Last year, California sent more Obama campaign volunteers to the swing states than any other part of the country - in part due to a website called "Travel for Change."  Now, the same activists who organized that effort are working to send volunteers to Maine - where in 55 days, voters will determine the fate of marriage equality.  The "No on 1" campaign has welcomed volunteers who can travel to Maine and commit to working for at least a week.  Now, thanks to "Travel for Change," supporters can donate money or airline miles to make that possible.  Many Californians dejected at the passage of Proposition 8 want to help, and with "Travel for Change" they now can get the resources to make a real difference in Maine.   As the right treats Maine as ground zero in their effort to halt the march towards marriage equality, defeating Question 1 on November 3rd can have a national impact in the fight for same-sex marriage.

Bumped from the diaries -- Jonathan... I was just talking about writing a post on this today, but it looks like there's a good one in the diaries worth noting already.

In just 77 days, Maine voters can set the national agenda for marriage equality.  The state legislature passed same-sex marriage earlier this year, but now the right has collected enough signatures to put a referendum ("Question One") on the November 2009 ballot - and has hired the same political consultants who successfully passed Proposition 8.  Supporters of marriage equality, however, are determined not to repeat the same mistakes we made in California - and will run an inclusive field campaign with a pro-active and pre-emptive message that (with the right resources) can bring about victory.  It does not cost a lot to win campaigns in Maine (only $3 million), and voter turnout is expected to only be about 500,000 people.  In other words, the campaign is winnable - but has not yet received the national attention it deserves.  While Californians are divided on whether to repeal Prop 8 in 2010 or 2012, they can set aside their differences by helping us win in Maine.  If we prevail on November 3rd, it will be easier to take our rights back in California.

It's Wednesday morning, and I have packed my bags for a long flight to Pittsburgh to attend Netroots Nation.  It will be my third year going as a blogger from Beyond Chron - but my first as a speaker.  Evan Coren, who parlayed his blog activism to win a seat on the City Council in Columbia, Maryland has recruited me for a panel discussion on Friday afternoon called Local Blogs: Covering City and County Government and Empowering Activism.  We will be joined by panelists from Philadelphia, Chicago and New Orleans - for a superb line-up of bloggers who play a key role in their local governments.  The following is my story about covering San Francisco politics ...

When Barack Obama ran for President, he pledged to fully repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - a mean-spirited piece of legislation that Bill Clinton signed in 1996 for crass political reasons.  Obama says it's still his intent to do so, but has yet to follow up with any action.  Meanwhile, the U.S. Justice Department filed a brief late last week defending a constitutional challenge to DOMA.  The brief did not merely argue against the lawsuit on technical grounds such as the plaintiffs' lack of standing, but advanced legal arguments that - if pursued by the courts - could greatly damage gay and lesbian rights.  Most lawyers at the Justice Department who write these briefs are civil servants who cannot be replaced by a new President, and one of the authors was in fact a right-wing holdover from the Bush years.  But Tony West, an Obama appointee and the brother-in-law of San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, allowed it to be filed in court - and his name appears on the front page.  As Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, West may argue that he's "just doing his job" - i.e., defending existing federal law.  But the Administration can use discretion in these lawsuits, making this unacceptable.

The California Democratic Party "split the baby" on the six propositions for the May 19th ballot - endorsing Propositions 1B, 1C and 1F, while not supporting Props 1A, 1D and 1E.  This shifts the dynamic for the last three weeks.  No longer can Prop 1A's defeat be a mandate against tax increases - because the measure's "spending cap" is why progressives oppose it.  Likewise, "no" on Props 1D and 1E is now a vote for the state to fund children's health programs and mental health services.  And while many liberals fear the short-term "budget gap" if the measures all go down, the Party endorsed a "yes" vote on Prop 1C - which would have the most immediate impact.  The Party's support for Prop 1B is a mandate for public schools - and while Prop 1A's defeat would prevent 1B from going into effect, a "yes" vote could pressure Governor Schwarzenegger to stop gutting education money.  Democrats in the legislature promoted all six measures as a "budget package" to avert fiscal disaster.  But it was a rotten deal, and the strategy would leave us no better off on May 20th towards a long-term solution.  With this new dynamic, we can build momentum for scrapping the "two-thirds rule" in the state budget.

With his fourth run for Governor failing to get traction, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi yesterday announced his plan to run for Congress in the East Bay's 10th District - in a special election to replace Ellen Tauscher.  On name recognition alone, Garamendi will be the front-runner in a crowded field - although State Senator Mark DeSaulnier has key endorsements that will make it competitive.  But while running for Congress is a smart move for Garamendi, it would be far better for Democrats - and progressive politics - for him to run in District 3 against Republican incumbent Dan Lungren.  Tauscher's seat is safe for Democrats regardless of who runs in the special election, while Garamendi is probably one of the few candidates who can win District 3.  He has deep roots in the 3rd District - which includes a large swath of the Sacramento suburbs, along with Garamendi's native Calaveras County.  It is traditionally a "red" district, but Barack Obama carried it last November - and Lungren came unexpectedly close to losing to an under-funded Democratic challenger.  At a time when Democratic activists are pushing the Party to take back "Red California," Garamendi's choice of districts could not be more disheartening and misguided.  Expect this to become an issue at this weekend's State Democratic Convention.

In 2007, right-wing political operatives tried to place a measure on the June 2008 ballot that - if successful - would have awarded California's electoral votes by Congressional District.  Democrats and progressives strongly opposed it, because everyone assumed it would give the G.O.P. presidential nominee an extra 19 votes.  California is a deep blue state, but parts of Orange County and the Central Valley are still reliably Republican.  New data from last November's election, however, suggests that "Red California" is becoming less and less relevant.  Barack Obama carried eight Congressional Districts that had long voted for Republican presidential candidates, and John McCain came close to losing three more.  All these districts are currently represented in Congress by Republicans, but a few incumbents came close last year to losing to Democratic challengers.  It's only a matter of time before some of these districts will eventually flip.  None of this is a surprise, however, because the state's Republican base is older, whiter and shrinking in size.  But the rate of this change is quite staggering, which explains why Republicans in the state legislature have clung to the "two-thirds rule" for passing a budget.  After all, it's the only reason they have any power left in the state.

I've been on record supporting a special election to get the budget reform California desperately needs - such as scrapping the "two-thirds rule" in the legislature, or helping local governments raise revenue.  But now that a statewide election is set for May 19th, no such measures will be on the ballot.  Instead, the six propositions we will get to vote on are Schwarzenegger gimmicks that would cripple the state's ability to function, throw us further into debt, and roll back a small handful of fiscal victories.  A campaign must start now to urge a "no on everything" vote, repeating the success that progressives had in 2005 by defeating Arnold's special election.  The Governor, however, is a lot savvier this time.  Prop 1B (which deals with school funding) is a naked ploy to keep teachers from opposing Prop 1A (an awful spending cap), and there's a dangerous possibility that organized labor will sit out this whole election.  Democrats are not unified in their opposition, as State Senate President Darrell Steinberg even gave Schwarzenegger cover last week at a press conference when he promoted the "budget reform" package.  Only by exposing this election as another Arnold scam can the state come out winning, helping to map a sane fiscal future for California.