Harris, California’s Democratic attorney general, is leading in polling, fundraising and name ID in the race to replace Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is retiring. But her inclusion on lists in publications like USA Today and the New York Times as a possible replacement to Antonin Scalia — the conservative Supreme Court justice who died over the weekend — is leaving observers in doubt.

“It would surprise me if she were very high up on the list,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political scientist at the Sol Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California. “I just don’t think it makes sense at this point, particularly since she is the frontrunner for the Senate.”

Why Harris Doesn’t Make Sense

Harris has little incentive to accept a nomination if it were to be offered by President Barack Obama since the nominee is not likely to get confirmed.

The U.S. Senate has the Constitutional responsibility to advise and consent to Supreme Court justices and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., issued a statement within hours of Scalia’s death saying the Senate won’t confirm a replacement until after the November presidential election, leaving Obama with little leverage.

But Bebitch and others agree that if and when he nominates someone, it would make sense for the nominee to have already been confirmed by the Senate, like a federal judge, so that Democrats could say: “Look, you already voted for this person once.”

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch — who Scotusblog argues is the most likely choice — also already survived a Senate confirmation. But neither Harris nor Lynch have judicial experience, which would likely be seized upon by opponents.

There’s no requirement that justices have judicial experience, but they usually do. With the exception of Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, the Senate hasn’t confirmed a nominee without judicial experience since the early 1970s.

“Her lack of judicial experience would give opponents an easy rationale for opposing her,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a professor of American politics at Claremont McKenna College. “And by choosing a partisan political figure, Obama would enable opponents to accuse him of politicizing the court.”

Senate Race

It would be very difficult for someone to complete the tasks required of a Senate candidate while being subjected to a Senate confirmation process, so Harris would likely be forced to choose one or the other, and again, there’s little benefit to accepting the nomination in this instance. But just being mentioned helps her campaign, said Raphael Sonenshein, the executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at California State University Los Angeles.

“Getting on a list of 10 is always a plus for a candidate,” said Sonenshein.

But if she were to be nominated, and if she were to accept, it would likely throw the Senate race into turmoil, as Democratic candidates would rush in to challenge Rep. Loretta Sanchez, an Orange County Democrat, and two former CAGOP chairmen.

“There are only a few weeks until the filing deadline, and Democrats would be scrambling to find a better candidate than Loretta Sanchez,” said Pitney.

How This Plays Out In The Senate

Obama and Senate Democrats don’t have too many options if McConnell holds true to his word. Sooner or later, Obama will send a name to the Senate, and the Judiciary Committee will have to decide whether it’ll consider the nominee or refuse to play along.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats would label McConnell and Republicans as obstructionists — in press conferences, in campaign ads and in floor speeches. With the balance of power in the Senate hanging precariously on the 2016 election, and with an open presidential election, this will be one of the most politicized issues going forward.

Since the Senate operates largely on unanimous consent, Democrats would likely object at most, if not all, turns, thereby “shutting down the Senate,” predicts Jim Manley, a former top advisor to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

“The idea that a president with 11 months to go doesn’t have the right to nominate a replacement for a crucial Supreme Court seat is absolutely outrageous,” said Manley. “So I assume that the caucus will demand retaliation.”

In California, where unions have long wielded more influence than in most states, the protests took an interesting turn. That is, Los Angeles teachers mostly just focused on themselves — not students.

Los Angeles teachers, who are relatively powerful, drew light to a very specific issue, one they are facing heat for (even from Democratic legislators). The Los Angeles Times reported that United Teachers Los Angeles members protested “against the conditions under which the L.A. Unified School District handles teachers who are facing allegations of misconduct.”

L.A. Unified teachers are represented by both the CFT and the larger California Teachers Association.

The union members held “vigils” for teachers who were spending time in Los Angeles Unified School District offices because of their impending misconduct cases. The union focused on defending teachers plausibly accused of wrongdoing — from sexual misconduct to aggressive behavior against students.

One teacher, explaining the protest, asked the Times, “What kind of school district removes a teacher from the classroom if a 13-year-old said so?”

The protests are a response to a crackdown on misbehaving teachers. After the district was forced to pay Miramonte Elementary teacher Mark Berndt — who sexually molested countless children and photographed them ingesting his bodily fluids — $40,000 to settle his case, the district opened up hundreds of cases against teachers. Those protesting said that the district had gone too far and was no longer defending students, but attacking teachers.

Context

In order to understand why Los Angeles teachers would focus on such a specific issue, particularly on a day meant to focus on broader educational problems, one should understand the context of just how powerful teachers unions are in California.

A report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute ranked teachers unions in California as the sixth strongest in the United States.

The report noted several interesting facts about the influence of California teachers unions in politics. Teachers unions gave 4.3 percent of all money received by political parties in California.  And more than 12 percent of all members of the California delegations to Democratic and Republican national conventions were members of teachers unions.

Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California School of Policy, Planning and Development, told CalWatchdog.com that teachers unions, which typically align with the Democratic Party, “basically own the Legislature.”

Further, California teachers unions have the strongest bargaining power of any state in the entire country.

“California has the most union-friendly bargaining laws in the nation,” the report noted, making Monday’s protest all the more perplexing.

The report concluded:

The Golden State’s teacher unions are quite powerful; in a state that does not spend much on K-12 education, they’ve gathered considerable internal resources (and do not shy away from dedicating those resources to state politics — with apparent success, given their present reputation for influence). Although charter and employment policies are not well aligned with traditional union interests, California is exceptionally permissive when it comes to teacher bargaining rights.

Jeffe added that, while teachers unions are already very powerful in California, they will likely see their clout increase even more in the coming years.

“The power of the teachers unions may only increase, because the power of Republicans in the Legislature has already begun to decrease,” she said. “The Republican Party in this state is losing registration and losing clout.”

This is Part 2 of a series of stories about tax increases passed throughout California in the November 5 elections. To read Part 1, click here.

Last month, over two dozen tax increases passed in local municipalities throughout California. Voters approved measures to create or extend a variety of taxes, often with large majorities. The numerous tax increases will have secondary effects—both political and economic—beyond the direct effect of filling local coffers with more revenue.

Economic Effects

The economic effect of tax increases primarily depends on the size and type of tax, along with the economic climate that the tax is enacted in. Although voters also considered more niche taxes, the most common revenue generators on the ballot were parcel taxes and sales taxes.

A parcel tax, colloquially known as the cousin of the property tax, is typically levied on a per parcel basis (some are calculated per square foot). Most of the parcel taxes passed last month are relatively modest—typically below $200 annually. However, that does not spare them from having an economic effect on those Californians that will soon begin paying the new tax. According to a policy brief from the California Taxpayer’s Association, the “very nature of the parcel tax is regressive” because it is represents a higher burden for poor residents.

“While fixed rates are regressive,” the paper noted, “adopting a progressive parcel tax that is based on a taxpayer’s ability to pay is currently not legal.”

While parcel taxes may fund critical local functions—such as public education and firefighting programs—they do so in a way that inevitably hurts families with less disposable income. Despite this, the majority of parcel taxes are passed. Proponents of the parcel taxes argue that the tax functions as an investment in public safety and education, which pays off later. They also contend that many new parcel taxes contain provisions that ensure the funds remain in the local community, even if it offers a somewhat regressive structure.

Sales tax increases were also successful at the ballot; only one of the proposed increases failed to pass. Most of the tax increases were sold as direct benefits to public safety and other public programs. And since they were all less than a 1 cent increase, it was significantly easier to sell them to the public. (Adding half a percentage point to a statewide base level of 7.5 percent makes the increase seem less dramatic.)

However, a small sales tax increase can still lead to significant adverse effects. A study conducted by the Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research examined the effect of a proposed half-cent sales tax increase in Ohio in the 1990s.

The report concluded that “an increase in the state sales tax rate from 5% to 5.5% would result in the loss of at least 49,000 jobs and would leave Ohio’s stock of capital at least $4.4 billion smaller.”

Proponents of sales tax increases make similar arguments to those that support parcel taxes: Although the tax may reduce disposable income or eliminate jobs, it functions as a solid long-term investment.

Although the entire California state sales tax didn’t go up last month, the municipalities may reasonably expect some of the same effects, just on a smaller scale. Businesses operating with slim profit margins in the tough economic times may be driven out of cities that eat away at profits—taking jobs with them.

Electoral Effects

Political prognosticators often use off-year election results as predictors for elections the following year. Big Republican wins in Virginia and New Jersey in 2009, for example, indicated growing backlash to overreach by the Obama administration (culminating in the Republicans retaking the House in 2010).

Next year, California Gov. Jerry Brown is expected to run for reelection, and voters will be faced with a series of ballot propositions. One possible initiative would raise $3 billion in revenue for road repairs by more than doubling the current vehicle registration fee over the next four years. Other possible tax increases have been making headlines too.

Do the results from the local elections last month provide insight into California’s upcoming statewide election? For instance, does the fact that voters are willing to pass sales and parcel taxes to pay for public programs indicate that they will be willing to increase other forms of taxes and fees next year? It’s hard to say, according to a long-time California political expert.

Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California School of Policy, Planning and Development, told CalWatchdog that the success of tax increases in municipal elections didn’t necessarily portend success for statewide initiatives.

She said that in local elections “voters more easily perceive that there is a direct attachment between the tax and their welfare. It’s not quite so with regard to state taxes.”

She added that it was far too soon to predict whether or not tax initiatives on the 2014 ballot would be successful.

“Whether or not a tax increase can succeed depends on voters’ perceptions of the economy—whether or not the economy is to perking along or doing badly. That I don’t think we know yet, do we?”