But down the ballot, 10 things stood out.

• Nearly 50,000 people voted for Roger Hernandez, a termed-out Democratic assemblyman from West Covina who had been running for Congress until he suspended his campaign after he was placed under a domestic violence restraining order and was stripped of his committee assignments.

• Congressman Darrell Issa seems to have won re-election. Although it’s still close and the Los Angeles Times had not yet called the race, Issa maintains a nearly 4,000-vote lead over Democrat Doug Applegate. This isn’t noteworthy because Issa was vulnerable and squeaked out a win. It was noteworthy because Issa, the richest member of Congress, wasn’t seen as vulnerable. The Vista Republican, in his 15th year in Congress, has been one of the most high-profile Republicans over the last few years as a constant thorn in the side of the Obama administration. But as national money started flowing to Applegate and an endorsement of Donald Trump appeared to be weighing Issa down, the race tightened.  

• As long as these results hold, Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose, will be the only incumbent in California’s 53-person congressional delegation to lose. Fellow Democrat, Ro Khanna of Fremont, finished what he started in 2014, when he first challenged Honda.

• A reminder that California is not as uniformly progressive as it often seems: Voters upheld the death penalty as the maximum sentence for murder. Even more surprising is that a measure to speed up death penalty appeals is clinging to a two-point lead in the returns.

• Republicans appear to have held their seats in the state Senate, beating back a Democratic supermajority. Everything hinges on a Southern California district that extends from Cypress to West Covina to Chino Hills, where Republican Ling Ling Chang, a sitting assemblywoman, is holding an almost two-point lead over Democrat Josh Newman. 

• But in the Assembly, Republicans lost three seats, dipping below one-third of the chamber. In the Los Angeles South Bay, David Hadley was knocked out by former Democratic Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi. In Orange County, Young Kim trails former Democratic Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva. And in the Inland Empire, Eric Linder is losing to Sabrina Cervantes.

• While no Senate incumbents of either party were defeated, five incumbent Assembly members either lost or trail. That includes the Republicans, Linder, Kim and Quirk-Silva, along with two Democrats who lost intraparty challenges. Cheryl Brown, the Inland Empire incumbent, lost to Eloise Reyes in a proxy war between environmentalists and unions that opposed Brown and Big Oil and charter schools that supported her. In the San Fernando Valley, Patty Lopez was ousted after the Democratic Party endorsed her challenger, former Democratic Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra, who also had major support from outside business interests.

• Orange County, the traditional Republican stronghold, voted for Hillary Clinton for president. According to The Orange County Register, the county hadn’t supported a Democrat for president since the Great Depression. That result reflects a consistent slide in Republican registration in the county, which has persisted for decades.

• Speaking of Orange County, Democratic Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez lost her home county in the U.S. Senate race by 9.6 points. Sanchez has represented Orange County in Congress since she was first elected in 1996.

• And speaking of the U.S. Senate race, more that 1.1 million people sat it out. The race made headlines after the June primary, when no Republicans advanced to the general election — a byproduct of the state’s relatively new primary system where the top two candidates advance regardless of party. Sanchez lost to Attorney General Kamala Harris, a fellow Democrat.

In fact, most of the larger defeats over the last year or so have been due to intraparty fighting. It was mostly moderate Democrats who last year weakened landmark environmental legislation, SB350. This year, they struck again when they initially killed a measure expanding overtime protections for farmworkers.  

In those instances, the moderates formed a majority with Republicans, which means both share the blame (or praise). But while Republicans often get blamed, the truth is that there aren’t enough Republicans to block most votes. It was Democrats solely who twice sank a Democratic bill expanding parental leave — once by a Democratic majority on a policy committee (possibly due to a grudge) and then a revived version was vetoed by the Democratic governor, Jerry Brown.  

What it takes

Democrats need to flip two seats in the Assembly and one in the Senate to get a supermajority — and it’s possible. With a supermajority, Democrats would have the power to increase taxes, override gubernatorial vetoes (which rarely happens) and change legislative rules without Republican votes.

Most bills require a simple majority, which means Democrats have more than enough votes most of the time. But a united bloc can be elusive in a state as large and diverse as California, where different members have different needs based on their districts.  

“Taxes and rules, that’s about it,” said Steve Maviglio, a prominent Democratic strategist in California. “And it’s rare that either party is a monolith. If Democrats win in competitive districts, they often will get a pass on tough votes anyway.”

They don’t always get a pass though. For example, Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown, an Inland Empire Democrat, faces tremendous opposition from a more liberal opponent in her re-election bid, largely due to votes that have riled environmentalists. Just as the opposing party tries to weed out incumbents in moderate districts, the more ideologically “pure” try to weed out centrists within the party.

The Democratic dividing line

The moderate caucus is mostly people of color, like Assemblywoman Brown. According to Mike Madrid, a Republican consultant who specializes in Latino issues, economic issues will be the dividing line in the Democratic Party — between moderate Democrats of color in blue-collar districts and wealthy, coastal liberals (mostly white and particularly in the Bay Area), who have outsized influence over policy in the state.

For example, the farmworker overtime bill was largely supported by members along the coast, despite most of the farms being inland. The bill was killed in the summer by the Republican/Moderate coaltion, but enough moderates (and one Republican) switched to support in the last days of the legislative session. 

“There’s a growing economic argument that is going to be made as we grow poverty, as income inequality continues to divide, as housing affordability becomes more and more out of reach and as our education program continues to disproportionately hurt kids of color — all of these are major substantive policy issues, which are fundamentally about the economy — there’s a growing disparity between white progressives and moderate Democrats of color,” Madrid said. “That’s going to be the dividing line.”

Bad for Democracy?

If Republicans do get relegated to superminority status, their reduced role could have greater implications for the fate of Democracy. 

“It’s not good for the health of a two-party system, since it marginalizes Republican members of the respective chambers,” said Mark Petracca, chair of the Department of Political Science at UC Irvine. “This marginalization means less buy-in to the policy making process and can result in even greater political polarization.”

Opportunity for Republicans

No matter how many Republicans are left in the Legislature after Tuesday (after all, they may hold or pick up seats as well), there’s an opportunity to regain some influence over policy making. They can work with the moderate Democrats on issues like education reform and economic development and improvement, as the strength of the moderates is proportionate to the size of the Republican caucus. They need each other, at least on certain issues, according to Madrid. 

“But they’re going to have to get out of their ideological box and come up with new and better ideas that address a changing California,” Madrid said of Republicans.

Veto overrides

While a supermajority does give one party in the Legislature the power to override a gubernatorial veto, it’s not likely to happen, at least not while there’s a Democratic governor. According to the One Voter Project, Republicans did propose the last attempted veto override, in 2012, which failed. The last successful override was in 1979, when Jerry Brown was governor the first time.

Editor’s Note: This story was originally published on July 19.

Republicans in the state Legislature are thought to have a challenging election cycle this year. The outcome in November will determine whether the GOP has enough seats in the state Assembly and state Senate to maintain relevance in legislative matters.

Many factors are contributing to the angst, not the least of which is that Donald Trump as the GOP nominee is a wild card. No one knows yet how the reality T.V. star and real estate tycoon will affect down-ticket races — although Democrats are anticipating it will drag down GOP candidates. 

Regardless of the top of the ticket, this year looks to be tough for Republicans — who are largely hoping to just hold seats — as presidential election turnouts are generally more favorable to Democrats, when the electorate becomes more diverse. 

Republicans need to keep Democrats from achieving a two-thirds majority in the Assembly and Senate to have a meaningful impact on state lawmaking. Dipping below that line would mean losing their ability to weigh in on tax increases, gubernatorial veto overrides and legislatively-referred constitutional amendments — their last remaining points of legislative leverage.

To stay above a superminority, Republicans can afford to lose only one seat in the Assembly while Senate Republicans can’t afford to lose any.

Adding intrigue is the fact that it’s not just a war between the parties. The relatively new primary system where the top two candidates advance from the primary to the general election regardless of party has pitted some Democrats against each other, largely playing out proxy wars from outside interests. Of course in some races, a few candidates are termed-out of one chamber and aren’t ready to go home just yet.

Here are some of the top races to watch:

In the fight of their lives 

Catharine Baker, an East Bay Area Republican assemblywoman, led the primary 53.2 percent to 46.8 percent over Democrat Cheryl Cook-Kallio, a former Pleasanton City Council member. Baker is a the only Bay Area Republican in the legislature, so her seat is important both functionally and symbolically. 

Baker narrowly won the open seat in 2014 by about three points, and this time should be close too. Democrats in the district have a 10 percent registration advantage, with 24 percent of voters claiming no party preference. 

In one of several rematches, Republican Assemblyman David Hadley faces Democrat Al Muratsuchi, whom Hadley booted from office in 2014 by only 706 votes — or about 0.5 percentage points — in this Los Angeles south bay district.

In the June primary, Hadley received only 44.6 percent of the vote, with Muratsuchi and another Democrat splitting the majority. Democrats in the district enjoy a nine percentage point registration advantage, with 22 percent of voters claiming no party preference. Winning this seat was a major coup for the GOP in 2014, and retaining it would be as well.

Key holds

In the Antelope Valley, Republican Assemblyman Tom Lackey faces a strong challenge from the man he unseated in 2014, Democrat Steve Fox (who used to be a Republican). In 2014, Lackey destroyed Fox by 20 percentage points. But in the June primary, Lackey advanced with only 48.2 percent of the vote; three Democrats split the rest. Democrats have a six percentage point registration advantage with 19 percent of voters claiming no party preference. 

In the north Inland Empire, first-term Republican Assemblyman Marc Steinorth of Rancho Cucamonga finished second of two candidates in the primary behind Democrat Abigail Medina, a San Bernardino City Unified School District board member, trailing by three percentage points. Democrats have a one percentage point registration advantage with 22 percent of voters claiming no party preference.

And in the south Inland Empire, Republican Assemblyman Eric Linder — who is surprisingly supported by the SEIU, a formidable union — got only 45.6 percent of the vote in the primary with the rest split between two Democrats. In the general, Linder faces Democrat Sabrina Cervantes, the district director for Assemblyman Jose Medina. Democrats have a slight, two percentage point registration advantage with 21 percent of voters claiming no party preference.

Former Republican Senate Leader Bob Huff is termed out and Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang is hoping to fill Huff’s seat on the other side of the rotunda. Chang faces Democrat Josh Newman — a political neophyte who runs a non-profit aimed at helping veterans find employment — in this Orange County race.

Despite superior name recognition, Chang — the only Republican in the primary — drew 44 percent, while Newman and another Democrat nearly evenly split the majority. Republicans have a one percentage point registration advantage with 24 percent of voters declining to state a party preference.

Another rematch

Republican Assemblywoman Young Kim faces the woman she knocked off in 2014, Democrat Sharon Quirk-Silva, in this Orange County district.

Last cycle, Kim won by 10 percentage points. But in June, Quirk-Silva led the primary by 8.6 percentage points. And Democrats have a four percentage point registration advantage, with 23 percent of voters claiming no party preference.  

Competitive by chance

The race to replace the late Sen. Sharon Runner — the Republican incumbent from Lancaster — is wide open. Runner passed away in July, but had previously decided against running for re-election for health reasons (her second such decision). Runner won the seat in 2015 in a special election after Steve Knight won a Congressional seat. 

Republican Assemblyman Scott Wilk of Santa Clarita came in first in the primary with 46.7 percent of the vote over Johnathon Levar Ervin, an engineer and Air Force reservist, who drew 33.7 percent of the vote. Among four candidates, the results were almost evenly split with a slight edge to the Republicans, but voter registration in the district is closely split as well. Democrats have a two percentage point registration advantage with 21 percent of voters claiming no party preference. 

Republicans best shot to pickup

What would have otherwise been considered a noncompetitive Senate election to replace termed-out Democrat Carol Liu became competitive when longtime Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich threw his hat in the ring.

Antonovich brings strong name recognition and a vast fundraising network from his more than 40 years in elected office, but he has a tough path forward having only won 39.5 percent of the vote in the primary. The rest of the vote was split among Democratic candidates, with former Assemblyman Anthony Portantino coming in second. Democrats have a 14 percentage point registration advantage with 24 percent of voters declining to state party preference. 

Dems v. Dems and the proxy wars

While this Silicon Valley election featuring two Democrats won’t affect whether or not there’s a supermajority, it may help fortify a group of business-friendly moderates. Incumbent Senator Jim Beall, of the liberal environmentalist ilk, is facing the more business-friendly Nora Campos, who is termed out of the Assembly.

This race is actually one of a few proxy wars between Big Environment vs. Big Oil, which have both spent considerable money in the race. Beall was a hair away from a majority of the vote in the primary.

So far Campos has stuck to the narrative that both Beall and Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, a Beall supporter, have bullied her. Campos said de Leon tried to dissuade her from running (party leaders generally dislike having to spend money and energy protecting incumbents from members of their own party). And Campos said Beall attacked her husband through a third party — as they say, it’s complicated.

A moderate Democrat is under fire in the Inland Empire, as incumbent Cheryl Brown faces attorney Eloise Reyes in this competitive Assembly district. Environmentalists and unions dislike Brown and have already spent big money opposing her through the primary, while Big Oil and charter schools have spent more than a half million dollars in support of Brown.

But surprisingly, word leaked that Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon — a powerful environmentalist — would be endorsing Brown. It’s unclear if this will have any effect on the race. 

In the primary, Brown received 44.1 percent of the vote to Reyes’ 35.6 percent. The Republican challenger received 20 percent of the vote, and how that’s divvied up could decide the race.

Lawmakers on Wednesday sent a measure to Gov. Jerry Brown creating legislative oversight of the California Air Resources Board — a vital piece in the state’s climate agenda.

Assembly Bill 197’s companion legislation, SB32, which expands CARB’s authority to create and implement programs to meet reduced greenhouse gas emission targets, can only become law if the oversight bill is signed into law.

The oversight bill would create a joint legislative committee to oversee CARB and would add two legislators to CARB as non-voting members. 

Most Assembly members who spoke during debate on the final vote agreed the measure didn’t go far enough, but proponents said it was better than nothing.

“Doing nothing keeps us at the same position with our hands tied behind our back and continuing to complain that ARB is out of control,” said Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia, D-Coachella, the bill’s sponsor.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, said it’s “obvious that CARB has a credibility problem,” and said the bill was a good “first step.”

Not everyone was convinced. Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown, D-San Bernardino, who is in one of the most competitive re-election races this year, largely due to opposition from environmentalists, said the measure did not provide “adequate oversight of CARB,” and didn’t call for accountability measures like audits.

Republican Catharine Baker of San Ramon, who, like Brown, supported SB32 the day prior and is in a tight election, said she was concerned that AB197 didn’t call specifically for a Republican to be one of the two appointments to CARB.

Garcia tried to alleviate Baker’s, and other’s, concerns over who will be appointed by saying interested legislators should petition leadership. 

The measure passed 44-28. The companion bill, SB32, easily passed the Senate on Wednesday as expected and also waits for the governor’s signature.

According to a Public Policy Institute of California poll released Wednesday, a majority of Californians support government efforts to improve the environment, despite possible rises in energy costs and ongoing debates about the legality and effectiveness of the state’s environmental policies.

The study, which surveyed around 1,700 California residents about various environmental concerns, found that the majority of Californians supported existing plans to combat global warming, and were willing to expand these laws, even if that means paying more for gasoline and electricity.

“We find strong support today for the state’s greenhouse gas emissions targets set 10 years ago,” PPIC president Mark Baldassare said. “The commitment to help reduce global warming includes a surprising willingness on the part of majorities of Californians to pay higher prices.”

Big dreams for a cleaner California

Sixty-nine percent of Californians approved of plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, as laid out in AB32, one of the state’s landmark environmental laws.

But government plans to reduce emissions have been met with mixed results. The cap-and-trade program, created by the Air Resources Board in response to AB32, places carbon emission limits on businesses and allows them to purchase credits for exceeding those limits. But at May’s quarterly auction, businesses purchased only 2 percent of the anticipated revenues.

The program faces legal challenges as well. A lawsuit by the California Chamber of Commerce claims the program is actually an illegal tax on businesses, requiring a two-thirds vote to become law.

Critics have complained about how the cap-and-trade revenue is spent – that the money doesn’t often fund projects that meet the required emission reduction goals. Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced, said he is concerned about how the revenues are spent, calling the program “a feeding frenzy for a multitude of pet projects,” according to The Sacramento Bee.

And though there has been a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, some say the lower levels may reflect outside factors like business scale-backs during the Great Recession.

“The jury’s really out on whether we’ve seen a lot of reductions caused by cap-and-trade,” James Bushnell, an energy economist at UC Davis, told the Los Angeles Times. 

Despite varied expert opinions, 54 percent of respondents in the PPIC survey approve of the cap-and-trade program – after the surveyors gave a brief explanation to the 55 percent who had never heard of the program before.

Respondents also support a proposed new law that would ramp up AB32’s plans to control emissions, which would exceed AB32’s reduction goals and extend the program to the year 2030.

And 58 percent of those surveyed believe local and state governments should devote more resources to other environmental issues, as well – electric cars, solar power and drought management.

A big paycheck for California residents

Californians know that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could raise energy costs – and they are ready to foot the bill.

The majority of respondents said they would be willing to pay more for gas (63 percent) and solar- or wind-generated electricity (56 percent). The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that gas prices would rise 11 cents as a result of the cap-and-trade program.

But this widespread support of energy reforms comes alongside equally widespread opposition by those who prioritize economic concerns over the environment.

How it’s playing in 2016

Alternative energy plans come with a cost – and according to Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown, the Inland Empire may not be able to afford it. In 2015, the San Bernardino Democrat opposed a petroleum-reduction provision of Senate Bill 350, another key piece of California’s environmental policy, citing concerns that potential rising energy costs could harm lower-income families.

However, some voters said Brown’s opposition amounted to a rejection of the entire clean energy campaign and retribution was swift. Protests, rallies and criticisms from other officials have threatened Brown’s re-election, while the campaign has become a proxy war between Big Oil and Big Environment. 

“Do you ever feel that something is not going quite right?” Brown asked the Los Angeles Times in March. “They are after me, and I still don’t know why. I don’t know who ‘they’ are. But I will find out soon.”

Concerns about the impracticality of California energy reforms are reflected in the PPIC survey, as well. The majority of respondents supported clean energy programs like electric cars and charging carports, with 68 percent in favor of tax credits for purchasing electric cars, and 77 percent supportive of infrastructure for charging the vehicles.

But less than half (47 percent) are actually considering purchasing an electric car themselves, suggesting that good intentions may not match up with environmentally conscious decisions.

Women make up more than half of California’s population, but only about one-fourth of the Legislature. 

And in November, that’s unlikely to change too much, according to a CalWatchdog analysis.

While an October surprise, outside factor or just particularly good or bad campaigning could change the course of race that appears to be a sure thing, primary results, incumbency advantages, voting trends and partisan makeup of a district can be useful in making educated guesses.

Currently, out of 120 legislative seats, there are 30 held by women — an additional seat is vacant now, having been held by the late Republican Senator Sharon Runner, who died unexpectedly earlier this month.   

There could be as many as 49 women in the Legislature next year, but it is likely that they’ll hover around the same amount as this year.  

In the Senate, women could have as few as five seats and as many as 13 — realistically, the number will likely be around eight to 10 seats. In the Assembly, women will occupy at least six seats and as many as 36, but that number will likely be somewhere between 15 and 24 seats. 

What we know for sure

Republican Senators Jean Fuller, Janet Nguyen, Pat Bates and Democratic Senators Connie Leyva and Holly Mitchell are not up for re-election and will definitely be returning next year, as the Senate is on staggered four-year terms.

In the Assembly, every seat is up for re-election every two years, although five seats will definitely stay occupied by women — either because the incumbent is running unopposed (or facing a write-in challenge) or because the incumbents are facing another woman in the general election. Those five seats are held by: Democrats Cheryl Brown, Cristina Garcia and Autumn Burke and Republicans Catharine Baker and Young Kim. 

Because of either term limits or the seat being vacated by an incumbent running for another position, eight seats held by women will be replaced by men as no women advanced from the primary in these races. Those are the seats currently held by Republican Assemblywomen Beth Gaines, Kristin Olsen, Shannon Grove and Ling Ling Chang and one Democrat, Toni Atkins, as well as two Democratic senators, Carol Liu and Fran Pavley.

Runner’s Senate seat will also be filled by a man.

There is only one definite pickup: An Assembly seat held by termed-out Democrat Luis Alejo.  

Seats where we likely know the outcome

Again, nothing is guaranteed until the final votes are tallied, but these nine seats are safe bets.

While the Assembly seat of Speaker Emeritus Toni Atkins will be filled with a man as mentioned above, the San Diego Democrat is expected to offset that loss by filling a seat being vacated by a man in the Senate. 

Because of the advantages of incumbency, district voting trends and favorable lopsided primary results, these eight female legislators will likely keep their seats: In the Senate, it’s Democrats Hannah-Beth Jackson (the current chair of the Women’s Caucus) and Cathleen Galgiani, and in the Assembly, it’s Democrats Jacqui Irwin, Susan Talamantes Eggman, Shirley Weber and Lorena Gonzalez with Republicans Melissa Melendez and Marie Waldron.

One female incumbent in trouble 

The only incumbent woman who is on very shaky ground is Democrat Patty Lopez. Lopez finished second in the primary, down 17.2 percentage points to the man she surprisingly knocked out of office in 2014, fellow Democrat Raul Bocanegra.

Best pickup chances

In the race to replace Sen. Mark Leno, who is termed out, Jane Kim led the primary against fellow Democrat Scott Wiener 45.3 percent to 45.1 percent. It’s obviously a close race, but it is a good chance for a woman to pick up a seat.

In a less competitive race, Democrat Cecilia Aguiar-Curry finished first in the primary against Republican Charlie Schaupp in a heavily Democratic district to replace Assemblyman Bill Dodd, D-Napa, who is running for Senate.

Democrat S. Monique Limón finished the primary with a formidable lead against Edward Fuller, who claims no party preference, 65.9 percent t0 34.1 percent. If elected, Limón would replace Democratic Assemblyman Das Williams. 

In the race to replace termed-out, Democratic Assemblyman Roger Hernandez — who is currently under a three-year restraining order for alleged domestic violence — Blanca Rubio appears likely to win. Rubio, a Democrat, will face Republican Cory Ellenson in a heavily-Democratic district.

Two wildcards 

Two seats where women have decent chances to pickup seats, although the odds are slightly tipped against them, are the Senate races to replace termed-out Republican Bob Huff and incumbent Democrat Jim Beall.

Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang saw an opening in the Huff race and decided to vacate her Assembly seat after only one term. However, she finished the primary with only 44 percent, with two Democrats splitting the 56 percent majority. 

Beall is being challenged by Assemblywoman Nora Campos, a fellow Democrat. Beall narrowly missed a majority in the primary, topping Campos by 22.5 percentage points. Campos is considered the business-friendly candidate, so she’ll have to use that to draw upon Republican support to top Beall.

Toss ups

There are approximately 11 races that look as though they could go either way, with four being vacated by termed-out women. Another four are against male incumbents: Republicans Marc Steinorth, Eric Linder and Travis Allen and Democrat Miguel Santiago.  

Looking for October surprises

And there are 11 other races where women are challenging male incumbents, although these races do not appear as though they’ll be too competitive. 

Now there’s a fresh sign that environmentalists’ clout may be on the wane. De Leon has stunned green groups by endorsing a moderate incumbent — Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown, D-San Bernardino — who opposed the push for a sharp cut in gasoline use over another prominent Inland Empire Democrat, attorney Eloise Gomez Reyes. As Calwatchdog reported earlier this year, Brown was indirectly blasted by one of de Leon’s leadership team, Sen. Connie Leyva, D-Chino, who said she was backing Brown’s opponent because “she was a principled human being.”

In a strange twist, the document making the rounds in media circles showing de Leon’s endorsement of Brown contends that Leyva and all his fellow Senate Democratic leaders agree with him.

“I support Eloise Reyes. Period. Somehow the pro tem must have misunderstood my position, although I thought I was quite clear,” Leyva told The Los Angeles Times.

Whatever the logistical problems with de Leon’s endorsement, it amounts to a striking rejection of environmentalists’ argument that they know Brown’s district better than she does. This view was voiced again this week by one of Reyes’ consultants, Leo Briones, who told the Times, “Cheryl Brown can have every special interest and every Sacramento politician … but she still is a legislator that does not represent progressive values or her district when it comes to issues of working families, of consumers, of guns and public safety and the environment.”

Green official: Brown a ‘nice person,’ bad lawmaker

This argument was offered by a high-profile environmentalist in a January Sacramento Bee story that rubbed some minority lawmakers the wrong way:

“There’s no doubt Ms. Brown, who’s a very nice person, has not been representing her constituents when it comes to environmental issues, particularly clean-air issues,” Sierra Club California director Kathryn Phillips told the Bee. “She’s collected too much money from the oil industry and let that guide too many of her votes.”

As Calwatchdog reported then …

Phillips, who works out of Sacramento, is a white UC Berkeley graduate who used to work for the Environmental Defense Fund. Brown, who turns 72 next week, has been a fixture in the Inland Empire African-American political establishment for more than three decades. She co-founded a weekly publication that focuses on black issues in 1980 and has worked on a wide variety of African-American causes in western San Bernardino County.

Assemblyman Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, D-Los Angeles, told the Bee he didn’t care for how environmentalists were treating his fellow African-American lawmaker. “I think it’s a tone-deaf approach. … The environmental community, and the broader environmental coalition, needs to figure out whether or not it’s going to be a collaborator and … work with black California on policy, and shared political goals, or if it will be an adversary.”

Ridley-Thomas is a vocal supporter of de Leon’s efforts to have a Superfund-type cleanup of the Exide battery plant in Vernon.

“The California rail authority’s failure to identify a source of funding to connect Los Angeles to the future bullet train system is not acceptable, said Hasan Ikhrata, executive director of the Southern California Assn. of Governments,” according to the Los Angeles Times. “Until the high-speed rail authority released a new draft business plan last month, the state had planned to open its first operating segment between Burbank and the Central Valley by 2022. But in a major concession to its limited funding, the plan now calls for a cheaper segment that would run from San Jose to the Central Valley by 2025.”

The catch, SCAG discovered, is that costs imposed by completing the initial segment will ensure that “all the existing funds would be exhausted, leaving uncertainty about how and when the line would ever cross the geologically complex mountains of Southern California,” as the paper added.

Disillusioned Democrats

The changes have accelerated criticism of the floundering effort — among Democrats as well as Republicans. “California lawmakers expressed dissatisfaction Monday with a plan to change the direction of a $64 billion high-speed railway,” the Associated Press noted. Southland Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown, D-San Bernardino, said “it looks like we won’t have any kind of access to the money that we, as the citizens of the Inland Empire, put into the pot,” according to the wire. And Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced, complained of feeling as if he could “travel through Star Trek’s fictional teleportation device before the train would arrive in his district.”

Some officials have also grown concerned that delays have rendered budget estimates obsolete along a key stretch of track. “Construction contracts for the three San Joaquin construction packages, which stretch from Madera south to Shafter, near Bakersfield, were awarded for 18 percent to 45 percent below budgeted estimates,” the Silicon Valley Business Journal observed. But “[d]elays in land acquisition, which can be recouped through construction change orders, could wipe out the savings for that package, the rail authority reported in its draft 2016 business plan.”

Hard to derail

But as costs have bedeviled the train, some of its opponents have busted their budgets too. “Proponents of a proposed initiative to divert high-speed rail funding to water projects said Friday that they are pulling their petitions from the street and instead will pursue a place on the 2018 ballot,” the Sacramento Bee reported. “The campaign, led by Republican Bob Huff, the former Senate minority leader, and GOP Board of Equalization member George Runner, budgeted for $2.65 a signature, spokesman Hector Barajas said.”

“This week, amid soaring signature-gathering costs, the price rocketed to about $5 a signature. Rather than pay the spiraling rate, proponents are pulling back and targeting 2018, a non-presidential year where fewer Democratic voters, and presumably less supporters of high-speed rail, turn out to the polls.”

Photo credit: Breitbart.com

Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown, a moderate African-American Democrat from San Bernardino seeking her third term, has brushed back the first challenge to her re-election by Eloise Reyes, a Colton attorney strongly backed by environmental groups. Brown easily won her local party chapter’s “pre-endorsement,” getting 70 percent of an informal vote at a recent Democratic Party gathering in San Bernardino — undercutting greens’ claims she was out of touch with her constituents.

In comments to the Riverside Press-Enterprise after her triumph, Brown appeared to directly respond to the notion she didn’t know her district:

“I’ve always believed that the Democratic Party is the party of inclusion that seeks to represent all voices in the community,” Brown said. “I’ve listened closely to the community, voted on legislation with my conscience, and understand the awesome responsibility that has been given to me to represent the Inland Empire as an assembly member.”

The Brown-Reyes fight threatens to open up a rift between African-American lawmakers and environmental groups. Sierra Club California director Kathryn Phillips’ comments to the Sacramento Bee in a Jan. 12 story about Brown were seen as condescending in some quarters.

“There’s no doubt Ms. Brown, who’s a very nice person, has not been representing her constituents when it comes to environmental issues, particularly clean-air issues,” Phillips told the Bee. “She’s collected too much money from the oil industry and let that guide too many of her votes.”

Black icon defended against Sierra Club gripes

Phillips, who works out of Sacramento, is a white UC Berkeley graduate who used to work for the Environmental Defense Fund. Brown, who turns 72 next week, has been a fixture in the Inland Empire African-American political establishment for more than three decades. She co-founded a weekly publication that focuses on black issues in 1980 and has worked on a wide variety of African-American causes in western San Bernardino County.

Assemblyman Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, D-Los Angeles, responded to green criticism of Brown most sharply:

“I think it’s a tone-deaf approach,” Ridley-Thomas said, accusing the groups of using “wedge politics.”

 

“The environmental community, and the broader environmental coalition, needs to figure out whether or not it’s going to be a collaborator and … work with black California on policy, and shared political goals, or if it will be an adversary.”

That’s also from reporting by the Bee.

One unexpected twist in this political rumble is the harshness of the indirect, unusually personal potshot taken at Brown by a fellow Inland Empire elected Democrat. In a statement released by the Reyes campaign, state Sen. Connie Leyva, D-Chino, said she supported Brown’s opponent because “she was a principled human being.”

Leyva’s Senate district has considerable overlap with Brown’s Assembly district.

Regarding the economy, there “is an optimism from small business that hasn’t existed in the past,” said Scott Hauge, president and founder of Small Business California. That’s shown in a comparison of SBC’s 2014 survey of California small business owners with preliminary results from the 2015 survey:

• In the 2014 survey, 49 percent of respondents said California is going in the wrong direction versus 38 percent saying it’s heading in the right direction. In 2015 that has flipped to 48 percent saying the state is going in the right direction and 35 percent saying the wrong direction.
• Last year 34.5 percent felt the economy was poor, with just 16 percent saying it was good. This year 49 percent believe the economy is good with just 13.5 percent saying it’s poor. Last year only 34 percent planned on hiring, versus 43 percent this year.

But when asked about California’s small business climate, the entrepreneurs mostly remained gloomy. In the 2014 survey, 63.5 percent called the small business climate poor, with just 10 saying it’s good. This year 60 percent still consider the business climate poor with 16.5 percent finding it good.

Their gloominess is borne out by the Tax Foundation’s 2015 Business Tax Climate Index. California ranked 48th overall in the country, a lowly position it has held for the last four years. The state was the nation’s worst in income taxes, 42nd in sales taxes and 34th in corporate taxes. Forbes Magazine’s Nov. 2014 business climate survey ranked California 46th in business costs and 43rd in regulatory environment.

Mac Taylor

Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor warned the committee members they need to be careful how their regulations affect the state’s business climate.

“Regulations … are crucial for business,” he said. “You want to always make sure they are smart, that they have good returns, that they are being efficiently done, that they are not excessive, that they are easy for business to follow. So the non-budget aspect is in some ways just as important to business as what happens in the budget. In some ways it can be more important to them.”

Several entrepreneurs pleaded with the committee members to make the state more business-friendly.

Cellpoint Corporation, which repairs cellphone screens, is headquartered in Costa Mesa. But its new manufacturing facility is located in Texas because the companies it serves are there, having been driven out of California, according to Cellpoint CEO Ehsan Gharatappeh.

“I’m always on the road to get this factory up and running,” he said. “It’s not convenient for me, my wife and kids. It would be in my interest to have a factory next to my house. Even if California were to eliminate the state income taxes tomorrow, that still would not be enough to put my manufacturing operations back in California – because all of our customers, Fortune 100 and 500 companies, are there [in Texas].

“In a perfect world, I would love to have some laws … to enable a competitive environment and marketplace in California, where big companies could move back to California and all of the small companies like mine that support them could follow in lockstep.”

Regulations

Key to making the state more economically competitive is to not impose punitive regulations, according to Hauge. “In some cases there are situations where regulations are put forth that the economic impact has not been determined,” he said. “That should be a criterion before regulations are put in effect, to know what the economic impact is.”

Dave Petree, CEO of Cloak and Dagger, a cybersecurity firm, asked for tax relief. “Have a program in place where you would waive state tax for the first two or three years for a startup business,” he said. “That would be contingent on the business staying in California for three years after that or all of the taxes become due.”

Two of the committee members were sympathetic to their concerns and requests.

“Unfortunately, we still have the nation’s third largest unemployment rate at 7.1 percent, which is higher than the national average of 5.5 percent,” said the committee vice chair, Assemblywoman Young Kim, R-Fullerton. “California consistently ranks at the bottom as a business-friendly state because of our high business tax climate. Too often California’s innovations become a reality in other states because we have too many hurdles and financial disincentives.

“By enacting pro-job policies, we can keep jobs and employers here and create more opportunities for Californians. As a Legislature, we need to be mindful of proposed policies that would hurt the economy, make it harder to increase jobs and threaten our future tax revenues. Together we should make it easier and less costly to start or expand a business in California.”

SBA

Donna Davis is the administrator for the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Region IX, headquartered in Glendale. Before the committee, she touted the many programs available to help small businesses. The SBA’s Local Assistance website is here.

Davis has been involved in small business herself. According to the SBA website, “She served most recently as the President and CEO of DIR Group, Inc., a business and advocacy consulting firm.  Before that, she was the CEO of the Arizona Small Business Association”

Also wanting to help businesses, especially small ones in her Inland Empire district, was Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown, D-San Bernardino.

Brown said she has been a small business owner for 40 years. And she responded to Davis’ testimony.

“You’re saying things I don’t know anything about,” said Brown. “We don’t seem to get that kind of support. We’re not seeing the kind of robust success that you’re talking about. Owners will go to the bank and try to get the loan cleared and so forth so they can go back to SBA.

“But the process is so cumbersome that many times small business owners won’t have the time to do that. Additionally, if they get through the maze, then we just don’t have access to capital in that region. That’s something I’m going to be working on.”

The state economy

In addition to his comments on the state business climate, Taylor’s 22-minute presentation provided an overview of the state’s economy and some legislative recommendations:

• California’s gross domestic output of $2.2 trillion places it eighth in the world, ahead of Russia and Italy and just behind Brazil. Texas is the second largest state at $1.5 trillion. “It really just shows that California is an economic powerhouse, not only for the U.S. economy but for the world economy,” he said.
• California lost nearly 9 percent of its jobs during the Great Recession – “that’s just astounding,” he said. It’s taken seven years to recoup those losses, nearly twice as long as the job recovery took after the 2001 recession.
• Sixteen percent of California’s population is poor, according to the official poverty measure (based on data from 2011-13). That’s slightly higher than the national rate of 14.8 percent. But the percentage of Californians living in poverty is actually 23.4 percent when using the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which takes into account government benefits as well as cost-of-living expenses such as housing.
• The cost of housing as a percentage of household income is higher in California than the national average of 23 percent. Southern California has the most expensive housing, led by Los Angeles at nearly 30 percent of income, followed by San Diego at 28 percent.
• California is aging rapidly. The 65-74 age group is by far the fastest growing in the state, increasing by more than 60 percent from 2010-20. Next fastest is the over-75 age group, increasing about 35 percent. In contrast, the 24-and-under age group is declining by about 5 percent. “What that means is that it’s really good for your budgetary situation because you don’t have to spend a lot of money just to keep up with the growing population, building more schools, taking care of more kids,” Taylor said. “You can spend it on other things.”
• California has a $650 billion investment gap in infrastructure over the next 10 years, according to the 2013 U.S. Infrastructure Report Card by the American Society of Civil Engineers, which graded California’s infrastructure a “C.” “Infrastructure is an area where we don’t do as good a job as we should,” said Taylor. “We have a five-year infrastructure plan that the governor puts out every year. But we don’t really follow through on it. The Legislature doesn’t have a strong planning process and a way to make sure that you’re spending your limited funds in the most effective way. You spend about $10 billion a year on average on infrastructure.”

The committee’s future informational hearings will look at specific components of the state economy, said Committee Chairman Eduardo Garcia, D-Coachella.