Pressure is building on University of California President Janet Napolitano after the San Francisco Chronicle obtained two batches of official documents that appeared to show Napolitano was untruthful in her testimony at a joint legislative oversight hearing May 2 at the Capitol.

The focus of the hearing was a scathing audit prepared at the Legislature’s request and released by State Auditor Elaine Howle on April 25. It alleged Napolitano’s office had hid $175 million in reserve funds from the regents and the public while the UC president successfully orchestrated approval of a tuition hike. In her testimony, Napolitano succeeded in raising questions about the fairness of that allegation by asserting that most of the reserve dollars had been committed to worthwhile programs.

But Napolitano’s attempt to explain away Howle’s second most serious allegation – that her aides had interfered with the audit by rewriting comments from individual UC campuses to make them more favorable to Napolitano’s office – has backfired. She denied that there was any attempt to make her office look good and asserted that the remarks were revised to make them accurate and that campuses had sought guidance on how to respond.

The claim seemed shaky to some lawmakers, based on their subsequent questions. Napolitano’s office wasn’t even supposed to have seen the responses – audit officials specifically told UC campus authorities that their responses would be confidential.

But two Chronicle articles in the past week have made Napolitano’s remarks seem not just misleading but deceptive. They laid out how documents and emails from Napolitano’s aides to individual campuses didn’t reflect attempts to correct errors or give guidance. Instead, they sought for the responses to be rewritten to offer more praise for Napolitano’s office – just as Howle’s audit alleged.

7 UC Santa Cruz ratings of Napolitano office upgraded

The first article’s most telling detail was how UC Santa Cruz withdrew its official response after a conversation between Napolitano and Chancellor George Blumenthal.

The second article was based on official emails and documents that laid out Napolitano’s seeming determination to prevent individual campuses from giving Howle any ammunition with which to criticize UC and her office. Last year, Napolitano authorized the release of an unusual 31-page report denouncing a previous Howle audit that criticized UC’s system-wide decision to deny admission over the previous decade to more than 4,000 qualified in-state students in favor of admitting out-of-state and foreign students who pay far higher tuition – thus enabling UC to balance its budget without any belt-tightening.

“The surveys and previously unreleased emails show that administrators at UC Santa Cruz, UC San Diego and UC Irvine removed criticism of Napolitano’s office or upgraded performance ratings in key areas at the direction of Napolitano’s staff,” wrote Chronicle reporter Nanette Asimov. “The interference – including a system-wide conference call conducted by the president’s office to coordinate responses among all campuses – prompted Howle to discard all the results as tainted.”

The second batch of documents indicated why Napolitano may have been particularly perturbed with the responses of UC Santa Cruz officials and why she personally spoke with Blumenthal, the campus’ chancellor, about them.

The Chronicle article noted that after the Office of the President’s intervention, Santa Cruz officials upgraded the ratings they had given Napolitano’s office in seven categories. One “poor” rating was changed to “good.” Three “fair” ratings were changed to “good.” And three “good” ratings were changed to “excellent.”

On Wednesday, Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva called for Napolitano to resign. While several other state lawmakers have been harshly critical of the UC president, the Los Angeles Times reported that Quirk-Silva is the first to specifically say Napolitano must go.

But down the ballot, 10 things stood out.

• Nearly 50,000 people voted for Roger Hernandez, a termed-out Democratic assemblyman from West Covina who had been running for Congress until he suspended his campaign after he was placed under a domestic violence restraining order and was stripped of his committee assignments.

• Congressman Darrell Issa seems to have won re-election. Although it’s still close and the Los Angeles Times had not yet called the race, Issa maintains a nearly 4,000-vote lead over Democrat Doug Applegate. This isn’t noteworthy because Issa was vulnerable and squeaked out a win. It was noteworthy because Issa, the richest member of Congress, wasn’t seen as vulnerable. The Vista Republican, in his 15th year in Congress, has been one of the most high-profile Republicans over the last few years as a constant thorn in the side of the Obama administration. But as national money started flowing to Applegate and an endorsement of Donald Trump appeared to be weighing Issa down, the race tightened.  

• As long as these results hold, Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose, will be the only incumbent in California’s 53-person congressional delegation to lose. Fellow Democrat, Ro Khanna of Fremont, finished what he started in 2014, when he first challenged Honda.

• A reminder that California is not as uniformly progressive as it often seems: Voters upheld the death penalty as the maximum sentence for murder. Even more surprising is that a measure to speed up death penalty appeals is clinging to a two-point lead in the returns.

• Republicans appear to have held their seats in the state Senate, beating back a Democratic supermajority. Everything hinges on a Southern California district that extends from Cypress to West Covina to Chino Hills, where Republican Ling Ling Chang, a sitting assemblywoman, is holding an almost two-point lead over Democrat Josh Newman. 

• But in the Assembly, Republicans lost three seats, dipping below one-third of the chamber. In the Los Angeles South Bay, David Hadley was knocked out by former Democratic Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi. In Orange County, Young Kim trails former Democratic Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva. And in the Inland Empire, Eric Linder is losing to Sabrina Cervantes.

• While no Senate incumbents of either party were defeated, five incumbent Assembly members either lost or trail. That includes the Republicans, Linder, Kim and Quirk-Silva, along with two Democrats who lost intraparty challenges. Cheryl Brown, the Inland Empire incumbent, lost to Eloise Reyes in a proxy war between environmentalists and unions that opposed Brown and Big Oil and charter schools that supported her. In the San Fernando Valley, Patty Lopez was ousted after the Democratic Party endorsed her challenger, former Democratic Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra, who also had major support from outside business interests.

• Orange County, the traditional Republican stronghold, voted for Hillary Clinton for president. According to The Orange County Register, the county hadn’t supported a Democrat for president since the Great Depression. That result reflects a consistent slide in Republican registration in the county, which has persisted for decades.

• Speaking of Orange County, Democratic Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez lost her home county in the U.S. Senate race by 9.6 points. Sanchez has represented Orange County in Congress since she was first elected in 1996.

• And speaking of the U.S. Senate race, more that 1.1 million people sat it out. The race made headlines after the June primary, when no Republicans advanced to the general election — a byproduct of the state’s relatively new primary system where the top two candidates advance regardless of party. Sanchez lost to Attorney General Kamala Harris, a fellow Democrat.

With a supermajority, Democrats would be able to increase taxes, override gubernatorial vetoes and send measures to the ballot without Republican support. Democrats need two seats in the Assembly and one in the Senate in order to hold a supermajority — both chambers are a must.

Holding in the Senate

Around 2 a.m., Republicans were holding their seats in the Senate. The biggest question mark was the Southern California seat held by Bob Huff, the termed-out, former Republican leader. However, Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang led Democrat Josh Newman, 51.6 percent to 46.4.

But Republicans were behind in their best chance to pickup in the Senate, in the seat held by termed-out Sen. Carol Liu, D-La Cañada Flintridge, where Mike Antonovich, a termed-out Los Angeles County supervisor, trailed Democratic former Assemblyman Anthony Portantino by almost nine percentage points.

Losing in the Assembly

In the Assembly, Democrats were ahead in a few competitive interparty races. In the Los Angeles South Bay, Republican Assemblyman David Hadley trailed the man he knocked out of office in 2014, Al Muratsuchi, by almost seven points.

In another rematch from 2014, Young Kim, the Orange County Republican incumbent, trailed Sharon Quirk-Silva by just a few hundred votes. 

Democratic challenger Sabrina Cervantes had a slight, two-point lead over Eric Linder, the Republican incumbent, in this south Inland Empire district.

But some Republican incumbents were holding their ground. In yet another rematch, this time in the Antelope Valley, Republican Assemblyman Tom Lackey led Democrat Steve Fox, who Lackey bested in 2014 by 13 points. 

In San Bernardino County, Republican incumbent Marc Steinorth was pulling away from challenger Abigail Medina, a Democrat. Steinorth led by five points.

And Catharine Baker, the only Republican incumbent in the Legislature from the Bay Area, beat back challenger Cheryl Cook-Kallio by nearly a dozen points to retain her seat.  

The Baker seat was considered a the top target for Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount. In fact, President Barack Obama endorsed Baker’s Democratic challenger, Cook-Kallio, as well as three others: Newman, Medina and Muratsuchi. 

None of these competitive seats were called by the time this story was published, so the results may change. We’ll update accordingly. 

Editor’s Note: This story was originally published on July 19.

Republicans in the state Legislature are thought to have a challenging election cycle this year. The outcome in November will determine whether the GOP has enough seats in the state Assembly and state Senate to maintain relevance in legislative matters.

Many factors are contributing to the angst, not the least of which is that Donald Trump as the GOP nominee is a wild card. No one knows yet how the reality T.V. star and real estate tycoon will affect down-ticket races — although Democrats are anticipating it will drag down GOP candidates. 

Regardless of the top of the ticket, this year looks to be tough for Republicans — who are largely hoping to just hold seats — as presidential election turnouts are generally more favorable to Democrats, when the electorate becomes more diverse. 

Republicans need to keep Democrats from achieving a two-thirds majority in the Assembly and Senate to have a meaningful impact on state lawmaking. Dipping below that line would mean losing their ability to weigh in on tax increases, gubernatorial veto overrides and legislatively-referred constitutional amendments — their last remaining points of legislative leverage.

To stay above a superminority, Republicans can afford to lose only one seat in the Assembly while Senate Republicans can’t afford to lose any.

Adding intrigue is the fact that it’s not just a war between the parties. The relatively new primary system where the top two candidates advance from the primary to the general election regardless of party has pitted some Democrats against each other, largely playing out proxy wars from outside interests. Of course in some races, a few candidates are termed-out of one chamber and aren’t ready to go home just yet.

Here are some of the top races to watch:

In the fight of their lives 

Catharine Baker, an East Bay Area Republican assemblywoman, led the primary 53.2 percent to 46.8 percent over Democrat Cheryl Cook-Kallio, a former Pleasanton City Council member. Baker is a the only Bay Area Republican in the legislature, so her seat is important both functionally and symbolically. 

Baker narrowly won the open seat in 2014 by about three points, and this time should be close too. Democrats in the district have a 10 percent registration advantage, with 24 percent of voters claiming no party preference. 

In one of several rematches, Republican Assemblyman David Hadley faces Democrat Al Muratsuchi, whom Hadley booted from office in 2014 by only 706 votes — or about 0.5 percentage points — in this Los Angeles south bay district.

In the June primary, Hadley received only 44.6 percent of the vote, with Muratsuchi and another Democrat splitting the majority. Democrats in the district enjoy a nine percentage point registration advantage, with 22 percent of voters claiming no party preference. Winning this seat was a major coup for the GOP in 2014, and retaining it would be as well.

Key holds

In the Antelope Valley, Republican Assemblyman Tom Lackey faces a strong challenge from the man he unseated in 2014, Democrat Steve Fox (who used to be a Republican). In 2014, Lackey destroyed Fox by 20 percentage points. But in the June primary, Lackey advanced with only 48.2 percent of the vote; three Democrats split the rest. Democrats have a six percentage point registration advantage with 19 percent of voters claiming no party preference. 

In the north Inland Empire, first-term Republican Assemblyman Marc Steinorth of Rancho Cucamonga finished second of two candidates in the primary behind Democrat Abigail Medina, a San Bernardino City Unified School District board member, trailing by three percentage points. Democrats have a one percentage point registration advantage with 22 percent of voters claiming no party preference.

And in the south Inland Empire, Republican Assemblyman Eric Linder — who is surprisingly supported by the SEIU, a formidable union — got only 45.6 percent of the vote in the primary with the rest split between two Democrats. In the general, Linder faces Democrat Sabrina Cervantes, the district director for Assemblyman Jose Medina. Democrats have a slight, two percentage point registration advantage with 21 percent of voters claiming no party preference.

Former Republican Senate Leader Bob Huff is termed out and Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang is hoping to fill Huff’s seat on the other side of the rotunda. Chang faces Democrat Josh Newman — a political neophyte who runs a non-profit aimed at helping veterans find employment — in this Orange County race.

Despite superior name recognition, Chang — the only Republican in the primary — drew 44 percent, while Newman and another Democrat nearly evenly split the majority. Republicans have a one percentage point registration advantage with 24 percent of voters declining to state a party preference.

Another rematch

Republican Assemblywoman Young Kim faces the woman she knocked off in 2014, Democrat Sharon Quirk-Silva, in this Orange County district.

Last cycle, Kim won by 10 percentage points. But in June, Quirk-Silva led the primary by 8.6 percentage points. And Democrats have a four percentage point registration advantage, with 23 percent of voters claiming no party preference.  

Competitive by chance

The race to replace the late Sen. Sharon Runner — the Republican incumbent from Lancaster — is wide open. Runner passed away in July, but had previously decided against running for re-election for health reasons (her second such decision). Runner won the seat in 2015 in a special election after Steve Knight won a Congressional seat. 

Republican Assemblyman Scott Wilk of Santa Clarita came in first in the primary with 46.7 percent of the vote over Johnathon Levar Ervin, an engineer and Air Force reservist, who drew 33.7 percent of the vote. Among four candidates, the results were almost evenly split with a slight edge to the Republicans, but voter registration in the district is closely split as well. Democrats have a two percentage point registration advantage with 21 percent of voters claiming no party preference. 

Republicans best shot to pickup

What would have otherwise been considered a noncompetitive Senate election to replace termed-out Democrat Carol Liu became competitive when longtime Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich threw his hat in the ring.

Antonovich brings strong name recognition and a vast fundraising network from his more than 40 years in elected office, but he has a tough path forward having only won 39.5 percent of the vote in the primary. The rest of the vote was split among Democratic candidates, with former Assemblyman Anthony Portantino coming in second. Democrats have a 14 percentage point registration advantage with 24 percent of voters declining to state party preference. 

Dems v. Dems and the proxy wars

While this Silicon Valley election featuring two Democrats won’t affect whether or not there’s a supermajority, it may help fortify a group of business-friendly moderates. Incumbent Senator Jim Beall, of the liberal environmentalist ilk, is facing the more business-friendly Nora Campos, who is termed out of the Assembly.

This race is actually one of a few proxy wars between Big Environment vs. Big Oil, which have both spent considerable money in the race. Beall was a hair away from a majority of the vote in the primary.

So far Campos has stuck to the narrative that both Beall and Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, a Beall supporter, have bullied her. Campos said de Leon tried to dissuade her from running (party leaders generally dislike having to spend money and energy protecting incumbents from members of their own party). And Campos said Beall attacked her husband through a third party — as they say, it’s complicated.

A moderate Democrat is under fire in the Inland Empire, as incumbent Cheryl Brown faces attorney Eloise Reyes in this competitive Assembly district. Environmentalists and unions dislike Brown and have already spent big money opposing her through the primary, while Big Oil and charter schools have spent more than a half million dollars in support of Brown.

But surprisingly, word leaked that Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon — a powerful environmentalist — would be endorsing Brown. It’s unclear if this will have any effect on the race. 

In the primary, Brown received 44.1 percent of the vote to Reyes’ 35.6 percent. The Republican challenger received 20 percent of the vote, and how that’s divvied up could decide the race.

But there’s two differences: While releasing tax returns is a time-honored tradition in presidential elections (as is fighting over them), it’s not common for legislative candidates. And unlike Trump, both candidates’ salary information is mostly available online.

The campaign of Sharon Quirk-Silva — the Democrat who Kim knocked out of office in 2014 — said Kim’s refusal to release her tax returns raises questions about her commitment to transparency: What is she hiding?

Of course,  the campaign also concedes it doesn’t necessarily believe Kim’s hiding anything. Matthew Reilly, a Quirk-Silva spokesman, told CalWatchdog that “our politics are being dragged down by people who aren’t on the up and up,” but said he didn’t have much reason to believe Kim isn’t on the “up and up.”

“I don’t know,” Reilly said. “I assume that she is, but I don’t know.”

Quirk-Silva provided five years of tax returns showing her and her husband’s salaries, which were also largely available online because both have been public employees for years.

Reilly did not respond to requests for tax returns from other legislative candidates he works with.

What about Kim?

A spokesman for Kim, Bryan Shroyer, provided only one year of Kim’s tax returns — 2015 — which also showed information that was largely available online — her Assembly salary and benefits.

It also suggested that her husband, Charles Kim, did not draw an income last year, which Shroyer confirmed: “He spent 2015 working as a volunteer for several community organizations.” Charles Kim’s resume, which can be found online, shows years of community activity, with many appointments and volunteer positions. 

“We’re not going to play (Quirk-Silva’s) game,” said Shroyer. “Every tax return would continue to show exactly what is already public record. Her salary, interest earned, and holdings are all listed on her Statement of Economic Interests filed with the secretary of state. This is just silly.”

Prior to coming to the Legislature, Kim worked as a congressional staffer for Republican Congressman Ed Royce — she made around $80,000 working for him in 2013. In between her time with Royce and being elected to the Legislature Kim ran what she previously described as a consulting firm for small businesses, which generated only a little income. 

Ironically, Kim is the lowest paid member of the Assembly, having refused every pay increase since assuming office in 2015.

Why are we even talking about this?

The practice of releasing tax returns in presidential campaigns dates back to 1952 when another famous Orange County resident, Richard Nixon, suggested he’d release his own tax returns to quell concerns about his finances in an effort to stay on Dwight Eisenhower’s presidential ticket.

Although his Democratic opponents released their tax returns, Nixon ultimately did not (at least until four years later). But the practice became common in the early 1970s, and then in 1978, it became required that presidential and vice presidential candidates make public certain financial information. However, while expected, releasing tax returns is still not a requirement. 

“There’s much less history of this in a legislative race,” said Mark Petracca, chair of the Department of Political Science at UC Irvine. “The candidate who asks/demands that an opponent releases his or her returns really has nothing to lose by asking.”

“If the opponent does not release, that can be made into a political issue; if the opponent releases and
there’s something untoward in the filing, that can be made into political hay as well,” Petracca said. “Finally, if the opponent releases and there’s no there there — nothing out of the ordinary — then everyone just moves on.” 

“So it costs nothing to insist that they be released. The burden here falls squarely on the opponent and their calculation about whether they are better off releasing or holding back,” Petracca said.

This seat matters

This is one of the most important races in California this cycle — it will help decide the balance of power in the Legislature. Democrats need to pickup only two Assembly seats and one Senate seat to attain a supermajority, where they would be free to increase taxes, among other things, without Republican input.

This seat will also affect the influence of the women’s caucus by potentially adding another member to the Democratic women’s voting bloc. While Kim is a member of the women’s caucus, the legislative focus of the caucus is often divided along party lines.

Republican lawmakers in swing seats along with party operatives and campaign consultants already are preparing for the challenging task of holding those seats in the 2016 election — when the higher turnout during a presidential year favors Democrats.

“Republicans hold the advantage among high-propensity voters, while Democrat strength is centered in lower-propensity voters,” said Wayne Johnson, one of the state’s top GOP political consultants. “2016 will be a higher turnout election, therefore it is a more favorable environment for Democrats.”

GOP ran efficient 2014 campaign

Following the election, Johnson’s firm, which does work on behalf of Republican legislative campaigns, crunched the numbers on seven competitive legislative races. That analysis found legislative Republicans ran an efficient operation in 2014 that capitalized on the state’s low voter turnout.

“By relying on propensity formulae, the Republican caucuses were far more efficient in their spending,” Johnson said.

Looking ahead to 2016, Republicans will need to be even more efficient in their campaign spending overall. That’s because in 2014 Republicans were aided by a decreased turnout among women and minority voters that traditionally vote for Democrats.

“The Democrat advantage among women and minority voters shrank significantly among those who actually voted in 2014,” pointed out Dr. Val Smith, polling and research director at The Wayne Johnson Agency.

GOP lawmakers work their districts

GOP lawmakers that represent swing seats are aware they’ll need to improve their standing with a broader electorate. That’s why they’ve prioritized working their districts by recognizing community leaders and filling their calendars with community events.

Earlier this month, Assemblyman David Hadley recognized Rosalinda Garcia, an active community volunteer and the chief programs officer for the Pediatric Therapy Network, as the 2015 Woman of the Year for the 66th Assembly District. Later this week, he will host a breakfast meet-and-greet with members of the Harbor City Harbor Gateway Chamber of Commerce in Torrance.

The first-term Republican lawmaker has yet to draw a challenger, but after winning by less than 1 percentage point in 2014, he’ll be one of the Democrats’ top 2016 targets.

OC Rematch: Sharon Quirk-Silva vs. Young Kim

In Orange County, former Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva, who lost by 9 percentage points to Republican Young Kim in 2014, already has announced plans for a 2016 rematch. This past Monday, Quirk-Silva formerly launched her campaign for the 65th Assembly District at a St. Patrick’s Day celebration and fundraiser in Fullerton.

“I have thought seriously about this decision and know that my work for decades in our communities has focused on education, on supporting working families, and on building great communities,” Quirk-Silva posted on Facebook. “I realize the challenge I have ahead of me, but I am ready to work tirelessly to let the voters know that there is a choice in this district, a choice that matters.”

Orange County’s liberal activists relished Quirk-Silva’s announcement and the opportunity to send her back to Sacramento.

“Sharon Quirk-Silva had perhaps the best freshman term of any assembly member who won the 2012 race,” wrote Dan Chmielewski, a blogger at the LiberalOC.com. “Her loss to Young Kim last November was more a result of terrible voter turnout than a reflection on the job she did.”

The 2014 contest was one of the most expensive races in the country, with spending topping $5 million.

Baker benefits from ongoing Democrat Senate special election battle

In the Bay Area, Assemblywoman Catharine Baker, R-Pleasanton, could benefit from a prolonged special election battle for State Senate. Last November, Baker held off Democrat Tim Sbranti by less than 3 percentage points, after a bruising three-way primary battle that included moderate Democrat Steve Glazer. Bad blood from the primary affected voters’ opinion of the Democratic nominee in the general election.

Glazer is currently leading in a special election for the 7th Senate District. As CalWatchdog.com has reported, the race is headed to a run-off, in which Glazer will face off against Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord. That means more nasty campaigning by Democrats in Baker’s area.

Baker has largely risen above the fray and focused on a moderate agenda in Sacramento. She’s helped solidify her reputation as a committed public servant by declining per diem payments and a taxpayer-funded vehicle.

Thus far, no Democrat has filed a statement of intent to challenge Baker in the 16th Assembly District.

The only question remaining: How many seats will Democrats lose in the lower house?

Buoyed by low voter turnout and an effective ground operation, Republicans picked up two Southern California seats and held a slim lead in another Bay Area district, which was considered the top priority of the state’s labor unions. Those pickups, which aren’t expected to change with the counting of late absentee and provisional ballots, would be enough to make up for losing a coastal Ventura County seat currently held by a moderate Republican.

Entering yesterday night, Democrats held 55 seats in the Assembly, compared to 24 seats for Republicans, with one vacant GOP-leaning seat.

From the Bay Area to Los Angeles, the GOP recruited non-traditional candidates to prove the party means business about expanding its base and intends to adapt to the state’s changing demographics. Republican candidates for Assembly posted stronger-than-expected results, with some safe, off-the-radar Democratic seats remaining too-close-to-call for most of Election Night.

Young Kim wins in Orange County

In the 65th Assembly District, Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva, D-Fullerton, lost by double digits to Republican challenger Young Kim, a former congressional aide to Rep. Ed Royce. With 100 percent of precincts reporting, the first-generation Korean American immigrant held a commanding 12-point advantage.

A gracious Quirk-Silva conceded the race late Tuesday night and offered her best wishes to Kim. “We fought hard, we worked hard, but tonight is not our victory,” the former mayor of Fullerton posted on Twitter. “I wish my opponent #YoungKim the best in her new position, congratulations!”

More than $5.2 million had been spent on the race by the candidates, political parties and independent expenditure committees. Although Democrats have a 1.7-point advantage in voter registration, the district is considered a “lean Republican” seat, according to the ATC Partisan Index, which ranks districts based on their competitiveness. Kim performed well among absentee voters and benefited from strong support from thousands of Korean-American voters in the district.

In the 36th Assembly District, Asssemblyman Steve Fox, D-Palmdale, another first-term Democrat, lost reelection by a wide margin. With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Republican challenger Tom Lackey held an impressive 23-point lead in a district that Republicans let slip away in 2012 during late absentee and provisional counting.

This time, Republicans dispatched their top ground operatives to the Los Angeles County-based district to make up for a disastrous 2012 campaign. Fox, who won in 2012 by less than 200 votes, was pummeled this election with damaging mailers that reminded voters of his ongoing legal troubles.

The losses by Quirk-Silva and Fox marked the first time in two decades that a Democratic incumbent has lost reelection to the Legislature, according to GOP political consultant Matt Rexroad.

“1994 was the last time a Democrat incumbent lost to a Republican in CA Legislature,” Rexroad, an award-winning political consultant, tweeted. “Two will lose tonight.”

Parties split open targets

The two parties split a pair of open seats at opposite ends of the state.

In the 16th Assembly District, moderate Republican Catharine Baker, an attorney from Pleasanton, defeated Democrat Tim Sbranti, the mayor of Dublin, by four points with all precincts reporting. It is unlikely that Baker would lose the race with the remaining absentee and provisional ballots left to be counted. Her win will give Republicans enough seats to block the Democrats from reaching a super-majority.

Republicans, who traditionally struggle in the Bay Area, dedicated millions of dollars of their limited campaign funds to the competitive race after a brutal June primary. Aided by millions of dollars in independent expenditures from labor unions, Sbranti was ultimately weighed down by his ties to the unions, especially after a vicious primary against moderate Democrat Steve Glazer.

Other Democratic incumbents in trouble

At least one other Democratic lawmaker remains in danger of losing reelection.

In the 66th Assembly District, Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, was losing to Republican challenger David Hadley by more than 2,000 votes. The South Bay district was expected to be competitive, in part, because of low voter turnout.

Asm. Adam Gray

In the 21st Assembly District, Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced, defeated a late challenge from Republican Jack Mobley. With all precincts reporting, Gray had 52 percent to Mobley’s 48 percent.

Republicans largely ignored Republican Jack Mobley’s challenge to Gray. A moderate Central Valley Democrat, Gray endeared himself to the state’s business community by occasionally delivering pro-business votes on hot-button issues. But the weak incumbent needed more than $310,000 in support from the party to beat back a last-minute campaign push orchestrated by CA GOP Chairman Jim Brulte.

Big upset: Democrat defeats Democrat

The biggest potential upset of the night was in the 39th Assembly District. Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra, D-Pacoima, was losing to unknown Democratic challenger Patty Lopez by 182 votes. However, with late absentee and provisional ballots left to count, that race remains too close to call.

In two other safe Democratic districts, the results were closer than expected.

In the 57th Assembly District, Assemblyman Ian Calderon, D-Whittier, held a slim lead over Republican Rita Topalian. Calderon, the son of former Assemblyman Charles Calderon, was weighed down by corruption charges filed against his uncle, outgoing state Sen. Ron Calderon.

In the nearby 48th Assembly District, Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, D-West Covina, defeated Republican Joe Gardner by single digits.

“I was a surprise win in the last election,” Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva, D-Fullerton, said in a recent interview of her four-point victory over Republican Chris Norby. “And from the moment I won, there has been an effort to take back this seat.”

Quirk-Silva isn’t exactly giving up her seat without a fight.

As of October 18, the first-term Democrat had spent roughly $2.4 million this year to stave off her Republican challenger, Young Kim. To put that number into perspective, the Democratic governor of New Hampshire has spent roughly the same amount on her competitive re-election campaign, according to recent figures from the Associated Press.

Kim, a former aide to GOP Congressman Ed Royce, is no pauper either, having spent $1.4 million over the same period.

With its two fundraising powerhouses, the campaign for the 65th Assembly District is on track to be one of the most expensive races — at any level — in the country. Combined spending by both candidates, the two political parties and various independent expenditure committees is on pace to exceed $5.2 million.

Spending on the race had already surpassed the $4.7 million mark on October 18, when the candidates had another half-million dollars at their disposal in cash on hand. Those preliminary figures also don’t account for other late expenditures expected to be spent on this weekend’s get out the vote efforts.

Big labor, big business fund Quirk-Silva’s campaign

Just two years ago, Maplight estimated each member of the California State Assembly, on average, raised $708,371, an average of $970 every day during the 2012 cycle. So, where is all of this additional money coming from?

On Quirk-Silva’s side, the funds can be traced back to both big business and big labor through party committees. Of the $2.65 million raised for her campaign, nearly $2 million has come from either the California Democratic Party or various Democratic central committees throughout the state. Those Democratic committees have accepted large checks from special interest groups that routinely lobby the Legislature, including insurance companies, defense contractors, oil companies and labor unions.

Kim’s campaign, which has raised $1.8 million, owes a third of its support to the California Republican Party, which has relied heavily on political activist and physicist Charles Munger Jr. for its support.

Race to decide Assembly supermajority

Both sides have invested big money in the race that could decide whether Democrats hold a two-thirds supermajority in the lower house, and thus have the votes to raise taxes without any GOP defections. And understandably, tax issues have taken center stage in the race.

In its early endorsement of Kim, the Orange County Register highlighted her position on taxes. “Ms. Kim is the better choice when it comes to protecting taxpayers and restoring the beleaguered California economy,” the paper wrote. “In her bid to serve the residents, she has focused on fixing the education system, making California more business-friendly, improving public safety and dealing with California’s crippling water and infrastructure issues.”

Taxpayer groups have also played an active role in the campaign. Eariler this month, Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, took umbrage with a mail piece from the Quirk-Silva campaign that implied an endorsement.

The first-term Orange County Democrat put her name alongside the taxpayer organization’s name, stating their shared support for Proposition 2, the Rainy Day Budget Stabilization Fund Act. The not-so-subtle goal of the slick mailer was to associate Quirk-Silva with the state’s most trusted taxpayer group, which has endorsed Kim. Coupal described it as “the most unusual attempt at deception we’ve seen this election.”

Neither side forgetting grassroots

The questionable tactics by Quirk-Silva’s campaign demonstrate the challenge that Democrats have in holding the seat. Although Democrats have a 1.7 percentage-point advantage in voter registration, the district is considered a “lean Republican” seat, according to the ATC Partisan Index, which ranks districts based on their competitiveness in the 2014 election.

The GOP’s hope for reclaiming the seat stems from a candidate who delivered a strong showing in the June primary. Kim, a first-generation Korean-American immigrant, earned the highest vote percentage of any GOP legislative challenger in the June 3rd primary, garnering 55 percent of the vote in the Democratic district.

She won voters over with her powerful immigrant success story.

“As many immigrant families did, my parents worked hard and struggled, but they also instilled in me the value of individual responsibility and living within a person’s means,” Kim wrote in a personal narrative featured in the Orange County Register earlier this year.

Kim’s message appears to be resonating with Asian voters, who have returned their absentee ballots at a slightly higher rate from two years ago. According to absentee ballot data from Political Data Inc., Asian absentee voting is up a point from 2012, while early voting by Latinos is down a point. The net gain of two points for Asian voters over Latino voters is expected to benefit Kim.

Republicans are also optimistic about the party breakdown of returned absentee ballots. Of the 27,372 absentee ballots that have been returned, 45 percent have been from Republicans, an 8 percentage-point advantage over Democrats, according to Political Data’s ballot tracker. That’s an improvement from 2012, when Republicans held a 6 percentage-point edge in absentee ballots.

Enticing volunteers with Korean BBQ

But don’t think that Kim’s advantage in early voting has made her complacent. On Thursday afternoon, Kim’s campaign enticed Republican activists to participate in the final weekend’s “Get Out The Vote” efforts by offering Korean BBQ.

“We need as many volunteers as possible to contact voters and tell them to cast their ballots for Young Kim, and I’m hoping you can join us,” Kim’s campaign wrote in its latest email alert to supporters. “Our office will be open 9a-9p every day between now and Election Day, with 3-hour shifts of canvassing and phone banking.”

By John Hrabe

The new federal health care law has yet to take effect and already state legislatures are looking to change the rules for employers.

The Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, offered employers a choice: provide health coverage to your workers, or pay a fine. But before nonprofits and businesses can even consider their options, many states are looking to add a new state-level employer penalty.

In California, Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez, D-East Los Angeles, has introduced Assembly Bill 880. It would impose a new fine on businesses with 500 or more employees that fail to provide health coverage to their full and part-time workers. The proposed penalty, which is pegged at 110 percent of the average cost of health care coverage, is designed to help states avoid the major financial burden created by a wave of part-time employees that are expected to enroll in state-level health programs, such as Medi-Cal.

“The national healthcare plan is still undergoing a lot of changes and yet we have an assemblyman that is guessing how businesses need to operate their health care plans,” Manuel Cunha Jr., president of the Nisei Farmers League, told the Fresno Bee last month. “There’s no way our farmers can afford this.”

The penalties are expected to range from $6,000 to $15,000 per employee.  With such large fines, it’s understandable why the state’s leading non-profit organizations, large employers and business associations are opposed to the bill, which the California Chamber of Commerce has identified as one of its “job-killer” bills.

Unions

And even some of the country’s labor unions are beginning to speak out against new state-level employer penalties, fearing that the fine would hurt workers’ pay and hours.

“In this treacherous economy, higher wages is the number one priority for workers,” wrote Mark Espinosa, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 919 to the Speaker of the Assembly on May 3. “We feel if this plan were to go forward, it would be counterintuitive to that goal.”

If California Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, doesn’t remember getting the letter (reproduced below), that’s because Espinosa represents food and commercial workers in Connecticut. His letter was addressed to the Constitution State’s Assembly.

The UFCW Local 919’s letter of opposition was in response to H.B. 6614, Connecticut’s version of AB 880. The bill, which imposes similar employer penalties, would apply to employers with 250 or more employees and is designed to offset the influx of enrollees in HUSKY, Connecticut’s version of Medi-Cal.

In the one-page letter, Espinosa warns that “financially penalizing the companies that choose HUSKY will in-turn hamper their ability to provide low cost insurance or have discretionary dollars that could be given to employees in wage increases.” According to its website, “HUSKY Health is the State of Connecticut’s public health coverage program for eligible children, parents, relative caregivers, senior citizens, individuals with disabilities, adults without children, and pregnant women.”

California’s largest and most powerful union leaders remain ignorant to the concerns of their New England counterparts. As reported by CalWatchdog.com’s Katy Grimes, the California Labor Federation and the United Food and Commercial Workers are co-sponsors of AB 880.

Supermajority

The bill, which requires two-thirds support to pass in the Legislature, hinges on the votes of newly-elected Democrats that represent the state’s few swing districts. The split within the United Food and Commercial Union over the employer penalty could provide an easy excuse for swing Democratic members of the Assembly to abstain on the controversial bill. Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva of Fullerton and Al Muratsuchi of Torrance, Democrats who were both elected last November and are expected to face tough re-elections next year, told CalWatchdog.com they have yet to take a position on AB 880.

“At this point, we are unsure that the bill, in its current form, will be the bill that is taken up on the Floor,” Reichel Everhart, chief of staff to Quirk-Silva, told CalWatchdog.com. “Therefore, until the bill is presented in its final form, it would be premature for the Assemblywoman to weigh in on it.”

The Assembly is under pressure to move quickly on the bill. Assembly Democrats will lose a member during the legislature’s summer recess, which begins on July 3. On July 1, according to the Sacramento Bee, Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield, D-Los Angeles, must resign his Assembly seat to be sworn in on the Los Angeles City Council. If legislative leaders cannot move the bill before the summer recess, the Blumefield vacancy would put Democrats one vote shy of two-thirds.

The Assembly could take up AB 880 as early as today.