With the cost of housing driving California’s emergence as the state with the highest percentage of impoverished households, it’s easy to see the appeal of rent control to key Democratic constituencies – starting with poor and lower-middle-income families, often minorities, who struggle paycheck to paycheck.

This was why a diverse coalition was able to easily gather enough signatures to place Proposition 10 on the Nov. 6 ballot. It would repeal a sweeping 1995 state law – known by the shorthand of Costa-Hawkins – that grandfathered in some rent control laws but made significant new such laws difficult to impose.

The most notable provisions of the law were its ban on rent control for units built after 1995 and for all single-family homes and condominiums. It also forbids what’s known as “vacancy control,” which requires landlords to leave rents unchanged when a unit becomes empty.

The eagerness to undo Costa-Hawkins was plain in July at a meeting of the California Democratic Party in Oakland, where 95 percent of the party’s executive board voted to back the rent-control measure. That comes with a party commitment to send email and direct mail endorsements of the measure to as many as 2 million Democrats in the state, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Newsom splits with Democratic Party, opposes Prop. 10

But with less than a month to the election, this early momentum hasn’t translated into strong support. The most important Democrat on the fall ballot – Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, the heavy favorite to succeed Jerry Brown as governor – is against rent control. While most of what might be called the Bernie Sanders wing of California Democrats is all aboard the Proposition 10 bandwagon, a significant number of prominent and/or elected Democrats are in opposition. This includes Newsom’s primary rival, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and Assembly members Jim Cooper, Tom Daly, Adam Gray, Patrick O’Donnell and Bill Quirk.

A number of reasons appear to be driving Democratic opposition to a seemingly potent populist wedge issue. Newsom, who revels in his reputation as a policy wonk, has told newspaper editorial boards up and down the state that rent control actually would make the housing crisis worse.

In economic circles, the belief that rent control is counterproductive is the overwhelming consensus of Keynesians, supply siders and nearly all the factions across the ideological spectrum. In 1992, a poll of the American Economic Association showed 93 percent agreed with the statement that rent control “reduces the quality and quantity of housing.” A Stanford University study of rent control in San Francisco released last December reached similar conclusions.

Californians in communities with rent control don’t need to be told by economists that it doesn’t work well. As Ken Calhoon, an El Dorado County real estate broker, pointed out in a July commentary, “Rent control has been a long-time ordinance in the following cities: Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Campbell, East Palo Alto, Fremont, Hayward, Los Angeles, Los Gatos, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Monica, Thousand Oaks and West Hollywood. It’s not a coincidence that the two most expensive rental areas in our state, the Los Angeles and Bay Area regions, happen to have every city that has enacted rent control policies.”

Also helping the No on Proposition 10 campaign is an unusually broad collection of groups that includes not just the usual business interests but several construction unions and seniors groups and a long list of organizations with ethnic or racial affiliations, starting with the California NAACP.

A Public Policy Institute of California poll released two weeks ago showed Proposition 10 losing 48 percent to 36 percent, with 16 percent undecided. Among Democrats, it led narrowly, 46 percent to 43 percent.

Rent-control foes stake claim to populist label

In a state where even banged-up, aging two-bedroom apartments go for $2,000-plus a month in most urban areas, these results seem hard to fathom – especially  given that the Yes on Proposition 10 side is backed by such powerful, high-profile groups as the California Teachers Association, the California Nurses Association, several government unions and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, led by Los Angeles political activist Michael Weinstein.

But this may be a case where money and superior strategy – not the views of economists or California’s history with rent control – are overcoming the populist inclination of voters. The No on Proposition 10 campaign, which has had at least a 2-1 advantage in fundraising so far, has been advertising for weeks. A Google search for Proposition 10 returns results that are topped with a paid No on 10 link. It goes to a page with the simple message that the measure is bad for veterans and seniors, doesn’t reduce rent and doesn’t provide funds for affordable housing. Some of these claims are solid and some are non sequiturs – why would rent control be expected to reduce rent?

But they make the case that this is not a simple attempt by moneyed interests to allow them to keep exploiting renters – instead making a seemingly populist case for No on 10.

Meanwhile, as an Oct. 5 story in the Ventura County Star noted, there may be high-profile supporters of Yes on 10, but only one is offering significant financial support. While the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has donated more than $10 million, “the only other major contributors to the campaign are the California Nurses Association and the AFSCME 3299 union, which contributed $50,000 and $60,000, respectively.”

[contact-form]

Kimberly Ellis

The tension between the progressive “Berniecrat” wing and the mainstream liberal wing of the California Democratic Party appears likely to resonate for years to come. That’s the clear takeaway from Bay Area political organizer’s Kimberly Ellis’ vow to keep contesting her narrow loss for state party chairman to Eric Bauman, a registered nurse who chairs the Los Angeles County Democratic Party and was deputy state chair before John Burton’s recent retirement as party leader.

At May’s state convention in Sacramento, Bauman won 51 percent to 49 percent over Ellis in what was initially expected to be a landslide win. He had the support of most top Democrats and had built up relationships with key party figures for decades. But Ellis rallied fellow Bernie Sanders’ supporters with her call to “redefine” the California Democratic Party as an ambitious agent of change.

After her defeat, Ellis immediately raised questions about illegal votes being counted and about election irregularities. Her concerns were borne out to some extent when a review by party officials found 355 suspect ballots – more than 11 percent of the nearly 3,000 ballots that were cast. But a weekend re-examination of the ballots and recount didn’t change the results. Forty-seven ballots were tossed – 25 for Bauman and 22 for Ellis.

Party leaders – only starting with Bauman – hoped that Ellis would drop her complaints and offer a unity message. Instead, the Richmond activist is pursuing another appeal with party officials and is considering a lawsuit while blasting the state’s Democratic establishment and maintaining her “Vote for Kimberly” website.

Ellis said her quest to push her party to embrace an aggressive version of progressive politics led her to continue her challenge. “To turn away now would be a betrayal to my own sense of integrity and ethics,” she said Monday, according to a Los Angeles Times report.

Difficult two months prompt Brown warning

Ellis’ renewed fight with the Democratic establishment comes in the wake of a roiling dispute over health care. In late June, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, drew the bitter ire of the California Nurses Association and Berniecrats when he pulled the plug on a single-payer health care bill that appeared headed for passage – and an eventual veto by Gov. Jerry Brown. Rendon called the bill “woefully incomplete” because it didn’t specify how the $400 billion annual cost of a single-payer system would be covered.

Off the record, many Democrats used more colorful language to rip the bill, which was partly based on the assumption that the Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress would give the state the equivalent of total federal spending on Californians’ health care to set up California-only single-payer. Defenders say it’s time Californians – and Americans – grasp that a broken health-care system needs replacing, not more tinkering.

The 2018 governor’s race is likely to be buffeted by the Berniecrats’ demands. Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Treasurer John Chiang appear more interested in courting the progressives than former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

The national media has taken notice of the infighting in America’s largest state. On July 10, Politico declared a “civil war” was wracking California Democrats.

The article featured a warning from Brown: “Look, you can always go too far. Trump has obviously gone too far in one direction. It’s possible to go too far in the other direction.”

But it was also noteworthy for Rendon’s tart dismissal of his critics. He described the push for single-payer as “posturing,” not something that “can actually be implemented to help people.”

The endorsement seemed inevitable for Harris, who won with 78 percent of the vote at the California Democratic convention. And it’s a major blow for Sanchez, who spent the entire weekend trying to muster support from the different caucuses. The only problem was that for all of the warm reception Sanchez received, Harris’ receptions were warmer.

Sanchez generally is polling a step behind Harris. A Field Poll in January showed Sanchez trailing Harris 27 percent to 15 percent among likely voters, behind with nearly every demographic except for among Latinos.

Sanchez has a respectable $2.1 million in her campaign account, while Harris has $4 million. There were many people at the convention in Sanchez for Senate gear, but Harris had many more.

“Congresswoman Sanchez thanks the delegates that supported her with their vote,” said Sanchez spokesman said Luis Vizcaino. “But make no mistake, today’s vote was not the primary. Congresswoman Sanchez is on track to be one of two candidates in the general election where the electoral dynamics change in her favor.”

Slight differences

Neither candidates’ campaign has been flawless. Harris’s has endured bad press over excessive spending and staff turnover while Sanchez’s has been marred by a series of missteps, first with Native Americans, then with Muslims.

While there’s not a lot of room between the two candidates on issues, Sanchez is trying to draw on her lengthy experience as a legislator, having been elected to Congress in 1996. Several times over the weekend she pointed to making Congressional Quarterly’s recent list identifying Sanchez as one of the 25 most influential women in Washington, for being a “debate shaper and swing votes.”

Sanchez points to her voting record and it’s consistency, receiving consistently high marks on Democratic issues. She also highlighted her decisiveness, arguing that voters know exactly what’ll they’ll get with her, as opposed to the unproven Harris.

For example, Sanchez came out quickly on the side of Apple in the tech company’s battle with the federal government over privacy issues, and it’s refusal to help the FBI unlock the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters.

“I fully support Apple’s decision to fight the court order through the judicial process and I believe Congress must address the broader policy issues raised by this case,” Sanchez said in a statement. Meanwhile, Harris has yet to take a position.

Experience matters

One of Sanchez’s proudest legislative victories was changing how sexual assaults in the military are reported and tracked, thereby increasing accountability. Knowing she had little chance of getting the bill passed as a standalone, she was able to add the measure as an amendment to a must-pass defense authorization bill.

She’s also consistently helped secure federal funding for Orange County’s groundwater replenishment system which provides water to millions of residents.

Sanchez, one of the few remaining members of the once-powerful moderate Blue Dog Democrats, has accrued seniority on the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees over two decades.

And she’s made relationships in a place where relationships are the only thing that matters, noting that she’d be able to make an immediate impact in the Senate, with a firm grasp on policy and how to legislate — and it helps that many senators she served with in the House.

“It’s the duty of a senator to make policy through legislation,” Sanchez told thousands of Democrats on Saturday. “Legislation is a complex and contentious process. Success requires consensus building and institutional knowledge. While other candidates talk about boldly changing Washington, I have done it for 20 years.”

Path to victory

Sanchez on Friday told CalWatchdog that she’s been favored head-to-head polls against Harris. Sanchez’s plan has been to advance through the primary and hope to draw enough support largely from Latinos, moderates and even some Republicans.

She’ll need a strong Southern California turnout, a strong showing from Latinos, and a few good issues mixed with a Harris misstep, said Raphael Sonenshein, executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at CSU Los Angeles.

“With the top two primary, her first goal has to be to finish second in the primary. so far, that looks doable with no major Republican running,” said Sonenshein. “Then anything can happen.”

Beau Biden, the vice president’s late son, died last may of brain cancer. On his way out the door, the protester continued to scream that cell phones were killing people.”

“The FCC is lying to you,” the protester screamed towards thousands of Democrats, with a bright yellow sign to match.

But even as he was being escorted out, Biden, who was speaking at the California Democratic convention, said with a smile, “It’s OK, It’s OK,” noting that his son would have liked the protesting. And he even dipped into presidential politics to take a shot at GOP front-runner Donald Trump, who has routinely kicked protesters out of events.

“Let’s not act like Republicans,” Biden joked as the crowd booed the man.

Steyer is a wealthy hedge fund manager and top-Democratic donor who runs an environmental group called NextGen Climate.

Thomas Steyer, photo courtesy of Aspen Institute

In introducing Steyer, Eric Bauman, the vice chairman of the state party, touted Steyer’s spending in Democratic politics, particularly for two initiatives in Los Angeles County that helped register Latinos as Democrats.

Bauman called Steyer a “champion” for being “willing to invest (his) personal wealth” to win elections that he in which he’s not a candidate.

According to Forbes.com, Steyer is worth $1.6 billion, which makes him the 1,190th wealthiest person in the world. He was the top national individual political donor in 2014 — at least on the books — spending almost $74 million, $46 million more than the next highest donor, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. This cycle, Steyer’s near the top again, having spent $13 million so far.

“We can take on the special interests and the big corporations,” Steyer told thousands of Democrats.

However, Steyer’s spending is dwarfed by the Koch brothers — the mere mention of their name drew boos from the partisan crowd as the convention. Forbes.com has both Charles and David Koch ranked at #6 richest in the world, at $42.9 billion each.

While Steyer spends more as an individual donor, the Koch brothers reportedly have a vast network through which they spend on elections, which is difficult, if not impossible, to track. They will reportedly spend almost $1 billion on campaigns and issues this cycle.

After less than two years in the state Assembly, the former San Diego labor organizer has established herself as the state’s leading advocate for workers.

Last year, Gonzalez successfully authored legislation to force companies – large and small – to provide paid sick leave to nearly all of their employees. This year, she’s urging Democrats to wade into a politically-sensitive fight over the state’s workers’ compensation system.

“People in Sacramento, given past fights, don’t want to touch workers’ comp,” Gonzalez told CalWatchdog.com in a recent interview.

Nevertheless, or perhaps because her Democratic colleagues have shied away from the issue, Gonzalez has taken on the challenge. At last weekend’s state Democratic convention, she persuaded her party to endorse her call to end gender bias in the state workers’ compensation system. In the process, Gonzalez could upset a landmark compromise that drove down rising workers’ comp costs.

Gender bias in workers’ compensation

Employers are required to purchase insurance to cover injuries sustained by their employees at the workplace. Regardless of who is at fault, injured workers are eligible to apply for benefits and receive compensation under the employer’s compensation insurance.

In cases of permanent disability, workers are evaluated on the extent of their injury. But, not all injuries can be isolated to one cause or incident. Consequently, claims must go through an apportionment process to determine how much of the injury is due to the job and how much is due to another factor or pre-existing condition.

Gonzalez contends that the apportionment process is unfair to women in permanent disability cases by providing a lower or no rating for pregnancy, menopause and breast cancer. By comparison, conditions that affect men, such as testicular and prostate cancer, receive a higher disability rating.

“With workers comp claims, women are deducted because they’re pregnant or menopausal,” Gonzalez pointed out. “The most egregious (case) is the way the workers’ comp system deals with breast cancer. A women’s breast cancer is rated 0 percent, unless she is of child-bearing age, then she gets 5 percent.”

AB305 changes ratings, apportionment in workers’ comp

To address the inequity, Gonzalez has authored Assembly Bill 305, which would prohibit pregnancy, menopause or osteoporosis from being used in the apportionment of permanent disability cases. It would also require that the impairment ratings for breast cancer be equivalent to prostate cancer.

“It’s time for our state to stop treating gender as a pre-existing condition and provide equal protection under the law for everyone with a workers’ compensation claim,” she said. “I’m pleased that Democrats as well as Republicans recognized the importance of ending discrimination against women on the job.”

Her colleagues in the state Assembly agreed and recently passed the bill on a 59-18 vote. She’s proud that seven Republican Assembly members joined Democrats in supporting the bill. Not a small achievement considering the big name opposition from a collection of business groups, including the Association of California Insurance Companies, California Chamber of Commerce, California Newspaper Publishers Association and the California Retailers Association.

Gonzalez: It’s worth the price

Ever since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s landmark reforms in the early 2000s, workers’ compensation has remained a political lightning rod. Lawmakers have largely been reluctant to make changes to the reforms that are credited with bringing down the costs of insurance.

That’s one reason why the California Democratic Party’s support could help keep lawmakers committed to the issue. The party resolution passed the general session on consent by acclimation.

“Governor Schwarzenegger’s changes and other discriminatory policies are deeply embedded into the workers’ compensation system, as evidenced by the facts that carpal tunnel syndrome – a disorder that disproportionately affects women – too often has a disability rating of 0 percent,” the party’s resolution states.

In 2012, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law some changes to the state workers’ compensation system to increase benefits and revise the factors for determining permanent disability. However, those changes were largely embraced by both parties because they were sold as reforms to keep costs in line. To her credit, Gonzalez has been willing to take the potential cost head on.

“Civil rights are inconvenient and costly,” she said. “Even if there is a very small cost, I think it’s important to uphold the civil rights of women. If we are going to talk about pay equity, then we need to talk about everything.”

It’s unclear how widespread the problem is. According to the legislative committee analysis, “Some supporters have asserted that ‘we see it every day’ while some opponents assert that the wrongs complained of simply do not occur in the workers’ compensation courts.”

“It’s a lack of respect,” House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi said of why Republicans continue to press for restrictions on reproductive rights and undermine what she described as “choice issues.” “Respect for our judgment, our dignity, respect for our sentiment of responsibility.”

Yet, marginalized activists who support maintaining a personal belief exemption from mandatory vaccinations say that Democratic lawmakers aren’t respecting their right to choose. Opponents of Senate Bill 277 protested outside of the Anaheim Convention Center Saturday, with homemade signs and loud chants echoing the party’s position on health choice. Rather than gain acceptance from a party that champions marginalized groups, opponents of SB277 found themselves facing derisive comments from convention delegates.

“They (California Democrats) are definitely being hypocritical on this issue,” said Aaron Mills, a member of the California Coalition for Health Choice. “Democrats usually champion for the minorities. When it comes to this group, it’s “just go away and stop complaining.”

He added, “You can’t force somebody to take a product with known risks. … I don’t really feel compelled to vaccinate my day-old infant for a sexually transmitted disease.”

SB277: Reframing the debate

The debate over California’s immunization requirements began in January, following a measles outbreak at Disneyland, which coincidentally is just down the block from this weekend’s convention. As of March, California public health officials had confirmed 133 measles cases since December, according to National Public Radio.

The Disneyland measles outbreak encouraged Senator Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, to introduce SB277, a bill to end the personal belief exemption which gives parents the power to opt-out of mandatory vaccinations for schoolchildren.

For months, opponents of the legislation have stumbled in their public rhetoric and legislative strategy. Some of the bill’s opponents tracked – arguably stalked – a lobbyist throughout the Capitol. Lawmakers and their staff members were inconvenienced by lengthy committee hearings. This past Thursday, the bill passed the state Senate on a 25-10 vote, with only two Democrats opposed.

However, at this weekend’s California Democratic Party state convention, concerned parents refined their argument to a message of choice.

“Are you aware that California Senate Bill 277 is moving its way through legislation right now that will remove your right to choose on vaccines?” reads a flyer distributed by protestors. “Where there’s a risk, there must be choice!”

Another handout asks, “Are California Democrats a party of choice or force?”

Both of those messages mirror the words of the California Democratic Party’s official platform, which states, “We proudly and vigorously support a woman’s right to choose how to use her mind, her body and her time.”

Democratic Senators prioritize public safety over choice

State Senator Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, a principal co-author of the bill, has argued that public safety should trump choice.

“The high number of unvaccinated students is jeopardizing public health not only in schools but in the broader community,” Allen said in a press release earlier this year.” We need to take steps to keep our schools safe and our students healthy.”

Allen’s arguments don’t sit well with some Democrats, who see it as government intervening in their personal health decisions.

“Never in a million years did I think my fellow Democrats would vote to take away my constitutional rights as a parent,” read one Democratic woman’s homemade sign. “Vaccination decisions are between a parent and their doctor, not the government. Opposition to SB277 will not go away even if it passed.”

During Saturday’s rally, supporters of the personal belief exemption chanted, ” We’re not going away! We’re not going away!” Yet, some Republicans are hoping that the issue could drive parents to leave the Democratic Party. A few members of the California Republican Assembly set up a table near the rally with a sign indicating their support for parental rights.

SB277 Opponents: Don’t call us anti-vaxxers

In addition to their frustration with Democrats abandoning “choice,” opponents of SB277 say that the party’s elected officials are being disrespectful to their cause by using the pejorative term, “anti-vaxxer.”

“This media stigma that is attached to it,” Mills, a member of the Democratic Party and opponent of mandatory vaccination, explained why he objected to the term. “It might be the most loathed group in the country. It’s definitely a minority group that no one looks fondly upon.”

According to Google search trends, there has been a dramatic spike in use of the term since the Disneyland measles outbreak. So, what should people call them?

“We’re not anti-anything,” Mills said. “We’re for health choice.”

California Democratic Party: Health Choice Rally

The first-term Democratic Senator from Massachusetts earned a rousing applause and standing ovation from convention delegates as she blamed the country’s income inequality and decline of the middle class on Ronald Reagan and three decades of Republican economic policies.

“The epicenter of the political earthquake that shook America’s middle class to its core started right here in California — right here with your former Governor Ronald Reagan,” Warren said as convention delegates cheered her on. “For more than 30 years, starting with Ronald Reagan, the Republican leadership latched onto an idea it called trickle-down economics, and then they got to work.”

She continued, “They attacked wages, they attacked pensions, they attacked health care, they attacked unions, they attacked education, they attacked science, they attacked financial regulation.”

Democrats divided on economic policies

Warren’s speech to convention delegates was only one example of the growing divide between moderate, business-friendly Democrats and those considered to be the true champions of progressive causes. At this weekend’s convention, progressive speakers offered subtle quips and direct jabs at party members who have strayed from what they see as party orthodoxy.

President Obama, who is currently pushing for congressional approval of a Pacific Rim trade agreement, wasn’t immune from the criticism.

California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton, a hero of the progressive wing, used his introductory remarks at Saturday’s floor session to criticize the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership as just “another way of saying ‘take jobs away from American workers and send them overseas.'”

Considered the most significant free-trade agreement since the North American Free Trade Agreement signed in 1994, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, known simply as TPP, would reduce tariffs and other trade barriers among the United States and a dozen Pacific Rim countries, including Japan, Australia, Singapore and Malaysia.

“In San Francisco, we used to have a fairly sized garment industry, that’s gone — shipped overseas,” the former state Senator reminded delegates. “We had manufacturing companies, those jobs are gone.”

Burton lamented that new trade deals “help big business, and American workers get screwed and the business guys gets rich.” He also assured delegates that Warren was on their side in the economic split, calling her “the f-ing champion of the American people.”

Rep. Ami Bera targeted by labor

Organized labor made clear that even Democratic elected officials that currently represent swing districts would not be excluded from criticism over the trade deal. Outside of the Anaheim Convention Center, protesting workers held signs singling out Rep. Ami Bera, D-Elk Grove, for “railroading working families” with a free-trade agreement that they see as the “fast track to no work.”

“Ami Bera, you’re no good,” a lead protester chanted to the communal reply, “Treat the worker like you should.”

The second-term Congressman narrowly defeated former Rep. Doug Ose last November by less than 1 percent of the vote. He is considered one of the top targets for Congressional Republicans in 2016.

Bera’s trouble at the convention is the second time this month that he’s been in hot water related to the controversial trade agreement. Earlier this month, Bera admitted to plagiarizing an op-ed piece featured in the Sacramento Bee. Republicans wasted no time in capitalizing on that misstep.

“With more evidence of Ami Bera’s cut-and-paste public policy coming to light, the hardworking people in his district have every right to question Bera’s honesty and leadership,” Zach Hunter, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a statement released earlier this month. “With his history of plagiarism, how can 7th District families trust Ami Bera to shoot straight with them on important issues?”

Tom Steyer dragged into rift

Influential Democratic donor Tom Steyer could soon be dragged into the party’s rift over economic issues.

On Friday, the billionaire climate change activist urged Democrats to support his plan for a statewide ballot measure to impose an oil extraction tax. By Saturday afternoon, Steyer’s critics attacked his silence on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and questioned his financial ties to the trade deal.

“Today CA Democratic Party Chair John Burton joined progressive leaders such as Senator Elizabeth Warren in opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” said Sabrina Lockhart, communications director for Californians for Energy Independence. “Tom Steyer, by far the party’s biggest donor, has not stated his position on the TPP, perhaps because he is still invested in Farallon, which stands to benefit from the TPP.”

She added, “This is odd given he is positioning himself as the party’s progressive, environmental leader, and criticisms from groups like the Sierra Club that the trade agreement is weak on the environment.”

The silence of Democratic lawmakers up and down the Golden State on the landmark ruling is striking. Gov. Jerry Brown even gave a speech last Friday to the convention of NALEO (the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials) that talked about Latino needs in California that didn’t mention Vergara, according to media coverage.

But one outspoken liberal won’t bite his tongue. George Miller — the 39-year congressman from the Bay Area who is considered Nancy Pelosi’s most trusted lieutenant — agrees with the Vergara ruling’s bleak assessment of how minorities are treated in California schools.

This is from his op-ed in the Contra Costa Times:

“It is time for the next generation of teacher policies. The first step must be to create a working environment that fits today’s professionals. Teachers must be provided with the opportunity to be creative and respond to the needs and learning styles of their students. The system must recognize their talents and efforts and provide them with targeted support, including guidance from mentor teachers. … Teachers also need fair evaluation systems and rights at work that allow them to continue to grow, while staying focused on whether students are learning.

“Educator-preparation programs must be part of our next-generation approach. … Prep programs must have high standards for who enters and graduates from their programs.”

Ruling can trigger needed change

But Miller didn’t just stick to generalities. The ranking Democrat on the House education committee called on California’s leaders to accept Judge Rolf Treu’s insights and to act on them:

“Vergara provides the opportunity for this vital evolution. This is not the time for playing politics or for quick legislative patches. Now is the time for a thoughtful, deliberative process that first asks what is in the best interest of students, and then develops policies with the needs of our children in mind.

“In his decision, Judge Treu pointed to the state’s responsibility to protect children’s rights to constitutionally mandated equal educational opportunities. … Anything short of that standard will turn the conversation away from the classroom and back to the courtroom.

“The policies challenged in Vergara clearly were not supporting students … . [California needs] new teacher policies that guarantee children their right to an equal education and that will enable teachers to be the highly effective professionals they desire to be and that we so desperately need.”

Now Miller doesn’t directly mention the CTA or CFT, but he hardly has to; everyone knows why teachers have such extreme protections. Namely, because Sacramento might as well be a protection racket, it’s so overtly shady. The teacher unions buy their special treatment.

If a Pelosi confidant will essentially admit this concentration of power hasn’t been good for minorities, what about Pelosi herself? Or the governor? Or state Senate President Kevin De Leon?

Will national media beat Sacramento pack on this angle? Maybe

The failure of the Sacramento media to probe this angle yet is beyond amazing. I wouldn’t be surprised if the N.Y. Times, the Wall Street Journal or Politico covered the teachers vs. minorities overtones of Vergara before the Sacramento pack does.

As I wrote a few weeks ago, the same reporters covered the Dem intraparty rift over retaining Prop. 209, which pits Asian members vs. Latino and black members.

Now they won’t cover the looming rift between Latinos and teachers unions. This isn’t just odd. It’s inexplicable.

Here’s more on Rep. Miller — a Merc-News editorial on his pending retirement that illustrates Miller’s stature among California and national liberals.

“Democrats, we are just as guilty of getting sucked into the influence of money and power about which we criticize Republicans,” Yee, a member of State Board of Equalization, said in one of the more memorable speeches of this weekend’s annual state party convention. “It is time we have politics shaped by our values, rather than our values shaped by politics. If not, I believe Democrats will continue to lose ground with respect to the electorate.”

The blunt criticism of her party came less than 12 hours after she successfully blocked the party from endorsing anyone in a closely contested race for state controller, in which she is a candidate. The “no-endorsement” vote was considered a major blow to her Democratic rival for the controller post, Speaker of the Assembly John Perez, who wields substantial power and influence over delegate appointments.

This is the first election for controller and other state constitutional offices to be run under the Top Two system voters enacted in 2010 by passing Proposition 14. Under it, the June primary will select two candidates to face off in a November runoff. Candidates can run under any party, or no party. It’s even possible that two candidates from the same party could face one another in November. Political parties are reduced to deciding whether or not to endorse a particular political candidate.

Perez’s advantage in delegate appointments

In his own speech, Perez roused delegates by describing his party’s victories during his tenure as speaker, which ends this year due to term limits. “We’re expanding the map everywhere,” he said, according to the Sacramento Bee. “In California, red to blue is not a slogan. It’s a reality.”

With an army of campaign aides, Perez went against a request by California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton that statewide candidates not seek the party’s endorsement. Perez, who has been endorsed by all but six of his Democratic colleagues in the Assembly, made a major push for the party’s endorsement. He had a substantial advantage in delegate appointments. Members of the State Assembly, according to the state party bylaws, are entitled to make five appointments to the state party convention.

Yet, many convention delegates defied the orders of their appointing authority and openly backed Yee, who received 44.71 percent of the vote — just 3 percentage points less than Perez. Because neither got the 60 percent required by party rules, there was no endorsement.

Under party rules, all delegate votes are public in order to make delegates more accountable to their appointing official or committee. Following the vote, any member can review ballots, meaning some delegates backed Yee in the face of potential political retribution.

Perez spokesman Doug Herman said that the Perez promises not to take any action against delegates who defied their appointing authority in the endorsement vote.

Yee calls out party divide

Saturday’s no-endorsement vote, coupled with Yee’s rousing Sunday speech, exposed a simmering feud within the California Democratic Party between its principled idealists and power players.

“We as Democrats decry bullying and voter suppression tactics to silence the vulnerable among us,” Yee said. “Yet, within our party, similar tactics keep delegates and club members in line so power remain in the hands of a few political leaders.”

Perez had been criticized in 2011 for  retaliation against former Assemblyman Anthony Portantio. In 2011, after Portantino opposed the state budget, Perez retaliated by slashing his office budget, while also threatening to furlough Portantino’s government staff.

“There is no question that this is a punitive action because of my votes,” Portantino told the Sacramento Bee at the time. “Every member of the Legislature ought to have the right to vote their conscience.”

Women’s rights and the Democratic Party

“We as Democrats regard women’s rights as paramount, yet within our party, women are being manipulated and are being set up against one another, such that further advances toward pay equity and parity in representation continue to elude us,” Yee said.

Last year, a CalWatchdog.com analysis of payroll records found that female employees of the California State Assembly face a glass ceiling, substantial pay inequities and limits to their career advancement.  Women have been paid less than their male counterparts, are less likely to serve in leadership roles and remain stuck in secretarial positions.

The 10 highest-paid employees of the state Assembly, as of last year, were all men, according to state payroll records for the period ending on May 31, 2013.

“John Pérez has let the money flow into his and other legislators’ campaign coffers,” wrote Patricia Bellasalma, president of the California National Organization for Women, in a February blog post at L.A. Progressive, which has been widely-circulated among party activists. “The results have not been good for California’s women and children, for workers, nor for California’s economy, especially if you measure a thriving economy by the number of good-paying middle-class jobs.”

According to state disclosure reports released earlier this month, Perez accepted nearly $38,000 in gifts and travel payments last year. A report released last December by California Common Cause ranked Perez as the second biggest recipient of gifts in 2012.

Yee: PACs erode our Democratic values

Yee criticized the party for allowing political action committees to erode the party’s bedrock principles.

“We as Democrats demand the highest levels of transparency and accountability in our government, yet within our party, we see PACs erode our very own Democratic values and for which we are unable to follow the money,” she said.

From Sacramento to San Diego, delegates expressed support for Yee’s stinging rebuke of the party.

“Betty Yee speaks truth to power and says we as Dems need to do better #cadem14,” tweeted Alice Mercer, a Sacramento elementary school teacher.