Wiki Actu en

November 5, 2014

Jerry Brown wins fourth term as California governor

Jerry Brown wins fourth term as California governor

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

California
Other stories from California
…More articles

A map of California

Flag of California.svg

Jerry Brown’s official picture as Attorney General and as Governor.
Image: State of California.

Yesterday, the incumbent Governor of California Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown won his fourth term to the governorship said the Associated Press (AP), beating his Republican opponent Neel Kashkari with, according to unofficial results, 58.7 percent of the vote as of 4:43 a.m. local time (0928 UTC). Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom also won a second term.

The Republican Party nominated Kashkari over Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, however, Kashkari lagged behind Brown in the polls by double digits. Kashkari was expected to lose to Brown in this election.

Politico reported Brown was popular among California voters with a 54 percent approval rating and remained in the lead over Kashkari in the pre-election polls.

Also on yesterday’s ballot was Proposition 47 which would reduce several felonies to misdemeanor status, reducing maximum sentences from three years to one. AP reported Proposition 47 as having passed. As of 1:28 a.m., unofficial results said the proposition had 58.4 percent “yes” votes.

Brown’s father Edmund G. “Pat” Brown was governor for two terms before losing the governorship to later United States President Ronald Reagan. Jerry Brown had previously won the gubernatorial election in 1974, serving two terms from 1975 until 1983, and served a third term after winning in 2010.



Sources

Bookmark-new.svg


This text comes from Wikinews. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 licence. For a complete list of contributors for this article, visit the corresponding history entry on Wikinews.

August 8, 2013

Wikinews interviews peace activist Cindy Sheehan, 2014 California gubernatorial candidate

Wikinews interviews peace activist Cindy Sheehan, 2014 California gubernatorial candidate

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Cindy Sheehan in 2007.
Image: dbking.

Peace activist Cindy Sheehan, who recently announced her intention to run as the Peace and Freedom Party’s nominee for governor of California in 2014, took some time to answer five questions from Wikinews reporter William S. Saturn.

Sheehan is best known for her active opposition to the War in Iraq following the loss of her son Casey there in 2004. In protest of the war, she set up camp outside President George W. Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, demanding a pullout of U.S. troops and prosecution of Bush administration officials for war crimes. According to her website, Sheehan also advocates revolutionary socialism, believing it to be key to loosening the “Imperialist/Capitalist two-party stranglehold” on U.S. and world politics.

This campaign is not Sheehan’s first foray into electoral politics. In 2008, she challenged then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for Congress, finishing second in a field of seven candidates. During the campaign, she championed the reduction of U.S. troops abroad, and endorsed economic democracy, bank nationalization, single-payer health care, education subsidies, marijuana decriminalization, alternative fuels, and electoral reform. In 2012, she ran as the vice presidential nominee of the Peace and Freedom Party on a similar platform. The party promotes socialism, feminism, and environmentalism.

Other gubernatorial candidates include Governor Jerry Brown of the Democratic Party, former Lieutenant Governor Abel Maldonado of the Republican Party, and 2012 Justice Party vice presidential nominee Luis J. Rodriguez of the Green Party.

With Wikinews, Sheehan discusses third party politics and her campaign and governing strategy, and assesses past governors of California, including Brown.

Interview

Wikinews waves Left.pngWilliam S. SaturnWikinews waves Right.png: Understanding that third party candidates do not often win, what do you hope to achieve by running for governor of California?

Cindy Sheehan: First of all, unfortunately third party candidates NEVER win for high level state or federal offices, and now since Prop 14 passed, it is even harder. Having said that, in 2008, I ran as an independent against Nancy Pelosi and I came in second. In California, I think I may have a good chance to advance to the general election and hopefully force the other candidate, (Brown, ?) to debate me and bring up the issues and solutions to more people.

Wikinews waves Left.pngWSSWikinews waves Right.pngHow do you plan to spread your message throughout the state?

Sheehan: We already have many Californians who have volunteered to host the campaign with fundraisers and town hall meetings. I am going to ride my bike as much as possible to highlight the need to drastically cut our dependence on fossil fuels and to transition to clean, renewable, and sustainable forms of energy — also to highlight the need for cheap and comprehensive public transportation and infrastructure improvement.

Wikinews waves Left.pngWSSWikinews waves Right.pngHow would you rate Jerry Brown’s performance as governor? What would you do differently than him?

Sheehan: Well, since I am challenging him, I would rate his performance as poor. He is in the pockets of so many special interests, like oil and privatized prisons, that he is not looking out for the interests of everyone in this state. I would hold dozens of town hall meetings to talk to the people of this state about their struggles and community-based solutions and work with the people to put their needs first and foremost. Instead of destroying education, I would put a revival of our public school system as one of the most urgent things we need to do.

Wikinews waves Left.pngWSSWikinews waves Right.pngIf elected, how would you work with a legislature hostile to your agenda?

Sheehan: By getting the people involved in the process. It’s the only way we can do it.

Wikinews waves Left.pngWSSWikinews waves Right.pngWhich past California governor do you most admire?

Sheehan: I majored in US History at UCLA and was focusing on California history, so I admire someone who ran for governor, Upton Sinclair, more than anyone who actually was elected. Our EPIC campaign is modeled off of his. But if I had to pick one that was actually governor, I would say, populist-progressive Hiram Johnson. May I also say that it’s way past time that California elected a female?



Related news

Sources

Wikinews
This exclusive interview features first-hand journalism by a Wikinews reporter. See the collaboration page for more details.
Bookmark-new.svg


This text comes from Wikinews. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 licence. For a complete list of contributors for this article, visit the corresponding history entry on Wikinews.

October 1, 2012

California passes law banning gay-to-straight therapy

California passes law banning gay-to-straight therapy

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Monday, October 1, 2012

LGBT
Related articles

Rainbow flag
Collaborate!
  • Pillars of Wikinews writing
  • Writing an article

Governor Jerry Brown.
Image: State of California.

California Governor Jerry Brown Saturday signed into law a bill banning licensed mental health providers treating teenagers and children from attempting “to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex”.

In a statement to the San Francisco Chronicle, Governor Brown described the bill: “This bill bans non-scientific ‘therapies’ that have driven young people to depression and suicide. These practices have no basis in science or medicine and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery”.

LGBT rights campaigners have welcomed the announcement. Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, which petitioned Brown to pass the law, stated “LGBT youth will now be protected from a practice that has not only been debunked as junk science, but has been proven to have drastically negative effects on their well-being”. Griffin also called for other states to implement similar laws.

Kay Kendell from the National Center for Lesbian Rights stated: “Governor Brown has sent a powerful message of affirmation and support to LGBT youth and their families. This law will ensure that state-licensed therapists can no longer abuse their power to harm LGBT youth and propagate the dangerous and deadly lie that sexual orientation is an illness or disorder that can be ‘cured.’ ”

The law is to take effect on January 1, 2013.



Sources

Bookmark-new.svg


This text comes from Wikinews. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 licence. For a complete list of contributors for this article, visit the corresponding history entry on Wikinews.

April 24, 2011

California employees owe state US$13.3 million in unpaid loans

California employees owe state US$13.3 million in unpaid loans

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Sunday, April 24, 2011

California
Other stories from California
  • 13 April 2015: US Soccer: Seattle Sounders fall to LA Galaxy 1-0
  • 4 April 2015: Musician Joni Mitchell hospitalised after found unconscious in home
  • 14 March 2015: Convicted murderer J.C.X. Simon dies in prison, aged 69
  • 21 February 2015: Harris Wittels, Parks and Recreation executive producer, found dead aged 30
  • 5 November 2014: Jerry Brown wins fourth term as California governor
…More articles

A map of California

Flag of California.svg

Official photograph of Controller John Chiang.

The California Controller’s office reports that eleven state agencies have given US$13.3 million in pay and travel advances that have not been collected.

Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order to recover uncollected loans by the agencies. A press release from the governor’s office states, “The Governor’s Executive Order seeks to recover taxpayer dollars by directing state agencies and departments to clear salary and travel advances within 30 days through an expense claim.” Any outstanding balance will be deducted from employees’ paychecks under the governor’s order after the 30 days.

Under California state law, state employees are permitted to receive advances for hardship, travel, and other circumstances. These advances cannot be collected by agencies after three years without the employee’s consent.

State Controller John Chiang said in a statement, “The state’s poor debt collection and accounting practices are fleecing public coffers at a time when vital public programs are being decimated by unprecedented budget cuts.” Chiang’s office expects there will be more money unaccounted for, including some from the California Highway Patrol (CHP). California state law mandates that anyone convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol is required to pay for the investigation. The CHP has not collected this money.

The California Department of Transportation, also called Caltrans, has the largest debt of the eleven agencies: $3.2 million. Cal Fire, or the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, “had an outstanding balance of $1.44 million as of June 30, 2008. An overwhelming portion of that balance was related to employee salary and travel advances,” according to a controller’s office audit.

Chiang’s office had informed former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger there were outstanding debts, but Schwarzenegger’s administration did not take action.

All eleven agencies have agreed to hand over any delinquent accounts to the controller’s office, who will collect these debts.



Sources

Bookmark-new.svg


This text comes from Wikinews. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 licence. For a complete list of contributors for this article, visit the corresponding history entry on Wikinews.

November 4, 2010

Jerry Brown defeats Meg Whitman in election for California governorship

Jerry Brown defeats Meg Whitman in election for California governorship

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Candidate Edmund Gerald “Jerry” Brown, Jr., seen here, was the reigning Democrat nominee who won in the 2010 election for the position of governor of California.

On the Republican side, Margaret Cushing “Meg” Whitman, seen in this picture, was the lead nominee for her party in the election, which she lost despite having spent $141 million to fund her campaign.

On Tuesday night, twenty-seven years after previously completing his second term as governor of California, candidate Jerry Brown has again won the race for the position.

Attorney General Jerry Brown, of San Francisco, California, was the lead nominee for the Democratic Party, facing off against the lead nominee of the Republican Party Meg Whitman, of Long Island, New York, who had spent a record US$141 million to support her campaign. More than approximately $80 million of that was diverted to knocking out California Insurance Commissioner and also Republican candidate Steve Poizner, of Houston, Texas, who was also running in the election but was defeated early in the campaign.

The election ended with only 42.2% popular support for Meg Whitman as contrasted with 52.8% of votes for Jerry Brown. A major issue that arose during the elections was the bad economy, something that many people cited as the reason for their votes. Some mudslinging, including an incident when an unidentified Brown supporter was found to have called Whitman a “whore”, also ensued a few days before the night of the election took place in the Fox theater, according to Cnet.

When the night of the election came and the new governor of California announced, the former Jesuit seminary student gave his five-minute victory speech, showing optimism for the future of California and the state budget:

“I see California once again leading in renewable energy, in public education and openness to every kind of person, whatever their color is,” Brown said. “I mean, we’re all God’s children.”



Sources

Bookmark-new.svg


This text comes from Wikinews. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 licence. For a complete list of contributors for this article, visit the corresponding history entry on Wikinews.

February 22, 2009

California\’s violent video game ban law ruled unconstitutional by US Court of Appeals

California’s violent video game ban law ruled unconstitutional by US Court of Appeals

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search
Internet
Related stories
  • Supreme Court of Sweden agrees to try Bildkonst Upphovsrätt i Sverige versus Wikimedia Sverige
  • Wikinews interviews Asaf Bartov, Head of Wikimedia Grants Program and Global South Partnerships
  • Google shuts down Google News Spain
  • Wikinews interviews Mario J. Lucero and Isabel Ruiz of Heaven Sent Gaming
  • Parts of internet break as ‘512k day’ reached by routers

Graphical map of the Internet
More information at Wikipedia:
  • Internet portal
  • Internet
  • History of the Internet
  • Internet censorship
  • Internet Protocol
  • World Wide Web

Sunday, February 22, 2009

The Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals, Pasadena, California

A U.S. Court of Appeals on Friday has declared unconstitutional California Assembly Bills 1792 & 1793, the California “ultraviolent video games law” that sought to ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.

Federal judge Consuelo M. Callahan has ruled that the 2005 statewide ban, which has yet to be enforced, violates minors’ rights under the US Constitution’s First and 14th amendment because even the most graphic on-screen mayhem, video game content represents free speech that cannot be censored without proper justification.

The Court has ruled that there’s no convincing evidence it causes psychological damage to young people. The 3-0 judgment has affirmed an earlier ruling by a U.S. District Court, which barred enforcement of the law on the basis that it was “unduly restrictive” and “used overly broad definitions,” and that the state failed to show that the limitations on violent video games would actually protect children.

In 2005, Leland Yee (余胤良), a California State Senator (in District 8 which includes the western half of San Francisco and most of San Mateo County), Speaker pro Tempore of the Assembly (D-San Francisco/Daly City), introduced California Assembly Bills 1792 & 1793 which barred “ultra-violent” video games from minors under the age of eighteen in California and mandated the application of ESRB ratings for video games.

“California Assembly Bills 1792 & 1793” were commonly called the “ultraviolent video games bills” or simply “video game ban” bills. Bill 1792 banned the sales of such video games while Bill 1793 required signs explaining the regulations on said games to be placed where such were sold. Both bills were passed by the Assembly and signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger into law (AB 1179) on October 7, 2005.

Explicitly, these two bills provided that:

  • AB 1792 will place ultra-violent video games into the “matter” portion of the penal code, which criminalizes the sale of said material to a minor.
  • AB 1793 will require retailers to place M-rated games separate from other games intended for children, and will also require retailers to display signage explaining the ESRB rating system.

Yee, a former child psychologist has publicly criticized such games as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and Manhunt 2, and opposes the U.S. Army’s Global Gaming League.

On October 17, 2005, before the effectivity of the challenged Act, plaintiffs Video Software Dealers Association, the not-for-profit international trade association dedicated to advancing the interests of the $32 billion home entertainment industry and Entertainment Software Association, a 1994 US trade association of the video game industry have filed lawsuit (D.C. No. CV-05-04188-RMW) against the defendants Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, CA Attorney General, Edmund G. Brown, Santa Clara County District Attorney George Kennedy, City Attorney for the City of San Jose, Richard Doyle, and County Counsel for the County of Santa Clara, Ann Miller Ravel.

Paul Cappuccio EVP and General Counsel of Time Warner and Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Jenner & Block’s Paul M. Smith has filed a declaratory relief to invalidate the newly-enacted California Civil Code sections 1746-1746.5 (the “Act”), on the grounds that it allegedly violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Plaintiffs have submitted that “the Act unconstitutionally curtailed freedom of expression on its face based on content regulation and the labeling requirement, was unconstitutionally vague, and violated equal protection. California’s restrictions could open the door for states to limit minors’ access to other material under the guise of protecting children.”

By December 2005, both bills had been struck down as unconstitutional, by Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose, thereby preventing either from going into effect on January 1, 2006.

Judge Whyte has granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in “Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. Schwarzenegger,” 401 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (N.D. Cal. 2005), and cross-motions for summary judgment, in “Video Software Dealers Ass’n v. Schwarzenegger,” No. C-05-04188, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2007).

Similar bills were subsequently filed in such states as Illinois, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Michigan and Louisiana have been ruled to be unconstitutional by federal courts on First Amendment grounds, according to Sean Bersell, a spokesman for the Entertainment Merchants Association.

The defendants, in the instant Case No. 07-16620, have timely appealed the judgment. On October 29, 2008, the appealed case was argued and submitted to the Sacramento, California’s U.S. Court of Appeals, hence, the promulgation of the instant 30 pages decision (No. 07-16620; D.C. No. CV-05-04188-RMW) by Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Sidney R. Thomas and Consuelo M. Callahan (who wrote the court’s opinion), United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judges.

In the ban’s defense, Deputy Attorney General for the State of California, Zackery Morazzini has contended that “if governments restrict the sale of pornography to minors, it should also create a separate category for ultra-violent video games.” Edmund Gerald “Jerry” Brown, Jr., California Attorney General, has also argued that “the Court should analyze the Act’s restrictions under what has been called the ‘variable obscenity’ or ‘obscenity as to minors’ standard first mentioned in Ginsberg, 390 U.S. 629. The Court’s reasoning in Ginsberg that a state could prohibit the sale of sexually-explicit material to minors that it could not ban from distribution to adults should be extended to materials containing violence.”

The “Fallo” or dispositive portion of the judgment in question goes as follows:

We hold that the Act, as a presumptively invalid contentbased restriction on speech, is subject to strict scrutiny and not the “variable obscenity” standard from Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968). Applying strict scrutiny, we hold that the Act violates rights protected by the First Amendment because the State has not demonstrated a compelling interest, has not tailored the restriction to its alleged compelling interest, and there exist less-restrictive means that would further the State’s expressed interests. Additionally, we hold that the Act’s labeling requirement is unconstitutionally compelled speech under the First Amendment because it does not require the disclosure of purely factual information; but compels the carrying of the State’s controversial opinion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Plaintiffs and its denial of the State’s cross-motion. Because we affirm the district court on these grounds, we do not reach two of Plaintiffs’ challenges to the Act: first, that the language of the Act is unconstitutionally vague, and, second, that the Act violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
—”Video Software Dealers Association; Entertainment Software Association v. Arnold Schwarzenegger and George Kennedy” – No. 07-16620; D.C. No. CV-05-04188-RMW – Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Sidney R. Thomas and

Consuelo M. Callahan, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Circuit Judges.

“We need to help empower parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder,” said the law’s author, Sen. Leland Yee, announcing he wanted Edmund Gerald “Jerry” Brown, Jr., the current Attorney General and a former governor of the State of California, to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Letting the industry police itself is like letting kids sign their own report cards and that a self regulating system simply doesn’t work. I’ve always contended that the … law the governor signed was a good one for protecting children from the harm from playing these ultra-violent video games. I’ve always felt it would end up in the Supreme Court,” Sen. Yee explained. “In fact, the high court recently agreed, in Roper v. Simmons (2005), that we need to treat children differently in the eyes of the law due to brain development,” he added.

According to Michael D. Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, plaintiff, the Court’s ruling has stressed that parents, with assistance from the industry, are the ones who should control what games their children play. “This is a clear signal that in California and across the country, the reckless pursuit of anti-video game legislation like this is an exercise in wasting taxpayer money, government time and state resources,” Gallagher said in a statement.

Cquote1.svg California’s violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games. While I am deeply disappointed in today’s ruling, we should not stop our efforts to assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children. Cquote2.svg

—– Leland Yee (余胤良), a California State Senator

Entertainment Software Association members include Disney Interactive Studios, Electronic Arts, Microsoft Corp, THQ Inc, Sony Computer Entertainment America, and Take-Two Interactive Software, the maker of “Grand Theft Auto” games.

Judge Callahan has also reprimanded state lawyers for having failed to show any reasonable alternatives to an outright statewide ban against the ultra-violent video games. “Ratings education, retailer ratings enforcement, and control of game play by parents are the appropriate responses to concerns about video game content,” said Bo Andersen, president and chief executive of the Entertainment Merchants Association.

Andersen continues, “retailers are committed to assisting parents in assuring that children do not purchase games that are not appropriate for their age. Independent surveys show that retailers are doing a very good job in this area, with an 80 percent enforcement rate, and retailers will continue to work to increase enforcement rates even further; the court has correctly noted that the state cannot simply dismiss these efforts.”

California was already forced to pay $282,794 to the ESA for attorneys’ fees, money that would’ve helped with the state’s current budget difficulties. Andersen has urged California government officials not to appeal the case. “The estimated $283,000 in taxpayer money spent by the state on this case is so far an ‘ill-advised, and ultimately doomed, attempt at state-sponsored nannyism.’ A voluntary ratings system already exists to avoid the state-sponsored nannyism of a ban,” he explained.

“The governor believes strongly we have a responsibility to our children and our communities to protect against the effects of video games depicting ultra-violent actions,” said Governor Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Camille Anderson adding the governor was reviewing Friday’s decision.

Michael D. Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, plaintiff

Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini, the state’s counsel in the appealed case, has stressed that “a law restricting sales of violent games is far more effective than industry self-policing, since the technological controls that the court cited as another alternative can be easily bypassed by any kid with an Internet connection.”

According to Jim Steyer, Founder of Common Sense Media, a non-profit organization of 750,000 regular users dedicated to improving children’s media lives, researches have shown that playing these violent video games are detrimental for kids mental and physical health. “The health threat involved with kids playing such games is equivalent to smoking cigarettes,” Steyer said. “These violent video games are learning tools for our children and clearly result in more aggressive behavior,” said Randall Hagar, California Psychiatric Association’s Director of Government Affairs.

The Federal Trade Commission’s data reveals that “nearly 70 percent of thirteen to sixteen year olds are able to purchase M-rated (Mature) video games, which are designed for adults; ninety-two percent of children play video or computer games, of which about forty percent are rated M, which are the fastest growing segment of the 10 billion-dollar video game industry; the top selling games reward players for killing police officers, maiming elderly persons, running over pedestrians and committing despicable acts of murder and torture upon women and racial minorities.”



Related news

Sources

Wikipedia Learn more about Nonviolent video game and California Assembly Bills 1792 & 1793 on Wikipedia.
Bookmark-new.svg


This text comes from Wikinews. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 licence. For a complete list of contributors for this article, visit the corresponding history entry on Wikinews.

May 22, 2005

Mayors back global warming pact

Mayors back global warming pact – Wikinews, the free news source

Mayors back global warming pact

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Sunday, May 22, 2005

Going against the Bush administration’s opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, more than 130 U.S. mayors have pledged to meet or beat certain Kyoto targets by 2012. Examples include anti-sprawl land-use policies or encouraging cruise lines to turn off their engines while docked.

Critics of the Kyoto Protocol claim it is unnecessary, due to an alleged or perceived lack of clear evidence that global warming is due to human activities.

Participating Mayors

Leaders

Joining Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels to lead the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement are:

  • Mayor Rocky Anderson, Salt Lake City, Utah
  • Mayor Peter Clavelle, Burlington, Vermont
  • Mayor Rosemarie Ives, Redmond, Washington
  • Mayor Gavin Newsom, San Francisco, California
  • Mayor Pam O’Conner, Santa Monica, California
  • Mayor Tom Potter, Portland, Oregon
  • Mayor Mark Ruzzin, Boulder, Colorado
  • Mayor R.T. Rybak, Minneapolis, Minnesota
  • Mayor Jerry Brown, Oakland, California

Participants

Full list of participating mayors

Sources

External link

Bookmark-new.svg


This text comes from Wikinews. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 licence. For a complete list of contributors for this article, visit the corresponding history entry on Wikinews.

Powered by WordPress