Henry T. Perea’s decision to leave office early cost Fresno County at least a half million dollars.

Henry T. Perea’s decision to vacate his Assembly seat early cost Fresno County a half-million dollars — enough to pay for four sheriff deputies — and has reignited a discussion on the cost of special elections.

The Fresno Democrat announced last year that he’d be leaving the Assembly to pursue a position with the pharmaceutical industry.

In fact, counties are saddled with the cost of special elections regularly. And while they have become less frequent, at least temporarily, a CalWatchdog review of expenses shows that since 2013 counties (and one city) have spent $21.7 million on special elections to replace state lawmakers.

Few would decry a legislator stepping down if the officeholder or his or her family member fell ill. And of course sometimes scandals create a vacancy. But most of the time these seats are vacated by politicians looking to cash in with a high-paying lobbying position, trade up for higher office (perhaps to avoid being forced from office by term limits), which then creates a mad dash to fill the gaps behind them.

For example: In 2013, Curren Price created a vacancy in the state Senate when he won a seat on the Los Angeles City Council, which are elected in odd-numbered years. Holly Mitchell then won Price’s seat in a special election, leaving a vacancy in the Assembly. That vacancy was filled by the current occupant, Asm. Sebastian Ridley-Thomas.

That game of musical chairs cost Los Angeles County $2.4 million. And had Ridley-Thomas and Mitchell not one outright in their respective primaries, forcing a run-off, the cost for the overall costs for the special election would have approximately doubled.

Nonpartisan

Price, Ridley-Thomas and Mitchell are all Democrats, but Republicans do it too. In 2014, Mimi Walters won a seat in Congress in an open Orange County district after former Rep. John Campbell retired.

After winning, she vacated her state Senate seat, which was filled by now-Sen. John Moorlach, costing the county $1.24 million.

One approach

On Wednesday, an Assembly panel will consider a proposal from Asm. Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, which would require that legislators use leftover campaign funds to pay down the cost of the special election they’ve caused, leaving exceptions for health and family reasons.

Perea still has more than $800,000 according to the campaign finance filings from the end of 2015. Instead of giving money to Fresno County, which is allowable under state law, Perea made some political contributions and paid for a few holiday parties.

Other ideas

A measure by Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Hanford, was approved by one panel earlier this month. The bill would require the state to reimburse for the entire cost of the special election for vacancies of state lawmakers. The state used to contribute to the cost of special elections, but has since ceased the practice.

“Fresno County was forced to hold a special election today to fill a vacant Assembly seat, which is costing the county more than a half- million dollars,” Vidak said in a statement last week following the election to replace Perea. “That’s money that could have been used for police, fire, health, education and other vital services.”

Others have suggested the governor appoint a replacement to serve until the next scheduled election. But critics claim that gives the unfair advantage of incumbency to a replacement if he or she decides to run for another term, and gives the governor too much political power.

“Sure, it’s a tradeoff,” said Raphael Sonenshein, the executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at California State University Los Angeles, noting that if the seat is held only until the next scheduled election then no one would hold the seat for more than two years. “Special elections have very low turnout. It’s at least arguably a budget savings and one less election.”

Turnout

Voter turnout is a persistent issue in California. Some argue that the abundance of special elections contributes to the problem. Most of the special elections have even lower turnout.

In 2013 in Los Angeles, 23 percent of voters turned out for the regularly-scheduled city elections when Price was elected. Later that year, only 5.55 percent of voters turned out to elect Mitchell to the state Senate and then 8.47 percent turned out to elect Ridley-Thomas to the Assembly.

In 2014, the regularly-scheduled gubernatorial election that sent Mimi Walters to Congress drew about 43 percent of voters, while John Moorlach was elected to the state Senate only a few months later with only a 15.42 percent turnout.

Kathay Feng, the executive director of the left-leaning good government group California Common Cause, suggests moving all local elections to the normal presidential and midterm/gubernatorial voting schedule — and during the vacancy, until a successor is elected, the seat could either stay unoccupied or a “caretaker” could be appointed.

“Will a group of people be unrepresented for a short period of time? Potentially.” Feng told CalWatchdog. “But this is insane to elect people by five or six percent of the population and still call it a democracy.”

Cost

The money that is spent on special elections goes to things like: printing ballots, hiring poll workers, securing locations, paying for postage and producing vote by mail ballots. 

Many special elections are unbudgeted and all are unplanned and sometimes they overlap. According to Dean Logan, the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk, it can be particularly taxing on the county registrar and confusing for voters who could be receiving election packets from the city they live in and then the county a few weeks later, like Los Angeles residents in 2013.

Logan did not advocate a particular path forward, as it’s not his role as registrar. However, he has at least raised questions over the current process and the drain on resources since at least 2010.

“And we already have a crisis of participation even in our regular election cycles, but the turnout in these special vacancy elections is extremely low,” Logan told CalWatchdog.

Term-limits

Some argue that the 2012 modification of term limits, which allowed legislators to spend more time in each chamber, may reduce the number of special elections. While the change hasn’t been around long enough to say for sure, there has been a reduction in special elections since it was passed.

There were 12 special elections (including primary and general/run-off) in 2013, two in 2014, four in 2015 and only one so far this year.

Brown also said the problem is so complex that it’s likely no one knows how to solve it.

Emissions Targeted

The governor conveyed his warning at the California Air Resources Board’s Oct. 1 workshop, “California Climate Change Scoping Plan: 2030 Target.”

The 2030 target reduces California’s greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels in the next 15 years. Brown also designated a 2050 target: emission reduction to 80 percent below the 1990 level.

The 2030 target is “the most aggressive benchmark enacted by any government in North America to reduce dangerous carbon emissions over the next decade and a half,” said Brown in an April 29 statement.

The governor began his remarks at the workshop with an admission of ignorance on climate change science.

“I come today because this is a topic that is not easy to grasp,” he said. “It’s complicated. The more you dig into controlling air pollution or measuring greenhouse gas emissions or attempting to understand the [climate] models that examine and attempt to predict how world climate patterns will change over time, it definitely is a very complicated science that we mere lay people just get little glimpses of.”

That complexity makes it easy for climate change skeptics to disseminate misinformation, according to Brown.

“It allows people who have bad motives or soft minds to then raise doubts that are not based on science or facts, but are able to be communicated without people reacting with total ridicule,” he said. “And it takes enough knowledge that it’s hard to be in this conversation at any level of depth.

Relying on Climate Scientists

Brown said we should rely on climate change scientists who “have clearly stated that human beings and the industrial activity of our modern lives is affecting climate by building up heat-trapping gases, and that the effects over time will be catastrophic.”

“When and how all of that unfolds is something that cannot be said on a precise date,” he continued. “But we know with a high degree of confidence that we are facing an existential threat to our well being and the well being of the generations that come afterwards.”

Brown acknowledged that the public has thus far been largely indifferent to the climate change issue, ranking it well below crime and jobs among issues they are most concerned about. That indifference or ambivalence may be due to the omnipresence of fossil fuels in the quality of our lives.

“What we are looking at is making a shift in the way life shows up,” Brown said. “We are who we are because of oil, coal and natural gas. Fossil fuels is what makes it. I assume that most of the people here are here because fossil fuels got you here, clothed you, medicated or whatever way you are functioning as a modern person, you are dependent on fossil fuels.

“So when we say we are going to reduce [emissions by] 10 percent, 20 percent, 40 percent, we are setting forth a huge challenge that is very easy to state. But anybody who has any understanding of what is implied by what is being called for, realizes this cannot be done lightly or without a mobilization globally that we have never seen before outside of time of war.”

Potential Economic Meltdown

Brown, citing a Sept. 29 speech by the Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney, warned there is a potential for a global economic meltdown when energy companies are forbidden from using up to a third of their fossil fuel resources.

“Once it becomes conventional wisdom, once we get it that climate change is going to be catastrophic and that becomes clear and vast majorities of people at all levels of society agree with that, it may be too late because we’ll be too far down the road,” he said.

“If the oil and gas companies are undermined, the financial system itself can be undermined. We can’t wait until everybody gets it. We have to start now.”

Brown said the state’s current annual output of 460 million tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions must be reduced to 431 million tons by 2020 and down to 260 million tons by 2030.

“To go from 460 where we are to 260, that takes heroic effort, scientific breakthroughs, massive investments, a lot of cooperation and a political understanding that does not exist today,” he said. “So this is not stuff for amateurs. This is quite challenging.”

“It’s a political problem,” Brown continued, “but also it’s a technical problem. And it’s going to require a lot of breakthrough, a lot of research and billions, tens of billions of dollars, invested by many, many different sources.”

It will also require Californians driving a lot less, he said, by living closer to where they work and telecommuting. “Californians drive over 330 billion miles a year – 32 million vehicles of various kinds moving around on almost entirely fossil fuel,” he said. “We’re going to reduce and take fossil fuels out of our lives and out of the economy.

“And we’re going to creep our prosperity and ability to keep inventing and improving the quality of everybody’s life. And not only here, but we’re going to do it all over the world. And we’re going to add a couple billion people besides and probably another billion cars.”

Changing Lifestyles

The governor admitted, “How the hell we do that, probably nobody knows. But the people who have the best understanding and the best capability to do things [are] right here.”

Brown acknowledged that it will be a big challenge convincing people to change their lifestyles. He also admitted that even getting the conversation started is tough:

In my world of politics this is … a dark reality that you just can’t even talk about. Because it’s too obscure, too complicated, it’s not high in the polls, “don’t bother me now.” But if that mood persists … it will be too late then, and there will be a real catastrophe.

People don’t like to think that something horrible could happen. We all like our happy time news in the morning. But you got to see it, and then we have to take steps to make sure it doesn’t happen.

This is about taking the steps to deal with fuels, the investment in biofuels, [energy] efficiency in appliances and buildings, across the whole range of how our modern civilization works, within the limited reach that the Air Resources Board has confidence and the legal authority to do, which is quite a lot. Everything that can be done will be done. California will do what it has to do.

Leading the Way

Brown believes California is setting an example other states and countries will follow.

“People know about California, people are watching what’s going on, and there’s a lot of goodwill to get us to the goal,” he said. “Of course, it’s going to take a lot more than goodwill. It’s going to take billions, trillions of dollars. And it’s going to take commitment all over the world.”

Brown’s pep talk received a standing ovation. After the applause died down, CARB Chairwoman Mary Nichols said, “You can see why I get up raring to go to work every morning.”

Facing Opposition

No one at the workshop questioned whether California’s efforts will do much to prevent the planet’s climate from changing, and whether the cost will be worth it.

But state Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Hanford, issued a statement on Oct. 7 in opposition to Brown signing into law Senate Bill 350, which mandates an increase in renewable energy among other emission reduction actions:

The district I represent is still reeling from the Great Recession and the devastating years-long drought. Too many people in rural and inland communities are impoverished; standing in food lines because they can’t find work to make ends meet.

Senate Bill 350 is a devastating measure that will force already-struggling families deeper into poverty by drastically increasing energy costs that are already some of the highest in the nation.

It’s wrong when parents have to choose between the necessities of keeping the lights on and feeding their children. The governor’s signature on SB350 kicks folks while they are down. It is a selfish gesture designed to fluff up his “legacy” and pander to coastal elites’ “environmental” self-righteousness.”

The impact on most Californians from the state’s climate change regulations has been minimal thus far. The state has been averaging a 1 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions annually. That pace is projected to continue through 2020, and is enough to meet the 2020 reduction goal.

But residents and businesses will be hit harder after that. Emissions will need to be reduced by at least 5.2 percent annually from 2020 to 2030 in order to meet the 2030 target.

“This gives an indication of the challenge of the work that we have ahead of us in the scoping plan to develop an approach, to develop a set of measures that can contribute to and achieve this ambitious greenhouse gas reduction level for 2030,” said ARB Assistant Executive Officer Michael Gibbs.

An analysis of the economic impacts of the climate change regulations will be conducted as a part of the scoping plan. No cost estimates were provided at the workshop, but several officials in addition to Brown said that billions of dollars in increased funding will be required.

“Investment in [energy] efficiency [in buildings] will need to be quadrupled or quintupled from today’s levels in order to reach the scale necessary to meet the 2030 and 2050 goals,” said Patrick Saxton, representing the California Energy Commission. “Clearly this is much more than ratepayers and taxpayers can fund on their own.”

Regional workshops on the scoping plan will be held this fall; the Air Resources Board will receive an update on Nov. 19. The draft plan is scheduled to be released in spring 2016. The final plan is expected to be approved in fall 2016.

One has a shot at passing. The other doesn’t.

Senate Bill 400 would require the California High-Speed Rail Authority to use at least 25 percent of its cap-and-trade funds for projects to reduce or offset construction emissions. The bill comes as two groups have brought legal challenges to the state’s cap-and-trade program and the state’s plan for measuring emissions from the high-speed rail project. The bill traces its origins to the powerful Hispanic caucus and is expected to pass in the largely pro-rail legislature.

SB400, introduced by Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, has been approved in the Senate and is moving through committees in the Assembly.

Last year the Legislature appropriated 25 percent of the state’s revenues from cap-and-trade auctions to the high-speed rail project. SB400 would reduce construction funds to 18.75 percent of the revenues, with the remainder going to “reduce or offset greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions directly associated with the construction of the high-speed rail project and provide a co-benefit of improving air quality,” according to a Senate analysis of the bill.

The analysis suggests that this bill might save the cap-and-trade program, which is being challenged by two lawsuits.

Lawsuits against AB32 and HSR

A suit brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which favors limited government and “sensible environmental policies,” claims that the very existence of the cap-and-trade program is an illegal tax. The case is on appeal and expected to be heard in the fall.

A second suit asserts that a state plan to reduce emissions improperly calculated the impact of the high-speed rail project — which the plaintiffs allege will actually contribute to greenhouse gases instead of reduce them.

The plaintiffs in their complaint say that the state’s estimates “were neither real, permanent, quantifiable or verifiable but were instead illusory because in reality the construction of the (rail) project would result in a significant increase in (greenhouse gas) emissions prior to 2030 or beyond.”

The suit is being brought by the Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund, a nonprofit environmental group.

Cap and trade bailing out high-speed rail project

The rail project is not slated to be operational by 2020, which is the deadline in state law to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels.

The Senate analysis points out that state law restricts the use of cap-and-trade funds.

“The Constitution requires that a clear nexus exist between an activity for which a mitigation fee is used and the adverse effects related to the activity on which that fee is levied. …

 

“It is important that legislation allocating cap-and-trade revenues ensure that the funds are being used to reduce (greenhouse gas) emissions. If opponents of the program can convince the courts that the revenues are not being used appropriately, the entire cap-and-trade program could be jeopardized.”

The analysis hints that the rail program’s use of cap-and-trade funds, as currently outlined, doesn’t meet legal standards, and that passage of the bill would shore up the legal standing of the program and help the state win the pending court cases.

“If opponents of the program can convince the courts that the revenues are not being used appropriately, the entire cap-and-trade program could be jeopardized,” the analysis reads.

The cap-and-trade program is estimated to bring in as much as $2 billion a year in fees.

Further analysis on SB400

An analysis in the Assembly shows that some lawmakers remain sympathetic to the aims of the bill but not as positive on its potential effects.

The bill would significantly drive up the cost of the rail project by reducing its only stable revenue stream, according to a summary of transportation committee members’ concerns. This could threaten completion and jeopardize any future environmental benefits.

“The project is already sorely underfunded,” the analysis states.

The analysis also points out that SB400 is intended to offset environmental impacts from construction but does not impose any requirement that the redirected money, approximately $125 million, be spent in communities near the construction zones. The bill could result in “millions of dollars being spent in Southern California, hundreds of miles from the high-speed rail construction sites.”

In other words, it could result in a money grab for other transit projects in Southern California, not the “disadvantaged communities” proposed in the bill.

Republicans in the Legislature have been unsuccessful for the past three years with more than a dozen bills that attempted to manage, change or end the high-speed rail program. All failed on party-line votes to get out of committee. In fact, Rep. Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, has a graveyard with little tomb stone markers set up in his backyard for failed bills he’s introduced on various subjects including high-speed rail.

Despite the fact that Senate Bill 3 has bipartisan sponsorship, from Sens. Andy Vidak, R-Hanford, and Rudy Salas, D-Bakersfield, it’s expected to suffer a similar fate.

The bill would direct the Legislature to approve putting high-speed rail back on the ballot. It would redirect high-speed rail funds to retiring the debt incurred from the issuance and sale of bonds. It would also require that unsold bonds use half the net proceeds for funding repair and new construction projects on state highways and freeways. The other half would be used to fund projects on local streets and roads.

This month, two state legislative panels blocked efforts by Central Valley Republican lawmakers to guarantee the property rights of those caught in the path of the the $68 billion transportation project. State Senator Andy Vidak of Hanford and Asm. Jim Patterson of Fresno are concerned that the California High Speed Rail Authority could use eminent domain to seize land for a project that may never be built.

“I’ve heard from dozens and dozens of property owners – many are farmers, small businesses and homeowners – that they are victims of these flash appraisals and pressure tactics,” said Sen. Vidak, who has been one of the state’s leading high-speed rail critics. “Many of these folks have land, businesses and homes that have been in the same family for several generations.”

Eminent domain requires fair-market compensation

For centuries, governments have used the power of eminent domain to compel property owners to sell their property for large public works projects. In theory, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the rights of property owners to receive just compensation for any property that is seized for public use.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has defined fair market value as the most probable price that a willing but unpressured buyer, fully knowledgeable of both the property’s good and bad attributes, would pay,” Cornell University Law School explains in its Fifth Amendment primer.

However, in practice, government agencies with their unlimited resources and army of lawyers can tip the scales in favor of a lower price.

Lawmakers say “no” to independent audit

In the Central Valley, residents are concerned that the state’s high-speed rail agency, which has already blown its budget estimates, could use “flash appraisals” and other hardball tactics to take property for less than the fair market value.

To make sure that everything’s on the up-and-up, Vidak requested that the state’s independent auditor investigate the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s property acquisition process. Among the questions Vidak wanted answered:

• Has the Authority’s contractors issued any property acquisition offers that the property or business owners were not involved in for the appraisal of their property or business?
• What policies and procedures has the Authority given to its contractors in order to obtain property necessary for the completion of the High-Speed Rail project?

After hearing testimony from the High-Speed Rail Authority, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee rejected Vidak’s audit request on a party-line vote.

“There seems to be a misperception that the High-Speed Rail Authority has unique authorities or abilities with regard to right of way that are separate from other state agencies,” California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Jeff Morales told state lawmakers. “That’s just not the case.”

A flabbergasted Vidak expressed his dismay at his colleagues.

“I won’t say the result of the hearing was a ‘whitewash’ or ‘cover-up’ for the Authority, but clearly this reasonable request should have been given high priority, not rejected,” he said following the vote.

Assembly Committee rejects Patterson’s property rights proposal

In the lower house, Asm. Jim Patterson, a fellow Central Valley Republican lawmaker, didn’t fare any better with his proposal to place restrictions on when the rail authority can seize property.

Assembly Bill 1138, the Protection from Eminent Domain Act, would prohibit the rail authority from beginning the eminent domain process until all the necessary funding and environmental approvals for the project have been secured.

Central Valley property owners that have held land for multiple generations supported the measure as a way to guarantee that their historic land rights remain intact – if the project is unsuccessful. According to the Sacramento Business Journal, the state has acquired just 209 of the 1,100 parcels needed for the first construction segment from Madera to Bakersfield – with 54 eminent domain lawsuits pending against the state.

“The reality is — this project does not have the funds in line necessary, and it is a grave injustice to the people whose property is being taken,” Patterson said at a press conference earlier this month. “We join with our Central Valley neighbors who are concerned that their property will be taken by the state for a project that doesn’t have a clear funding source and could be abandoned altogether, leaving these hardworking families with nothing.”

Yet, the Assembly Transportation Committee ignored those concerns and defeated Assembly Bill 1138 on a party-line 5-10 vote, with all Republicans in favor.

With ongoing questions about ridership estimates and travel times, the project’s viability remains very much in doubt. CalWatchdog.com’s Chris Reed has pointed out that the chorus of high-speed rail critics is growing – with even liberal journalists questioning the project.

“We are rapidly exiting the realm of rose-colored glasses and entering the realm of pure fantasy here,” Kevin Drum, a writer for Mother Jones magazine, wrote last year. “If liberals keep pushing this project forward in the face of plain evidence that its official justifications are brazenly preposterous, conservatives are going to be able to pound us year after year for wasting taxpayer money while we retreat to ever more ridiculous and self-serving defenses that make us laughingstocks in the public eye.”

Assembly Bill 23 and Senate Bill 5, the Affordable Gas Tax for Families Act. The bills are sponsored, respectively, by Assemblyman Jim Patterson, R-Fresno; and state Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Hanford. The NFIB/CA supports the bills, which in its analysis would:

• Exempt certain categories of persons or entities, such as transportation fuels, from inclusion in the state’s cap-and-trade program.
• Will remove transportation fuels from the cap-and-trade program and eliminate the gas tax.

Unless the tax exemption is passed, according to a recent study by the California Drivers Alliance, the tax potentially could kill over 18,000 jobs and $2.9 billion in economic output in 2015.

Tax Holiday

AB1280: Small Business Tax Holiday. It’s by Assemblyman Brian Maienschein, R-San Diego. The NFIB/CA is a sponsor of the bill, which in its analysis:

• Allows a one-day sales and use tax exemption annually for small businesses that collect less than $200,000 on sales tax the previous year.
• The specific day would be the Saturday following Thanksgiving, also known as “Small Business Saturday.”
• Does not interfere with a local government’s ability to tax.
• Mirrors a similar proposal that has been put forth in Florida this year.

Double Pay

AB67, the Double Pay on the Holiday Act of 2015. It’s by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego. The NFIB/CA opposes the bill, which in its analysis:

• Defines “family holiday” to mean either December 25 or the fourth Thursday of November each year, the Thanksgiving holiday.
• Provides that any work performed on a family holiday shall be compensated at no less than twice the employee’s regular rate of pay.
• Provides that “employee” does not include an employee covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement that meets specified criteria.

Republican Senators Andy Vidak and Anthony Cannella easily won reelection in their Central Valley districts, while Orange County Supervisor Janet Nugyen clobbered former Asm. Jose Solorio by twenty points in a highly-contested open seat. The GOP victories come just eight months after corruption scandals cost California Democrats their super-majority in the State Senate and give Senate Republicans some leverage in votes on taxes and procedural motions in the upper house.

Two years ago, the Senate Democratic Caucus under Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg won every contested race. This time around, Senate Democrats under new leader Kevin de Leon struggled in districts that are considered safe Democratic seats.

In the 12th Senate District, Cannella, a first-term Republican, cruised to reelection against Democrat Shawn Bagley, a produce-broker and businessman from Salinas. With 97 percent of precincts reporting, the Republican lawmaker nearly doubled up on his opponent, capturing 62 percent to Bagley’s 38 percent of the vote.

Although Democrats hold a 13-point advantage in voter registration, Cannella built a sizable war chest, which staved off serious challengers. A moderate Republican, Cannella won over independent voters and moderate Democrats by co-sponsoring legislation to allow undocumented immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses. He also pushed national Republicans to adopt comprehensive immigration reform and voted in favor of the Dream Act, a controversial bill to allow undocumented immigrants to obtain conditional permanent residency and in-state tuition benefits.

State Senate 14: Vidak’s impressive win

In the 14th Senate District, early returns showed a potential upset of Vidak, who won the seat in a 2013 special election. But, with 90 percent of precincts reporting, Vidak had established a comfortable 11-point lead over Fresno School Board Trustee Luis Chavez.

Republicans across the state benefited from a combination of low voter turnout and Gov. Jerry Brown’s decision to ignore a serious statewide campaign. However, they have reason to celebrate Vidak’s win as progress in reaching moderate Democrats and independent voters.

On paper, Democrats should win the 14th State Senate race every time. Democrats have 20 point advantage in voter registration in the district that is also half Latino. According to absentee ballot data from Political Data, Inc., this year’s absentee turnout was higher than 2010 and almost as high as 2012.

Vidak, the legislature’s leading critic of high-speed rail, has questioned pay-to-play politics in the contracting process and called for the public to re-vote on the controversial project. He also stood firm in calling for the Senate to expel several members accused of corruption and bribery.

State Senate 34: Nguyen’s Win

In the 34th Senate District, Nguyen, a first generation Vietnamese-American immigrant, withstood a barrage of negative attacks to defeat former Assemblyman Jose Solorio by twenty points. With 99.1 percent of precincts reporting, as of 12:55 a.m., Nguyen had 70,438 votes, compared to 46,867 for Solorio, a trustee on the Rancho Santiago Community College District Board.

Nguyen, the youngest supervisor in Orange County’s history, is headed to Sacramento thanks to a strong turnout by Vietnamese-American voters. Asian turnout among absentee voters, according to data made available by Political Data, Inc., was up significantly in the district, where 80 percent of the district’s Asian voters are Vietnamese. The race was considered to be one of the most competitive legislative races in the state. Surprisingly, Nguyen added to her vote total from the June 3rd primary, when she captured 52 percent of the vote in a three-way race.

Republicans also performed well in the 32nd Senate District, where Downey Councilman Mario Guerra kept Democrat Tony Mendoza on the ropes in a safe Democratic seat. With 97.5% of precincts reporting as of 2:02 a.m., Mendoza had 51.6 percent of the vote, a 3 percent advantage over Guerra.

Senate intra-party feuds

Under California’s Top 2 elections system, the highest vote-getters in the June primary advance to the November election. In two Democratic intra-party feuds, the moderate candidates prevailed in closely-contested races. In the 6th Senate District, Assemblyman Richard Pan defeated fellow Democratic lawmaker Roger Dickinson by roughly six points.

In the 26th Senate District, liberal activist Sandra Fluke was blown out by fellow Democrat Ben Allen. A member of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Board, Allen held a nearly 2-1 lead over the women’s rights activist who became a darling of the left after her national spat with conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh. With 84 percent of precincts reporting as of 2:02 a.m., Allen had 61 percent to Fluke’s 38.8 percent. The Torrance-based seat was previously held by moderate Democrat Ted Lieu, who was winning his campaign to replace retiring Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Beverly Hills.

The only Senate contest between two Republicans remained too close to call. With 63 percent of precincts reporting, Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone held a six point lead over former Republican Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia in the 28th Senate District.

Even with the historically low voter turnout, Democrats are expected to once again sweep all the major statewide races. The handful of propositions seem to be reruns of old fights — doctors vs. trial lawyers, insurance companies vs. Consumer Watchdog, tribe vs. tribe. In the state Legislature, the only question is whether Democrats claim a super-majority in both houses, and thus, have the power to raise taxes.

Here at CalWatchdog.com, we’ll be live-blogging this evening’s election results. With little mystery surrounding most of the results, what are some things we’ll be looking for?

1. The chessboard: How effective were party bigwigs with their targeting decisions?

It’s expensive to run for the California State Legislature, where Senate districts are larger than congressional districts. As we previously reported, the 65th Assembly District race between GOP Young Kim and Democrat Asm. Sharon Quirk-Silva is comparable with a governor’s race in New Hampshire. That means in order to compete, candidates need to raise large sums of money from Sacramento. Consequently, most of the targeting decisions for state legislative races are made by a small group of power-brokers in the political parties and legislative leadership in Sacramento.

But party leaders don’t always get the targets right. Good candidates on paper can turn out to be lazy, and more than a few oddballs put up a good fight. In addition to the supermajority threshold, we’ll be watching how well both parties allocated resources.

A few months ago, it looked like Republicans were walking away from Assemblyman Jeff Gorell’s Assembly seat. Sacramento rallied behind another GOP candidate in the primary and didn’t immediately embrace pastor Rob McCoy. Then, McCoy got some much-needed financial help from incoming Assembly Republican leader Kristin Olsen. Moderate Democrat Jacqui Irwin, who received more money, is favored to pick up this seat. She’s slightly behind in absentees (down 1 point), but the coastal independent voters should swing her way. McCoy’s ground operation has been strong, but he must account for a 3-point Democratic bump and 5-point GOP drop on Election Day. We’ll know whether Assembly Republicans were wise to invest limited resources in McCoy.

Incoming Assembly GOP leader Kristin Olsen

Conversely, Republicans largely ignored Republican Jack Mobley’s challenge to Assemblyman Adam Gray. A moderate Central Valley Democrat, Gray endeared himself to the state’s business community by occasionally delivering pro-business votes on hot-button issues. But he’s turning out to be a weak incumbent — so weak that Democrats have dropped more than $310,000 in Gray’s depleted campaign coffers.

If Assembly Republicans had targeted Gray earlier, he’d be headed for defeat. But the pro-business Democrat remained low on the priority pick-up list. Gray is the quintessential good-ol-boy like GOP state Sen. Anthony Canella. They even show up on mail together. So, what would be bad news for any other Democrat might not matter for Gray. In the last two weeks, Gray has received roughly a half-million dollars in campaign contributions in the last two weeks of the campaign, including late contributions from big business and big labor.

Gray only holds a margin advantage in absentee ballots. If this race is close, Republicans missed a big opportunity in Merced.

2. Good Ol’ Boys: Can the Asian American GOP women win in Orange County?

In conservative Orange County, a quartet of Asian American Republican women is running for office. “If the quartet runs the table,” writes former CA GOP Chairman and RNC Committeeman Shawn Steel, “it will be the most dramatic demographic change in the party’s elected leadership, and in the process, shatter conventional myths about the Grand Old Party.”

Steel’s wife, Michelle Steel, is running for supervisor in Orange County, technically a non-partisan position. The immigrant from South Korea currently is a member of the state Board of Equalization. She is running against Assemblyman Allan Mansoor, also a Republican.

In the 34th Senate district, OC Supervisor Janet Nguyen is expected to have a very good night against former Assemblyman Jose Solorio. Asian turnout is up, and 80 percent of the district’s Asian voters are Vietnamese. All of that is very good news for Nguyen, a first generation Vietnamese-American immigrant.

Young Kim, GOP candidate in 65th Assembly District

In the 65th Assembly race, Democratic Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva is behind in absentees, with numbers lower than 2012. Even a traditional 5-point bump from Election Day voters shouldn’t be enough to close the gap with Republican Young Kim, a first-generation Korean-American immigrant. Another good sign for Kim: Hidden in the absentee numbers are about 900 Democratic Koreans and 850 Independent Koreans that already voted by mail. Those 1,700 votes could be another 2-point boost for Kim, who is already likely ahead 9 points in absentees.

And in the 55th Assembly District race, Republican Ling-Ling Chang, a Taiwanese-American, is heavily favored in this strongly GOP district against Democrat Gregg D. Fritchle.

3. The GOP Blueprint: Does State Sen. Andy Vidak show how to win in a Democratic district?

On paper, Democrats should win the 14th State Senate race every time. Republican Andy Vidak scored an upset win in a 2013 special election. This year, turnout is actually higher than 2010 and almost as high as 2012, based on the absentee returns. Can Vidak really hold off a 16-point Democratic advantage in turnout and a nearly 50 percent Latino electorate? If he does, that’s a starting point for Republican success in California.

Similarly, Republicans have put substantial resources behind Downey Councilman Mario Guerra in a safe Democratic seat. Democrat Tony Mendoza should have an early lead, by roughly 8 points in absentees. If it’s close, Republicans can build here for the future.

4. CTA Brand: Is the teachers union banged in the state superintendent of public instruction and 15th Assembly races?

Democrat Tim Sbranti should be just fine tonight. He’s a Bay Area Democrat running in a solidly Democratic district. Historically, Republicans have struggled to win Bay Area races, even when the candidate is a moderate who matches the district. If Republican Catharine Baker keeps it close, it’s a good indication that the California Teachers Association’s image is suffering badly. The union has invested heavily in Sbranti, and become an issue in the campaign.

Same story in the race for State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Incumbent Tom Torlakson, a strong support of the union, has benefited from a big IE from the union.

5. Top Down-Ticket Democrat: Which Democratic constitutional officer receives the highest vote total?

There’s talk that California’s aging U.S. Senators won’t seek reelection next time around. Gov. Jerry Brown won’t be able to run for a fifth term, leaving the state’s top positions open for the next generation of Democrats.

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Kamala Harris seem to get all the buzz. But we’d be willing to bet Controller John Chiang, who is seeking the job of state treasurer, pulls in the most votes of any statewide candidate after Brown. Chiang’s earned a reputation as an effective fiscal watchdog. In 1998, then-Controller Gray Davis polled in last place in the Democratic gubernatorial primary. Al Checchi and Rep. Jane Harmon were the early favorites. But Davis won the primary, then the general election.

Chiang could be the darkhorse Democrat that becomes the next governor or U.S. senator.

Perhaps the last chance to head off a California gasoline price hike that could exceed 50 cents per gallon by 2020 just was defeated on the state Senate floor.

Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Hanford, offered amendments to a bill, AB2492, that had nothing to do with the bill’s focus on drug sentencing. The amendments duplicated those in Vidak’s bill, SB1079, which would head off a gas price hike that could begin next year.

“I rise today to offer amendments that will stop a hike in gasoline and diesel prices that could range anywhere from 16 to 76 cents a gallon every time Californians fill up Jan. 1, 2015,” Vidak said on the Senate floor Aug. 21. “Gasoline is not a luxury for most Californians, it’s a necessity.

“Communities that I represent already suffer extreme poverty and some of the highest unemployment in the state as well as the country. Our food banks are already overwhelmed with families waiting in food lines. And they’re not able to make it right now. This is an unfair, hidden, regressive tax that will hurt many vulnerable Californians, and it must be stopped.”

The amendments were promptly voted down by the Senate’s Democratic majority, 23-10, without discussion.

Exemption

SB1079 would exempt the transportation fuel industry from having to comply with the state’s cap-and-trade program, which the industry is scheduled to do beginning Jan. 1, 2015. That program was started to advance compliance with AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which was signed into law by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The program requires the state’s largest energy users to reduce their carbon emissions or purchase carbon allowances through the cap-and-trade market mechanism.

“The State Air Resources Board’s regulatory analysis for the market-based compliance mechanism anticipates carbon allowance costs ranging from $15 to $75, inclusive, per ton between 2015 and 2020,” the bill states.

“Many areas of the state continue to struggle from disproportionately high unemployment rates, and the state’s hard-working low-income and middle-income families will likely suffer most from this additional cost burden.”

The bill exempts from the cap-and-trade program any industries not enrolled in it by Dec. 31, 2014.

“This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect,” the bill states.

“The facts constituting the necessity are: To allow sufficient lead time to make necessary adjustments to the program before it takes effect January 1, 2015, it is necessary for this act to take effect immediately.”

Stuck

Despite the bill’s call for urgency, SB1079 is bottled up – Vidak calls it “stuck” – having been sent to the Senate Rules Committee.

“Liberal elites don’t seem to care about poor people who have to wait in food lines to feed their family,” said Vidak in a press release response to the rejection of his amendments. “Even a small increase in gas prices will be devastating to so many people in our Valley.”

Vidak goes on to charge that “the California Air Resources Board and the Brown administration secretly created the unauthorized gas tax without public knowledge or legislative approval. California already has the highest gas prices in the nation. According to GasBuddy.com, the average cost for gasoline in California is $4.12 per gallon and the national average is $3.68.”

A similar bill, AB69, by Assemblyman Henry Perea, D-Fresno, provides a three-year exemption for the transportation fuel industry until 2018. It has been assigned to the Assembly Rules Committee.

High gas prices

No one knows exactly how high gas prices might increase as a result of bringing transportation fuels into the cap-and-trade mandate. It will depend on how high the price of a carbon allowance goes. Currently at $11.34 per ton, it’s expected to grow by 5 percent plus inflation per year as the carbon allowance noose tightens.

By 2020, gas prices will likely increase in the range of 13-20 cents per gallon, but could exceed 50 cents per gallon, according to a letter to Perea from the Legislative Analyst’s Office. The estimate is based on gas prices increasing 8-9 cents per gallon for every $10 per ton of carbon allowance cost.

“The actual price increase will depend on a wide variety of economic, technological, and regulatory factors that are difficult to predict,” the LAO letter acknowledges. “We note that if transportation fuels were not part of the cap-and-trade program, alternative policies to meet the AB 32 emissions targets might be adopted that also have the effect of increasing gasoline prices.”

Price study

The estimate of a 13-20 cent per gallon gas price rise is based on a June 2014 study conducted for the California Air Resources Board by the Market Simulation Group. It’s based on a 2020 allowance price of $20 per ton. But the study also states that allowance prices could go as high as $79 per ton, shooting gas prices up more than 50 cents per gallon.

“This study’s scope is narrower than the others we reviewed, but our summary places very heavy weight on it due to its timing and methodological credibility,” the LAO letter states.

The other cost studies that the LAO looked at are not far off from the Market Simulation Group report.

A 2012 study by the Boston Consulting Group estimated that gas prices could increase 15-77 cents per gallon in 2020 (in 2013 dollars). The amount could be 17-87 cents per gallon in projected 2020 dollars, according to the LAO.

A 2010 study for the Union of Concerned Scientists estimated gas prices increasing 37 cents per gallon in a “conservative case” and 88 cents per gallon in an “extreme case.”

An 88-cent gas price hike would likely push California gas prices over $5 per gallon. And that concerns Perea, who defended his three-year moratorium bill in a press release.

“The cap-and-trade system should not be used to raise billions of dollars in new state funds at the expense of consumers who are struggling to get back on their feet after the recession,” he said. “In some areas of the state, like the Central Valley, constituents need to drive long distances and they will be disproportionately impacted by rising gas prices.”

‘Much larger’

Perea believes gas prices will increase about 15 cents per gallon, but cautioned that “a much larger jump is possible. Delaying fuels from coming under the cap would allow California consumers to prepare for the potential impacts of higher gas prices.”

The pain at the pump will be felt not only by residents, but by businesses, warned John Kabateck, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business/CA.

“California’s small businesses and consumers‎ face significant economic harm from fuel price increases coming Jan. 1, but state officials have done nothing to inform them this is coming,” Kabateck said. “A reasonable delay to this policy will give the state time to fully analyze the impacts of bringing fuels under the cap and small businesses and families time to budget for this financial hit.”

Transportation businesses will likely be hardest hit by the gas price hike.

“Moving fuels under the cap-and-trade program could stifle the economic recovery in the state and give out-of-state businesses a competitive advantage,” said Mike Kelton, CEO of Inland Star Distribution in Fresno.

“While we must work to reduce the consumption and dependency on gasoline and diesel to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, ­another new gas tax is the wrong way to go about it. The bipartisan support to delay the new hidden gas tax shows the importance to review the impacts of the policy created by regulators at the Air Resources Board.”

$2 billion hit

The probability that SB1079 and AB69 will not be voted on in this legislative session has drawn scorn from Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters. He estimates that a 15-cent gas price hike would translate into a $2 billion hit to Californian motorists, with many paying more than $100 extra annually to fill up.

“Given the heavy financial impact of placing fuel under the cap-and-trade program, it should face legislative scrutiny and direct up-or-down votes, rather than being imposed by an unelected board,” wrote Walters in his column, “Legislature ducking debate on big fuel price hike.”

“Were AB69 to die without even a hearing, it would be another example of how the Legislature has cravenly ceded its policymaking duties to others, whether they be initiative sponsors, judges or bureaucrats.”

First bond: On Friday, Senate Republicans refurbished their own water-bond proposal, now for $8.7 billion. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Nearly a third of the money in the new proposal would go to water storage. Like the 2009 plan, the new GOP proposal would designate $3 billion for storage such as reservoirs and dams.”

Second bond: In an Aug. 5 open letter to Califonians, Gov. Jerry Brown urged support for his proposed $6 billion water bond, $2 billion of it for water storage.

Third bond: Still in the water table is SB848, by state Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Vacaville. It would spend $7.5 billion, including $2 billion on water storage.

Fourth bond: Any new proposal, if adopted by the Legislature, would be placed on the November ballot for voter approval. And it would replace the $11.1 billion water bond, Proposition 43, currently slated by the Legislature for the November ballot, but delayed in 2010 and 2012 because legislators knew it would be defeated because of the bad economy.

Aside from price, the major difference is that the Brown and Wolk bonds spend $2 billion on water storage, while the GOP and Prop. 43 bonds spend $3 billion.

New water storage wouldn’t be available for about another 10 years because it would take seven to eight years to get any new reservoir designed and engineered, environmentally cleared, constructed and certified for operation.  It then would take one or more years to fill the reservoirs.

The last time voters approved bonds for building new water storage facilities was 1960 for $1.8 billion for the State Water Project. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Inflation Calculator, that would be $14.5 billion today. And California’s population has more than doubled.

Some aspects of the new bond proposals

GOP bond. The major problem with the Republican proposal, of course, is that party members are a minority in both houses of the Legislature, so their ideas can be ignored — yet not completely. Their emphasis on $3 billion for water storage, instead of the $2 billion in the Brown and Wolk proposals, appeals to inland farm voters that have been leaning Republican.

In 2013, State Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Fresno, won a special election in a Democratic district in part by appealing to farmers hurt by the water shortage. Vidak is a co-sponsor of the new GOP bond proposal. So despite the Republicans’ minority status, they cannot be ignored.

If Vidak holds his seat in November, and up-and-coming GOP candidate Janet Nguyen takes back a state Senate seat in Orange County now held by Democrats, then Democrats’ chances of taking back their supermajority status in the Senate likely would be ended.

Brown bond. One aspect of Brown’s proposed bond is that it contains $475 million for the controversial Central Valley Project Improvement Act. And an additional $215 million would go to restoration of watershed lands that support endangered species. This could worsen water farm shortages during droughts.

Wolk bond. As to Wolk’s bond, it prioritizes groundwater storage over dams and surface water storage.  Her bill allocates only $1 billion for dams, but that funding would be diluted among a number of other projects and programs.

But Wolk’s water bond contains a hydrological fatal flaw: How do you get water to percolate into groundwater basins if it is not captured first instead of allowing it to flow through rivers to the sea?  As Dan Nelson, Executive Director of the San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority, wrote in the Aug. 1 Sacramento Bee, “Groundwater Can’t be Regulated Without Increasing Surface Supplies.”

Farmers

If Brown’s 2012 negotiations over the tax increase that became Proposition 30 are any indication, the result passed by the Legislature likely will be a blend of two more of these proposals. Voters especially should look for the effect on water rights.

Under California’s water management system, farmers with “junior water rights” are asked to make fallow their fields during droughts so that the water can be used for cities, farmers with senior water rights and fish runs on rivers.

Rather than storing up enough water for droughts, California’s water policy forces some farmers to get wiped out during droughts.  Therefore, all voters might want to know if there is any water for those drought-hit farmers who sacrifice for everyone in this bill.

Farmers too often sit in the back of the tractor in California politics. But for bonds this year, they’re trying to crawl up into the driver’s seat.

In 2012, the Senate Democratic Caucus ran the tables, winning every contested race. With Fran Pavley, Richard Roth and Cathleen Galgiani added to his caucus, Senate President President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, had a veto-proof, two-thirds majority.

They could do what they wanted, even pass tax increases, with any Republican objections  ignored.

But before that supermajority could be put to use, Senate Republicans were given a victory they hadn’t earned at the ballot box. In February 2013, Senator Michael Rubio, D-Bakersfield, abruptly resigned to take a job with Chevron. In the ensuing special election, Republican Andy Vidak of Hanford upset Leticia Perez.

Rubio resignation began Democrats’ downward spiral

Rubio’s resignation was the beginning of a downward spiral for Senate Democrats. In quick succession earlier this year, three members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, Ron Calderon of Montebello, Rod Wright of Inglewood  and Leland Yee of San Francisco, faced high-profile scandals that brought about their suspensions and ended Senate Democrats’ super-majority in the 2013-14 session.

This November, Democrats have no room for error, as favorable demographics and incumbent advantages have Senate Republicans poised to reclaim one-third control of the State Senate. In order to reach their expected 14-seat minority, Senate Republicans need to defend two Central Valley incumbents and win an open seat in Orange County, which is rated a toss-up by most political analysts.

Cannella appeals to immigrants

Despite declining statewide voter registration, Republicans have done well in recent elections appealing to moderate Democrats and decline-to-state voters in the conservative Central Valley. Four years ago, Senator Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres, beat then-Assemblywoman Anna Caballero by three points in an open seat being vacated by Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock.

This year, Cannella faces a much weaker opponent in Democrat Shawn Bagley, a produce-broker and businessman from Salinas. Although Democrats hold a 14-point advantage in voter registration, Cannella will likely use his more than $900,000 warchest to tell voters about his moderate record in Sacramento.

Cannella co-sponsored legislation to allow undocumented immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses. He’s pushed Congress to adopt comprehensive immigration reform and voted in favor of the Dream Act, to allow undocumented immigrants to obtain conditional permanent residency and in-state tuition benefits.

Vidak: State’s leading high-speed rail critic

While Cannella has worked to broaden the GOP’s base, Vidak has appealed to moderate Democrats and independents on the issue of high-speed rail. The Legislature’s leading high-speed rail critic, Vidak has questioned pay-to-play politics in the contracting process and called for a re-vote of the public, which in 2008 green-lighted the project by passing $9.9 billion in bonds in Proposition 1A.

This November, Vidak must again overcome a 17 percentage point Democratic registration advantage, as he faces Fresno School Board Trustee Luis Chavez.  If the primary is any indication, Vidak is well-positioned to defeat Chavez, who managed just 38 percent of the vote in the heavily Democratic district to Vidak’s 62 percent.

Nguyen: GOP’s opportunity to gain seat

With the effects of redistricting finally taking effect for even numbered State Senate seats, Republicans are guaranteed to pick up one seat, the 28th Senate district, in the Coachella Valley. The race remains too close to call, but the top three candidates, Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone, former Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia and Indio Councilman Glenn Miller, are all Republicans.

The best pick-up opportunity for Senate Republicans lies in Orange County, where County Supervisor Janet Nguyen takes on former Assemblyman Jose Solorio, now a trustee on the Rancho Santiago Community College District Board. On Tuesday, despite having a second Republican candidate in the race, Nguyen earned 51.8 percent of the vote in the 34th Senate District. The district has an even split between Asian and Latino voters.

GOP long-shots, but on the table

Two more seats are long-shots for Republicans, but will likely remain on the table in November. In Alameda and Santa Clara county, GOP candidate Peter Kuo will face Democratic Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, who escaped a bitter primary with former Assemblywoman and convicted shoplifter Mary Hayashi. Also impressing political analysts, former Downey Mayor Mario Guerra pulled in 44 percent of the vote in a heavily Democratic district.

“Comparing June vote totals to November is like comparing preseason to the playoffs,” Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s a completely different election with a completely different turnout universe.”

In the 32nd Senate District, Guerra needs to overcome a nearly 2-to-1 voter registration disadvantage. Even without a long-shot victory in the Whittier-based district, Senate Democrats will lose a seat in November, when Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, is expected to win a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. That would produce a new race next year for a replacement.

District 12

Candidate		Votes	Percent
	Luis Chavez (Party Preference: DEM)	17,296	37.6%
*	Andy Vidak (Party Preference: REP)	28,718	62.4%

District 28

100.0% ( 422 of 422 ) precincts partially reporting as of June 6, 2014, 10:29 a.m.

Candidate		Votes	Percent
	Philip Drucker (Party Preference: DEM)	16,177	18.8%
	Anna Nevenic (Party Preference: DEM)	13,084	15.2%
	William “Bill” Carns (Party Preference: REP)	4,379	5.1%
	Bonnie Garcia (Party Preference: REP)	16,894	19.6%
	Glenn A. Miller (Party Preference: REP)	16,792	19.5%
	Jeff Stone (Party Preference: REP)	18,737	21.8%

District 34

100.0% ( 482 of 482 ) precincts partially reporting as of June 5, 2014, 6:20 p.m.

Candidate		Votes	Percent
	Jose Solorio (Party Preference: DEM)	23,851	33.7%
	Janet Nguyen (Party Preference: REP)	36,577	51.8%
	Long Pham (Party Preference: REP)	10,244	14.5%

District 32

100.0% ( 494 of 494 ) precincts partially reporting as of June 5, 2014, 6:20 p.m. 

Candidate		Votes	Percent
	Carlos R. Arvizu (Party Preference: DEM)	1,046	2.0%
	Sally Morales Havice (Party Preference: DEM)	5,917	11.3%
	Tony Mendoza (Party Preference: DEM)	16,706	31.9%
	Irella Perez (Party Preference: DEM)	5,545	10.6%
	Mario A. Guerra (Party Preference: REP)	23,135	44.2%