For Clients & Friends of The Gualco Group, Inc.
IN THIS ISSUE – “I Wish Them All the Best in Their Future Careers”
POLITICS & POLICY
- Legislators Continue Capitol Great Resignation
- Election 2022 – All the Excitement is “Down Ballot”
- Ballot Propositions Jockey for Position
- Voters Like Gov. Newsom; Worry About COVID, Economy & Crime
- 3 Top Newsom Administration Officials Step Down This Week
- Single-Payer Health Bill & Other Measures Fail At Key Legislative Deadline…Are CA Progressives Challenged?
CALIFORNIA SINGIN’
Capital News & Notes (CN&N) harvests California policy, legislative and regulatory insights from dozens of media and official sources for the past week. Please feel free to forward this unique service.
READ ALL ABOUT IT!
FOR THE WEEK ENDING FEB. 4, 2022
Legislators Continue Capitol’s Great Resignation
Associated Press & Politico California Playbook
Term limits, the pandemic and a once-a-decade redistricting process have combined to prompt a flurry of early exits from the California Assembly, leaving the chamber with an unusually high number of vacancies.
The latest resignation came Monday night when Assemblymember Autumn Burke, a Democrat from Inglewood and chair of the influential Revenue and Taxation Committee, said she would resign effective Tuesday to spend more time with her family — including her young daughter Isabella, who co-signed her mother’s resignation letter in bright, multicolored letters.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the lives and consciousnesses of everyone, and I am no exception,” Burke wrote. “After 7 years of serving as your assemblymember, my hope was to finish out my term, but circumstances have recently changed.”
Burke’s departure means there are now five empty seats in the state Assembly, its highest number of concurrent vacancies in decades, according to legislative historian Alex Vassar at the California State Library.
Jim Frazier quit at the end of last year and has yet to announce a new gig; Lorena Gonzalez bowed out to become head of the California Labor Federation; David Chiu and Ed Chau left after winning appointments to be San Francisco city attorney and Los Angeles superior court judge, respectively. Rumors of a sixth departure abound.
The record is 16 resignations, set in 1849, which was the first year the Legislature existed. Other big departures came in 1941 at the start of World War II, 1965 following a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that changed how districts were drawn, and 1993 and 1995 when term limits first came into play and Republicans took control of the state Assembly for the first time.
This year, a number of factors are at play. First, a wave of Assembly members from the 2012 class will soon reach their 12-year term limits. Second, lawmakers’ districts were just redrawn using new U.S. census data, pitting some incumbents against each other while posing tougher campaigns for others.
The body won’t return to full strength for months, as we roll through a series of special elections. Primaries to fill the former Chiu and Chau seats arrive in a couple of weeks, with another round in April. Some of those contests to fill deeply Democratic seats will likely go to top-two runoffs, adding months to the process. That makes it easy to imagine the Assembly won’t be back to 80 members until after the crucial house of origin deadline, which is weeks before potential June elections.
Redistricting further complicates the situation . Voters will both be picking who fills out the remainder of former lawmakers’ terms under current lines and selecting representatives under new lines — potentially on the same day, with possible June runoffs scheduled to coincide with the regular primary election. (Elections also cost money, by the way — something we were all reminded of on Thursday, when Secretary of State Shirley Weber put a $200 million price tag on last year’s gubernatorial recall attempt.)
Those Assembly districts will stay more or less the same, so it’s a decent bet that whoever prevails in the special elections will still be in those seats in 2023.
And the pandemic has prompted a number of lawmakers to reassess their personal and professional goals, including Burke. She was one of several California lawmakers and staff to test positive for the coronavirus in 2020, an outbreak that led to a lengthy delay of the session.
While multiple lawmakers in the Assembly and Senate have announced they won’t seek reelection, only the Assembly has been hit with a string of resignations. Members in the Assembly must run for reelection every two years, while state Senators are on the ballot every four years.
“People have a lot of reasons for leaving their jobs. We are at an historic moment when many people are reevaluating their lives and making changes, and members of the Assembly are people, too,” said Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, a Democrat who will be termed out in 2024. “They have reasons for change like others. I wish them all the best in their future careers.”
Chiu, who would have termed out in 2026, resigned to become the San Francisco City Attorney. Democratic Assemblymembers Frazier, Chau, and Gonzalez were all facing term limits in 2024 and have resigned to take other jobs. Frazier, who was chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee, left to pursue a job in the transportation industry. Gonzalez, who was chair of the powerful Appropriations Committee, left to be the next leader of one of the nation’s largest labor federations. And Chau resigned after Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed him as a state judge.
The resignations won’t affect the political divide of the state Assembly, where Democrats still control 55 of the 80 seats. But it does make it more difficult for Democrats to reach a two-thirds majority — or 54 votes — required to pass some legislation.
But those vacancies are only temporary. All of them should be filled with a special election by the end of the summer, meaning the state Assembly will be full for the hectic final few weeks of the legislative session when most of the key votes take place.
Election 2022 – All the Excitement is “Down Ballot”
CalMatters
We can pretty much assume that Gavin Newsom will be re-elected this year to a second term as California’s governor. All the excitement appears to be what the campaign pros call “down ballot,” or the other elections for constitutional officiers.
Given that near-certainty, 2022’s most significant statewide race will be Attorney General Rob Bonta’s bid for a full term amidst rising public angst about crime. Newsom appointed Bonta last year after Xavier Becerra resigned to become secretary of Health and Human Services in President Joe Biden’s cabinet.
Bonta is strongly identified with the criminal justice reform movement that critics say is at least partially responsible for the uptick in property and violent crimes by reducing punishment for lawbreakers and putting more of them back on the street rather than behind bars.
A leading critic, Sacramento District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert, is not Bonta’s only would-be challenger, but probably would be the one with the greatest chance of unseating him. It’s a test of whether California voters see crime as a game-changing issue.
However it would play out, a Bonta-Schubert duel would be a straightforward contest between two ideological foes.
A more complex and therefore more interesting political match is emerging for the lesser office of state insurance commissioner, with Democratic incumbent Ricardo Lara facing Democratic Assemblyman Marc Levine.
Lara, a former legislator from Los Angeles, and Levine, who represents Marin County, may not be ideological twins, but both are more or less conventional liberals who generally pay homage to the Democratic Party’s established list of do’s and don’ts.
Their contest is becoming a case study in what happens when one party is utterly dominant. It fragments into internal factions — in essence, quasi-parties — defined by personality, ethnicity, gender or minute ideological differences that vie for influence.
One sees it in the perpetual infighting among Democrats in party strongholds such as San Francisco and among Republicans in the few places where the GOP prevails, such as Kern County. Nature abhors a vacuum and in the absence of two-party competition, it becomes internalized.
Accordingly, Lara and Levine are assembling coalitions of Democratic Party factions. Lara, who is Latino and gay, is counting on support from organizations that represent those two groups, for instance. Levine, meanwhile, has picked up major backing from the California Nurses Association.
Are there any real issues separating the two? Levine, whose district has been wracked by wildfire, basically accuses Lara of being too cozy with the insurance industry he regulates.
From the onset of Lara’s term three years ago, he’s taken fire from Consumer Watchdog, which sponsored the 1988 ballot measure that, among other things, converted the insurance commissioner from an appointee of the governor into an elected position.
Lara, however, has depicted himself as a stern and effective regulator while dealing with an insurance crisis ignited by the spate of wildfires.
Insurers have paid out billions of dollars to compensate victims of recent wildfires and some have threatened to refuse to cover property in fire-prone areas and/or abandon California altogether. Lara has intervened with a series of orders to insurers that they continue coverage in areas hit by fire, invoking a power from legislation he sponsored as a state senator.
The orders he says, “help give people the breathing room they desperately need as they recover.” He’s also ordered the Fair Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, to offer more comprehensive coverage and proposed other insurance reforms.
It’s unclear, whether insurers will help Lara fend off Levine’s challenge. Were they to jump in with big campaign checks, it might hand Levine a weapon to persuade voters that Lara is their protector, rather than their regulator.
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/01/two-statewide-races-to-watch-this-year/
Ballot Propositions Jockey for Position
LA Times’ California Politics
Voters may think November’s election is barely on the horizon, but for the industry built around petition drives, this is the homestretch. Some of the groups behind this election cycle’s bumper crop of proposals simply don’t have the necessary funds while a few that do are hinting they’ll spend whatever it takes, possibly setting a new record for the cost of signature gathering.
It appears that a spike in per-signature prices is on the horizon, based on conversations this week with several political strategists and petition circulators — who asked to speak anonymously in order to provide a candid assessment of what’s going on. Some provided a glimpse at their own spreadsheets that track signature-gathering costs. The amounts were later confirmed by other strategists, including some who are working on the campaigns.
Everyone’s tally was the same: Petition circulators are now collecting signatures on six proposed ballot measures, with possibly one or two more initiatives that could join the fray within the next two weeks.
Two high-profile campaigns are paying $6 per voter signature: One is an effort to legalize sports betting in California, and the other is a proposed income tax surcharge on incomes over $5 million to fund pandemic prevention programs.
A third initiative, a tax hike on incomes above $2 million to fund greenhouse gas emission efforts, is paying $5 per signature. Petition circulators are receiving $3 per signature on an initiative to provide arts and music education in schools and a proposal to limit civil lawsuits filed by employees.
The sixth initiative in circulation would impose new rules governing private kidney dialysis clinics — two previous propositions on the issue were rejected by voters — and its backers are paying $2 per voter signature.
Comparing the per-signature price between campaigns is tricky. Prices fluctuate depending on how many signatures are needed and how close supporters are to reaching their goal. And the goals vary — initiatives to amend the California Constitution require more voter signatures to qualify for the ballot than those proposing a new law.
All campaigns are grappling with the challenge of collecting voter signatures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Reports of coronavirus cases among petition circulators are common and outbreaks can mean fewer people at the sidewalk tables and too few staff to quickly review and process the signed petitions before submitting them to elections officials.
Last year, a Sacramento judge ruled that COVID-19 restrictions had unfairly slowed down the signature collection efforts by proponents of two ballot measures. Both campaigns were given extra time and the measures have since qualified for spots on the November ballot. While it’s possible similar legal relief could be given to the initiatives now in circulation, the timing would be tight.
Two veteran strategists of the initiative process said they wouldn’t be surprised to see prices as high as $15 per signature by the time the finish line approaches this spring. While there’s no official data on signature payments — campaigns report total petition costs on disclosure forms, a lump sum of these expenses — the consensus seems to be that $10 per signature is the high-water mark from previous statewide ballot measure drives. (Local ballot measures often cost much more per signature, partly the result of having a smaller pool of voters from which to gather the needed support.)
Of particular interest is a still-to-come proposal to raise California’s minimum wage to $18 an hour by 2025. The proponent is Joe Sanberg, a wealthy Los Angeles investor who could probably fund the petition drive all on his own, though an advisor says volunteers are expected to assist in the effort to collect signatures.
Sanberg won’t have much time. His initiative isn’t expected to receive clearance for signature gathering until next week and there are only about 12 weeks left before the date by which state elections officials say initiative campaigns should have submitted all signed petitions to county registrars of voters — and that assumes a high percentage of randomly sampled signatures are valid. If elections officials have to check every signature, the recommended deadline is in early March.
Secretary of State Shirley Weber will officially certify the list of November ballot propositions on June 30.
If all seven of these measures qualify for the ballot, California voters could see 11 propositions on the Nov. 8 ballot. Four proposals have already collected enough signatures: a sports betting initiative championed by Native American tribes with gaming interests; an initiative to loosen the state’s existing cap on medical malpractice awards; a proposal to tax single-use plastic packaging and utensils; and a referendum to overturn a 2020 law banning the sale of flavored tobacco.
The tobacco showdown is the result of a signature drive funded by the industry’s biggest companies. On Thursday, tobacco opponents launched their campaign to preserve the law, led by Sen. Alex Padillaand Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis.
It’s possible some of the other measures won’t end up on the ballot. California law allows the proponents of an initiative to withdraw their measure at the last minute, offering the opportunity to negotiate with Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature. That option has been used only twice in recent years — first in 2016 to raise the state’s minimum wage and again in 2018 to enact a sweeping consumer privacy law.
Perhaps the most intriguing matchup would involve the rival initiatives to legalize sports betting. Online wagering companies have already committed more than $100 million for their initiative, potentially pitting them against tribal casino interests that have spent heavily — and won — on ballot campaigns in the past.
Voters Like Gov. Newsom; Worry About COVID, Economy & Crime
Public Policy Institute of California
Californians tend to like the job Gov. Gavin Newsom is doing and see hope for what he and the state Legislature can accomplish this year. Views of Biden and the nation’s direction are less buoyant, as residents increasingly worry about rising prices, the future of the pandemic and the direction of the country. Those are the key findings of a survey released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California. It polled Californians between January 16 and 25.
Four months after Gavin Newsom beat back an attempt to recall him from office, 56 percent of Californians approve of his job performance as governor. Approval of Governor Newsom has remained above 50 percent since January 2020.
Californians most often name COVID-19 (19%) as the most important issue for the governor and legislature to work on in 2022. Additionally, more than one in ten Californians name homelessness (13%) or jobs, the economy, and inflation (12%) as most important. Fewer mention crime, gangs, and drugs (7%), or housing costs and availability (7%).
About half of Californians think that California is in an economic recession, with more saying it is a serious or moderate recession rather than a mild recession.
About six in ten Californians say that recent price increases have caused their household severe (20%) or moderate (41%) financial hardship.
The poll found plenty of optimism about how much Newsom and the Legislature could do, as 58% said they’ll be able to work together and accomplish a lot. Sixty-three percent favored the new Newsom budget proposal, and 73% liked his latest COVID-19 emergency response plan to cope with the omicron surge.
3 Top Newsom Administration Officials Step Down This Week
CalMatters
Newsom’s administration is losing its third top official in less than a week: Yolanda Richardson, secretary of the Government Operations Agency and whom Newsom at one point described as California’s “vaccine czar,”announced Thursday that she is resigning March 2. The news comes two days after California Surgeon General Dr. Nadine Burke Harris announced her resignation and six days after Employment Development Director Rita Saenz stepped down, giving the state’s beleaguered unemployment agency its third leader in two years.
Among the duties for which Richardson was responsible, according to her state bio: Spearheading California’s vaccine rollout and ensuring the equitable distribution of shots; leading a Newsom-appointed strike team to find solutions to EDD’s myriad problems (which released its report five days late); procuring “millions of pieces” of personal protective equipment; directing state workers’ transition to telework; and leading California’s 2020 U.S. Census efforts.
Richardson’s next role: serving as CEO of the San Francisco Health Plan, which administers Medi-Cal in the city.
Single-Payer Health Bill & Other Measures Fail At Key Legislative Deadline…Are CA Progressives Challenged?
Analysis from CalMatters & Politico California Playbook
A controversial proposal to create a state-funded single-payer health care system met a silent death on Monday — an indication of the challenges progressives face in getting their ideas through California’s Legislature despite a Democratic supermajority.
The state Assembly had to pass the bill by Monday in order for it to stay alive, but its author, Democratic Assemblymember Ash Kalra of San Jose, chose not to bring it up for a vote — effectively shielding lawmakers from having to take sides on a politically contentious proposal linked to sizable tax hikes in an election year.
Kalra: “Especially with four Democratic vacancies in the Assembly, the votes were not there today, but we will not give up. Health care is a human right and CalCare has made clear the just path as an alternative to the inequitable system we have in place today.”
But a lot is still at stake politically: The California Democratic Party’s progressive caucus last week threatened to block endorsements for any lawmaker who didn’t support the bill, and said Monday it will still move forward with those plans.
And Kalra’s move didn’t go over well with the bill’s powerful sponsor, the California Nurses Association, which slammed him for “providing cover for those who would have been forced to go on the record about where they stand on guaranteed health care for all people in California.”
Speaker Anthony Rendon — perhaps trying to avoid blame for the bill’s death after blocking a vote on a similar proposal in 2017 — said he was “deeply disappointed” in Kalra’s decision and “fully intended to vote yes on this bill.”
For more on what led to the demise of single payer — again — check out this report from CalMatters’ Alexei Koseff.
Another progressive proposal quietly bit the dust Monday after not being brought up for a vote: a bill that would have forced larger property owners in rent-controlled jurisdictions to keep buildings for 5 years before invoking the Ellis Act, which gives them a path to exit the rental market and evict tenants.
You’d be hard-pressed to find a better laboratory for progressive policy than California: Democrats wield two-thirds-plus margins in the Legislature and control every state office. The party’s hegemony here has allowed Sacramento to achieve a long series of liberal victories.
But it’s been a different story for one health policy goal that has animated Democratic presidential campaigns and enthralled the progressive wings of both the California Democratic Party and its national counterpart.
This was supposed to be the year California progressives got closer. Assemblymember Ash Kalra spent months working with Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon on crafting a viable bill and a companion funding measure that would have generated revenue with an array of tax increases.
While finding the votes to pay for it looked untenable in an election year and the proposed tax hikes drew a barrage of Republican attacks, single-payer supporters felt confident that the policy vessel could at least clear the Assembly floor. Even with four Democratic seats vacant, Kalra could’ve lost 15 members and still have had enough to keep the bill moving.
So much for that. In the end, Kalra didn’t even put his measure up for a vote, citing “heavy opposition and substantial misinformation.” In an echo of the schisms that yawned open in 2017, recriminations soon followed: Rendon expressed frustration in Kalra not calling the vote, saying in a statement that he was “deeply disappointed that the author did not bring this bill up for a vote today.” The California Nurses Association, long single-payer’s most prominent institutional supporter, excoriated Kalra in a statement as having “providing cover for those who would have been forced to go on the record” — a possible reference to moderate Democrats’ fears that their vote could cost them party support . Kalra told seething progressives on a call afterwards that the bill would have failed by double digits, and argued a futile vote would only have “alienated” colleagues he hopes to sway in the next round.
The chance of single-payer becoming operative law this year was vanishingly tiny. Not only would legislators have needed to muster two-thirds votes to hike taxes, they would have had to put a constitutional amendment doing so before voters — a campaign that would surely have brought concentrated opposition from business and medical interests.
Gov. Gavin Newsom pointedly sidestepped questions about the bill, saying he’d take the methodical approach of studying the issue and seeking federal permission.
But you can still distill a larger lesson out of this episode. This was an opportunity for California Democrats to demonstrate an ability to make concrete progress on a central issue for their party’s base. That they could not speaks to the enormous political obstacles involved in overhauling our deeply entrenched private insurance-based health care system — in the Golden State and beyond.
101 Best Songs About the Golden State
NY Times
With its dreamy landscapes and near year-round sunshine, California is the kind of place you could write songs about — and so many people have. Today we’re unveiling our (highly unscientific) list of the 101 best songs about the Golden State. This is a playlist that my colleague Jill Cowan created in 2019 and that I’ve recently begun adding to based on your suggestions. The music showcased in the current iteration stretches across decades, genres and geographies. On the list are the Beach Boys’ “Good Vibrations” from 1966, LL Cool J’s “Goin Back to Cali” and Haim’s 2020 bop “Los Angeles.” As with any playlist, the California Soundtrack is a work in progress that we’ll continue editing and building. You can email your recommendations to me at [email protected]. Below I’m sharing some of the tracks that made the latest cut as well as your arguments for inclusion. I’ll post more of your submissions in the newsletter in the coming weeks.