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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those affected

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

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

Who cares? Isn’t it just drug dealers?

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

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

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

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

Current law

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

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

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

Support builds

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

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

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

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

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

Law enforcement’s position

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

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

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

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

At this month’s state GOP convention in Sacramento, the California Republican Party approved the charter of the Log Cabin Republicans of California by an 861-293 vote, making it an officially recognized party organization. Much of the attention following the vote has focused on the political consequences: How the chartered club can help with the party’s re-branding and outreach to the state’s gay and lesbian community.

“This is about working together to win elections in California,” John Musella, the club’s incoming chairman, said in a recent press release. “Being officially recognized sends a strong signal that the Republicans’ ‘Big Tent’ has room for everyone. Our chartering in California should serve as an example of how every Republican organization can stand proud and work together.”

The political impact is significant, but that’s hardly the most important part of the story. In an era when pundits describe politics as hopelessly divided, a group of outcasts succeeded in changing the hearts and minds of their adversaries. The Log Cabin Republicans didn’t just win a charter — they won a major argument in the culture wars in California.

“Seventy-five percent of the body — 75 percent — overwhelmingly affirmed our place in the party,” said Charles Moran, past president of the Log Cabin Republicans of California. “The Republican Party has moved away from fighting those ideological battles and is now focused on winning elections.”

Gays once “the ultimate enemy”

The party has come a long way since those past “ideological battles.” The state party once was led by such Log Cabin opponents as Rep. Bill Dannemeyer, Rep. Bob Dornan and the Rev. Lou Sheldon. Only two decades ago, any association with the gay club was considered toxic in a GOP primary. It’s been 15 years since moderate Republicans joined conservatives in campaigning for Proposition 22, the state’s 2000 defense of marriage initiative that was passed by 61 percent of voters.

And it’s only been seven years since Proposition 8, which also banned same-sex marriage, was passed by 52 percent of state voters.

“In the 1980s, I was afraid to walk around the state convention alone,” Frank Ricchiazzi, a longtime Log Cabin Republican leader, told the L.A. Times in 2012. “I could see the hatred in the eyes of some of those people.”

Back in the late 1970s, when gay Republicans began to organize, they faced off against GOP Assemblyman John Briggs, who had proposed a 1978 initiative to ban gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools. Proposition 8 lost, getting 42 percent of the vote.

“I assume most of them are seducing young boys in toilets,” the conservative Orange County lawmaker said in defense of his Briggs Amendment, according to Gustavo Arellano’s book, “Orange County: A Personal History.” San Francisco, according to Briggs, was nothing more than “the moral garbage dump of homosexuality in this country.”

Although the measure failed, thanks in part to opposition from Ronald Reagan, it still didn’t lessen the rhetoric from some California Republicans.

In the 1980s, Congressman Bill Dannemeyer led the charge with his work, “Shadow in the Land: Homosexuality in America.” He thought “AIDS was God’s way of punishing gays” and described gays and lesbians as “the ultimate enemy.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Dannemeyer believed gays would “plunge our people, and indeed the entire West, into a dark night of the soul that could last hundreds of years.”

1998 Senate race

In the 1990s, the Rev. Lou Sheldon, leader of the Traditional Values Coalition, was at the height of his power. He helped elect Republicans by distributing 4 million voter guides to California churches.  Sheldon routinely cited the threat of “homosexuals” in his literature and held conferences to mobilize like-minded conservatives. A 1991 symposium at the Disneyland Hotel drew spirited opposition from gay and lesbian activists, five of whom were arrested for disrupting the event.

Throughout the 1990s, Sheldon was a central player in GOP politics, while any association with the Log Cabin Republicans could be used as a hit piece against Republicans. In the 1998 U.S. Senate race, GOP Senate candidate Matt Fong was criticized in the primary for receiving support from the Log Cabin Republicans. Fong, considered a moderate, received the club’s backing despite his support for the Defense of Marriage Act. Ironically, the Log Cabin Republicans raised $8,000 for Fong who, in turn, donated $50,000 to Sheldon’s anti-gay group.

“Rev. Lou is a friend,” Fong said of the donation, when it was unearthed for the general election against incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer. “We were working on the Defense of Marriage Act initiative that he was contemplating. It is an act that was supported in principle by President Clinton. I support the defense of a traditional marriage.”

Fong lost the 1998 election to Boxer, 53 percent to 43 percent. The son of longtime Democratic California Secretary of State Marge Fong Eu, he died in 2011 at age 57.

Two years after Fong’s defeat, in 2000 Republican State Sen. Pete Knight authored Proposition 22, a 14-word initiative to ban gay marriage.

The campaign was managed by GOP political consultant Rob Stutzman. He told columnist Debra Saunders polygamy might be next because “there’s a logical extension to it … if you accept the premise that marriage should be whatever relationships people want to enter into.”

Prop. 22 was endorsed by U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who came in second that year for his party’s presidential nomination to future President George W. Bush. In 2008, McCain garnered his party’s presidential nod, but lost to Democrat Barack Obama. Both McCain and Obama opposed same-sex marriage; in 2012, Obama changed his position and backed it.

Barney Frank

Hostility from the right was matched by hostility from the left. Some in the gay and lesbian community viewed the Log Cabin Republicans as “self-loathing” at best or traitors at worst.

“I now understand why they call themselves the Log Cabin Republicans: Their role model is Uncle Tom,” openly gay Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., wrote in 2012; he left office in 2013. “Twenty years now I’ve been hearing why the Log Cabins are gonna make the Republicans better and they’ve been getting worse.”

Frank was referring to “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” the 1852 novel that helped spark the Civil War; the title character, a slave, is excessively subservient to his white masters.

Yet this month, instead of prominent party leaders using their convention speeches to attack the “homosexual lifestyle,” they embraced the state’s gay Republicans.

“They have been solid soldiers in their fight against leftist tyranny in California,” said California’s Republican National Committeeman Shawn Steel. “I would welcome them in our organization. … I am proud to have them in the California Republican Party.”

H/T to OC Weekly & LA Times for archives. 

“Around the globe, blue is identified with conservative, free market parties, while red is identified with social democratic parties,” points out Shawn Steel, a former chairman of the state party who now serves as its representative on the Republican National Committee. “It is why conservative-leaning Democrats in Congress were called ‘Blue Dogs.’ Everyone knew what it meant.”

Steel is among a group of Republicans that have introduced a resolution calling for the California Republican Party to adopt blue as its official color in branding materials. The informal coalition of “Republicans, Red No More” says that it’s time to conform to proper historical and international standards for political ideology, correct a 14-year-old mistake by the mainstream media and, in the process, confront “the idea of a hopelessly divided nation.”

The group has some high-profile backers, including two members of California’s congressional delegation.

“Should the Republican Party choose its own principles and symbols, or should we let the national media do that for us?” asked Rep. Doug La Malfa, R- Richvale, in an email to delegates. “Well, the answer should be obvious.”

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, pleads, “Will you join with me in taking back our Reagan Blue?” He was a speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan.

No Red States and Blue States

Think the whole color conundrum is trivial? Wayne Johnson, one of the state’s most successful political consultants, believes that the media’s emphasis on red states vs. blue states increases public cynicism about the political process.

“The very notion that there are ‘Blue States’ and ‘Red States’ not only signals to people that their votes are a meaningless formality, it also feeds the idea of a hopelessly divided nation,” said Johnson, the president of The Wayne Johnson Agency. “Both assumptions also happen to be profoundly untrue. There isn’t a state in the union that couldn’t go Republican or Democrat in any given election given the right candidate and the right timing and issues.”

Last month, California Republicans proved that to be true: the right candidate, Councilman Kevin Faulconer, with the right timing, a special election, won a decisive victory in San Diego by focusing on right-of-center issues. Without compromising the party’s core conservative values, Faulconer sought to minimize the divisive red vs. blue rhetoric and build on a “theme of inclusion.” And as the UT San Diego noted, “He even used blue campaign signs.”

Bush vs. Gore: NBC News, New York Times and USA Today’s color-swap

Faulconer’s blue signs were a departure from recent norms, but not historical traditions. Dating back to at least the 19th century, the United States has followed the international standard of associating blue with right-of-center political parties and red with causes that lean left. That tradition, Johnson says, “reached its zenith in 1980 with the landslide election of Ronald Reagan.”

“In 1980, David Brinkley described the nearly all-blue map of the Reagan landslide as a ‘suburban swimming pool,’” said Johnson.

That all changed in 2000, when a trifecta of media powerhouses flubbed the traditional political colors. Among a slew of mistakes in its election night coverage, NBC News used red to fill in the map of states won by George W. Bush and blue for those won by Al Gore. Two days later, the New York Times and USA Today repeated those colors in their first color-coded maps of the vote. The graphics editors for both papers have said there wasn’t much thought put into the decision. However, the ensuing drama and Supreme Court case helped solidify the colors in the public’s mind.

“For weeks, the maps were ubiquitous,” observed Jodi Enda in her history of the controversy for Smithsonian Magazine. “Perhaps that’s why the 2000 colors stuck. Along with images of Florida elections officials eyeballing tiny ballot chads, the maps were there constantly, reminding us of the vast, nearly even divide between, well, red and blue voters.”

International standard: Red for left, blue for right

Elsewhere around the world, from the red Social Democratic Party of Croatia to the blue Tories in the United Kingdom, countries that never experienced the mainstream media mistake follow the historical norms.

Ilkka Ahtokivi, president of the International Association of Political Consultants and a prominent European consultant, says that the United States stands alone in its political colors.

“Blue is often considered the traditional color of center-right and free-market parties around the world,” said Ahtokivi, where the conservatives in his home country, Finland, have been using blue since its foundation in 1918. “It has always seemed counter-intuitive that in the U.S. the center-right party is assigned the color red, while the center-left party is assigned the color blue.”

As American parties have departed from the international norms in color usage, there’s arguably been a decline in party ties with other nations.

“It was during the 1980s that our relationships with conservative and free-market parties really began to blossom,” said Johnson, who has served as an American representative on the Board of Directors of the IAPC. “The close ties between Reagan and Margaret Thatcher strengthened the association of American conservatism and Thatcher’s Blues.”

CA GOP Convention Resolution: The first step

But, it isn’t just the prospect of global cohesion that has some California Republicans seeking to go from red to blue. There are also subtle consequences as the state party courts new immigrants. According to a report released last month by the U.S. Census Bureau, a quarter of the nation’s foreign-born residents live in California. That’s 10.2 million Californians who were born in another country, where blue means conservative and red means liberal.

Steel, who backs the change from red to blue, has led the party’s effort to expand political support among minority voters, especially Asian Americans. “They should be coming to our party en masse,” Steel told the Los Angeles Times last December.

For new voters that hail from anywhere else in the world, it becomes an issue of clarity.

“Let me begin by saying that the symbols we choose as a party pale in comparison to the principles we embrace,” Steel wrote in his message to delegates. “Yet, symbols are nevertheless important. It is a visual shorthand that people around the globe understand.”

A decade ago, political analyst Clark Benson similarly argued that it’s an issue of clarity.

“The key issue here is not the color chosen for the maps. The key issue is how states, or areas, are described,” Benson, publisher of Political Data Analysis, wrote in 2004. “What is needed is a return to clarity. Texas is not a ‘red state,’ it is (at least now) a generically Republican state. New York is not a ‘blue state,’ it is a generically Democrat state.”

Not everyone is optimistic that the colors can be corrected.

Glen Bolger, one of the Republican Party’s leading political strategists and pollsters, defied the dominant color choices for years. Until 2012, he used red for Democrats and blue for Republicans in his presentations, but finally threw in the towel due to the frequent confusion.

“I don’t know that it will ever go back,” said Bolger, a partner and co-founder of Public Opinion Strategies.