The Senate was less of a question, given that Democrats have a full supermajority in the upper house. As it turned out, the Senate passed the measure – and a companion bill that strengthens air-pollution reporting requirements – with all Democrats in support, as well as one Republican, Tom Berryhill of Modesto, who gained a concession (reduction of a firefighting fee for rural areas) he had sought.

But the Assembly vote wasn’t even close, as seven Republicans – including Republican Leader Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley – voted in favor of the extension. The other six Republicans were Catharine Baker of Walnut Creek, Rocky Chávez of Oceanside, Jordan Cunningham of San Luis Obispo, Heath Flora of Modesto, Devin Mathis of Visalia and Marc Steinorth of Rancho Cucamonga.

Mayes defended his vote, first by expressing how tired he is of partisanship, then noting that he supports cap and trade because “we believe markets are better than Soviet-style regulations.” He also posted on Twitter a large photo of Ronald Reagan with a recent quotation from former Reagan Secretary of State George Schultz: “Passing this bill on a bipartisan basis … is something Ronald Reagan … would be proud.” But despite his appeal to conservative icons, conservative activists and commentators were furious at the vote.

In a column Tuesday, Jon Fleischman, publisher of the Republican website Flashreport, ridiculed Mayes’ contention that the cap-and-trade system is a free-market approach to climate change: “Apparently Mayes believes that when the government creates Soviet-style limits on resources but leaves people with the freedom to exist in a world of artificial scarcity on their own terms, that is not command and control.”

Conservative former Assemblyman Tim Donnelly noted in an email blast that eight GOP legislators “voted for a (63 cents) per gallon gas tax, handing Gov. Jerry Brown another victory and a massive slush fund to spend on things like high-speed rail.” That number comes from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, which concluded that the cap-and-trade system could add 63 cents to a gallon of gasoline by 2021 if carbon credits sell for a high price.

Under cap and trade, established in 2012 by the California Air Resources Board and authorized by the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the state caps allowable greenhouse-gas emissions by manufacturers. That cap then is reduced by 3 percent a year. Manufacturers who cannot reduce their carbon emissions immediately bid for “credits” in an auction system. The goal is to force companies to invest in low-carbon technologies, but the costs of the credits and those investments are expected to drive up costs in the meantime.

Some business groups backed the program, viewing it as a less-onerous means to achieve climate-change goals than the heavy-handed regulatory alternative. Some environmental and social-justice groups opposed the plan, which they view as going too easy on corporations. But few doubt that its passage will increase gas, food and electricity prices.

The issue is a hot button now, given that Republicans are targeting Democratic Sen. Josh Newman, D-Fullerton, because of his vote in favor of Senate Bill 1, a recently passed law that increases gasoline taxes by 12 cents or more a gallon and which also increased vehicle-license fees to pay for transportation projects. Most Republican legislators objected to a cap-and-trade driven gas-price hike so soon after this tax increase.

Because of the relatively large number of Republican votes for the cap-and-trade extension, the Democratic Assembly speaker “was able to let three of his targeted members, who are occupying seats the GOP would like to pick back up, either not vote at all or vote no,” added Fleischman. He called it a “a big strategic blunder” for the Assembly GOP.

It’s unclear whether the GOP legislators will suffer a political price for their vote. Berryhill is termed out of his Senate seat. “Because of the manner in which the party is currently run and funded, those legislators who voted for the bill will not be punished in any way by the party,” said Tom Del Beccaro, former California Republican Party chairman. “However, as (former Assemblyman) Eric Linder proved with his liberal voting record and loss due to low Republican turnout, Republican voters will be less likely to turn out for Republicans next fall.”

The Republicans who voted for the bill seem undeterred. Some of them joined Gov. Jerry Brown at a celebratory press conference after the bill’s passage. “We didn’t come here to Sacramento to just be Republicans and to hate on Democrats,” said Mayes. “We came here to Sacramento to make people’s lives better.”

Chávez noted that “we’re a very small component of the world on this but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be leaders on something that’s threatening the world.”

It remains to be seen whether the GOP, which was making political hay out of the recent gas-tax vote, can keep up its political momentum now that so many of its members voted for bill that may raise gas prices by far more than 12 cents a gallon.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

About 1,200 California Republicans are held their annual spring convention at the Sacramento Hyatt Regency this weekend and the star Saturday wasn’t featured speakers like Congressmen Darrell Issa of Vista or Devin Nunes of the San Joaquin Valley or high-profile media types like radio host Hugh Hewitt. It was state Sen. Janet Nguyen of Garden Grove, who wasn’t even planning to come to the event until asked at the last moment by state GOP leaders.

The invite was triggered by what happened Thursday. Nguyen, a Vietnamese refugee, took to the state Senate floor to criticize former California politician Tom Hayden, who died recently. It led to her being forcibly removed for being out of order.

Many Vietnamese-Americans see U.S. anti-Vietnam War activists like Hayden and his former wife, Jane Hayden, as sympathetic with the ruthless communist government in North Vietnam that took over South Vietnam in 1975 after a long civil war, triggering a mass exodus that brought hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees to the United States and Orange County in particular.

The symbolism of having Nguyen being forced off the Senate floor resonated with convention goers, who loudly applauded her delivery of the Pledge of Allegiance, the Sacramento Bee reported. She said she was trying to convey the sentiments of her constituents about Hayden, and noted that, “In the country I came from, that’s not allowed.”

“I stand with Janet” jacket lapels were everywhere at the Hyatt, the San Jose Mercury News reported. The paper said the lapels were the idea of Shawn Steel, an Orange County Republican who is the former chairman of the California GOP.

GOP delegates hope for best with Trump

Beyond the cheers for Nguyen, the main takeaway from Saturday’s speeches and events was the evidence of a general readiness to accept and root for President Donald Trump despite his series of controversies – but also quite a bit of ambivalence.

“It’s too early to tell,” Assemblyman Rocky Chavez, R-Oceanside, told the Sacramento Bee said. “I think his Supreme Court pick is outstanding. I think his picks of Kelly, Mattis, Tillerson … and DeVos are very good.

“One thing I’d say I have a question with is his [opposition] to the Trans-Pacific Partnership [trade agreement]. When I listen to Trump talk about it he puts it strictly along the lines of a business negotiation. [It’s] much more than a business negotiation. It was an alliance to recognize the influence of China in the next 50 … years from now.”

Former Assembly member and gubernatorial candidate Tim Donnelly of Twin Peaks told the San Francisco Chronicle that the California GOP should follow Trump’s lead and go unconventional, using social media instead of traditional media.

“The way that we win a state like California is to blow up the narrative and smash the paradigm,” he said. “We have to bring people in — not on being Republican or Democrat but on being proud Californians.”

Sunday may be quieter than Saturday as the state GOP holds its formal general session to hear and vote on committee reports. There are fewer scheduled events than day one and two before the convention concludes.

Seeking to bolster his early-bird campaign for governor, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom forged ahead with a controversial ballot initiative designed to put severe strictures on guns in California. But in addition to raising the ire of Republicans statewide, Newsom has begun to clash with members of his own party in Sacramento, who don’t share his vision of the right political strategy on the issue in November and beyond. 

Exploiting divides

Beyond “checks for ammunition purchases — like those already in place for guns — the measure would ban possession of large-capacity rifle magazines, require gun owners to notify police when their weapons are lost or stolen, and enact rules for courts to confiscate guns from criminals who are prohibited from possessing them,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported. “Other provisions would reclassify possession of a stolen gun as a felony and require California to share its background check information with the FBI.”

“Newsom said supporters will submit 600,000 signatures on petitions to qualify an initiative that would strengthen California’s gun-control laws, already some of the strictest in the nation. They need 365,880 signatures of registered voters to make the ballot.”

In 1982, the paper noted, gun control advocates’ last effort at taking their agenda directly to voters resulted in defeat at the hands of a well-organized opposition mobilized by the National Rifle Association. Republicans have already begun to plan for a similar effort. Congressional candidate Tim Donnelly called Newsom’s plan a “disaster” that would spur outsized Republican turnout at the polls, according to the Sacramento Bee. “Donnelly, who was once cited for bringing a loaded gun to an airport, said in recent months he’s become an even bigger supporter of gun rights, citing the terror attack in San Bernardino,” the paper added. 

Two different playbooks

With the state GOP divided and stunned by Donald Trump’s sweep toward the Republican nomination for president, however, Newsom has not put a great deal of stock in opposition to his plan from the right. On the left, however, he has stepped on the toes of legislative Democrats, complicating his plans considerably. Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, “wants him to agree to step aside if the issue can gain traction in the Legislature by June,” as the Los Angeles Times reported. De León “warned his fellow Democrat in a private letter on Thursday that pursuing the initiative could ‘derail’ gun control” — but “Newsom wrote back later Thursday urging de León to join his initiative drive. He voiced skepticism about legislative efforts to address gun control, adding that the measure de León supports is ‘fundamentally different’ from his ballot measure, the Safety for All Act.”

“Newsom said only an initiative, for instance, can amend part of 2014’s criminal justice measure, Proposition 47 — a portion that critics say would allow people convicted of theft of a firearm to be charged with a lesser crime than felony grand theft.”

For their part, Critical Democrats have expressed worries that Newsom is willing to risk a political miscalculation in order to establish his brand as a proactive progressive who shouldn’t be seriously challenged in his run for higher office.

Although both de León and Newsom could benefit from support from within the governor’s mansion, neither has managed to lock it in. “Evan Westrup, spokesman for Gov. Jerry Brown, maintained the governor has not taken a position on this initiative and generally doesn’t comment on pending ballot measures,” Fox News reported. “But in 2013 the governor vetoed a proposed reporting of stolen or lost firearms, saying he was ‘not convinced that criminalizing the failure to report a lost or stolen firearm would improve identification of gun traffickers or help law enforcement disarm people prohibited from possessing guns.'”

At stake was Senate Bill 277, signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown on a wave of concern that “herd immunity” among California children was compromised by a growing anti-vaccination trend. Coauthored by state Sens. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, and Ben Allen, D-Redondo Beach, SB277 “will require all children entering kindergarten to be vaccinated unless a doctor certifies that a child has a medical condition, such as allergies, preventing it,” as the Los Angeles Daily News summarized the law.

Missing the mark

After submitting signatures gathered in the hopes of meeting the legal threshold of adequate public support, organizers behind the would-be measure discovered that their numbers had fallen short: “They turned in some 228,000 signatures on petitions for a referendum to overturn the measure, far short of the number needed to qualify it for next year’s ballot,” as the Los Angeles Times reported. “Referendum supporters needed the signatures of 365,880 registered voters by Monday to place the measure before state voters in November 2016.”

Efforts to meet the requirements were bedeviled by the shoestring character of the operation. “While the campaign deployed paid signature gatherers in the final stretch before the deadline, it was largely a volunteer effort,” according to the Sacramento Bee, “a tough task given that successful initiative campaigns typically cost millions of dollars.”

Citing internal documentation, the Bee noted that some California counties weren’t represented at all in the final tally. “Organizers in six counties did not submit any signatures by the deadline, according to an initial survey of raw data from the California secretary of state’s office. While the organizers’ spreadsheet contains estimates for large population centers like Orange County, Los Angeles County and Riverside County, they did not have an estimate for 16 counties in addition to the six the secretary of state said did not submit signatures,” the paper reported.

Raising allegations

But one of the foremost political figures behind the movement to restore the personal belief exemption to mandatory child vaccinations alleged that the signature-gathering effort had fallen victim to foul play. “The leading proponent of the effort, former Republican Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, said in an email Monday that volunteers were coerced and threatened while collecting signatures,” according to the Associated Press. “Donnelly did not return repeated messages inquiring about the effort’s chances but said in his email that he was proud of the volunteers who worked on the campaign ‘whatever the outcome is.'” Donnelly said the push “was sabotaged from without and within by powerful forces from its very inception, but we never gave up and we never gave in.”

Although Donnelly had gained notoriety of late as an outspoken gubernatorial candidate, his charges have yet to faze supporters of the stringent vaccination mandate. In remarks to KOVR Sacramento, Pan said he supported “the right to pursue a referendum,” according to the Daily News. But Pan also told reporters he was “sure the voters of California are not interested in letting a privileged few take away the rights of all Californians to be safe from preventable disease,” the AP noted.

Plan B

As the deadline for submitting signatures neared, some anti-vaccination activists created what could be a second opportunity to accomplish objectives similar to the hoped-for referendum. In a recent message posted to Facebook, the group announced that they had filed for a so-called Parental Rights Constitutional Amendment Initiative. “The measure was filed now in part because the filing fee for initiatives is going up Jan. 1 from $200 to $2,000,” the post said, according to the Los Angeles Times. “Supporters have six months to collect signatures for an initiative, far longer than 90 days provided for a referendum.”

A bill that could double California counties’ vehicle registration fees has passed the Legislature, and is awaiting a signature or veto from Gov. Jerry Brown.

Assembly Bill 2393, by Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-San Rafael, authorizes counties to charge annual $2 registration fees on noncommercial vehicles and $4 on commercial vehicles. That represents a 100 percent increase from the current county fees of $1 on noncommercial vehicles and $2 on commercial vehicles.

The additional revenue would increase funding for the state’s Cal-ID fingerprint identification program. Forty five of the state’s 58 counties have imposed the fee, which has not increased for more than 15 years, according to Levine.

Critics charge that AB2393 violates the two-thirds vote requirements for new taxes that is mandated by Propositions 13, 26 and 218.

Levine: need to increase fingerprint ID funding

Levine made his case for the fee hike to the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on June 17.

“By using cutting edge technology, the Cal-ID program has proven to be remarkably successful,” he said. “The program has helped reduce DOJ [Department of Justice] workload since inked fingerprint cards no longer have to be scanned. Also, officer and community safety have increased as the program provides rapid and accurate identification of the people that law enforcement encounters in the field.

“However, enhancements in technology and inflation have reduced the purchasing power of the fees collected for this program. AB2393 gives local law enforcement agencies the tools they need to make their communities safer. It’s also important to emphasize that this bill … simply provides counties with the discretion to increase their fees if they see fit.”

Cory Salzillo, representing the bill’s sponsor, the California State Sheriffs Association, said the current fee brings in about $30 million statewide annually.

“There are reporting requirements in existing law that would be carried through with this bill to ensure accountability in the spending of the funds,” he said.

Taxpayer advocate: bill violates constitution

David Wolfe, legislative director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, argued that the bill violates provisions of the state constitution.

“We believe special taxes approved on the local level, as this bill would do, require a two-thirds vote,” he said. “And there’s nothing in the bill that indicates or states that a two-thirds vote is needed.

“We believe that this case is bolstered by Proposition 26, which was approved by voters in 2010.” He said Prop. 26 said that, “For this to be an appropriate regulatory fee, which I think the author and supporters would claim, there either needs to be a direct benefit to the fee payer or this needs to be a regulatory fee.

“In order for this bill to meet that standard and not be a special tax that would require a two-thirds vote, everybody paying the fee would either have to be a perpetrator or a victim of a vehicle crime. Clearly, this fee goes against everyone who is a vehicle owner, not just perpetrators or victims of vehicle crimes. As such we do believe this is a special tax on the local level.”

John Caldwell, a lobbyist for the Association of California Car Clubs, said car owners are already paying about $36 million in extra fees for law enforcement.

“The insurance code charges every driver for every car $1.80 for law enforcement for fighting fraud,” he said. “So that’s 20 million cars times $1.80. The Department of Insurance gives that money to the DAs and police departments, and they use it themselves. So it’s not like the drivers of these cars are not paying for helping law enforcement. We think this is one too much on people who are already paying a lot for multiple cars.”

There was no discussion by the committee except a comment from its chairman, Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, who said he’s happy to support the bill “in spite of Mr. Wolfe’s compelling testimony, and my respect and affection for him.”

Republican opposition

There also was no debate when the full Senate approved the bill. But several Republicans argued against it on the Assembly floor on Aug. 11.

“This bill doubles the fees. And it does so without two-thirds [voter approval], which makes it a violation of Prop. 218,” said Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks. “It makes it a back door tax increase. I think it’s something we should stand against here on this floor, because not only do we have this, but we also have a hidden gas tax coming down the highway for the average Californian.”

He was referring to the state cap-and-trade gas-tax increase of about 15-cents a gallon that will hit motorists on Jan. 1. It’s part of the implementation of AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law.

“You know, this will hurt the working poor the most,” Donnelly said. “We need people that want to go to work in this state. So this right here is something that will make it more difficult to get Californians back at work at a critical time.”

Donnelly was echoed by Assemblyman Donald Wagner, R-Irvine. “This bill violates Propositions 13, 26 and 218, which require two-thirds votes,” said Wagner. “Those are important protections that your constituents and mine have repeatedly asked to have in the law. By supporting this bill we are essentially thumbing our nose at our constituents.

“I don’t urge that ever, certainly not in an election year. There are three – three – statements by our voters out there telling us procedurally not to do this. I urge that we take them at their word and not raise their taxes again.”

Also opposed was Assembly member Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield. “Under Prop. 218 there’s no new fees to be allowed except for sewer, water, garbage collection, and it must receive voter approval,” she said. “This measure is based on a supposed connection between vehicle registration and automatic fingerprint identification system. Common sense tells you that there’s no nexus between the two.

“This is an issue that is facing the state of California: We are here instituting fees [which] are truly taxes, and to increase these fees on our citizens right now when taxes are the highest in the state of California.”

Levine: not unconstitutional

Levine countered that his bill doesn’t violate those propositions’ two-thirds vote requirements because AB2393 doesn’t actually raise vehicle registration fees. “What it does is empower our counties to decide locally how to set these fees,” he said.

He was backed at the state legislative level by the committee’s legislative analysis of the bill. But the analysis also left open the question of constitutionality at the local level:

“[T]his bill is a majority vote measure in the Legislature because it does not directly result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax. Instead, this bill delegates to county boards of supervisors the authority to impose a vehicle registrations [sic] fee. Ultimately, county counsels will have to determine the appropriate vote threshold at the county level, where a two-thirds vote of the electorate may be required.”

Democrats support

Two Assembly Democrats ignored the constitutionality question, focusing instead on how the fee hike revenue would be spent.

“By all accounts the fingerprint ID program supported by the nominal registration fees has been very successful,” said Assembly member Bonnie Lowenthal, D-Long Beach. “This additional one dollar fee will allow the counties the opportunity to advance the programs with new technology.”

Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, agreed. “The Cal-ID system is crucial for giving law enforcement 21st century tools,” he said. “These advancements in technology allow officers to fingerprint and identify individuals while in the field rather than having to waste time scanning inked fingerprint cards.

“This improves officer safety and provides a benefit to the entire community. Increased funding will help ensure the continued operation of this valuable and effective system.”

Brown had yet to sign or veto AB2393 as of Thursday morning.

It worked, and Davis ended up edging out hopeless GOP hopeful Bill Simon — a bland, cookie-cutter social conservative — in 2002.

Jerry Brown was hardly in the same sad shape as his former chief of staff earlier this year. But he could’ve acted in similarly tricky and mendacious fashion, had he wanted. Carla Marinucci of the San Francisco Chronice was the first to make this point:

“It may be one of the biggest mysteries of the June 2014 primary: why didn’t the California Democratic Party weigh in with money and resources — and ‘pick’ the Republican candidate to go up against Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown in the fall?

“Especially since the choice of Tea Party favorite Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, strategists in both parties predicted, would have helped Democrats, and haunted the GOP and its candidates until November. And since the more moderate former Treasury official Neel Kashkari has the potential to appeal to more independents and crossover voters in November, while possibly helping to lift downticket candidates.

“’The California Democratic Party is sitting on a lot of money,’ and Brown has amassed a $20 million war chest, notes Mike Madrid, the co-director of the USC/Los Angeles Times poll and a longtime California politics watcher.

“’For a very small amount, the party could have launched attacks on moderate Republican Neel Kashkari, and ‘assured that Tim Donnelly was the GOP nominee.'”

Two theories on why the gov took the high road

The gov is no dummy. So here are two theories about why he didn’t pursue this monkey-wrenching:

1) He didn’t think it was honorable. I know this will be laughed off by some, but the Jerry Brown on display for much of the 1990s consistently sounded like a populist idealist who hated coarse politics. If this was in any way genuine, Brown might actually find the idea of manipulating Republican voters to pick his opponent to be distasteful.

2) He didn’t think it would help him, or maybe even California, to have the state GOP be even weaker than it is. It has hardly reached the levels of Bill Clinton, but Brown is a triangulator as well, offering himself as a third point of reference in Sacramento’s political wars between his own free-spending Democrats and allegedly heartless Republicans. He likes the current balance of power.

The possibility that I don’t buy is that the governor didn’t think about manipulating the GOP race. Especially given what Gray Davis did in 2001, it had to have been on his mind.

The first problem is that Brown currently is highly popular and is riding what I have called a “Morning in California” campaign. The state’s economy, although it has not fully recovered from the Great Recession, is doing much better than four years ago when Brown trounced another business executive who never had won a political race, Meg Whitman. And Kashkari doesn’t have the $178 million in personal money that billionaire Meg blew on her failed campaign.

So Kashkari will have difficulty gaining traction on the economy.

He pushed canceling the “crazy” high-speed rail project. Brown keeps including it in his budget.

But will that resonate with voters? I doubt it. But if it does, it would only help a little. And if, perchance, it endangered Brown, then the governor simply could cancel the project. He certainly would not sacrifice re-election to the train. So, again, it’s Brown who is in control of events, not Kashkari.

Kashkari is supposed to appeal to younger voters and immigrants, two groups vanquished GOP opponent Tim Donnelly supposedly offended. But there’s a flip side to that: The Tea Party voters that backed Donnelly likely won’t show up on election day. As yesterday’s plebiscite shows, the Tea Party is weak in California. But Kashkari needs every one of its voters showing up to vote for him in November to even have a chance.

That also was shown by the poor showing by Mitt Romney not just in California in 2012, but across the country: Tea Party voters just stayed home. Mitt’s endorsement of Kashkari is another reason for Tea Party voters to just stay plopped in front of the Boob Tube, watching reruns of “Gilligan’s Island” while swilling a bottle of Jack.

Flyers from Tim Donnelly: None so far.

I’m not a fan of either. I can’t figure out how Donnelly supported redevelopment, which means using eminent domain to seize the property of homeowners and small businesses, to give it to Big Box stores.

But this comes down to the old liberal Establishment vs. conservative grassroots fight in the GOP:

• It’s Ed Zschau vs. Bruce Herschensohn in the 1986 GOP primary for U.S. Senate. Zschau was the Establishment Republican who backed gun control. Bruce was the Reagan Republican. Zschau won, but then lost to Democratic incumbent Alan Cranston.
• It’s the failure of the Establishment GOP to support Tom McClintock in his narrow losses for controller in 1994 and 2002, and for lieutenant governor in 2006.
• It’s the Establishment preferring Arnold Schwarzenegger to McClintock in the 2003 recall, despite my repeated warnings in the Orange County Register that Arnold, at the first sign of problems, would wimp out and back tax increases — which is what happened.

This time, Donnelly is the grassroots conservative. And Kashkari is the obvious Establishment choice, despite his flyers labeling him a “conservative.” Amusingly, the new flyer says Kashkari is “ENDORSED BY FELLOW CONSERVATIVE LEADERS,” including “Governor Mitt Romney” and “Governor Pete Wilson.”

Romney, of course, created Romneycare in Massachusetts, which was the model for Obamacare.

As to Wilson, I remember the battle he had with conservative Republicans in 1991 over his then-record $7 billion tax increase. Along with the majority Democrats in both houses of the Legislature, he needed a handful of Republicans for the two-thirds vote needed. Ed Mendel recounted what happened:

“At one point during the Grass Valley meeting, an angry Wilson warned Assembly Republicans they would become “(bleeping) irrelevant” if they did not vote for the tax increase. Afterward, some conservatives appeared on the Assembly floor sporting lapel buttons emblazoned with two big letters: FI.”

The difference is that now they’re all irrelevant. There’s little chance of the Republican winning anything. In the Top Two primary Tuesday, No. 1 will be Jerry Brown, who will wipe out No. 2 in November.

.

.

How the California Governor’s Race May Be a Boon for House Democrats

“‘It would be a [expletive deleted — Roll Call and the Kashkari campaign apparently are trying to attract the ‘aging hippie’ demographic by pushing ‘Woodstock‘ profanity nostalgia] disaster,’ said Jason Roe, a San Diego-based consultant who has worked with numerous congressional campaigns and whose firm is consulting for Kashkari.”

Actually, as I’ve been noting, led by the ever-savvy Gov. Jerry Brown, Democrats are running a “Morning in California” campaign touting how wise they have been in bringing prosperity back to California. It’s similar to Ronald Reagan’s 1984 “Morning in America” campaign, which led him to a landslide victory, winning 49 states, losing only opponent Walter Mondale’s home state of Minnesota and Washington, D.C., the center of the bureaucratic Godzilla that crushes all our freedoms.

Perez campaign

Let’s check another race.

Here’s former Speaker John Perez, from the front page of his website for his race for controller:

“Our campaign is up on the air! This ad talks about how we’ve worked together to turn California’s fiscal picture around, and what I want to do as Controller to keep our recovery going strong. Please watch it and share it with your friends and networks!

“California’s economy is making a comeback, because our industries are innovating, our workers are producing and we’ve made sound policy decisions at the state level. I’m running for State Controller because sound financial stewardship remains essential to keeping our economy on track and to ensuring opportunity for middle-class families.

“I’ve spent my career fighting to promote opportunity and move California forward. As Speaker of the Assembly, I’ve worked hard to bring our state budget back in balance, promote California businesses and workers, tackle pension abuses, reinvest in our classrooms and make college more affordable for all Californians.

“Working together, we can continue to make the sound decisions that are best for our great state, and I hope to earn your support!”

See — or hear — anything about immigration there? Nope.

Yee campaign

Here’s opponent Betty Yee, also a Democrat and currently a member of the Board of Equalization, from the front page of her website:

“Welcome, and thank you for visiting my website.

“I am running for State Controller because I know strong financial leadership is critical to California’s fiscal health. It is essential to the responsiveness and effectiveness of government in delivering for the people of California.

“To the position of Controller serving as your Chief Fiscal Officer, I bring 30 years of public service experience, specializing in state and local finance and tax policy. I have earned the respect as a problem-solver of complex policy issues and have an established record of toughness, fairness, and integrity.

“Californians deserve and expect their government to be committed to the highest standards of transparency and accountability. I uphold these standards, understanding that the public’s trust and confidence of their government is paramount.

“I have had the wonderful privilege of representing the 9 million Californians in the First District of the State Board of Equalization, home to many of the vibrant industries of California’s economy: biotechnology, health care, high-tech, finance, agriculture, tourism, and more.

“As a native Californian serving in these challenging economic times, I still believe California is a place of expanding opportunities through investment in and support of public education, physical infrastructure, innovation and research, and entrepreneurship.

“To serve as your next State Controller would be an honor.”

Same thing: Nothing on immigration. Why stir up people on a “wedge issue,” as we call them in California, if you don’t have to?

The Arnold Factor

Every election is different. But this year, in addition to all their other problems, Republicans in California will have difficulty using their usual strong suit: calling for economic growth. True, growth here is slower than in Texas and other states. But comparison to 2010 is what matters.

In that, Republicans still are suffering from the disastrous governorship of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who had an “R” next to his name, but governed as a wild-spending, tax-increasing, budget-busting Democrat. It’ll take another decade before voters forget that. Assuming there’s even still a GOP in 2024.

The main reason for this, however, isn’t the behavior of California Republicans. It’s both a broad ideological trend and specific emerging problems in the Democratic coaltion.

The trend I refer to is the increasing emergence of tech libertarians in state politics. The rich ones are a potent source of money and lobbying clout. The young ones in Silicon Valley and elsewhere are a niche voting group likely to turn out on Election Day. They have little faith in government. Even if they’re mostly Democratic now, they’re not Dems because they want the leviathan to get bigger.

The specific emerging problems for Dems have to do with the fundamentally different agendas of key party factions.

The battle is already in the open between Asian Democrats and black/Latino Democrats over a return to explicit racial favoritism in UC admissions policies.

But with every year, we inch closer to the political equivalent of the Big One, in which Latino Democrats conclude Latino kids are not well-served by their lawmakers’ reflexive support of public education policies that value the interests of majority-white teachers unions over majority-Latino student bodies.

A crucial example of this can be seen in the race for state superintendent of public instruction. Former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa avidly supports reformer Marshall Tuck over incumbent/CTA tool Tom Torlakson. Villaraigosa has been a quasi-mentor to a generation of California Latino pols in their 20s and 30s. John Perez may still be a CTA/CFT lackey, but a lot of these emerging Latino pols are likely to be closer to Villaraigosa than to his fellow Angeleno Perez. Gloria Romero, another L.A. Dem, may yet be vindicated for her depiction of the priorities of the school system as being the biggest California civil rights issue.

Eager to excuse Donnelly’s abject racist stupidity

But even if all these issues break well for the GOP in California, will the party take advantage? A month ago, I’d have said yes. Now, after watching the mixed reaction to gubernatorial candidate Tim Donnelly’s abject racist stupidity about Neel Kashkari, his Indian-American opponent, I am far less sure. A party whose rank-and-file doesn’t grasp the need to cast this guy out of the village is doomed.

I wrote about Donnelly’s idiocy in the U-T San Diego:

“Donnelly could have cruised to the runoff simply by repeating over and over that Kashkari played a key role in the Troubled Asset Relief Program — the unpopular big-government scheme that Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama implemented to try to shore up the economy in 2008 and 2009.

“Instead, Donnelly has chosen to be a race-baiter. He has repeatedly depicted Kashkari as an advocate of extreme Islamic Sharia law because Kashkari once spoke at a conference in which Sharia finance was the focus.

“This is ridiculous. Kashkari is a Hindu of Indian descent who advocates free-market capitalism — not a Muslim cleric seeking religious control of government institutions.

“It is also odious, because Donnelly evidently hopes to gather votes from Californians by encouraging the idea that all people with dark skin whose ancestors hail from Asia are crypto-terrorists.

“Sadly, this may be something that Donnelly actually believes.”

And even if he does believe it, based on the online comments and emails I’ve seen, lots of GOPers are eager to forgive him for it.

Both Donnelly, Kashkari are ‘imperfect’

As well as some people who should know way, way better. FlashReport gave big play Sunday to a piece on the governor’s race in which author David Salaverry suggested there was some sort of moral equivalence between Donnelly’s Sharia manure and Kashkari’s criticizing Donnelly for taking government perks and being a bad businessman.

They’re both “imperfect” GOP candidates, you see.

Get used to being marginal, California Republicans. If you’re this obtuse, you deserve it.

This is not a defense of Kashkari. It takes chutzpah to run for the Republican nomination for governor in the largest state after admitting to voting in 2008 for the epic walking debacle that is Barack Obama. But at least Kashkari is not a racist dolt.

Like Tim Donnelly.