Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes, R-Yucca Valley, survived

Nevertheless, anger over Mayes’ decision to work with Gov. Jerry Brown last month and lobby fellow Republicans to help secure an extension of the cap-and-trade program established by AB32 – the state’s landmark 2006 anti-climate change law – remains intense among some lawmakers and many conservative activists. Another challenge to Mayes’ leadership is expected at an Aug. 29 caucus at which an election will be held to determine who leads the Assembly GOP.

Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, perhaps Mayes’ most critical colleague over his decision to help Brown round up seven Republican votes for AB398, is running. Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, R-Big Bear Lake, is considered likely to run as well. There’s also been speculation about Assemblyman Vince Fong, R-Bakersfield.

Mayes’ decision to vote for the cap-and-trade renewal, and to work to bring several GOP lawmakers with him, came after weeks of negotiations with the governor. He believed he had won a major concession from Brown and Democratic legislative leaders that could eventually throttle the state’s costly, problem-plagued bullet-train project. Here’s a description from CalWatchdog coverage last month:

The concession ….  places a constitutional amendment drafted by Mayes before state voters in June 2018. If passed, it would lead to a one-time up-and-down vote in the Legislature in 2024 on whether to continue allowing the use of cap-and-trade revenue to fund the project. But the threshold wouldn’t be a simple majority. A two-thirds vote would be required to allow continued use of the funds – presumably giving GOP lawmakers a prime chance to pull the plug.

But the complexity of the concession and its distant possible payoff didn’t enthrall many Republican lawmakers, whose opposition to AB32 is a core element of their political platform. There was also fury that Mayes rounded up so many Republicans that Democrats didn’t have to pressure two of their Assembly members in swing districts to vote for a cap-and-trade extension that is unpopular with their constituents. AB398 passed 55-25, with one vote more than necessary to meet the two-thirds threshold for adoption.

Meanwhile, an argument that Mayes has increasingly made in recent weeks – that AB398 provided state GOPers with a chance to rebrand themselves and broaden their appeal – has faced ridicule from those who say the party’s core values are opposition to higher taxes and overregulation.

State GOP board issues harsh rebuke

Mayes’ rough month continued last Friday, when the board of the state Republican Party voted to urge Mayes to step down. The vote was 13-7, with one abstention. State GOP chair Jim Brulte was among the yes votes.

More than 20 local Republican organizations have also issued formal denunciations of Mayes.

Mayes, 40, has worked as a financial planner. He entered politics on the Yucca Valley Town Council and also worked as a top aide to a San Bernardino County supervisor. He was first elected to the Assembly in 2014.

Proposition 57 — the victorious November ballot measure sponsored by Gov. Jerry Brown — continues to spark controversy over its loose definition of “nonviolent” crimes.

The proposition won easy approval despite harsh criticism from district attorneys around the state. The measure writes into the state Constitution guarantees that those convicted of “nonviolent crimes” can be eligible for early parole if they behave well and take part in rehabilitation programs.

But the measure was crafted rapidly in what critics likened to the judicial version of “gut and amend,” transforming what was originally meant to be a ballot initiative reforming juvenile justice into an expansive measure with far-reaching reform goals. The revision was approved by the California Supreme Court despite a stinging dissent from Justice Ming W. Chin who said failure to subject the measure to normal thorough reviews set a poor precedent and made it more likely to be poorly drafted.

Chin’s point was underscored when it came to the public’s attention through the Brock Turner case in Stanford that under Proposition 57, the former college athlete’s sexually molesting an unconscious female student was considered a “nonviolent” crime — among many sex crimes considered “nonviolent” because of Prop. 57’s reliance on crime category labeling dating back to 1976.

Brown: Trust parole officials to protect public

The governor’s counter was that the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would never prematurely parole someone guilty of a violent sex crime. But many state lawmakers aren’t persuaded, especially given the corrections agency’s history of scandals and problems.

Sen. Patricia Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, wants protections against possible early release of sex criminals and other violent felons written into law. She told the Los Angeles Times she is pushing a bill with that goal in hopes of sparking a public debate on what crimes should be added to the list of those technically considered “violent” by the state, starting with violence against children and police officers.

“If you put yourself in the position of a victim in any one of those crimes, you will say, ‘That was violent because that affected me physically and emotionally,’” Bates told the Times.

Bates isn’t the only lawmaker seeking changes.

Assemblyman Kevin Kiley, R-Roseville, wants cruelty to animals, crimes targeting older people and the kidnapping of children with the intent of using them as prostitutes added to the list.

Assembly members Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, and Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, D-San Diego, want all types of rape involving people incapable of giving consent branded as violent crimes.

There is also likely to be interest in adding assault on a domestic partner to the list.

State budget says no early parole for sex offenders

Brown has dismissed criticism of Prop. 57 in his public comments. But the 2017-18 budget Brown released in January contains a de facto response to critics. It explicitly noted that sex offenders would not be considered for early parole.

That’s still not good enough for many district attorneys, who say parole decisions can be challenged in court because of Prop. 57’s language.

Unless Prop. 57 is revised before the 2018 gubernatorial campaign revs up, it is likely to be an issue in that race.

There are already whistleblower protections in law that shield the state’s executive and judicial employees who report unethical activity, yet legislative staff does not have the same protections from retaliation.

In 2014, Democratic state Sens. Roderick Wright of Inglewood, Leland Yee of San Francisco and Ron Calderon of Montebello, were all suspended without pay after Wright was convicted of felony perjury and election fraud and the other two were brought up on federal corruption charges. 

The bill has passed the Assembly three times, only to die in the Senate Appropriations Committee, which, like the rest of the Legislature, is strongly controlled by Democrats.

“It is clear the Democrats do not want to stand up to corruption,” Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, the bill’s sponsor, said in a statement. “It’s also clear they want to continue to protect one another as their former caucus members prepare to serve prison sentences,” Melendez said.

Women make up more than half of California’s population, but only about one-fourth of the Legislature. 

And in November, that’s unlikely to change too much, according to a CalWatchdog analysis.

While an October surprise, outside factor or just particularly good or bad campaigning could change the course of race that appears to be a sure thing, primary results, incumbency advantages, voting trends and partisan makeup of a district can be useful in making educated guesses.

Currently, out of 120 legislative seats, there are 30 held by women — an additional seat is vacant now, having been held by the late Republican Senator Sharon Runner, who died unexpectedly earlier this month.   

There could be as many as 49 women in the Legislature next year, but it is likely that they’ll hover around the same amount as this year.  

In the Senate, women could have as few as five seats and as many as 13 — realistically, the number will likely be around eight to 10 seats. In the Assembly, women will occupy at least six seats and as many as 36, but that number will likely be somewhere between 15 and 24 seats. 

What we know for sure

Republican Senators Jean Fuller, Janet Nguyen, Pat Bates and Democratic Senators Connie Leyva and Holly Mitchell are not up for re-election and will definitely be returning next year, as the Senate is on staggered four-year terms.

In the Assembly, every seat is up for re-election every two years, although five seats will definitely stay occupied by women — either because the incumbent is running unopposed (or facing a write-in challenge) or because the incumbents are facing another woman in the general election. Those five seats are held by: Democrats Cheryl Brown, Cristina Garcia and Autumn Burke and Republicans Catharine Baker and Young Kim. 

Because of either term limits or the seat being vacated by an incumbent running for another position, eight seats held by women will be replaced by men as no women advanced from the primary in these races. Those are the seats currently held by Republican Assemblywomen Beth Gaines, Kristin Olsen, Shannon Grove and Ling Ling Chang and one Democrat, Toni Atkins, as well as two Democratic senators, Carol Liu and Fran Pavley.

Runner’s Senate seat will also be filled by a man.

There is only one definite pickup: An Assembly seat held by termed-out Democrat Luis Alejo.  

Seats where we likely know the outcome

Again, nothing is guaranteed until the final votes are tallied, but these nine seats are safe bets.

While the Assembly seat of Speaker Emeritus Toni Atkins will be filled with a man as mentioned above, the San Diego Democrat is expected to offset that loss by filling a seat being vacated by a man in the Senate. 

Because of the advantages of incumbency, district voting trends and favorable lopsided primary results, these eight female legislators will likely keep their seats: In the Senate, it’s Democrats Hannah-Beth Jackson (the current chair of the Women’s Caucus) and Cathleen Galgiani, and in the Assembly, it’s Democrats Jacqui Irwin, Susan Talamantes Eggman, Shirley Weber and Lorena Gonzalez with Republicans Melissa Melendez and Marie Waldron.

One female incumbent in trouble 

The only incumbent woman who is on very shaky ground is Democrat Patty Lopez. Lopez finished second in the primary, down 17.2 percentage points to the man she surprisingly knocked out of office in 2014, fellow Democrat Raul Bocanegra.

Best pickup chances

In the race to replace Sen. Mark Leno, who is termed out, Jane Kim led the primary against fellow Democrat Scott Wiener 45.3 percent to 45.1 percent. It’s obviously a close race, but it is a good chance for a woman to pick up a seat.

In a less competitive race, Democrat Cecilia Aguiar-Curry finished first in the primary against Republican Charlie Schaupp in a heavily Democratic district to replace Assemblyman Bill Dodd, D-Napa, who is running for Senate.

Democrat S. Monique Limón finished the primary with a formidable lead against Edward Fuller, who claims no party preference, 65.9 percent t0 34.1 percent. If elected, Limón would replace Democratic Assemblyman Das Williams. 

In the race to replace termed-out, Democratic Assemblyman Roger Hernandez — who is currently under a three-year restraining order for alleged domestic violence — Blanca Rubio appears likely to win. Rubio, a Democrat, will face Republican Cory Ellenson in a heavily-Democratic district.

Two wildcards 

Two seats where women have decent chances to pickup seats, although the odds are slightly tipped against them, are the Senate races to replace termed-out Republican Bob Huff and incumbent Democrat Jim Beall.

Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang saw an opening in the Huff race and decided to vacate her Assembly seat after only one term. However, she finished the primary with only 44 percent, with two Democrats splitting the 56 percent majority. 

Beall is being challenged by Assemblywoman Nora Campos, a fellow Democrat. Beall narrowly missed a majority in the primary, topping Campos by 22.5 percentage points. Campos is considered the business-friendly candidate, so she’ll have to use that to draw upon Republican support to top Beall.

Toss ups

There are approximately 11 races that look as though they could go either way, with four being vacated by termed-out women. Another four are against male incumbents: Republicans Marc Steinorth, Eric Linder and Travis Allen and Democrat Miguel Santiago.  

Looking for October surprises

And there are 11 other races where women are challenging male incumbents, although these races do not appear as though they’ll be too competitive. 

Although Amy Lindsay, the actress, has appeared in a long list of movies with erotic titles, she’s also a Christian conservative and Republican voter, and Cruz — a U.S. senator from Texas — shouldn’t be turning away supporters, said Melendez.

“Neither Ted Cruz, nor any other presidential candidate, can afford to go and only try and attract the purest supporters out there,” said the Lake Elsinore Republican, noting that Lindsay earns a living legally. “That’s not America. America is made up of everyone, from porn stars to doctors to grave diggers to truckers. As a candidate, you can’t go cherry picking your supporters or you’ll lose.”

Melendez said the Cruz campaign’s decision to pull the ad was “a little hasty.” She said voters judge and vet candidates on who they are, not who their supporters are. Melendez said she didn’t think what Lindsay did for a living “is any reflection on him.”

According to Buzzfeed, Lindsay — who grew up in Cruz’s hometown of Houston and has a journalism degree from the University of Texas at Austin — is still deciding between supporting Cruz or business magnate Donald Trump, but thought it would have been “cool” for an “open-minded woman” like her to appear in a Cruz campaign video.

Cruz’s campaign contends that Lindsay responded to an open casting call, but didn’t know of her experience at the time and pulled the ad once they became aware.

Melendez added that if Cruz is elected president in November, he will represent everyone in America, including soft-core porn actresses like Lindsay.

Melendez has not yet endorsed in the presidential campaign.

Around 70 state legislators’ offices, plus spokespeople for the governor and lieutenant governor, responded to email requests from CalWatchdog about whether or not their bosses attended the game.

While around 50 offices didn’t respond, there was a clear consensus among those who did. With the exception of Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democratic candidate for governor in 2018, no other lawmakers attended (of those who responded).

Cost Prohibitive

Certainly, many legislators either had no interest in going or were committed elsewhere. But the cost of tickets was likely a factor too. USA Today reported that the average resale ticket price was $4,879, while face value ranged from $500 to $3,000 — from nose bleeds to club seats.

A campaign spokesperson confirmed Newsom — who, between him and his wife, is worth at least $8 million according to 2015 disclosures — paid out-of-pocket for his ticket. But the spokesperson could not say how many tickets were purchased, who Newsom was with and how much the ticket(s) cost.

Watch Those Gifts

To have received tickets as gifts would have been problematic for legislators. According to the Fair Political Practices Commission, the maximum value of a gift from a lobbyist is $10 per month, and the maximum value of a gift in other circumstances is $460 from a single source in a calendar year.

The Capitol still smarts from the Kevin Sloat scandal in 2014, where Sloat, a lobbyist, was fined $133,500 by the FPPC for improperly disclosing — or flat out not disclosing — contributions, which included hundreds of dollars worth of tickets to sporting events. It was so widespread that 37 lawmakers received warning letters from the FPPC.

Enjoying The Game On T.V.

Many offices responded that bosses were back in their district last weekend, attending unrelated events or watching the game at private gatherings.

Asms. Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, and Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, had an emoji-laden debate on Twitter on whether the actual game was better than the halftime show:

@LorenaSGonzalez Haha, you're only saying that because we sacked ur guy 7 times ? (I'll admit halftime was pretty good)

— Melissa Melendez (@asmMelendez) February 8, 2016

The two also squared off on whether during the game was the appropriate time to discuss cheerleader pay. Gonzalez said yes, but Melendez argued the game was more important:

I wonder if these cheerleaders are being paid in accordance with (new) California law? #SB50 #employees

— Lorena Gonzalez (@LorenaSGonzalez) February 7, 2016

How can I get my friend & former cheerleader 2 concentrate on what's most important right now, rooting 4 Broncos MM https://t.co/rVyRxbwLxR

— Melissa Melendez (@asmMelendez) February 7, 2016

According to a spokesperson for the Denver Broncos, their cheerleaders did get paid, although the spokesperson declined to say how much or if it complied with the minimum wage law. A representative from the Carolina Panthers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Assembly Bill 2, authored by Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Salinas, would give local governments the power to create new entities that would have the same legal authority as redevelopment agencies. These new Community Revitalization Investment Authorities would have the power to issue bonds, award sweetheart deals to businesses and “acquire and transfer property subject to eminent domain,” according to the legislative analysis of the bill.

Property rights advocates warn that the bill’s language contains no restrictions on eminent domain and could resurrect the abuses made possible by the Supreme Court’s controversial Kelo decision.

“It brings back the right of governments to exercise eminent domain against some private parties in order to resell their property to other private parties,” cautioned Howard Ahmanson, Jr., a property rights advocate and founder of Fieldstead and Company. “Only new and wealthy suburbs would be potentially spared from ‘redevelopment,’ the lower middle class and poor would not.”

12 Assembly Republicans back redevelopment, unrestricted eminent domain

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. New London that government agencies have the power to seize property for economic development. The decision was widely criticized across the political spectrum and inspired states to pass tougher laws limiting governments’ eminent domain powers. Here in California, the momentum for property rights reached its zenith in 2011, when Gov. Jerry Brown pushed through a plan to end redevelopment as part of his plan to balance the state budget.

Now a decade since Kelo, the horror stories of small businesses being seized to make way for strip malls and condo complexes have faded from public memory. During the state Assembly’s floor debate on the bill, not a single member – Republican or Democrat – spoke in opposition to the bill, which passed by a 63-13 vote.

Surprisingly, a dozen Assembly Republican lawmakers, including Assembly GOP leader Kristin Olsen, joined the Democratic majority in backing the bill. Olsen’s office refused to comment on the bill or explain how the bill fit with the Republican Caucus’ position on property rights. One GOP lawmaker defended her vote by arguing that redevelopment agencies are an important tool for economic development.

“I ran for Assembly to help create jobs,” said Assemblywoman Young Kim, R-Fullerton. “RDAs give us another tool to do just that while turning around poor and disadvantaged areas.”

Redevelopment focused in areas with high unemployment, crime

Under the bill, a Community Revitalization Investment Authority could be created by a city, county or special district if certain conditions are met. The first requirement is that the area have an annual median household income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide median. Additionally, three of the following four conditions must be met:

• Unemployment that is at least 3 percent higher than the statewide median unemployment rate;
• A crime rate that is 5 percet higher than the statewide median crime rate;
• Deteriorated or inadequate infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, water supply, sewer treatment or processing, and parks;
• Deteriorated commercial or residential structures.

“It’s redevelopment with a kinder, gentler twist,” explains Steven Greenhut, the state’s foremost expert on eminent domain and author of the book, Abuse of Power: How the Government Misuses Eminent Domain. “If AB2 passes, agencies will take property by eminent domain and use public dollars to fund private projects. Localities will run up debt without a vote of the public. As always, the plans of residents will give way to the edicts of the planners.”

There’s overwhelming evidence that redevelopment agencies harm small businesses, while failing in their mission to stimulate economies. That’s most evident in the landmark Kelo case, where a Connecticut town offered a corporate welfare package to the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, Inc.

“While Ms. Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other ‘desirable’ elements,” the Wall Street Journal observed in 2009. “Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation.”

Those abuses extended to California’s application of redevelopment, property rights advocates say.

“California has rightly earned the reputation as one of the nation’s largest abusers of eminent domain, given that Redevelopment Agencies routinely abused their power of eminent domain to seize homes, small businesses and places of worship for private development,” wrote the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, the state’s leading property rights group. “Time and time again, these obscure agencies diverted taxpayer dollars from core government programs to finance professional sports arenas, luxury hotels, golf courses and strip malls.”

Alejo: Bill needed to help disadvantaged communities

Nevertheless, supporters of AB2 say that blighted areas are a problem that demand government action.

“There are many areas in the state where the streets are broken and old water and sewer pipes lurk below,” Alejo said of his legislation. “In these areas, businesses do not open up shop. This leads to high unemployment, high crime rates and a hopeless community. This bill will work to tackle issues facing our state’s most disadvantaged communities.”

Several GOP lawmakers that opposed the bill dispute Alejo’s arguments.

“Private property rights are a foundational principle declared by our founding fathers,” said Asm. Scott Wilk, R-Santa Clarita, who opposed the bill. “Eminent domain is used by the government to trample on private property rights and as an individual property owner, there are legal protections in place to prevent government encroachment.”

Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, one of only 13 members to oppose the bill, said that she understands her colleagues interest in redevelopment, but can’t back legislation that undermines property rights.

“Stripping away property rights in the name of economic development isn’t the answer,” said Melendez, a former member of the Lake Elsinore City Council. “I think it has become more fashionable to allow the government to take over instead of allowing the free market to do so.”

Observers on all sides of the political spectrum agree the legislative process in the Golden State is cumbersome and not too rational. To make things a little less unwieldy, Assembly Republican Leader Kristin Olsen has introduced several reform proposals. She said:

“Every time you read the paper, there is another story about bills being passed in the dead of night, politicians in scandal, or ridiculous bills that do nothing to make California a better place to live. We want to restore our constituents’ faith in this institution. That’s why we have introduced a legislative package to modernize state government and make it work for the people.”

Three of the proposals:

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 is by Olsen. It would institute a three-day “print rule,” meaning that’s how long a bill must be in print before it can be voted on. The idea is to end the “gut and amend” process in the waning hours of the Legislature in late August, when bills introduced earlier in the year are completely rewritten, then a vote taken with little or no time for legislators to read the bills.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 is by Assembly member Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield. It would introduce a two-year budget. In odd-numbered years, the Legislature largely would spend all its time enacting a two-year budget. In even-numbered years, it would conduct all other business.

The idea is to focus the Legislature’s attention more intently on the budget, while also making it more future-oriented by extending its vision from one year to the next two years.

House Resolution 14 is by Assembly member Melissa Melendez, R-Murrieta. It would drop the limit on the number of bills a legislator could introduce in a two-year session to 20 from 40.

The Los Angeles Times reported after the Feb. 27 deadline to introduce bills, “Senators introduced 793 bills by Friday, compared with 813 filed in 2013. The Assembly had 1,504 bills filed, an increase from the 1,430 introduced in the lower house in 2013.”

For both houses, that’s a total of 2,297 bills legislators have to consider — before the “gut and amend” process begins in late August. H.R. 14’s idea is to reduce that to a more manageable number.

Olsen says the reforms are not new. And with Republicans in the minority, the reforms are unlikely to go far.

But this is more a part of the Republicans’ statewide effort to become more relevant by being less reactive and more proactive.