One of Gavin Newsom’s first acts after taking office as governor in January was to create a “DMV Reinvention Strike Team” to improve the performance of the state Department of Motor Vehicles.

This came after one of the worst years a state agency has had in recent history. In August 2018, CalWatchdog and many other news outlets reported that wait times were nearly 50 percent longer at DMV offices than the previous summer. The problem was blamed on a heavy increase in visits caused by the federal 2005 Real ID Act. It requires Californians to have either passports or new federal ID cards before they can take commercial flights starting in October 2020. The DMV is the agency that issues the Real IDs.

A month later, another scandal emerged, with thousands of thousands of voters reporting errors in their political party affiliation due to mistakes made in the DMV’s new “motor voter” automatic registration program, which began in April 2018. An audit released in August of this year found the problem was far worse than initially believed, with more than a quarter-million errors in registration in the first five months of the program – 83,684 duplicate voter registrations and 171,145 DMV records with inconsistencies on party membership.

Newsom’s “strike team” issued its report in July on what it had done to fix the agency and said internal data showed a reduction in wait teams of 58 minutes over the previous summer. Two weeks ago, the DMV issued a statement saying that wait times had continued to decline and averaged 38 minutes in September. 

But now the DMV’s other 2018 problem has re-emerged with reports in Northern California of pervasive errors in motor voter registrations, prompting Republican lawmakers to renew their call to put the program on hold until its flaws are comprehensively fixed.

At least 600 complaints so far; number could soar

“At least 600 Californians, including lifelong Republicans and Democrats, have had their voter registration unexpectedly changed, and several county elections officials are pinning much of the blame on the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles,” the Sacramento Bee reported. The daughter of California Senate Republican Leader Shannon Grove of Bakersfield, who had recently used a Sacramento County DMV office, was among those affected. Grove is a leading critic of motor voter.

Sacramento CBS 13’s news team reported at least 300 apparent complaints in Santa Clara County, nearly 200 in Sacramento County and at least 100 in Shasta County.

Reports noted that it’s possible that some of the mistakes were made by voters themselves not used to election services at DMV and that some voters may have misremembered what party status they had chosen previously. But as CBS 13 reported, problems appeared to be turning up in every county as soon as registrars began sending out voter notifications related to the March primary. With El Dorado County sending out notifications last Friday and dozens of counties doing so in coming weeks, the dimensions of the problem could be far bigger than initially assumed – just like last year.

Oregon, which introduced its version of motor voter in January 2016, has had far fewer problems.

Californians can check how they are presently registered at https://voterstatus.sos.ca.gov/ and they can change their status if needed at https://registertovote.ca.gov/.

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. 

With a little luck at the ballot box, Republicans in the Legislature are set to expand on their increasingly diverse delegation, a far cry from the “Party of Old White Men” it’s been thought of by some for years.

And while Republicans have the primary goal of holding the relatively few seats in the Legislature they already have, increased diversity would show a modernizing party that could expand is electoral appeal. 

“Our party does not engage in the identity politics of the left, but we have placed an emphasis on recruiting and supporting the best candidates for every district,” said CAGOP Vice Chairwoman Harmeet Dhillon. “In our culturally rich state, that candidate is often someone with a minority background.”

Diverse candidates

In a district that includes much of Bakersfield, termed-out Republican Shannon Grove appears set to be replaced by Vince Fong, of Chinese descent. Fong won the primary with 60.8 percent of the vote in the largely Republican district.

Dante Acosta is poised to replace termed-out Republican Scott Wilk in a Republican-leaning district that includes Simi Valley and much of north Los Angeles County.

Acosta, of Mexican descent, came in second in the primary behind Democrat Christy Smith, who won 44.8 percent to 35.9 percent. However, Acosta split a majority of votes among two other Republican candidates.

In a largely Republican Orange County district, termed-out Don Wagner may be replaced by Harry Sidhu, who came to the United States in 1974 from India. Sidhu split a 67 percent majority of the vote among six Republicans and came in second behind the lone Democrat.

Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang, who was born in Taiwan, is running to replace Bob Huff, the only termed-out Senate Republican, in a competitive district that straddles Orange and Los Angeles counties. Chang faces longer odds than the others, as she advanced to the general with two Democratic candidates splitting a 55 percent majority of the vote.

If Chang does win, she’d increase diversity in the Senate Republican caucus. And filling her seat in the Assembly could be Philip Chen, of Chinese descent. Chen, like Acosta and Sidhu, was the second-place finisher in the primary behind a Democrat, splitting the vote with four Republicans in the Republican-leaning district.

“As an immigrant myself, I am proud to see more and more Republican candidates that other Californians with diverse backgrounds can identify with when they visit the polls,” said Dhillon, who was born in India. “This trend increases voter turnout and enthusiasm.”

Does it even matter?

California is a huge state, filled with diverse pockets. It’s often said that as the demographics of the state changed, the Republican Party failed to keep up.

Since becoming CAGOP chairman in 2013, Jim Brulte (along with Dhillon and other party leaders) has tried to change that trend in candidate recruitment. As he said in 2015: “In a neighborhood election, the candidate who most looks like, sounds like, has the shared values and shared experiences of the majority of the people in the neighborhood tends to win.”

In 2014, California Republicans sent a relatively large delegation of women to the Legislature, with a large Asian bloc that included Chang. In 2016, they’ll aim to expand on that with Acosta, Chen, Sidhu, Fong and Chang. 

“Under the leadership of Jim Brulte, California Republicans have done yeoman work in recruiting candidates who look like their constituents,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a Roy P. Crocker professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College. “It’s a smart move: monochrome does not fit California, and in the long run, this strategy could help the party rebuild its strength.”

But, Pitney cautioned, the effect Trump — the presumptive nominee who has a tendency to say things sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly viewed as racist — will have at the top of the GOP ticket is unclear.

“The problem is that people tend to see political parties through the prism of presidential candidates,” Pitney said. “Trump could ruin much of California GOP’s progress.”

But Richard Roth, a Riverside Democrat, has refused every pay increase since being elected to the state Senate in 2012, making $90,526 per year in base salary.

Most members of the California Legislature make $100,113 per year, with leadership drawing checks for as much as $115,129. In fact, Roth is the only senator currently paid below the going rate, although there are several like-minded members of the Assembly.

Roth spokesperson Shrujal Joseph told CalWatchdog that Roth believes he has an obligation to perform his duties at the pay rate voters agreed to when he was elected.

“If fortunate enough to be re-elected, Senator Roth will accept the pay that is in effect then, whether it be higher or lower,” said Joseph.

Members of the Assembly

Fullerton Republican Young Kim is the lowest paid member of the Assembly, earning $95,291 annually. Like Roth, she’s refused every pay increase since being elected in 2014 — including one that passed right before she was elected but came into effect afterwards.

Six other members of the Assembly refused one pay increase, earning $97,197. Four are Republicans: Catharine Baker of San Ramon, Shannon Grove of Bakersfield, David Hadley of Torrance and Tom Lackey of Palmdale. Two are Democrats: Ken Cooley of Rancho Cordova and Jacqui Irwin of Thousand Oaks.

California Citizens Compensation Commission

Pay for legislators, and constitutional officers like governor and attorney general, is determined annually by the California Citizens Compensation Commission, which will meet again on April 27. The CCCC also determines benefits.

The CCCC is a seven-member panel, appointed by the governor, which is supposed to represent different segments of the community and different areas of expertise, including one member with expertise in compensation (like an economist); one representing the general public (like a homemaker/retiree/person of median income); one representing the nonprofit world; one who is an executive at a large CA employer; one who represents small business; and two labor representatives.

According to Tom Dalzell, the CCCC chairman, it’s unclear if another raise will be in order as he hasn’t “begun to think about it,” but noted the sacrifice many legislators make by leaving lucrative careers for public office. And in general, pay is considered one of the biggest lures of top talent.

Dalzell, who is a business manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245 and occupies one of the CCCC’s labor seats, said that in determining whether to increase, freeze or reduce pay, the CCCC considers the state budget, the consumer price index and survey data on local elected officials.

Pay Scale History

California has the highest paid state legislators in the country, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. They are also paid well above the state’s median income of around $61,084.

On the whole, base salary for legislators has increased since 2005. To be more precise, legislators have received six increases, three freezes and two reductions since 2005. To be even more precise, base salary went from $99,000 in 2005 to the $100,113 base salary it is today — after salaries had been frozen between 1999 to 2005.

The two reductions were largely orchestrated by the former chairman Charles Murray, a holdover appointee from the Schwarzenegger administration. Murray stepped down almost a year ago to the day.

The six increases: 2005 – 12 percent increase; 2006 – 2 percent increase; 2007 – 2.75 percent increase; 2013 – 5 percent increase; 2014 – 2 percent increase; 2015 – 3 percent increase.

The two decreases: 2009 – 18 percent reduction; 2012 – 5 percent reduction.

And the three freezes were in 2008, 2010 and 2011.

As readers can probably imagine, the decreases were unpopular in Sacramento. In fact, one former legislator fought a cut — the 18 percent reduction in 2009 that slashed salaries from $116,208 to $95,291 — by appealing to both Brown and the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board.

Neither appeal was successful.

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.

The latest: Kids who enroll in virtual or online charter schools now can continue their studies even if they move out of their original school district. The change idea came from Lance Izumi in his recent book, “Short-Circuited: The Challenges Facing the Online Learning Revolution in California.” Which also was turned into a video with the same title.

Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, read the book and wrote the idea into law as AB 2007, which Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed into law. For the next three years, the bill authorizes online charter schools to claim, for average daily attendance, students who reside “outside of the geographic boundaries in which the school is authorized to operate.”

The law is aimed at students who attend an online charter school in one district, then move out of it. Continuity with curriculum is not broken just because a student moves. Given that these are online programs, the students can be located anywhere.

AB 2007 replaced a similar proposed law from 2013, and this year received bipartisan support.

Izumi is the Koret Senior Fellow in Education Studies and the Senior Director of Education Studies at the Pacific Research Institute, CalWatchDog.com’s parent think tank.

Last week, Grove sent a letter praising “Short-Circuited” to Sally Pipes, PRI’s president. Grove wrote:

“This book opened my eyes to the endless possibilities of online, or virtual, education.  However, it also revealed the cold reality that, as with traditional schools, our state government has placed destructive barriers in the path of these schools, and as a result, is limiting children from reaching their full potential.

“One obstacle explained by Mr. Izumi particularly stuck with me due to its arbitrary and archaic requirements – the law stating that students may only enroll in virtual schools that are based in the county or in an adjacent county to that which the student resides.  Even though nearly all of the instruction is online, this law restricts most California students from enrolling in any given virtual charter school – a restriction not found in other states.

“Thanks to your organization and the diligent work by Mr. Izumi, we are slowly but surely breaking down the barriers to the vast possibilities in online learning.”

Here’s the full text of the letter:

Did a Democratic legislator take labor union money in exchange for a union-sponsored bill? That possibility was raised on the Assembly floor Aug. 28 by Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, in connection with a bill authored by Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, D-West Covina.

Assembly Bill 1897 passed the Assembly and Senate along party lines and is on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk as of Thursday morning. It penalizes businesses that hire labor contractors by making those businesses liable when the contractor violates wage, withholding and workers’ compensation regulations.

The bill is sponsored by the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. The bill exempts labor organizations, apprenticeship programs and hiring halls from the definition of a “labor contractor.” It also exempts state, county, city and special-district governments from the definition of a “client employer.”

Those exemptions rankled Grove.

“The author says this is to protect all employees, it’s to protect these employees that are in low socio-economic, disadvantaged communities,” she said. “But this law exempts all government clients. So if you’re a contractor and you comply with the government and you don’t pay your workers’ comp or you don’t pay your employees, those employees don’t have remedy to come back to the government. It also excludes all collective bargaining agreements. So if you are a union, your employees don’t matter as much as well.

“So that says one of two things. Number one, [Hernandez] doesn’t care if the union and collective bargaining employees are taken care of or that the state employees who are subcontracted are taken care of. Or it’s those entities have enough money to buy their way out of this bill. And last I checked on the Senate, that was against the law and the FBI is investigating. So I would ask for a no vote so that we can keep the improprieties out of this house.”

Gavel

Speaker Emeritus John Pérez, D-Los Angeles, banged his gavel to cut her off.

“I would remind members not to use pejorative terms or impugn the interest and the positions of other members in presenting in favor or in opposition of legislation,” said Pérez. “Ms. Grove, you may proceed on the substance.”

Grove was slightly chastened by the reminder, but repeated her assertion that Hernandez might have been bought off.

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker,” she said. “I wasn’t really trying to target anybody on this house floor. I was just making a point that I would not like to have those integrity issues brought to this house and this floor.

“There’s only two reasons why this is out of this bill. The two reasons are: there was enough money to buy their way out, or that they don’t care about the employees that are contracted to state government or collective bargaining units.

“This is a bad bill for business. It’s a bad bill for government. Every employer that has their own contracts with liability insurance, workers’ comp, and they have their own sets of policies, they should be responsible for the employees that they hire. And you shouldn’t make another person accountable for those issues.”

Campaign

Hernandez’ election campaign, like most if not all California Democratic legislators, is financially supported by labor unions. Four of his top five contributions came from unions in the latest financial reporting: the California State Council of Service Employees ($8,200), the California State Council of Laborers ($6,100), the California State Association of Electrical Workers ($5,000) and the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters ($5,000).

Hernandez  did not address Grove’s allegation in his concluding remarks on the bill:

“This bill focuses on companies that choose to use labor contractors to supply workers to do the usual and customary work of their business. That’s a business decision under this bill that would come with certain responsibilities to ensure that workers are not abused. AB1897 is a reasonable and limited approach to this issue.

“The purpose here is that, if you are using temporary or subcontracted workers to run the functions of your business, you are responsible for certain basic protections. By creating a simple bright-line rule, AB1897 will provide clarity for all parties up front and we believe will reduce litigation. I know that was a concern by my friend [Grove] in the Bakersfield area.

“Legitimate employers and contractors who are trying to play by the rules cannot compete with those unscrupulous operators that try to cheat workers to lower the bottom line and raise the profit margin. This bill will level the playing field and will actually benefit those entities, especially labor contractors, that are above board, play by the rules and bring value to the employer community.

“All this bill will do is make bad contractors go away. This is a critically important measure for the future of our state. I have attempted to address legitimate opposition concerns. We cannot allow the status quo to go any longer.”

Chamber objections

California Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Allan Zaremberg, in a YouTube video released Wednesday, urged California businesses to ask Brown to veto AB1897.

“AB 1897 would expose virtually every employer in the state of California to liability and frivolous litigation for any wage and hour violations that a subcontractor may incur through negligence, through not understanding our complex labor laws in California,” he said.

A CalChamber press release labels the bill a “job killer,” asserting, “This bill unfairly forces one company to essentially ensure the wage and hour obligations and workers’ compensation coverage for the employees of another.

“It will create a significant threat of litigation and liability for California employers who legitimately utilize contracted labor, which will ultimately result in fewer contracts for small, minority-owned businesses, as well as their employees.”

On Aug. 27, five days after being arrested for drunk driving, Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, carried the bill on the Senate floor. He said:

“AB1897 addresses a growing problem in California that is of growing concern and threatens to undermine the middle class. In recent years, we have seen a growing trend across many industries in California that shift what used to be good middle class jobs to a subcontracted employment model. These workers perform the regular work of a business often for years and years and often on the site where the business is located or work through a variety of intermediaries or labor contractors.

“The basic premise of this bill is, if you are an employer that uses a labor contractor to bring workers to your work site and perform the usual course of your business, you will bear some basic level of responsibility for those workers. This is about saving good jobs in California, protecting legitimate employers and helping our middle class grow.”

Exemptions

No one spoke in opposition to the bill on the Senate floor. But in the Assembly, Assemblyman Donald Wagner, R-Irvine, agreed with Grove about the the bill’s exemptions.

“Ask yourself: If this bill is good enough for everybody else, why the carve-out?” he said. “It’s a political deal. It’s a political payoff of some sort. If this is good policy, apply it everywhere. I’d like to see the whole state of California carved out. And you guys can all do that with a no vote on AB1897.”