Well, maybe not always, as is the case with Assemblywoman Patty Lopez, a pariah in the Democratic Party since she knocked off Raul Bocanegra, a popular incumbent, two years ago. 

Up for re-election in 2016, the party didn’t endorse Lopez (rare for an incumbent absent a scandal), outside interests want nothing to do with her and her Assembly kin are almost nowhere to be found.

But she expects to be back in her office next year, stronger than ever. To her, nothing could be more challenging than her first term.

“I survived,” the thick-accented San Fernando Democrat said with a laugh in a recent interview with CalWatchdog, reflecting on her first term in office. “Believe it or not, the first year was hard.” 

Plagued by inexperience, a lack of connection with many of her colleagues and the loss of her mother, Lopez said the first term was hard just to stay focused. Distractions aside, she managed to author 38 pieces of legislation, 14 of which became law, including one to help conserve Monarch Butterflies and another allowing the use of clotheslines for many residents who want, or need, to save on utility costs.

Her biggest split with the party has been her opposition to high-speed rail, which is set to run straight through her district.

The clothesline bill was emblematic of her primary focus: Constituent services. Lopez reportedly doesn’t spend much time socializing in Sacramento. Instead, she’s at between six to eight community events a week in he district. She keeps only two staffers and an intern in Sacramento, while the large majority of her staff, a dozen or so, stay in her district office where she resolved 312 constituent cases since being in office. 

While all that won’t make her the subject of Robert Caro’s next book, it may be enough for re-election. According to Lopez, it was Bocanegra’s activities outside his district that made voters in his district seek new representation. Instead of campaigning for his own re-election, Bocanegra was on the trail with other candidates trying to help them (media reports suggest Bocanegra was aiming for speaker). 

“I feel like after two years if voters don’t know who you are, they don’t recognize your name, obviously you didn’t spend enough time in the district,” Lopez said of Bocanegra, who was also a one-term Assembly member. “If after two years, if people don’t feel you do anything, they’ll vote for the next person in line.”

Not a politician

Lopez is far from the typical politician. Born in Michoacán, Mexico, Lopez moved to the United States when she was 12. Her mother reportedly didn’t trust the government, so Lopez was not enrolled in school. It wasn’t until her twenties that she got a GED and took English classes. 

Lopez became a citizen in 2000. And while she had a few odd jobs, like working on an assembly line building home security alarms, her experience as an education activist ultimately led her to public office. 

Fearing budget cuts would threaten adult education, and believing Bocanegra, her assemblyman, wasn’t doing anything about it, she challenged him with little money and little support and ended up winning by fewer than 500 votes.

And that’s the short story of how Patty Lopez, who was once adoringly referred to as “The Mexican mom in office,” came to Sacramento.

Bad at fundraising

When a candidate from any party first considers running for office, his or her ability to raise money is the litmus test of viability. The most common criticism of Lopez is that she’s an abysmal fundraiser, something Bocanegra is not.

“Sometimes, they don’t see me as a really strong candidate, because I don’t raise a lot of money,” Lopez said. “I deliver service (to constituents) and I align with the party on major things.”

Democratic Party endorsements are made at the local level, where Bocanegra received 94 percent of the delegate votes in the district. It’s unclear if the party’s concerns were due to Lopez’s viability issue or loyalty to Bocanegra. But according to a party spokesman, the endorsement of a Democratic challenger of a Democratic incumbent is just politics as usual. 

“This race is getting attention because of the top two dynamic but contested Democratic races are nothing new,” said Michael Soller, a spokesman for the California Democratic Party. Soller did provide other examples of the party not backing an incumbent.

“The Democratic Party did her wrong,” said a high-level, Democratic staffer in the Legislature, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “She is everything they are supposed to stand for and they kicked her to the curb — very sad.”

Leadership

Campaign finance records show that a dozen or so legislators have contributed to Lopez, and she said that Assemblymembers Cristina Garcia of Bell Gardens, Susan Talamantes Eggman of Stockton and Adrin Nazarian of Sherman Oaks have offered help on the campaign trail. 

But while both Speaker Anthony Rendon and Majority Floor Leader Ian Calderon endorsed her and contributed to her campaign, neither has attended events with her in the district. 

“This race is a Dem on Dem race where both candidates are good votes for working families and immigrant communities and both have served in the Assembly,” said Rendon spokesman Bill Wong. “That said, the fact that (Rendon) maxed out to her and publicly endorsed her speaks for itself.”  

There’s a difference between endorsing with a max contribution, which doesn’t buy much in the expensive world of campaigns, and going on the trail with a candidate to help raise support and money. And while leadership may have given tepid support, there’s just not a big push to help Lopez stay in office — particularly in an election cycle where the president of the United States endorsed four Democratic legislative candidates.

“I cant remember the Caucus ever leaving an incumbent unprotected like this unless there was a scandal of some sorts,” said Steve Maviglio, a prominent Democratic strategist. “Then again, Bocanegra was a former member.” 

Money talks

Political parties can contribute unlimited amounts to candidates and outside groups can spend unlimited amounts in independent expenditures — so the lack of both is significant. 

Rendon can usually direct party funds to incumbents, except party rules prohibit funds from going to candidates who aren’t endorsed by the party. And if money talks, then the outside groups have said loud and clear they want Bocanegra.

According to a MapLight analysis of campaign finance records, outside groups of mostly business interests have spent $350,000 against Lopez and $1.4 million in support of Bocanegra, while only a pro-women’s group spent on her behalf — just $10,000. And this is where fundraising matters most: Lopez has raised only $133,000 this cycle to Bocanegra’s $1.07 million — money that goes to advertising and professional staff.

Lopez, for her part, doesn’t think fundraising is the measure by which she should be judged though. She’s been a good Democrat and a help to her constituents and she thinks that should be enough.

And voters will soon decide if that’s true. 

Last Thursday, the Assembly Appropriations Committee held in committee legislation that was strongly opposed by ride-sharing companies, drivers and customers. Assembly Bill 24, which was introduced by Asssemblyman Adrin Nazarian, D-Sherman Oaks, would have required ride-share drivers to undergo random drug and alcohol testing and comply with new background check requirements.

Critics said that the bill was an effort to regulate transportation network companies (TNC) out of business and force Californians back into taxi cabs.

Appropriations Committee holds AB24

As part of the normal legislative process, bills that are expected to cost the state money are sent to the Appropriations Committee. Any bill with an annual cost of more than $150,000 is automatically sent to the committee’s Suspense File. After the state budget is presented, lawmakers take up the Suspense File and consider which bills to advance based on available funds.

Nazarian’s legislation, according to an analysis by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, was expected to cost taxpayers nearly three-quarters of a million dollars, as a result of new review processes by the Department of Motor Vehicles and state Public Utilities Commission.

“Given the significant number of current, and probably future TNC drivers, the PUC’s workload will expand considerably,” the Appropriations Committee concluded. “PUC staff currently process by hand vehicle registration information provided by CPCs.”

The new requirement was estimated to cost $680,000 for an IT consultant and new positions to review thousands of initial applications. That cost was enough to prevent the bill from making the Appropriations Committee’s cut.

In addition to costs to the state, ride-sharing companies argued that Nazarian’s proposal for mandatory drug testing was a costly burden on their drivers, a majority of whom are part-time workers. According to Lyft, 78 percent of its drivers work fewer than 15 hours per week. Meanwhile, the average Uber driver logs between 15 and 20 hours per month.

“The California Legislature should embrace companies like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar, who are not only changing the future of transportation, but are driving economic growth and job creation in cities all around the state,” said Robert Callahan, the state executive director for the Internet Association. “A primary reason for the wide-scale adoption of ridesharing by consumers is the enhanced safety experience.”

Uber embraces DMV Pull Notice

Instead of Nazarian’s bill, state lawmakers embraced a plan supported by industry that would enhance safety without undercutting ride-sharing services. Assembly Bill 1422, authored by Assemblyman Jim Cooper, D-Elk Grove, would require companies, such as Uber, Lyft and Sidecar, to use the DMV’s Employer Pull Notice Program. That system notifies companies when a driver gets into an accident or is convicted of driving under the influence, among other notifications.

“The DMV Pull Notice program helps businesses and government agencies ensure that unsafe drivers are taken off the road quickly,” said Cooper, who spent 30 years with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department. “AB1422 would improve safety on our roads, particularly for passengers utilizing Uber and other similar transportation services.”

The bill is supported by Uber because it would automate the driver review process for ride-sharing companies. According to Cooper’s office, ride-sharing companies “must manually access DMV records on a quarterly basis to review driving records – a process that is both inefficient and slow to catch such things as DUIs, accidents or license suspensions.” With Uber’s backing, the bill has received unanimous support throughout the legislative process.

Unanimous approval for bill to allow ride-share carpooling

In addition to embracing the DMV’s Pull Notice Program, ride-sharing companies are working with state lawmakers to pave the way for ride-share carpooling.

Last month, the California State Assembly passed legislation authored by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, that will allow companies to split fares between passengers.

“With climate change accelerating, we must take a hard look at transportation because it is the largest single source of emissions,” Ting said in a press release. “We have long encouraged public transit and carpooling to reduce traffic and air pollution. Extending the environmental mindset to ridesharing requires changing a 50-year-old law. That’s what this is all about.”

Last fall, after ride-sharing companies announced new carpooling services, state regulators sent the companies threatening letters and warned that such programs violate state law, according to CNET.

“In less than a year, thousands of California residents have helped get cars off the road, lessen congestion and improve our environment,” Uber spokeswoman Eva Behrend told the LA Times earlier this year. “Now the California Legislature has the opportunity to embrace this innovation by codifying this service and adopting AB1360.”

Last year, the legislature approved Assembly Bill 2293, which forced ride-sharing companies to abide by new statewide regulations. That law requires companies to carry at least $1 million in commercial-grade insurance and set new minimum levels of additional insurance to be carried by drivers. The bill also ordered the state’s Public Utilities Commission and Department of Insurance to produce a study on transportation network companies before December 31, 2017 – to see how well the new law is working.

Today, the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee is scheduled to consider legislation by Asm. Adrin Nazarian, D-Sherman Oaks, that, some say, is intended to put ride-sharing companies out of business and force Californians back under the thumb of the taxi cab cartel.

Assembly Bill 24 would force transportation network companies, more commonly known as ride-sharing companies, to register with the Public Utilities Commission, display an identifying decal on all ride-share vehicles, and go through extensive bureaucratic red-tape for all their drivers.

“Nazarian’s bill is a blatantly anti-competitive example of regulatory capture at its very worst that will only serve to pile on bureaucratic redundancy and red tape while choking innovation,” argues CALinnovates, a tech group that lobbies in Sacramento and Washington, D.C.

Nazarian seeks end to “high-tech hitchhiking”

Nazarian makes no secret of his intention to run the ride-sharing industry out of California. His latest bill was introduced on December 1 – one month before last year’s compromise measure became law.

“Ridesharing is simply high-tech hitchhiking,” Nazarian said in a March press release announcing his latest proposal for new ride-sharing regulations. “Consumers are being blindly picked-up by complete strangers and entrusting them with their safety.”

Of course, Nazarian’s statements about naive consumers are hyperbole. Last year, he voted for Assembly Bill 2293, which forced ride-sharing companies to abide by new statewide regulations. That law requires companies to carry at least $1 million in commercial-grade insurance and set new minimum levels of additional insurance to be carried by drivers.

The bill also ordered the state’s Public Utilities Commission and Department of Insurance to produce a study on transportation network companies before December 31, 2017 – to see how well the new law is working.

But, before there’s any data on the new law, Nazarian is seeking to add more requirements to the books.

AB24 violates 2014 ride-sharing compromise

Nazarian’s latest proposal would make your next ride home more expensive by forcing ride-sharing companies to put all their drivers through a Department of Motor Vehicle Employer Pull Notice, a Department of Justice Fingerprint Background Check, and random drug and alcohol testing.

Critics of this year’s proposal say that Nazarian is resurrecting bad bills that were previously sponsored by their competitors, the taxi cab industry.

“If the vast majority of AB24 looks familiar; that’s because it is,” Alex M. Leupp, the West Coast public policy lead for Uber, wrote in his opposition letter. “Last year, the state Legislature twice rejected nearly identical bills, AB612 (Nazarian), and AB2068 (Nazarian).”

Both of those bills were sponsored by the Taxicab Paratransit Association of California, a trade group that represents the taxi cab industry. Rather than embrace government-controlled monopolies, business groups believe the state should support innovative technologies.

“The California Legislature should embrace companies like Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar, who are not only changing the future of transportation, but are driving economic growth and job creation in cities all around the State,” said Robert Callahan, the state executive director for the Internet Association. “A primary reason for the wide-scale adoption of ridesharing by consumers is the enhanced safety experience.”

Serious safety concerns with taxis

Consumer safety, Nazarian says, is exactly why more government mandates are needed.

“As a public servant, I want to ensure your driver gets you home safely through the enactment of common sense safety measures,” he said. “Who would be against making sure your driver is not a convicted felon or a reckless driver?”

Yet, if safety is his top concern, Nazarian may want to turn his attention to taxi cabs. Los Angeles taxi drivers have been cited more than 10,000 times in the past five years, according to a review of citation data from the city of Los Angeles. In some cases, taxi drivers were caught drinking on the job, aiding in prostitution and driving without a license.

Unlike popular ride-sharing companies that allow passengers to rate their drivers, the information supplied by the city of Los Angeles redacted all driver information from the citation database.

Meanwhile, Uber is ready to respond at a moment’s notice to complaints against more than 70,000 drivers in California.

“Uber has resources available 24/7 to respond to any allegations from riders or drivers, and can within minutes suspend access to the TNC platform in real time while it performs a thorough investigation with the rider, driver, trip data and third party resources,” Leupp, a representative of Uber, wrote to lawmakers.

On the safety front, Uber and Lyft have also received high-profile support from advocacy groups that see ride-sharing as a way to reduce the number of drunk drivers. As CalWatchdog.com reported last year, Mothers Against Drunk Driving opposed efforts to regulate ride-sharing.

“MADD supports new ridesharing platforms like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar as well as traditional taxi services that are enabling more options to provide safe rides in communities across the country,” J.T. Griffin, MADD’s chief government affairs officer, wrote in an open letter to state lawmakers.

The Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee is scheduled to debate the bill at 3 p.m. You can listen live here.

Now a 30 percent tax break might be given to those retrofitting older buildings to make them quake-proof. Assembly Bill 428 is by Assemblyman Adrin Nazarian, D-Sherman Oaks, and would grant the tax credit “for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2016, and before January 1, 2021.”

The bill is being supported by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. The Los Angeles Times quoted him:

“We as a city cannot do this alone,” Garcetti told reporters at a news conference Wednesday on the steps of Van Nuys City Hall. “This is a common-sense bill that will set forward a pathway to help building owners, to help landlords and tenants alike, to create a safer and a greater Golden State”….

The dangers of concrete buildings have been known since the 1971 Sylmar earthquake, when hospital buildings were destroyed. As many as 50 of the more than 1,000 concrete buildings across the city would collapse in a big earthquake, The Times reported in 2013. …

The retrofits could cost as much as $130,000 for wooden apartments and millions for taller concrete buildings.

The bill also is supported by the Apartment Association. of Greater Los Angeles.

The problem with such tax rebates, though, is that they come at the expense of the rest of the state budget. Unless the Legislature cuts spending in other areas, taxes must be raised in other areas to make up the deficit.

Politics is the art of trade-offs. Even something as important as preventing earthquakes is but a part of the equation.