporations to act respectably and responsibly toward patients.”
Proposition 23 would require clinics to report dialysis infection information to the California Department of Public Health every three months, which would then be posted on the state agency’s website. Clinics could face a fine of up to $100,000 for failing to report the data or reporting inaccurate information.
Clinics are currently required to report dialysis-infection-related information to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The measure would also require clinics to obtain approval from the state’s public health department before closing or substantially reducing services. And it would bar clinics from refusing access to a patient based on their insurance.
A majority of people on dialysis in California are covered by Medicare, which extends coverage to people with kidney failure regardless of age or disability status.
Rick Barnett, president of Satellite Healthcare, which operates more than 60 nonprofit dialysis clinics in California, questioned the legality of requiring clinics to obtain approval to close and said discrimination based on insurance wasn’t an issue since nearly all patients had Medicare.
“So I have to ask, what is the problem this ballot measure is actually trying to solve?” Barnett said.
Robert Villanueva, who receives dialysis in Montebello, said the ballot measure would provide him peace of mind while receiving treatment. Villanueva, a 62-year-old Realtor, said he had lost consciousness while undergoing dialysis and had to be taken to an emergency room. He said dialysis centers could afford to hire full-time doctors so that patients, many of whom have significant additional health issues, could receive immediate attention when needed.
“There are too many situations where patients are wheeled off to emergency rooms,” Villanueva said. “It makes you think, why isn’t there a doctor here looking after me?”
Times staff writer Maloy Moore contributed to this report.