Los Angeles congressman tapped for CA attorney general

Good morning. TGIF. The wait (and inane speculation) about who would fill the upcoming attorney general vacancy ended yesterday as Gov. Jerry Brown (kinda) nominated Democratic Congressman Xavier Becerra. 

Becerra, who would need to be confirmed by the Legislature, would fill a vacancy left by Kamala Harris, who was elected to the U.S. Senate last month. The nomination will not be official until Harris resigns.

The move set off a scramble to backfill Becerra’s congressional seat, with former Assembly Speaker John A. Perez announcing his candidacy around an hour later.

The pick breaks up the Bay Area’s stranglehold on statewide offices – only two of the eight statewide elective office holders are from outside the Bay Area. Becerra, from Los Angeles, will be the third.

The pick also ends months of speculation, which at times suggested Brown would pick his wife, Anne Brown Gust (Brown dismissed those rumors). Becerra’s name had not been previously mentioned, which says what about media speculation?

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• Vape tax: “The claims that e-cigarettes are just as much of a health hazard as regular cigarettes and must be heavily taxed has touched off a fight in the public health community. … The issue is coming to the fore in California because of voters’ passage of Proposition 56 last month. It will increase the state tax on a pack of cigarettes from 87 cents to $2.87 and mandates an ‘equivalent’ increase in taxes on e-cigarettes. … It’s not clear yet what ‘equivalent’ means.” CalWatchdog has more. 

• Bullet stamps: “Gun manufacturers have the right to present evidence supporting their claim that technology does not exist to comply with a California law requiring new models of semi-automatic handguns to stamp identifying information on bullet casings, a state appeals court said Thursday,” reports The San Jose Mercury News. 

• Oops: “On Wednesday, [Richmond Mayor Tom Butt] boasted on his popular e-forum that a recent list of ‘Top 12 most dangerous cities in Northern California’ did not include Richmond, which has struggled with high crime for many years, although the rate is nowhere what it was a decade ago. What the mayor failed to mention in his post is that the Richmond Police Department did not even submit its crime figures to the FBI due to a glitch in the crime reporting system that wiped out about 15 months worth of data last year.” The San Jose Mercury News has more. 

• More on Becerra: “California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León on Thursday lauded the appointment of Rep. Xavier Becerra as state attorney general, while a source close to the Senate leader said he has no plans to run for Becerra’s congressional seat when it is vacated.” The Los Angeles Times has more. 

Legislature:

• Back on Monday. 

Gov. Brown: 

• No public events announced. 

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mfleming

New follower: @HLincoln_News

The claims that e-cigarettes are just as much of a health hazard as regular cigarettes and must be heavily taxed has touched off a fight in the public health community. A faction of public health officials has sided with e-cigarette companies and their assertion that e-cigarettes are much less dangerous than cigarettes and can in fact help people break the smoking habit.

The issue is coming to the fore in California because of voters’ passage of Proposition 56 last month. It will increase the state tax on a pack of cigarettes from 87 cents to $2.87 and mandates an “equivalent” increase in taxes on e-cigarettes, which allow users to heat nicotine fluid and inhale nicotine vapor without the tars they ingest when smoking regular cigarettes.

It’s not clear yet what “equivalent” means. State officials are still formulating the levies. But the Associated Press reports e-cigarette makers and distributors believe they will face a huge increase in state taxes that will raise the cost of vaping devices and liquids by more than 60 percent. If that happens, according to the American Vaping Association, it will be cheaper to smoke regular, more dangerous cigarettes in California than to “vape” — even though state taxes on regular cigarettes are going far higher as well.

In the United States, public health authorities, medical doctors and academics are broadly split on e-cigarettes. Some believe that e-cigarettes are so much less harmful that their use by conventional smokers should be encouraged. Some argue that there isn’t nearly enough hard research with which to draw conclusions about the relative healthiness of vaping. And some argue that e-cigarettes’ popularity threatens to undo the huge progress that has been made in reducing nicotine consumption in America over the last 50 years and should be heavily taxed and regulated for that reason alone.

Britain sees vaping as public health tool

These divided views aren’t the norm elsewhere. In California, state health officials issued a 2015 report blasting the emergence of vaping as a common habit, especially among the young. This report may be a factor in state officials’ consideration of heavy taxes for e-cigarettes.

Conversely, in the United Kingdom, physicians have been recommending that vaping be used by cigarette smokers because a massive government study found it is 95 percent healthier and has been a valuable tool for individuals trying to break their conventional smoking habits. These conclusions were released in a 2015 report by Public Health England.

Given that millions of Americans have died of lung cancer caused by smoking cigarettes, this would seem to make the case for vaping’s utility in fighting regular smoking. But many authorities are unpersuaded. Perhaps the most prominent critic of the notion of vaping as a public health tool is Stanton Glantz, a professor of tobacco control at the University of California, San Francisco.

In a 2015 interview with Rolling Stone magazine, Glantz dismissed claims about vaping’s promise with a profanity. He acknowledges that e-cigarettes are healthier than regular cigarettes but sharply questions the British research. “I’ll eat my shoe if that 95 percent figure turns out to be correct five years from now,” he told the magazine.

Glantz says the big picture must not be ignored: “Are there people who have totally made the switch or quit completely because of these? Yes, I believe there are. Terrific. But most are what we call dual users — those who smoke both, often to smoke in places where they can no longer smoke cigarettes. If you’re talking about a smoker using these to inhale more dangerous chemicals, well, that has a net negative effect on public health.”

Proposition 56 takes effect on April 1. It is unclear if state officials will issue a draft proposal on how to tax e-cigarettes and seek public comment or decide rates without such input. The text of the 24-page ballot measure is silent on how the rules should be crafted.

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.

Clinton leads CA by a mile

Good morning. It’s Thursday and in the spirit of getting through to the weekend, we’ll give a quick rundown of today’s news and happenings.

Here’s something that should come as no surprise: Hillary Clinton has twice as much support as Donald Trump in California, according to a new poll. A 26-point lead. The San Francisco Chronicle has more.

But here’s something you may not have known: Hollywood’s stars are often quick to lend their name to causes, but not always so quick to give their money. Of course, some open their wallets. Robert Downey Jr. and his wife each gave $35,000 to Prop. 57, Gov. Jerry Brown’s parole measure. The Sacramento Bee has more.  

One of the most endangered legislative incumbents, Assemblyman David Hadley, R-Torrance, has been ordered by a Sacramento judge to explain why he hasn’t fully cooperated with a political ethics investigation. This South Bay seat is one of a handful that will decide if Democrats get a two-thirds “supermajority” in the legislature. Capital Public Radio has more. 

Speaking of donors, the Bay Area’s Tom Steyer — the largest donor in the country — is now the largest donor to the $2-per-pack tobacco-tax increase after giving $3.5 million to the cause on Tuesday. The potential gubernatorial candidate has now spent $11.3 million on Prop. 56, including in the primary. The Los Angeles Times has more.

And totally unrelated to the election, San Diego’s City Council will consider banning Airbnb and other short-term rentals, reports The San Diego Union-Tribune.

Legislature:

• Gone till December.

Gov. Brown: 

• No public events announced.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @mamaloney