For Clients & Friends of The Gualco Group, Inc.
IN THIS ISSUE – “Major policy decisions are always mixed with political jockeying”
George Skelton, long-time political writer, on current Capitol maneuvering
- Crunch Time in the Capitol: “Cynicism on Steroids”
- Governor & Legislative Leaders Spend $280 Billion Behind Closed Doors; Why California’s Budget-Making is Shrouded in Secrecy
- State High Court Takes Tax Limit Initiative Off November Ballot
- CA Supreme Court Ruling May Reform CEQA
- “A Tricky Balancing Act” Managing Water for Farms & Fish
- Latino Majority to Transform California, Says Political Consultant
- With Great Power Come Great Speaking Fees…State Controller Inspires Employees with “Spider-Man”
Capital News & Notes (CN&N) curates California policy, legislative and regulatory insights from dozens of media and official sources for the past week. Please feel free to forward this unique client service.
FOR THE WEEK ENDING JUNE 21, 2024
Crunch Time in the Capitol: “Cynicism on Steroids”
LA Times commentary from George Skelton, California’s senior political correspondent
Politicians with their cynical machinations perpetually keep one step ahead of our worst expectations.
This is sausage-making time in Sacramento. Major policy decisions are always mixed with political jockeying. But in an election year, cynicism is on steroids.
Here’s one current standout example: Democrats plan to pass a package of needed legislation to stem the splurge of retail thefts, from petty shoplifting to professional smash-and-grab robberies.
The heists aren’t plaguing just big-box complexes and mom-and-pop convenience stores.
“We have people pushing carts out the grocery store full of stuff,” says Daniel Conway, chief lobbyist for the California Grocers Assn. “They’re stealing for personal use.”
But Democrats cynically intend to insert a “poison pill” that would automatically kill their own legislation if a rival tough-on-crime ballot measure is approved by voters in November. To normal people, that must seem bizarre.
The initiative, sponsored by the California District Attorneys Assn. and funded mainly by big-box retailers, qualified for the ballot last week after collecting around 900,000 voter signatures.
Democrats fear the ballot measure so much they’re offering its backers an offer they can’t refuse. At least, that’s the Democrats’ hope. The message: Take what you can get immediately from the legislation — or risk losing it if the ballot measure passes. And save the many millions of dollars that the ballot measure would cost to promote.
Why are Democrats so adamantly opposed to the initiative? Progressive ideologues believe it goes too far and will lead to restocking prisons with people who don’t belong there.
“The initiative brings back massive prison incarceration,” asserts state Senate leader Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg). “We need to learn from the mistakes of the past. California locked up a generation of residents from Black and brown communities throughout the Golden State.
“Shame on us if we roll out the red carpet again on mass incarceration.”
OK, that’s one reason Democrats hate the initiative. But hardly anyone believes it’s the main reason. The party’s dominant fear, it seems, is that the measure would help Republican candidates, especially in a handful of congressional races where control of the U.S. House is at stake.
“Yes, it’s good for Republican candidates,” says state Assembly GOP leader James Gallagher of Yuba City, referring to the initiative. “But it’s good policy, too. It would be good for Democrats who support this initiative as well.”
Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio says the initiative would “move swing voters. People see crime on the rise. Democrats have a reputation for being soft on crime. Republicans see blood in the water. They want to talk about crime. Democrats don’t.”
Another reason for Democrats inserting the poison pill is that it would give fellow Democratic Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta a license to doctor up the initiative’s official ballot title and summary with a dire warning to voters: If the proposition passes, it will kill the Legislature’s anti-crime reform bills. But then the ambitious Bonta would risk tarnishing his image by looking like just another hack politician.
Let’s return to the first inning of this political game.
In 2014, voters passed Proposition 47, which reduced penalties for theft and hard drug possession. One key feature: if stolen goods were worth less than $950, the crime was generally treated as a misdemeanor, meaning a very light jail sentence, if any.
Law enforcement officials and retailers have long sought changes in 47, particularly since smash-and-grab thefts increased during the pandemic. They claim with justification that thieves aren’t paying for their crimes.
But the Legislature did little until the district attorneys and retailers pushed their initiative to roll back much of Proposition 47 by toughening penalties for retail theft and hard drug offenses, including fentanyl possession. The $950 threshold would be eliminated for a third offense so the repeat thief could be charged with a felony. And people with multiple drug convictions would be compelled into treatment.
The Legislature responded with a 14-bill package that was supported by Republicans — until Democrats revealed their poison pill scheme. The legislative package basically gives DAs more opportunities to prosecute and generally pursues the same aim as the initiative, with a softer touch.
Straight-faced Democrats contend the self-destruct amendment —they don’t call it a poison pill — is necessary because of policy “conflicts” between the legislation and the initiative.
Sure, there are conflicts, but none that seemingly couldn’t be resolved in legislative negotiations.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has not promised to sign the bills, but there’s little doubt that he would. He wants the initiative off the ballot.
Will the poison pill prompt initiative supporters to scuttle their measure? June 27 is the deadline for finalizing the ballot.
“Some companies that support the initiative are going to reevaluate,” says Rachel Michelin, president and CEO of the California Retailers Assn. “A lot of things are in the bill package that are not in the initiative. These are good bills.”
Gregory Totten, CEO of the California District Attorneys Assn., says his group intends to go ahead with the initiative even if big retailers pull out. “We have lots of other [campaign] donors as well,” he says.
“To fix 47, you have to go back to the voters. Legislators have been very unwilling to do that.”
But maybe that would be the smart thing for Democrats: Place a compromise measure on the ballot that each combative side could embrace. And dump the initiative. A home run.
Governor & Legislative Leaders Spend $280 Billion Behind Closed Doors;
Why California’s Budget-Making is Shrouded in Secrecy
CalMatters commentary from Dan Walters
A minor miracle occurred in the California Capitol 50 years ago this month when a bipartisan majority of state senators refused to accept a pork-laden budget that was drafted in secret by two powerful legislators.
It’s a tale worth retelling because the current budget is also being written in secrecy. The process needs another shakeup.
In those days, the accepted practice was for the chairmen of the Legislature’s two budget committees to write the final state budget, taking into account what the governor and individual legislators wanted included.
Accordingly, two Democratic chairmen, Sen. Randolph Collier of the Senate Finance Committee and Assemblyman Willie Brown of Assembly Ways and Means, drafted a $10.3 billion budget for 1974-75.
When Collier presented the budget to the full Senate, however, it drew sharp criticism because it was loaded with state park projects for the North Coast district where Collier was seeking reelection in 1976. It was much different than his traditional political base in the northeastern corner of the state thanks to a redistricting plan adopted by the state Supreme Court.
It was dubbed “park barrel” by Collier’s critics, particularly liberal Democrats from urban areas who had long felt slighted by the Senate’s dominant coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats.
They accused Collier of feathering his newly created political nest, rather than serving the whole state.
“Urban areas, such as I live in, never get any pork in the barrel,” Watts Democrat Mervyn Dymally complained.
Collier was stripped of his Finance Committee chairmanship and replaced by Sen. Anthony Beilenson, a Democrat from West Los Angeles. A new budget was drafted, and the entire process was made more transparent with public, item-by-item discussions by a budget conference committee including members from both houses.
Collier also lost his reelection bid.
The transformed system wasn’t perfect, but allowing interest groups, the public and reporters to see what was being considered was a big step forward. One of the most interesting features was compelling legislators to make their requests for specific items in public, rather than whisper them to the two legislators writing the budget.
Alas, budget transparency faded over time, beginning when a Democrat-dominated Legislature had to contend with Republican governors George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson in the 1980s and 1990s.
The public processes gave way to private negotiations by the so-called “Big 5” — the governor, two Democratic legislative leaders and two Republicans. The latter had to be included because at least a few GOP votes were needed to achieve the required two-thirds margin.
Since the process involved both parties, it was difficult to sneak questionable items into the budget. The budget process regressed further after voters in 2010 endorsed a Democratic ballot measure, Proposition 25, that dropped the budget vote to a simple majority. Democrats then won the governorship and achieved supermajorities in both legislative houses.
Ever since, the Democratic leaders of both houses and Democratic governors have written the final budget behind closed doors.
Thanks to Prop. 25, transparency suffered yet another blow with the proliferation of budget “trailer bills” that are passed with simple majority votes, take effect immediately upon being signed, and are shielded from challenge via referendum.
Governors and legislative leaders use trailer bills to enact major changes in state policy that have little or no real connection to the budget with little or no public exposure or input.
The Big 3 negotiations are now underway, and dozens of trailer bills are being drafted. We won’t really know what the budget package contains until it’s been whisked through the Legislature with little or no real discussion — no small thing given the state’s massive budget deficit.
State High Court Takes Tax Limit Initiative Off November Ballot
CalMatters
The California Supreme Court sided with Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic leaders in the Legislature on the constitutionality of a sweeping anti-tax measure, ruling today that it cannot go before voters in November.
The business community-sponsored initiative, formally known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, broadly aimed to make it more challenging to raise taxes in California, including by requiring the Legislature to seek approval from the voters for any new or higher state tax.
Newsom and legislative leaders sued last fall to stop the measure, arguing that it amounted to an illegal attempt to revise the California Constitution and would impair essential government functions.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court agreed, ordering Secretary of State Shirley Weber to refrain from taking any steps to place the initiative on the Nov. 5 ballot.
The proposed changes “are within the electorate’s prerogative to enact,” Justice Goodwin Liu wrote, “but because those changes would substantially alter our basic plan of government, the proposal cannot be enacted by initiative. It is instead governed by the procedures for revising our Constitution” — whereby proposed revisions must be submitted to voters by a supermajority of the Legislature or a constitutional convention.
The extraordinary decision marks the first time in more than two decades that the court has struck an initiative from the ballot following a full hearing. It last happened in 1999, with a measure that sought to restrict state officers’ pay and transfer redistricting power out of the Legislature, though a few others since then were removed after the proponents did not defend against legal challenges.
Critics called into question the intentions of the seven-member court — six of whom were appointed by Democratic governors, including three by Newsom. Proponents of the initiative slammed the ruling as a travesty and a “gut-punch to direct democracy in California.”
“Clearly, the state Supreme Court has now sent a signal that they are part of the progressive agenda in California, that we are a one-party state in California and there is no independent judiciary in California anymore,” Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, said at a press conference. He accused Newsom and the Legislature of supporting democracy “only on their terms, when they think it’s in their best interest.”
A spokesperson for Newsom said in a statement that “the Governor believes the initiative process is a sacred part of our democracy, but as the Court’s decision affirmed today, that process does not allow for an illegal constitutional revision.”
In his opinion, Liu acknowledged the unusual nature of the preelection review, but wrote that waiting until after voters weighed in to consider the constitutionality of the initiative “would be more challenging than in a typical case” because it includes a retroactive provision that could invalidate existing taxes.
MORE:
https://calmatters.org/politics/2024/06/california-taxes-supreme-court-ballot/
CA Supreme Court Ruling May Reform CEQA
CalMatters
A plot of land where Interstate 5 crosses the American River in Sacramento was once occupied by the Rusty Duck and Hungry Hunter restaurants, but they’ve closed and their buildings have long been vacant.
Recently a developer acquired the property, proposed putting four new high-rise buildings with 826 apartments on it and won city staff approval.
Given its location next to a very busy freeway and the ramshackle condition of the existing structures, a new cluster of apartment high-rises close to downtown Sacramento would seem to be a perfect fit, which is what city staff concluded as they exempted the project from a detailed review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
However, the American River Association wants to block, or at last delay, approval. The group has appealed the city staff’s findings and filed a lawsuit alleging the project would adversely affect wildlife habitat and create light and noise pollution.
It’s a classic example how CEQA, which then-Gov. Ronald Reagan signed five decades ago, is often employed to hold up projects that would appear to have little or no real impact on the environment.
For years housing advocates have complained about CEQA’s misuse, and the state’s political leaders have only paid lip service to reforming it. Former Gov. Jerry Brown once termed an overhaul of CEQA as “the Lord’s work” but declined to take on environmental and union groups that invoke it.
By happenstance, however, a new state Supreme Court ruling on a highly controversial housing project in Berkeley may move the needle on CEQA reform. That decision ended a three-year battle over a 1,200-unit student housing complex that the University of California wants to build on People’s Park, the legendary site of civil rights and antiwar demonstrations in the 1960s.
Opponents of the project won an appellate court ruling that noise from student occupants was an environmental impact that had to be mitigated. There was an immediate media and political uproar because the ruling seemingly created a new weapon for the not-in-my-back-yard folks, or NIMBYs, who oppose almost any project.
Last year the Legislature intervened by passing legislation that “would specify that the effects of noise generated by project occupants and their guests on human beings is not a significant effect on the environment for residential projects for purposes of CEQA.”
The legislation in effect overturned the appellate court ruling, thus making it easy for the Supreme Court to greenlight the project.
The Supreme Court’s decision could have a much broader impact on the perennial debate over CEQA, according to Chris Elmendorf, a UC Davis law professor and expert on housing law.
Elmendorf posted a lengthy analysis on X, formerly known as Twitter, contending that it undercuts the long-standing notion that CEQA trumps other regulatory laws.
“Future generations may look back on today’s decision in the UC Berkeley ‘social noise is pollution?!’ case as the turning point between Old CEQA and New CEQA,” Elmendorf wrote. “Old CEQA emerged from CA Supreme Court cases in 1970s holding that CEQA must be broadly construed to give the ‘fullest possible protection’ to environment.
“The Court of Appeal relied on this maxim in holding that the ‘social noise’ of students is an environmental impact that must be studied and mitigated in context of a university housing project or long-range development plan.
“New CEQA is just an everyday statute, to be construed like other statutes. Be faithful to text, be reasonable, and heed the Legislature’s signals.
“When it comes to housing, the era of CEQA as ‘super-statute’ is, I think, over,” Elmendorf concluded.
It’s not the comprehensive overhaul of CEQA that’s been debated for years, but if Elmendorf’s legal analysis is correct, the misuse of CEQA has suffered a major blow.
“A Tricky Balancing Act” Managing Water for Farms & Fish
Wall Street Journal excerpt
HURON — California is awash in water after record-breaking rains vanquished years of crippling drought. That sounds like great news for farmers. But Ron McIlroy, whose shop here sells equipment for plowing fields, knows otherwise.
“I’ll be lucky if I survive this year,” he said. McIlroy Equipment was started by McIlroy’s grandfather in 1944. McIlroy hopes to hang on, though he expects this year’s business to fall by 40%. “I hope my kids,” he said, “find something different to do for a living.”
Illustrating how broken California’s vast water-delivery system is, many farmers in Central Valley, America’s fruit and vegetable basket, will get just 40% of the federal water they are supposed to this year.
Why? Endangered fish.
The pumps that transport water from wet Northern California to the semiarid south have been drastically slowed to protect threatened migrating smelt, measuring up to 3 inches, and steelhead. That means growers in the U.S.’s richest farming area are having to plant fewer crops even as they are surrounded by water.
The decision by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and California officials, to curtail water to farmers for the silvery fish has ignited an uproar in the southern Central Valley, and threatens to upend this important agriculture region just as it was recovering.
“There’s no reason for it and it’s dangerous for the country,” said Wayne Western, farm manager of Hammonds Ranch, which plans to plant tomatoes, cotton and other crops on only 60% of its 5,000 acres this year, compared with 80% last year. “You don’t know how to plan. You kind of come to a standstill.”
Drought has pummeled California’s farm industry, the nation’s largest, for much of the past decade. University of California researchers estimate drought-related farm losses totaled $7 billion and cost 40,000 jobs in 2014, 2015 and 2022 combined.
Ripple effects go beyond the fields. Years of drought-induced downturns have heavily affected nearby communities, as farmers buy less of everything from tractors to meals out. In Huron—the self-proclaimed Heart of the Valley—population is down 13% since 2019, abandoned buildings line the main drag, and half the crop-processing plants and restaurants have closed.
The southern Central Valley, a top U.S. producer of almonds, pistachios, tomatoes and more, has been hard hit. A 2022 study by the area’s Westlands Water District, the country’s largest agricultural irrigator, found a strong correlation between local poverty and available water.
“Every drop of water creates jobs,” said John Harris, chairman of Harris Farms in the valley.
Record rain and snow last year allowed farmers in the district to receive their full allotment of federal water, a contrast to the prior two years when they received none.
Ron McIlroy’s company, McIlroy Equipment, was among many celebrating a rare lift in sales after years of dismal business. He eagerly anticipated similar success this year following another wet winter. California was declared officially drought-free, boosting spirits.
But the picture darkened for farmers when the Bureau of Reclamation initially forecast a paltry 15% water allocation in February before raising it to 40% in April.
California’s water woes stem from a tricky balancing act: Most of the water is in the north and must be pumped south, where most farmers and people live. The water must go through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where fish listed under the Endangered Species Act migrate.
Environmental groups have successfully fought to protect these threatened species, resulting in a series of federal opinions and court orders over the past four decades that have put the squeeze on water pumping through the delta.
“It’s clear to researchers that over pumping fresh water from the delta is what drove imperiled fish like the delta smelt to near-extinction, so it makes sense to enforce reasonable, sustained limits,” said John Buse, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity, among groups that has pushed for constraints.
Farmers question the data behind the claims of harm to threatened smelt and steelhead, arguing that fish said to be at risk from the pumps include both native and hatchery-bred fish.
“The Endangered Species Act has become a weapon to strip water from farmers,” Harris said.
Nonetheless, to comply with current state and federal regulations, officials say they must curtail pumping when the fish are present.
This spring saw record-low pumping during a wet year because of a high number of fish, according to Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources. Consequently, the San Luis Reservoir, a key water supply for southern Central Valley farmers, sits at just 55% capacity, among the few in the state now not filled to the brim.
“We realize that our contractors were hoping to see a greater amount of water,” Karl Stock, a Bureau of Reclamation regional director, said in a statement at the time, citing “regulatory constraints” as a motivating factor.
Farmers have tried workarounds for when the government curtails their water—but even those methods are falling short.
For instance, they can tap into a vast underground aquifer in the south Central Valley. However, excessive pumping has caused the groundwater table to drop significantly, leading to sinking ground in many places. The state imposed groundwater management in 2015, forcing growers to follow pumping limits.
Some, like fourth-generation pistachio farmer Rebecca Kaser, 40, stored water from last year’s bounty—for a future drought. But now, she expects to use much of it this year.
“I’m unhappy about it,” said Kaser, who was inspecting her 560-acre spread from behind the wheel of a Dodge Ram one recent blistering hot day.
Districtwide, farmers will likely use up most of what they saved last year, said Allison Febbo, Westlands’ general manager. “Big picture, it’s going to be again growers having to be more conservative and people are going to feel less secure.”
Farmers can buy water on the private market, but that can cost five times as much as federal water, said third-generation farmer Mitch Coit, who grows almonds, tomatoes and more on 5,000 acres. He said he might leave up to 80% of his land unplanted next year, given water uncertainty and low commodity prices.
Latino Majority to Transform California, Says Political Consultant
Politico California Playbook
For years, veteran political consultant Mike Madrid has been sending up flares to the Democratic Party warning that they’re losing their sway with Latino voters.
Now, in a new book, he explains why.
“Until the Democratic Party reengages as the idea of who they think they are — which is an FDR, New Deal, working man’s party — they’re going to continue to lose votes,” he told Politico’s Christopher Cadelago in Sacramento this week.
Madrid, who helped found The Lincoln Project, said Trump could win in November with a record number of Latino votes. That’s largely due to failures in the Democratic Party, which doesn’t understand a group it always took to be a part of its base, said Madrid while discussing his new book: “The Latino Century: How America’s Largest Minority Is Transforming Democracy.”
He pointed to a telling example: The name of President Joe Biden’s Latino outreach arm is called “Latinos con Biden-Harris.” While Trump is calling his outreach program simply “Latino Americans for Trump.”
Biden’s approach reinforces the stereotype of the Latinos in the Democratic Party base — Spanish-speaking and recently migrated, Madrid said. Meanwhile, Republicans are speaking to third and fourth-generation Latino voters, which is the fastest-growing group. Eighty percent of new Latino voters, he added, are U.S-born. Most of them speak English as their primary language.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. Latinos are on track to make up more than a quarter of the population by 2060 and could shape the next century of American democracy.
It’s not just Democrats who have problems. Republicans are resistant to the “multiethnic future that is America’s destiny,” Madrid writes.
While the party has seen an increase in Latino support, it’s not necessarily because of its leader. In fact, Madrid said, many Republicans — from Florida Sen. Marco Rubio to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to Central Valley Rep. John Duarte — actually perform better with Latinos than Trump.
“As much as we want to focus on the fact that these voters are moving toward the party headed by Donald Trump, the data tells me that if Trump was not in the way, you would see a much more significant shift to the right,” he said.
Madrid also had some advice for California’s Latino legislators, who he said have much more power than they’re using.
“Start thinking about being a majority. You are not a minority anymore. If you want to reform the education system. You can do it by next Tuesday. If you want to implement a Marshall Plan for housing, you can do it by next Wednesday,” he said.
“You have a working majority of a pro-growth, aspirational, middle-class voting bloc. Act like it.”
With Great Power Come Great Speaking Fees…State Controller Inspires Employees with “Spider-Man”
Sacramento Bee
A motivational speaker with a Spider-Man mask addressed a recent State Controller’s Office event — and was paid from a state contract designed to help with technology projects.
The speaker, Kaplan Mobray, commands speaking fees of between $20,000 and $30,000, according to his Gotham Artists profile page. Mobray declined to disclose that information when contacted by The Bee. Mobray delivered his speech to state workers on June 12, at the Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Public Health auditorium in Sacramento, according to an email statement from office spokesman Bismarck Obando.
The State Controller’s Office employs 1,465 people, according to data from that office. The office is run by State Controller Malia Cohen, who is up for reelection in 2026. As State Controller, Cohen is charged with accounting for and auditing how the state spends its funds and administering payroll for state government and California State University employees.
In his email, Obando wrote that Mobray “was not contracted by the State Controller’s Office and as such we do not have any information relative to the amount he charges.” Obando said that Mobray was hired by the firm Ernst and Young, a state vendor with the office’s two multi-billion-dollar, enterprise-wide technology projects.
“As such, the cost for Mr. Mobray was included in the contract and absorbed by (Ernst and Young),” Obando wrote. The Bee reached out to Ernst and Young for comment, but did not receive any by deadline.
Also unclear is the reason for Mobray’s speaking engagement, which was mandatory for all State Controller’s Office employees — though many attended the speech remotely. Obando wrote that the office’s two technology projects “will transform how we do business and move the organization to a place where we are delivering industry-leading practices for a finance organization.
“To leverage the state’s investment in these projects, the Controller’s Office embarked on a strategic planning process that involves change management. Last week’s SCO team meeting, attended by our 1,400 team members who attended in-person and virtually, was part of that process,” Obando wrote. Mobray specializes in “personal branding,” “sales and performance” and “elevating leadership,” according to his personal website.
One poster on Reddit described the speech as “half political rally for Cohen, half weird motivational speaker yelling at me about superheroes.”
“Asked about the optics of bringing in Mobray to speak at a time when the state is facing a $45 billion budget deficit, Obando wrote that Cohen “is aware of the budgetary challenges facing the state in the upcoming fiscal year.
“As stated above, the cost for Mr. Mobray’s services were not billed to the state and are not subject to reimbursements. Additionally, in conducting the all staff meeting, careful attention was given to minimize state expense by utilizing state resources such as the State Health and Human Services Agency resources facility and by telecasting the event to SCO employees,” he wrote.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article289337310.html#storylink=cpy