You won’t be voting, simply registering for a mail ballot. It took a couple of weeks for me to get my ballot but I finally did on Saturday. Once you’ve registered, keep an eye out for that ballot, it may take a little while.
If you are having problems registering online or have questions call the CADems at (916) 442-5707.
TL;DR – It’s really easy to register to vote for the ADEM elections – just click here. You have until January 11th to register for a mail ballot.
Biannually, and just after the national Congressional elections, Californian Democrats get a chance to vote for 1/3 of the approximately 2900 members of the Democratic State Central Committee which is the governing body of the California Democratic Party (aka CADEMs). There is a good overview of the DSCC here, or for the video-philes, below is a dated overview of the ADEM elections from 2019. (links and dates no longer valid)
In the past ADEM elections where held in person which insured only the most committed, active, or informed Democrats would participate. (Here is my attempt at coverage from 2017 and 2019). This year, for obvious reasons, voting will be by mail. In order to register to vote and receive a ballot go HERE. It honestly takes between 1 and 5 minutes with the only catch being your information must match your registration information exactly.
If you can’t access the website you can email CADems for a ballot at firstname.lastname@example.org or call them at (916) 442-5707. (Source)
Whom Shall I Vote For?
Excellent question! Each of 80 California Assembly districts get 7 women, 7 men (or non-females or other than self-idenfitied females or OSIF) and one Executive Board member. So, you will be voting for up to 15 people total and common practice has become for different factions of Democrats to come up with slates of candidates. This year the progressive slate includes 7 women and 6 men and you can see them below thanks to our strong local group of Democratic progressives and activists,
Only three from the progressive slate were not elected last year including Eric Kirk and Helene Rouvier. Not sure why given both are outspoken, well known and active progressives. Maybe that is exactly why they weren’t elected? Known trouble-makers mayhaps?
hours minutes seconds
Last day to register to vote in ADEM elections
If you have any more good resources or links, please let us all know in the comments below.
It’s really heart-warming to see young, progressive candidates come forward to run for the Eureka City Council especially remembering where we were just a short 8 years ago anxiously hoping we could squeak by a single progressive, Linda Atkins and for decades before that.
I had to look it up and in August 2012 our City Council consisted of …
1st Ward: Marian Brady 2nd Ward: Linda Atkins 3rd Ward: Mike Newman 4th Ward: Melinda Ciarabellini 5th Ward: Albin
…wow. If you are unfamiliar with all but Linda Atkins names then I envy you. Nice people I’m sure (with perhaps one or two exceptions) but bad politics. Those were the bad old days.
You can find out more about Kati Moulton for Eureka’s Ward 2 here and below is Liza Welsh herself giving us an elevator pitch on why Ward 4 voters should vote (or should have voted) for her.
The video has 11,000 views and I found it via advertising myself. It’s exactly the kind of advertising I support, short, simple and to the point and I think the YouTube ad-buy is a great use of campaign funds.
Liza is great on camera making it look effortless. If it is effortless for her, and if she wins, I hope she might consider uploading regular content onto a YouTube page to help Eureka’s understand what the City Council.
Other than a low-budget direct-mail flier, I haven’t seen much about Measure C, but after Measure P’s success in 2016 and given the liberal/progressive top-ticket motivation to get out the vote, I’m very hopeful.
You can find out more about Measure C, introducing ranked choice voting to Eureka’s primary-less election system on Eric Kirk’s Sohum Parlance here.
Last minute notice, but Kimberly Ellis will be at the (newish) Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee HQ at 527 4th Street in Eureka from 5:30 to 7:00 PM.
Ellis lost a razor-thin vote in 2017 for CADem Chair in 2017 to Eric Bauman who later retired. There will be another election by party delegates at this year’s convention which is scheduled for the weekend beginning Friday May 31st.
Come out (TONIGHT) and show your support, to ask questions or simply to say “hi”.
For more information on Kimberly Ellis, there is a Wikipedia page for Kimberly, or here is a summary published in the Bay Area Reporter from earlier this month which was emailed by the Humboldt County Progressive Democrats as a reminder about tonight’s event.
(No this is not an April Fools joke. It’s for real.)
A: It depends on your circumstances and if you think might be and you need food assistance you should apply.
As I am going to talk about CalFresh eligibility and I am an eligibility worker I need to stress that these are my opinions based on work experience and information available online. Any individual worker’s knowledge and information is limited and not necessarily correct or current so please take this into consideration while reading this piece.
The main determinate for eligibility to CalFresh for citizens is a concept known as “reasonably anticipated income“. In the case of furloughed workers, I’d argue that until the shutdown is over, furloughed workers no longer have a reasonably anticipated income.
Assuming this is true, if you apply today you could zero out the government worker’s income and only the other household income of other adults over 18 years old that you purchase and prepare food with would count in the CalFresh budget.
Once granted, you would remain eligible until your household goes over what is known as the Income Reporting Threshold which varies based on the number of people in your household as shown in the second column below. (source) These numbers are from 2016/17 and are slightly low but remain in the ballpark. For example today’s IRT for a HH of 1 is $1,316.
This means that you don’t have a reporting requirement until that day when your income within a calendar month goes above your household’s IRT. You then have 10 days to report the change to the County. This rather generous reporting rule means you might be eligible to a month or two of additional CalFresh benefits.
(BTW, the first column in the table above are monthly CalFresh benefits by household size if there is no income. Again these are from 2016 so they may not be exact to the dollar.)
Now, of course there is a huge problem with all of this. CalFresh benefits themselves may be running out as the shutdown continues. When this is going to happen is uncertain and I’d guess that once eligible to benefits, even if they could not be paid timely, you’d eventually receive these benefits. That additional influx of cash, even if not immediate, might be a welcome relief when Washington* gets its act together.
If you feel you may be eligible to CalFresh and you live in Humboldt County, the number to call is 1-877-410-8809 (weekdays 7:30 am to 5:30 pm) or you can apply online at c4yourself.com. You no longer have to come into the office during the application process but you will have to complete an interview over the phone (these generally require appointments) and the interviews usually will last less than an hour.
Notes: CalFresh benefits will begin as of the day you applied no matter when the granting process is completed. If the shutdown ends before CalFresh is granted, it is possible that your income would again be considered reasonably anticipated so make sure to be proactive in providing any verifications that might be required – these are generally (but not always) limited to income verification for CalFresh.
*Let’s be honest, it’s not Washington, it’s once Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and/or President Trump get their act together and stop playing the worst kind of politics based on decades of trumped-up fear immigration and immigrants from, revealingly, only one of our borders.
On Monday the California Department of Social Services announced that CalFresh recipients (there are 20, 000 plus recipients in Humboldt) will be receiving the monthly allotment for February today – January 16th, 2018.
In Humboldt, CalFresh households would generally benefits each month anywhere from the first to tenth of the month based on the last digit of their case number, so the early dispersal will mean that they will have to budget what will be on the card today until early March.
Another important point in the release below is this will not apply to those households with their renewal in January (a crude estimate would be 1 of every 12 households as renewals are annual) as they are not eligible to further benefits into February until the January renewal is complete.
I hope and challenge local media can pick up this story and fill in the many questions. Such as what happens in March and what if a household does have a renewal in January? If any benefits are missed in March or later, will the household receive those benefits when the government opens? Better yet, ask recipients what questions they might have and get those answered.
Again, CalFresh benefits are distributed to over 20,000 Humboldt residents or (dividing by approximately 136,000 people) about 15% of the population, so why isn’t there more coverage? I challenge someone to find another local news story that directly impacts 20,000 Humboldt residents with as little coverage.
Let’s give the benefit of the doubt and assume its not neglect, maybe the owners/editors feel that this does not affect their readers because they tend not to have income low enough to be eligible to food stamps. But even then, how did this state of affairs come to pass? Why would someone with no or little income have less interest in the local physical or digital press?
We can do better to remember we are all members of this community, regardless of income or wealth.
The opinions above are mine own and not those of my employer, the Department of Health and Human Services of Humboldt County where I am employed as an eligibility worker. All of the information in this post is available online.
See you in Crescent City for the ADEM vote. Here a few links from local coverage and local activism that may be useful if you are heading to Crescent City. If not, they may be interesting to keep in mind as we work over the next 2 years to keep our local and state Democrats committed to democracy.
There is an important vote this Saturday, January 12, 2019, that all evidence indicates the powers that be in the Democratic Party would have liked us Democrats in Humboldt to have missed. It’s a vote for delegates to the Democratic State Central Committee.
This video from 2017 helps explain of the Democratic State Central Committee. I’ve outlined a few of the main points below…
Democratic State Central Committee (DSCC)
This committee defines who we are as California Democrats.
The CSCC meets once a year where it endorses Democratic candidates, sets the state democratic platform, etc.
It is made up of almost 2,900 delegates to the DSCC.
1/3 are elected Party officials and their nominees
1/3 are local elected party officials
1/3 are from California Assembly districts and these are the ones we will be voting for this Saturday.
Each Assembly district gets to vote for 14 of these delegates – 7 men and 7 women.
In Eureka and Humboldt, we live in California’s 2nd Assembly district. It is composed of just over 463,000 people and is 1 of 80 Assembly districts in California split evenly based on population. (80 districts x 463,000 people/district = 37,040,000 people and Google via the US Census estimates that as of 2017 39,540,000 people live in California)
There has been very little attention either as “get out the vote” by local Democrats or local media but there has some, thanks largely to local progressive activists and people like Patty Harvey from Willow Creek who had an add in a Letter to the Editor in the Times-Standard today.
Also, this tweet from @Tami707 includes not only the progressive labor slate it also shows the map of the two final sites. Without significant push back that forced a second site in to be organized in Crescent City, the powers that be were going to hold only one voting site in Santa Rosa.
So bottom line is this. If you are a Democrat, join us in voting this Saturday. If you don’t have a vehicle, or would prefer to riding with others there are car-pooling efforts to ease the trip to Crescent City. If you need a ride or have extra seats you can contact Michele Walford at email@example.com, visit the Progressive Democrat Facebook page, or call me at (707) 442-0714
The doors open at 10 AM at the Del Norte County Fairgrounds at 421 HWY 101 N Crescent City, CA.
I think what Ms. Reid, a MSNBC host, misses is this; most people in Northern California, including Humboldt are struggling, especially working people who don’t own their own businesses and are dependent on their wages to make a living. In this reality, their private sector bosses, who’d like to be honored as Job Creators (or sometimes land owners – See Supervisor Bohn and Fennel’s version of the General Plan Update Guiding Principles) are a working person’s lifeline to a wage – living or not.
So will this thread help dissuade Jeffersoners or help them to understand that the politics of their bosses may be exactly what is helping to create their problems in the first place? Only if they could take a step back and see that people like Joy Reid or a Humboldt liberal who grows arugula are fighting against tendencies of the people they are told to honor to focus almost entirely on their own profits rather than externalities such as the worker’s lives, maybe then these workers would be able to hear or understand the contradictions in the stories they are being told.
But that won’t happen, and the reasons why are exactly those stories. The bad guy or gal in that story are the urban liberal elites and their benefactors who vote for them because of the governmental hand outs they are given. The good guy is the boss (preferred nomenclature is Job Creator) they know they have to honor by being a hard and dependable worker.
If we understand this relationship between employer and employee in rural America, including how dependent and desperate the employee can be, so much more makes sense about Republican politics. I think Ms. Reid’s argument misses this point and it will ultimately serve to heighten the divide rather than help fix it by grouping rural employers and employees into one group without making this distinction. Still it had to be said and I’m glad she too the time to react to the NYT article.
(Note: These opinions are informed by my experience working for a couple of private sector employers in Humboldt and by my understanding of what made the white Confederate soldier who wasn’t wealthy enough to own slaves, fight so fiercely for the Confederate cause.)
example of the Republican use of the dependency on employment:
Many Republican ads and much of their politics against the ACA centered on the loss of one’s doctor through their employer’s insurance. What they didn’t talk about was those workers who may be unemployed or wish to have the freedom to move from one employer to another, which became possible under a market-place plan from Covered CA.
Here is business owner Judy Hodgson’s experience with the ACA as she had to wean business off of the employer-based insurance which was a perk to her employees as she had once paid 100% of the premiums for her workers.
For many of our 26 years in business, we paid 100 percent of the premiums for our employees for a higher deductible, medium-grade silver plan. The ACA promised direct subsidies to small businesses (fewer than 25 employees) for four years in the form of tax credits — basically taxes we didn’t have to pay. The ACA delivered. Each year we received up to $8,000 to help pay premiums for the following year.
I remember being concerned about what would happen in four years when those subsidies went away. Originally there was talk about a direct “government option” if we couldn’t afford premiums but that never materialized.
In 2015, the year the subsidies went away, was also the year that our premium estimate went up a whopping 42 percent, which I reported to Congressman Jared Huffman’s office. It wasn’t a straight, across-the-board increase; some of it was due to employees getting older. It was an increase we could not afford and neither could our employees because the each of them paid for their families. One employee’s spouse was looking at an additional $500 a month because he was 62.
Would I have been a loyalist in 1776? Maybe? But you have to admit, Canada has a really good point here. Maybe our revolution was a dumb idea. Could we have become the United States without violence?
In the recent book Scars of Independence, historian Holger Hoock dismisses modern depictions of the American Revolution as rooms full of men in powdered wigs discussing liberty. It was actually a “profoundly violent civil war,” he writes. One largely forgotten aspect of the war was how much the Patriot cause was driven by terroristic mobs prepared to torture judges, customs officials, newspaper editors or anyone else seen to be supporting British rule. Pro-government officials had their homes burned, their horses poisoned and many were snatched out of their beds in the middle of the night, stripped naked and subjected to mock drownings or tarring and feathering. Accounts of these outrages help explain why the conflict escalated so quickly. When hotheaded Brits backed George III’s call to swiftly put down colonial rebels, it wasn’t because they were incensed at a lack of tea tax revenue — it was because they feared that their American lands had fallen to mob rule.
Lookit, of course we weren’t the baddies, for one thing, it turns out many of those Brits were homophobic jerks. But our national predisposition for violence or bullying is a problem. From a revelatory piece by one of my favorite authors Rick Perlstein:
“My first book, covering the years 1958 through 1964, was entitled Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus. The “consensus” in my subtitle referred both to historians’ common belief that in the period between World War II and “the sixties” America was a remarkably placid place and to the deluded national self-perception advanced at the time by people like Lippmann, heedlessly projecting the present into the past. In this view of things, America had always been a remarkably placid place. When violence began breaking out on the 1964 campaign trail, the Philadelphia Inquirer editorialized that “presidential elections have been waged without untoward incident until this year”—what??—and the historian Richard Hofstadter preposterously proposed that “our sagacity and our passion for the peaceful enjoyment of our national life” were the essence of American politics. My subtitle, in other words, is tinged ironically—because the supposed “consensus” was but an epiphenomenon, a brief idyll, an illusion, as well as an ideological construct. It papered over the reality of a society that has never been united and at peace with itself.
So what about that? What if we started taking a different approach to the 4th? What if we celebrated the violence of explosions (fireworks), say, once every 4 or 10 years and spent the other 3 or 9 years celebrating all that it takes to create a society that can produce those fireworks. What about celebrating the red, white and blue fireworks in our gardens and parks during the majority of our Fourths hoping our children can catch on to the beauty and preciousness of a time lapse explosion going on around us every day?
Just a thought. It would save money and help make that Xth year celebration that much more special and spectacular. But more importantly, I think it would help reinforce the idea that the explosions of war that the fireworks represent are sometimes necessary, but they should not be we depend on to build a sustainable future.