The Trump administration has launched a bold effort to up-end water policies in the Central Valley and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, calling for big changes that would favor farmers over endangered species in allocating water.

Helping craft the administration’s new approach: Deputy Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, a former lawyer and lobbyist for the Westlands Water District, which is the nation’s largest agricultural water district with 600,000 acres of farmland in Fresno and Kings counties.

As CalWatchdog reported in June 2017, the prospect of having Bernhardt overseeing the federal government’s California water policies was opposed by nearly all Democrats in Congress because of his history. Meanwhile, to GOP lawmakers from the Golden State, his nomination was seen as confirmation of Trump’s 2016 campaign promises to abandon the old status quo involving Central Valley agriculture.

The Oct. 19 memo signed by Trump reflected Bernhardt’s years of calling for lesser regulatory burdens, specifically including long-lived protections for endangered species. It underlined the determination of the Trump administration to make sure farmers got more water. The memo also ordered that major water projects receive faster environmental reviews.

Trump signed the memo before a campaign rally in Arizona while flanked by three California House members – Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, Jeff Denham of Turlock and Tom McClintock, who represents a wide swath of Central and Eastern California. All have denounced what they see as excessive federal deference to environmentalists – including by the George W. Bush administration, not just the Obama administration.

“This will move things along at a record clip, and you’ll have a lot of water,” Trump assured them.

But veterans of the water wars – including those who back Trump’s new policy – have warned farmers not to get their hopes up for the rapid changes the president predicted. More modest changes in policies by the last Bush administration were fought in both federal and state courts by well-funded environmental law firms. They won not just stays of federal orders but full victories from judges who agreed with their interpretation of Congress’ intent when it adopted far-reaching water laws last century.

Fight over economic impact of rules looms

Bernhardt’s remarks at a May 2017 Senate hearing point squarely to one coming fight with broad implications for all of the federal government. When asked whether the Interior Department would keep its commitment to “scientific integrity” in enforcing federal laws, Bernhardt said, “I will look at the science with all its significance and its warts. You look at that, you evaluate it and then you look at the legal decision you can make. In some instances the legal decision may allow you to consider other factors, such as jobs.”

The idea that governments can consider such economic factors when interpreting laws has been one of the favorite legal arguments of conservative and libertarian law professors since it was advanced in 1973 by Richard A. Posner, who went on to serve 36 years as a federal appellate judge and to emerge as one of the most important and provocative legal thinkers of the 20th century.

If there is any evidence this philosophy is leading to new Trump administration interpretations of federal laws, a strong legal challenge is certain – not just because of what it would mean for water policy but because it would give business interests a powerful new tool to challenge a wide range of laws that create economic burdens.

Posner’s most crucial, basic claim – that the “common law” that is the basis of the legal system holds efficiency as a value – is scoffed at by many legal academics. A Stanford law school analysis that was otherwise sympathetic to Posner’s theories says it is based on “ambiguous” precedents.

The fight over the Posner-Bernhardt view of the law is in some ways the reverse of normal fights over the extent of judicial authority. Democrats say the claim that “efficiency” is part of how laws should be interpreted was invented out of whole cloth, with no evidence it reflected the wishes of the nation’s founders. 

This is the line of argument often made by conservative strict constructionists, who reject the idea that the Constitution and other long-standing laws are “living documents” subject to new interpretations because of changing circumstances.

The latest update of Roll Call’s

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, is rated as a toss-up to win a 10th term. His 49th District covers north and northwest San Diego County and south Orange County. Last election, Issa defeated lawyer and retired Marine Col. Doug Applegate by 1,621 votes – the smallest margin of victory of any House race in 2016.

Applegate is running again and is joined by at least three fellow Democrats: San Juan Capistrano environmental lawyer Mike Levin, Rancho Santa Fe businessman Paul Kerr and Del Mar native Sara Jacobs, a former official in the Obama State Department and the granddaughter of Qualcomm founder Irwin Jacobs. Levin has a solid lead in fundraising, according to the most recent reports.

Issa has sought to distance himself from Trump and to present himself as more of a moderate, but his Vista office has been the target of dozens of protests over the past year.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, is rated as being in a “tilt GOP” race – defined by Roll Call as an essentially even race in which Rohrabacher may have a very small edge to win his 16th term in the House. Rohrabacher’s 48th District covers most of coastal Orange County and some inland communities.

Rohrabacher won 58 percent to 42 percent in 2016 over Democrat Suzanne Savary, a retired USC professor and business owner. But he’s since had a rough year in the national media over his unusual enthusiasm for Russia and friendships with Russian officials. A Nov. 21 New York Times story noted that “the Kremlin likes him so much it gave him a code name.”

Several Democrats are expected to challenge Rohrabacher in 2018. The one who appears to have generated the most excitement among national party officials is Hans Keirstead, a Laguna Beach resident who is a stem cell pioneer and entrepreneur. But Keirstead trails Laguna Beach businessman Harley Rouda in fundraising, according to the most recent reports.

Multiple Democrats line up to challenge each incumbent

Three other California House GOP incumbents are rated as having 2018 “lean” in their direction – meaning that while a very close race is likely, they appear to have a slight advantage.

Rep. Ed Royce, R-Fullerton, is seeking a 14th term. His 39th District is centered in central northeast Orange County, with some communities in south Los Angeles County and a sliver of San Bernardino County. In 2016, he won by 14 percent over Democrat Brett Murdock, a former Brea mayor.

He’s also likely to face several Democratic challengers. The list includes former Obama administration official Sam Jammal, philanthropist Gil Cisneros, pediatrician Mai Khan and Villa Park health insurance executive Andy Thorburn, who has a huge lead in fundraising because he loaned his campaign $2 million.

Rep. Steve Knight, R-Palmdale, is seeking a third term. His 25th District covers northern Los Angeles County and a chunk of Ventura County. In 2016, he won by 6 percent over Democratic attorney Bryan Caforio, who is running again. There are several other Democrats running, but it is Caforio and anti-homelessness activist Katie Hill who have gotten the most financial support. Caforio raised more funds than Knight over a recent three-month stretch, and Hill raised nearly as much.

Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock, is seeking his fifth term. In 2016, he won his seat in the 10th District in the northern San Joaquin Valley by 2.4 percent over farmer Michael Eggman. At least eight Democrats, including former House candidate TJ Cox, are running against Denham. Josh Harder, a venture capitalist, has a huge early lead in fundraising, with Cox a distant second.

Denham has already been targeted with harsh TV ads paid for by a super PAC linking him to bankers associated with the Great Recession, which hit the Central Valley particularly hard.

The new administration in Washington, D.C., has added another hurdle to California’s already difficult road to high-speed rail.

Drawing fire from Democrats and cheers from Republicans, the Department of Transportation “has deferred a decision on a $647-million grant that would help Caltrain electrify a section of track between San Jose and San Francisco, a project crucial to California’s struggling high-speed rail project,” as the Los Angeles Times noted. “The decision not to approve the grant by a key Friday deadline may be an early sign of the Trump administration’s view of the bullet train project. The line is already under construction and will need significant federal funding moving forward.” 

That funding has been coveted because of the additional grants it triggers if approved. “The federal grant, if it is ultimately awarded, would be matched by another $1.3 billion in local, state and regional investment, including funds from the high-speed rail agency,” the Fresno Bee reported. 

An ongoing struggle

Although the rail effort has been hamstrung by ballooning costs and time projections and repeated downward revisions of its original ambitions, Gov. Jerry Brown and his allies have labored to portray opposition as anti-innovation. With Democrats and Republicans at the federal level both making overtures to infrastructure reform, the governor swiftly sought to criticize the Transportation Department move accordingly. “If you’re not for that, you’re really not for infrastructure,” Brown told Dan Morain of the Sacramento Bee. “The only thing you can say for that is it’s scoring political points by politicians that know better.” 

“The move follows directly on the heels of a letter from 14 California Republicans, who pleaded with Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao to block the federal grants and argued that the money would be wasted,” the site added. “The letter was spearheaded by Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee that oversees railroads.”

Staunch opposition

State and Congressional GOP have held a firm line against the bullet train, one of a relative few of big-ticket policies pushed by ruling Democrats that hasn’t tapped a very deep reservoir of public support. “Killing the project entirely before larger amounts of money are poured into it is probably the best taxpayers could hope for,” wrote Baruch Feigenbaum of the Reason Foundation, summing up the standpoint of Golden State conservatives and libertarians.

“But that’s not likely to happen on Gov. Jerry Brown’s watch. Brown has been committed to creatively diverting money to the rail system and will continue to do so. So California should take a cue from President Trump, who has called for increased private-sector investment in infrastructure projects, and explore whether or not there are standalone sections of a high-speed rail system that make financial sense for private companies.”

Although the Department of Transportation did not put a timeline on how long its deferral of a decision on the train would last, it may also have to first decide whether to grant Republicans’ wish for tighter oversight over the project altogether. “Members of California’s GOP delegation had asked the Transportation Department to block approval of the grant to electrify a Caltrain line between San Jose and San Francisco until an audit of the bullet train’s finances is completed,” as the Bee reported. “They said that providing additional funding to help the $64 billion high-speed rail project would be an irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars.”

The shifts and splits that have long beleaguered the California Republican Party have culminated in historic unpopularity this election year, presenting officials with an open question as to how the party can best retool in the wake of Donald Trump’s run for the White House.

Despite a dogged performance two years ago that held the line against further losses, state Republicans did not anticipate the rise of a candidate that would galvanize their smaller and increasingly populist base. “Of the state’s likely voters, 72 percent have an unfavorable opinion of the GOP,” John Myers noted at the Los Angeles Times, citing a new poll from the Public Policy Institute of California. “That’s eight points higher than two years ago, 14 points worse than four years ago and a massive 21 points above the party’s unfavorable rating six years ago. And then there’s this: 50 percent of registered Republicans have an unfavorable opinion of their party.”

Souring mood

Although Trump has openly declared political war on Republicans he sees as unsupportive, Californian dissatisfaction with the GOP has not helped his candidacy. In a joint poll by Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and the Bill Lane Center for the American West, respondents suggested the Trump who once encouraged buzz around a bid for California votes has been eclipsed by public opinion. “You have to go all the way back to Alf Landon in 1936 to find a Republican presidential nominee doing as badly as Donald Trump is in California. Even Landon got 31.7 percent of the vote, while Trump is polling at 30 percent, according to the poll of 1,250 likely voters,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The paltry percentage implied a so-called down-ballot effect “on three vulnerable House GOP incumbents: Darrell Issa in northern San Diego County, Steve Knight in northeastern Los Angeles County and Jeff Denham in the Central Valley’s Stanislaus County,” the paper added. 

October twist

But down-ballot Democrats have not been immune to the twists and turns of fortune in the election’s closing days. Analysts have tended to agree that although Hillary Clinton probably won’t be hurt by late developments in the FBI’s investigation of emails surrounding her practices and associates, the ongoing ordeal might pose bad news for vulnerable party-mates in competitive legislative races. “Democrats say they haven’t seen slippage yet and they hope that the email story won’t move the needle in a half-dozen or so Senate races that are either tied or within the polling margin of error,” according to NBC Los Angeles, but Republican moneymen, the network noted, have sought to capitalize on the possibility. 

Meanwhile, in a move designed to aid candidates like Issa, California veterans of Ted Cruz’s campaign have trained their organizational guns on a last-minute push. “Ron Nehring, the former state GOP chairman who was a top Cruz booster, said the focus will be on turning out Republican voters and recruiting volunteers to work on a list of hotly contested congressional and legislative races selected by the California Republican Party,” according to the Times.

An uneven wave

Nevertheless, in some parts of California, Republicans have not faced a down-ballot problem for the reason that no Republicans exist down ballot. “When 818,000 voters in Los Angeles County fill out their ballots this election, they will find themselves in strange political territory: The only Republican names they’ll see will be presidential nominee Donald Trump and his running mate Mike Pence,” as the Times reported. “In this GOP ‘dead zone’ — spanning parts of five congressional districts, five state Assembly districts and one state Senate district — not a single Republican candidate made it on to the November ballot.”

Despite their dominance, California Democrats may still not succeed in seizing a supermajority in the state Legislature on Election Day. “While Democrats would have to run the table in several competitive districts to gain a supermajority in the state Senate, an unlikely outcome even in an advantageous election year, their prospects in the state Assembly run higher,” Politico observed. “In the lower house, Democrats need to pick up only two seats, and early turnout in targeted districts is moving in their favor.”

Two months ago, Republican operatives feared that presidential nominee Donald Trump would destroy their chances to

Now things look much brighter for the party after a rough stretch for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The Senate appears less at risk because the fact that Trump is the GOP nominee doesn’t seem to be held against GOP incumbents. Gerrymandering appears to have left the House Republican majority safe, perhaps until 2022, after the next census.

But in California, at least, the assumption remains the Trump will drag down GOP candidates in congressional races. That’s why the state Democratic Party is seeking in seven swing districts to target Republicans who are “running on the Trump ticket,” according to a party statement last week as it launched the WrongForCA.com website and related social media efforts.

Four of the Republicans are incumbents: Jeff Denham, R-Turlock, Darrell Issa, R-Vista, Steve Knight, R-Lancaster, and David Valadao, R-Hanford.

The other three are businessman Justin Fareed, seeking the seat of retiring Democratic Rep. Lois Capps in the Santa Barbara area; businesswoman Denise Gitsham, who’s going against Rep. Scott Peters, D-San Diego, and Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones, who is targeting Rep. Ami Bera, D-Elk Grove

Michael Soller, communications director for the California Democratic Party, likened Trump’s candidacy to a “sick joke.”

The best hope of sinking a GOP incumbent may be in Issa’s district, which straddles north San Diego County and south Orange County and appears to be moving leftward from its traditional Republicanism. Issa only got 51 percent of the vote in the June primary and has a higher-profile opponent than in past elections, former Marine Lt. Col. Doug Applegate. Running against a poorly funded, little-known Democrat in November 2014, Issa took 60 percent of the vote. The former chairman of the House oversight committee has endorsed Trump, while also making clear his lack of enthusiasm for the New York billionaire.

In November 2014, Denham won with 56 percent of the vote. Knight won with 53 percent and Valadao with 58 percent.

GOP could take first CA Democratic House seat since 1998

Of the other three races, the most surprising is the battle for the seat of the retiring Capps. The Cook Political Report moved the race between Fareed and Santa Barbara County Supervisor Salud Carbajal from “solid Democrat” to “leaning Democrat” last week after Carbajal’s campaign released a seemingly credible Tarrance Group poll showing Fareed up 46 percent to 43 percent.

But as the Cook analysis noted, California Republicans have not won a congressional district represented by a Democrat since 1998. That was when then-Assemblyman Steven T. Kuykendall, R-Rancho Palos Verdes, defeated Janice Hahn of the dynastic Los Angeles political family for a seat that had previously been held by Jane Harman, who ran for governor in 1998. Harman defeated Kuykendall in 2000, making him the only House incumbent to lose that year.

Hanh succeeded Harman in 2011.

Since then, the California High-Speed Rail Authority has been unable to attract outside investors and doesn’t have even 40 percent of the money it needs to complete the initial 300-mile, $31 billion segment — much less the $68 billion needed to build a rail line linking San Francisco and downtown Los Angeles. This has led bullet-train advocates, starting with Robert Cruickshank of the California High Speed Rail Blog, to repeatedly urge Congress and the Obama administration to provide more federal dollars. In planning documents from three years ago, state officials said they were hoping on $42 billion in federal help.

But Republicans took control of the House in the November 2010 election, and they have repeatedly denounced the state’s project, led by Rep. Jeff Denham of Turlock. And the office of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, has confirmed there’s not a dime for the state’s bullet train in the gigantic, five-year, $305 billion transportation bill that Congress approved last week in an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

CA Democrats fought for bullet train funds in 2012

In 2012, during negotiations on a similar omnibus transportation measure, California’s House Democrats were strongly critical of the bill for, among other things, blocking new federal funding for the Golden State high-speed rail project. But Nexis and Google News searches show no similar pointed criticism of the new transportation bill. This 2013 analysis by Governing magazine shows why enthusiasm has waned among federal lawmakers:

In California … if the feds were to pony up the rest of the $42 billion the state is expecting, it would be more than the federal government spends nationwide on grants for new subway, light-rail and bus rapid transit lines combined. … At a time when Congress has canceled White House tours in order to reduce spending, it’s hard to envision Washington lawmakers making that sort of long-term commitment anytime soon. …

 

In a budget deal struck with Republicans in April 2011, the administration lost funding for its [high-speed rail] program, and it hasn’t come back since. … Meanwhile, despite all his calls for high-speed rail spending, Obama hasn’t developed a concrete proposal on how to provide an ongoing, dedicated revenue stream for those projects, which advocates say is key. Even the nonpartisan GAO warns that counting on future federal funding for projects like the one in California is highly speculative. Joshua Schank, head of the Eno Center for Transportation, says it’s unlikely at this point that the administration will continue to throw its full weight behind high-speed rail because so far the program “hasn’t yielded much dividend politically. Nor,” he adds, “has it yielded much in terms of high-speed rail.”

Cruickshank, however, thinks there’s a maniacal quality to GOP opposition. “To Republicans, of course, the risk to the taxpayer isn’t based in fact but in ideology. They believe nobody rides passenger trains in America, so any such attempt to fund one is doomed from the start. They mention that government might have to subsidize its operating costs and even though the global experience suggests they don’t, they’re ignoring the fact that government massively subsidizes roads without any expectation that they’ll cover their costs,” he wrote in 2013.

Nevertheless, aides to President Obama say he will sign the transportation bill, perhaps this week.

Reps. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock, and David Valadao, R-Hanford, expressed confidence that they can secure a vote on the so-called ENLIST Act, which has been stalled in committee for months. The Act, as the Los Angeles Times reported, “would allow people brought to the United States illegally as children before 2011 to become lawful alien residents if they complete a term of military service.”

Although Denham and Valadao, the Times added, rank “among the most outspoken members of their party pushing for comprehensive immigration overhaul,” their focus on ENLIST reflected a broader unwillingness among House Republicans to tackle the issue this election season — whether in pieces or as a whole.

Running out the clock

The hands-off position was freshly cemented by newly elected House Speaker Paul Ryan. To help secure the backing of the House Freedom Caucus, which has depicted comprehensive immigration reform as a concoction of big business and big government, “Ryan pledged he would not move an immigration reform overhaul to the floor unless it was backed by a majority of House Republicans,” as The Hill recalled.

Ryan, The Hill noted, “was loosely involved with talks about immigration reform in the House in 2013. At the time, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers was working to put together a comprehensive immigration overhaul. Ryan wasn’t part of the core group, but did have conversations with its members.” Leading Republicans have sometimes been burned by their support for that effort. Sen. Marco Rubio, for instance, has had to pivot away in order to shore up his right flank and seize an advantage against main primary season rival Gov. Jeb Bush.

Balance and blame

Ryan, for his part, did not disavow outright his preference for a so-called “pathway” to citizenship for many unlawful and undocumented immigrants. But in recent remarks on the CBS program Meet the Press, he tried to indicate that he actually preferred a path to “legal status” instead of outright citizenship, as the Associated Press noted:

“Legal status versus citizenship is an important distinction, partly because only citizenship confers the right to vote. His office said Ryan supports ‘earned legal status,’ noting that this could eventually lead to citizenship through existing channels.”

At the same time, Ryan blamed president Obama for his reluctance to proceed with immigration legislation. “Look, I think it would be a ridiculous notion to try and work on an issue like this with a president we simply cannot trust on this issue,” he said. “He tried to go it alone, circumventing the legislative process with his executive orders, so that is not in the cards.”

The response from the White House was swift. Press Secretary Josh Earnest “accused new House Speaker Paul Ryan of ‘pandering to the extreme right wing’ of his party on immigration,” the Associated Press reported, labeling his comments “preposterous.”

Bicoastal politics

Although the testy rhetoric suggested little room for lawmakers to maneuver, California Republicans like Denham and Valadao have taken advantage of unusual personal circumstances to pursue their agenda. Hispanics make up a significant percentage of voters in both representatives’ districts, as the Hill observed, while both currently lean Republican, the Cook Political Report determined.

In other words, although their districts remained competitive heading into 2016, both lawmakers boasted enough support at home to seek to expand their vote by sticking their neck out politically in Washington. Of late, California has racked up numerous and generous programs for unlawful immigrants. Measures passed this year, the AP noted, “to help immigrants in the U.S. illegally by improving their access to health care, opposing discrimination and enabling more people to apply for legal status. One measure aims to help immigrant crime victims apply for federal government visas.”

This weekend’s column makes it clear that the LAT’s George Skelton is about to jump off the bandwagon. Skelton gets to the key question: Where’s the money to finish the initial 300-mile segment? Every other obstacle is at least possibly finessable, but not a huge cash shortage when there’s no good option to find the funding:

“It’s astonishing that a seasoned governor who fancies himself a prudent spender refuses to recognize the need to secure financing before embarking on the largest public works project in California history. …

“Brown equates critics of the bullet train with initial opponents of the transcontinental railroad, the Panama Canal, the Golden Gate Bridge, the interstate highway system and the State Water Project, among other ambitious endeavors. But that’s distorting history. Those projects were paid for by dedicated revenue streams — fuel taxes, water fees, bridge tolls — or the federal government.

“If European and Asian countries can build high-speed rail lines, the governor asserts, there’s no reason California can’t. But they’re countries. We’re a state. No state has ever created a bullet train. And unlike Washington, Sacramento can’t print money.”

Confident prediction: Morain to remain in tank for bullet train

But what will the other big wheel in the Sacramento pundit scene do, especially now that he’s more powerful than ever? I refer to Bee opinion columnist and now newly enthroned editorial page editor Dan Morain.

I say no way does he stop colluding with rail authority chair Dan Richard to spread the Kool-Aid that minimizes the project’s giant flaws and personally attacks critics. The Bee just had an astonishingly dishonest editorial on the bullet train’s court setbacks that didn’t even mention the financing nightmare cited by Skelton. And then there’s this specific insight into Morain’s thinking and values: In the middle of August, there were two provocative new stories out about the project.

The first was huge and continues to shape a new reality. It was Judge Michael Kenny’s initial ruling that the rail authority didn’t have a firm, adequate financing plan or sufficient environmental reviews for the first 300 miles of the project, as specified in state law. This angle is meaty and substantive.

The second was an insider’s story about Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock, and how his attempt to create an obstacle to the project with federal regulators seemed about to backfire on him because it might let the state declare that its compliance with federal enviro rules meant it didn’t have to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.

Morain wrote a lengthy column about the second angle that mentioned the first development in passing. This angle is juicy, to be sure, but the way Morain covered it amounted to amplification for the sneering Jerry Brown narrative that bullet-train opponents are both dumb and bad people.

Rep. Denham appears to get last laugh

As for Denham, he may have gotten the last laugh. The federal regulators he wanted to get involved — the Surface Transportation Board — last week refused the state’s request for quick approvals of the rail project’s first link, and the board’s vice president said the bullet train’s financial fitness must also be thoroughly evaluated.

If Morain thought Denham’s maneuvering was more worthy of comment than a judge’s actual project-blocking ruling, he’s plainly on Dan Richard’s and Jerry Brown’s speed dial.

But at least Skelton is no longer part of the disinformation campaign.

Efforts to reform the system began in the U.S. Senate. Republican Sens. Jeff Flake, John McCain, Marco Rubio, and Lindsey Graham worked with four Democratic Senators to draft immigration legislation. Ultimately, the 844 page bill could be summarized thusly:

The Gang of Eight bill would essentially revamp every corner of U.S. immigration law, establishing a 13-year pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants, with several security benchmarks that have to be met before they can obtain a green card. The measure would not only increases security along the border, but requires a mandatory workplace verification system for employers, trying to ensure no jobs are given to immigrants who are not authorized to work in the United States.

It also includes a new visa program for lesser-skilled workers – the product of negotiations between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and labor unions. And it shifts the country’s immigration policies away from a family-based system to one that is focused on more on work skills.

It passed the Senate in June 68-32, with 14 Republicans going every Democrat in supporting the bill. The compromise was such an accomplishment that the New Yorker even wrote a long piece describing how it came about. Then all eyes turned to the Republican-controlled House.

Most, if not all, Democrats have supported immigration reform that includes pathway to citizenship provisions. House Republicans also showed a relatively strong amount of support for reform. Last month, CalWatchdog wrote about some California Republicans moving to the left on immigration reform, despite the small likelihood of any legislative action actually occurring:

Although Issa, Valadao and Denham all would like to see some form of immigration reform happen soon, it’s unlikely to occur this year. House leadership has indicated that their focus will be on passing fiscal reforms over immigration, and the recent government shutdown left many Republicans unenthusiastic about compromising with their Democratic colleagues.

Now it appears as though reform is all but certain to fail this year:

House Speaker John Boehner signaled Wednesday that comprehensive US immigration reform was dead this year, saying the existing Senate measure offering a pathway to citizenship would not get a vote.

And although it’s dead for 2013, advocates say that they will continue to pester Republican lawmakers in the House until they take up some form of immigration reform legislation. But those hoping for reform next year shouldn’t hold their breath.

Consider the Republican Party’s bargaining position. If problems with Obamacare continue, then it will almost certainly result in losses for Democrats in the House and Senate. Vulnerable red-state Democrats in the Senate—swept into office during Obama’s wave election of 2008—are particularly vulnerable because of their previous support for the law. Why would Republicans take up immigration reform—a politically fraught issue to begin with—when they can simple move on the legislation in 2015, when they have more politically sound ground to negotiate from.

Immigration reform in 2013? Not happening. In 2014? Doubtful. In 2015? It might just go down. Keep your eyes on the midterm results.

Partisan congressional delegations typically stick together, as they share not only a party and general political ideology, but the interests of the state they represent. But as the chasm between moderates and conservatives grows, California’s Republican delegation is slowly becoming more of two delegations.

Consider how different California Republicans handled (and are handling) two of the most politically charged issues in our country today.

First, consider the government shutdown. All of California’s Republicans voted to defund, and then to delay, Obamacare — prompting the shutdown to occur. But as the days went on, and it became clear that Republicans were taking a political hit for closing the government over Obamacare, some Republicans began to openly criticize their party.

Rep.  Devin Nunes of Tulare, a moderate, compared his fellow Republicans to terrorists, calling them “lemmings with suicide vests”:

“They have to be more than just a lemming. Because jumping to your death is not enough. …

“You have this group saying somehow if you’re not with them, you’re with Obamcare. If you’re not with their plan — exactly what they want to do, you’re with Obamcare. It’s getting a little old.”

The real test came on Oct. 16, when the House voted on a clean continuing resolution, which reopened the government without any changes to Obamacare. The delegation split almost perfectly in half.

Eight Republicans voted in favor of reopening the government, Reps: Ken Calvert, Paul Cook, Darrell Issa, Kevin McCarthy, Buck McKeon, Gary Miller, David Valadao and—not surprisingly—Devin Nunes.

Seven Republicans voted against reopening the government, Reps: John Campbell, Jeff Denham, Duncan Hunter, Doug LaMalfa, Tom McClintock, Dana Rohrabacher and Ed Royce.

Immigration

Immigration is the second issue that has divided California Republicans. Last week, CalWatchdog.com reported that several Republicans were moving further to the left on immigration reform. Specifically, the report described efforts by Reps. Jeff Denham and Darrell Issa to lobby their Republican counterparts to take up an immigration reform bill that would grant some form of citizenship to illegal immigrants. Since then, Rep. David Valadao has joined Denham in supporting the House Democrats’ immigration reform bill.

Others in the California delegation — such as Rep. Dana Rohrabacher — continue to oppose legislation that would contain a pathway to citizenship.

Rohrabacher has been particularly vocal about this on Twitter in the last few days, tweeting, “US permits more legal immigration than all other countries combined., over a million. Quit acting like we aren’t generous” and “amnesty will bring tens of millions more than the 20 million illegals already here, bidding down wages, draining gov programs.”

Denham’s press release, announcing his support for the Democrats’ bill, has sharply different language:

“We can’t afford any more delays,” said Rep. Denham. “We are a nation of immigrants, but today, our broken system has failed to secure the border, enforce our current laws and help us to attract the best and brightest who want to come and contribute to the greatness of America.

“I support an earned path to citizenship to allow those who want to become citizens to demonstrate a commitment to our country, learn English, pay fines and back taxes and pass background checks. This is a common-sense solution to our broken system. I also support a faster pathway for the children who were brought here by their parents through no fault of their own, who have been raised in America and educated in our schools and have no other country to call home.

The difference between the two on immigration is distinct, tonally and intellectually.

Why the Division?

Generally, California Republicans agree on major subjects like taxes, size of government, gun rights, abortion restrictions and other issues. But division on immigration and how to handle budget negotiations are very real.

The differences, however, are a matter of simple demographics. Denham’s district is roughly 40 percent Hispanic; Valadao’s is similar. Rohrabacher, who has half as many Hispanics in his district, has much less of a political need to shift his tone on immigration reform.

So long as the districts they represent remain different, different congressmen will be different too. It’s as simple as that.