There have been a few voices suggesting California Lt. Governor John Garamendi abandon his bid to replace Liebermanesque Ellen Tauscher and instead run in California’s third congressional district against Dan Lungren.

And if you are a Democrat – especially a Progressive Democrat – that is good news. Strategically, such a move would be counterproductive for Democrats.

It Makes No Sense for California Democrats

The biggest problem in California is the Republican Veto. This means that Democrats may have a majority in the legislature, but not a functioning majority. With the artificial budget control by Republicans, it actually hurts Democrats if a legislator ascends to congress in a Special Election. With state Senator Mark DeSaulnier and Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan both running for Tauscher’s seat, in all likelihood a Democratic legislator will win unless Garamendi runs.

There are two forces at work that make it counterproductive for Democrats to support a legislator in a special election:

• California law requires a vacancy in the legislature to be filled by a special election which can take as long as five months from the time the vacancy occurs.
• California law also bases the 2/3 necessary to pass the budget off of the total number of legislative seats, not the total number of legislators serving

Together, these two rules mean that electing a legislator creates a situation where it will take even one more GOP vote to pass a budget. As we see pretty much every year, it is the last vote that is the hardest and requires the most caving by Democratic legislative leadership.

So if Garamendi doesn’t run in the 10th, it actually strengthens the GOP in California who are all but expecting a legislative special election to weaken the Democratic caucus. Unfortunately, it makes sense for them to stall on the budget until the vacancy occurs to force even more cuts to the budget.

And it could get even worse. The last East Bay congressional special election occurred when Ron Dellums resigned from congress in 1997. This set off an infamous series of special elections where there were legislative vacancies for over a year. Absent Garamendi running, the frontrunner is Mark DeSaulnier. If he wins, he would have to give up his senate seat setting up a second special election. Assemblymember Tom Torlakson can’t run, but Assemblymember Joan Buchanan has already indicated a willingness to run for higher office in a special election and if she won, it would set up another special election (and it is doubtful Democrats could hold her seat).

However, if Garamendi were to win it does not strengthen the GOP hand in Sacramento. In fact, since Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger would get to appoint a replacement, it could actually help passing a budget if Schwarzenegger picked a legislative Republican.

In short, the realities of California’s constitution mean we want legislative vacancies on their side of the aisle, not ours. A vacancy on our side dramatically increases the ability of the California Republican Party to hurt California more via budget cuts.

It Makes No Sense for Progressive Democrats

I would have loved a move like this in 2006 and it still would have been good in 2008, but right now we are in an entirely different situation then we were back in the days many of us were fighting to expand the playing field. Back then, it was the traditional dogma we were fighting against, but ironically now some of the strategies we once used have become the dogma which is clouding the judgment of some.

If Garamendi were to run in the third instead of the tenth, it would actually be counterproductive for progressives. The battle is no longer to get in the majority, the battle lines are within our safe majority. It actually helps progressives standing within the caucus more to have Garamendi then it does to have Garamendi and a conservative (DeSaulnier or Buchanan).

But more likely is that Garamendi running in the third would result in a moderate winning in the 10th and Lungren being re-elected. While Garamendi does have name recognition, his entire gubernatorial campaign has raised less than $200,000 under the federal rules he would be operating under. While he would be able to raise enough money for a sprint in a special election, it is unlikely he could raise enough to win as a challenger absent serious national support in a year when the DCCC is playing defense and it makes far more sense for small donors to contribute to senate candidates then try and expand the majority in the House.

Even if Garamendi won in the third, he would be a far better Representative coming from the 10th. Since Democrats lost control of the next redistricting, Garamendi would have to spend all of his time running for re-election while the moderate winner in CA-10 would be free to spend time screwing progressives (the Ellen Tauscher tradition).

The Worst Case Scenario

The best thing for conservatives is for Garmendi to run in the third. This will make it nearly inevitable that the GOP will have a far stronger hand during budget negotiations, ensure Ellen Tauscher is replaced by another moderate, and give Garamendi at best a 50-50 chance of picking up a seat that won’t change anything in DC.

While I’m sure supporters of DeSaulnier will keep pushing this absurd idea, the fact that it is the best case for conservatives might be why Ellen Tauscher thinks DeSaulnier will do such a great job carrying on her work.

Progressives should applaud Lt. Governor Garamendi running in CA-10. It makes it likely that Ellen Tauscher will be replaced with a progressive stalwart and will hopefully prevent the disaster of either of the conservative legislators winning the seat and making things Sacramento even worse.

Tuesday night Matt Lockshin, the internet director for the California Democratic Party put up a poll on the subject:

Hopefully this bad idea will end and we can replace Ellen Tauscher with a progressive.

(Please welcome Senator Gil Cedillo, candidate for Congress in CA-32, to Calitics. – promoted by Dante Atkins (hekebolos))

President Barack Obama’s selection of Hilda Solis as Labor Secretary demonstrated his commitment to both labor rights and the progressive community.  As an early endorser of Barack Obama and one of the founders of Latinos for Obama, it is wonderful to see our President assemble such a diverse and talented cabinet.  Secretary Solis, who has dedicated her career to fighting for working class families, will be a vital asset to this historic Presidency.  

The selection of Hilda Solis as Labor Secretary has also created a vacancy in the 32nd Congressional District, and I would be honored to represent East Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley in Congress during this unique and historic time.  I am equally honored by the endorsements I have received from over 100 current and former elected officials, including Supervisor Gloria Molina, Senator Gloria Romero, Sheriff Lee Baca, and Former Assemblymember Ed Chavez.  

I have deep roots in the San Gabriel Valley and I have spent my entire career fighting for our community at a grass roots level.  As General Manager for SEIU Local 660 in the early 1990s, I fought to save thousands of jobs in the area by working to keep libraries and youth programs from closing and playing a central role in securing federal assistance to keep General Hospital open.  

Like President Obama, I understand firsthand that real change comes from working together and focusing on what unites us rather than on what divides us.  Upon being elected to the California State Legislature in 1998, I continued my fight to protect the interests of the most vulnerable members of our society and those that have no political voice. Throughout my career as both a member of the State Assembly and the State Senate, I have been one of California’s most forceful progressive advocates on issues regarding immigration reform, expansion of healthcare and improving public education.

While I am proud of my advocacy for immigrants, in particular my fight to allow the undocumented to obtain driver’s licenses, my work extends far beyond that.  As a product of the labor movement, I have worked tirelessly to elevate the stature of the labor movement and understand firsthand the importance of the right to organize.  As a member of the Legislature, I successfully passed a bill to require local governments to recognize unions based on card-check.  I also successfully passed legislation to stop contractors from using state taxpayer money to bust unions, and I proudly signed a pledge to support the Employee Free Choice Act.  In fact three bills that I successfully passed in the California Legislature were executive orders by President Obama in the early days of his Presidency.

I was an early supporter of President Obama because of his ability to energize people and inspire hope in the political process through the power of community organizing.  I am proud to have a tremendous groundswell of grass roots support for my campaign.  It will be an honor to take up this fight for the people of California’s 32th Congressional District and join President Obama in bringing about real change in Washington, D.C.  

I would be proud to have your support.  As a former community organizer, I understand first hand that campaigns are won on the ground, with support from thousands of committed volunteers.  If you have the time over the next 30 days, please click here to visit www.gilcedillo.com to volunteer or make a contribution to my campaign.  

The Special Primary Election is on May 19th and I would greatly appreciate your support.  

When the time came to make a decision on the propositions, it was with a heavy heart that I chose to oppose Prop 1A. I understand the difficult position that the legislators face. Republicans in the Legislature are amusing themselves with death-talk of the California state government.  It really is quite scary stuff. Yet despite the loaded gun pointing to our head, it is imperative that California has a government moving towards a more functioning structure, not in the other direction.

And that is the problem with Prop 1A. It moves us in the wrong direction. It moves us towards more hurdles, not less. Whether it is or isn’t a spending cap (depending on who you talk to) isn’t as important when it is considered in the context that this is one additional layer of dysfunction on top of an already dysfunctional system. During my appearance on KALW’s Your Call Radio (podcast here), I had a chance to discuss the problems with Prop 1A, and truly this is the one that would really leave a welt on our governance going forward.

It is because of this dysfunction that I will be working with the No on Prop 1A campaign for the next month leading up to the election trying to get the message out about why this proposition is wrong for California. This is a progressive campaign, funded and led by progressive organizations like the SEIU state council, the California Federation of Teachers, and the California Faculty Association.  It is imperative that there be a progressive voice explaining why Prop 1A is wrong for California rather than just leaving the opposition to be defined by the ravings of the Howard Jarvis Tax Association and their fellow anti-government winger friends. And that is all the more important with the polling now showing disastrous numbers for Prop 1A. In a CBS 5/SurveyUSA poll 42% of voters said they certain to vote ‘No’, while 29% were certain to vote ‘Yes.’ All of the demos for this are horrible, with none exceeding 36% support.  There are a lot of reasons for that, but it is critical that California’s leaders understand that HJTA doesn’t speak for us, but that Californians really want a well-functioning government for the long-term.

As always, I’ll disclose my affiliation when discussing Prop 1A. However, as a point of transparency, I was neither a part of the campaign nor in discussions with the campaign before we released the Calitics Ed Board endorsements on the special election.

Now that that is out of the way, I look forward to working to defeat this measure. If you have any questions for the campaign, please email me. I’ll do my best to answer them or direct you to somebody who can.  If you’d like more information about Prop 1A, you can check out our *brand spanking new website,  follow us on Twitter and join our group on Facebook.

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Budget Reform Now group released their first TV ad yesterday, full of buzzwords and bullet points (“Hold the politicians accountable!”) and admitting that the package includes a “spending limit,” which is certainly further than the Democratic legislative leadership has been willing to go.  But as one-line summations of the election goes, you can’t get much better than future chair of the CDP John Burton, who took a pass on giving his specific voting choices for May 19, but who uttered this classic quip:

In any case, pressed on the question of whether his lifelong bleeding heart liberalism would allow him to back some of the permanent budget cuts that would result if Prop. 1A is passed, Mr. Almost Chairman responded with a classic Burtonism:

“I think when it’s all over, the ones getting fucked will be the poor people.”

Now, I could give you the charts showing how spending will be forced down and payments to the reserve fund mandated even in bad budget years, or offer the example of TABOR’s spending cap in Colorado, which was disastrous.  And I could follow you through the contours of this bad public policy and how it does nothing to relieve the structural problems that can get California out of the ditch.  But I cannot improve upon that line.  I’ve been critical of Burton in the past, based on the need for forward-thinking strategies at the CDP, but I’ve never questioned his liberalism.  And you have to give him the credit for this, er, bon mot.

Now who will have the guts to put it on a mailer?

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.

The SEIU donated $500,000 to the No on 1A campaign, the first truly major expenditure by any group against the ballot measures on May 19.  The No on 1A campaign now hold about $1 million in their bank account.  While this is dwarfed by the money dumped into the Yes campaign by, among other groups, the CTA, billionaires like Jerry Perenchio, and Chevron, given the attitudes of the electorate even a little money on the No side could be enough to stop the onslaught and tip these measures.  Politicos understand this fairly well:

“It just got a lot harder,” said Dan Schnur, director of the University of Southern California’s Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics and a former Republican strategist.

“The biggest advantage the proponents have had all along is the lack of a well-funded opposition,” Schnur said. “Historically, you don’t need to outspend ballot measures to beat them, and in a low-turnout election this is a decent amount of money.” […]

“Right now there’s a tremendous tendency to reject anything out of Sacramento,” said Republican strategist Dave Gilliard.

Good for the SacBee, by the way, for pointing out that Prop. 1A “has a long-term impact and would not directly alter the budget until 2011.”

I’ve been speaking at a lot of grassroots Democratic groups against these measures, purely on the public policy merits, and the overriding sentiment I’m seeing out there lines up with what Dave Gilliard says there.  The disconnect between the establishment and the grassroots is truly striking.  People don’t feel like their concerns have been met, either this year or for the last thirty, really.  They see another layer of budget dysfunction forced upon the voters that fails to get at the structural problems.  And now, they’re starting to see their voices manifested with action, as well as the mother’s milk of California politics, money.

You can’t say this ad doesn’t carry its message home.  Check the flip or click here for a full view of this ad from the folks of at the Child Abuse Prevention Center’s No on 1D campaign. It features toe tags on the feet of an infant to protest the cuts to the First 5 programs.

No on Prop 1D ad – Free Legal Forms

The Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club, located in the East Bay, had three local (State Senate and Assembly) politicians come speak about the May 19th election to 74 members at our March 26th meeting. We found the most compelling arguments coming from Assemblyperson Sandre Swanson, who basically said that we should stand up against this political blackmail and not cave to the pressure that it’s a done deal and we have to go along. He reminded us of what almost everyone in and out of Sacramento admits to: these propositions were crafted after Democrats and Republicans were bludgeoned with marathon sessions to find a way to move forward on the budget. There are poison pills in each proposition for both sides, but since the Republican minority was holding the Democratic majority hostage, the feeling was, these initiatives were the only way to stop the madness.

As a result, over 60% of those present voted to say NO to all six measures. While 1A is the worst by far, capping spending for programs we believe are necessary for the health and safety of Californians, and tied to some of our weakest budget periods, none are true champions of anything we believe in. In order to give a simple message to the voting populace that can be easily understood and remembered, we are urging a “NO” vote on all six measures.

We hope that other organizations, Dem Clubs and others, will follow our lead in this campaign. If you know of an organization that would like to use our copy or graphics on the flyer we’ve linked to here, please visit our website, www.wellstoneclub.org and feel free to lift any or all of our language and the “vote no” graphic. While we’d love a credit on your version, we’d prefer just to get the message out than confuse people with who wrote the original 

(Also posted at The Progressive Connection)