A Response to the “Dangerous Politics” memo from S.B. Woo dated 4/11/14

By: Mei Mei Huff

A Response to the “Dangerous Politics” memo from S.B. Woo dated 4/11/14

By: Mei Mei Huff

While Mr. Woo talks about the Republicans in California living under absolute Democrat Party rule because the Democrats hold 2/3 of the seats in both the Assembly and Senate, that ratio has only been in existence since the 2012 election as a result of new districts drawn to reflect the last census. In fact, because some sitting Senators won elections to Congress in the November 2012 election, and another to LA City Council later, it was only in January of this year that their empty seats were filled, and the Senate Democrats truly had 2/3rd of the Senate votes in place.

But under supermajority rule, unless you are among the groups that receive preferential treatment, you are what Mr. Woo describes as "non-persons." What did the Democrats do with their 2/3 supermajority in January? They passed SCA-5. And under SCA5, Asians are non-persons. Under supermajority rule, Democrats can pass constitutional amendments like SCA-5, they can raise taxes, confirm or deny the Governor’s appointments and override the Governor's vetoes.

All Republican bills were not “dead on arrival” as postulated by Mr. Woo, but the meager numbers did force Republican legislators to be smarter, re-evaluate themselves and to build alliances.

How can a Party lose that badly, he asked? It was one vote at a time, one district at a time, and it was a 40-year slide. But to say that “None of them (Republicans) can be too politically astute", is not only demeaning, but misses the bigger picture of representative government. California is unlike any other state in the nation. Each Senator represents a district with 931,000 people, give or take a percentage either way. To put that in perspective, each Senate District in California contains more people than the state of Delaware. All 12 Republican senators made their case to, were elected by, and have the confidence of the majority of voters in their respective districts. This is a cumulative representation by Republicans of 12 million people—larger than most states, but still a superminority in California.

Mr. Woo’s comment that Republicans were inspired by the effectiveness of the Chinese-American community in opposing SCA5 misses the point. The question should be, where was the Asian opposition the previous two times Senator Hernandez introduced the same racial preference language over the past five years? Republicans were there voting consistently against the ill-conceived measures, while the Democrats, including Asian Democrats, voted for them. SCA5 was not a creation of the Republican Party and it was also not the Republican Party that taught Senator Ted Lieu or Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi a lesson. So I fail to see how the Republican Party is to blame for diving a wedge between the Latinos/Blacks and Asians. Republican opposition to SCA5 has been consistent through the years, reflecting principled lawmakers voting for their core beliefs of personal responsibility and limited government. The dinner table has been set by the Democrats the same way, three different times in the past five years. This time Asians woke up and realized they were the main course.

Not only was there never an effort to create or drive a wedge issue, there is not one now, and my husband and I find that offensive. The 29th Senate District that my husband represents is comprised of 27% Asian residents, or 254,000 in round numbers. He works hard to represent all of his constituents.

Even though my husband is the Senate Republican Leader, he is not the type of person looking around for wedge issues. He looks at issues in his community as well as the state, and tries to address those issues in a way that makes sense. When Chinese after-school programs were being shut down by the Democrat-controlled state government as illegal childcare, Senator Huff fought the battle for about five years, but finally got legislation passed that made these after-school programs legal.

When school “District of Choice” legislation was about to sunset, my husband carried successful legislation to extend the program because it gave parents more control over which schools they could enroll their children, to get a better education. Senator Hernandez (author of SCA5) fought and voted against this program because it was perceived that most students who wanted to leave a school in his district were Asian, and when Asian students left the districts they lived in for districts they preferred, they left their home school districts with lower school scores. This is likely why Senator Hernandez wrote SCA-5 to apply to all public education, and not just Colleges and Universities.

As for SJR-23 related to the state apologizing for historic discrimination against the Chinese, and calling on Congress to do the same, the timing is coincidental with nothing to do with SCA-5. My husband had been working last fall with some Chinese who had concerns that our Federal and state governments expressed regrets about this historic discrimination against Chinese, but they haven't apologized as they have for other minorities. The bi-partisan, multi-racial LA County Board of Supervisors led the way by signing a letter asking the Federal Government for an apology.

So, in January, some time before the January 30th floor vote on SCA5, Senator Huff asked Senator Leland Yee to jointly author SJR23, to show bi-partisan and bi-racial support from the state legislature seeking an apology. SJR23’s introduction was delayed for a bit because Senator Huff wanted the furor over Senator Yee’s subsequent vote for SCA-5 to die down. Senator Yee was then arrested in an FBI undercover operation, so Senator Yee’s name was stricken from the bill.

Let’s not get too wrapped up in the thought of political gamesmanship, as the author is implying. Let me restate that there are no political games being played here. SCA-5 was bad for our community and bad for the state, and SJR-23 is good for the state to understand and express apology for past behavior. Ironically, in perspective, SCA-5 is just a 21st century version of previous and historic discriminations against the Asian community.

Let's not forget that when the vote for SCA5 ran over the Republicans in the Senate, then into the block wall of Chinese/Asian grassroots opposition, that the Speaker of the Assembly sent it back to the Senate without a vote. It was then that the Latino and Black Caucuses issued a statement that they still support the principles of SCA5. It was also the Latino and Black Caucuses who pulled their endorsement of Senator Ted Lieu for Congress as punishment for withdrawing his support of SCA-5, and then punished Muratsuchi by killing his bill on the assembly floor, after supporting it in committee.

The Governor, the Speaker, The President pro Tem of the Senate, and the Latino and Black Caucuses have all reaffirmed their support of the principles framed in SCA5. Our struggle is far from over. If we can't successfully beat the Democrat's super-majority in at least one of the houses in this year’s elections, we will see it come back to haunt not only Asians, but all Californians who strive for a level playing field and excellence in our educational system.

该文同时发布于CivilRights微信：
http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA5NDEwOTIyMA==&mid=200261190&idx=1&sn=ca0004840655e22f46f7c4c419cd4d48#rd


As for SJR-23 related to the state apologizing for historic discrimination against the Chinese, and calling on Congress to do the same, the timing is coincidental with nothing to do with SCA-5. My husband had been working last fall with some Chinese who had concerns that our Federal and state governments expressed regrets about this historic discrimination against Chinese, but they haven't apologized as they have for other minorities. The bi-partisan, multi-racial LA County Board of Supervisors led the way by signing a letter asking the Federal Government for an apology.

So, in January, some time before the January 30th floor vote on SCA5, Senator Huff asked Senator Leland Yee to jointly author SJR23, to show bi-partisan and bi-racial support from the state legislature seeking an apology. SJR23’s introduction was delayed for a bit because Senator Huff wanted the furor over Senator Yee’s subsequent vote for SCA-5 to die down. Senator Yee was then arrested in an FBI undercover operation, so Senator Yee’s name was stricken from the bill.

Let’s not get too wrapped up in the thought of political gamesmanship, as the author is
implying. Let me restate that there are no political games being played here. SCA-5 was bad for our community and bad for the state, and SJR-23 is good for the state to
understand and express apology for past behavior. Ironically, in perspective, SCA-5 is just a 21st century version of previous and historic discriminations against the Asian
community.

Let's not forget that when the vote for SCA5 ran over the Republicans in the Senate, then
into the block wall of Chinese/Asian grassroots opposition, that the Speaker of the Assembly sent it back to the Senate without a vote. It was then that the Latino and Black Caucuses issued a statement that they still support the principles of SCA5. It was also the Latino and Black Caucuses who pulled their endorsement of Senator Ted Lieu for Congress as punishment for withdrawing his support of SCA-5, and then punished Muratsuchi by killing his bill on the assembly floor, after supporting it in committee.

The Governor, the Speaker, The President pro Tem of the Senate, and the Latino and Black Caucuses have all reaffirmed their support of the principles framed in SCA5.
Our struggle is far from over. If we can't successfully beat the Democrat's super-majority in at least one of the houses in this year’s elections, we will see it come back to haunt not only Asians, but all Californians who strive for a level playing field and excellence in our educational system.