The California High-Speed Rail Authority – the agency in charge of building the state’s bullet train system – has already faced a tough year, with Gov. Gavin Newsom signaling in February that he’s not confident the full system can ever be built. But now the rail authority has two new public relations headaches on its hands.

In the Central Valley, farmers were already upset over state use of eminent domain to seize their property for construction of the project’s first segment – a 110-mile route from Bakersfield to Merced projected to cost $12.2 billion. But a recent report in the Los Angeles Times documented how slow the rail authority was in paying for seized land and in refunding farmers for the cost of the train project’s effects on their businesses.

The Times’ story focused on a kiwi farmer who lost 70 acres of land to the project more than a year ago and who since has gone unpaid for $250,000 incurred in “relocating wells, removing trees, building a road and other expenses.” It also noted farmers who had been owed $1.9 million and $630,000 for three years, and two others owed $500,000 and $150,000, though for shorter periods of time.

State officials questioned by the Times had no explanation for the delays beyond saying the project was complex in its legal and engineering challenges.

A follow-up story by Fox News emphasized why the delayed payments are particularly upsetting to many Central Valley residents. Not only is there a chance the initial segment between Bakersfield and Merced will never be completed because the state doesn’t have enough funds, there is a good chance that even if the segment is finished, some of the property that has been seized won’t be used for the project. That’s because even now – more than five years after the administration of Gov. Jerry Brown decided to start the bullet train’s construction in the Central Valley – authority officials still haven’t agreed on the exact details of the final route.

“The property owners are very frustrated that the High-Speed Rail Authority [doesn’t] seem to know what they actually need,” Sacramento attorney Mark Wasser said. “We have farmers who the authority has come back four times to change where they want to take.” Wasser has more than 70 clients affected by the rail authority’s Central Valley project.

Audit warnings validated by ethics probe

Meanwhile, state audits which have long warned that it is problematic for the rail authority to rely so heavily on outside consultants have been vindicated with what appears to be evidence of a conflict-of-interest scandal.

Recently, the authority’s deputy chief operating officer – Roy Hill – was suspended pending an investigation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission. Hill is a top executive with the WSP consulting firm employed by the authority. Evidence suggests that Hill approved a $51 million increase in a bullet-train contract held by the Spanish firm Dragados despite his apparent ownership of more than $100,000 in stock in Jacobs Engineering, a multibillion-dollar multinational corporation that is providing key services to Dragados on the California project.

The FPPC approved the request of Assemblyman Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, to investigate Hill, his actions and his personal economic interests.

“This is such a deep conflict that it calls into question whether the entire High-Speed Rail Authority and the contractors they have put together are involved in a massive corruption,” Patterson told Fresno TV station KMJ.

The rail authority says it will cooperate with the FPPC probe.

Hill has not yet commented publicly on the matter.

The cost of the 119-mile segment was originally estimated at $6 billion. But the main consulting firm on the project, WSP (formerly Parsons Brinckerhoff), told the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s board at a recent meeting that it was now projected at $10.6 billion – a 77 percent increase.

The fact that the overrun was so high on the part of the statewide project with the least-challenging geography appeared to startle some rail authority board members and some Democratic state lawmakers.

On Tuesday, Assemblyman Jim Patterson, R-Fresno – a longtime bullet train skeptic – was joined by Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, in a letter asking for a formal state audit of the $67 billion project. Beall is chairman of the Senate transportation committee.

The letter was sent to Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, the Torrance Democrat who chairs the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. It has the authority to direct state Auditor Elaine Howle to audit the bullet-train project without the blessing of the governor, who in 2016 vetoed a bill that would have increased oversight of the project and the rail authority. Previous calls for an audit have been blocked by Democratic lawmakers.

While the bullet train has been regularly scrutinized by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, its reports tend to note problems without offering harsh criticisms or sweeping judgments.

State audit could influence vote on June bullet-train ballot measure

By contrast, Howle takes no prisoners if she believes she has evidence of incompetent management, deceit or secrecy. In the past two years, her scathing criticism of the University of California over admissions policies that more than tripled out-of-state students at UC campuses and over UC President Janet Napolitano’s aides’ interference with her office’s attempts to gather information led to admission policy changes and to a state law barring such interference by state agencies.

If the state auditor was directed to review the bullet train project in coming weeks and completes her report faster than usual, it could affect a bullet train-related measure on the June primary ballot.

Last July, then-Assembly Republican leader Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley agreed to help Democrats round up enough GOP votes to extend the state’s cap-and-trade program until 2030 in return for the Legislature ordering the placement of a Mayes-drafted constitutional amendment before state voters in the primary.

If it won approval, the amendment would mandate that in 2024, the Legislature must have an up-or-down vote on whether to continue allowing the state government to use cap-and-trade revenue on the bullet train – with a two-thirds threshold for approval in both the Assembly and Senate.

Cap-and-trade auction funds are the only firm source of revenue the rail authority will have after spending the remaining $10 billion in funds left from a $3.3 billion grant from the Obama administration and the original $9.95 billion in state bond funds that voters approved for the project in 2008.

Cutting off the bullet train’s access to cap-and-trade dollars could kill the project without it ever having carried a passenger – leaving a massive white elephant in the Central Valley. Even before the overrun was reported, authority officials said in 2016 that they didn’t have enough money to build their planned segment linking San Jose with Bakersfield. Officials told a U.S. House subcommittee hearing that the project’s eastern terminus would be an almond orchard about 30 miles northwest of Bakersfield.

“The commercial side of the DMV is so backlogged that if you finished your truck driving courses today, you’d have to wait 56 business days for an appointment to take your driver’s license test,” according to the office of Assemblyman Jim Patterson, R-Fresno. Would-be truck drivers have contacted him for help, complaining people will camp outside the DMV overnight to be able to get a place in line and get their test taken.

The DMV recently disputed the long wait times, telling a local TV station its Fresno office is offering appointments within six days. This contradicts the response received by Patterson’s office, who were told of eight-week waits, excepting occasional last-minute appointment openings.

The director of the Fresno Department of Transportation sent a corroborating letter to Assemblyman Patterson noting similar challenges the city’s bus service faced over the past two years navigating new drivers through the DMV process.

“In November 2016, the delays were so long that the department sent drivers to Sacramento,” wrote Fresno Department of Transportation Director Brian Marshall. “The department paid wages and overnight lodging for 15 drivers.” Only two drivers, however, were able to get tested, even after making the trek to Sacramento.

Marshall supports new legislation, authored by Assemblyman Freddie Rodriguez, D-Pomona, and co-authored by Patterson, allowing third-party testing of drivers. The state currently accepts third-party testing and licensing in a variety of areas. For instance, Californians can handle many DMV functions at American Automobile Association offices, while Realtors are tested and licensed through quick third-party processes.

In an interview Tuesday, Patterson said the DMV had not made significant progress on the issue until legislators introduced Assembly Bill 301. This legislation “seeks to reduce the severe backlog in availability of commercial Driver’s License (CDL) skills test appointments at the DMV by expanding current law to allow additional third parties, including training schools and government entities, to conduct skills tests,” according to the legislative fact sheet. Unions would be authorized to offer the tests, as well as municipalities and independent schools.

Patterson says the DMV’s current efforts to reduce wait times to four weeks is still unacceptable. “There are 30,000 unfilled trucking driving jobs in this state,” he said. “People are begging to get their licenses so they can go to work. We need to do everything we can to make sure that happens.”

The assemblyman indicated the gravity of this statewide problem. According to June DMV self-reporting data, wait times were approximately 50 days to get an appointment in Arleta, Fresno, Fremont, Ukiah and Lancaster. According to the fact sheet, “wait times in California ranged from a minimum of 19 business days before the next available appointment, to a high of 61 business days. In December 2016, 17 of the state’s 23 locations that provide CDL skills tests had wait times longer than three weeks with the longest wait being in Montebello at 65 business days, or 13 weeks.”

The legislation points to a nationwide truck-driving shortage, which is why 39 other states allow some form of third-party commercial-truck license tests. Under the bill, the DMV would have the authority to approve the private testing sites.

Critics of the current DMV process are concerned about the implications for would-be drivers, who can’t always afford to wait two months before they get started on the job. And then there are the taxpayer implications, as the Fresno transportation situations makes clear. Simply stated, taxpayers are paying drivers, who can’t work until they get through the licensing process, along with the cost implications for firms that rely on commercial truck drivers.

The DMV on February 22 dedicated a new truck-test center in Gardena that “will conduct approximately 7,000 drive tests and process 4,000 commercial driver licenses related applications annually. The office is staffed with 23 employees,” according to the agency’s statement. That may help reduce the backlog in parts of Southern California by consolidating operations that were spread around the region, although the legislation’s backers argue third-party testing offers more hope for quickly fixing the statewide problem – and that using third-party vendors is less costly for taxpayers than creating new centers.

The DMV said that it doesn’t comment on pending legislation and didn’t directly address the specific problems raised by Assemblyman Patterson. “The DMV noticed a higher volume of Commercial Driver License applicants requesting appointments to take the behind-the-wheel skills test,” the agency said. “As a result, on Jan. 7, 2017, the DMV began offering Saturday appointments only to individuals wanting to take this specific exam at nine locations across the state,” it added in response to CalWatchdog’s questions. “The DMV strives to offer commercial drive test exams to our customers within 30 days of making an appointment.”

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. He is based in Sacramento. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

The perceived retaliation came two months after the West Covina Democrat was asked to step down by the bill’s sponsor amid domestic violence allegations (that he’s denied) surfaced and after being placed under a temporary restraining order from his wife.

Background

The bill, SB1166, was a priority of the Legislative Women’s Caucus and especially its chairwoman, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, who had called for Hernández to step down along with other members of the women’s caucus.

The bill previously passed three Senate committees and the Senate floor along party lines, making it a measure widely supported by Democrats.

Outside the Capitol, it was supported by women’s rights activists like Sandra Fluke, who made national news in 2012 after being called a “slut” and “prostitute” by Rush Limbaugh for advocating for women’s access to birth control at a Congressional hearing while a law student at Georgetown University.

Join me & my fellow #StrongerCA coalition mbrs to urge @Roger_Hernandez stand w/#CA families & supprt @SenHannahBeth #SB1166 #NewParentLeave

— Sandra Fluke (@SandraFluke) June 22, 2016

Another group, the Equal Rights Advocates, which describes themselves as “civil rights champions, fighting since 1974 to expand and protect the opportunities of all women and girls,” also urged support earlier in the day.

.@Roger_Hernandez we urge your 'aye' vote on #SB1166 in Assm. Labor today! All new parents & children need bonding time. #StrongerCA

— EqualRightsAdvocates (@EqualRightsAdv) June 22, 2016

Abstain = No

There were other liberal activists and groups tweeting support, but when the bill came up for a vote in the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee, four of the seven members abstained from voting, including Hernández, the chairman.

Bill was priority of@CaWomensCaucus Jackson had called on committee chair @Roger_Hernandez to step down following domestic abuse accusations

— Katie Orr (@1KatieOrr) June 22, 2016

Hernandez gave no indication at the hearing as to why he abstained from voting, and his office didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment later in the day from CalWatchdog.

.@Roger_Hernandez did not comment on the bill or explain way he abstained during committee hearing.

— Katie Orr (@1KatieOrr) June 22, 2016

How others “voted”

The other members who abstained were Democratic Assemblymen Kansen Chu of San Jose, Patrick O’Donnell of Long Beach and Eric Linder, a Republican from Corona.

Chu and O’Donnell’s offices did not immediately respond to requests for comment from CalWatchdog. A spokesman for Linder told CalWatchdog that Linder supported expanding family leave and the main thrust of the bill, but had concerns over certain provisions.

Democrats Tony Thurmond of Richmond and Kevin McCarty of Sacramento voted in favor of the measure, while Republican Jim Patterson of Fresno voted against. 

Hmm. An all-male committee kills a bill that was priority of the women's caucus. #SB1166 @1KatieOrr @SenHannahBeth

— Laurel Rosenhall (@LaurelRosenhall) June 22, 2016

.@Roger_Hernandez, abstained on #SB1166, preserving the right for employers to threaten new parents with termination if they take #paidleave

— jenya cassidy (@oneunionmom) June 23, 2016

Since the domestic violence allegations surfaced, Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, has chosen not to take action against Hernández, including removing him from the Labor and Employment chairmanship. Rendon did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the hearing. 

Allegations

Hernández’s wife, Baldwin Park City Councilmember Susan Rubio, previously accused him of assaulting her 20 times over a three-year period. In divorce court last month, Rubio detailed eight alleged incidents that included being choked with a belt, being beat with a broom while on the ground and being threatened with a knife after having been accused of an affair. 

No charges have been filed against Hernández.

Hernández is termed out of the Assembly. He had hoped to win a seat in Congress held by fellow-Democrat Grace Napolitano, but failed to advance from the primary. Hernández recently blamed his primary failure on Rubio. 

Past allegations

Hernández has been accused of wrongdoing before. In 2012, an ex-girlfriend accused him of domestic violence, although charges were never filed due to insufficient evidence. 

That same year, Hernández was arrested for drunk driving in a state vehicle, but was acquitted by a jury on one charge, while the jury was hung on another. 

And in 2015, allegations of political money laundering against Hernández were dropped by the Fair Political Practices Commission after two key witnesses were unable to testify — one had serious medical issues while the other had passed away. 

Henry T. Perea left office early, giving the cost of a $500,000+ special election to Fresno County.

A bill that would have shifted the costs of most special elections away from the taxpayers and onto the outgoing legislator died in committee on Wednesday.

Since 2013, counties have spent around $21.7 million on special elections, according to a recent investigation by CalWatchdog. That total includes more than $500,000 last week in Fresno County to replace former assemblyman Henry T. Perea, a Fresno Democrat who stepped down late last year to take a position with the pharmaceutical industry.

Perea still has more than $800,000 in his campaign account after making thousands of dollars in political donations as he was leaving office. Asm. Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, had been floating the idea for his bill since January, which would have required lawmakers who leave office early, triggering a special election, to use campaign funds to pay for the special election.

The bill had certain safety valves, like medical or family emergencies, which would have allowed for an exception. And the bill would not have required legislators to use personal funds if their campaign account was empty. But the panel was unconvinced.

“Since I’m not sure if this is a true solution and it can be somewhat onerous on those individuals who have to resign or resign for various reasons and find us, once again, holding folks in office who should be moving on, it becomes a difficult one to do,” said Shirley Weber, the chair of the Elections and Redistricting Committee. The San Diego Democrat noted there were other options floating around, like one focusing on mail-in ballots.

Patterson said legislators make a “contract” with voters when they assume elected office and there should be a “consequence” to leaving early.

“There’s nothing wrong with seeking greener pastures,” Patterson said. “But there is something wrong with sticking the bill to residents, taxpayers and the counties.”

The right-leaning Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association spoke in support of the bill, as did Fresno County and Tulare County, which have spent at least $1.3 million and $167,127, respectively, on special elections since 2013.

No groups spoke in opposition on Wednesday.

Henry T. Perea’s decision to leave office early cost Fresno County at least a half million dollars.

Henry T. Perea’s decision to vacate his Assembly seat early cost Fresno County a half-million dollars — enough to pay for four sheriff deputies — and has reignited a discussion on the cost of special elections.

The Fresno Democrat announced last year that he’d be leaving the Assembly to pursue a position with the pharmaceutical industry.

In fact, counties are saddled with the cost of special elections regularly. And while they have become less frequent, at least temporarily, a CalWatchdog review of expenses shows that since 2013 counties (and one city) have spent $21.7 million on special elections to replace state lawmakers.

Few would decry a legislator stepping down if the officeholder or his or her family member fell ill. And of course sometimes scandals create a vacancy. But most of the time these seats are vacated by politicians looking to cash in with a high-paying lobbying position, trade up for higher office (perhaps to avoid being forced from office by term limits), which then creates a mad dash to fill the gaps behind them.

For example: In 2013, Curren Price created a vacancy in the state Senate when he won a seat on the Los Angeles City Council, which are elected in odd-numbered years. Holly Mitchell then won Price’s seat in a special election, leaving a vacancy in the Assembly. That vacancy was filled by the current occupant, Asm. Sebastian Ridley-Thomas.

That game of musical chairs cost Los Angeles County $2.4 million. And had Ridley-Thomas and Mitchell not one outright in their respective primaries, forcing a run-off, the cost for the overall costs for the special election would have approximately doubled.

Nonpartisan

Price, Ridley-Thomas and Mitchell are all Democrats, but Republicans do it too. In 2014, Mimi Walters won a seat in Congress in an open Orange County district after former Rep. John Campbell retired.

After winning, she vacated her state Senate seat, which was filled by now-Sen. John Moorlach, costing the county $1.24 million.

One approach

On Wednesday, an Assembly panel will consider a proposal from Asm. Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, which would require that legislators use leftover campaign funds to pay down the cost of the special election they’ve caused, leaving exceptions for health and family reasons.

Perea still has more than $800,000 according to the campaign finance filings from the end of 2015. Instead of giving money to Fresno County, which is allowable under state law, Perea made some political contributions and paid for a few holiday parties.

Other ideas

A measure by Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Hanford, was approved by one panel earlier this month. The bill would require the state to reimburse for the entire cost of the special election for vacancies of state lawmakers. The state used to contribute to the cost of special elections, but has since ceased the practice.

“Fresno County was forced to hold a special election today to fill a vacant Assembly seat, which is costing the county more than a half- million dollars,” Vidak said in a statement last week following the election to replace Perea. “That’s money that could have been used for police, fire, health, education and other vital services.”

Others have suggested the governor appoint a replacement to serve until the next scheduled election. But critics claim that gives the unfair advantage of incumbency to a replacement if he or she decides to run for another term, and gives the governor too much political power.

“Sure, it’s a tradeoff,” said Raphael Sonenshein, the executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at California State University Los Angeles, noting that if the seat is held only until the next scheduled election then no one would hold the seat for more than two years. “Special elections have very low turnout. It’s at least arguably a budget savings and one less election.”

Turnout

Voter turnout is a persistent issue in California. Some argue that the abundance of special elections contributes to the problem. Most of the special elections have even lower turnout.

In 2013 in Los Angeles, 23 percent of voters turned out for the regularly-scheduled city elections when Price was elected. Later that year, only 5.55 percent of voters turned out to elect Mitchell to the state Senate and then 8.47 percent turned out to elect Ridley-Thomas to the Assembly.

In 2014, the regularly-scheduled gubernatorial election that sent Mimi Walters to Congress drew about 43 percent of voters, while John Moorlach was elected to the state Senate only a few months later with only a 15.42 percent turnout.

Kathay Feng, the executive director of the left-leaning good government group California Common Cause, suggests moving all local elections to the normal presidential and midterm/gubernatorial voting schedule — and during the vacancy, until a successor is elected, the seat could either stay unoccupied or a “caretaker” could be appointed.

“Will a group of people be unrepresented for a short period of time? Potentially.” Feng told CalWatchdog. “But this is insane to elect people by five or six percent of the population and still call it a democracy.”

Cost

The money that is spent on special elections goes to things like: printing ballots, hiring poll workers, securing locations, paying for postage and producing vote by mail ballots. 

Many special elections are unbudgeted and all are unplanned and sometimes they overlap. According to Dean Logan, the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk, it can be particularly taxing on the county registrar and confusing for voters who could be receiving election packets from the city they live in and then the county a few weeks later, like Los Angeles residents in 2013.

Logan did not advocate a particular path forward, as it’s not his role as registrar. However, he has at least raised questions over the current process and the drain on resources since at least 2010.

“And we already have a crisis of participation even in our regular election cycles, but the turnout in these special vacancy elections is extremely low,” Logan told CalWatchdog.

Term-limits

Some argue that the 2012 modification of term limits, which allowed legislators to spend more time in each chamber, may reduce the number of special elections. While the change hasn’t been around long enough to say for sure, there has been a reduction in special elections since it was passed.

There were 12 special elections (including primary and general/run-off) in 2013, two in 2014, four in 2015 and only one so far this year.

At the swearing in, the paramount Democrat drew a standing ovation from the crowd and an impassioned introduction in both English and Spanish from fellow Democratic Assemblyman Luis A. Alejo of Salinas. Statements of support flooded inboxes before Rendon’s inauguration speech was over.

Rendon is a well-liked progressive liberal with the reputation as a coalition builder, having won the support of moderates and even some Republicans (at least for now). Along with Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León, the Legislature has two Latinos from the Los Angeles area at the helm.

He pointed to poverty, oversight and participation as the three pillars of his speakership, but if and how he advances an agenda more centered on Latino issues in tandem with de León and how he works with Republicans may define his leadership more.

Agenda

Rendon made poverty a central theme of his speech. He referenced the public assistance both he and his wife had benefited from throughout their lives.

“Neither Annie nor I was born with much, but we worked hard and somehow we ended up here,” Rendon said. “But we also had a lot of help. Help not just from family and neighbors, but help from California.”

Rendon often talks about how access to an affordable education changed his life, and education will stay a large part of his agenda. Having briefly led the California League of Conservation Voters means environment will stay front and center.

He helped pass the 2014 water bond in the Legislature and that, coupled with oversight hearings convened under his stewardship, are some of his most notable legislative bona fides, although he said he won’t be carrying any bills on his own as speaker.

“Instead, much of my energy will be spent helping the Assembly operate with as much efficiency and collegiality as possible,” Rendon said.

And with modified term limits in place, Rendon has the opportunity to stay atop the Assembly until he’s termed out in 2024, which would be longer than all but one of his predecessors.

Latinos

Having Latinos atop the two chambers of the Legislature gives them the opportunity to focus on issues like poverty, education and affordable housing in a way that at times could rankle those who want to protect the status quo.

For example, unions can be resistant to new ideas in education. Environmentalists (and politically-connected NIMBYs of all parties) aren’t always supportive of the development that builds affordable housing and creates jobs largely filled by Latinos.

“Now that you’re in control, you actually have the power to move the agenda forward with a more Latino agenda, which is not always the agenda of the Democratic Party,” said Mike Madrid, a Republican consultant who specializes in Latino issues and has a close relationship with both Rendon and de León, as well as other members of the Latino Legislative Caucus.

While Rendon and de León are both strong supporters of environmental policy and unions and won’t be looking to irritate either community, Madrid said he is “optimistic” that the two men have the political savvy to advance a more Latino-focused agenda that may challenge the status quo.

“I think it’s a fascinating opportunity,” said Madrid. “And I think there’s going to be a good, robust discussion on what’s in the best interest of the Latino community.”

Republicans

Perhaps the biggest mark of change will be to see how Rendon works with Republicans, who have nearly no structural power in the Capitol. Of course, he has little need for Republican support as Democrats have such a commanding majority in the Assembly.

But when asked by reporters about working with Republicans, Rendon mentioned oversight hearings, working with Asm. Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, in the Utilities and Commerce Committee and with Asm. Frank Bigelow, R-O’Neals, in the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee in asking “tough questions.”

Rendon highlighted a common desire with Republican Leader Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley to tackle poverty, and mentioned the 2014 water bond, which Rendon steered through the Legislature before heading to voters on the ballot, as evidence of bipartisanship.

“It’s important to remember it was not a one-party victory or one-party vote,” Rendon said. “It was clearly a bipartisan effort, so those are the types of things we’ll continue to work on.”

Earlier this year, in an unconventional and not entirely popular move, Mayes helped nominate Rendon for speaker at Rendon’s request, which also signaled inclusivity.

“That’s a sign that he intends to run the state Assembly as a place for adults,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a professor of American politics at Claremont McKenna College. “There will be plenty of debate and disagreement on policy, but there is a good chance that he will be able to curb personal conflicts. It will be a very un-Trump-like Assembly.”

The bill would require any legislator who triggers a special election to use campaign funds to pay for the special election, and any leftovers would be donated to charity. Certain instances, like medical or family emergencies, could allow for an exception.

Asm. Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, introduced the bill in response to a constituent’s concern following the resignation late last year of former Asm. Henry T. Perea, who stepped down to take a job lobbying for the pharmaceutical industry.

Where The Money Goes

Henry Perea

The special election to replace Perea, a Fresno Democrat, is estimated to cost taxpayers as much as $675,000, according to the Fresno Bee, while Perea still had $800,000 in his campaign account as of the most recent filing.

Existing law allows for legislators to put campaign funds towards the cost of the special election, but does not require it.

Instead of giving money back to the county after announcing his resignation on Dec. 1, Perea gave $35,200 to the California Democratic Party; $2,000 to Asm. Cheryl R. Brown, D-San Bernardino; and $2,000 to Asm. Mike A. Gipson, D-Carson.

Perea also paid $750 for a holiday luncheon for 13 staff members and himself. A few days later he paid $186.35 for another holiday lunch for himself and six staffers. But as of the year-end campaign finance filing, no money went to the county to help pay for the election on April 5.

When drafting the legislation, Patterson also had in mind former state Sen. Michael Rubio, a Bakersfield Democrat, who stepped down from office in 2013 for a government affairs position with Chevron Corp. On his way out the door, Rubio made several contributions to other lawmakers, including $5,000 to Perea.