MIKE SCHMIER - DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE - ATTORNEY GENERAL - CALIFORNIA

Hello, Im Mike Schmier, Democratic candidate for California Attorney General. Our California state constitution specifies that the first duty of the Attorney General is to see that the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced. I am committed to that purpose.

If elected Attorney General, I will do the following:

1) I will work to remove money and special interests from government, to ensure public offices are free from outside control, to clean up the waste in government and corruption in financial markets, to create jobs, security, a strong financial system and consumer protection - by increasing investigations and prosecutions against white collar fraud.

2) I will work to reduce the high cost of our sentencing and prison system. Rehabilitation and job training must be improved so that released prisoners do not return to prison. Minor drug offenders should not be in prison; the death penalty should be eliminated. Spending $55,000 per prisoner annually to imprison drug addicts and three strikes offenders makes no sense. The annual cost of death penalty cases in California is reported to be more than 10 times greater than life sentences without parole; that makes no sense.

3) I support Proposition 15, and will work for legislation and constitutional amendments to expand its reach. Additionally, I support the ballot initiative to legalize cannabis, the second amendment and equal marriage rights.

4) I will work to give every child an equal opportunity. We must re-engineer the school system, including the property tax basis of its financial support. Uniform enforcement of law requires that similarly situated families pay equally for the same services.

5) I will work to make health care for all a reality uprooting waste and fraud in the implementation of the new federal health care program, and supporting single payer and public option state systems.

6) I will work to repair problems in our court system. How would you feel if you were charged with a crime, perhaps a major capital crime, perhaps a $500 ticket from a red light camera, and you were told that - even though appellate courts have decided that what you may have done is not a crime - you are forbidden to use, or even mention the decision necessary to exonerate yourself? Wouldnt you wonder how can this be? What happened to equal justice?

The problem is that more than 90% of the time appellate courts order their opinions marked Not to be Published, and a California Supreme Court Rule prohibits us from using, or even mentioning these unpublished opinions in our state courts. This practice continues in California even though United States Supreme Court justices have eliminated similar rules in federal courts. California Supreme Court justices refused to follow the new federal policy, and instead lobbied the Legislature against bills that would have corrected this problem. Moreover, California justices also erase or de-publish lower court decisions they don't like. Thus, different results flow from similar legal situations. The promise of equality before the law is destroyed.




Doesnt this situation warrant our action?




Two California Supreme Court justices are now running for re-election to 12 year terms. We need to ask them why we are not allowed to use all precedent opinions and rulings to defend ourselves.




There can be no real reform of our courts, criminal justice system, legal processes, and financial markets that our society so desperately needs until this issue is addressed by the voters.

I will work to see that all laws are uniformly and adequately enforced.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• MIKE SCHMIER
• DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE
• ATTORNEY GENERAL
• CALIFORNIA
• VIDEO CANDIDATE STATEMENT
• Prop 15
• Cannibis
• capital punishment
• three strikes
• equal marriage
• unpublished opinions
• supreme court
• no-citation rules
• marijuana
• prison reform
• politics
• law
• legal

[perrykperry]

I like your positions, and am voting for you.

[thebrokenladder]

I like your positions. I would vote for you if we used Approval Voting instead of Plurality Voting. But with our defective Plurality system, I'm afraid to.

So jump on the Approval Voting bandwagon.