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. 

In front a background of a steady stream of work vehicles ascending the Santa Susana Mountains to the Porter Ranch Aliso Canyon methane gas storage facility, several state senators laid out plans for dealing with the leak’s aftermath once the leak is stopped. The trick is to make sure residents are safe while assuring that energy is available for millions of California’s businesses and residents.

In a remarkable reversal, California Democrats have dropped a main provision in landmark legislation ratcheting up emissions regulations. As Republicans cheered, liberals nationwide decried the turnabout, with Golden State environmentalists blaming a sizable campaign against the bills launched by a nervous oil industry.

Fueling fears

Petroleum interests were able to use Democrats’ dramatic objectives to raise an effective alarm in one of the most reliably anti-carbon states in the union. “The oil industry has poured money into a campaign against SB350, calling the legislation the ‘California Gas Restriction Act of 2015’ and warning that it could lead to bans on SUVs,” as ThinkProgress noted; according to the original terms of the bill, passed by the state Senate, California would be committed to a 50 percent reduction in gasoline use in both cars and trucks. In the new bill, expected to clear the Assembly, that provision has been removed.

Substantial curbs on emissions remained, however. “The amended bill still aims to curb carbon emissions from two other sectors of the energy industry,” the Wall Street Journal observed. “Using 2016 levels as the starting point, the legislation would require the state’s utilities to get half their power from renewable sources and all buildings in the state to increase their energy efficiency by 50 percent.”

Nevertheless, the more modest version of SB350 marked the second of two big disappointments for environmentalist policy advocates in California and around the country. As the Journal added, SB32, which would slash state emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels before 2050, also passed a vote in the Senate only to run aground in the Assembly.

Sharp rhetoric

Supporters of SB350, including Senate Leader Kevin de Leon, were adamant that industry scaremongering scuttled the 50 percent petroleum cut. Remarking on the bill’s modification, the New York Times reported, he said, “Big Oil might be on the right side of their shareholder reports, but we’re on the right side of history.”

Activists sharpened the message on their own terms. “Kathryn Phillips, who runs the Sierra Club’s California chapter, went even further, saying that the oil industry was waging ‘war on humanity’ by blocking efforts to reduce heat-emissions as much as scientists say is necessary to avert catastrophe,” MSNBC noted. Phillips, the network added, described the industry as “ruthless” and “determined to tell every lie they can and to scare people to death just so they can keep as much market share as possible.”

But a different, more practical factor weighed heavily on the minds of skittish Democrats. “The decision on how to carry out the proposed cuts would have been left to the state’s Air Resources Board, a matter of strong concern to many lawmakers,” according to the Times. If the board made decisions adversely impacting constituents, many of whom have already been struggling economically, the consequences could be dire. What’s more, angry voters would have little way to respond but at the ballot box.

An uncertain future

For now, however, anger was concentrated among climate activists convinced that the world’s fortunes depend in outsized measure on California’s ability to demonstrate a path forward on strict emissions reductions. “If they can’t succeed in their ambitions,” MSNBC suggested of Sacramento’s liberals, “it raises serious questions about the fate of a hoped for global climate agreement this December in Paris.”

Their dismay was compounded by the outright defeat of this year’s other embattled emissions bill, SB32, introduced by state Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills. “Pavley tried to overcome opposition to her measure by changing it to provide more legislative oversight of the state’s powerful Air Resources Board,” the Los Angeles Times noted. But skeptics were unmoved, the Times reported. Meanwhile, Gov. Jerry Brown’s office pulled its support out of concerns that it had become toothless, leaving Pavley to promise she would reintroduce the bill next year.

The Banks Pumping Plant looking toward the Bay Delta, where tunnels are planned that could protect fish. Photo courtesy of www.hcn.org

California taxpayers may be liable for picking up part of the $15 billion cost of the proposed Delta tunnels project, an economist warned at a legislative hearing last week.

The project consists of two 40-foot diameter, 30-mile-long pipes transferring water from the Sacramento River in the north Delta to pumping plants in the south Delta. From there the water is pumped to San Joaquin Valley farms and southern California homes and businesses.

Where Will Funding Come From?

One quarter of the project’s cost is expected to be provided by a $60 annual rate increase on Southern California water users, according to Dr. Jeffrey Michael, director of the Center for Business and Policy Research at the University of the Pacific.

The rest of the cost is planned to be provided by Central Valley farmers. The problem for those farmers is that the upfront costs for tunnel construction would total about $160,000 per acre, Michael told the Senate Select Committee on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta on Aug. 18.

“That’s multiples above the value of farmland in the San Joaquin Valley,” he said. “Even great almond orchards with a reliable supply don’t rate anywhere near that amount. Worse yet, one of the financial problems with tunnels are drought years. When you get into an extended drought and the tunnels aren’t producing any additional water for the farmers, they are already financially constrained … yet they have to come up with $1 billion a year or more in debt service payments.

Michael continued, “I don’t see any way how it’s viable without some sort of taxpayer subsidy or backing.”

True Project Cost

If there is a taxpayer subsidy, it could be expensive. Assemblyman Jim Frazier, D-Oakley, warned that the estimated $15 billion price tag could be as high as $70 billion by the time the project is finished. “We know that it’s going to go over projected amounts,” he said.

Legislative analyst Rachel Ehlers told the committee that the Legislature should be concerned about the state having to financially support the project, which has been dubbed the California WaterFix.

“The administration is envisioning that water contractors will pay for the bulk of costs for constructing the WaterFix,” she said. “But are we sure those contract terms protect the state from any cost overruns? Are there other costs that could materialize? What about costs for ecosystem restoration related to the proposed tunnels or other conditions in the Delta? How will this interact with state responsibilities for that?

“So [you should be] thinking about where the funding might come from and what risks there may be to the state. It’s important for the lawyers to get in the weeds for that to make sure that the state is protected.”

Strong opposition

The informational committee hearing was designed to answer the question, “Are the tunnels good for California?” But, unlike most legislative informational hearings in which panels of witnesses testify for and against an issue, there was only one panel at last week’s hearing. And all of the witnesses, along with the Delta and Bay Area legislators and audience speakers at the hearing, were opposed to the tunnels project.

Their concern is that the taking of water from the north Delta would result in decreased water flows to the heart of the Delta, resulting in further damage to an already fragile and unhealthy ecosystem and increased salinity in the drinking and irrigation water for about 500,000 Delta residents.

They are not mollified by assurances from state officials that the tunnels project would actually improve conditions in the Delta.

Defending the project

“We can’t just cross our fingers, hoping for the best in the Delta,” said Gov. Jerry Brown in an April 30 press release. “Fish populations are at an all-time low. Bold action is imperative. We’ve listened to the public and carefully studied the science. This revised plan is the absolute best path forward.”

The tunnels project will “accelerate restoration of the Delta’s ecosystem and fix the state’s aging water infrastructure,” the press release said. “The revised plan substantially improves the health of California’s fisheries, increases water reliability and addresses the uncertainty of climate change.”

The tunnels project does include 30,000 acres of Delta habitat restoration along with another 16,000 acres of habitat mitigation related to the tunnel construction. But that’s a significant decrease from the 150,000 acres in habitat restoration that had been planned in a previous incarnation of the project. In addition, a previous 50-year habitat preservation commitment has been eliminated due to uncertainties such as the potential impacts of climate change.

A Delicate Ecosystem

An environmental scientist, Dr. Christina Swanson, former president of the western division of the American Fisheries Society, told the committee that reducing the freshwater flow in the Delta would exacerbate an already disastrous situation for the ecosystem.

“The ecosystem is highly degraded,” she said. “And virtually all of the native fish populations, particularly those that live in open water habitats, are declining and have been declining for decades to either record low levels or near record low levels. This includes delta smelt, longfin smelt, split-tails, starry flounder. So we definitely have a problem here.

 

“The primary cause, because it’s the primary physical and ecological driver in this estuary and ecosystem, is the alteration and large scale reduction in freshwater flows that flow into the Delta, through the Delta and out of the Delta into the estuary. That reduction is largely the result of man-made water management operations, storage on the rivers and diversion from the rivers and in the Delta.”

Alternative Plan

Craig Wilson, the state’s first Delta Watermaster and a former attorney for the State Water Resources Control Board, proposed an alternative to the tunnels project. It would take water from the west Delta, resulting in shorter tunnels, combined with a gate that could be closed if the Delta water became too salty or contaminated along with a desalination facility.

Wilson said that “the present conveyance system is the worst of both worlds. It is not very efficient in moving water from the north to the south, and it’s been very destructive.”

But he also doesn’t think the tunnels project is the solution. “I agree that the $15 billion price tag is grossly understated when you think about the amount of material that has to be excavated and put somewhere. Most of the benefits to the tunnels accrue to the exporters to the south and not the other parts of the state, the Delta and others.”

The only person at the hearing representing southern California water users was Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, whose district includes parts of Los Angeles and Ventura counties.

“Southern California is looking for reducing our dependence on the Delta to the maximum extent possible,” she said. “We are heavily investing in recycled water.”

Sacramento County Supervisor Don Nottoli, who is the former chair of the Delta Protection Commission, responded that the Delta levees could be upgraded for $2-4 billion, much less cost than the tunnels project.

“That investment over time could not only armor the system in a way that is environmentally friendly, but also [help] on the climate change aspect of it because you can raise levees over time,” he said. “There’s a viable way to do it. It won’t happen overnight, but much more quickly than if you were to build a tunnel.”

Too Little, Too Late?

It remains to be seen whether last week’s anti-tunnels hearing and the alternative Delta improvement proposals will prove to be too little, too late. But they definitely are as far as the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is concerned. That district, which provides water for nearly 19 million people in six counties, is eager to get the tunnels project moving.

“We are reaching the end of a long, winding road,” said MWD General Manger Jeffrey Kightlinger in a July 9 press release. “Metropolitan and other public water agencies have invested nearly a quarter billion dollars in this process because California simply had no other plan to reliably deliver water to two-thirds of California and to restore the Delta.

“Today represents the last planning milestone before producing a final plan for Metropolitan and the other agencies to consider. We applaud the bold leadership of Governor Brown in pursuing this necessary project. A million hours of planning must result in a final plan that is good for the California economy and environment. Everyone loses with the continued status quo.”

The press release was issued upon the recirculation of the environmental impact report for the tunnels project, which has been designated as Alternative 4A. The public comment period on that report has been extended to Oct. 30.

“The two-month extension gives the public, government agencies, and independent scientists more time to consider refinements and changes made since last summer to the plan that seeks to secure California’s water supplies and improve ecosystem conditions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,” said a Department of Water Resources press release.

“The Delta is the West Coast’s largest estuary and is the hub of the state’s water distribution system. It provides water to 25 million of California’s 38 million residents and 3 million of roughly 9 million irrigated acres of farmland. The Delta also harbors several threatened and endangered species.”

Comments should be emailed to BDCPComments@icfi.com.

Was it necessary to pass three new bills that increase the California government’s control over groundwater? The numbers tell the story.

By now most Californians have heard the shockingly huge number: The state has lost 63 trillion gallons of water due to the drought that has hit since 2013. That is 193.3 million acre-feet of water, or almost one year’s average rainfall in California of 194 million acre-feet of water.

But there’s another number Golden Staters need to know: California has about 850 million acre-feet of water in its 450 groundwater basins. About half of that, 0r 425 million acre-feet, is usable due to natural and man-made contamination.

Of the 425 million acre-feet of water stored underground, farmers are estimated to have drawn down only by about 2.3 percent during the water year of 2014. (See calculations below.)

In fact, half of California’s groundwater basins are already managed or adjudicated.  The other half are unmanaged but mostly are unconnected to the state water conveyance system.

Thus, groundwater regulation likely will offer little drought relief now or in the future and would not likely add any water for drought parched farms and cities.

Yet the small loss has been enough to justify the state Legislature passing, and Gov. Jerry Brown signing into law, three bills that will greatly increase centralized state control of groundwater:

‘Sustainability’

Senate Bill 1168 is by state Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills. It mandates:

“[G]roundwater resources be managed sustainably for long-term reliability and multiple economic, social, and environmental benefits for current and future beneficial uses. This bill would state that sustainable groundwater management is best achieved locally through the development, implementation, and updating of plans and programs based on the best available science.”

Although the bill seems to stress local control, it actually greatly will increase centralized state control:

“This bill would require all groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins by the Department of Water Resources that are designated as basins subject to critical conditions of overdraft to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2020, and would require all other groundwater basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins to be managed under a groundwater sustainability plan or coordinated groundwater sustainability plans by January 31, 2022…”

Fees

Assembly Bill 1739 is by Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento. It increases “certain fees” for water, which means the higher costs likely will be passed on to ratepayers:

“This bill would provide specific authority to a groundwater sustainability agency, as defined in SB 1168 of the 2013-14 Regular Session, to impose certain fees. The bill would authorize the department or a groundwater sustainability agency to provide technical assistance to entities that extract or use groundwater to promote water conservation and protect groundwater resources.”

It also would increase state control in other ways:

“This bill would require the [Department of Water Resources], by January 1, 2017, to publish on its Internet Web site best management practices for the sustainable management of groundwater, and would require the department to prepare and release a report by December 31, 2016, on the department’s best estimate of water available for replenishment of groundwater in the state.”

‘Designate’

SB1319 also is by Pavley. It involves what could be called “state regulation by designation.” It stipulates:

“This bill would additionally authorize the state board to designate certain high- and medium-priority basins as a probationary basin if, after January 31, 2025, prescribed criteria are met, including that the state board determines that the basin is in a condition where groundwater extractions result in significant depletions of interconnected surface waters.”

The subversion of local control by state control is emphasized:

“This bill would remove the authority of the local agencies to continue to implement parts of the plan or program that the board determines to be adequate and instead require the state board to include in its interim plan a groundwater sustainability plan, or any element of a plan, that the board finds either complies with the sustainability goal for that portion of the basin or would help meet the sustainability goal for the basin.”

Groundwater drought calculations:

1. 850 Million Acre Feet total groundwater in California x 50% = 425 MAF usable groundwater;
2. California uses 82.7 MAF/year on average, of which 10% is groundwater, or 8.27 MAF;
3. In a drought year, California uses about 50% more groundwater, or 12.4 MAF (8.27 x 1.50 = 12.4 MAF);
4. Agriculture uses about 80% of the 12.4 MAF, or 9.92 MAF;
5. Thus, the percentage of 850 MAF total groundwater used by agriculture in a drought year would be 2.3% (9.92 MAF/425 MAF usable groundwater).

Three bills by Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina, who is also an optometrist, would expand the definition of the scope of practice and medical duties for optometrists, nurse practitioners and pharmacists, will be heard today at a hearing in the Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Protection Committee.

Hernandez, who chairs the Senate Health Committee, introduced the three “scope and practice” bills earlier in the year to address the anticipated doctor shortage as Obamacare implementation takes place in California. But during committee hearings earlier in the spring, it became evident there will be a battle with physicians over this “scope of care,” and what the role of professionals versus para-professionals will be in the future.

And some are concerned with Hernandez authoring a bill from which he would personally benefit.

Ophthalmologists, optometrists and opticians all provide eye-care services, but optometrists and opticians are not physicians.

According to the Harvard Journal of Ophthalmology, an ophthalmologist is a physician (doctor of medicine, M.D., or doctor of osteopathy, D.O.) who specializes in the medical and surgical care of the eyes and visual system and in the prevention of eye disease and injury. An ophthalmologist has completed four or more years of college premedical education, four or more years of medical school, one year of internship and three or more years of specialized medical and surgical and refractive training and experience in eye care.

An optometrist is a health-service provider who is involved exclusively with vision problems. Optometrists are specifically educated and trained by an accredited optometry college in a four-year course but do not attend medical school.

Hernandez’s bills would allow optometrists to do many procedures currently only performed  by ophthalmologists.

Expanded coverage, but not enough care providers

“Here in the state of California, we have a capacity issue. We have a work-force shortage,” Hernandez said at a joint Senate Health Committee and Business and the Professions and Economic Development Committee hearing I attended in March. Hernandez warned the problem is already at a breaking point in California’s inner cities and rural areas. Up to 7 million uninsured Californians will be required to be insured as of next year.

“How is it that we’re going to be requiring somebody to purchase health insurance, but yet they won’t have access to a doctor?” Hernandez asked. “This is what we need to address.”

“We are working hard at the state level to ensure every Californian has access to affordable, quality health coverage, but what good is a health insurance card if you can’t get into see a health care provider when you need one?” said Hernandez. “We need to make better use of the trained health care workforce we already have if we are ever going to meet demand.”

But Senate Bill 492, which is opposed by the California Medical Association and other physician groups, would give minimally trained eye doctors the authority “to perform vaccinations and surgical and non-surgical primary care procedures,” according to Hernandez.

Donations raise conflict of interest question

“Such a major expansion in the scope of practice would financially benefit the state’s 9,000 optometrists, including Hernandez and his wife, Diane, who also is an optometrist at Hernandez Optometry,” my colleague John Hrabe wrote in June (“Sen. Hernandez authors bills to benefit his optometry practice”).

“In return, optometrists throughout the state, who under normal circumstances might be his competition, have supported Hernandez with gifts and more than $140,000 in campaign contributions.”

Hernandez’s bills are Senate Bills 491, 492 and 493. Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, authored Senate Bill 352, which would expand the “scope of practice” for physician’s assistants.

Assemblyman Dr. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, authored AB 980, which would remove the current requirements that abortions are to be done in a medically surgical and sterile setting, with a post-abortion recovery area adequate for recovering patients, and a counseling area that is maintained and provides privacy for patients requesting it.

Taking up efforts defeated last year, Assemblywoman Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, is pushing AB 154 to allow nurses, midwives and physician assistants to perform abortions.

Last year, Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, authored SB 1501, a bill originally written about boating and waterways. But Kehoe gutted it and replaced the language with the abortion bill.

Prior to SB 1501, there was SB 1338, also by Kehoe, which would have allowed nurse practitioners, nurse midwives and physician assistants to provide first-trimester abortions. Kehoe scaled her bill down to include only 41 providers that are involved in a UC San Francisco pilot program throughout the state. But a Senate committee deadlocked on the vote, and the bill failed to pass.

By John Hrabe

Anti-tax groups face a tall order this November. There’s priority one: defeating the competing multi-billion-dollar tax-increase plans of Gov. Jerry Brown and liberal activist Molly Munger. Both propositions will receive tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions from unions and special interest groups.

Even if both measures fail, Democrats have a backup plan to push tax increases through the state Legislature. State tax increases require two-thirds approval of both houses. Democrats are expected to be within just a handful of seats in the state Assembly. In past years, when Republicans held only a notch above one third of the seats, legislative Democrats have successfully picked off a few moderate Republican votes for tax increases.

Thanks to redistricting gains and a chronically underfunded opposition, Democrats are a lock to reach two-thirds control of the state Senate. “A candidate’s view on taxation will be the central issue in swing senate districts,” wrote Joel Fox, editor of Fox & Hounds and president of the Small Business Action Committee.  “A newly Democratic controlled Senate will vote for taxes from time to time. Especially if taxes are perceived to fall on someone else — that famous man behind the tree in the ditty, ‘don’t tax me, don’t tax thee’ tax the man behind the tree’.”

But, before you send a bigger check to Sacramento, consider an ironic scenario that could be taxpayers’ saving grace in 2013. Two even-numbered state senators running in two different congressional races could set off a chain reaction of events that would effectively block tax increases for most of the year.

State Senators Gloria Negrete McLeod and Juan Vargas, both of whom have records of supporting tax increases, have made their respective runoffs for the House of Representatives. If both pro-tax Democrats win their congressional races, their state Senate seats would remain vacant until they could be filled by special elections. The pair’s victories would reduce the Democratic caucus by two members and effectively erase Democrats’ two-thirds’ advantage.

“The vacancies do not change the threshold for the two-thirds requirement, which is 27 seats in the Senate,” confirmed Bernadette McNulty, chief assistant secretary of the Senate. In other words, taxpayers would be temporarily protected with the career advancement of the two pro-tax Democrats.

Vacancies Filled by Special Elections

Prior to being sworn into Congress, the pair would need to resign from the state Senate. Depending on how quickly Gov. Brown called a special election, it could take up to 120 days from the date of their resignation to fill the vacant seats. During that period, Democrats would need to pick up additional Republican votes for tax increases. In 2011, it took approximately 16 weeks for then-Assemblyman Ted Gaines to fill a vacant state Senate seat.

Both Negrete McLeod and Vargas hold safe Democratic seats, so it would be only be a matter of time until Democrats regained their supermajority control of the state Senate. However, it would likely be a zero-sum game for legislative Democrats. Every seat picked up by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, could be a direct loss for Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles.

After all, the strongest contenders in an abbreviated campaigns would be members of the state’s lower house, who have built-in name identification and a proven fundraising network. In the process of filling Senate seats, there could be vacancies in the state Assembly. More importantly, every member of the Assembly to move up to the Senate would trigger another special election process and potential four-month delay.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers: ‘Appreciate Any No Vote’

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the state’s leading anti-tax group, says that when it comes to tax increases, any no vote is a good vote.

“While our first choice is a responsible Legislature that recognizes that taxes are too high, not too low, in the real world we appreciate any ‘N0’ vote, even if that vote is the result of a vacancy,” explained Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “California already ranks at or near the top in tax burden, and taxpayers are grateful for any advantage that helps level the playing field.”

He added that the goal of Proposition 13 “was not to make tax increases impossible, but to create a system that required taxes to be approved with a strong consensus based on clear, demonstrable need.”

An Empty Seat: The Best Representative?   

Not all Republican leaders see the vacancies as a positive development for California, conservative philosophy or the Republican Party.

“If one’s over-riding interest is a narrow definition of tax policy, then, yes, I suppose an empty seat might be preferable to one filled by a hard-line anti-tax conservative who might question the narrow edict of The Pledge in the interest of pursuing the larger strategic priorities,” said former Republican Assemblyman Roger Niello, who broke ranks with his caucus in 2009 to support Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s $13 billion dollar tax hike. “But with the tax pledge (and this could apply to others, too), the rigid dogma attached to it has elevated a no tax policy to an over-arching strategy.  That is true dysfunction.”

Niello added that conservative philosophy involves more than just taxes and includes “such things as personal responsibility, free market economy, limited government, effective and efficiently focused government responsibilities and local control.”

Top Two Primary Turns Senators into Strong Challengers

So how likely is it that 2013 turns into another year of special elections? For starters, the pair of Democratic state senators must win their congressional races. Both are plausible candidates; one is almost guaranteed.

Vargas, who is running for the open 51st House seat, faces only token opposition from Republican challenger Michael Crimmins. In the June primary, Vargas’ vote share was more than double that of Crimmins. Altogether the Democratic field combined for more than 70 percent of the vote.

Meanwhile, Negrete McLeod’s road to Washington is more difficult. She is challenging fellow Democrat Rep. Joe Baca in the 35th House district. In the June primary, Baca finished first with 45 percent of the vote. Negrete McLeod wasn’t far behind, trailing by only 2,500 votes or 8.5 percentage points. The only other candidate, the Green Party’s Anthony Vieyra, pulled in nearly 19 percent of the vote.

The Top Two primary system could also bolster Negrete McLeod’s chances. There’s likely to be little difference between the Democrats’ voting records in Congress. Republican voters without a Republican on the ballot might be encouraged to support Negrete McLeod, if for no other reason than to temporarily block state tax increases.

State Senate Campaigns: Central Issue Taxes

Of course, this unexpected turn of events also relies on Democrats first taking a supermajority of the state Senate. Most Capitol insiders believe the State Senate is a lost cause for California Republicans, who spent more than $1.2 million on a futile attempt to advance a referendum on the Citizen Redistricting Commission’s Senate maps. Ultimately, that money could have been spent to bolster the campaigns of the party’s three swing candidates in the 5th, 27th and 31st districts.

Democrats need to win just one of three swing state Senate races this cycle in order to reach the all-important two-thirds threshold. Those three seats are the 5th Senate race between Bill Berryhill and Cathleen Galgiani; the 27th Senate race between Todd Zink and Fran Pavley; and the 31st race between Jeff Miller and Richard Roth. 

In addition to the two Democrats, another state senator, Republican Doug LaMalfa of Oroville, has a free shot at Congress. He holds a safe Republican seat and has signed Americans for Tax Reform’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge.