In fact, most of the larger defeats over the last year or so have been due to intraparty fighting. It was mostly moderate Democrats who last year weakened landmark environmental legislation, SB350. This year, they struck again when they initially killed a measure expanding overtime protections for farmworkers.  

In those instances, the moderates formed a majority with Republicans, which means both share the blame (or praise). But while Republicans often get blamed, the truth is that there aren’t enough Republicans to block most votes. It was Democrats solely who twice sank a Democratic bill expanding parental leave — once by a Democratic majority on a policy committee (possibly due to a grudge) and then a revived version was vetoed by the Democratic governor, Jerry Brown.  

What it takes

Democrats need to flip two seats in the Assembly and one in the Senate to get a supermajority — and it’s possible. With a supermajority, Democrats would have the power to increase taxes, override gubernatorial vetoes (which rarely happens) and change legislative rules without Republican votes.

Most bills require a simple majority, which means Democrats have more than enough votes most of the time. But a united bloc can be elusive in a state as large and diverse as California, where different members have different needs based on their districts.  

“Taxes and rules, that’s about it,” said Steve Maviglio, a prominent Democratic strategist in California. “And it’s rare that either party is a monolith. If Democrats win in competitive districts, they often will get a pass on tough votes anyway.”

They don’t always get a pass though. For example, Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown, an Inland Empire Democrat, faces tremendous opposition from a more liberal opponent in her re-election bid, largely due to votes that have riled environmentalists. Just as the opposing party tries to weed out incumbents in moderate districts, the more ideologically “pure” try to weed out centrists within the party.

The Democratic dividing line

The moderate caucus is mostly people of color, like Assemblywoman Brown. According to Mike Madrid, a Republican consultant who specializes in Latino issues, economic issues will be the dividing line in the Democratic Party — between moderate Democrats of color in blue-collar districts and wealthy, coastal liberals (mostly white and particularly in the Bay Area), who have outsized influence over policy in the state.

For example, the farmworker overtime bill was largely supported by members along the coast, despite most of the farms being inland. The bill was killed in the summer by the Republican/Moderate coaltion, but enough moderates (and one Republican) switched to support in the last days of the legislative session. 

“There’s a growing economic argument that is going to be made as we grow poverty, as income inequality continues to divide, as housing affordability becomes more and more out of reach and as our education program continues to disproportionately hurt kids of color — all of these are major substantive policy issues, which are fundamentally about the economy — there’s a growing disparity between white progressives and moderate Democrats of color,” Madrid said. “That’s going to be the dividing line.”

Bad for Democracy?

If Republicans do get relegated to superminority status, their reduced role could have greater implications for the fate of Democracy. 

“It’s not good for the health of a two-party system, since it marginalizes Republican members of the respective chambers,” said Mark Petracca, chair of the Department of Political Science at UC Irvine. “This marginalization means less buy-in to the policy making process and can result in even greater political polarization.”

Opportunity for Republicans

No matter how many Republicans are left in the Legislature after Tuesday (after all, they may hold or pick up seats as well), there’s an opportunity to regain some influence over policy making. They can work with the moderate Democrats on issues like education reform and economic development and improvement, as the strength of the moderates is proportionate to the size of the Republican caucus. They need each other, at least on certain issues, according to Madrid. 

“But they’re going to have to get out of their ideological box and come up with new and better ideas that address a changing California,” Madrid said of Republicans.

Veto overrides

While a supermajority does give one party in the Legislature the power to override a gubernatorial veto, it’s not likely to happen, at least not while there’s a Democratic governor. According to the One Voter Project, Republicans did propose the last attempted veto override, in 2012, which failed. The last successful override was in 1979, when Jerry Brown was governor the first time.

A bill sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, would have added three members to the South Coast Air Quality Management Board, which regulates air quality in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange counties.

And while that probably seems as dull as watching paint dry to nearly everyone who just read it, the measure had major implications for Republicans, local governments, business interests, environmentalists and residents of the broad district that has some of the most toxic air in the nation.

De Leon introduced the board-packing plan shortly after Republicans engineered a takeover of the board, swinging the focus from environmentalists to business interests. In December, the board disregarded SCAQMD staff recommendations and instead adopted rules on refineries backed by the oil industry, and in March it ousted the the longtime director who had been seen as anti-business.  

Representatives to the board are local city council members and county supervisors, appointed locally. De Leon’s bill would have added three seats to the 13-member board, appointed by the the Senate Rules Committee (which de Leon chairs), the Assembly speaker and the governor.

During floor debate, proponents argued that the measure was about adding diversity to the almost all-white board that had no Latinos, which defies the demographics of the heavily-Latino region. 

“Needless to say, I’m disappointed,” de Leon told CalWatchdog on Thursday. “Any time people of color are excluded from decision-making processes directly tied to their health and wellbeing, fundamental change is needed. This is a textbook example of institutional racism.”

De Leon added that Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, a Republican who also sits on the SCAQMD board, is termed-out and will soon be replaced by “someone far more progressive on the matter,” likely shifting the balance of power back to the environmentalists. 

However, of the current board’s ethnic composition, and the persistent lack of diversity, belies the fact that it’s largely been in Democratic, or environmentalist, control for years. De Leon did not say whether he’d reintroduce similar measures in the future.

Local control

Many opponents of the measure argued that the bill was a power grab by state policy makers at the expense of local control. And the large bloc of Democrats who either voted no or abstained suggest that the matter is not purely partisan.

“State versus local, that’s what this is about,” said Mike Madrid, a GOP strategist who helped devise the SDAQMD takeover. “It happened to be Republicans, but it was a state/local fight.”

But it was still a big win for Republicans, who are steadily slipping in their share of voter registration throughout the state, face the very real possibility of a Democratic supermajority in the Legislature next year and are not considered a consistent threat in any statewide election. For Republicans, local offices are where they can have a policy impact.

And despite several major policy victories for environmentalists, the defeat of the de Leon measure is a big win for the advocates of economic development. 

John Husing, the chief economist of the Inland Empire Economic Partnership, has been studying Southern California’s economy since 1964. His research suggests a correlation between the rise of poverty and the rise of environmental regulations in the state. Husing argues that while the policies have had a positive impact on air quality in the region, the policies are imbalanced in relation to business development and subsequently drive poverty, which affects health. 

“The whole air-quality, green initiative is having detrimental effect on moving people out of poverty and into the middle class,” Husing said of the SCAQMD region and the neighboring central valley.

Environment v. economy

Environmentalists have often said that any job loss associated with these air-quality policies would be offset by job creation in green sectors. However, Husing says statistics say that isn’t true, at least not in areas with high unemployment, like many communities in the SCAQMD.

Citing data from the California Employment Development Department and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Husing said from 2010 to 2016 the U.S. added 836,000 manufacturing jobs, compared to California which added 42,500 — a mere 5.1 percent. While the growth rate is on pace with with the national average, it lags by over 50 percent behind the state’s share of gross state product.

Husing said that the sluggish growth of manufacturing jobs in the state is attributed to three factors: Companies leaving, companies growing beyond the state’s borders and out-of-state companies refusing to grow in the state.

“Whose affected by that? It’s not the companies,” Husing said. “They’re doing fine some place else. It’s workers whose jobs are never created. … So you’re basically cutting off routes to the middle class for those workers.”

The vote

The measure failed just before the stroke of midnight on Wednesday, 30-36. And while it is seen as a victory for Republicans, the measure was largely defeated by the 14 assemblymembers, all Democrats, who didn’t vote.

Those who didn’t vote were Luis Alejo of Watsonville, Joaquin Arambula of Fresno, Kansen Chu of San Jose, Jim Frazier of Oakley, Rich Gordon of Menlo Park, Adam Gray of Merced (who was not present), Kevin Mullin of South San Francisco and Shirley Weber of San Diego. The six who didn’t vote and live in the region were Ian Calderon of Whittier, Eduardo Garcia of Coachella, Mike Gipson of Carson, Roger Hernandez of West Covina, Chris Holden of Pasadena and Patrick O’Donnell of Long Beach.

Sanchez — a Democratic congresswoman from Orange County — is hoping to cobble together enough votes from a mix of Latinos, Republicans, independents and Democrats to carry her past Democratic Attorney General Kamala Harris, the frontrunner.

Harris won first place in the June primary by a wide margin — 40 percent to 19 percent — with the vote split between 34 candidates. Polling released Friday gives a clearer picture of how the two candidates stack up head to head, showing Harris in a comfortable, yet surmountable, lead.

And while the polling suggests Sanchez still faces significant difficulties winning over Republicans, Hugh Hewitt, a popular conservative radio host from Orange County, endorsed her on his show on Thursday, giving Sanchez her second high-profile Republican endorsement since the primary.

Polling

To win, Sanchez will likely need around a third of Democrats, the vast majority of Latinos and more than half of independents and Republicans to cast their ballots for her.

A Field Poll released Friday showed Harris with a 15-point lead (39 percent to 24 percent). The good news for Sanchez was that 22 percent of respondents were undecided, the bad news was that 15 percent — a large portion of which were Republicans — said they’d vote for neither.

Harris led among voters in nearly every category, including among Republicans, independents and Southern California voters (Harris is from the Bay Area).

Sanchez, however, had a strong lead among Latinos, a nice lead among voters ages 18 to 39, and a slight lead among voters making less than $40,000 annually.

Republicans

Perhaps the most troubling data point for Sanchez was the 31 percent of Republicans who said they wouldn’t vote in the Senate race, essentially saying they would just skip over that race on the ballot without one of their own to choose from.

Mike Madrid, a Republican consultant who specializes in Latino issues, said he doubted the Republican undervote will be as “significant as other Democrat demographics” and believes Sanchez has a chance to win in November.

“I think there’s a very real shot,” Madrid said. “Difficult, certainly; but absolutely possible.”

Fragile coalition

Sanchez walks a fine line in appealing to Latinos and Republicans, as the former is increasingly dissatisfied with the latter.

And she can’t veer too far to the right and hope to win a large chunk of Democrats or vice versa. After all, Sanchez is still a partisan Democrat and has strong support from Democratic lawmakers and constituencies, including unions. 

While some Republican insiders have reached out to Sanchez, introducing her to donors and voters behind closed doors, few are willing to make overt displays of support. 

Endorsements

Republicans like Hewitt who have come out in support of Sanchez give cover to other Republicans who may have a tough time voting for a Democrat by finding her to be the moderate candidate, or at least the lesser of two evils.

The Libertarian-leaning Orange County Register Editorial Board endorsed Sanchez during the primary (while Republicans were still in the race), primarily for voting against the Iraq War in 2003, for voting against the PATRIOT ACT (which expanded the federal government’s use of surveillance against U.S. citizens), and for opposing the 2008 bank bailout.

Hewitt called her the more “moderate” of the two candidates and said he would occasionally find consensus with Sanchez in military and defense issues — Sanchez sits on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee. 

“You and I are not going to agree a lot, but occasionally, we’re going to agree on Armed Services and some Defense appropriation issues,” Hewitt told Sanchez on air Thursday. “I’m not going to agree with your opponent ever.”

In June, Richard Riordan, the former Republican Mayor of Los Angeles, endorsed Sanchez for her opposition to the Iraq War and for her ability to work across the partisan aisle to pass legislation. 

Congressional Quarterly recently listed Sanchez as one of the 25 most influential women in Washington, for being a “debate shaper and swing vote.” For the majority of her nearly two decades in Congress, she’s been in the minority party, meaning most accomplishments have been made with an element of compromise.

“I’ve known Loretta Sanchez for many years, she is tough and not afraid to take a stand on important issues,” Riordan said at the time. “(Sanchez) knows how to work with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.”

Sanchez actually used to be a Republican, dating back to high school in Anaheim. But similar to Latinos today repulsed from the Republican Party by its presumptive presidential nominee, Sanchez switched when she heard former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan warn of the “illegal invasion” of Mexicans coming across the country’s southern border, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Uphill climb

Even if Sanchez can unite behind her Republicans, Latinos, independents and leftover Democrats, she still faces an opponent in Harris who has statewide name recognition and the full backing of the Democratic establishment, which in California has so often proven to be enough. 

For every play she makes for one group, she risks alienating voters of another group. Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio said, for example, attacking Harris, the attorney general, as being soft on crime was a decent strategy, but risks losing appeal among progressives.

And despite Sanchez’s moderate profile as a member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Caucus and her independent streak on larger issues, she still has a fairly liberal voting record in the House.

“It’s an uphill climb,” said Maviglio. “What credentials does Loretta Sanchez have to appeal to Republicans? She’s been a partisan Democrat in the House. Is she less liberal than Kamala Harris? Only by a hair. That’s not a convincing argument.”

The high-profile coalition of supporters — which spans the partisan divide with powerful advocacy groups and influential members of both parties — is aiming for a vote in the Assembly next week to block law enforcement from circumventing strict state law by partnering with the federal government in a program called “equitable sharing.”

On the right, Republican consultant Mike Madrid and Shawn Steel, a former chairman of the California Republican Party, are urging Republican support while California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton is working with Democrats. 

It’s uncommon for Madrid, who specializes in Latino issues, to weigh in so heavily on policy issues inside the Capitol. But, as he told CalWatchdog, Senate Bill 443 is a “no-brainer” because it upholds the core Republican values of “not preying on the poor” and the right to due process, and, politically, it could make inroads in minority communities that have been disproportionately affected by the current civil asset forfeiture system.

“If you can’t do this, you don’t have a shot at expanding the base,” Madrid said of Republican lawmakers.

Madrid said Republican lawmakers who opposed the measure lacked a “political backbone” because they are “afraid of offending law enforcement,” which is a historically strong ally on the right. 

Madrid added that Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes has a “unique opportunity” to help the poor, which has been a central theme of the Yucca Valley Republican’s agenda since becoming leader in January.

A Mayes spokesperson on Monday told CalWatchdog he had not announced how he would proceed. Mayes voted against the measure in September.  

Those affected

A report issued this month by the ACLU of California showed 85 percent of proceeds from equitable sharing in California go to law enforcement agencies in communities with a majority of people of color.

The study also reported that the counties with higher per capita seizure rates have below average median household incomes and that the number of California law enforcement agencies participating in the equitable sharing program increased from 200 to 232 over the last two years.

Who cares? Isn’t it just drug dealers?

The program was designed to seize the assets of large criminal enterprises, toppling them in the process — which the law would still allow if SB443 were to pass. But as budgets were cut, law enforcement saw it as a viable revenue stream, and the claims of abuse started piling up.

One notable example was the attempted seizure of a $1.5 million building in Anaheim because the landlord rented space to a medical marijuana dispensary (which was legal in CA).

Another case involved Bob Alexander, who had $10,788 in cash that he was about to use to purchase a car for his daughter before the money was seized in Mendocino County because he had medical marijuana on him (along with the doctor’s recommendation for the marijuana, which was shown to police).

Alexander did get his money back eight months later. No charges were ever filed.

Current law

Current California law already bars the practice of seizing property without a conviction for assets valued at under $25,000, and requires “clear and convincing evidence” of a connection to a crime for assets exceeding $25,000 in value.

Law enforcement can get around that if the seizure is done in coordination with federal law enforcement and 20 percent of the proceeds are kicked up to the federal government. Yet there’s often not even an arrest because federal law doesn’t require it. Instead, there only needs to be suspicion that the property, not necessarily the person, is attached to some criminal activity.

People often get their property back after considerable time and frustration — but sometimes they don’t. So the bill, sponsored by Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, and Asm. David Hadley, R-Torrance, would close that loophole and require a conviction for seizure of assets of any amount. Proponents like Mitchell and others say the practice often violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Support builds

It’s not just Republicans whose support is being whipped. A large share of Assembly Democrats either voted against the measure or just didn’t vote, after nearly unanimous support in the Senate.

Burton — who as a member of the Legislature decades ago and authored the bill that established much of the state’s relatively strict civil asset forfeiture laws—- has been reaching out to Democrats.

“I am especially disheartened and disappointed to learn that the state reforms that I and your predecessors worked so hard to put in place have been cast aside by California law enforcement agencies in favor of less protective federal laws,” Burton wrote last week in a letter to Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount. Rendon voted in favor of the bill in September.

However, Republicans are in a tighter squeeze than Democrats, wedged between law enforcement and limited government intrusion. But the right-leaning Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association gave lawmakers political cover on Monday when it issued a letter of support, pointing to the sharp increase in seizures from the federally-supported equitable sharing program.

“(T)here is also no denying the fact that law enforcement is largely to blame for the situation that SB443 aims to fix,” wrote David Wolfe, legislative director for HJTA. “Rather than use the federal law selectively, they have overplayed their hand.”

Law enforcement’s position

Opponents of the bill argue that law enforcement doesn’t police for profit, and asset seizure is a vital tool used to cripple criminal organizations, partially by funding costly investigations. The California District Attorneys Association claimed the bill would “deny every law enforcement agency in California direct receipt of any forfeited assets.”

“California’s asset forfeiture law will be changed for the worse, and it will cripple the ability of law enforcement to forfeit assets from drug dealers when arrest and incarceration is an incomplete strategy for combating drug trafficking,” Sean Hoffman, CDAA’s director of legislation argued in a letter against SB443.

“Narcotics investigations are costly, and the California asset forfeiture law’s dedication of forfeiture proceeds to the seizing law enforcement agencies speaks to the serious resource needs involved when drug traffickers and their ill-gotten gains are pursued,” Hoffman added.

A CDAA spokesperson on Tuesday said the group was still opposed to the measure, but did not lobby against “inactive” bills, which SB443 is at the moment. 

It’s what Republicans fear and Democrats embrace: How the controversial presumptive nomination of Donald Trump as the GOP’s presidential candidate will affect races further down the ballot.

Democrats are hoping to tie Trump around the necks of Republican candidates throughout the state, particularly among Latino voters who have so far largely rejected Trump in polling — and the ads are just beginning. 

Democratic PACs announced one such ad yesterday for a coastal congressional race, while another ad has been floating around online for an Assembly seat in Los Angeles County. 

Much of Trump’s strength is derived from his “outsider” status — a strong personality untainted by Washington. He’s mastered the art of winning headlines by making brash statements often seen as anti-immigrant and misogynistic. 

But it’s those outlandish comments that may make it hard to paint a fellow member of the GOP with the same brush, absent an endorsement, which neither of the two attacked candidates have done. 

“The problem for them is Trump is not transferable that way,” said Mike Madrid, a Republican consultant who specializes in Latino issues. “No one believes someone is a Trump Republican. Trump’s whole rise is that he’s not a typical Republican nor a typical politician. Very little evidence to suggest this will work.”

Ads

The House Majority PAC and CHC BOLD PAC are spending almost $300,000 in an ad campaign attacking Republican Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian as a Trump-like, anti-immigrant demagogue.

The ad supports Democrat Salud Carbajal. Both men are running to replace the retiring Democratic Congresswoman Lois Capps in a district that runs from Santa Barbara to north of Morro Bay. 

The district is more than one-third Latino, but has a close partisan split — Democrats have 39.79 percent of registered voters to Republicans’ 33.65 percent, with 22.87 percent declining to state. 

In Los Angeles County’s South Bay, former Democratic Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi is trying attacks like www.hadleytrump.com against the man who knocked him out of the Legislature in 2014, Republican David Hadley. Slightly different than the Achadjian ad, Muratsuchi is attacking Hadley for not denouncing Trump.

Hadley won by only 1 percent of the vote in the 21-percent Latino district. Democrats have nearly an 8 percent voter registration advantage, with 22.74 percent declining to state a preference. 

“These ads are exactly what Trump exposes Republicans to in swing districts,” said GOP strategist Rob Stutzman, who launched a campaign to stop a Trump nomination earlier this year. “Hadley’s answer is savvy though. I’m not convinced there’s a huge liability for ‘refusing to denounce’ him in general. But Trump will surely get trounced in (Hadley’s) district.”

Polling

A Field Poll last month showed 83 percent of Latino voters in the state had an unfavorable view of Trump, with even 69 percent of white voters having an unfavorable view (which is the most favorable of all the ethnicities).

And tying a candidate to an unpopular figure is a successful technique, to the extent that it can drive voter turnout. In 1996, President Bill Clinton tied his Republican challenger, Sen. Bob Dole, to former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. The Trump connection will be successful to the extent that it can drive voter turnout. 

“When it comes to motivating Hispanic turnout, Trump is the greatest gift that Democrats could want,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a Roy P. Crocker professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College.

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.”