By John Hrabe

National Journal’s The Hotline released its first list of the most competitive U.S. House of Representatives races for the 2012 cycle. These are the 75 seats that National Journal considers “most likely to change hands in November.”

Interesting observations about the rankings:

* California, the state with the largest congressional delegation, had 10 districts make the list, the most of any state.

* New York’s nine races to make the list received a more competitive score. If the states are ranked on a scale of the races, from one to 75, New York races averaged 40.44, compared to 52.2 for the Golden State.

* Three California races are listed in the Top 30: the re-election campaigns of Republican Congressmen Dan Lungren and Brian Bilbray as well as current Republican State Sen. Tony Strickland’s campaign against Democratic Assemblywoman Julia Brownley for the open Ventura County seat in the U.S. House.

The Hotline’s rankings differ slightly from The Nooner’s “12 Most Interesting Congressional Races,” published by Scott Lay at AroundtheCapitol.com. The Nooner’s list included intra-party feuds, whereas National Journal ranked seats most likely to change party hands.

Rankings don’t really mean much to voters. However, they can influence the party congressional committees and PACs, especially as they decide where to allocate national resources. Based on both rankings, expect Bilbray, Strickland and Lungren to be first in line for major national funding.

The races that made Hotline but not the Nooner are: the 3rd race between Democratic incumbent John Garamendi and Republican Colusa County Supervisor Kim Vann; the 36th race between Republican incumbent Mary Bono Mack and Democrat Raul Ruiz; and the open 47th race between Republican Gary DeLong and Democratic State Senator Alan Lowenthal.

Here’s how National Journal summarized these races.

* CD-3 is a Democratic district held by Democratic Rep. John Garamendi. Almost three-fourths of the district is new to him, but Garamendi’s 52 percent showing in the June all-party primary was a good sign. In previous years with that system, Democrats almost always improved on their primary percentages in November.

* CD-36 is a Republican district held by Republican Rep. Mary Bono Mack. Her diverse inland seat has long captured Democratic imaginations, and she only got 52 percent of the vote in 2010. This year, she’ll have to battle presidential-year Hispanic turnout marshaled by Democrat Raul Ruiz, but the seat got slightly more Republican.

* CD-47 is a new Democratic district. Republicans like Gary DeLong, but presidential year turnout in Long Beach makes victory a tricky proposition, though he has a better opportunity than if the seat were filled by an incumbent Democrat.

Other races

The races on the Nooner’s list that didn’t make National Journal’s radar:

* CD21: a Republican leaning Kings County seat, featuring Democrat John Hernandez vs. Republican David Valadao.

And California’s four intra-party feuds. Because of the new Top Two system, the November runoff features two rivals from the same party:

* CD-8  is a Republican seat in San Bernardino County, pitting two Republicans against one another: Paul Cook vs. Gregg Imus.
* CD-35 is a Democratic seat in Ontario, setting two Democrats against one another: Joe Baca vs. Gloria Negrete McLeod.
* CD-31 is a Republican seat in San Bernardino County featuring two Republicans, Bob Dutton vs. Gary Miller.
* CD-30 is a Democratic seat in San Fernando Valley with the Democratic rivals being Howard Berman vs. Brad Sherman.

While the intra-party feuds won’t affect which party controls the House in January, they could affect the partisan makeup of California’s state legislature.  CalWatchDog.com first reported on how the outcome of the 35th congressional race could determine whether Democrats gain two-thirds control of the state Senate. As an even-numbered state senator, Negrete-McLeod would need to resign her senate seat in order to be sworn in as a member of Congress, thereby leaving her senate seat vacant until filled by a special election.

State Sen. Juan Vargas, another even-numbered Democratic congressional candidate, is almost guaranteed to win this November. His victory would create at least one state Senate vacancy.

In the state Legislature, tax increases are subject to a two-thirds vote requirement, a threshold unaffected by vacancies.

By JOHN HRABE

Back to the campaign drawing board for California Republicans.

The California Supreme Court recently upheld the maps drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

The immediate fallout: State Sen. Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, told his hometown paper that he wouldn’t seek reelection, due to the unfavorable maps approved by the court. In another swing seat, Republicans have yet even to field a candidate. State Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Moorpark, announced that he wouldn’t seek reelection in order to run for a new seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

If Republicans lose both state Senate seats, their Senate caucus will be reduced to fewer than 14 members, the all-important two-thirds threshold that gives Republicans the ability to block tax increases. At 13 Republican and 27 Democratic state senators, Democrats in the Senate could vote to impose infinite tax increases.

“It’s going to be seriously difficult for Republicans to stay above one-third in the Senate because of this,” California Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro complained to the Mercury News. “It puts the two-party system in the Senate in jeopardy.”

$2.1 Million Dollars for Useless Referendum

Republicans can now put a cost on their defeat: $2.1 million.

According to its fourth quarter campaign finance report, the Republican group Fairness & Accountability in Redistricting spent a whopping $2.1 million on its effort to put the new state Senate maps to a vote in November. The committee collected $1.7 million, or 80 percent, of its funding from the California Republican Party. That’s money that a cash-depleted party could have invested into voter registration programs for the three competitive state Senate districts.

“The CRP already spent a few million dollars on the referendum and varied lawsuit, all this while one of their best senate candidates, Jeff Miller, has no million-dollar voter registration program and can’t even afford a new URL,” observed the January 30th Redistricting Partners newsletter.

But it didn’t have to end this way for Golden State Republicans. Not if they’d followed the old maxim: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Lesson One: Research redistricting commissioners and use legislative strikes wisely.

Propositions 11 and 20 gave legislative leaders of both parties the power to strike up to two names from the final applicant subpool of redistricting commissioners. Republican leaders could have spent a few thousand dollars on opposition research reports on the backgrounds of redistricting commissioners. Or they could have spent just a few hours cross-checking applicants against the state’s campaign finance database. Had anyone at the California Republican Party done a few hours of research, they’d have discovered several campaign contributions by two commissioners.

Back in July 2011, CalWatchDog.com first reported on two redistricting commissioners’ partisan histories and campaign contributions. Commissioner Jeanne Raya failed to disclose four contributions totaling $1,000 made on behalf of her business to a state political action committee.  State law requires commissioners to disclose any civic, political or charitable donations of $250 or more.

Commissioner Gabino Aguirre made three campaign donations to Democratic candidates for state office. In November 2008, Aguirre contributed $100 to Ferial Masry, the Democratic nominee for the 37th State Assembly District. A year later, he made a $200 contribution to Gloria Romero, a former Democratic state senator. Aguirre also has extensive ties to a redistricting special interest group, the Central Coast Alliance United for A Sustainable Economy (CAUSE). The progressive social justice organization submitted its own redistricting maps for the Central Coast. It’s no coincidence that Blakeslee and Strickland’s seats, which are now likely to flip to the Democrats, are both on the Central Coast.

With just a little bit of research, Republicans could have made an educated decision to strike Raya and Aguirre. But Republican legislative leaders didn’t want to spend the money. One high-level staffer described Republican legislative leaders’ approach to the redistricting process as “an inexcusable reluctance to spend the resources to research the background of the commissioners.” Another senior staff member for a Republican legislator put it simply, “The truth is we’re idiots.”

While neither staffer wanted to be identified by name, one Republican political consultant openly defied party leadership in an attempt to save the GOP from itself.

“When you start the process telling people not to be involved and then end the process complaining that others were too involved, you have created your own emergency,” wrote Matt Rexroad, a partner with Meridian Pacific, in his rant for Capitol Weekly. “The issue that really galls me is that Republicans can cry foul all they want, but legislative leadership made it very clear that they did not want any Republican consultants to engage on redistricting.”

Lesson Two: Focus on the flawed process, not self-interested outcomes.

If they had been consistent in their objections, Republicans could have convinced the public that the redistricting process was flawed.

Republicans were right: the redistricting process was corrupted by special interest groups. Background research could have helped expose Aguirre, but the full extent of his partisan activities couldn’t have been fully brought to light in time for the legislative strikes.  That’s because Aguirre’s last and most egregious contribution, a $100 check to Democratic Assemblyman Das Williams, posted to the Secretary of State’s website nine days after the Bureau of State Audits completed its background check.

Williams had a vested interest in redistricting. Yet the commission took no action to disclose this potential conflict of interest or sequester Aguirre from Williams’ region. They did the opposite. Aguirre was put in charge of overseeing the Central Coast mapmaking.  He promptly adopted the maps suggested by his friends at CAUSE.

Jerry Roberts and Phil Trounstine, who have been highly-critical of the Republicans’ redistricting referendum, questioned the cause of Willliams’ redistricting good fortune. “When you look at Williams’ new 37th Assembly district, which is about as safe for him as can be, along with the new 19th SD, the future of the hyper-ambitious young pol looks bright indeed, whether he sits still for two more, two-year terms in the Assembly, or jumps into a 2012 race that could bring two four-year terms in the senate. Coincidence? You be judge,” the CalBuzz team wrote back in August.

Republicans didn’t concentrate on this message, in part, because they liked the configuration of the State Assembly maps. They also ignored the Voting Rights Act violations with the congressional maps because those were favorable to high-ranking House Republicans. Instead, Republicans voluntarily swapped a message about the flawed process for a pity-party about losing one-third control of the State Senate.

Lesson Three: Don’t look a gift commissioner in the mouth.

Redistricting Commissioner Mike Ward, an Orange County chiropractor with no prior involvement in state politics, demonstrated a more coherent message than Republican political pros.

“The Citizens Redistricting Commission has certified maps that are fundamentally flawed as a result of a tainted political process,” Ward said at the commission’s August 15 press conference. “This commission simply traded the partisan, backroom gerrymandering by the Legislature, for partisan, backroom gerrymandering by average citizens.”

Then Ward did what you’re supposed to do when you object to a corrupted process: he voted against all of the proposed maps. He didn’t cherry-pick maps based on those that would help his political party. The Senate referendum quashed Ward’s message about the flawed process. If the process was corrupted, why only challenge one set of four maps? Republicans’ inconsistent message impressed upon the press, public and ultimately the State Supreme Court that the referendum was motivated by partisan interests.

Lesson Four: Courts are influenced by public opinion.

Republicans’ last error with its redistricting message came with the referendum lawsuit. Republicans turned the lawsuit into a legal argument about the rule of law, the right to referendum and the will of the voters.

“In the law, the word ‘stay’ has a clear meaning. To ‘stay’ an action means to stop that action. The most authoritative legal dictionary of American law defines ‘stay’ as, ‘To stop, arrest, forbear.’ To ‘stay’ an order or decree means to hold it in abeyance, or refrain from enforcing it.” Black’s Law Dictionary, at 1267 (5th ed. 1979).

Assemblyman Don Wagner wrote in the Flash Report, “Thus, because the petition is ‘likely to qualify,’ the Supreme Court was directed by the Constitution to ‘refrain from enforcing’ the Commission’s Senate maps. In short, the California Constitution, with a simple, four letter word of indisputable meaning, stays or stops the use of the Commission lines until the people have their say on those lines at the ballot box.”

Legally, Wagner may be right. But, who cares? Not even the Supreme Court cared about legal precedents or Black’s Law Dictionary when public opinion stood on the other side.

Said the court’s unanimous opinion, “The Commission-certified Senate districts also are a product of what generally appears to have been an open, transparent and nonpartisan redistricting process as called for by the current provisions of article XXI.” In other words, the Court was influenced by press accounts and public opinion when deciding what to do with the redistricting mess.

In their stories about the court decision, neither the Los Angeles Times nor Sacramento Bee included a word about the corrupted process. Mike Ward was left out completely.

By the end of the redistricting scandal, Republicans had so badly muddled their message that there was no longer any reference to a corrupted process.

(Related: 10 Ways to improve the Citizens Redistricting Commission.)

By JOHN HRABE

“If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog,” goes an old adage.

Just getting to Washington will be a test of friendship for the candidates in the dogfight over California’s new, redistricted 26th District in the U.S. House of Representatives. One of the country’s hottest congressional races kicked off when one friend backed down from a fight against another friend. Rep. Elton Gallegly, R- Simi Valley, announced his retirement instead of challenging his GOP colleague, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Santa Clarita.

State Senator Tony Strickland, R-Thousand Oaks, has long coveted Gallegly’s congressional seat. (Strickland is pictured in the right of the nearby picture; to his left is Scott Wilk.)

Strickland delayed his campaign announcement a few days, out of deference to his friend, Gallegly. “Right now, I’d just like to focus on Elton and let him have his day,” Strickland said when first asked about the open seat.

Ventura County’s gossip mill has another version of the story. “LOL since they famously loathe each other,” tweeted Democratic consultant and gossip king, Jason Kinney. Gallegly and Strickland are more like “frenemies.” They’ve engaged in proxy battles for control of the Ventura County Republican Central Committee for more than a decade.

In 2006, Gallegly tried to handpick his successor and shatter Strickland’s congressional dreams. Ironically, that move formed the basis for a new friendship. Gallegly’s on-again, off-again re-election campaign resulted in a primary challenge from Michael Tenenbaum, a Ventura County attorney. Gallegly wanted a unified local party in his corner. Strickland didn’t want a political newcomer jumping the line. So, Strickland united the party behind Gallegly because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

‘You’ve Got a Friend in Me’

While Strickland and Gallegly moved past their rivalry, the 26th House race has turned two lifelong pals into fair-weather friends. One of Strickland’s “good friends” is Santa Clarita Community College Trustee Scott Wilk. They became fast friends years ago, while working as aides to conservative superstar Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Granite Bay. Over the years, the friendship has blended the personal with the political.

In 2008, Wilk dispatched his son, Scott Wilk, Jr., to work on Strickland’s contentious California Senate campaign. “Lil’ Wilk” waved Strickland campaign signs in the morning, walked door-to-door during the day, and stuffed envelopes at night.  Strickland’s victory also gave Wilk Jr. the chance to learn the family business as an aide in Strickland’s legislative office.

Unsurprisingly, when Wilk expressed interest early last year in the 38th State Assembly seat, Strickland was among the first people to tell Wilk, “You’ve got a friend in me.”

“I can’t think of a better battle-tested conservative candidate than Scott Wilk,” Strickland proclaimed in the campaign’s first press release, long before Gallegly’s retirement. “That’s why I support Scott Wilk for Assembly.”

The Friendship Paradox

Strickland’s new congressional campaign, however, made Wilk the unwitting victim of the friendship paradox. That’s the theory that “most people have fewer friends than their friends have.”

Wilk counted Strickland among his friends, which means, according to the friendship paradox, Strickland has more friends than Wilk. Strickland’s friend list includes House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield. McCarthy and Strickland are BFFs, best friends forever, after serving together in the State Assembly. McCarthy, sticking with the friendship paradox, has more Facebook friends than Strickland, as the nearby chart shows.

One of McCarthy’s many friends is Rep. McKeon. McKeon objected to Strickland’s endorsement of Wilk for State Assembly because of another friendship. McKeon’s wife, Patricia, a sort of friend with benefits, is running for the same Assembly seat as Wilk. Blogger Dave Bossert reported, “Strickland was put under intense political pressure from Republicans” to drop Wilk.

You see, McKeon has friends in high places, the GOP congressional caucus. “A lot of folks in the delegation feel uncomfortable going all-out to help me when I’m going against Buck’s wife,” Strickland told National Journal’s Shane Goldmacher. “You take your wife’s races a little more personal than even your own.” If he stuck by Wilk, Strickland was jeopardizing financial support from the National Republican Congressional Committee. Thereby proving, “He that hath a full purse never wanted a friend.”

To recap: McKeon got his friends in high places (the GOP Caucus) to help his friend with benefits (Patricia McKeon) by pressuring McCarthy into convincing his BFF (Strickland) to ditch the endorsement of his lifelong friend (Wilk).

With Friends Like These…

If you’re having trouble keeping up, you might need to track down a teenage girl to explain this next part. From 2001-2006, Rep. McKeon “got by with a little help from his friend.” A district director named … Scott Wilk. As McKeon’s top district aide, Wilk helped build McKeon’s political machine and made sizeable contributions to McKeon’s re-election campaigns.

Wilk entered the Assembly race long before Patricia expressed interest in any political office. Now, he’s facing the political machine and name identification he helped build. Wilk has to be wondering, “With friends like the McKeons, who needs enemies?” If, by this point in the story, you’ve lost all hope in political friendship, it’s not all de-friending in California’s 26th congressional race.

California Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro, a longtime Strickland friend and campaign contributor, made a rare pre-primary endorsement of Strickland’s congressional bid. Locally, another Strickland friend, Ventura County GOP Chairman Mike Osborn, came through with a masterful, early endorsement by the county party. Under the California Republican Party’s new bylaws, the local party endorsement is a prerequisite before any party apparatus can get involved. The Osborn-orchestrated vote was unanimous.

“There is no better choice to represent Ventura County in Congress than Tony Strickland,” Osborn said of his good friend. Both Del Beccaro and Osborn can thank Strickland for helping them secure their party positions. State legislators appoint delegates to the state party and serve as ex-officio members of county committees.

It’s also safe to assume that the Los Angeles County Republican Party will follow Ventura County’s lead. The LA County GOP Chairwoman is Lynn Haueter. The Santa Clarita Signal recently dished that Haueter’s day job is as a full-time district representative for Sen. Strickland. According to her official party biography, Haueter was appointed to the county central committee by Strickland, after she helped with his 2008 campaign.

Haueter’s name is well known in the Santa Clarita Valley because of her husband, Bob. Yet another political friendship with benefits. Bob, who has a reputation as one of the most effective political professionals in California, works as the deputy chief of staffto Rep. McKeon.

A Friend in Need

Wilk, too, has some notable friends. McClintock, the political operation where Strickland and Wilk first forged their friendship, announced that he’d stick with Wilk. “He impresses the hell out of me and that was one of the easiest endorsements I’ve made in my whole career,” McClintock told National Journal.

The biggest name in California conservative politics also offered a principled example that “a friend in need is a friend indeed.” Like his mentor McClintock, Wilk proved he’s also a loyal friend, a man who stands by his friends through thick and thin. “Tony is good friend and I still want him to know that he has my full support in his run for Congress,” Wilk posted on his Facebook page, the gold standard of friendship. “Tony Strickland will make an excellent congressman.”

Liberals Not Better Friends

Liberals can’t take too much pleasure in the Republican trouble among friends. Linda Parks and Steve Bennett, both liberal Ventura County Supervisors, have entered the 26th House race. Both are longtime leaders in the SOAR environmental movement. Both have unimpeachable environmental credentials. Both “led the political fight to save Ahmanson Ranch,” where they are shown in the picture at the right. Both have endorsed each other in their past supervisorial campaigns.

In 2007, Parks stood by Bennett’s side when he launched his re-election campaign. Parks was with Bennett on day one, a full year in advance of the election. In 2010, Bennett reciprocated with crucial support for Parks’ re-election fight against Audra Strickland, the wife of Tony. Audra was an assemblywoman who had to leave that office because of term limits. She lost badly in Parks in the election for supervisor.

Top Two Primary

Now, these one-time friends, Parks and Bennett, will be competing over the same pool of voters: liberals, women and environmentalists. California’s new primary rules might re-unite these friends-turned rivals again after the primary. The “Top Two” system means the top two vote winners in the primary, regardless of party, move on to the general election; no other choices will be on the ballot.

Should Bennett lose to Parks in the primary, Democrats may consider endorsing Parks in the general election. Strickland is considered Public Enemy No. 1 by Ventura County Democrats.

Meanwhile, Parks said in her campaign announcement she’d consider “no party preference,” a new designation under the Top Two system. Democrats may have no choice but to adopt the mantra: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

What’s the lesson from this case study in political friendship? Good friends are hard to find. When in doubt, stick to man’s best friend. “Better make it a small dog, because it may turn on you also,” warned former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in what’s come to be known as the Rumsfeld Corollary, according to Safire’s Political Dictionary.

Maybe that’s why Strickland has three Chihuahuas.

(Notes: The dogs are not Strickland’s. And before my etymology friends email me: David Rothman, author of “The Solomon Scandals,” and Barry Popik, a contributor-consultant to the Oxford English Dictionary, have documented why Harry Truman isn’t the author of the famous quote.)

JAN. 8, 2012

By JOHN HRABE

California’s 2012 redistricting already is shaking up state and even federal politics. The candidates’ dogfight for the new 26th congressional district could determine whether Democrats or Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives after the November election — or at least the degree of Republican control.

Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Simi Valley, announced on Saturday that he’ll retire from Congress. He currently represents the old 24th Congressional District, which was drawn after the 2000 U.S. Census.

Gallegly would have had to run an uphill challenge against Rep. Buck McKeon in the new 25th District, based on the 2010 U.S. Census. McKeon has been in Congress since 1993 and is chairman of the powerful Armed Services Committee.

Gallegly’s other option was a tough general election fight in the 26^th Congressional district. The new Ventura County-based district, which includes Oxnard, Thousand Oaks, Moorpark and Camarillo, gives Democrats a slight voter-registration advantage.

However, the district has conservative tendencies and voted in favor of Proposition 8, California’s anti-gay marriage initiative. According to Redistricting Partners’ analysis of the district, it went handily to Obama in 2008 and slightly favored Whitman in 2010.

Gallegly’s retirement creates the opportunity for several county politicians to make their moves on the long-coveted seat. The Democratic side already features five announced candidates: Ventura County Supervisor Steve Bennett, Moorpark Councilman David Pollock, community activist Zeke Ruelas, businessman David Cruz Thayne and Oxnard Harbor District board member Jess Herrera.

On the Republican side, state Senator Tony Strickland, R-Santa Barbara, could be challenged by County Supervisor Linda Parks, a slow-growth environmental activist.

What to Watch for in CD 26

10. State Senator Tony Strickland Will Clear the Republican Field

Strickland will have the support of the Republican establishment, both in the county and on Capitol Hill. Ventura County’s field of top-tier Republican candidates has winnowed in the past five years. Bob Brooks, a popular Republican county sheriff and close Gallegly friend, passed on the chance to take over the seat in 2006, when Gallegly first flirted with retirement. Tom McClintock, another longtime county Republican stalwart, couldn’t wait for Gallegly’s retirement and moved to a Northern California congressional seat in 2008.

Other than Strickland, there’s only one Republican elected official in Ventura County with grassroots support, name ID and a strong fundraising prowess: County Supervisor Peter Foy. He told me Saturday night that he’s supporting Strickland. It’s perhaps Strickland’s most important local endorsement because it clears Strickland’s right flank.

Ventura County Supervisor Linda Parks, a registered Republican, won’t gain any traction with any of the county’s Republican establishment if she decides to enter the race. Ventura County Republican Chairman Mike Osborn, a close Strickland ally, led the county party’s independent expenditure campaign against Parks in 2010. Republican women proved to be the key voter demographic in that race. Expect the same in this match-up between Tony Strickland and Parks. If Parks is able to make the runoff, Republican women will be the most crucial voting bloc.

On Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., expect House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, to quickly lock down key endorsements and financial support for Strickland. The Strickland-McCarthy friendship dates back to McCarthy’s tenure as Assembly Republican leader.

Strickland served as an important member of McCarthy’s inner circle in Sacramento, and he’ll want to add Strickland as a loyal member of his team in Washington. (Fun fact: The pair overcame a one-time “young Republican” feud. McCarthy came up through the Bill Thomas machine; Strickland the more conservative crowd. The split was so bad it led to the creation of two separate young Republican organizations.)

9. Left-Wing Fight: Latino Democrat vs. Environmentalist Liberal

The CD 26 race could turn into a nasty fight between a Latino Democrat and a progressive environmentalist. Ruelas and Herrera will fight to be the consensus Latino candidate, while Bennett and Parks jockey to be the environmentalist candidate. (Yes, even though Parks is a registered Republican.) One quarter of the voting age population is Latino. Unless another Latino candidate enters the race, Herrera, a five-term commissioner on the Oxnard Harbor District, likely has the advantage over Ruelas.

The environmentalist battle might be avoided altogether. Bennett and Parks share the same base of anti-growth supporters. Both have served for decades as leaders in the SOAR movement (Save Open-Space and Agricultural Resource). SOAR opposes property rights in favor of protecting obscure wildlife.

In late December, the Ventura County Star reported that Bennett was having second thoughts about the race. If Bennett drops out, he’ll likely support Parks, despite her Republican registration. Bennett has endorsed Parks in the past and even contributed money to her supervisorial campaigns. Expect environmentalists to unite early in an “anyone but Strickland” coalition.

8. Regional Split: West County (Oxnard) vs. East County (Thousand Oaks)

Ventura County’s natural geographic divide is the Conejo Grade.  East County includes Thousand Oaks, Newbury Park and Moorpark. It’s wealthier, more Republican and increasingly moderate.

West County, which includes Port Hueneme, Oxnard and Ventura, is the major source of Democratic votes, due to its working class and primarily Latino population.

The first signs of a geographic split will be internally, between the environmentalists Bennett and Parks. Bennett represents West County; Parks East County. Parks should have the edge because she’ll have support from a broad base of community leaders in the East, while some of Bennett’s Democratic support will go to the Latino consensus candidate. Prior to her election to the county board, Parks served as a member of the Thousand Oaks City Council. Assuming the environmentalist crowd consolidates behind Parks, there’ll still be a geographic split with the Latino candidate from Oxnard.

Strickland has represented all of these areas in either the state Assembly or Senate, with most of his support coming from Camarillo, Moorpark and Thousand Oaks.

7. The Heretofore Unknown Wealthy Republican Who Wants to be Called “Congressman”

Strickland’s biggest competitor for traditional Republican votes could come from the heretofore unknown wealthy Republican who wants to be called “congressman.”

In 2006 and 2008, wealthy attorney and businessman Michael Tenenbaum ran to replace Gallegly. He seized on Gallegly’s “will-he-or-won’t-he” moment to fill that role.

Another wealthy Republican could follow the Tenenbaum model. Gallegly has held the seat for 24 years, so you can expect a few wealthy businessmen to think twice before passing on their chance at a congressional seat.

6. Big Labor Will Decide Who Makes the Runoff

Big Labor will play heavily in this race, but it’s unclear whom they’ll support. Both Parks and Bennett have strong, pro-union records on the Board of Supervisors. Herrera and Ruelas are former and current longshoremen.

Labor could stay out of the primary and keep its powder dry for a general election fight against Strickland. Or, it could decide to get behind the potentially stronger candidate, Parks.  There’s even the possibility that a few unions might consider supporting Strickland.

Whomever Big Labor gets behind will be the candidate to make the runoff.

5. Strickland’s  Pre-Primary GOP Endorsement Undermined by … Tony Strickland

Parks’s Republican registration, despite being in name only, complicates Strickland’s chances for a pre-primary endorsement from the California Republican Party. A party endorsement could provide crucial financial support. During last year’s internal party endorsement debate, party kingpins Jon Fleischman and Mike Schroeder proposed an easy pre-primary endorsement process that would favor conservative candidates. Their plan was defeated in favor of a complicated local convention system.

Under the current party rules, two-thirds of the county central committee members in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties must approve a pre-primary endorsement. Then, two-thirds of the California Republican Party Board of Directors must authorize the endorsement.

It’s a complicated but feasible hurdle for Strickland to overcome. Of course, Strickland has no one to blame but himself. He provided critical support for the more complicated plan. It was the brainchild of none other than McCarthy. The question will be if fringe, anti-Strickland Republicans can marshal enough votes to block an endorsement at the local level.

4. Outside Groups Will Play Heavily in the Race

Environmental groups, labor unions, Indian tribes and business interests will all play in this congressional race. Strickland, a former president of the California chapter of the influential Club for Growth, can expect major support from anti-tax, pro-growth advocates.

Parks is a quintessential RINO — Republican in Name Only. She’ll ignite the ire of anti-tax, anti-union activists throughout the country. Think Dede Scozzafava, the New York Republican politician just appointed to a post by liberal Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo; but Parks sports a record of quashing property rights to save squirrels. The Sierra Club and state public employee unions will play in the race in favor of the consensus liberal candidate.

3. The Most Expensive Congressional Race in California History

If you’re a Republican donor in California, chances are you’ve already received a fundraising pitch from Strickland. It’s been 24 hours since Gallegly announced his retirement. That’s enough time for Strickland to contact several hundred donors.

One of the best fundraisers in the state, I’d look for Strickland to post a massive fundraising number at the end of the first reporting period. (Yes, I just raised expectations.) The combination of Strickland’s fundraising and outside groups will make the 26^th congressional district one of the most expensive races in California history.

2. Linda Parks Will Re-Register as a Democrat

A potential game changer in this race is when Parks re-registers as a Democrat. In a debate, I’d ask Parks to name the last Republican presidential candidate she has supported. (Not that anyone can blame her for abandoning the anti-freedom Sen. John McCain.)

If Parks re-registered as a Democrat, she’d have the formal support of her Democratic friends and allies. Check Parks’s past endorsement record and you’ll find a “Who’s Who” of Democratic activists. It’d be so much easier for her to campaign as a Democrat instead of as a moderate Republican.

If Parks fails to make the runoff, look for her to endorse the Latino Democrat, regardless of her party registration.

1. The Race Will Remain Undecided for Days, Possibly Weeks

Get the lawyers ready for a heated ballot review process in November. It is easier to list the races that “Landslide Tony” has won easily than identify the races he’s barely squeaked out. Most of his victories have been decided weeks after Election Day.

The only race Strickland has won by a comfortable margin was his final re-election to the State Assembly in 2002. In 1998 and 2000, Strickland beat schoolteacher Roz McGrath by a hair. The 2008 state Senate race against former Assemblywoman Hannah Beth Jackson took weeks of ballot checking before a winner was declared.

And then there’ll be the rematch for District 26 in 2014.

Bonus Prediction: Epic Ground War Between Strickland and Parks

The best ground campaign activists in California Republican politics will reunite to run the ground campaign in this race. Strickland has trained a network of activists and should be expected to reinstitute his flop-house walk program. That’s where poor college students are convinced to spend day and night walking for the cause. Look for the best political operatives in conservative politics to forgo their lucrative state salaries and temporarily take LWOP — leave without pay — to support Strickland’s bid.

The Strickland machine will face its toughest test yet in Parks’s environmental operation. Every activist who has chained himself to a tree to save the spotted owl will mobilize to support Parks. She is a serious and credible candidate with high name ID. If she doesn’t re-register as a Democrat, this may be the first and only race to feature a Republican versus Republican general election match-up.

(Full disclosure: The author previously worked for Tony Strickland, a candidate for District 26.)

Sen. Tony Strickland’s bill to strip pensions from public employees who commit financial felonies on the job failed yesterday in committee. All of the majority Democrats opposed SB 115 in the Senate Committee on Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security.

The bill would have affected only those employees who committed felonies on the job. It was a response to the Bell scandal, in which city employees will receive massive pensions even though they systematically looted the city. The following felonies would have brought termination of pension benefits: accepting, giving, or offering to give a bribe, embezzlement of public money, extortion or theft of public money, tampering with a witness, money laundering, preparation of false documents, or conspiracy to commit any of these crimes.

The bill would not have affected the pensions of those who committed felonies outside of their official duties. For example, a policeman who killed someone in a bar fight, off duty, would not lose his pension.

By defeating SB 115, Democrats have given even crooked employees another reason to keep robbing taxpayers. And the public-employee unions that control the Democratic Party have shown that they are unwilling to discipline even their most wayward members.

In a statement, Strickland said:

The real victims in this case are the taxpayers. They are the ones who will have to pay the outrageous pensions of public employees who violate their trust. This bill would have been a step in the right direction to eliminate the use of precious taxpayer dollars to pay lifelong pensions of public employees turned convicted felons.

If legislators can’t do this simple pension reform — we will have a hard time getting any meaningful reform moving forward.

The bill’s defeat is a microcosm of the routine looting taxpayers suffer every day.

May 3, 2011