With 100% of precincts reporting, the race for the 50th Assembly District ended with an upset, with community organizer Torie Osborn ending up in third place, and the Democratic Mayor of Santa Monica, Richard Bloom and Democratic Assemblywoman Betsy Butler surviving the June primary – only to face each other again in November.

Butler squeaked into first place by only 102 votes.

Her boss, Assembly Speaker John Perez, spent over a million dollars to get Butler those votes. But while he was busy waging a war against Torie Osborn in AD50, he lost the war for AD66, and ultimately the 2/3rds majority Democrats desperately needed to break Republican obstruction in Sacramento.

Let me explain.

The Democratic candidate in AD66, Al Muratsuchi, came in first against his Republican opponents and will face off against millionaire Republican Craig Huey in the fall. But while good news for Democrats in the short-run, the numbers look dismal for Muratsuchi in November.

With 100% of precincts reporting,Muratsuchi garnered 22,000 votes while his Republican opponents Huey and Nathan Mintz combined received nearly 33,000 votes. Mintz will certainly endorse Huey, so expect Republican voters to fall in line for the general election.

That’s a hell of an enthusiasm gap to overcome.

Muratsuchi received virturally no support from Sacramento even as Perez publicly  declared the Santa Monica/West Hollywood race his top priority, securing the California Democratic Party endorsement for Butler at the February convention, then directing or pressuring Assembly members, Sacramento unions, and PACS to dump over a million dollars into the safe blue seat.

What that means in real-world terms is that while Sacramento squandered it’s resources in AD50, there was nothing left over to help South Bay activists register voters or build any infrastructure to get out the vote. It’s a deficit that, even if corrected now, will haunt the district through the fall.

What remains to be seen is if Perez will bother to correct that deficit at all. In fact, it’s far more likely he will continue this destructive pattern into the general election.

Victory in November isn’t assured for Butler. By all accounts, she proved to be a terrible campaigner in the AD50 race, relying almost entirely on Sacramento’s largess to get her through the June primary. It’s anyone’s guess as to how she will do against Bloom, who has the advantage of real – not manufactured – incumbency in the district.

As Sacramento contemplates even more draconian cuts to education, healthcare, social services and environmental protection, the legacy of these two races will be a stunning indictment of Assembly Speaker John Perez’s lack of leadership.  

Back in February, I reported how Dem leadership in Sacramento apparently just wasn’t all that into winning a 2/3rds majority this year.

Turns out 4 months later, not much has changed.

To review, thanks to redistricting and a new “open primary” system, Democrats have a realistic shot in 2012 at picking up the two seats in the Assembly needed to achieve a 2/3rds Democratic super-majority and overcome obstruction from Republicans. Without that super-majority, things will continue to deteriorate in Sacramento, with Democrats forced to make draconian cuts to education and the social safety net instead of finding ways to raise revenue to balance the California budget.

“California voter approval of the Democratic-controlled legislature slinks along between 9 and 20 percent in recent Los Angeles Times and Field polls,” writes former state Senator Tom Hayden in the Nation magazine. “Despite Democratic majorities in both houses and control of all statewide offices, the Democratic Party seems chronically unable to deliver the minimum that voters want from their government: results. College tuitions keep rising, and college doors keep closing. School funding keeps declining. Wetlands and redwoods keep disappearing. Billions spent on mass transit do not reduce congestion and air pollution. To a disillusioned majority, all the Sacramento fights appear to be about slowing the rate of California’s decline”

Yet Democratic leadership and PACs donated over a million dollars to two “incumbent” Assembly members running in super-safe Democratic districts while virtually ignoring other seats in swing districts (source ca.sos.gov)

Mike Allen in AD10 (+35 democratic voter registration) and Betsy Butler in AD50(+33 democratic) together received 5x more money than Al Muratsuchi – a non-incumbent Democrat running in AD66 (+3 democratic) against two better-known and well-funded Republicans.

He has received no money from the California State Democratic Party, while Allen and Butler combined have received over a $100K.

Eric Bauman, Vice Chair of the California Democratic Party, believes it’s a non-issue.

“Let’s not get caught up in misunderstanding or distorting the challenge. Muratsuchi’s race is a November race, not a June race – rest assured he’ll be fully resourced in the general election.”

Rick Jacobs, founder of the California Courage Campaign, disagreed, raising concerns that throwing resources at safe Democratic seats would damage the CDP’s credibility with grassroots activists.

“So then comes the question as to why, given priorities statewide, the leadership raises and spends hundreds of thousands of dollars in AD 50. How does that inspire people to work hard and raise money for 2/3?”

Susie Shannon who serves on the Executive Board of the CDP Progressive Caucus was similarly incredulous. “How do they expect to raise money from the grassroots in the future if they are just going to whittle it away on safe Democatic seats? Any way you slice it, the (money) spent on the Butler primary could have been saved for the Marutsuchi general election to defeat the Republican candidate, or any number of more productive endeavors. I would rather see this money going to overtime pay for the overworked CDP staffers.”

The question now is what happens after June 5th if “incumbent” Assembly democrats Butler and Allen end up running against “non-incumbent” Democrats in November instead of Republicans.

Will Democratic candidates facing Republicans in other districts be, as Bauman promises, “fully resourced”? Or will Butler and Allen continue to take the lion’s share of Sacramento’s and the CDP’s pie?

“I would venture many thousands will be spent to support the candidates endorsed by the CDP,  and that includes Butler and Allen,” said Bauman.

“The CDP and (Speaker John Perez’s) priorities should be to make sure we have 2/3 majority so we could actually accomplish some important things like generating revenue, ” said Agi Kessler, a delegate to the California Democratic Party and chair of the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley.

Concerned that party leadership would waste money on Democrat-on-Democrat races throughout the state, Kessler and other democratic party activists circulated a petition at the CDP convention asking Assembly Speaker Perez to prioritize winning a legislative super-majority when allocating limited resources. They submitted nearly 300 signatures from fellow delegates.

“As of today we’ve received no response from the Speaker or anyone in his office”, said Kessler.  

Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado has never been a favorite around these parts.  His budget machinations were cruel and unnecessary. He used the entire process merely to gain political advantage.  With any luck, we will be rid of him at the end of the year.

But his legacy just might live on in the muck that is Prop 14.  He came on to KQED’s Forum this week to discuss the “open” primary initiative. He had no facts. He had no support for his outlandish claims.  Just his gut.

Then the forum turns to California’s new lieutenant governor, Abel Maldonado, one of the main proponents of Prop. 14, and Richard Winger, one of the initiative’s more prominent opponents.  Maldonado’s performance is, in my humble opinion, a trainwreck.  He proceeds to list one complaint after another about the state government — it’s broken, it’s broke, legislators are highly partisan, they spend too much time on silly issues, they can’t pass a budget, politicians misrepresent themselves to voters, etc. — but then says that the solution is a top-two primary.  He never really explains how the latter would correct the former.

Meanwhile, Winger, to his credit, employs actual evidence debunking each of Maldonado’s claims one by one.  You say more open primaries would make it easier to pass a budget?  Well, it turns out the budget was plenty late during Calfornia’s use of the blanket primary a decade ago.  You say it would make the legislature less partisan?  Washington state used a blanket primary for decades, and they’re legislature is one of the most partisan in the country.  And so on.  And all Maldonado does is keep saying, “I’ve lived it.  I’ve been there.”  And then he repeats his talking points.  It’s not a very impressive spectacle. (Enik Rising)

See, you have to wind up St. Abel. Make sure he’s got his Talking Points down, and he can be Arnold’s voice in the Legislature, or really any other forum. But, ask him to explain himself, and this is what you get.

The problem with the “open” primary system is that it just doesn’t do what its supporters claim it will.  It doesn’t get people more involved.  As Seth Masket points out, if anything, it makes people less likely to vote.

But okay, maybe you still want a less polarized legislature.  Fine.  Would a top-two primary get you there?  Not really.  The evidence we have suggests that the effect would be small or negligible.  There turns out to be very little relationship between a state legislature’s partisanship and the openness of its primary elections.  Meanwhile, you’ll end up with many runoff elections between members of the same party, giving voters not of that party a lot less incentive to participate. (Enik Rising)

Here’s what you get with this mess.  In a purple district, you get candidates that will tack for the base to make sure they get into the general election.  If you get the lion’s share of the base, you are likely to get enough votes.  How do you do this? Get more polarizing. So, scratch that less polarizing thing.

And in districts where one party controls, you end up getting two candidates of the same party.  Let’s be honest, does a Republican have a lot of incentive to vote for either of two progressive democrats in a Blue seat? Would you want to vote between some of the two crazy Republicans we’ll get in a couple of these districts? Do you hold your nose and vote for the slightly less odious one? Perhaps, but it sure doesn’t inspire civic engagement to have to vote for some creep you disdain slightly less than the other creep.

Prop 14 has made some crazy bedfellows. Like today, when I was reading my news feeds and I was forced to stop, look around, and say, well, thank you Jeff Denham:

Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Merced, transferred $50,000 last week from his Senate campaign account to a committee to oppose Proposition 14.

As The Bee has reported, the very vocal opposition to the “open primary” proposal has yet to show significant signs of life when it comes to raising cash to back a campaign. The California Republican Party has launched a No on 14 Web site, but has yet to contribute to one of four accounts opened to oppose the measure, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Secretary of State.(SacBee)

Of course, the Governor hasn’t been sitting back on this one. This crazy system is one of his key “reform” measures that he’s been targeting. At last check, he’s plopped down over $3 million bucks into the campaign to get this thing passed.  

So, on this one, Jon Fleischman, the rightwing blogger at Flash Report, and I are in complete agreement. This will lead to a less functional government, not a more functional one.  It strips the parties of their right to choose for themselves who will be their standard bearer. And it will create additional costly fights within the Democratic Party.  If it was applied in 2008, Democrats would have faced 6 Dem-on-Dem general elections, while there would be only one R-on-R general.

So, thank you Jeff Denham. Excuse me, I need to take a shower now.

As we get ready for the State Democratic Party Convention that starts this Friday, I am reminded of what Alan Cranston said over 50 years ago: The Democratic Party should be about electing Democrats, first and foremost.

Times have changed since the days of Alan Cranston, but our party’s priority must remain the same – electing Democrats.  

Unfortunately, June 2010’s Open Primary Initiative could bring back the 1950’s when open primaries allowed Republicans to dominate Democratic primaries and the California Democratic Party was ineffective and weak. We must begin this weekend to build an organization dedicated to defeating this ballot measure. If we fail, we could lose our hard-fought legislative majorities and allow the Republicans to decimate our gains in education, health care and public policy.

Our very existence as a political party is challenged. We must get ready soon if we are to be successful.

That’s why we must improve the things about our party that work, and fix those that don’t. One thing that clearly works is the phenomenal power of internet fundraising and developing more small to medium dollar contributions.  As Controller, I’ve been working to broaden our fundraising base in this way, and helped us raise more than $80 million over my term.  But we can still do better.

If every delegate turned to 10 of his or her friends and got each of them to donate $100 to our party, we would have nearly $3 million to devote to party building activities and have 30,000 additional donors to help us grow stronger.

Something we need to fix is how our money is used to support candidates. Along with the Chair of the Assembly Accountability Committee Hector De La Torre and CDP First Vice-Chair Alex Rooker, I’ve proposed reforms of CDP bylaws that will maximize our resources and guarantee that money raised for an election cycle is spent in that election cycle.

It’s called Common Sense CDP Finance Reform, and will make sure that our money is spent electing Democrats, not sitting in elected officials’ fundraising accounts. The bylaws change is being considered by the Rules Committee and the companion resolution is before the Resolutions Committee this Friday.

If elected, I plan to push for an open process that shows our donors how the party spends, and plans to spend, the money they contribute. I will do this by working with fellow Finance Committee members to produce a series of budget projections to anticipate three scenarios:  exceeding our fundraising goals, meeting our fundraising goals, and a bare-bones projection just in case the party falls short.

This transparency will not only allow members to see clearly how our party spends its money, it will allow us to better plan for and be prepared for whatever may happen in the upcoming elections.

The County Democratic Central Committee in Los Angeles has been using this approach for a number of years successfully, and I will work to implement this procedure in my second term.

Thank you, California Democrats for my four years as your State Party Controller. I am asking for your vote this weekend, and hope to serve you for another four years.