Democrats on verge of supermajority

Good morning! Programming note: Morning Read will go dark Thursday and Friday in honor of Thanksgiving. Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving!

Democrat Josh Newman now has a lead of almost 1,400 votes in the Southern California state Senate seat upon which rests Democrats’ chance of a supermajority in the Legislature.

Newman, a political neophyte, had been running behind Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang since Election Day. But Chang’s lead began slipping away recently. 

On Tuesday, Chang clung to a lead of less than 200 votes. By Wednesday evening, Newman had overtaken Chang, stretching his lead to nearly 1,400 votes.

Chang’s camp is undeterred. A campaign spokesman told CalWatchdog they would wait until “the votes were counted.”

“We never declared victory (while Chang had the lead) and I’m not in the mood to declare defeat,” said Jim Nygren, a campaign consultant for Chang.

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news: 

No transportation deal before new legislators are sworn in: “Speculation over a potential last-minute push on a transportation funding plan ended Tuesday, when Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders declared there would be no lame-duck negotiations this month,” reports the Los Angeles Times.

SEIU Local 1000 to strike on day of swear in: “California’s largest state-employee union announced Tuesday that it will go on strike Dec. 5 in response to what union leaders complain is ‘unlawful conduct and egregious unfair labor practices’ during negotiations for a new contract,” reports The Sacramento Bee. 

Harris’ big accomplishment may fall flat: “Incoming U.S. Senator Kamala Harris is facing an embarrassing end to one of her final high-profile prosecutions as California Attorney General, with a court poised to throw out a string of sex trafficking charges against the operators of adult classifieds site Backpage.com.” Buzzfeed has more. 

Initiative to bring many bond measures before voters fails: “California voters have rejected Proposition 53, a November measure to limit the state’s use of revenue bonds to pay for large public works projects that could have undermined Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed twin water tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.” The Sacramento Bee has more. 

Legislature:

• Gone till December (officially).

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced. 

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mfleming

New follower: @landshark805

Californians voted in ways that would be expected for such a strongly Democratic-leaning electorate, except on the issue of the death penalty. That isn’t too surprising, either, given that Californians — despite their left-of-center tilt — have long been supportive of tough-on-crime measures and have consistently supported the death penalty.

Voters rejected, by 54 percent to 46 percent, Proposition 62, which would have repealed the death penalty and replaced it with life in prison without parole for murderers. They approved, with nearly 51 percent of the vote, the alternative Proposition 66. That measure streamlines the appeals process so the state can more quickly execute death row inmates.

Despite such “toughness,” voters overwhelmingly approved Gov. Jerry Brown’s sentencing-reform measure (Proposition 57) that would allow early release for some felons. There have been some increases in crime rates following the passage in 2014 of Proposition 47 (reducing some drug felonies to misdemeanors), but California voters remain committed to reducing some types of prison sentences.

On Election Day, voters also were strongly supportive of tax and spending measures. They approved, 54 percent to 46 percent, Proposition 51, which authorizes $9 billion in general-obligation bonds to modernize K-12 public schools. State bond measures are not direct tax increases, but they do increase the debt secured by the state’s general fund. That means legislators will have to allocate money to pay the service on the debt. They create pressure for tax hikes, or for spending cuts in other areas.

Voters also approved Proposition 55 by a hefty margin (62 percent to 38 percent), which will extend by 12 years the “temporary” personal-income tax increases included in the tax-raising Proposition 30 from 2012. The increases are applied on earnings of more than $250,000 for single filers and more than $500,000 for joint filers. Voters also agreed to boost the cigarette tax by $2 a pack — and other tobacco and nicotine products by equivalent amounts — by approving Proposition 56.

In a fairly close tally (51 percent to 49 percent), voters rejected Proposition 53, which was opposed by the business community and labor unions and would have subjected major infrastructure projects ($2 billion or more) to a statewide vote if they used revenue bonds. Such bonds are funded by revenues from the project (i.e., tolls) rather than general tax revenues. A variety of local tax increases also passed. California voters have moved a long way from the days of the 1970s-era tax revolt.

On social issues, Californians voted Tuesday in a reliably liberal way, as well. They supported, 63 percent to 37 percent, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s measure (Proposition 63) requiring background checks to purchase ammunition. They rejected an effort, by 8 percentage points, to require actors in adult films to wear condoms. They upheld a controversial new law (Proposition 67) banning grocery stores from handing out those single-use plastic bags and turned back an effort by the plastic-bag industry (Proposition 65) to redirect any bag fees from grocery stores to a state environmental fund. The latter was designed as payback to grocers and grocery unions for their role in the legislative deal that led to the plastic bag ban.

In another victory for liberal activists, voters approved — by an overwhelming 72 percent to 28 percent margin — Proposition 58, which overturns the state’s ban on bilingual education in public schools. That’s an educational program in which immigrant kids are taught largely in their native language. It was largely banned in 1998 by Proposition 227, whose supporters were concerned that native Spanish speakers were not learning English quickly enough. Prop. 58 did not get much attention this year, and its ballot designation suggested that a vote for 58 was a vote for preserving English proficiency.

Voters did, however, OK a significant political-reform measure by a wide margin (64 percent to 36 percent). Proposition 54 requires that the final version of any bill in the state Legislature be available in print for 72 hours, thus eliminating those controversial gut-and-amend bills in which new language is inserted at the last minute without public or media scrutiny. The measure also gives the public expanded rights to record the Legislature.

California voters also joined voters in Massachusetts, Nevada and (probably, based on close results) Maine in legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. Several other states approved medical marijuana – something that’s been legal in California since Proposition 215 passed in 1996. Given California’s immense size, this vote (Proposition 64) is viewed as a massive boost to an already-emerging marijuana industry – and to similar votes in other states in coming elections.

Voters approved Proposition 52, which extends a Medi-Cal hospital fee program that allows the state to collect federal reimbursements. It was backed by most of the state’s political establishment. Also passed was Proposition 59, which was an advisory vote asking whether state officials should support a constitutional amendment overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which invalidated certain limits on campaign spending. This was a largely meaningless initiative, but it garnered 52 percent of the vote.

Finally, voters rejected, 54 percent to 46 percent, a measure (Proposition 61) that would have capped the prices state agencies pay for prescription drugs. Opponents ran an aggressive campaign that no doubt contributed to its failure.

None of this was particular surprising, which is a surprise in and of itself. As the rest of the country defied the predictions, California went along with flow.

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

Prop. 66 caps death penalty appeals at five years. What happens then?

Good morning. Happy Election Day Eve. Hope you had a great weekend. Your Morning Read author had his first persimmon this weekend — yet another reason to like California. 

The election is tomorrow, and one of the closest choices voters will have to make is what to do about the death penalty. There are two competing measures: one speeds up the process while the other would stop it entirely. 

If approved, Prop. 62 would repeal the death penalty and commute the condemned sentences to life without parole. And slightly further down the ballot, Prop. 66 would speed up the process by expanding the number of courts and attorneys able to hear and try death penalty appeals to meet a five-year cap on the appeals process that currently takes decades. (If both measures pass, the highest vote-getter would become law.)

But failure to meet the five-year time frame would not commute the sentence or throw out the appeal, according to the proposed language. So what happens at the five-year mark?

CalWatchdog answers that question. 

In other news:

• The Los Angeles Times points out 10 things voters need to know about Prop. 64, which would legalize recreational pot.

• More bad news for Republicans: “What once was one of the few key minority groups the California GOP could bank on at the polls increasingly trending Democrat and independent. Today young Vietnamese voters are now more likely to register Democrat than your average young Californian.” The Los Angeles Daily News/Calmatters has more. 

• Gov. Jerry Brown is doing his best to down Prop. 53, as one of the measure’s biggest benefactors cries foul, reports Politico. 

• “For Californians who have had enough political intrigue this year, there might not be much of a respite even after Nov. 8 if Kamala Harris wins the race for the U.S. Senate, as most polling suggests. Harris’ current post as California attorney general would become vacant, leaving open one of the state’s most powerful and influential positions for Gov. Jerry Brown to fill through the end of her term in 2018.” The Los Angeles Times has more. 

Legislature:

• Gone till December. 

Gov. Brown: 

• No public events announced. 

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @martinsmallbook

The issue actually is quite simple, even though the political machinations are complex. There are two main types of bonds to finance long-term infrastructure projects. The most common are general-obligation ones, which are repaid through revenues in the state’s general fund. In other words, the money to repay investors comes directly from taxpayers. The California Constitution requires a vote of the people before the state government can take on such debt.

By contrast, revenue bonds are repaid by users of the project. For instance, they typically are used on bridge projects, where users repay the debt by paying tolls, or on water projects, where water ratepayers repay the debt. The state does not require a public vote for these projects. Proposition 53 would require such a vote if the bond amount tops $2 billion. It “applies to any projects that are financed, owned, operated, or managed by the state, or by a joint agency formed between the state” and another agency, according to its official summary.

Opponents believe it could harm the ability of the state – and local joint-powers agencies – to build necessary projects. “Prop. 53 could threaten a wide range of local water projects including storage, desalination, recycling and other vital projects to protect our water supply and access to clean, safe drinking water,” argued the Association of California Water Agencies, in the official ballot argument against the measure. They fear that, say, Northern California voters would not vote to fund a project designed to benefit Southern California water users.

The Banks Pumping Plant looking toward the Bay Delta, where tunnels are planned that could protect fish. Photo courtesy of www.hcn.org

But the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, in its analysis of the measure, explains that “[r]elatively few state projects are likely to be large enough to meet the measure’s $2 billion requirement for voter approval.” Indeed, the only two current projects that could trigger its vote requirement are the $17-billion-plus plan to build twin tunnels underneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to divert water toward Southern California and the governor’s $68-billion high-speed rail project, which could possibly employ the use of revenue bonds, although its current funding is uncertain.

Critics of the measure note it is funded largely by Dino Cortopassi, a retired Stockton-area farmer and opponent of both projects. Supporters say the measure is about controlling the state’s wall of debt, not about stopping any particular project. Cortopassi, for instance, in 2014 sponsored a series of newspaper advertisements across the state (titled, “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!”) accusing state officials of using “deceptive” accounting to hide the size of the state’s debt and unfunded liabilities. The measure is designed to stop state agencies from using this particular form of debt to circumvent a public vote and fund mega-projects.

Even though revenue bonds are funded by user fees, they still often rely on taxpayer dollars, Prop. 53 supporters note. For instance, the revenue bonds that would fund the twin tunnels project would be funded “mostly by rate hikes and property tax increases on water customers,” according to a San Jose Mercury News report. In other words, the “revenue” stream is from higher property taxes and rate hikes on customers. Since those bills are ultimately paid for, in part, by taxpayers, supporters think taxpayers should have a vote. Furthermore, some projects funded by revenue bonds have sought taxpayer help and enjoy some taxpayer subsidies.

The initiative’s opponents say municipalities are not on the hook for these bonds. But supporters argue that, while governments may not legally be required to make good on them if a project fails, they might have little choice but to help pay off the debt, given the impact a failure would have on their community’s overall credit rating.

“Clever legislators and lobbyists have expanded the definition of revenue bonds to apply to many projects that are tough sells,” wrote the Sacramento Bee’s Dan Morain. “No voter wants to spend on prisons, for example. So lawmakers rewrote the law to finance prison construction with revenue bonds.”

Prop. 53 supporters see that as evidence that voters need to close a loophole used by legislators to fund projects without public support. Requiring a vote is not the same thing as stopping a project; supporters simply need to do a good job packaging the project in a way that appeals to voters, who tend to vote in favor of the vast majority of bond-funded projects that come before them anyway, they say.

Opponents point to this element of the LAO report: “(T)here is some uncertainty regarding which projects would be affected. This is because the measure does not define a ‘project.’ As a result, the courts and the state would have to make decisions about what they consider to be a single project.” There’s some question, the LAO continued, about whether a single building would be a project or whether the definition of “project” covers multiple buildings that are part of a complex. These uncertainties could create litigation problems, although supporters say the fear is overblown.

Primarily, supporters see Prop. 53 as a means to rein in runaway levels of debt that plague state government and to put into place a means to at least consult with voters the next time an administration proposes a massive statewide infrastructure project. Opponents fear the measure could hold up important regional projects, as a joint agency has to lobby the entire state to win approval for something that’s fairly local.

There is a third possibility: The bar is so high for triggering a vote that the measure may be much ado about very little. As the LAO explained, “(I)t is unlikely that very many projects would be large enough to be affected by the measure.” On a ballot filled with hot-button issues, such as marijuana legalization and eliminating the death penalty, this one might cause voters to shrug.

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