Readers concur, 'Six Californias' don't add up

SACRAMENTO—Judging by your emails, many readers agree with me that a proposed ballot measure to split California into six states is crazy. "Ridiculous." "Laughable."

Also, you concur that this bird will never fly.

Not only would the plan need to be approved by California voters, Congress and the president would have to sign off, too.

"Do you really think Democrats would ever allow anything to disrupt the 55-electoral-vote advantage they get every four years?" from California, reader Kurt wrote.

Very good point. California has been solid blue for the Democratic presidential candidate in the past six elections. Split the state six ways and perhaps half those electoral votes would turn Republican red.

And this from Todd: "The drawing of these lines will mean a huge boom in Republican U.S. Senators…which I probably don't want to share with GOP voters if this qualifies for the ballot. That's bad news from where this progressive Santa Monican sits."

Yes, by my calculation, the 12 senators produced by the new states very likely would be split half Democrat, half Republican. Today, both senators are Democrats.

Looking at voter registrations, three states—West California, Silicon Valley and North California—would favor Democrats. Three—South California, Central California and Jefferson—would side Republican.

Specifically, West California would include Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. Silicon Valley: San Francisco, most of the Bay Area and Monterey County. North California: Marin County and the Napa-Sonoma wine country, east through Sacramento to Lake Tahoe.

Color the rest red. South California: Orange, San Diego, Imperial, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Central California: the San Joaquin Valley east to Nevada. Jefferson: thirteen small counties north to the Oregon line.

All this is the craftsmanship of super-rich Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper, who has poured nearly $2 million into a signature-gathering drive to qualify his "Six Californias" initiative for the state ballot. He has until mid-May to turn in 808,000 valid voter signatures to place the proposition on the November ballot. He says he's "close."

Draper, registered independent of any party, contends that California is too big, too ungovernable and too insensitive to local problems. "These states have very, very different interests," he says.

"People in the far south are worried about immigration law. Silicon Valley has different immigration interests and wants a state more in touch with technology. Hollywood is concerned about copyright laws and retaining movie production. The [San Joaquin] Valley is worried about water and losing jobs. People up north are concerned about taxation without representation. It's all legitimate."

"The state needs a refresh," he concludes.

Not all the emailers—perhaps some with tongue in cheek—believe Draper is chasing a losing cause. One sees potential strong political support.

"There would be five more governorships and 10 more U.S. Senate seats available," Edward wrote. "There must be many politicians who realize that in the current California they have no chance of being a governor or a senator, but in one of the six states they might have a good chance."

Heck, after he's termed out in 2018 at age 80, Gov. Jerry Brown—already California's longest-serving governor ever—could keep on running in another state.

Reader Michael predicted that the California crackup would be approved by South California voters "because they think everyone in L.A. is nuts." It certainly would pass in Central California, he continued, "because we KNOW everyone else is nuts." And it would be endorsed in Silicon Valley "because they want to keep all the tax revenue from high wage earners for themselves."

Michael may be on to something, although he's overlooking an ugly truth about his proposed new state of Central California. It would be poorer than dirt—the poorest state in the nation, in fact, poorer even than Mississippi.

The legislative analyst's office conducted an in-depth study of Draper's proposal.

View the original article here

Contributions to California congressional candidates disclosed

Campaign contributions are flowing briskly to candidates in some of California's hottest congressional races, including two of the most vocal proponents of getting money out of politics.

Incumbents in races in the Sacramento area, Central Valley, Bay Area and Riverside and Ventura counties each have raised more than $1 million to fend off vigorous challengers.

And in San Diego County, freshman Democratic Rep. Scott Peters and his main opponent, Republican Carl DeMaio, were nearly neck and neck, with Peters taking in nearly $1.8 million to DeMaio's almost $1.5 million.

Candidates and their operatives were busy scrutinizing their rivals' financial disclosures Wednesday, hours after the midnight Tuesday filing deadline at the Federal Election Commission.

Peters' campaign pounced on a $2,500 contribution to DeMaio from a Koch Industries Inc. political action committee, saying in a fundraising email that it upends DeMaio's claim of being a moderate.

Billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch — conservatives who were early backers of the small-government tea party movement in the GOP — have become a favorite target of Democrats in this year's campaign.

"Scott Peters has embraced the hypocrisy and double standards of Washington politics," Dave McCulloch, spokesman for the DeMaio campaign, responded in an email to The Times. "Scott Peters is just desperate to distract voters from the millions in big business and special interest money he has taken."

Peters' campaign spokeswoman MaryAnne Pintar retorted: "The Kochs bankroll the tea party, and they're bankrolling Carl DeMaio because he shares their extremist values."

The race is emerging as one of the nation's most expensive House contests this year. Another sure-to-be-costly race is the one to succeed Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills). His Jan. 30 retirement announcement unleashed a crush of candidates for his coastal-Westside 33rd Congressional District seat.

Former Los Angeles City Controller Wendy Greuel, a contestant in that race, reported raising $672,214 — less than the $964,385 collected by no-party-preference candidate Marianne Williamson. The spiritual teacher and bestselling author began raising money when she jumped into the race last fall.

Defense attorney and first-time candidate David Kanuth, a Democrat, also outraised Greuel, reporting $798,453 in contributions by the March 31 end of the accounting period.

But Greuel collected more than other prominent Democrats in the race: state Sen. Ted Lieu of Torrance, who raised $566,762, and author and radio talk show host Matt Miller, who took in $517,822. Businessman James Graf, also a Democrat, reported lending his campaign $1 million but spent little and does not appear to have done much campaigning.

Greuel's strategists picked apart the reports and issued their own detailed spin on the fundraising race, parsing debts and expenditures and calculating how much of each main candidate's take could be spent in the primary.

Because of limits on how much donors can contribute toward a given election, excess funds are set aside for possible use in the fall by any candidate who finishes first or second in the June 3 primary.

Greuel's campaign calculated that her main rivals all had significant amounts that they could not use in the primary, while she had the smallest amount ($10,400) of contributions that must be saved for a fall campaign.

Williamson and Miller both have made overhauling the nation's campaign finance system a central theme of their congressional bids. But both have acknowledged needing to raise money to be viable candidates. Once elected, they say, they can change the laws governing money and politics.

All of Williamson's listed contributions came from individuals, including entertainer Nancy Sinatra, who gave $1,100, and Leslie Sword of Naples, Fla., who gave $2,600 — the maximum allowed. Sword gave her occupation as "joy seeker."

Williamson's contributions ranged from $10 and $50 to the limit, and some donors also gave money that could be used only for a fall campaign.

The vast majority of Miller's contributions also are from individuals. And the day before Tuesday's filing deadline, he released a proposal for revising campaign finance rules. His proposals include barring lawmakers from taking contributions from industries they regulate and strengthening disclosure rules.

Significant campaign finance overhaul has proved to be a tough sell in Congress.

Prodigious fundraising was reported in other races as well. Among the candidates who have collected the most are Rep. Ami Bera (D-Elk Grove), with just over $2 million, and Rep. Michael M. Honda (D-San Jose). Honda has raised $1.9 million but faces a challenger from his own party, former Obama administration official Ro Khanna, who took in much more: $3.67 million.

Khanna reported $1.9 million in cash on hand, compared with Honda's slightly more than $1 million.

In an Inland Empire race to succeed Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-Rancho Cucamonga), Redlands Mayor Pete Aguilar and Colton attorney Eloise Gomez Reyes, both Democrats, led in fundraising among the four Democrats and three Republicans who are running.

Aguilar raised $910,730 and had $683,236 in the bank. Reyes collected $710,503 and reported $534,824 in the bank.

Others in hot races who have raised at least $1 million are incumbent Reps. David Valadao (R-Hanford) and Julia Brownley (D-Westlake Village).

jean.merl@latimes.com

richard.simon@latimes.com

Merl reported from Los Angeles and Simon from Washington.

View the original article here

Watched by his son Henry, Democratic Senate candidate Bob Kerrey delivers his concession speech at the Nebraska Democratic Party's election night gathering in La Vista.

Top-two primary might be bad for small-party candidates

Peace and Freedom Party candidate Cindy Sheehan, pictured in 2007, says the top-two system "seems designed to kill" smaller political parties. (Jerry Larson / Associated Press)

When California voters decided to change the way the state's primary elections work, the move was cast as an effort to moderate a state Capitol gripped by polarization.

If the top two vote-getters in a primary faced off against one another in November regardless of their party affiliation, the reasoning went, hard-nosed politicians who typically put party purity above all else would be forced to court less partisan voters. That could mean more centrists elected to office, more political compromise and better governance.

But with the approach of only the second election since the enactment of the "jungle" primary — the first featuring candidates for statewide office — some argue that the change has had a decidedly undemocratic effect, muzzling the voices of small-party candidates.

The Green Party, the American Independent Party and other minor groups will now rarely — if ever — appear on the general election ballot, even though they represent 1.2 million people. And they could eventually find themselves out of existence in California, the critics fear.

"It's just a violation of voting rights," said Richard Winger, a Libertarian and publisher of the San Francisco-based Ballot Access News. "Because the right to vote includes the right of the choice."

Antiwar and social justice activist Cindy Sheehan, running for governor as a member of the Peace and Freedom Party, paints a more dire picture. "It seems designed to kill our parties," Sheehan said.

Membership outside the Democratic and Republican parties and among those who state no party preference is admittedly a sliver of California's electorate. And every party has equal footing — at least theoretically — in the current primary system, which voters approved in 2010 for all races except presidential contests.

But already, far fewer third-party candidates have been able to qualify for the general election ballot.

In June 2012, with more than 150 races taking place under rules being applied for the first time, only three minor-party candidates made it to November. This year, no third-party candidate is likely to appear on the fall ballot for governor, attorney general or other high office.

It is more costly now for small parties to place a candidate on the ballot. Previously, Democratic or Republican candidates for statewide office had to pay a filing fee of $2,610 to $3,480 or gather the signatures of 10,000 registered voters to make the cut. But members of smaller parties were allotted a sharp discount and needed only as many as 150 signatures to avoid the fee.

This resulted in a plethora of candidates qualifying for the ballot. In 2010, 33 candidates representing smaller parties ran for statewide office, from the Green, Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, and American Independent parties. Because of closed party nominations, each party was guaranteed a spot on the November ballot.

This year, the filing fees are the same but there are no discounts for small parties. Now, there are only 10 candidates for statewide office from seven minor parties. And barring a major upheaval, none will proceed past the June primary because most Californians still vote for Democrats or Republicans.

"There's no question that the minor parties are disadvantaged by the top-two rule," said Richard Hasen, a law professor at UC Irvine who specializes in elections.

By contrast, candidates who do not register with a political party have benefited from the change. In the 2010 California primary, all candidates for statewide office had a party affiliation; this year, there are eight who state no party preference.

The occasional third-option candidate has won in California. The Green Party's Audie Bock won a state Assembly seat in a special election in 1999. Another Green Party member, Gayle McLaughlin, was elected mayor of Richmond in 2006.

In other states, Angus King won a U.S. Senate seat in Maine in 2012, and Lincoln Chafee won the Rhode Island gubernatorial contest in 2010, without party affiliations. Reform Party candidate Jesse Ventura won the Minnesota governorship in 1998.

Such candidates can shape campaigns even if they don't win, Hasen said, citing the effect of an unaffiliated Ross Perot on the 1992 presidential contest.

"His mantra was deficit reduction, and it became a major factor in the campaign," Hasen said. "In fact, it became something Bill Clinton adopted as one of his priorities. It never would have happened if not for Perot…. Losing minor parties does make the debate less rich."

Efforts are underway to offer relief to those groups.

The Green, Libertarian, and Peace and Freedom parties are pressing a lawsuit on appeal in state court alleging disenfranchisement and other harms, with a new argument filed April 3. And an Assembly bill that would reduce the level of support required for a minority-party candidate to be recognized by the state will be the subject of an upcoming hearing.

View the original article here

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida is a Latino officeholder with national prominence, something the Democrats lack for the most part.

( Win McNamee / Getty Images / July 31, 2012 )

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida is a Latino officeholder with national prominence, something the Democrats lack for the most part.

View the original article here

California's economic stability leaves Gov. Brown a new challenge

Gov. Jerry Brown, center, at a 2012 rally for Proposition 30, a temporary tax increase that voters approved. On his watch, the state’s finances have greatly improved, but big challenges remain. (Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times / October 30, 2012)

SACRAMENTO — Soon after Jerry Brown was elected governor in 2010, he invited the state's top budget official, Ana Matosantos, to lunch at his office. He had just two months to prepare his first plan for tackling California's $26-billion deficit.

He asked his assistant to fetch the budget director a sandwich. Then, Matosantos said, the incoming governor of one of the world's largest economies ate a single hard-boiled egg, sprinkled with salt.

Brown's dietary discipline was a hint of the regimented approach he would take to California's staggering financial problems, which he had promised to fix by pushing the state back into the black.

"I don't go to the theater. I don't golf. This is what I do," Brown told Matosantos.

For previous governors, California's budget was quicksand. Gray Davis, a fellow Democrat, was recalled by voters as state finances imploded following an energy crisis. Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger limped out of office with rock-bottom poll numbers, leaving a pile of debt.

But on Brown's watch, deficits have become surpluses, helped along by tax hikes the governor persuaded voters to approve. More money is being pumped into schools.

University tuition has stabilized.

Budget standoffs that once dragged through the summer are now wrapped up by the June deadline, lending the Capitol a new sense of orderliness. And on Wednesday, the governor called a special legislative session to prod lawmakers to pass his plan for saving money and paying off debt.

That record, which will be a major part of Brown's reelection campaign, is due partly to good fortune. California is benefiting from a nationwide economic recovery that has helped flood the state with revenue. Brown is also blessed with a Capitol dominated by fellow Democrats and a 2010 rule change that lowered the number of votes needed to pass a spending plan.

"Somehow he managed to get all the stars aligned," said Norton Francis, who studies state finances at the Tax Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

But California's finances remain vulnerable in some ways, as Brown's main challengers in the June primary — Republicans Neel Kashkari, a former U.S. Treasury official, and state Assemblyman Tim Donnelly of Twin Peaks in San Bernardino County — have noted.

Brown keeps pushing for a $68-billion bullet train whose funding is in dispute. And although some debts are being repaid, others are growing as the state fails to allocate enough money for long-term funding of teacher pensions and healthcare for retired state workers.

The governor has acknowledged the gap. "By no means are we out of the wilderness yet," he said in January, although he has not detailed any plans to address those ballooning costs.

When Brown was inaugurated in January 2011, California was a punch line for jokes about government dysfunction. The state had $35 billion in debt — equivalent to more than one-third of general fund spending — that it had accumulated by borrowing money and delaying payments when it was short on cash.

Brown warned then that there would be more pain ahead.

"Choices have to be made and difficult decisions taken," the septuagenarian governor said in a speech when he was sworn in. "At this stage of my life, I have not come here to embrace delay or denial."

Unlike Schwarzenegger, Brown did not convene blue-ribbon panels to recommend ways to overhaul California's finances — ideas that mostly went nowhere. But like his predecessor, he cut aid to the needy.

Providers in the state's healthcare program for the poor are now paid less. Welfare payments are lower, and fewer families receive state-subsidized child care.

The governor's decisions paved the way for his 2012 tax-hike campaign, a defining moment of his term.

Brown had promised to seek voters' blessing before raising taxes, but he failed to win the needed Republican support to put the issue on the ballot. So he used the initiative process, asking Californians to increase income taxes on high earners for seven years and raise the sales tax for four years.

View the original article here

U.S. Senate race in Hawaii pits opposing wings of Democratic Party

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), who was appointed to continue the term of late Democratic Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, is facing a tough challenge from Inouye's protege, U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-Hawaii). (Carolyn Kaster / Associated Press / December 27, 2012)

HONOLULU — In primaries across the country — in Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi and other states — Republicans are locked in a heart-and-soul battle between purists and pragmatists clashing over what it means to represent the party, its philosophy and core values.

Here in Hawaii there's a similar fight over power and purpose, but this one is between Democrats. It's a fight for a U.S. Senate seat, a rare enough prize in a state that has elected just six people senator since statehood in 1959. But it is also a battle over age and gender, over ethnicity and identity, over old grudges and new tensions.

Rivalries and historical resentments often surface in Hawaii politics — sometimes years later, like a bottle cast to sea — and the fierce contest between appointed Sen. Brian Schatz and his fellow Democrat, Rep. Colleen Hanabusa, is no different: The two ran against each other in a 2006 congressional primary, and they both lost.

The latest contest arises from the death of Democratic Sen. Daniel K. Inouye in December 2012, less than a month shy of completing his 50th year in the Senate. Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie ignored what was presented as Inouye's dying wish, that the senator's protege, Hanabusa, be named his successor, and instead appointed Schatz, the lieutenant governor and a former head of the state party.

In choosing, Abercrombie cited seniority as an overriding factor. Schatz is 41 and Hanabusa is 62, which suggests — actuarially speaking — he could serve many more years and gain more clout for a state that has counted for decades on a generous ladling of federal largess, thanks to Inouye's power and longevity. After tourism, the U.S. military is Hawaii's biggest source of income.

"Go to Washington, bring federal dollars home," said Randy Perreira, head of the Hawaii Government Employees Assn., the state's largest and most powerful union, which has endorsed Schatz. "That's the game."

Abercrombie's mention of age led Hanabusa to accuse the governor of sexism, suggesting his comments insulted women who devote themselves to family and start their professional careers later in life. (Hanabusa has no children but practiced law for several years before launching her political career.) "We make choices," Hanabusa said in an interview. "We have to."

Another fault line is race and ethnicity. Asians make up the largest segment of the population, about 4 in 10 residents, followed by whites, at just over 25%. Nearly a quarter of the population identifies itself as being of two races.

A generation of Japanese American World War II veterans, including Inouye, helped break down long-standing economic and social barriers that had once favored white plantation owners and businessmen and, with the help of organized labor, converted pre-statehood Hawaii from a Republican-leaning territory into today's Democratic stronghold.

Within the party, however, there has long been a divide between pragmatists and a smaller group of activists, typically younger, whiter and more ideological. For years, Inouye and Abercrombie represented those wings; now, it's Hanabusa and Schatz.

They took opposite sides in the bitter 2008 Democratic presidential contest: Hanabusa, like Inouye, backed Hillary Rodham Clinton. Schatz, like Abercrombie, was an early and ardent backer of native son Barack Obama and ran his successful Hawaii campaign.

Philosophically, though, the Senate contestants are largely in sync. The National Journal, which annually rates congressional members by ideology, has Schatz tied with two others this year as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. Hanabusa, who was elected to Congress in 2010 after serving as state Senate president, consistently ranks among the more liberal House members.

There are differences on some issues, among them Hanabusa's support for limited drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, reminiscent of Inouye's long alliance with Republican former Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, who pushed to open oil production there. Schatz opposes it.

Hanabusa also opposed forcing drug companies to pay the federal government a rebate for bulk purchases under the Medicare and Medicaid programs and voted to support the Simpson-Bowles commission, which, among its proposals, suggested raising the age for Social Security benefits to help cut the federal deficit.

Hanabusa said she opposed changes to Social Security but supported the commission's model as a starting point for discussion. Indeed, members of the Democratic House leadership also backed Simpson-Bowles.

Still, the Schatz campaign raises those examples to question Hanabusa's fealty to the Democratic Party's principles. His first TV ad featured the senator in a homey setting with his elderly father-in-law, vowing to protect Social Security. Hanabusa, who has raised only about half as much campaign cash as Schatz, has yet to begin her TV advertising.

Schatz said the race should be about performance, favorably comparing his year-plus in the Senate with Hanabusa's House record. He says his endorsement by President Obama — a rare intervention in a primary — and support from Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, along with much of the rest of the party establishment, means he can deliver in ways the congresswoman cannot.

"That's what I want to make this election about," Schatz said in an interview.

Hanabusa said she would have "the same kinds of relationships and opportunities afforded to me as well" if elected to the Senate. Sounding a rare note of bipartisanship, she said it was important to work across the aisle, as Inouye did. "Times change and majority status changes," she said. "What doesn't change is relationships that are built."

Much of the drama surrounding the race so far has focused on a letter, ascribed to Inouye on his deathbed, seeking Hanabusa's selection. Abercrombie has questioned the authorship and said Inouye told him, privately, to use his best judgment in filling any vacancy.

"I wouldn't want the Senate race to get lost in this question of what Sen. Inouye wanted or didn't want," Abercrombie told The Times this month.

With so many cross-currents, there seems little chance of that. Polling is difficult in Hawaii, a state with one of the worst turnout rates in the country. But all sides agree the race is exceedingly close and will probably stay that way to the end.

The outcome probably won't affect the fight for control of the Senate. Whoever wins the Aug. 9 Democratic primary is overwhelmingly favored to win in November and serve the remainder of Inouye's term. Then, it is expected, the incumbent will seek a full six-year term in 2016.

mark.barabak@latimes.com

View the original article here