Denise Cross / flickr

In an effort to bolster its relevance during the next presidential election, Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a new law moving California’s primary from June to early March.

A March primary gives the Golden State an opportunity to be political flashpoint moving into 2020. In 2016, by the time June rolled around, the presidential primaries were essentially over.

“Candidates will not be able to ignore the largest, most diverse state in the nation as they seek our country’s highest office,” California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said. “California has been a leader time and time again on the most important issues facing our country – including immigration, education and the environment. The Prime Time Primary Act will help ensure that issues important to Californians are prioritized by presidential candidates from all political parties.”

The move is also seen as a potential boost to possible Democratic candidates like Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, rising stars in the party who would benefit from having their home state vote earlier in the primary process.

The legislation also moves up congressional races, taking effect in 2019. Now, the elections will fall “on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March,” making California part of the so-called “Super Tuesday” states.

Furthermore, an earlier primary will have a significant effect on fundraising, beyond candidates raising money earlier.

“With an earlier primary, our elections could have major national implications in the electoral college and down ballot races,” Los Angeles-based GOP fundraiser Charles Moran told CalWatchdog. “D.C. will have to pay attention to us for more than just our money.”

This isn’t a first for California, as there was a February primary back in 2008, leading to the “highest voter turnout for a primary election since 1980,” according to Padilla.

Joining the “Super Tuesday” fray also appears to be an effort to thwart President Trump, or least give California a greater opportunity to set the anti-Trump agenda for Democrats nationally.

State Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, who authored the bill, hinted at that motivation, saying that “we have a responsibility to drive a different agenda at the national level and promote inclusion and consensus not the politics of division.”

California has positioned itself at the center of the so-called “resistance” against the Trump administration, suing over the travel ban, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and the border wall.

The main items on the ballot were  Charter Amendment 1 and Amendment 2, which respectively changed the city and LAUSD elections to even years, beginning in 2020.

The argument for the amendments were that separate elections like this have low voter turnout. So the elections should be changed to years with bigger items on the ticket, such as the presidential election.

The election itself proved the point as just 9 percent of voters turned out, according to the Los Angeles City Clerk. That was just 1/7^th the 69 percent turnout for the 2012 presidential election.

Both amendments passed with 77 percent of the vote.

The old system was a result of a previous reform from the Progressive Era in California 100 years ago. Other reforms of that day included the state initiative and referendum system and, nationally, the direct election of U.S. senators and women’s suffrage.

In this case, the argument was that separate elections would focus voters’ eyes more on local issues, instead of confusing them in the midst of consolidated elections. That turned out not to be the case. In particular, voters mainly perk up during presidential election years, especially in these modern times of massive TV, newspaper and Internet coverage.

One argument in favor of the change was that the current system discriminated against minority voters. But nothing prevented them from voting. And the Progressives themselves generally favored more open voting for minorities.

In any case, the new, consolidated system will be in force, come 2020.

It makes sense. For one thing, elections aren’t cheap.

For another, a change would boost turnout, which was a dismal 23 percent in the May 2013 election that put Eric Garcetti in the mayor’s chair. Ironically, elections were split this way to focus more local attention on local matters. That just hasn’t happened.

Then there’s voter attention. Most folks are OK with gearing up for an election every two years. But throw in another election year and it’s too much.

You might remember the 2000s, when there was a statewide election almost every year because of the 2003 recall that elected Arnold Schwarzernegger, the Special Election in March 2004 Arnold called to pass his wasteful $15 billion bonds, two more elections in 2004 , then Arnold’s 2005 Special Election that repudiated his reform platform, then the 2006 primary and general elections that put Arnold back in power.

Looking back, the whole period seemed to be about Arnold’s ego.

Anyway, it was a lot of elections: seven in four years. Plus local elections if you were in L.A. or other cities in 2005. To top it off, the state didn’t get better, but worse — as Arnold’s 2005-7 wild spending binge turned into $20 billion deficits in the 2008-11 period.

Bottom line: Consolidation of elections looks like it’s an idea whose time has come.

They will resign their positions in the state Legislature sometime before Jan. 5 to take their places in Congress.

Within 14 calendar days of each resignation, Gov. Jerry Brown must, in accordance with the California Elections Code, call a special election between 126 and 140 days later. If no candidate claims 50 percent of the vote plus one in the first round, a run-off election will be held between the top two candidates. Two years ago, when state Sens. Juan Vargas and Gloria Negrete McLeod resigned to take their seats in Congress, on Jan. 7 the governor called for March 12 special elections.

A fourth state Senate seat is already open from a vacancy created by the conviction and resignation of state Sen. Rod Wright, D-Inglewood. That special election in the 35th Senate District is scheduled for next Tuesday, Dec. 9, with a potential run-off on Feb. 10.

Special elections routinely cost county elections offices nearly a half-million dollars each. In 2013, the special election for Senate District 32 cost Los Angeles County $483,240, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Here at CalWatchdog.com, we’ve assembled your go-to guide for the 2015 special elections.

State Senate 7: Mark DeSaulnier heads to Congress

With DeSaulnier heading to Washington, his open seat speeds up the timeline for what would have been a 2016 showdown, because he was term-limited, between a former and current member of the Assembly, both Democrats.

For six years, Joan Buchanan represented the 16th Assembly District, portions of which overlap with the open seat. She’ll face stiff competition from Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla of Concord, the largest city in the district.

Bonilla has a long history in the district. Prior to joining the Legislature, she served as a Contra Costa County supervisor as well as Concord mayor and council member.

Local attorney Mark Meuser, the Republican candidate who lost to DeSaulnier by 23 points in 2012, has also jumped into the race, according to the Antioch Herald.

Another candidate that could benefit from a Buchanan vs. Bonilla slug-fest is moderate Democrat Steve Glazer. An adviser to Gov. Jerry Brown, Glazer was Public Enemy No. 1 of the state’s powerful labor unions in the June 2014 primary for the 16th Assembly District. He finished in third place, with just 22 percent. In a close election on Nov. 4, Republican Catharine Baker beat Democrat Tim Sbrianti.

State Senate District 7 voter registration numbers:

• Democrat: 43.6 percent;
• Republcian: 28.7 percent;
• Decline to State: 22.0 percent.

State Senate 21: Replacing Steve Knight

Knight’s win in the 25th Congressional District will trigger a special election in Los Angeles County. But the strongest candidate to replace Knight has already decided not to enter the race. KHTS reported last month that Assemlyman Scott Wilk, R-Santa Clarita, already has ruled out a run for the seat.

“I love the district that I represent and I expect to be named vice chair of a very important committee that I want to be a part of” in the Assembly, Wilk said. “And I believe that we can find a very electable Republican that can do a great job. We’ve got a lot of momentum and we want to keep it going.”

There’s buzz that former Assemblyman Tim Donnelly is mulling a bid for the seat, according to the Desert Dispatch. In the June primary election, the Republican lost a bid for governor.

However, Donnelly doesn’t live in the district, which could be a big problem with voters. The district sent Knight to Congress over better-funded opponent Tony Strickland, a former Republican state Senator, who did not live in the 25th Congressional District.

Victorville businessman Sal Chavez has already launched his campaign for Knight’s seat. So has Hesperia City Councilman Eric Schmidt. Palmdale Mayor Jim Ledford has formed an exploratory committee, but isn’t formally committed to the race. Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris is similarly toying with the idea of running for the seat. All are Republicans.

Democrats now hold an edge in voter registration, which could help a lone Democrat reach a run-off. Star Moffatt, the 2012 Democratic nominee who lost to Knight by 15 points, has also announced for the seat.

State Senate District 21 voter registration numbers:

• Democrat: 38.3 percent;
• Republican: 35.7 percent;
• Decline to State: 20.2 percent.

State Senate 35: Special to fill Rod Wright’s seat

Wright’s resignation kicks off the state Senate Special election season on Dec. 8. Former Assemblyman Isadore Hall is expected to cruise to victory after forcing his toughest competition, Assemblyman Steven Bradford, out of the race. Both are Democrats.

Hall has come under fire from his opponents for frequent junkets and lavish campaign spending, which included a trip with lobbyists to the 2014 Kentucky Derby.

Hall’s opponents are businessman James Spencer, a Republican; and two Democrats, retired teacher Louis L. Dominguez and Harbor Planning Commissioner Hector Serrano. “We are a working-class community, and we don’t live that type of life of luxury, taking trips all over,” Serrano told the Los Angeles Times.

State Senate District 35 voter registration numbers:

• Democrat: 61.0 percent;
• Republcian: 14.2 percent;
• Decline to State: 20.4 percent.

State Senate 37: Succeeding Mimi Walters

Walters, who cruised into a safe Orange County congressional seat, will see at least two Republicans duke it out for the remainder of her term in Sacramento. As reported by CalWatchdog.com, outgoing Orange County Supervisor John Moorlach has announced his candidacy for the 37th state Senate District. He’ll face current Assemblyman Don Wagner. If Wagner were to prevail, it would result in yet another special election to fill the remainder of his term in the Assembly.

Another big-name Orange County politico, GOP party chairman Scott Baugh, briefly flirted with a run for the seat. He is a former Assembly Republican leader. However, he now says he doesn’t intend to run.

A potential Moorlach vs. Wagner match-up could turn into a nasty intra-party feud. Wagner has recently run into trouble with conservative Tea Party activists.

“Wagner was one of two local Assemblymen out of a total of 15 Legislators statewide who were signatories to a letter encouraging Congress to pass an amnesty bill,” wrote Kelly Hubbard, a Tea Party activist in Orange County. “The letter has never received too much media attention, but has no doubt been a very hot topic with local activists and with many members of the Tea Party grassroots in Orange County!”

State Senate District 37 voter registration numbers:

• Democrat: 28.7 percent;
• Republcian: 42.6 percent;
• Decline to State: 23.9 percent.

(H/T to AroundtheCapitol.com for providing voter registration data.)

The main races to watch are:

• Superintendent of public instruction, between union ally Tom Torlakson and reformer Marshall Tuck.
• Several California races for U.S. Congress, which will help decide the size of the expected Republican majority in the House.
• Several state Senate and Assembly races, which will decide if the Democrats regain their two-chamber supermajority, allowing them to massively increases taxes willy-nilly.
• Ballot initiatives, including Proposition 1, the $7.5 billion bond measure.

Remember: This is a democracy, so as they say in Chicago, vote early and vote often.

Just 19 percent say they trust government “Just about always/Most of the time.” Must be government workers and their kin.

An appallingly low 81 percent trust the government “Only some of the time/Never.”

That’s not surprising. At this point, most of us have had experience with long DMV lines, arrogant and even brutal cops, thumb-screws from the IRS or the Franchise tax board and ignorant politicians.

The surprise is why all those 81 percent don’t vote for the Libertarian Party instead of what Ralph Nader calls the “duopoly” of Republicans and Democrats. On the other hand, voting also has plummeted, with just 13 percent taking part in the June 6 primary in Los Angeles.

Even if they’ve never heard it, people seem to be taking to heart the old libertarian slogan, “Don’t vote. It only encourages them.”

After spending tens of millions of dollars in recent years on ineffective voting systems, California election officials are planning to experiment with an “open source” system that may prove to be the cure-all for secure, accessible balloting – or just another expensive failure.

Most computer programs, such as the Microsoft Windows or Apple OS X operating systems, are “closed source” programs. That means the original computer code only can be examined by the program’s owners, in these cases Microsoft and Apple. “Open source” means the original computer code is made public so it can be used and examined by anyone, in particular to find security holes.

According to Damicon, “True-open-source development requires that a community of software engineers band together to work on the software. The idea is that more minds create better software.”

Help America Vote Act

California still suffers from problems that open-source advocates say could be alleviated.

A state audit last August criticized Secretary of State Debra Bowen for wasting more than $22 million in federal funds from the Help America Vote Act by implementing new voting systems that counties and voters could not fully use. Six counties similarly wasted more than $29 million in California Voting Modernization Act funding.

Despite California’s counties having received $252 million since 2003 to replace their voting systems, nearly a fifth indicated they are currently using aging voting systems, according to the audit.

The audit was performed at the request of state Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Pacoima, who is running to replace the termed-out Bowen as secretary of state. Last year Padilla authored Senate Bill 360, which passed along party lines and empowers the secretary of state to revamp the state’s voting systems without needing federal approval.

A matter of trust

Padilla touted the bill before the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee as a boon to counties wanting more control over their voting systems.

“California has long been a leader in expanding voter access and participation,” Padilla said Aug. 13. “For everybody transparency of the voting process is important for the public to verify and trust the accuracy of voting outcomes. This trust is not just in the people who conduct elections, but in the systems and the machines that we use to cast and count our votes as well.

“In California there’s a patchwork of different technologies to develop … for each of the 58 counties by at least a half-dozen vendors. Currently counties only partially own the systems, which serve as the accuracy and transparency of the hardware and the software that they use in voting. Election equipment is subject to licensing agreements. Which means that counties at times additionally rely on vendors for system maintenance and repairs.

“I introduce this bill to allow a county to own their system and have full access to every part of the voting system. We trust officials to conduct elections. We ought to trust them to maintain our voting systems as well. This gives California full control over how our voting systems are approved by the secretary of state.”

L.A. County

The bill was sponsored by Los Angeles County, which is using a 30-year-old voting system. In 2009 it launched the Voting Systems Assessment Project, which could make it the first county in the United States to develop, own and operate its own voting system.

“We believe SB360 will help spur new approaches to voting systems development in an all but stagnant voting systems market in California while also creating more agile systems and regulations that can more efficiently adapt to technology and legislative changes,” Dean Logan, Los Angeles County registrar-recorder, told the committee. “The reforms sought by this legislation are an important step to improve the voter experience in California and helping to slow the precipitous decline in voter participation.

“Voting system challenges are not unique to Los Angeles County. Many counties have rolled back their systems, and in the process reduced access and voting options for many voters. Similar to Los Angeles County, many of our sister counties are anxious to see the approval and introduction of new voting systems.”

SB360 authorizes counties to implement experimental pilot voting systems that use software with publicly disclosed, open-source code. Proponents argue that this will make the systems more secure than closed, proprietary systems. But concerns have been raised that it might do the opposite.

Potential for fraud?

“I appreciate you tackling a very, very dicey subject,” said Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks, who also is running for governor. “We’ve had quite a debate in this chamber on anytime you’re changing anything wholesale in elections, it makes people very uncomfortable. Is it true that it would be based on open-source software that is publicly disclosed and might provide a roadmap for potential fraud?”

Logan’s response did not address the potential for hacking into an open-source system.

“There’s nothing in the bill that requires open-source software,” he said. “What it does say is piloting a new voting system in order to meet the conditions to participate in that pilot some of those conditions are disclosed source, because there are multiple definitions of what ‘open source’ means. And certainly the concern that you raise is about the access to that and the ability to look at it. So it’s intended for transparency purposes. That is one condition for the pilot.”

That did not satisfy Donnelly, who voted against SB360 in committee. He was joined in opposition by nearly every Republican when the bill came to the Assembly and Senate floors.

Not ready for prime time

The open-source voting system concept has been kicked around for years. In 2006 a study for then-Secretary of State Bruce McPherson found that it was not ready for prime time:

“At the outset, open source software is software whose inner workings are available for public review and unfettered technical scrutiny. However, in practice, the business of technical innovation and the effectiveness of information security may both depend upon some measure of confidentiality, which open source, by its very nature, precludes.

“Open source advocates point to impressive accomplishments for software developed and maintained according to their principles, with apparent benefits to costs, efficiency, quality and security; however, upon close examination, the open source experience is more limited in scope and specific in application.”

The study concluded:

“After extensive investigation, it is clear that significant further examination of open source software in voting systems is needed. While there may be benefits associated with using open source software, they are neither empirical nor measurable. There is no precedent that fully supports the feasibility of a potential effort to develop, deploy, and maintain an open source election system.”

Internet voting hacked

In 2010, the city of Washington, D.C. implemented an open-source pilot project that allowed voters to cast their ballots via the Internet. Officials held a mock election and invited hackers to test the security of the system.

A University of Michigan group took that challenge and issued a report detailing how they were able to successfully hack into the system:

“Within 48 hours of the system going live, we had gained near complete control of the election server. We successfully changed every vote and revealed almost every secret ballot. Election officials did not detect our intrusion for nearly two business days – and might have remained unaware for far longer had we not deliberately left a prominent clue.

“Conducting elections for public office over the Internet raises grave security risks…. Our successful penetration supports the widely held view among security researchers that web-based electronic voting faces high risks of vulnerability, and it cautions against the position of many vendors and election officials who claim that the technology can readily be made safe.”

Smart-phone voting

One nonprofit company hoping to implement open-source voting is the California Association of Voting Officials. A recent YouTube showed CAVO board member Brent Turner voting with his smart phone.

“To vote for President Washington, say ‘one,’” a computerized voice instructs.

Turner says into his phone, “one” and, after a computer prompt, says “three” to vote for “Governor Ross.”

The computer asks him to confirm. Turner says, “Cast ballot,” and has fulfilled his civic duty.

In an email interview, CalWatchdog.com asked Turner whether Donnelly’s concern is valid about open-source voting systems leading to voting fraud.

“Actually the use of open source in election systems will greatly diminish the potential for fraud,” Turner said. “Open source is beneficial, as ‘security by obscurity’ is a failed concept. And the great majority of computer scientists now recognize open source for its security benefits. See projects in other countries and in the USA used by the D.O.D. [Department of Defense]/Air Force, etc.”

Does publicly disclosing the source code make it easier for hackers to tamper with elections?

Turner said, “No. But disclosure is not enough. The software should be General Public License open source.  Mere disclosure is a nuance that is not acceptable.”

Why would open source be just as safe (or safer) than non-disclosed software and proprietary hardware?

Turner said, “The more eyes on the process the better. Small groups can be corrupted and subject to ‘group-think.’”

He added that the cost to develop and implement the system would be about $4 million to $6 million.

Los Angeles County may roll out its pilot voting system in 2015, according to an article at California Forward. The details of that system are still being worked out.

Here’s the Turner voting YouTube:

One of the groups accused of the “campaign money laundering,” the Center to Protect Patient Rights, plans to announce today it has resolved its portion of its legal dispute with the FPPC.

The issue was $11 million in Super PAC money contributed to fight the Gov. Jerry Brown's ballot initiative to increase sales and income taxes through Proposition 30, and the ballot initiative which would have weakened the political power of labor unions, Proposition 32.

There was relatively little media interest in the $66 million raised by organized labor to fight passage of Prop. 32, including $20 million from the California Teachers Association.

The $11 million donation made headlines and generated a controversy because of its source — an unknown Phoenix group called Americans for Responsible Leadership.

The Center to Protect Patient Rights, was the other Arizona organization involved in the donation.

FPPC Chairwoman Ann Ravel ordered agency attorneys to demand that Americans for Responsible Leadership disclose the contribution’s original donors,  after California Common Cause filed a complaint. When the groups would not, Ravel and Attorney General Kamala Harris opened a formal inquiry into the group’s donation to the Small Business Action Committee.

Settlement

“The California Fair Political Practices Commission has announced that the legal dispute over the filing of CPPR’s reports last year has been completely and finally settled,” said Sean Noble, President of the CPPR in an email.

“CPPR is pleased the Commission determined that the organization never intended to violate campaign reporting rules nor did it intend to conceal information from the public. CPPR ‘inadvertently’ erred largely because it had never previously made any contributions in the State of California,” said Noble.

“CPPR will remain vigilant in its work to encourage and support likeminded groups and individuals, and educate the public on issues related to limited government, free enterprise, and the protection of patient rights.”

The settlement seem large given the group was absolved of intentional wrongdoing.

Center to Protect Patient Rights

The first part of this civil dispute was settled last November when disclosure letters were filed prior to the 2012 election.

CPPR’s filing with the FPPC in 2012 was the organization’s first and only in the State of California, according to a source close to the case. Yet, the filing attracted more than its fair share of scrutiny from those on the left who disagree with CPPR’s mission of working to keep the United States financially and fiscally sound.

Many charged the controversial $11 million contribution came from the despised Koch brothers, who give to conservative causes. The recipient of the  donation was Sacramento-based Small Business Action Committee PAC and its No on Proposition 30/Yes on Proposition 32 efforts.

The FPPC made clear in the settlement that CPPR made an “inadvertent” error, but acted in “good faith” and never intended to violate campaign reporting rules.

However, another source who asked for anonymity because the details of the settlement have not been formally announced by the FPPC anticipates closure of this matter will not be enough to satisfy some on the left, and said these individuals and organizations will take every opportunity to try to silence those they disagree with.

The total FPPC settlement is $1 million, to be broken out among the accused groups.

The source said the unprecedented size of the financial settlement over an issue that amounts to an inadvertent filing error is a glaring example of the Commission’s power over non-profit organizations that pursue a constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech in elections.

Government overreach – think IRS scandal

According to my source, the FPPC overreach is similar to the IRS’s disturbing overreach with “conservative” non-profit organizations and Tea Party groups. “Americans should be rightly concerned about any misuse of power by government political ‘watchdogs’ against legitimate non-profit organizations,” the source said.