(Bumped to remind folks about SB 603   – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

California is a deep-blue state, with two-thirds Democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature.  And when landlords tried to repeal rent control at the ballot five years ago, they suffered a massive defeat.  But that doesn’t mean the legislature is pro-tenant.  Every day, real estate lobbyists in Sacramento have their ear – as they spread misinformation & scare tactics about common sense, pro-tenant legislation.

Which is why a Lobby Day on Tuesday, May 7th by Tenants Together to pass SB 603 (security deposit reform) is so unusual.  For the first time in over a decade, dozens of tenants from throughout California will swarm the State Capitol – meeting with legislators about the security deposit crisis, and demanding change.  And the Senate Judiciary Committee will be voting on SB 603 that same afternoon.

Every year, California landlords hold billions of dollars of security deposit money.  For many tenants, it is their largest asset – and yet most never expect to see it back, assuming that it’s merely a “cost” of renting a new apartment.

A Tenants Together survey found that nearly 60% of its members reported having their security deposit unfairly withheld.  Most tenants did not bother to proceed with suing their landlord in small claims court.  And while a new report of three courthouses found that tenants prevail in 70% of such cases, a miniscule number of landlords – only 3.5% of cases – were hit with penalties.

In other words, landlords have impunity to steal your security deposit – knowing that tenants are not likely to sue, and if they do they would simply be required to pay it back (with no penalties) a few months later.

Senate Bill 603 by State Senator Mark Leno would do three things: (a) require landlords to keep tenant deposits in separate accounts, not comingled with their assets, (b) impose automatic penalties against landlords who fail to return deposits and (c) require that landlords pay tenants interest on security deposits, as is the law in many local jurisdictions and a statewide requirement in many other states.

SB 603 is a very modest proposal to better secure money that tenants are required to give to their landlords – but we expect a vigorous fight from the landlord and real estate lobby, who are used to always getting their way in Sacramento.  Tomorrow’s Lobby Day will feature the human side of the issue – with tenants from across the state who will meet with State Senators and their staff, highlighting this issue.

Stay tuned on Wednesday, as we report back on the outcome of Lobby Day.  In the meantime, you can call or write to your State Senator and urge them to vote “yes” on SB 603 by going to this link: http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/52…  

Who cares what the democrat lawyers who work for Fabian Nunez and Don Perata think? It has no force of law. The campaign is over. Schroeder needs to stand down. He is only hurting the GOP’s chances of keeping this seat next year.

So why is “Been Around” on OC Blog angry at the “democrat lawyers”? Well, it looks like those “democrat lawyers who work for Fabian Nunez and Don Perata” have just contradicted Judge Brenner’s ruling in favor of Janet Nguyen by opining that the County Registrar was required to use a voter verified paper trail (VVPAT) in conducting the full recount. So have these “democrat lawyers” now given new life to Trung’s insane effort to overturn the election results? Follow me after the flip for more…

So is Team Trung now getting giddy all over again? Well, judge for yourself. Here’s some of what Trung Nguyen’s campaign had to say about the surprise opinion, courtesy of OC Blog:

The day after a Superior Court judge ruled that a full recount was conducted in the February 2, 2007, special election for Orange County First District Supervisor’s race, the Legislative Counsel for California Legislature released its 4-page legal analysis and finding that “a county registrar is required to use a voter verified paper trail (VVPAT), and not an electronic record, in conducting any full recount of an election in this state at which votes were cast on direct recording electronic voting system.”  (Legislative Counsel Finding #0710444) 

“The Trung Nguyen campaign filed its election contest stating that a full recount was not conducted by the Orange County Registrar.  Janet Nguyen gamed the system for tactical reasons” stated Michael J. Schroeder, attorney for the Trung Nguyen campaign and former GOP Chairman.  “We believe an appeals court will likely 1)agree with this legal finding; 2)overturn the trial court’s decision; 3)rule that a full recount was not completed; 4)find that the recount was null and void; and 5)uphold the first certified winner Trung Nguyen. 

“This legal finding by the very body that wrote the applicable Elections Code sections completely validates and supports all of the litigation positions taken by the Trung Nguyen campaign,” stated Schroeder.

“The law does not allow someone to game a recount so that the counting methods switch back and forth depending on whether the votes are favorable to them or not.  This is what happened here,”  stated Schroeder.

Oh yeah, so you don’t believe them? See the opinion for yourself…

“We conclude that a county registrar is required to use a voter verified paper audit trail, and not an electronic record, in conducting any full recount of an election in this state at which votes were cast on a direct recording electronic voting system.”

And here’s some more insight from Peggy Lowe at Total Buzz:

Brenner admitted yesterday that two sections of the law conflict eachother, but he also said he didn’t want to do what Schroeder had asked of him, which is rewrite the statute. Brenner did agree with Schroeder that there is a need to “harmonize” the two conflicting sections of the law.

You’ll also notice that the opinion says that “where uncertainly exists, consideration should be given to the consequences that will flow from a particular interpretation.” This is what Schroeder mentioned many times during his closing arguements yesterday, saying if the judge didn’t side with Team Trung’s interpretation, a kind of political Pandora’s Box would be open and chaos would ensue.

So what does this all mean? It means that the air of uncertainty has just crossed “The Orange Curtain” again. Now perhaps Janet Nguyen has an extra leg up now that she’s the duly elected Supervisor for the First District…
But the sense of closure that was gained yesterday may, all of a sudden, slip away once more if Team Trung gains some new traction in their appeal process. We all knew that Trung and his political sugar daddies were planning to whine their way to the next court, desperately searching for another chance to undo the election…

But do they now have a legitimate chance of turning our world upside down once again? Hell, many more people here in Orange County might get angry at the “democrat lawyers” if this were to happen…