Rail authority board chairman Dan Richard described the change in plans as being driven by practicality: Having the first segment go from Kern County to San Jose instead of Fresno to Burbank allows the authority more certainty in being able to complete an initial segment. The old plan was for a difficult, partly mountainous 300-mile route costing $31 billion. The new plan is for a flat 250-mile route costing about $20 billion.

This allows for “a transition from planning and initial construction to being able to stand up and say we have federal funding, bond money, cap-and-trade revenue, and that those funds are sufficient for us to build, open and operate the first real high-speed rail leg in California,” Richard said at the news conference announcing the changes.

L.A.-area route risked mass political defections

But there is also evidence that the rail authority feared that if it continued with the original plan, it would face a political Waterloo. The state project had already lost the crucial support of some Los Angeles-area politicians and risked losing far more — starting with state Senate President Kevin de Leon and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon.

In 2014 and 2015, throughout the San Fernando Valley, grass-roots opposition to the state’s planned route built steadily. Some Latino activists said the bullet train’s effects would be so harsh on working-class minority communities that it should be a civil rights issue because the train and its 20-foot-high sound wall would bisect the San Fernando Valley in a way that would disrupt traffic, business patterns, schools, transit and everyday life.

At a May 2015 town-hall meeting, rail authority officials heard impassioned pleas to take their project elsewhere.

“Our community’s history has been riddled with displacement. My family has all its roots here. I want my grandchildren to grow up here, understanding how great a place it is. We like where we live,” testified San Fernando resident Genaro Ayala, according to a Los Angeles Times report.

But at that meeting, Richard downplayed the impacts to the crowd. Lou Correa, a veteran Democratic politician from Orange County appointed to the rail authority board in March 2015, said he detected “NIMBYism” in the complaints. That sparked a furious response from local residents, who said that rich communities used similar tactics to block projects they didn’t like, and that it was outrageous for anyone to suggest opposition was reflexive instead of driven by concern about impacts on their neighborhoods.

This public anger has translated into political support. As CalWatchdog reported last year, many public officials have been sharply critical of much or all of the project. The most prominent initial opponents included Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Burbank, and Rep. Judy Chu, D-El Monte, Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who represents much of the affected part of the county, and San Fernando Mayor Pro Tem Sylvia Ballin and Councilman Jaime Soto. Now the list also includes elected leaders from Sylmar, Santa Clarita, Shadow Hills, Lakeview Terrace and other Valley communities. In December, Assemblywoman Patty Lopez, D-San Fernando, dropped her official support.

Did Rep. Schiff pressure Obama administration?

Schiff is the heavy hitter of the crowd because of his willingness to use his good relationship with the Obama administration to pressure the federal government, the state government’s de facto partner in the high-speed rail project because of $3 billion-plus provided in federal funds and because of the many federal regulatory approvals still needed.

A year ago, for example, he made headlines in the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys when he ripped the National Parks Service for delays in completing promised studies involving the Angeles National Forest. That led the Save Angeles Forest for Everyone group, known as SAFE, to urge Schiff to pressure federal officials to seek changes in the bullet-train route, starting with plans for a mountain tunnel.

It’s not known what, if anything, the veteran Democrat did. But the California High Speed Rail Blog, home to the project’s most ardent defenders, expressed deep concern in January 2015 that Schiff’s opposition to the state’s plans “is going to make it very difficult for such a tunnel to be built. Other Democrats in the state’s congressional delegation will likely defer to Schiff on this, leaving the CHSRA with even fewer allies for a tunnel in the unlikely event they chose that alternative.”

However it came to pass, Schiff got his way, and, for now, his district is safe from disruption.

If he ultimately prevails, he can thank a change in state law to accept late absentee ballots, a bill authored by — state Sen. Lou Correa.

With 100 percent of the precincts reporting, the Santa Ana Democrat is down by just two votes to Republican Andrew Do in the First District Supervisorial race. Orange County Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley estimates there are 6,105 late absentee, provisional and election day ballots left to count — more than enough to flip the result.

Correa also has another ace up his sleeve: those late absentee ballots not yet received by county election officials.

SB29: Correa bill to accept late ballots

For years, state law required that absentee ballots be in the hands of an official “no later than 8 p.m. on election day.” That has meant thousands of ballots that were postmarked on Election Day but delayed in the mail could not be counted.

Effective Jan. 1, 2015, a new state law, Senate Bill 29, took effect that expanded the window of time for receiving late absentee ballots. California became the 12th state to accept late absentee ballots after Election Day. That California bill was authored by Correa.

According to the State Senate’s floor analysis of the bill, the new requirements for a vote-by-mail (VBM) ballot to be considered “timely cast” are:

“If it is received by the voter’s elections official via the United States Postal Service (USPS) or a bona fide private mail delivery company no later than three days after election day and either of the following is satisfied:

“A. The ballot is postmarked or is time stamped or date stamped by a bona fide private mail delivery company on or

“before election day; or,

“B. If the ballot has no postmark, a postmark with no date, or an illegible postmark, the VBM ballot identification envelope is date stamped by the elections official upon receipt of the VBM ballot from the USPS or a bona fide private mail delivery company, and is signed and dated by the voter on or before Election Day.”

Although there was wide-ranging support for the first provision of the law, it’s the second provision, allowing ballots without a postmark, that concerned some state lawmakers and well-respected organizations.

No Postmark: Potential for Voter Fraud

Correa’s bill passed the Senate on a 21-11 vote and the Assembly on a 54-25 vote. Republican lawmakers in both houses echoed the concerns of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association that the bill would increase the chances for voter fraud.

“We sympathize with the author’s desire to ensure that voters are not disenfranchised,” the HJTA wrote in opposition to the bill. “It is over this latter provision that we must oppose the bill. … For instance, a ballot without a postmark leads one to question its legitimacy. How do election officials know it wasn’t filled out after the election?”

Despite that serious question, Gov. Jerry Brown signed Correa’s bill into law on Sept. 26.

Growing Number of Late Ballots

Correa’s bill was inspired by a 2010 incident in Riverside County, where 12,563 absentee ballots were discovered at a local post office after Election Day. At first, the ballots were disqualified. A judge later ordered the ballots be counted.

The change in the law was supported by the California Teachers Association, California Common Cause and California Forward. According to California Forward, “68,000, or 1 percent of all ballots cast by mail in California went uncounted in 2012.”

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, has previously said late absentee ballots are “the number one reason for ballot rejections.” According to the group’s analysis of Orange County’s absentee ballots from the November 2012 general election, 3,362, or 0.6 percent, were not counted in that election. Of those disqualified ballots, 65 percent were due to being too late to count.

A 2012 analysis by Political Data Inc., the state’s leading voting and elections data firm, estimated “that 30,000-plus voters statewide had their ballots invalidated because they were received too late to be counted. Nearly half of these voters were under 30 years old, 14 percent were Asian-American and 17 percent were Latino.”

2007 Special Election Redux

The close special election is the redux of a 2007 special election for the same seat. Eight years ago, Janet Nguyen defeated Trung Nguyen by just seven votes after lawsuits and a recount. According to the Orange County Register, “Janet Nguyen was up by 52 votes on Election Night, Trung Nguyen, 49, was declared the leader by seven votes after late ballots were counted.”

The 2015 race even featured a connected cast of characters. Do, who holds a slim two-vote lead in 2015, served as Janet Nguyen’s chief of staff at the county.

He modeled his campaign on her recent victory to state Senate and even hosted his election-night party at her favorite election-night hangout, Azteca Mexican Restaurant in Garden Grove.

After being termed out as a supervisor, last November Janet Nguyen easily won a seat in the state Senate — ironically taking Correa’s seat.

Widely criticized as an imperfect bill, SB1262 nonetheless mustered support as a good faith attempt to bring order to the chaos unfolding in the wake of the 1996 passage by voters of Proposition 215, which legalized medical marijuana in California. The bill was authored by state Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana.

The language of Prop. 215 included this passage, “To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.”

But “encourage” was not strong enough a word, as little has been done in the past 18 years to implement Prop. 15 in a statewide fashion. Instead, across California’s many municipalities local laws have taken dramatically different approaches to medical pot.

SB1962 at least would have been a start at finally implementing the intent of Prop. 215 for statewide regulation. Instead, the bill was put on hold by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, dashing activists’ hopes until at least next year.

Tangled regulations

Supported by the League of California Cities as well as law enforcement groups, SB1262 would have approached the patchwork regulations that complicate pot law by creating a single state government agency, the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation. As the Sacramento Bee detailed, the bureau would have been established as a branch of the Department of Consumer Affairs. By licensing and standardizing the cultivation, sale and transport of marijuana, proponents hoped the bill would ensure that both medical pot suppliers and police departments would enjoy an increase in predictability and control.

A flurry of amendments, many of which were interpreted as victories for activists, failed to help the bill’s fortunes. The laundry-list character of the adopted changes underscored the challenge of bringing a single set of standards and rules to California’s sprawling and complex marijuana economy.

Among the amendments were provisions that would lift a proposed cap on licensed cultivators, allow applicants with former medical marijuana convictions to obtain licenses and allow applicants to be licensed in multiple categories, including cultivation and distribution.

In a little noticed but significant provision, SB1262 would also permit the nearly $2 billion medical marijuana industry to turn a profit. As the East Bay Express reported, current guidelines, crafted in 2008, required medical pot collectives to “operate as ‘not-for-profit’ enterprises.” The rule has become a legal sticking point in recent years as arrests, raids and prison sentences have depended on charges of “profit-making.”

Despite these potentially controversial details, SB1262 was seen as an improvement on previous legislation. State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, saw his competing bill, AB 1894, fail in the Assembly this May.

Nevertheless, he became a co-author of SB1262, which incorporated key provisions of AB1894. California cops didn’t throw their weight behind Ammiano’s bill. According to Vice News, cops’ cooperation on SB1262 led activists to suspect that law enforcement wanted SB1262 to shape marijuana reform before voters had a chance to consider a ballot initiative to legalize recreational pot use in 2016.

Political jockeying

Sure enough, politicians including Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom have made public their willingness to campaign for a ballot initiative in two years’ time. Andrea Koskey, Newsom’s communications director, told the Huffington Post that Newsom would support a ballot measure that addresses age limits, advertising and “driving under the influence.”

Further details, however, remained somewhat shrouded in calculated uncertainty. Newsom, said Koskey, “doesn’t want to see the drug in the hands of kids,” but listed a series of policy questions “that we don’t have answers to yet,” ranging from taxes and banking to restrictions on public use.

Newsom, who is expected to run for governor in 2018, has been vocal in his opposition to Gov. Jerry Brown on the issue of pot regulation. While Brown has warned that legalizing recreational marijuana would harm Californians’ ability to stay focused and alert, Newsom has countered that the war on drugs has complicated Brown’s struggles to bring California’s prison system into line with a string of harsh federal judicial rebukes. On MSNBC, Newsom said the governor was simply “wrong” on the issue.

The disagreement among top-ranking Democrats indicates the failure of SB 1262 won’t be the last of Sacramento’s efforts to wrangle a marijuana bill that can pass. But the next piece of legislation won’t come from Ammiano or Correa. Both are term limited this year.

Harkey and Wyland are both running for the Orange County/San Diego County/Inland Empire Board of Equalization seat now held by Michelle Steel that is a good bet to remain in GOP hands. It has a slight Republican registration edge. Also expected to run are three Orange County pols: Democratic state Sen. Lou Correa and former GOP state lawmakers Tom Harman and Van Tran.

But the key to understanding Harkey's suit isn't her pending political fight with Wyland. It's her thin-skinnedness, if that's a word. Let's look at some of her dealings with the media that reflect her perception of a world in which she is an unjustly put-upon heroine:

'Totally unfair and extremely biased'

This is from O.C. Register political reporter Martin Wisckol's blog of Oct. 19, 2007:…

“Diane Harkey left me a phone message today (that was Oct. 17), saying the blog was singling her out and posting unflattering photos. You can see the two photos I’ve used of her here.

“I’m not that unphotogenic,” she said. “I think it’s totally unfair and extremely biased.”

Then came Martin's story of March 17, 2009, which showed Harkey had been misleading and inconsistent in describing her involvement with her husband's troubled financial firm.

Victim of 'slander'? Or trapped in denial?

At that time, I interviewed Harkey, who at that point represented a big chunk of northwest San Diego County, for a Union-Tribune editorial that was published March 22, 2009. Here's part of the editorial; the image is from an extensive website on the Harkey scandal:

 “… Her husband, Dan Harkey, runs Point Center Financial, an Aliso Viejo company that lends investors' money to land developers. It is the target of a Securities and Exchange Commission probe. It is also facing a lawsuit from 53 investors who say Dan Harkey used their money for dubious loans – and to fund his wife's rapid rise in Orange County politics. Campaign disclosure firms show Diane Harkey has spent $2.1 million in personal funds since 2004.

“However, the suit presents no evidence for the alleged diversion of money. An aide to Diane Harkey told The Orange County Register last month that the campaign funds came entirely from the wealth she had accumulated in a 30-year banking career. Both Harkeys said she had never worked for Point Center. …

“But a follow-up Register report said Diane Harkey had been listed as a Point Center official in state documents and in campaign disclosure forms for two political donations to other GOP candidates. Harkey's own 'statement of economic interests' said she received more than $100,000 in annual income from a rental property that happens to be Point Center's headquarters. She also appears to be backing away from her claim that she didn't use her husband's money for political purposes.

professional writing service

“Plainly, this matter deserves coverage. Yet in a phone interview, Harkey told us our questions amounted to 'slander'; that news accounts of the mess were all 'libel' written by journalists determined to 'massacre' her family; and that she was the victim of a sexist double-standard.

“Given the holes in her initial story, this is a startling approach for Harkey to take. … If she wants to clear her name, step one is to get out of the denial stage of her grief.”

Routine budget questions an 'unbelievable grilling'

I wrote more about Harkey in a March 23, 2009, blog item for the Union-Tribune:

“How is it possible Harkey managed to get elected to any job, much less the Assembly? She has no conception of her role; of the proper role of the media; or of her responsibilities to the media. I have another example to offer.

“Last fall, the U-T editorial board met with nearly two dozen candidates for state Assembly and Senate seats. I asked every last one how they would balance the state budget and was ready with follow-up questions seeking specifics if they offered vague answers or it's-that-simple Ross Perot-style sophistry. Guess who thought that amounted to unfair treatment? You got it.

“Last week, after I had an unproductive phone interview with her, I wrote Harkey to say I needed to get fuller answers so I could understand her position. Part of her response was to harken back to the candidate interviews: '… you have a personal bias in my case. I recall the unbelievable grilling you gave me when I interviewed with your editorial board.'

“I asked the same questions of everyone, with the same follow-ups to all the evaders. To Diane Harkey, it was an 'unbelievable grilling.'

“Here's the kicker: The U-T ended up endorsing her, and I wrote the editorial! Despite my 'bias'!

“South O.C. and Oceanside, you have my condolences. There doesn't seem to be much of a learning curve on display with your Assembly rep.”

Incumbent Steel probably regrets Harkey endorsement

Four years later, that still seems true. It's just strange for Harkey to think her scandal isn't fair game for her political rivals; that the amazingly personal details in her lawsuit against Wyland will play well; and not to realize that her lawsuit has put a vast spotlight on Wyland's remarks that might otherwise have been largely ignored.

Michelle Steel, the incumbent, also may be regretting endorsing Harkey on Sept. 5.

By John Seiler

Now is the time for moderate Democrats to step forward. Controlling every statewide office and with supermajorities in both houses of the California Legislature, Dems rule the roost. But unchecked power devours itself.

Steven Greenhut writes on Bloomberg about the problem for the Donkey Party:

“California taxpayers have nothing to fear from the new Democratic supermajorities in the state Assembly and Senate. That’s the assurance we keep hearing from the political class and interest groups in the Golden State, where Republican legislators are now reduced to irrelevancy and Democrats control two-thirds majorities to pass anything they want….

“The deadline for filing new bills for the next state legislative session is a week away, so we will soon see how restrained the Democrats will be. Yet a look at the background of these moderate lawmakers shouldn’t ease high-earners’ concern about rising tax bills in California.

“For instance, Henry Perea, a Fresno Democrat who leads the Assembly Moderate Caucus, has written a bill to increase or extend $2.3 billion in automotive-related fees. This is one of the Democratic majority’s first big maneuvers for the year, with committee hearings expedited….

“At a recent Democratic retreat in Sacramento, the leadership urged a moderate, or at least measured, course, warning legislators that they will be held responsible for anything that goes wrong in California, according to Correa. Reach for the stars, legislators were told, but do so slowly and carefully.

“Republicans would complain that Democratic legislators rushed back to the Capitol and began assembling plans for raising taxes and changing the state constitution. Many of those who will join this session’s new taxing, spending and government-building efforts will call themselves moderates.

“Assembly Republican leader Connie Conway told me that, as she called the new Democrats to welcome them to the Capitol, they all told her they were fiscal moderates. Conservatives won’t hold their breath.”

We’ll soon find out. And if the economy tanks and revenues drop because of all the federal and state tax increases already imposed, as I expect, there likely will be a reflexive action among the supermajority Democrats to increase taxes wherever they can. Their spending constituencies will demand it.

By Chris Reed

Politico reporter Talia Buford had a weekend analysis piece about the environmental movement’s theories on why its sweeping proposals haven’t advanced in Washington. The main thesis:

“The green movement dreams of pushing major bills through Congress on the scale of President Barack Obama’s health care reform law and the immigration overhaul expected to begin next year.

“But those issues enjoy something the green movement does not: wide and deep support across key Democratic groups, including Latinos and African-Americans. …

“The greens say their plight is less dire than the GOP’s, insisting that diversity exists in environmentalism, especially at the local level. It’s nationally that environmental organizations — and the face they present to the country — too often drive the perception that green issues are the purview of white liberals.”

Politico deserves credit for noting the fact that leaders of major U.S. environmental groups are whiter than a New Hampshire country club, reflecting their elitist values and wealth. But Buford doesn’t bring up any of the many other obvious factors on why greens and minorities aren’t bosom buddies. The short list:

By John Seiler

Campaign finance “reform” always means one thing: attacking the other guy’s funding sources under the guise of “good government.”

That’s happening with a bill by state Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana, to reveal so-called “dark money” contributions. This is supposed the end the problem from the last campaign of contributions coming from unknown Arizona donors to California initiatives and Republican candidates. Except that it didn’t take long for the donors to be revealed. And the donors are unlikely to repeat their action because they lost on every campaign.

So it’s another typical California charade of a solution seeking a problem. And get this:

“Working with Fair Political Practices Commission staff, Correa has crafted Senate Bill 27, which would apply existing state campaign disclosure laws to nonprofit donations if the nonprofit is less than two years old, gave more than $500,000 in its first contribution to a California-regulated campaign, or has been giving donations to California campaigns in the last calendar year or four previous years.”

So a state bureaucracy cooperated in making its bureaucratic function more powerful. And the “reform” makes California’s already labyrinthine campaign laws even more complicated. Meaning fewer real people — that is, non-government functionaries or campaign consultants — will get involved in the whole mess. The insular Establishment, which in California now exclusively means Democrats like Correa, gains even more power at the expense of the “little guy.”

And free speech rights overall are reduced.

Welcome to clean government!