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.

California lawmakers accepted $844,000 in gifts in 2013 — the majority of which came from special interest groups that routinely lobby the state Legislature.

According to a new report released by the good-government group California Common Cause, gifts to elected state representatives included $580,000 in travel payments, more than $100,000 in meals and receptions and $65,500 for tickets to entertainment and sporting events.

“With ongoing federal investigations into potential ethics violations by several state lawmakers, this report highlights that there are many legal channels through which special interests exert their influence in Sacramento,” Kathay Feng, executive director of CA Common Cause, said in a press release.

More than 2,700 gifts reported in 2013

Each state lawmakers received, on average, $600 worth of gifts every month. To put that number into perspective, it’s three times the freebies the average recipient of food stamps receives in California. According to the California Department of Social Services, “The average amount of CalFresh benefits received per household is about $200 per month.”

In total, state lawmakers reported more than 2,700 individual gifts in 2013, ranging from a $1.50 bottle of Coke to a $15,782 trip to Armenia. While meals were the most common item, the largest payments were for travel to exotic locations and accommodation in luxury hotels. Among the more unique gifts were:

• $439 in tickets to a Drake concert given by the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority to Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland;
• $216 in nail polish given by the Personal Care Products Association to then-Senator Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, who is facing charges of corruption;
• $160 worth of golf fees and clubs given by the California Foundation on Education and the Environment to state Sen. Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres;
• $130 in spa services given by the California Legislative Black Caucus Policy Institute to state Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Culver City;
• $115 in seafood given by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation to Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, D-Los Angeles.

Gifts increasing in number and value

CA Common Cause says both the number and value of gifts increased dramatically in the past year. According to their report, state elected officials accepted approximately $216,000 in gifts and travel payments, including $41,000 in hotels and lodging; $30,000 for tickets to entertainment and sporting events; and more than $100,000 for meals and receptions.

“While Californians across the state exchange gifts this month in celebration of the holidays, its worth taking a minute to reflect on the year-round, not-so-secret Santa happening in the state Capitol,” said Sarah Swanbeck, policy and legislative affairs advocate for CA Common Cause. “What we’re seing is a growing trend in both the number of gifts and the total value of those gifts given by powerful special interest groups to state lawmakers.”

To compile its report, the group analyzed publicly available financial disclosure reports, which are filed annually with the Fair Political Practices Commission. That means the figures are likely to be lower than the actual total. State law does not require gifts under $50 in value to be reported on these Statement of Economic Interest forms. Financial disclosure reports for 2014 won’t be available until March 1.

Top Recipients of Gifts in 2013

Legislative leaders topped the list of gift recipients in 2013, with former Speaker of the Assembly John A. Perez, D-Los Angeles, taking home nearly $38,000 in gifts and perks. The Top 10 recipients, according to the report:

1. Assemblyman John A. Perez: $37,823;
2. Sen. Ricardo Lara: $32,492;
3. Sen. Anthony Cannella: $26,644;
4. Assemblyman Steven Bradford: $25,408;
5. Assemblyman Travis Allen: $23,118;
6. Sen. Kevin de Leon: $22,910;
7. Assemblyman Scott Wilk: $21,780;
8. Assemblywoman Connie Conway: $20,675;
9. Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia: $20,600;
10. Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen: $17,603.

All of the state lawmakers listed in the Top 10 of gift recipients utilized the longstanding loophole that allows elected officials to circumvent the state’s $440 gift limit.

Legislators gone wild on junkets

State officials can accept gifts that exceed the state’s gift limit if it is for travel-related expenses in conjunction with a speech or conference. Special interest groups routinely take advantage of this loophole by organizing “conferences” in exotic locales. In 2013, the two biggest donors helped state lawmakers jet off to Scandinavia, Taiwan and Maui, courtesy of this loophole.

The biggest gift-giver to state lawmakers was the California Foundation on the Environment & Economy, which spent $161,893 in travel-related gifts. It was followed by the Independent Voter Project, which spent $38,080 in 2013.

Founded by former Assemblyman Steve Peace, the IVP hosts a notorious annual conference in Maui. Eighteen state lawmakers attended the group’s 2013 conference, held at the luxurious Fairmont Kea Lani, “Hawaii’s only all-suite and villa luxury oceanfront resort.”

The travel gift loophole has been criticized by newspapers and ethics experts.

“Almost all of this largesse came courtesy of people and organizations with business before the Legislature,” the Press-Democrat recently editorialized. “With all the junkets and outings, it’s a wonder they find time for any business.”

Sacramento: Only place there’s still a free lunch

While travel-related gifts accounted for nearly 70 percent of the dollar amount, the most frequent gift given to legislators in 2013 was a free lunch. That’s gifts of meals and drinks; and attendance at receptions, events and hospitality suites.

In the area of free meals, the California Democratic Party donated more than any other group, according to CA Common Cause. The state party spent nearly $10,000 to wine and dine its members.

Top 10 gift-givers

The top 10 gift-givers in 2013 were:

1. California Foundation on the Environment & Economy: $161,893;
2. Independent Voter Project: $38,080;
3. Consulate General of the Republic of Armenia: $25,173;
4. State Legislative Leaders Foundation: $24,027;
5. Pacific Policy Research Foundation: $22,015;
6. Taipai Economic and Cultural Office: $32,533;
7. California Issues Forum: $18,902;
8. The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles: $17,989;
9. American Israel Foundation: $12,737;
10. California Democratic Party: $10,556.