Democrats are halfway there as the last barrier between them and a two-thirds majority in the Assembly officially crumbled on Tuesday, after the Associated Press determined Democrat Sabrina Cervantes had knocked off Republican incumbent Eric Linder in the Inland Empire.

But to completely enjoy the benefits of a supermajority, Democrats will have to win one more seat in the Senate as well, which means Democrat Josh Newman has to overcome a several thousand vote deficit against Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang.

Currently, Chang leads Newman by about 3,600 votes, a number that changes daily as ballots are still being counted. On Wednesday, Chang’s lead was around 5,000 votes.

The district is split between Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties, with Orange having the largest swath of voters. Orange County estimates that there are still 162,778 ballots left uncounted countywide out of 374,397 post-Election Day. 

To get a supermajority, Democrats needed to flip two seats in the Assembly and one in the Senate. Republican Assemblyman David Hadley was already deemed to have lost to former Democratic Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi in a Torrance-area district, which, along with Linder’s loss, gave Democrats the desired two-thirds in the Assembly.

If Chang falls too, Democrats would have the power to increase taxes, override gubernatorial vetoes (which rarely happens) and change legislative rules without Republican votes.

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.

With a supermajority, Democrats would be able to increase taxes, override gubernatorial vetoes and send measures to the ballot without Republican support. Democrats need two seats in the Assembly and one in the Senate in order to hold a supermajority — both chambers are a must.

Holding in the Senate

Around 2 a.m., Republicans were holding their seats in the Senate. The biggest question mark was the Southern California seat held by Bob Huff, the termed-out, former Republican leader. However, Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang led Democrat Josh Newman, 51.6 percent to 46.4.

But Republicans were behind in their best chance to pickup in the Senate, in the seat held by termed-out Sen. Carol Liu, D-La Cañada Flintridge, where Mike Antonovich, a termed-out Los Angeles County supervisor, trailed Democratic former Assemblyman Anthony Portantino by almost nine percentage points.

Losing in the Assembly

In the Assembly, Democrats were ahead in a few competitive interparty races. In the Los Angeles South Bay, Republican Assemblyman David Hadley trailed the man he knocked out of office in 2014, Al Muratsuchi, by almost seven points.

In another rematch from 2014, Young Kim, the Orange County Republican incumbent, trailed Sharon Quirk-Silva by just a few hundred votes. 

Democratic challenger Sabrina Cervantes had a slight, two-point lead over Eric Linder, the Republican incumbent, in this south Inland Empire district.

But some Republican incumbents were holding their ground. In yet another rematch, this time in the Antelope Valley, Republican Assemblyman Tom Lackey led Democrat Steve Fox, who Lackey bested in 2014 by 13 points. 

In San Bernardino County, Republican incumbent Marc Steinorth was pulling away from challenger Abigail Medina, a Democrat. Steinorth led by five points.

And Catharine Baker, the only Republican incumbent in the Legislature from the Bay Area, beat back challenger Cheryl Cook-Kallio by nearly a dozen points to retain her seat.  

The Baker seat was considered a the top target for Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount. In fact, President Barack Obama endorsed Baker’s Democratic challenger, Cook-Kallio, as well as three others: Newman, Medina and Muratsuchi. 

None of these competitive seats were called by the time this story was published, so the results may change. We’ll update accordingly. 

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.

Clinton leads CA by a mile

Good morning. It’s Thursday and in the spirit of getting through to the weekend, we’ll give a quick rundown of today’s news and happenings.

Here’s something that should come as no surprise: Hillary Clinton has twice as much support as Donald Trump in California, according to a new poll. A 26-point lead. The San Francisco Chronicle has more.

But here’s something you may not have known: Hollywood’s stars are often quick to lend their name to causes, but not always so quick to give their money. Of course, some open their wallets. Robert Downey Jr. and his wife each gave $35,000 to Prop. 57, Gov. Jerry Brown’s parole measure. The Sacramento Bee has more.  

One of the most endangered legislative incumbents, Assemblyman David Hadley, R-Torrance, has been ordered by a Sacramento judge to explain why he hasn’t fully cooperated with a political ethics investigation. This South Bay seat is one of a handful that will decide if Democrats get a two-thirds “supermajority” in the legislature. Capital Public Radio has more. 

Speaking of donors, the Bay Area’s Tom Steyer — the largest donor in the country — is now the largest donor to the $2-per-pack tobacco-tax increase after giving $3.5 million to the cause on Tuesday. The potential gubernatorial candidate has now spent $11.3 million on Prop. 56, including in the primary. The Los Angeles Times has more.

And totally unrelated to the election, San Diego’s City Council will consider banning Airbnb and other short-term rentals, reports The San Diego Union-Tribune.

Legislature:

• Gone till December.

Gov. Brown: 

• No public events announced.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @mamaloney 

The measure narrows a loophole allowing local law enforcement agencies to seize citizens’ property without a criminal conviction — a practice dubbed “policing for profit.”

Under a compromise struck in the last weeks of the legislative session, law enforcement officials would not need a conviction to seize property, like cash and houses, valued above $40,000 — but 80 percent of cash seizures are below that amount. 

Civil asset forfeiture was originally used to seize the property of criminal enterprises, toppling them in the process. As law enforcement budgets were cut, they became more dependent on forfeitures as a steady revenue stream and the claims of abuses piled up.

California law already bars the practice of seizing property without a conviction for assets valued at under $25,000 and requires “clear and convincing evidence” of a connection to a crime for assets exceeding $25,000 in value, but law enforcement can sidestep state law if it’s done in partnership with the federal government.

Local agencies can kick 20 percent of the proceeds to the federal government as part of the “equitable sharing” program, which does not require an arrest. In fact, there really only needs to be a suspicion that the property, not necessarily the person, is attached to some criminal activity.

Opponents say that law enforcement does not “police for profit” and civil asset forfeiture is one of the many tools used to fight large criminal enterprises. 

The measure died previously under major opposition from law enforcement. However, the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, and Assemblyman David Hadley, R-Torrance, were able to negotiate the compromise with the help of a diverse group of supporters. The measure ultimately sailed through the Legislature.

Secure Choice, if implemented, would require employers of five or more people to automatically enroll employees into portable retirement accounts, with an opt-out clause for the individual.

Proponents of the measure say that while everyone already has the option of investing in a wide variety of retirement accounts, they aren’t — the approximately 7 million people in the state who don’t have employer-based retirement accounts need to be nudged into planning for the future.

“This is a mechanism to get Californians to save for retirement,” Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Glendale, said on the floor Thursday, adding that while skeptical at first, he eventually asked himself why he hadn’t thought of the idea.

Others remained skeptical, with concerns over the risk to taxpayers if the market tanks and whether diligent contributors will end up subsidizing those who have not contributed much. 

“I applaud (Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon) for authoring this bill … however, we have some real challenges in this bill,” said Assemblyman David Hadley, R-Torrance, who was a financial adviser prior to his election to the Assembly. “This bill has the makings of an epic problem.”

Gatto reiterated that the accounts are individualized with no risk to the state. Others have pointed out that the accounts will be built on low-risk investments like treasury bills and would lower the demand on Social Security — although critics have pointed that low-risk investments have a low return on investment, which could give account holders a false sense of security. 

The program, if signed into law, would be administered by a nine-member California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Investment Board, which is chaired by the state treasurer.

The measure heads back to the Senate next, where it sailed through earlier this year.

Senate Bill 32 would require the Air Resources Board to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions in the state are reduced at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Essentially, the bill builds on its predecessor, AB32, which required the ARB to achieve 1990 levels by 2020. 

To achieve these goals, the measure would continue to give the ARB the authority to create and implement regulations with blanket legislative approval, which has been one of the main critiques of the current program.

The most controversial measure taken by the ARB thus far has been the state’s cap and trade auction program, which a pending lawsuit argues imposed an illegally-passed tax on businesses.

While the Assembly was voting on SB32, the ARB released the results of the most recent cap and trade auction, which missed its target again by selling around one-third of the available emission credits. 

State of play

One slight legislative hurdle still in SB32’s way is a provision that it’s only effective if another measure, AB197, becomes law as well. This companion bill would create a legislative policy committee to oversee the ARB and adds two legislators as non-voting members of the board.

AB197 cleared the Senate on Monday and heads back to the Assembly for a concurring vote. Like SB32, its toughest test is behind it, although it’s still vulnerable in the Assembly — and opponents know it.

The climate battle isn't over yet — oil companies are trying to target #AB197, which is tied to #SB32. @melmason: https://t.co/I5A2ofmoTC

— Chris Megerian (@ChrisMegerian) August 23, 2016

On Tuesday, legislators argued the pros and cons of the measure, largely along party lines. Republican Assemblyman James Gallagher of Nicolaus argued that the state’s environmental policies have hurt businesses and job creation, particularly in the oil and gas sector and among truckers.

Questionable process

Assemblyman David Hadley, a Torrance Republican, decried the bill as a gut-and-amend that hadn’t been fully debated in a policy committee.

“Observe the basic procedural tenets,” Hadley said.

Gut and amend is a procedural maneuver used to circumvent the normal legislative process that’s especially popular during the end of session. A measure to be considered by voters in November would curb the most egregious abuses of gut and amend.  

Toxic air 

Proponents largely made arguments that passing SB32 was the right thing to do. Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez, D-Los Angeles, complained about growing up in Riverside and often being unable to see Big Bear just mere miles away through the smog, or not being able to play outside as a result of negative quality warnings.

A recent report suggested that the greater Los Angeles area has the most toxic air in the nation, causing around 1,341 deaths annually. 

Accountability

Speaker Anthony Rendon talked up the increased accountability measures in AB197. 

“With SB32, we continue California’s leadership on climate change, we keep making sure our air gets cleaner, and we ensure the economic and environmental benefits of our efforts reach all California communities,” the Paramount Democrat said after the vote. “To ensure those goals are achieved, we must also pass AB197 to ensure greater legislative oversight, as well as agency accountability and data transparency from the California Air Resources Board.”

The levels

For what it’s worth, total GHG emissions in 2014 (the most recent data) were 441.5 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide equivalent, and the target by 2020 is 431 MMTCO2e.

In 2007, around AB32’s passage, greenhouse gas inventory reached 479.74 MMTCO2e. This is according to data provided by the ARB.

Against a national backdrop of discord over police killings of black men and deadly anti-police violence, state lawmakers who back law enforcement conduct and transparency reforms are making little progress in Sacramento.

Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, introduced Senate Bill 1286 to initial success. The measure would have classified internal reports that confirmed serious misconduct by law enforcement officers as public records to be made available upon request. In April, the bill won approval in the Senate Public Safety Committee on a 5-1 vote, leading reform advocates to hope the 2016 legislative session wouldn’t be  as disappointing as the 2015 session.

But the measure has yet to receive a vote or any discussion in the Senate Appropriations Committee, effectively killing it from further consideration this legislative session.

The political influence of police unions was seen as the key factor in the bill’s demise. However, unions also appear to have won a receptive audience from some lawmakers to their complaint that Leno was uninterested in working on less far-reaching reforms they might have been willing to consider. The Los Angeles Police Protective League knocked the termed-out lawmaker for preparing his measure “with no input from law enforcement.”

Law enforcement dead-set against asset seizure changes

Another high-profile reform is back for a second time after being rejected late in the 2015 session: SB443 would change state asset seizure rules to require that an individual be convicted of a crime before his or her assets could be seized by law enforcement. Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, and Assemblyman David Hadley, R-Manhattan Beach, are leading the fight for the measure, saying current rules allow law enforcement to disregard due process in pursuit of the budget-boosting money they can get by cooperating in federal asset-seizure programs intended to thwart drug trafficking. California agencies got $86 million in 2015 from the U.S.

Mitchell and Hadley argue that the profit motive warps law enforcement’s judgment.

“When you get outside of [the Capitol] you get a general consensus that something like this in its broad form should not be happening in the United States,” Hadley told the Los Angeles Times.

Nevertheless, they made a significant change to their bill in response to past criticism: a section was added to allow seizure of assets from suspects who flee or can’t be found.

That hasn’t assuaged the coalition of police and prosecutors who thwarted the previous version of the bill in the Assembly in 2015 after it won easy passage in the Senate. Its strongest voices depict asset-seizure reform as “a message to drug dealers that the cost of doing business has gone down,” in the words of Ventura County District Attorney Gregory Totten.

SB443 was rejected by the Assembly 44-24 last September after passing the Senate 38-1 in June 2015. With 63 Assembly incumbents seeking re-election this November — some in districts that now appear more competitive because the “top two” primary change allows moderate candidates to make the general election ballot — the prospects for the measure don’t appear strong.

The high-profile coalition of supporters — which spans the partisan divide with powerful advocacy groups and influential members of both parties — is aiming for a vote in the Assembly next week to block law enforcement from circumventing strict state law by partnering with the federal government in a program called “equitable sharing.”

On the right, Republican consultant Mike Madrid and Shawn Steel, a former chairman of the California Republican Party, are urging Republican support while California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton is working with Democrats. 

It’s uncommon for Madrid, who specializes in Latino issues, to weigh in so heavily on policy issues inside the Capitol. But, as he told CalWatchdog, Senate Bill 443 is a “no-brainer” because it upholds the core Republican values of “not preying on the poor” and the right to due process, and, politically, it could make inroads in minority communities that have been disproportionately affected by the current civil asset forfeiture system.

“If you can’t do this, you don’t have a shot at expanding the base,” Madrid said of Republican lawmakers.

Madrid said Republican lawmakers who opposed the measure lacked a “political backbone” because they are “afraid of offending law enforcement,” which is a historically strong ally on the right. 

Madrid added that Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes has a “unique opportunity” to help the poor, which has been a central theme of the Yucca Valley Republican’s agenda since becoming leader in January.

A Mayes spokesperson on Monday told CalWatchdog he had not announced how he would proceed. Mayes voted against the measure in September.  

Those affected

A report issued this month by the ACLU of California showed 85 percent of proceeds from equitable sharing in California go to law enforcement agencies in communities with a majority of people of color.

The study also reported that the counties with higher per capita seizure rates have below average median household incomes and that the number of California law enforcement agencies participating in the equitable sharing program increased from 200 to 232 over the last two years.

Who cares? Isn’t it just drug dealers?

The program was designed to seize the assets of large criminal enterprises, toppling them in the process — which the law would still allow if SB443 were to pass. But as budgets were cut, law enforcement saw it as a viable revenue stream, and the claims of abuse started piling up.

One notable example was the attempted seizure of a $1.5 million building in Anaheim because the landlord rented space to a medical marijuana dispensary (which was legal in CA).

Another case involved Bob Alexander, who had $10,788 in cash that he was about to use to purchase a car for his daughter before the money was seized in Mendocino County because he had medical marijuana on him (along with the doctor’s recommendation for the marijuana, which was shown to police).

Alexander did get his money back eight months later. No charges were ever filed.

Current law

Current California law already bars the practice of seizing property without a conviction for assets valued at under $25,000, and requires “clear and convincing evidence” of a connection to a crime for assets exceeding $25,000 in value.

Law enforcement can get around that if the seizure is done in coordination with federal law enforcement and 20 percent of the proceeds are kicked up to the federal government. Yet there’s often not even an arrest because federal law doesn’t require it. Instead, there only needs to be suspicion that the property, not necessarily the person, is attached to some criminal activity.

People often get their property back after considerable time and frustration — but sometimes they don’t. So the bill, sponsored by Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, and Asm. David Hadley, R-Torrance, would close that loophole and require a conviction for seizure of assets of any amount. Proponents like Mitchell and others say the practice often violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Support builds

It’s not just Republicans whose support is being whipped. A large share of Assembly Democrats either voted against the measure or just didn’t vote, after nearly unanimous support in the Senate.

Burton — who as a member of the Legislature decades ago and authored the bill that established much of the state’s relatively strict civil asset forfeiture laws—- has been reaching out to Democrats.

“I am especially disheartened and disappointed to learn that the state reforms that I and your predecessors worked so hard to put in place have been cast aside by California law enforcement agencies in favor of less protective federal laws,” Burton wrote last week in a letter to Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount. Rendon voted in favor of the bill in September.

However, Republicans are in a tighter squeeze than Democrats, wedged between law enforcement and limited government intrusion. But the right-leaning Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association gave lawmakers political cover on Monday when it issued a letter of support, pointing to the sharp increase in seizures from the federally-supported equitable sharing program.

“(T)here is also no denying the fact that law enforcement is largely to blame for the situation that SB443 aims to fix,” wrote David Wolfe, legislative director for HJTA. “Rather than use the federal law selectively, they have overplayed their hand.”

Law enforcement’s position

Opponents of the bill argue that law enforcement doesn’t police for profit, and asset seizure is a vital tool used to cripple criminal organizations, partially by funding costly investigations. The California District Attorneys Association claimed the bill would “deny every law enforcement agency in California direct receipt of any forfeited assets.”

“California’s asset forfeiture law will be changed for the worse, and it will cripple the ability of law enforcement to forfeit assets from drug dealers when arrest and incarceration is an incomplete strategy for combating drug trafficking,” Sean Hoffman, CDAA’s director of legislation argued in a letter against SB443.

“Narcotics investigations are costly, and the California asset forfeiture law’s dedication of forfeiture proceeds to the seizing law enforcement agencies speaks to the serious resource needs involved when drug traffickers and their ill-gotten gains are pursued,” Hoffman added.

A CDAA spokesperson on Tuesday said the group was still opposed to the measure, but did not lobby against “inactive” bills, which SB443 is at the moment.