And while the tributes range in length and tone — one legislator joked (?) about his romantic feelings for Assemblywoman Nora Campos — none were as awkward as the one for termed-out Roger Hernández, who was recently placed under a restraining order from his now-ex-wife and was subsequently stripped of his committee assignments.

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, was the first of around a half dozen Democrats to pay kind words to the West Covina Democrat, whom she had known since election night 2000.

Gonzalez spoke of Hernández’s focus on immigrant communities and low-wage workers.

“This body will miss your work,” Gonzalez said.

Remember when he stole a member’s mic?

Gonzalez opened her remarks with a joke about Hernández’s relationship with Assemblyman Matthew Harper, R-Huntington Beach. Last July, Hernández had security remove Harper’s microphone at a committee hearing on increasing the minimum wage after repeatedly talking over Harper and calling a vote to end debate. Videos suggested that even the clerk and deputies seemed confused by Hernández’s requests.

“Seargents have already turned off Mr. Harper’s microphone, so we’re going to do OK,” Gonzalez said.

Harper declined to speak on Wednesday when jokingly asked.

“Thank you for your wisdom, Mr. Harper,” said Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-South San Francisco, who was presiding.

Proud

Assemblywoman Shirley Weber had the most awkward exchange with Hernández, however, when she said she was “proud” to see how he’d handled himself over the past year.

In April, Hernández was placed under a temporary restraining order from his then-wife, Susan Rubio, after allegations of domestic violence surfaced during divorce proceedings.

Rubio alleged Hernández assaulted her 20 times over a three-year period, detailing eight alleged incidents in court 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.

Hernández has not been charged with a crime but was placed under a three-year restraining order earlier this summer. Hernández has denied the allegations, and even compared Rubio to former Olympic ice skater Tonya Harding, who hired a thug to whack the knee of another skater, Nancy Kerrigan.

It’s not the first time Hernández was in trouble. In 2012, an ex-girlfriend accused him of domestic violence, although charges were never filed. 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 passed away.

“You’ve taken a lot this year,” Weber said. “You’ve taken a lot over the years. And I’m always so proud to see you stand.”

Weber added that she thought of Hernández as courageous on tough issues, a man of “tremendous love and respect” and reiterated her appreciation for his toughness during his personal turmoil. Hernández recently dropped a bid for Congress amid the allegations.

“Many of us struggle with all the issues of life and we crumble as a result of it, but you did not,” Weber said. 

In a statement to CalWatchdog, Rendon, a Paramount Democrat, condemned domestic violence, but said he will not seek action at this time against Hernández, a Democrat from West Covina. 

It was just last month when Rendon announced his leadership team, which included Hernández atop the Labor and Employment Committee, the same leadership role he was in under Rendon’s predecessor, Toni Atkins, D-San Diego. 

“Since the temporary restraining order was filed against Assemblymember Hernández last week, there have been several conversations about what the next steps should be,” Rendon said. “If the allegations are more fully validated, I will be prepared to take further action.”

Calls to step aside

On Thursday, the Democratic chair and vice chair of the women’s caucus, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara and Asm. Cristina Garcia of Bell Gardens, issued a statement calling for Hernández to step down until the matter with his estranged wife, Baldwin Park City Councilwoman Susan Rubio, is resolved.

“In the wake of the serious allegations against Assemblymember Roger Hernández, we believe he should step down from his committee assignments and his position as chair of the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee while his case is pending in court and take a leave of absence,” Jackson and Garcia wrote.

“While a determination is still pending on these most recent allegations and we respect his right to due process, it’s important that the Legislature send a strong and consistent message to victims about our commitment to confronting domestic violence and demonstrate that we take allegations seriously when they occur among one of our own,” Jackson and Garcia added. 

Rendon did not expand on what would constitute “more fully validated,” but no charges have been filed against Hernández. The situation places the new speaker in an awkward position between being cautious and appearing to set a soft behavioral standard for members.

“(Rendon) should have anticipated that such a problem would come up,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a professor of American politics at Claremont McKenna College. “It is not exactly unprecedented for California legislators to face accusations of bad behavior.”

What’s been alleged

Rubio is alleging that Hernández — who is seeking a seat in Congress — pushed, shoved, hit and choked her during their marriage, according to the Los Angeles Times. The couple is 16 months into divorce proceedings.

After an April 5 divorce hearing, Rubio alleges that Hernández “came ‘aggressively’ toward her and began shouting in her face,” prompting her to seek a restraining order. In the filing, Rubio included pictures of a bruised and scratched arm, the Times reported.  

Hernández denied the allegations to the Los Angeles Times on Thursday and other outlets and said he will not take a leave of absence or step aside from committee responsibilities.

Hernández was re-elected to a third and final term in 2014, beating his opponent by 9 points. 

Mostly quiet 

Besides Jackson, Garcia and one Republican assemblyman who has been calling for Hernández to be stripped of his chairmanship since he had security forcibly remove the Republican’s microphone at a committee hearing, other lawmakers have been quiet, as have outside groups.

In a long statement condemning domestic violence, the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence issued a statement of “concern” about the situation, but refused to take a position “(b)ecause the case at hand is open and ongoing, we do not have all the facts and cannot presume the nature of the evidence, nor the legal implications thereof.”

Troubles in the other chamber

Not that long ago, several Democratic senators ran afoul of the law. All were eventually convicted, unlike Hernández, who has not been charged. Although some were removed from leadership roles at the first sign of trouble. 

Sen. Roderick Wright of Inglewood was convicted of multiple voter fraud felonies, according to the Los Angeles Times. During the appeals process, he was removed from his committee chairmanship. 

Sen. Ron Calderon of Bell Gardens was removed from the executive board of the California Latino Legislative Caucus and from his legislative committee assignments after allegations of bribery surfaced. He had not been charged with any crimes at the time, but eventually took a leave of absence after federal corruption charges were filed. 

The apex of trouble was when Sen. Leland Yee of San Francisco was indicted on charges of gun trafficking and public corruption (while in cahoots with a gangster named Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow). Yee was immediately stripped of all of his committee assignments. 

At the time, Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, had had enough. “Every indictment, every arrest, every arraignment and even every suspicion or allegation reflects very poorly on each of us and all of us,” Leno said at the time.

Leno did not respond to requests for comment on Friday about whether those feelings remained and if they applied to Hernández.

History

It’s not the first time Hernández has been accused of wrongdoing. 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. 

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. 

Asm. Roger Hernández speaks on the Assembly floor in 2016. Photo courtesy of member’s office.

Following the news that the wife of Asm. Roger Hernández had filed a temporary restraining order against the West Covina Democrat, a lone colleague was questioning whether he should remain in a leadership position in the Assembly.

It wasn’t the newly chosen Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, whose recently announced leadership team kept Hernández atop the Labor and Employment Committee.

It also wasn’t Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, chair of the California Legislative Women’s Caucus. Nor was it the vice chair, Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, D-Bell Gardens. And it wasn’t Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, one of the most outspoken champions of women’s issues in the Capitol.

Assemblyman Matthew Harper, R-Huntington Beach, went where those lawmakers would not, taking to Twitter Friday to question the lack of action from Assembly Democrats. Harper has been critical of Hernández before, dating back to when Harper was Hernández’s vice chairman on the Labor and Employment Committee.

Why is Hernandez Democrats' choice for Labor Committee Chair? Judge orders TRO. #DomesticViolence https://t.co/SP1Z7JUj8Y #CALEG #AD48 #CA32

— Matthew Harper (@AsmHarper) April 15, 2016

Hernandez’s office did not return requests for comment.

Restraining order

On Thursday, the Los Angeles Times reported that Hernández’s wife, Susan Rubio, a Baldwin Park city council member whom he is divorcing, had obtained a temporary restraining order, alleging a history of violence.

“My wife and I are nearing the completion of a 16 month divorce case,” Hernandez told the Los Angeles Times. “And despite all of the tensions that arise in any difficult situation and negotiation, at no time prior to today has there ever been a suggestion that she would need a restraining order. In fact, just minutes before this alleged incident, we were both in front of a judge with our lawyers and this issue was never raised.”

The temporary restraining order will remain in effect until a hearing in divorce court May 4.

Congressional bid

Hernández is challenging Democratic Congresswoman Grace Napolitano for her seat, as he is termed out. On Friday, he cancelled his campaign kickoff that was scheduled for Saturday.

.@Roger_Hernandez cancels #CA32 campaign kickoff this weekend. Our story on new allegations: https://t.co/pqMKgrDtsG pic.twitter.com/pyXB3TTcV6

— John Myers (@johnmyers) April 15, 2016

Democrats’ response

Jackson, the chair of the California Legislative Women’s Caucus, condemned domestic violence in a statement to CalWatchdog but declined to comment on Hernández.

“The Women’s Caucus takes domestic violence very seriously,” Jackson said. “While I cannot comment on Assemblymember Hernández’s specific situation, we believe our society should not tolerate domestic violence in any form.”

Rendon, Garcia, and Gonzalez did not respond to requests for comment.

In 2012, another woman sought an emergency protective order against Hernández, according to the news reports. At that time, a Baldwin Park councilwoman was demanding his resignation from the legislature.

History with Harper

Harper and Hernández have clashed before. Last July, Hernández had security remove Harper’s microphone at a committee hearing on increasing the minimum wage, after repeatedly talking over Harper’s microphone and calling a vote to close debate. Video suggests that even the clerk and deputies seemed confused by Hernández’s requests.

“Assemblyman Harper asked (then-Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego) for Hernández to be removed last year after the ‘microphone incident,’ instead Harper was removed, not only as vice-chair, but removed from Labor Committee all together,” Harper spokesperson Madeleine Cooper told CalWatchdog on Friday. “With the recent court findings, there is even stronger evidence of the man that Hernández is and yes, he should be removed as chair now more than ever.”

A report issued by the California Center for Jobs & the Economy, sponsored by the California Business Roundtable, using numbers from the census and the American Community Survey, indicates that despite efforts to change attitudes about transportation the old stereotype holds true – Californians love their cars.

“The substantial investments in public transit, bike lanes and other alternative modes have not produced major gains in commuter use,” the report stated.

“Combined, public transit, carpooling and ‘other’ modes dropped from 30.3 percent of total commuters in 1980 to 21.5 percent in 2013 and to 21.1 percent in 2014. In total numbers, use of these three modes increased only 430,000 workers by 2014, while use of single occupant vehicles increased by 5.5 million workers.”

More cars on the road means those roads take a beating, which has led Gov. Jerry Brown to call a special session to deal with funding to fix the roads. While Brown wants tax increases to fix the roads, Republicans in the Legislature are seeking to make sure that money collected for transportation purposes is spent on the roads and not siphoned off for other purposes.

Yesterday, Assemblyman Mathew Harper, R-Huntington Beach, introduced a bill that would give the voters a say in whether gas taxes are increased for the roads. Harking back to the governor’s pledge, made when he began his third term, to seek a vote of the people before taxes are raised, Harper said in a release, “I am proposing we do exactly the same thing here. Letting the people decide what they think about new taxes before we force new taxes upon them is not a revolutionary idea.”

It’s an interesting gambit, moving the tax decision away from the legislators but perhaps breathing life into the gas tax choice given that Republicans seem determined not to give a gas tax measure the necessary votes it needs to pass. When Gov. Brown wanted to put a tax on the ballot for voters to decide soon after he took office in 2011, Republicans would not go along. Are Republicans willing to let voters decide this time? However, a gas tax increase never scores well in polling.

While the issue of funding roads dominates the transportation discussion, the Center’s report argued that the increase in auto travel is tied to another major policy issue in California — the cost of housing.

“The continued growth of single occupant vehicles is fully consistent with the all-too familiar need in California to broaden the geographic search region in order to find housing commensurate with workers’ incomes,” the study stated. “In California, the growing body of land use, energy, CEQA and other regulations affecting housing cost and supply has put both the cost of housing ownership and rents within traditional employment centers out of the reach of many households.”

The solution offered in the report: “Regulatory reform to make housing in the urban centers more affordable for a broader swath of California’s workers.”

While officials try to figure a way to deal with increased volume on the roads, new technology may add to the burden.

Driverless cars might increase the ride-alone phenomenon. If some of the public transit users enjoy the ability to relax or read as they commute, driverless cars would give the same opportunity with the convenience of door-to-door service.

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, author of Assembly Bill 67, argued that it’s simply a matter of economic justice for workers and their families.

“The act seeks to guarantee that employees are fairly and justly compensated for undue hardships associated with working during time that is commonly spent with family on Thanksgiving and Christmas,” she said. “This past November and December millions of Americans sacrificed time with their family on these federally recognized holidays to work for retailers and food outlets like Walmart, Staples, Gap, Starbucks and much more.

“In many cases working shifts that creep into this family time has become mandatory, with threats of being fired if you even take a sick day, which forces workers to make an unfair choice between their economic livelihood and their family. … This is not an exchange for time spent with the family. But there is compensation for having to miss something that’s special. That’s why today as we see more and more stores, more and more retails outlets, more and more restaurants opening up on these days, we want to ensure that the workers that are forced to work on those day are compensated fairly.”

Several women testified about the hardships of working in retail. Julie Fisher works at Macy’s, which she said used to open at midnight on Thanksgiving, then opened at 8 p.m. and now opens at 4 p.m. “It’s an exhausting event,” she said. “And then you turn around and the next day is the Black Friday after Thanksgiving or the day after Christmas.”

Said a woman who has worked for Walmart for four years during which time she said she’s been on strike seven times, “People who work for Walmart, we are the working poor. We need as much help as we possibly can get.”

Constitution

Gonzalez has a law degree and is the first female minority CEO for the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, AFL-CIO. Her testimony included the disparagement of free-market capitalism and chiding the California Chamber of Commerce for opposing the bill on constitutional grounds.

Chamber representative Jennifer Barrera, who also has a law degree, told the committee, “We believe this is a violation of the First Amendment for a lot of business owners who do not recognize Christmas as a holiday, much less as a family holiday, where they will be mandated to either shut down their business or pay their employees double compensation.”

Barrera said that although Thanksgiving and Christmas are government-recognized holidays, private businesses are not required also to recognize those days as holidays. She also pointed out that the trend in state legislation has been toward secularizing religious-based holidays such as the once prevalent “blue laws” that forced businesses to close on Sundays.

“In 2004 New York struck down their blue law as unconstitutional,” she said. “And I quote, ‘In view of the acknowledgment that Sabbath laws are founded in religious beliefs, it’s time to declare all such laws unconstitutional. The substitution of secular concerns, such as protecting mom and pop from being overworked for their earlier concern that the religious nature of the day be observed, does not make the statute in question less reprehensible.’

“Similarly, here it is unconstitutional for the state to be dictating what day is a family day for business owners to recognize and either shut down or pay their employees double compensation.”

However, the 2004 New York case was decided by “a lower-court judge in Brooklyn,” the New York Times reported. So it would have little precedential value in California.

Special holidays

Barrera also cited a 2007 Vanderbilt Law Review article she said concludes the U.S. Supreme Court would deem blue laws to be unconstitutional if they were challenged in court. Those laws amount to state government “dictating to private-sector employers that you have to recognize a special holiday as a family day as aside from any other holiday that the state either recognizes or the federal government recognizes,” she said.

In addition to the constitutional question, she said the Chamber is opposed to AB67 because it:

• Places brick-and-mortar stores at a competitive disadvantage against online retailers that are not required to provide double pay.
• Includes non-hourly, salaried employees, which forces employers to provide double pay for the entire day even if an employee only worked an hour.
• Creates “another litigation opportunity against our employers in California.”

‘War on Christmas’

Gonzalez prefaced her response to the constitutionality argument with a slap at the Chamber.

“I didn’t know that there was in fact, as the other side will often say, that there was a war on Christmas,” she said. “The difference is that it’s being waged by the Chamber of Commerce. So I want to very seriously take on what I think are their ludicrous claims that this in any way violates the First Amendment by way of the Establishment Clause.

“In its letter the Chamber quotes convenient lines from cases, yet ignores the Supreme Court’s generally relied upon test of the Establishment Clause first articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman. The application of the three-prong test from Lemon clearly shows that this law would not violate the Establishment Clause, as the legislation has the secular purpose of promoting the family and increasing pay.

“In no way does it advance or inhibit religion. Unless the Chamber is arguing that it’s a religious principle to force people to work for minimum pay on every day of the year. I don’t think that’s a religious principle. And finally, this in no way is an excessive entanglement of church and state.”

Gonzalez also cited the County of Allegheny v. the ACLU, in which the Supreme Court struck down a crèche display but upheld a menorah display at a county courthouse. She quoted Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s ruling that “as observed in this nation Christmas has a secular as well as religious dimension… [A]nd the celebration of Thanksgiving as a public holiday, despite its religious origins, is now generally understood as a celebration of patriotic values rather than particularly religious beliefs.”

Gonzalez concluded her response by admonishing the Chamber.

“I think there is no case law that suggests this would be violating our First Amendment rights,” she said. “I hope in the future the Chamber will limit its opposition to the merits of the bill, instead of attempting to elicit support based on erroneous readings of the law and misguided arguments about the separation of church and state.

“Or if they prefer to continue down that line of opposition, perhaps they should concede that we pay double time on every single federal holiday. I wouldn’t be opposed to that amendment if they would like to suggest it.”

Response

At that point Barrera asked committee Chairman Roger Hernandez, D-West Covina, “May I respond to those comments since they were directed right at the Chamber of Commerce?”

Hernandez said, “I’m going to defer to my colleagues on that one since I have not given that opportunity on any other bill.”

One of his colleagues, Assemblyman Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, who had the floor and was in the midst of questioning Gonzalez, asked that Barrera be allowed to respond. “There is a request by the Chamber to clarify this,” he said. “I think that’s a reasonable request, and I would like the prerogative of asking the Chamber to respond.”

But Hernandez shot him down, saying, “I’m not going to give you that opportunity at this time.”

Earlier questioning by Assemblyman Matthew Harper, R-Huntington Beach, focused on how the legislation might hurt California businesses. “My understanding is Chief Executive Magazine rated California as the 50th in rank in terms of being able to do business,” he said. “Do you think this would help or hurt our ranking in terms of our employers’ ability to do business in the state of California?”

Gonzalez responded, “I think there was a study that just said in fact we were the best place to do business. So, quite frankly, when you talk about doing business, we want to make sure that our middle and working class folks have expendable income and can actually spend the money in our small business and retail establishments. And this actually helps that.”

Gonzalez discussed her negative view of free-market capitalism when Harper pointed out that many businesses already pay extra for working on holidays as well as provide amenities such as holiday meals for employees.

“They just recognize under the free market that you really need to make sure people are compensated enough to show up,” he said. “Is your thinking that the free market doesn’t meet the ability for employers and employees to make that decision already?”

Reasonable wage

Gonzalez said, “Quite frankly, I don’t think we operate in a free market. If we want to take the NFL as an example, it’s a highly subsidized, so-called nonprofit where the owners are making millions of dollars. And I think they can pay their employees a reasonable wage. And we, unfortunately, have to require what that is.

“If left to its own devices in the free market, we would still have slavery, child labor … and no minimum wage. So no, I think we have very different ideological beliefs about how employers should be dealt with.”

Gonzalez elicited laughter in the chamber when, after Harper finished his questioning and Hernandez called on Patterson, she said with a smile, “Just keep it coming.”

Patterson asked whether her bill might create a slippery slope in which every religious group demands double pay for working on its holidays.

“It may or may not become an issue, Gonzalez said. “But I think we’ve picked the two most compelling holidays and times when traditionally as a country we have slowed down and spent time with our families. Whether or not we celebrate any religious tradition is irrelevant. … So I’m personally less concerned with the rest of the holidays. But I’m also not concerned if somebody in the future wanted to address premium pay for those holidays for hourly employees as well.”

The committee voted 5-2 to approve AB67. It will next be considered by the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

In the wake of an appeals court ruling that defended the constitutionality of tickets issued to motorists caught running red lights, Assemblyman Matthew Harper, R-Huntington Beach, introduced Assembly Bill 1160 to turn them off in the Golden State.

Cities have begun moving away from the unpopular devices, blamed for creating more accidents than they prevented. The cameras spread throughout California as an efficient way for municipalities to raise revenue by ticketing violators. But lawsuits and increased costs imposed by camera companies have discouraged their continued use.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Harper noted his concern with the “Big Brother” aspect of the cameras, which enable cities to police violations with automation, humans checking only later.

The California Court of Appeal ruled against three San Bernardino County plaintiffs who had sued Redflex Traffic Systems, a red-light camera company based in Australia, for violating their constitutional rights as applied to confrontation, due process and probable cause. “The court leaned heavily on the state Supreme Court’s California v. Goldsmith decision from last June, a case that upheld the state evidence code that lawmakers re-wrote to declare automated tickets admissible as evidence,” reported theNewspaper.com.

A big bother

Without constitutional recourse to the cameras’ Big Brother problem, Harper played up the prospect of legislative relief by emphasizing a different problem — the sheer bother the cameras impose on Californians.

“These cameras were put in place to reduce accidents, but are doing the exact opposite of what they were intended for,” he said in a statement. “They are causing dangerous accidents, and taxpayers are shouldering the burden of maintaining them.” Calling the devices a failure “on all fronts,” Harper vowed that AB1160 “will end wasteful spending on an ineffective program and will make our roads safer at the same time.”

Conflicting data

Evidence appeared to be mixed, however. In Bakersfield, police told ABC 23, “In the eight locations red light cameras are installed, crashes have significantly decreased and only a small number of secondary crashes, rear collisions, have been noted.” According to Sgt. Joe Grubbs, the cameras have helped significantly reduce so-called “primary” collisions, such as head-on crashes and broadsides, “across the board.”

An engineering study conducted in 2013 showed primary collisions dropping between 46 and 73 percent at the Bakersfield intersections where red-light cameras were installed. As KBAK and KBFX Eyewitness News observed, so-called “secondary” collisions also decreased up to 63.7 percent at six out of eight intersections. “But at the remaining two locations, the number of secondary collisions went up. At Bernard Street and Oswell Street the increase was 84.2 percent, and secondary collisions went up by 15.5 percent at Coffee Road and Truxtun Avenue.”

A tide of disapproval

Despite the uncertainty surrounding just how unsafe red-light cameras may be, municipalities have had other incentives to drop them. Redflex has unsuccessfully tried to get cities like Davis to pay over $1,000 more per camera and per month to “upgrade” the devices. Facing substantial costs and popular dissatisfaction, cities from Berkeley to Whittier simply have dropped them.

For Jay Beeber, the Golden State’s preeminent anti-red-light-camera activist, the trend is clear. “In California there were about 110 red light camera programs at one time or other,” he said. “Since then, 73 jurisdictions have closed, banned cameras, or are about to close their programs. That leaves 39 continuing programs in California.”

The movement away from red-light cameras indicates one area where California Republicans can earn goodwill with Democrats — many of whom have viewed the cameras as part of a virtual racket used by police departments to cash in on hapless residents.