PRIMARY EXPOSES PROBLEMS WITH EARLY VOTING

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 2020 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
      “PRIMARY EXPOSES PROBLEMS WITH EARLY VOTING”

          In a simple world where every election contest involves two contestants, early voting is terrific. Not this month in California.

It’s plain why things have long gone well for early voting in November runoff elections where the state’s top two “jungle primary” always puts the primary election’s top two vote-getters into runoffs for every state office.

          Other electoral choices like ballot propositions and runoff races for city and county offices also don’t change during the month before the fall vote.

          While November presidential choices can involve multiple parties, the two major parties always choose their nominees long before mail ballots go out a month or so before the vote. Which explains why early voting works just fine in the fall.

         Not so much in a primary.

          Early primaries like this year’s in California can be very different. Because this state doesn’t make all the choices during the presidential primary season, the field of candidates can change considerably during the time between when ballots are printed two to three months before Election Day, and their mail-out date.

          This reality exposed a big weakness in the state’s early voting this year. Ballots were printed in December, when the Democratic presidential field included the likes of Andrew Yang, Julian Castro, Amy Klobuchar, John Delaney, Michael Bennet, Pete Buttegieg, Beto O’Rourke and Tom Steyer.

          Those names were included on the 15-plus million ballots mailed to Californians Feb. 3, although some dropped out before then. They also appeared on voting machines and ballots used on Election Day.

          Which created a host of  ballots cast for candidates who departed the race either long before the vote or in the few days leading up to Election Day.

          It’s the first time early voting caused significant trouble in California, where a preliminary version of today’s system began in the early 1980s, when absentee ballots became available to anyone requesting one rather than only to folks who knew they’d be away on the official voting day.

          In their first statewide use, easily available mail ballots helped Republicans defeat Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley for governor in 1982, giving the job to Republican George Deukmejian despite polls predicting an easy Bradley win.

          Democrats quickly caught on. They now see early voting as a means to increase turnouts – and it’s a political truism that the larger the vote, the better Democrats will do. That's why the Democrats who dominate Sacramento mandated motor-voter, where voter registration is easy for U.S. citizens getting drivers licenses.

They also set up pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds, plus same-day voter registration for adults. And California’s newest voting system, used this time in 15 counties, encouraged early voting not only by mail, but at voting centers open almost two weeks before Election Day.

It’s a system designed to make voting as easy as possible, Democrats believing the larger numbers produced will help them and hurt Republicans. It’s also the complete opposite of the voter limitations set up by Republican-controlled legislatures in more than 20 other states.

But a lot of Democratic voters now find themselves resenting the system set up by lawmakers they elected, which produced more than 4 million early votes. That’s because – if polling in the week before the primary was accurate – at least 12 percent to 15 percent of those early ballots favored Minnesota Sen. Klobuchar, former South Bend, IN, Mayor Buttegieg or financier Steyer.

          Some of those voters would have liked to take a mulligan and vote over again once their candidates dropped out shortly before Election Day. But they could not.

          Since all the dropouts were among the Democrats’ moderate candidate grouping, votes they got very likely would have gone to former Vice President Joseph Biden if voters had known who would quit. This greatly handicapped Biden’s eventual performance in California, where he finished a distant second to the far more radical Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

          It represents the first time early voting in California likely misrepresented some voters’ eventual Election Day preferences. Which may produce more tinkering with California’s voting system before the next presidential primary arrives in 2024.

-30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

GOP STARTS TO WISE UP; WILL DEMS FOLLOW?

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2018 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

          “GOP STARTS TO WISE UP; WILL DEMS FOLLOW?”

          California’s top two primary system is living up to its “jungle primary” nickname more than this spring than ever, with dozens of candidates vying in both statewide and district races across the state for rare, elusive spots on the November general election ballot.      

          Before Proposition 14 passed in 2010, every political party recognized by the state got one slot and no more in the fall runoff. But now only the two leading primary election vote-getters make the final, regardless of their party.

          Over three election cycles since voters adopted the system, this has created dozens of one-party races for legislative and congressional seats and once put a congressional district with a significant Democratic registration margin into a runoff involving two Republicans.

          So far, there’s been only one statewide, top-of-ticket single-party race: Two years ago, Democrat Kamala Harris easily defeated fellow Democrat Loretta Sanchez for the U.S. Senate seat long held by a third Democrat, Barbara Boxer.

          Barring a major upset, there will be another one-party Senate race this fall, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein facing off against longtime state Senate President Kevin de Leon.

          There also could be a one-party run for governor, as Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and ex-Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa have paced the field since polling began early last year.

          But Republicans now show signs of smartening up to one basic law of the jungle primary – when too many candidates from one party run, they can splinter their supporters’ vote so much that none of them makes the runoff.

          Barely a week before the filing deadline for the June primary, one of the three significant GOP candidates for governor dropped out for the sake of party survival. That was former Sacramento-area Congressman Doug Ose, who entered the race late and never drew many campaign donations or decent poll numbers.

          Ose, like San Diego County businessman John Cox and Orange County Assemblyman Travis Allen, hoped to capture the bulk of the votes of California’s Republicans, who now total just one-fourth of those registered to vote. But he never got above 3 percent in the polls.

          If Allen and Cox split Ose’s meager support, both would still be running far behind Newsom and Villaraigosa, unlikely to advance to November. To field a fall candidate, the GOP probably needs one more of its hopefuls to drop out, the survivor presumably netting virtually all Republican votes and possibly pulling more currently undecided voters than any Democrat. An unlikely scenario.

          But at least the Republicans recognize the danger of having too many candidates for one office.

          So far, Democrats hoping to flip some of California’s Republican seats in Congress don’t seem to have gotten this message. It won’t matter in districts with an incumbent running, as that single Republican will make the November ballot along with whoever tops the Democrats in June.

          But in the 39^th and 49^th districts, where longtime incumbents Ed Royce and Darrell Issa are retiring, Democrats risk not making the ballot despite Hillary Clinton’s carrying both districts in 2016.

          When he announced his impending departure, the 13-termer Royce endorsed longtime aide and former Orange County state Assemblywoman Young Kim. But several other strong GOP candidates also entered that race, along with four significant Democrats. It’s likely that Kim will advance to November, and there’s a possibility one of the other Republicans might pull a few more votes than any Democrat. Which would leave a one-party Republican race in a district Clinton won by almost 10 percent.

          In Issa’s longtime district, Oceanside Assemblyman Rocky Chavez and state Board of Equalization member Diane Harkey are strong Republican candidates, running 2-3 in a February poll behind Democrat Doug Allen, who came within less than 1 percent of beating Issa in 2016.

          But if any of the four other Democrats in the running becomes even a bit stronger, Allen could drop to third in the splintered primary vote, leaving a two-Republican runoff in another district Clinton won.

          The bottom line: Just as Ose dropped out for the sake of his party, some Democrats running for Congress must leave the field or risk failure for their party’s efforts to take over control of the House of Representatives.

         

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net.

BLEEDING STOPS ON ONE SCHWARZENEGGER BLUNDER

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 2015, 2014 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
    “BLEEDING STOPS ON ONE SCHWARZENEGGER BLUNDER”

          California has bled many millions of dollars because of the myriad blunders by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who probably should have remained a muscleman actor and never ventured into politics.

          Spending has barely begun on the high speed rail project he enthusiastically backed without worrying about troublesome details like its precise route or whether it can ever attain the ultra-high speeds he promised. Many dozens more millions of dollars have been doled out – with lots more to come – to build refueling stations for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles long before anyone knows whether consumers will buy them.

          The $15 billion deficit-payment bond issue Schwarzenegger pushed on California voters ended up costing the state almost twice that, when interest was counted.

          But at least the disastrous real estate deal the fading movie star pushed is at last dead. True, it has now cost the state more than $24 million without producing even one job or one dime, but at least it is gone.

          This deal began as a high-stakes auction in 2009, when Schwarzenegger cast about desperately for solutions to the state’s seemingly perpetual budget shortfalls. As he looked for revenue sources, Schwarzenegger pounced on 11of the state’s trademark buildings, including the Public Utilities Commission building in San Francisco, the Justice Department in Sacramento, the Supreme Court building in San Francisco and the pink granite Ronald Reagan State Building in Los Angeles.

          The top bid deemed credible in Arnold’s auction amounted to $2.3 billion (just $600 million in immediate cash) for the emblematic structures. The rest of the money was to come in the form of savings on things like janitorial services and power and gas bills.

     Schwarzenegger-appointed spokesmen for the state Department of General Services pronounced the deal “fantastic,” to use one of the ex-governor’s favorite hollow expressions, saying it would help get the state out of its financial hole without costing much. But other state economists at the same time estimated the deal would cost taxpayers $2.8 billion over 30 years as the state rented back its own buildings.

          It was never clear how $600 million could do much against a cash shortage variously estimated between $27 billion and $45 billion. So, like his 2004 bond issue that bought nothing, this was another of the many short-cuts Schwarzenegger tried to use to solve problems without making sacrifices.

          Realizing that incoming Gov. Jerry Brown had pegged the real estate deal as a disaster during his 2010 campaign, Schwarzenegger tried to sign documents cementing it during his term’s final hours. But he missed a line or two, allowing Brown to cancel the deal within his first few weeks in office.

          This rankled the private real estate firms that had combined on the winning bid and expected to milk big profits from the state. The firms, through a partnership called California First, headed by the Irvine-based ACRE LLC and Hines Inc. of Houston, TX, sued to keep the sale alive, and it festered on for four years.

          A court date arrived at last in December, but the judge wanted no part of any testimony. Instead, he ordered the sides into negotiations, producing a $24 million settlement last month.

          So the state escaped from this one with a loss of less than 1 percent of what was projected if the deal had gone through, plus legal fees. Meanwhile, it continues to operate the buildings, which remain prominent symbols of state government.

          At the same time, Brown’s tactics over the last four years, including the Proposition 30 tax increases he pushed successfully, have eliminated the annual budget shortage despite constant pressure from the Legislature for more spending. There’s also been some help from the recovering economy.

          One lesson here is age-old: It’s generally far better to make some momentary sacrifices than to sell off a birthright, and it’s especially bad to sell off anything important just when the market for it is bottoming out.

    No one has explained how even the shallow-minded Schwarzenegger could miss this salient point.

    The pity is that even as this Arnold-era blunder ends at last, others keep right on losing money.

                   

-30-
    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

WILL BROWN FEND OFF OTHERS OR SIGN ONTO COMPETING TAX PLAN?

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“WILL BROWN FEND OFF OTHERS OR SIGN ONTO

COMPETING TAX PLAN?”

As time goes by and initiative petition circulators buttonhole more and more Californians outside big box stores and shopping malls, it becomes increasingly obvious that all three state tax increase initiatives now in the works cannot pass.

If all go onto the ballot together this November, conceded Gov. Jerry Brown’s top adviser Steve Glazer the other day, it would amount to a “circular firing squad.” Few voters, he meant, would vote for all three, even among those who might be sympathetic to one. All would likely lose.

Brown has known this from the day last fall when he began pushing for a tax increase via the ballot-measure route after giving up on winning the handful of Republican legislative votes needed to get one without going directly to the voters.

So he’s campaigned to get sponsors of the other measures to step aside and open the way for his plan, which would raise income tax rates for any individual making $250,000 or more and for joint filers with adjusted gross incomes topping $500,000. It would also increase sales taxes by half a percent for four years. Just under half the $5.5 billion to $6.9 billion raised annually would go to elementary and high schools and community colleges.

Brown is convinced, as he told the state Democratic Party convention last month in San Diego, that “We’ve got to pass a tax measure.” Without one, he argues, fire and police departments will be undermanned, schools will suffer in many ways, more state parks will close, more convicts will be put back on the streets – in short, essential services will suffer, disastrously so for some, including the infirm elderly who have already lost much of the day care that often keeps them out of expensive, constrictive nursing homes.

But he knows it won’t be easy to pass any tax increase proposal, even with a thoroughly Democratic electorate and even though voters in many locales often pass their own tax increases for schools and city or county projects.

Explains George Runner, former state senator and current member of the state Board of Equalization, one of the few Republicans in anything resembling a major California office, “We’ve lost faith in politicians and government programs. We’ve been promised the moon time and again but end up with very little to show for our significant tax investments.”

Example A of this might be the pending high speed rail project, which promised to send bullet trains zipping between major California cities, but so far has accomplished little besides seeing its announced price tag triple. Brown backs the project, saying changes in its plan will lower the price considerably, but there’s little doubt it has damaged the public’s esteem of government programs.

So it’s next to impossible for the three tax increase proposals now in the works all to pass. Some pundits guess that two of them – one sponsored by the California Nurses Association and the California Federation of Teachers, the other mostly funded by Pasadena civil rights attorney Molly Munger, whose father is a partner of investor Warren Buffett – will merge.

But two tax increases have little more chance of passage than three. For an increase to have any chance, sponsors will have to settle on one ballot presence, and even then there will be no guarantees.

Brown has acted as if it’s inevitable that backers of the other measures will accede to him and end up backing his plan. But so far, they have not. Munger has put $800,000 of her own money into gathering signatures for her plan, which calls for tax rates to rise for filers with as little income as $17,346. She says she'll spent all it takes, no limit. That one would produce just over $10 billion in new revenue, with $3 billion going to deficit reduction for the first four years, and the rest to education and early childhood programs.

Meanwhile, the nurses and the teachers’ federation are pushing hard for their plan, giving more than half its approximately $5 billion take from raised taxes on million-dollar-plus incomes to schools and the rest to counties for senior programs, children’s programs, health services for the disabled, road maintenance and police and fire departments.

Maybe it’s time for Brown and the other initiative sponsors to combine their measures; maybe that's ongoing quietly already. For sure, there have been contacts and there are elements of similarity between all three plans.

Rather than Brown expecting the other sponsors to abandon their efforts and simply sign onto his, it may be more realistic for him to adjust some of his proposal to fit into a compromise version of the others.

It’s hard to predict who wins if this becomes a stark contest of wills. But it’s easy to see who loses if Brown doesn’t do some conceding: All three measures and their sponsors, plus anyone who cares about the public services all three aim to preserve and improve.

-30-
Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net.