Mayor Gavin Newsom has entered the race for Lieutenant Governor, a job he ridiculed while running for Governor – and his supporters include San Francisco progressives who figure it’s an opportunity to get rid of him.  Nonetheless, an endorsement list that includes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the California Teachers Association and Sacramento’s legislative leaders (along with an opponent with unimpressive fundraising totals) should make Newsom the front-runner for the Democratic primary.  But it won’t be pretty – given that Garry South (who ran his gubernatorial campaign) now works for his competitor, L.A. City Councilmember Janice Hahn.  The Hahn campaign has been vicious on Gavin so far, using the kind of scorched-earth tactics that South is famous for.  Newsom may win the nomination on June 8th, but he could end up suffering the same fate as Garry South’s last victim.  Phil Angelides had much of the Democratic leadership behind him when he ran for Governor, but only won the primary after a bruising fight with South client Steve Westly.  And it left him so bloodied that he went on to lose the general election by a landslide.

As a student of San Francisco politics, I’ve found the local chatter in the past few weeks surrounding Gavin Newsom’s run for Lieutenant Governor to be just plain bizarre.

His allies in the business community are incensed that he’d abandon the city to become Jerry Brown’s bridesmaid – and (God forbid) allow those crazy lefties on the Board of Supervisors to pick the next mayor.  Chuck Nevius’ column in the SF Chronicle last week read like it came from a jilted lover.   “Newsom wasn’t supposed to be the average career politician,” he lamented.  “Now he’s Gray Davis.”

Meanwhile, progressive are all too eager to show Gavin the door.  Supervisor Chris Daly, who once suggested at a public meeting that the Mayor was a cokehead, has endorsed him – and I’ve heard from tenant activists who now say that they will walk precincts for Newsom.  How in the world could any politician win statewide office, when your closest friends don’t want you to run – and your rivals are delighted to see you take the plunge?

But believe it or not, Newsom is poised to win the nomination on June 8th.  State Senator Dean Florez dropped out of the race the minute he got in, saying Gavin “commands a formidable lead that would be hard to surmount.”  And the Newsom camp sent out a list of endorsements that includes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Assembly Speaker John Perez, State Senate President Darrell Steinberg, the California Nurses Association, the California Teachers Association, the UFCW Western State Council and Dolores Huerta.

The fundraising totals of his sole Democratic rival – Los Angeles Councilmember Janice Hahn – are also worth considering.  As of December 31st, Hahn had only raised $421,000 – and reported a cash-on-hand total of $341,000.  For comparison’s sake, at this stage of the Lieutenant Governor’s race four years ago John Garamendi had raised over $1.37 million – while his Democratic rival Jackie Speier was at approximately $1.28 million.

But Hahn has something Newsom lacks – Garry South, who was the Mayor’s chief strategist until he dropped out of the Governor’s race.  South, who worked for Gray Davis in 1998 and 2002, is the sole Democratic consultant in California to have run a successful campaign for Governor in 25 years – something not to be sneezed at.  And it was viewed as quite a coup when Newsom initially retained him in 2008.

And while Hahn’s fundraising leaves much to be desired, Gavin has the same problem.  The Mayor can transfer his defunct gubernatorial campaign account to the race for Lieutenant Governor, but there isn’t much left of it – only $40,000 as of December 31st.

Granted, Newsom raised over $2 million last year – and can now go back to his donors and ask again.  But while state law lets contributors give up to $25,900 to gubernatorial candidates, the Lieutenant Governor’s race limits donations to $6,500.  A quick look at Newsom’s campaign for Governor shows that over $1 million came from donations exceeding that amount, and half a million from contributors who gave over $20,000.  In other words, he won’t be able to raise $2 million from those people.

And with Garry South now running Hahn’s campaign, the attacks on Newsom have been brutal.  Gavin had disparaged the role of Lieutenant Governor before opting to run, even publicly admitting he had no idea what the job does – a point the Hahn campaign has fully taken advantage of.  But South has gone so far as to betray the confidence of his ex-client – divulging private statements Newsom made when South consulted him, where the Mayor had told him he was no “Gray Davis.”

Of course, we can expect nothing less from Garry South.  Known in California politics as the “King of Mean,” South has a long history of running scorched-earth campaigns – the most recent example being in 2006, when he ran Steve Westly’s campaign for Governor.  

In that race, Westly’s rival – Phil Angelides – had the endorsement of Senators Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and most of the Democratic Party establishment in the primary.  But in what can only be described as a muder-suicide pact, South waged an intensely negative effort against Angelides – leaving the bloodied front-runner limping past the finish line in June when it was all over.  

South then spent the whole summer and fall denouncing Angelides as a “weak nominee” who could not beat Governor Schwarzenegger, rendering it a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Many Democrats (including myself) will never forgive South for that conduct.

Could the same happen to Newsom if he beats Hahn?  The likely G.O.P. nominee – Abel Maldonado – lacks Arnold’s celebrity status, but has cultivated a moderate image that will make him tough to beat – especially in a year where Democratic turnout could be dangerously low.

Newsom could and should win the primary on June 8th, but his progressive rivals in San Francisco shouldn’t be celebrating a new Mayor just yet.  Gavin will still have to face a Republican in November, and if Garry South has his way he might not win that election.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of BeyondChron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

It’s amazing what you learn about Gavin Newsom’s budget – after the Budget & Finance Committee starts to hold hearings.  While the Mayor’s public summary released on June 1st implied that Newsom planned to downsize 8% of his own staff, what he actually did was farm out positions and funds to other departments.  We also learned this week that the first things to go in the Mayor’s Office during mid-year cuts last year was (a) money for violence prevention programs, and (b) add-backs by the Supervisors.  Meanwhile, Newsom spends $473,122 to pay the salaries of five press secretaries – more than what he spends on seven liaisons for the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services (MONS).  The City has a Department of the Environment with its own Executive Director and 58 staff – but the Mayor’s Office has a Greening Director who makes $105,742, along with a Director of Climate Control.  Newsom is opposing Budget Analyst Harvey Rose’s recommendation to cut down his press operation, and even said Tuesday he might veto the Interim Budget (which the Supervisors amended to shift funds away from Police and Fire, and to Health and Human Services.)  If he pursues the latter, the City could be unable to spend money after July 1st – a government shutdown that would doom Newsom’s statewide ambitions.

Newsom announced on June 1st that his budget cut 28% of the Mayor’s Office, a claim that was quickly debunked after Beyond Chron read the 430-page summary.  His proposal would increase the Mayor’s Office budget by 60%, although Newsom’s Budget Director has clarified that most of that money comes from affordable housing funds from the federal stimulus.  If you look at the level of staff, there has indeed been shrinkage – albeit only by 8 percent.

Yesterday, the Board of Supervisors’ Budget Committee began the task of reviewing each agency’s budget – with presentations by Department heads, and recommendations by Budget Analyst Harvey Rose.  When you fine-tune numbers beyond what was only a summary, a more accurate picture starts to appear.  The Mayor’s Office budget has little to do with responding to a fiscal crisis where we “share the pain,” and more to do with preparing Newsom’s run for Governor.

First, let’s talk about the actual size of the budget.  It’s true that the Mayor’s Office will have 8% fewer employees (a net loss of five positions), and there has been a $15 million influx in new federal funds to the Mayor’s Office of Housing.  But what’s also true is that twenty positions are being reassigned out of the Mayor’s Office – twelve to the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, and eight to Department of Children Youth and Families.  These duties being transferred comes a natural $8 million cut to the Mayor’s Office – much of it in grant funds.  On balance, the Office isn’t being cut it all.

In December, Newsom announced that the City was in a financial crisis – and so  mid-year cuts were inevitable.  What did he cut out of the Mayor’s Office?  Eighty-one percent of the $650,000 cut was grants to non-profit organizations (including violence prevention money), even though the category of “assistance and grants” is less than half of his department’s budget.  “Add-backs” from the Board of Supervisors (i.e., programs the Mayor had cut that the legislative branch restored during budget season) were also targeted – such as $65,000 for Filipino employment services in the Excelsior.

So what did he not cut?  Who are the sacred cows in the Mayor’s Office?

It’s been a joke for years that Gavin Newsom governs by press release.  But now that he’s running for Governor, his City-funded media operation has become obscene.  Director of Communications Nathan Ballard makes $141,700 a year, while his deputy Brian Purchia gets $105,742.  The Mayor has three additional press people – one for Latino media and one for Asian media (who each get paid $80,626), along with a Communications Officer who makes $64,428.  Budget Analyst Harvey Rose has recommended that the last three positions be cut – as well as two unfilled press positions.  Newsom has opposed this suggestion.

It goes to show Newsom’s priorities – when he collectively pays his five-person press team more than seven liaisons at the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services.  If San Francisco taxpayers are asked to pay for Newsom’s political hacks, at least give them something useful to do – such as answer constituent complaints, direct citizens through the City’s bureaucratic maze and attend community meetings.  Despite Randy Shaw’s critical opinion of MONS as obsolete (now that the City has a much vaunted 311 Center), their job is to actually serve the people of San Francisco – rather than manipulate the media.

Despite the bad press that Newsom got when he stole funds from Muni to pay Wade Crowfoot’s six-figure salary, both the Mayor’s Greening Director and his Director of Climate Control are still gainfully employed in a deep recession.  What’s truly odd is that the City also spends $11 million to fund a Department of the Environment – complete with its own Executive Director (who the Mayor appoints), and a citizen Commission.  And why does the Mayor have an Education Policy Director on payroll at $122,403 a year – when we also have a Superintendent of Schools, and a Department of Children Youth and Families?

Harvey Rose has provided a list of recommended cuts to the Mayor’s Office that would save about $1 million.  Newsom has only agreed with a tiny handful, such as eliminating one of the vacant positions at MONS.  The Supervisors may have to cut the rest.

Will the Mayor Keep Fighting the Board?

After dueling rallies showcased the City’s competing priorities this week, the Board of Supervisors voted 7-3 to amend the Mayor’s Interim Budget.  Blasting Newsom’s proposal as unfairly placing cuts on public health and human services, the Board took $82 million out of Police, Fire and Sheriff so that all departments “share the pain.”  The Interim Budget is just a placeholder document – so that the City can pay its bills after July 1st, while the Supervisors and Mayor put final touches on the 2009-2010 budget.  But the symbolic message was effective, and will shape the rest of the budget conversation.

The Mayor could veto the Interim Budget, but the practical effect would be that the City government shuts down in July.  Which would be incredibly stupid for Newsom to do.  Like House Speaker Newt Gingrich was blamed in 1995 for causing the federal government shutdown, such a move would be viewed as petty and vindictive – while sacrificing public services in a recession.  It would be a distraction from Newsom’s race for Governor, and damage his career.  The Mayor, however, did tell a Channel 7 reporter on Tuesday he might do it, and is consulting attorneys about the consequences.

Newsom is angry that the Board effectively forced his hand in the budget process, but in a way he is getting his comeuppance.  Back in 2007, after a veto-proof majority of Supervisors appropriated $33 million for affordable housing, Newsom did not sign or veto it – instead choosing to simply not spend the money.  This was apparently legal, because the Supervisors cannot force the Mayor to spend money. All they can do is force him to not spend money (through a de-appropriation.)  In other words, Newsom outmaneuvered the legislative branch on a technicality.  But now, they have done the same.

This piece was first published in Beyond Chron.

(This is officially becoming a trend.  Read to the bottom for Newsom’s wrongheaded assessment of the May 19 special election. – promoted by David Dayen)

Mayor Gavin Newsom must assume that when releasing a budget everyone expects to have cuts, the press will just take a few pictures, jot down some snappy quotes, and – maybe – read his one-page press release.  Beyond Chron, however, bothered to review the whole proposal, and the numbers contradict what Newsom said in his speech – where he assured us Public Health cuts would be less severe than feared.  The budget has over $100 million in cuts for that Department, not $43 million as he claimed.  Newsom also said the Mayor’s Office would get a 28% cut, but the figures show only 9% of his staff are being laid off – and the division that runs his media operation would actually get bigger.  And in a strange twist, Newsom said he really didn’t like some cuts that he proposed – and would “count on” the Supervisors to restore them during the add-back process, but left unsaid where to find the money.  As San Francisco faces its worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, Newsom bragged that Police and Fire are getting no layoffs – while the rich and Downtown businesses will not be paying more taxes.  He also warned more budget cuts are coming from the state, echoing the threats of Governor Schwarzenegger.

June 1st is when the Mayor has to submit a budget, and over the next month the Board of Supervisors’ Budget Committee will scrutinize his proposal, and offer some amendments before final passage in July.  Newsom took the unilateral step of making $71 million in mid-year cuts earlier this year without approval of the legislative branch, and the question now is how the Board will handle another onslaught of painful decisions – in a way that most fairly “shares the pain” to protect the most vulnerable.  But first, Gavin needed his orchestrated press event.

I’ve attended my share of press conferences in Room 200 – but yesterday’s one appeared calculated to keep most local media at bay.  Rather than have Mayor Newsom speak in the reception area, we were ushered into a back room.  Then, we were told we could not go inside – but could watch from behind a doorway, as elected officials and department heads crowded in to take their seats.  Before the event started, the staff asked homeless rights advocate Jennifer Friedenbach to leave because she was not “credentialed press” – although she was there to cover the event for Street Sheet.  Later on, the only courtesy that Newsom’s staff gave us was for each reporter to briefly step into the room (one at a time) to take photos of the Mayor giving his speech.

Newsom spoke for about an hour, outlining his budget proposal and how he “looked forward” to working with the Supervisors over the next month.  Despite the City facing a half-a-billion dollar deficit, Newsom said he had a “balanced budget with no taxes and no borrowing” which “doesn’t come close” to balancing it on the backs of Public Health (DPH) or Human Services (HSA).  The Mayor had asked all Department Heads to make 12.5% in cuts, but these agencies that serve the poorest were spared from such an extent – adding, he said, that HSA only had $27 million in cuts, and DPH only about $43 million.

It wasn’t until reading the 430-page document that I learned this was at best misleading, and at worst a lie.  You can probably get $43 million in Public Health by just counting the cuts to various contract services like substance abuse, mental health, Health At Home, community health, ambulatory care and emergency services.  But that still doesn’t count the $100 million in net budget cuts to S.F. General Hospital and Laguna Honda.  Newsom also claimed the City will be getting $80 million in federal stimulus funds to help with Medi-Cal reimbursements.  Turns out the actual figure is $37 million.

Newsom acknowledged that “layoffs are in the budget,” and 1,603 positions would have to be eliminated.  The Mayor added that he cut 28% out of his own budget, which he used to point out that everyone was asked to tighten their belts.  But the budget proposal shows that the Mayor’s Office would get a 60% increase, although much of that includes various funds and services.  Just looking at what percentage of staff would be laid off in that department, it’s only 9% – or less than the 12% target Newsom gave to all other agencies.  The Mayor’s Office of Public Policy & Finance (which includes his bloated media relations division) will actually get 29% more than this year under his proposal.

In a bizarre (almost Orwellian) moment, Newsom lamented some of his cuts – and said he hoped the Board of Supervisors would reverse them.  Specifically, he mentioned the mental health and substance abuse cuts in the Health Department budget.  “I’m counting on [the Board] to add back the things I don’t want cut,” he said.  But the Mayor’s budget proposal is supposed to be just that – his proposal – and the political fight then happens as the Supervisors debate his funding priorities, and vote to make any changes.

I asked Newsom why propose these cuts in the first place if he wants them reversed, and he replied “because I have to submit a balanced budget.”  I pointed out the Supervisors also must pass a balanced budget, and he replied they could use the “add-back” process.  But “add-backs” are only possible if there’s money, which is no guarantee in this year’s fiscal crisis.  Newsom said that the Board’s Budget Analyst Harvey Rose would figure it out later, like he does “every year” – even though this is no ordinary year.

One group the Mayor bragged won’t see layoffs is the Police, despite the controversy about them taking millions from Muni in “work orders” to patrol buses.  Now, a Channel 7 investigative report shows the cops aren’t doing what they’re getting paid for in that program.  The Supervisors may have pried $5 million from Police to give back to the MTA, but the Mayor’s Police budget still has a $14 million line item for work orders.  Newsom adds the Fire Department won’t have cuts, while the Firefighters Union pays his consultant – Eric Jaye – to run the campaign against “rolling brownouts” that would save money.

The Mayor concluded his remarks by discussing what could make our budget worse: the unresolved fiscal crisis in Sacramento.  Governor Schwarzenegger’s May revise proposed borrowing money from city and county governments to help the state’s financial situation, which could blow another $175 million hole in the City’s deficit.  Newsom called it a “done deal” in his speech, but I got him to acknowledge (after the speech) that two-thirds of the state legislature must still approve it – before Arnold has carte blanche to raid California’s broke localities.

Newsom also addressed the state’s recent special election, and said the “message was clear – the people want us to find $6 billion in more cuts.”  That’s a disturbing analysis, as polling evidence shows that the voters did not vote “for cuts” when they rejected a fatally flawed budget package that was the product of political extortion.  The state budget can also be balanced with deeply popular revenue measures – such as an oil severance tax, or restoring upper-income tax brackets to what Republican Governors Pete Wilson and Ronald Reagan agreed to during hard times.  We need to fight for this.

Gavin Newsom wants to be Governor, but his analysis of the state budget mess is the last thing progressives need right now – and calls into question whether he’s ready for prime time.  As Schwarzenegger pushes for an “all-cuts” budget, we need Democrats in Sacramento who fight back – and help build momentum and public outrage against the two-thirds rule.  Newsom supports lowering the threshold to pass a state budget, but he has not shown the willingness to lead on this issue.  For now, progressives should be looking elsewhere …

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of BeyondChron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

With his fourth run for Governor failing to get traction, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi yesterday announced his plan to run for Congress in the East Bay’s 10th District – in a special election to replace Ellen Tauscher.  On name recognition alone, Garamendi will be the front-runner in a crowded field – although State Senator Mark DeSaulnier has key endorsements that will make it competitive.  But while running for Congress is a smart move for Garamendi, it would be far better for Democrats – and progressive politics – for him to run in District 3 against Republican incumbent Dan Lungren.  Tauscher’s seat is safe for Democrats regardless of who runs in the special election, while Garamendi is probably one of the few candidates who can win District 3.  He has deep roots in the 3rd District – which includes a large swath of the Sacramento suburbs, along with Garamendi’s native Calaveras County.  It is traditionally a “red” district, but Barack Obama carried it last November – and Lungren came unexpectedly close to losing to an under-funded Democratic challenger.  At a time when Democratic activists are pushing the Party to take back “Red California,” Garamendi’s choice of districts could not be more disheartening and misguided.  Expect this to become an issue at this weekend’s State Democratic Convention.

Tauscher Seat Draws Many Candidates

Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher has been nominated for a high-level position in the State Department, and expects to resign her seat after getting confirmed.  While no special election has been scheduled yet, many politicians in the East Bay’s 10th District (which includes most of Contra Costa and Solano Counties) are already positioned to replace her.  With no term limits in Congress, an open seat is truly a “once-in-a-lifetime” opportunity for ambitious politicos – and there is no shortage of viable home-grown Democrats ready to make a run.  The 10th District was a conservative, suburban area when Tauscher first won it in 1996 – but Democrats there now have an eighteen-point edge in voter registration, making it (for all intents and purposes) a “safe” blue seat.

State Senator Mark DeSaulnier of Concord already has Tauscher’s blessing for the seat, along with endorsements by Congressman George Miller, State Assemblyman Tom Torlakson and State Senate President Darrell Steinberg.  State Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan of Alamo – who picked up a “red” district in the last election – is also considering a run, although some have wondered if it’s a good idea.  Former San Francisco Examiner reporter Adriel Hampton is actively campaigning, and Anthony Woods – a Harvard-educated openly gay African-American Iraq War veteran – is contemplating a run.  All of these candidates are Democrats.

Based on polling for the race prior to Garamendi’s entry, “undecided” was the landslide winner – because all four candidates have very low name recognition.  As a four-time candidate for Governor, two-time State Insurance Commissioner, and current Lieutenant Governor, it is fair to assume that John Garamendi will be the new front-runner.  And with the compressed schedule of a special election, Garamendi would benefit from the crowded field to win a relatively easy victory by a plurality vote.  It’s no surprise that Garamendi has dropped out of a grueling run for Governor (where he was simply outgunned by three better-funded opponents), and going to Congress is a nice consolation prize.

But is it wise for Garamendi to run for Congress in District 10 – or should he run in District 3 against Dan Lungren?  Garamendi currently lives in Walnut Grove, in the southwest corner of Sacramento County – at the very edge of District 10.  Half of the town is in District 10, but the other half is in District 3.  As he told the San Francisco Chronicle, his house literally straddles the border.  Rather than enter a crowded field of Democrats, Garamendi would better serve the Party’s goals and the progressive cause by running in the 3rd District.  All he would have to do is change his voter registration to his family ranch in Calaveras County – where he has deep roots.

Lungren Seat is Tough, But Winnable

As I’ve written before, California is a deep blue state that is only getting bluer – as Republicans are increasingly turning off voters in places like Orange County and the Central Valley.  New registration statistics from the Secretary of State’s Office show that, for the first time, Republicans don’t have a majority of registered voters in a single Congressional District.  And last November, Barack Obama carried eight Congressional Districts that currently have Republican incumbents – although the Democratic Party did not target them.  In California, Democrats have seats ripe for the picking.

One of these districts is Congressional District 3 – which includes the suburbs east of Sacramento, parts of Solano County, and stretches to the Nevada border to include all of Alpine, Amador and Calaveras Counties.  Right-wing Republican Congressman Dan Lungren (who lost to Gray Davis in the 1998 Governor’s race by a 20-point landslide) has represented it since 2004, and initially expected to have a safe seat.  For the longest time, Democrats assumed that fielding a candidate there was a hopeless cause.

But in 2006, an upstart Democrat named Bill Durston challenged Lungren – with no real support from the State Party.  He lost by 22 points, but tried a second time in 2008.  Again, the Party offered him few resources – but he came within 5.5% to scoring an upset.  On the same ballot, Barack Obama beat John McCain in the 3rd District.  Demographics played a role – the latest voter statistics show that registered Republicans outnumber Democrats there, but only by two percentage points.  Five years ago, the margin was seven points.  The national Democratic Party plans to target District 3 for 2010, and a candidate with high name-recognition could be what it takes.

Durston, however, has ruled out a third attempt to challenge Dan Lungren.  Without Garamendi, there is no clear candidate yet.

Garamendi’s Roots in District 3

If John Garamendi were to run for Congress, the logical place would be District 3 – not District 10.  He was born in Calaveras County, and his family has a ranch there – where he has many high-profile political functions.  In 1974, he was first elected to the State Assembly to what was then the 7th District, which includes much of the same territory.  In 1976, he won a seat to the State Senate – which he represented for fourteen years.  Again, it contained much of the same territory.  While Democrats should be diligent and leave no district behind, it’s also important to field candidates who can actually win.  And there are not many Democrats with Garamendi’s stature who could relate to rural voters in that way.

Because he was running for Governor, Garamendi has about $750,000 “cash-on-hand” in campaign contributions.  Assuming he can clear the legal hurdles to transfer these funds to a Congressional race, it would dwarf Dan Lungren’s re-election warchest of $121,000.  Of course, Garamendi could also easily outspend any of the Democrats in District 10 – but the more than six-to-one advantage he would have over Lungren proves that the race is eminently winnable.  In fact, the only way I could see why Garamendi wants to run in District 10 is that it would be easier.  But everyone else would miss out — it would replace a spirited race full of “new blood” candidates in District 10 with a lame coronation, while shutting out the Democrats’ best opportunity to win an extra Congressional seat.

Garamendi has been running for Governor since 1982, when he lost the primary to Tom Bradley.  He ran for State Controller in 1986 (a stepping stone for Governor), but lost the primary to Gray Davis.  He was elected State Insurance Commissioner in 1990, but passed on re-election to run for Governor in 1994 – only to lose the primary to Kathleen Brown.  After working for the Clinton Administration, he was again elected Insurance Commissioner in 2002.  In 2003, he entered the race for Governor during the Gray Davis recall – but dropped out two days later when it was apparent Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante had more support.  Three years later, the two men ran for each other’s job – which Garamendi won.  Shortly afterwards, he announced his plan to run for Governor in 2010 – where he has lagged behind other Democrats in polling and fundraising.

It’s no surprise that Garamendi has formed an “exit strategy” to run for Congress – given how the California Governorship has eluded him for three decades.  But if he wants a legacy that helps Democrats and progressives get stronger, Garamendi should run in District 3 – where his candidacy would be more helpful.  A group of bloggers have already launched a website that urges him to switch into the District 3 race.  Garamendi would be wise to listen to such counsel.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth will be a delegate at this weekend’s California Democratic Convention in Sacramento.  Stay tuned for a preview and updates in the next few days.  He is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily where this piece was first published.

In 2007, right-wing political operatives tried to place a measure on the June 2008 ballot that – if successful – would have awarded California’s electoral votes by Congressional District.  Democrats and progressives strongly opposed it, because everyone assumed it would give the G.O.P. presidential nominee an extra 19 votes.  California is a deep blue state, but parts of Orange County and the Central Valley are still reliably Republican.  New data from last November’s election, however, suggests that “Red California” is becoming less and less relevant.  Barack Obama carried eight Congressional Districts that had long voted for Republican presidential candidates, and John McCain came close to losing three more.  All these districts are currently represented in Congress by Republicans, but a few incumbents came close last year to losing to Democratic challengers.  It’s only a matter of time before some of these districts will eventually flip.  None of this is a surprise, however, because the state’s Republican base is older, whiter and shrinking in size.  But the rate of this change is quite staggering, which explains why Republicans in the state legislature have clung to the “two-thirds rule” for passing a budget.  After all, it’s the only reason they have any power left in the state.

Thanks to the work of bloggers at the Swing State Project, it is now possible to quickly check the results of the last presidential election by Congressional District, and compare it with 2000 and 2004.  Congressional Quarterly even has a cool map that you can look at online.  What it shows for the future of California Republicans is not pretty.  None of us were surprised that Barack Obama won the Golden State by a 60-40 margin.  But the bigger story here is that “Red California” has become far less Republican.

Take the 24th Congressional District, which includes Ventura County and inland parts of Santa Barbara County.  The District is home to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, the same town where an all-white jury voted in 1992 to acquit the cops who beat up Rodney King.  Republican Elton Gallegy has been the Congressman there for 22 years, and he’s never had to deal with a tough challenger.  In fact, the lines were drawn to intentionally give him a safe seat.  But Obama won the District by a three-point margin.

Or how about the 48th District in Orange County – which includes Irvine, Laguna Hills and the mansions of Newport Beach?  George Bush carried the District by a 20-point margin in both elections, but Obama won it by over 2,600 votes.  Republican Chris Cox represented the District for years, and when he stepped down in 2005 successfully passed it on to a GOP successor.  Democrats tried in 2006 and 2008, but Congressman John Campbell has so far managed to ward them off.  Now, Irvine City Councilwoman Betty Krom has thrown her hat in the ring – and her campaign kick-off featured Loretta Sanchez.

When you look at the map, the most obvious change is the 25th District – which hugs a huge section of the Nevada border and includes Death Valley, before heading south to include parts of northern Los Angeles County.  The City of Palmdale, home of the late anti-gay bigot Pete Knight is in the District.  It’s always been a safe district for Republican candidates, but Obama managed to win it by a percentage point.  Mormon Congressman Buck McKeon has had the seat since 1992, and has never had to worry about Democrats.  That could change …

But can a candidate like Obama give “coat-tails” for Democrats in Red California?  Ask Dan Lungren and Ken Calvert, two Republican members of Congress.  When Lungren – the GOP’s losing candidate for Governor in 1998 – moved to the Sacramento suburbs to stage a political comeback, he decided to settle in a safe Republican district.  Calvert has represented Riverside and Corona since 1992, and even survived a prostitution scandal early in his career to get re-elected – because the District at the time was so Republican.

For Lungren and Calvert, the state’s demographics are catching up with them.  Obama won both of their districts, and both of them came extremely close to losing their jobs in November – when spirited Democratic challengers took them on.  Both districts have had an influx of suburban sprawl, and now the headache of foreclosures has hit their communities hard.  We’re seeing similar trends in Districts 26 in northern Los Angeles (Dave Dreier), 45 in Palm Springs (Mary Bono) and 50 in San Diego (Brian Bilbray.)  Obama won all of these districts, and a strong Democratic challenger could benefit.

Granted, California still has Republican parts – and progressives were right to defeat the so-called Dirty Tricks Initiative to split up electoral votes by Congressional District.  I have never liked the Electoral College’s “winner-take-all” system – where a state awards all of its electoral votes to the plurality winner.  But until every state splits up their votes to ensure that every minority (not just California Republicans) has a voice in picking our next President, it is unfair and undemocratic.

John McCain won 11 out of California’s 53 Congressional Districts – which means that Republicans in the Golden State are still red, but not dead.  But in three of them – George Radanovich’s 19th in Fresno, Ed Royce’s 40th in Orange County and Dana Rohrabacher’s 46th in Palos Verdes – the margin was surprisingly close.  As the party keeps pandering to its Southern base, it will drift into oblivion in California.  And if a measure to abolish the “two-thirds rule” in the state legislature passes, it will mean the death of the California GOP.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of BeyondChron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

( – promoted by jsw)

Disclaimer:  I am paid by exactly no-one to advocate for any political position.  I’ve heard rumors that certain people would actually pay me to stop.

There’s been a lot of heat, and not as much light as would be ideal, generated around Proposition 93, the ballot initiative to extend (a bit) the current legislative term limits.  I have already turned in my absentee ballot, and I voted for Proposition 93, despite its manifest flaws.  If you’re interested in why (and my take on those flaws), it’s below the fold.

First, here’s what Prop 93 does, according to the Legislative Analyst (who so recently cast her long and erudite shadow over the proposed health care reform):

Background: The state’s voters passed Proposition 140 at the November 1990 election. As well as other changes, Proposition 140 changed the State Constitution to create term limits for the Legislature-Members of the Assembly and Senate. Term limits restrict the number of years that individuals can serve in the Legislature. Currently, an individual generally cannot serve a total of more than 14 years in the Legislature. (An exception is when an individual serves additional time by finishing out less than one-half of another person’s term.) An individual’s service is restricted to six years in the Assembly (three two-year terms) and eight years in the Senate (two four-year terms).

Proposal:

Time Limits Without Regard to Legislative House. Under this measure, an individual could serve a total of 12 years in the Legislature (compared to 14 years currently). Unlike the current system, these years could be served without regard to whether they were in the Assembly or Senate. In other words, an individual could serve six two-year terms in the Assembly, three four-year terms in the Senate, or some combination of terms in both houses. (As under current law, an individual could serve additional time by finishing out less than one-half of another person’s term.)

Current Members of the Legislature. Under this measure, existing Members of the Legislature could serve up to a total of 12 years in their current legislative house (regardless of how many years were already served in the other house). This could result in some current Members serving longer than 14 years in the Legislature.

So, it’s a pretty moderate change to the current term limits, except that last paragraph with respect to sitting legislators, about which more in a moment. It does remove the incentive for the legislature to play musical chairs every election, and it allows each house of the legislature to develop an institutional memory of a decade or so.  This is important to me, as it ties into the reason that I am opposed to term limits for legislatures.  Despite all of the badness associated with perpetual incumbency, in my view the alternative is to turn over the entire institutional memory of how you get things done over to unelected staff (and worse) lobbyists.  I’ve picked my poison, and I can live with it (and more on that below).

Now, that last paragraph, that’s a doozy, ain’t it?  Basically, the people currently sitting in the legislature completely screwed up the politics on this, if they actually wanted to deal with term limits, not just keep their positions.  And of course, it’s impossible to to dismiss as an innocent coincidence the fact that both Speaker Nuñez and President pro Tem Perata would be termed out in 2008 after the end of their current terms if Proposition 93 does not pass.

If the legislature had really been serious about changing the landscape on term limits, not just keeping themselves in office, they could have grandfathered sitting legislators into the old system.  Or the Speaker and the President Pro Tem as individuals could have publicly disavowed further terms for themselves.  But they didn’t.  Instead, the legislature elected to follow a path of fairly obvious and politically toxic self-dealing.  Ironically (and in my view, stupidly), that may result both in sitting legislators (including the aforementioned legislative leaders) losing their seats and an outcome that places the issue of term limits off limits for several years at least.   Well played, gentlemen!  Well played indeed.

And I still voted for Proposition 93.  Term limits are a crappy idea, for the reasons explained above, and in legislation, you have to cut deals, you have to log-roll.  The amusingly perverse situation here is that the interest group with whom you have to cut a deal is the legislature itself.  So that’s the deal I think we’re cutting — longer terms for the current legislature in order to build a better institutional memory and stronger legislators.

As a brief coda, let me note that the notion that term limits (or redistricting) are meaningful structural reform is essentially bogus.  It’s true that with term limits, you will cycle younger people through legislatures, and their attitudes on social issues in particular will change, but you’re still cycling people into and through a system where money buys campaign success, and when those self-selected people arrive at the legislature, the industry lobbyists run the show.  I don’t like that bargain, myself.  But people like Howie Rich and the rest of the radical-right funders of US Term Limits do like that bargain, because they want weak legislators and a lobbyist-run legislature.