Do you like this story?
In CA: Call NOW to stop SB 250, the pet-killer bill
By Gina Spadafori
August 26, 2010
From SaveOurDogs.net:
The California state Assembly is voting TODAY on the mandatory spay-neuter bill SB 250. Please help save our state from the unintended consequences of this bad legislation, which has backfired everywhere it has been implemented.
The initial vote is close: 30 Yes, 38 No, 10 abstained. There will be one last vote before the end of today’s session, during which members can change their votes. We need to thank the 10 who abstained (which is as good as a NO vote). They are under tremendous pressure to change their votes . There can be no other votes after today. We have not won yet, we know that the Yes tally will increase.
Californians: Please, it will only take 5 minutes to call all of the following and say:
“My name is _________, I am calling to thank the assembly member for NOT voting for SB 250 the mandatory spay-neuter bill for dogs and cats”
John Perez…….(916)-319-2046
Brownley……….(916)-319-2041
Galgiani………..(916)-319-2017
DeLaTorre……..(916)-319-2050
Hayashi………..(916)-319-2018
Huber…………..(916)-319-2010
Ma………………(916)-319-2012
Monning……….(916)-319-2027
Manny Perez…(916)-319-2080
Cook……………(916)-319-2065
If you want to know WHY this is a pet-killer bill, read this. It’ll take you two minutes, and the calls won’t take you much longer.
Update 3:04 PM PT: They took another tally and it’s still losing, but it’s close. (See comments for numbers.) Members can change their votes at any time… KEEP CALLING AND FAXING.
3:14 PM PT: Still losing but getting tighter… KEEP CALLING AND FAXING.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
They just voted… and the damn stream at https://www.calchannel.com/channel/live/3 crashed on me when they announced the outcome! Did anyone see it?
Comment by Christie Keith — August 26, 2010 @ 3:01 pm
At 3:01pm, the call was again lifted on SB250. Members voted.
YES … 32
NO … 40
NOT VOTING … 6
There is a strange process in the legislature, in that before the end of the day members can still change their votes.
Comment by LauraS — August 26, 2010 @ 3:06 pm
33-40 now… looks like one “not voting” switched. :(
Comment by Christie Keith — August 26, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
I do think that faxes may be taken more seriously than calls. Most of the folks taking calls seemed disinterested. Only one staff member asked what city I lived in.
In meetings I’ve had when this bill was alive last year, the stack of faxes and mail were at the staff’s fingertips. So make those calls, but also fax if you can. The fax numbers are available here;
http://saveourdogs.net/2010/08.....and-faxes/
Comment by Patti S. — August 26, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
From LauraS:
“At 3:16pm, the call was lifted … again … for SB250. Here is the newest tally:
YES … 33
NO … 40
NOT VOTING … 5
Acting Speaker Fiona Ma stated “The measure fails. Mr. Blumenfield has asked for reconsideration.”
Comment by Christie Keith — August 26, 2010 @ 3:32 pm
Oh, man, not again. How many times does this thing have to fail, before they give up on it? *headdesk*
Patti S., I’ve noticed that about calls this ‘round too. I’d assumed it was just Pat Wiggins’ office but maybe not. I guess I need to look into some sort of web-based fax substitute.
Comment by Eucritta — August 26, 2010 @ 3:40 pm
And yes, a Google search turns up several fax substitutes:
http://websearch.about.com/od/.....online.htm
Comment by Eucritta — August 26, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
We had heard that a bill can only be granted reconsideration once, which SB250 was granted last year when it failed in the Assembly. But it was granted reconsideration again today. So SB250 can be re-voted on in the Assembly on Friday, Monday, or Tuesday. Tuesday is the deadline in the state Constitution.
Comment by LauraS — August 26, 2010 @ 4:03 pm
Oh god.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 26, 2010 @ 4:09 pm
Damn thing won’t die
Wish they put this much effort into education, food safety, medical and insurance reform….
Comment by JenniferJ — August 26, 2010 @ 4:25 pm
I was just told by Brownley’s office that it lost.
Comment by Kim Thornton — August 26, 2010 @ 4:37 pm
It lost today’s vote. It was granted reconsideration. So it can be voted on again.
Comment by LauraS — August 26, 2010 @ 4:49 pm
Without Laura in the front trench — getting dysentery and mustard-gassed — there would be NO reliable information about the parliamentary shenanigans.
Let’s hope that when this monster is staked, beheaded, and the garlic is stuffed into its mouth, all the political calculus that has gotten it unfairly favorable treatment in the assembly will add up to “You’re done. Never again.”
Because someone was either calling in a lot of favors today or making a lot of unsavory promises and threats.
Maybe Lloyd Levine needs a sock-washer at the shoe store.
My question is, if it passes the assembly in the next three business days, does it have to pass the senate by close of business on Tuesday?
Comment by H. Houlahan — August 26, 2010 @ 8:35 pm
Is this process of being able to vote on a bill multiple times in one day peculiar to California? Or is it happening in my own state of WA and I just don’t know it (notwithstanding the political namby-pamby-ness that characterizes much of Seattle politics)?
Was there a quorum? If so, when, exactly is a vote considered final?
Comment by Melinda — August 26, 2010 @ 8:43 pm
Heather, I’ll defer to Laura, but what I’ve heard is that within half an hour of it passing in the Assembly it will be in front of the Senate. So personally, I’m not going to take my eyes off this one until 29 minutes before close of business Tuesday. And even then, I’m keeping one eye open. This thing is the freaking undead.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 26, 2010 @ 8:44 pm
Christie is correct. If it passes the Assembly, the Senate could vote on SB 250 very quickly. And yes, it would have to pass both the Assembly and the Senate by end of next Tuesday.
Christie is also correct about this thing being the undead. It’s the zombie we keep killing, but it keeps coming back.
Here’s our understanding
Original Vote Today
YES … 30
NO …38
NOT VOTING … 10
Vote at 2:34pm
YES … 32
NO … 39
NOT VOTING … 7
Vote at 3:01pm
YES …32
NO …40
NOT VOTING … 6
Vote at 3:16pm
YES … 33
NO … 40
NOT VOTING … 5
Comment by LauraS — August 26, 2010 @ 10:52 pm
Melinda, normal parliamentary rules say that after a vote, someone who was on the “winning” side can immediately move for reconsideration—a revote. Sometimes, the side the expects to lose the vote will intentionally have one of their supporters vote “the other way,” so that they have the chance for that second bite at the apple.
For it to happen over and over and over again like this is unusual, but not against a literal reading of Roberts’ Rules of Order, which is the basis of most legislative bodies’ parliamentary rules. So it probably could happen in WA, but Heather’s right: these rapid-fire repeated revotes mean someone’s pulling some nasty stuff behind the scenes.
Comment by Lis — August 27, 2010 @ 3:41 am
It appears that the motion for reconsideration has only come from the floor manager for SB 250 — Assemblymember Blumenfield who is advocating for the bill in the Assembly. It has only happened if the bill loses in a particular day of voting.
Reconsideration is what allows a revote on a bill at a later date.
Putting a bill on call allows revotes the same day, and also seems to happen only when a bill loses.
In other words, there’s two mechanisms for do-over votes if a bill is losing.
Comment by LauraS — August 27, 2010 @ 7:15 am
Thanks, Lis. I sort of remember the reconsideration provision from when I learned about Roberts Rules of Order long ago in some civics class. Guess I just assumed that it would not be abused to this extent. So it *is* probably happening up here. Sheesh. At some point, No has got to mean No, right?
Been trying to spread the word to my California friends that this issue needs their attention NOW.
Comment by Melinda — August 27, 2010 @ 8:35 am
What’s the scoop? Will this bill come up for a vote today?
Comment by JanetM — August 27, 2010 @ 11:07 am
We are waiting to see if it comes up today
Comment by LauraS — August 27, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
From Laura:
At 1:15 pm today, the
California State Assembly adjourned until 1 pm on Monday, August 30. While it was on the schedule, SB 250 was not brought up for a vote today
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 27, 2010 @ 1:29 pm
I have a dumb bureaucratic question as I am fairly new to this lobbying stuff…
I plan to fax all of the Democratic assemblymembers who abstained or voted no on the bill to urge them to continue their opposition of the bill (thanks to Judie Mancuso for the list!).
My local assembly guy is a Good ‘Ol Boy of the GOP. Should I NOT include my address in my faxes? I am wondering if I send faxes to people out of my district and I include my address, will it be discounted?
Dont want to send 15 faxes to have them all be tossed…
Thanks.
Comment by Liz — August 30, 2010 @ 10:15 am
They glance at them at best, so they’re really more “counted” than read. So numbers do matter. Fax all and let staff sort them out. :)
Yes, include your address. Highest value goes to an actual constituent, and below that, a resident of California. Out of state calls/faxes are pretty much worthless.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 30, 2010 @ 10:17 am
Perfect, thanks Gina! My next dilemma is how to stealthily send out fifteen faxes from work, but I think I can handle that one on my own! ;)
Comment by Liz — August 30, 2010 @ 10:19 am
If you don’t put your address on the fax they may assume you are not from California. Unless they are from national organizations that have members in California, out of state faxes and calls are not a good idea… they can backfire.
Comment by LauraS — August 30, 2010 @ 11:03 am
Laura, I always put my address on my fax, and when it’s my own representative, I mention that in the first line.
I re-faxed today just for the hell of it.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 30, 2010 @ 2:31 pm
Would it not be a good idea for Californians to be faxing their Assembly members today as well?
Because if they ram this baby through and manage to get it to the Assembly floor in a half-hour, that’s not a lot of lead time to have your voice heard.
I’ve no doubt that there are plenty of back-room shenanigans going on to set up that possible vote in the Assembly.
Just asking — if there’s a reason not to, I’m sure someone here knows it.
Comment by H. Houlahan — August 30, 2010 @ 2:53 pm
I already did fax and call. I assumed it was a good idea. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 30, 2010 @ 2:53 pm
Done - again! Getting real tired of this! Grrr…..
Comment by Liz Palika — August 30, 2010 @ 3:29 pm
Yes, Californians who called or faxed their opposition to SB 250 last week or earlier should do another round today. The Assembly will probably remain in session until late tonight. End of the day tomorrow is the last day for legislation, according to the state Constitution. Contact info is here http://saveourdogs.net/
Comment by LauraS — August 30, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
Update from SaveOurDogs:
Monday Aug 30 9:35 pm Update: The Assembly adjourned until 10 AM Tuesday. No vote for SB 250 occurred today. Tuesday is the last day the legislature can deal with SB 250.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 31, 2010 @ 7:35 am
Vote will occur tonight. Please make your calls AGAIN.
Comment by JanetM — August 31, 2010 @ 7:23 pm
SB 250 was FINALLY voted down this evening by the CA legislature.
YYYYYEAAAHHHHHH!!
Comment by DianeM — August 31, 2010 @ 10:51 pm
Ding dong the bill is dead.
They actually LOST votes on the down-to-the-wire ram-it-through nonsense.
Comment by H. Houlahan — September 1, 2010 @ 4:07 am