OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

Archive for the ‘State Assembly’ Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Harkey Bill to Fix Bob Baker Problem Signed Into Law

Posted by Chris Nguyen on August 27, 2013

San Clemente Mayor Robert

San Clemente Mayor Robert “Bob” Baker

Many people may recall the rather amusing saga of San Clemente Councilman Robert “Bob” Baker, who had an opponent in the November 2012 election with the same exact name of Robert “Bob” Baker, which OC Political covered here and here last year.

In a nutshell, Councilman Baker (R) was challenged for re-election by a businessman (D) with the same exact name. (In the process, we discovered ballot designations had been created in 1931 to solve this problem, but that clearly took a life of its own.) Under Elections Code 13118, which was left substantially untouched since 1927, when two candidates with the same (or very similar) names were to each select a number to be placed next to their names on the ballot if at least one of them filed a declaration that their names were confusingly similar.

Since Councilman Baker pulled and filed his nomination paperwork first, he got first pick of numbers.  Naturally, he picked the number 1. Easy enough, right? Well, no. Businessman Baker then threw everyone for a loop by picking the number 0. The San Clemente City Clerk initially determined that businessman Baker would precede Councilman Baker on the ballot since 0 comes before 1. Then, the City Clerk sought advised from the Secretary of State, who then recommended the Clerk to do a random drawing to determine who would get listed first (just like the random drawing of the alphabet for the ballot). 0 was drawn before 1, so businessman Baker was listed before Councilman Baker on the ballot.

Businessman Baker eventually dropped out (though his name remained on the ballot), and Councilman Baker was re-elected by a nearly 3% margin. Shortly after the election, his colleagues on the San Clemente City Council selected Baker to be Mayor of San Clemente for 2013.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE Member, City Council
Number To Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts: 46 of 46
Vote Count Percentage
CHRIS HAMM 12,308 26.2%
1 ROBERT “BOB” BAKER 10,890 23.2%
JIM DAHL 9,555 20.3%
MIKE MORTENSON 9,145 19.5%
DAVID CLEGG 3,105 6.6%
0 ROBERT “BOB” BAKER 1,995 4.2%

Well, this year, Assemblywoman Diane Harkey introduced AB 1316 in February, which sailed through the Assembly Elections Committee, the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the Assembly Floor, the Senate Elections Committee, and the Senate Floor, getting unanimous votes every step of the way. Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 1316 into law this month, and it will take effect on January 1, 2014.

Sponsored by the City Clerks Association of California, AB 1316 was supported by the Secretary of State, the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials, and the League of California Cities. Harkey’s office specifically cited the situation in San Clemente as the impetus for the bill, and that was cited by all four official bill analyses in the Legislature (Assembly Elections, Assembly Appropriations, Senate Elections, and Senate Floor).

AB 1316 is quite straightforward.  If any candidate files a declaration declaring that the name of an opponent is confusingly similar, the elections official (the City Clerk for city offices or the Registrar of Voters for federal, state, county, school district, special district, etc.) will now select the number assigned to each candidate with a similar name. The Clerk/Registrar must start with the number 1 and assign the numbers sequentially based on the order that each candidate filed for the ballot. The ballot order will be determined by lottery. AB 1316 also fixed the annoying problem of the number’s location, moving it after the candidate’s name, as existing law had placed it before the candidate’s name.

If Harkey’s bill had been in effect in November 2012, the Councilman would have been Robert “Bob” Baker 1 while the businessman would have been Robert “Bob” Baker 2. Under the pre-Harkey law, as you’ll recall, they were 1 Robert “Bob” Baker and 0 Robert “Bob” Baker.

Due to the inherent advantage of the number 1, I wish AB 1316 had begun with the number 2 instead or that the assigned numbers for the candidates were determined by lottery in the first place.  Oh well.

Sadly (but appropriately), Harkey’s bill also closed my googol loophole: thanks to AB 1316, there can never be a candidate with the number 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Posted in 73rd Assembly District, California, San Clemente | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

AD-55: San Gabriel Valley Tribune Notes Fiction of $100,000 Candidate Loans

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on August 13, 2013

AD 55 Candidates Phillip Chen and Ling-Ling Chang

AD 55 Candidates Phillip Chen and Ling-Ling Chang

The news media is beginning to take note of the $100,000 candidate loans, which OC Political covered in “AD-55: Land of the $100,000-Loan Paper Tigers” (as well as in articles on the BOE-4 race, the AD-73 race, and on loans in general).

In an article by Steve Scauzillo, the San Gabriel Valley Tribune noted these loans in AD-55:

Both Chen and Chang each loaned their campaigns $100,000, the maximum that can be returned to the candidates, according to state law. The self-supporting candidates earned them the nicknames of “paper tigers” by an Orange County blog, OC Political, which said such loans “are used to inflate campaign finance figures to impress donors and scare opponents.”

Read the San Gabriel Valley Tribune’s article in full here.

Posted in 55th Assembly District | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

Mansoor: Newly Married & Not Afraid of Steel Warchest

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on August 9, 2013

This came over the wire from Assemblyman Allan Mansoor‘s campaign yesterday, in which Mansoor introduces his new wife and states he is confident he can overcome Michelle Steel’s massive warchest:

Friends:

On Monday, the Assembly returned from a month-long summer recess. It’s back to work in Sacramento, where we will spend the next six weeks wrapping up the year before we adjourn for the year on September 13.

I spent the recess trying to balance my time between meeting with constituents and preparing for my wedding. I hope no one missed the news, but I got engaged to Janniffer Grubisich last November, and on August 3, we both said “I do”. Janniffer was with me in Sacramento Monday, when we returned to session, and I was able to introduce her on the floor to my colleagues as my wife.

As many of you know, I’ve been contemplating a 2014 run for Orange County Supervisor. The current Second District Supervisor, John Moorlach, is leaving office due to term limits, and this is an “open seat.” There are several other candidates running (or thinking about running). Those following the race might recognize the name of Michelle Steel, a State Board of Equalization Member from LA County. She moved to Orange County to run for this seat and has lots of money. Her money makes her a formidable opponent, and I’m sure she will out-spend me. But I’ve been out-spent everytime I’ve been on the ballot, and have complete confidence that if I run, I will be able to raise enough money to wage a competitive and successful campaign.

For now however, I’m focused on doing my job representing the 74th Assembly District in Sacramento.

What’s to come in the next six weeks? I wish I had good news. But as you know, Sacramento Democrats have a 2/3 majority in both houses of the Legislature, and typically, during the last weeks of the year, we see a flurry of bad bills coming at us. I will keep you up-to-date on some of the bills that we will be seeing as our legislative year comes to a close.

But it’s not all doom and gloom. Even though Democrats hold a 2/3 majority, we’ve managed (so far) to stop most of the significant attempts to alter Prop 13 and prevented significant attempts to raise taxes and we passed some significant reforms to limit Prop 65 shakedown lawsuits. As the session winds to a close, I’m looking forward to spending more time in the district and hope that anyone who hasn’t been able to meet Janniffer yet will be able to do so.

Allan

Posted in 2nd Supervisorial District, 74th Assembly District, Board of Equalization | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

AD-55: Land of the $100,000-Loan Paper Tigers

Posted by Chris Nguyen on August 5, 2013

AD 55 Candidates Phillip Chen and Ling-Ling Chang

AD-55 Candidates and Their Cash on Hand:
Phillip Chen ($219,000) &
Ling-Ling Chang ($147,108)

In OC Political’s ongoing coverage of campaign finance figures, we turn today to the 55th Assembly District, the tri-county district that includes the Orange County cities of Brea, La Habra, Placentia, and Yorba Linda.

There are two candidates who have campaign committees open for AD-55, and both are Republicans from LA County: Walnut Valley Unified School District Trustee Phillip Chen and Diamond Bar City Councilwoman Ling-Ling Chang.

Both Chen and Chang made $100,000 loans to their campaigns in the closing days of June (Chen on June 27 and Chang on June 30).  I’ve written previously about the campaign warchest fiction of $100,000 loans in my post on AD-73 last week:

Generally, $100,000 loans are paper tigers.  They are used to inflate campaign finance figures to impress donors and scare opponents.  However, when the rubber meets the road, 99% of the time, the candidates do not spend their loan money and repay the loans in their entirety after the election.  (The magic of the $100,000 figure for loans is that it is the most state legislative candidates can lend themselves and still get repaid under state law.  If you’re running for the Legislature, and loan yourself $101,000, that extra $1,000 can never be repaid, per the Government Code.)

I also wrote more extensively about $100,000 loans two weeks ago in a post that included information about Chang’s loans and loans from two AD-73 candidates.

The numbers get weirder looking at Chen’s contributions.  Technically, Chen hasn’t raised any money for Assembly.  In addition to the $100,000 loan, his Assembly account received $219,000 in transfers from his school board account, leaving behind only a few thousand dollars in his school board account.  (While Chen technically raised nothing for Assembly, I must say I’m quite impressed that he raised $231,858 for school board from February 7-June 15.  Presumably, a substantial number of his donors knew their money would eventually be transferred to Chen’s Assembly account, especially considering more than half a dozen of his contributors gave $4,100 – the maximum contribution for a legislative race.)

Chang raised $159,262 straight into her Assembly account, with no transfers from her City Council account.

Chen spent nothing from his Assembly account while Chang spent $11,064 and also had $1,090 in unpaid bills.  The majority of Chang’s spending was a single $6,800 expenditure for fundraising paid to Seafood Village RH, a restaurant in Rowland Heights.

Chen claimed $319,000 cash on hand in the press release announcing his bid for the Assembly, which OC Political’s own Allen Wilson posted here.  Specifically, that press release said, “Chen is reporting $334,000 raised through June 30, and $319,000 cash on hand in his newly formed Assembly committee.” Between the loan and his transfers, Chen only had $319,000 ever in the Assembly committee.  He never reached $334,000; that number, though, is the same amount of expenditures reported by Chen’s school board committee (the expenditures consisting of the $219,000 cash transferred, the $100,000 loan transferred, and $15,000 in various expenditures).

It’s press releases like these that make me warn people: Never trust a candidate’s press release about how much money they’ve raised.  Always check the actual campaign finance reports.  Time and again, press releases bragging about how much money is in a campaign account overinflates the numbers.  I’m not singling out Chen, as he just happens to be the one coming across my screen at this point; numerous campaigns have done this.

For visual learners:

Candidate Contributions Contribution
Transfers		 Candidate
Loans		 Unpaid
Bills		 Expenditures Cash on Hand
(COH)		 COH Minus
Unpaid Bills		 COH Minus
Unpaid Bills
& Loans
Chen $0 $219,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $319,000 $319,000 $219,000
Chang $159,262 $0 $100,000 $1,090 $11,064 $248,198 $247,108 $147,108
Notes: Figures may be off by one dollar due to rounding.

Campaign finance reports for January 1-June 30, 2013 were due last week.

Orange County conservatives may be displeased by four campaign contributions in this race, two each to Chen and Chang:

  • Chen received $1,500 from the community college board campaign account of former Assemblyman Mike Eng (D-Monterey Park).  During his six years in the Legislature, Eng amassed one of the most liberal voting records in the State Assembly (and that’s saying something, considering how liberal the Assembly is), gaining 100% scores from the California Labor Federation four times: in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011 (during his other two years in the Assembly, 2010 and 2012, he fell one vote short of 100%; in other words, Eng voted against labor two times in his six-year legislative tenure).  Additionally, Eng is married to Congresswoman Judy Chu, who similarly has one of the most liberal voting records in the U.S. House of Representatives, even managing to be ranked more liberal than Nancy Pelosi in the National Journal vote ratings.
  • Chen received $500 from the Union of American Physicians & Dentists Medical Defense Fund.  The UAPD is a labor union of doctors and dentists and is affiliated with AFSCME, which bills itself as the nation’s largest public services employee union.
  • Chang received $1,000 from the Association of California State Supervisors PAC.  The ACSS endorsed 59 Democrats and 3 Republicans in last year’s elections for the State Legislature.
  • Chang received $1,000 from the water board campaign account of former Councilman Mike Tuohey (NPP-West Covina), who is a former member of Democratic Municipal Officials, a 527 group that is a constituency organization of the Democratic National Committee.

Posted in 55th Assembly District | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

AD-73 Surprise: Petrilla Leads Fundraising

Posted by Chris Nguyen on August 1, 2013

Jesse Petrilla, Steve Baric, Anna Bryson, Bill Brough, Paul Glaab

Republican AD-73 Candidates and How Much They Raised in the First Half of 2013:
Jesse Petrilla ($69,230), Steve Baric ($54,470), Anna Bryson ($53,052), Bill Brough ($30,899), Paul Glaab ($14,749)

In a surprise development, campaign finance reports show Rancho Santa Margarita Councilman Jesse Petrilla leads the pack in fundraising in the 73rd Assembly District race.  The narrative in AD-73 had generally been that Rancho Santa Margarita Councilman Steve Baric, the immediate past Vice Chairman of the California Republican Party, would be the top fundraiser in AD-73 and that Petrilla would depend on a low-budget grassroots strategy.  Indeed, throwing in former Laguna Niguel Councilman Paul Glaab’s fundraising figures, Petrilla raised more than Baric and Glaab combined.

Petrilla raised the most money from donors, with $69,230 in contributions.  Baric followed with $54,470.  Capistrano Unified School District Trustee Anna Bryson was closely behind Baric with $53,052.  Dana Point Councilman Bill Brough (former Chief of Staff to AD-73 incumbent Diane Harkey) was fourth with $30,899.  Finally, Glaab raised $14,749.  I’m only reporting numbers for the Republican candidates, as I have found no indication of a non-Republican running for AD-73 at this point.

It’s still early of course, as the election is in June 2014, and the latest campaign finance reports were for the first half of 2013.  However, these numbers are troubling for Brough and Glaab in that Bryson raised more than Brough and Glaab combined, Baric raised more than Brough and Glaab combined, and Petrilla raised more than Brough and Glaab combined.

In the land of expenditures, Bryson spent more in the first half of 2013 than all of her opponents combined.  She spent $10,570, and the rest of the field expended a combined $9,804.  More than 80% of Bryson’s expenditures went toward consultants.  Brough spent the second most, with $5,315, scattered across numerous small expenses.  Petrilla was third in spending with $3,622, also scattered across numerous small expenses.  A distant fourth in expenditures, Glaab spent $470, which was a single expenditure for appetizers for his June 6 fundraiser.  Spending the least was Baric, who expended $397, with $322 (81%) going to credit card processing fees for his donations and the remaining $75 in tiny, unitemized expenses.

Last week, I wrote about the $100,000 loans to the Baric and Glaab campaigns by the law firm of Baric & Tran and by Paul Glaab, respectively.  Generally, $100,000 loans are paper tigers.  They are used to inflate campaign finance figures to impress donors and scare opponents.  However, when the rubber meets the road, 99% of the time, the candidates do not spend their loan money and repay the loans in their entirety after the election.  (The magic of the $100,000 figure for loans is that it is the most state legislative candidates can lend themselves and still get repaid under state law.  If you’re running for the Legislature, and loan yourself $101,000, that extra $1,000 can never be repaid, per the Government Code.)

According to the Form 460 campaign finance reports, Glaab loaned himself the $100,000 on June 30, the final day of the reporting period, while the law firm of Baric & Tran loaned Baric’s campaign $100,000 also on June 30, though oddly scattered across three loans, one of which was only $48.  Bryson loaned herself $14,600 across four loans made over several months, with a $100 loan in January and loans of $4,750-$5,000, made on a monthly basis in April, May, and June.  Brough lent himself $100, one of the rare loans where I think the candidate will actually spend the money, as I just don’t think the average candidate cares about getting repaid $100.  As their $100 loans were made before receiving any contributions, I suspect the Bryson and Brough $100 loans were simply to meet the minimum deposit requirements to open their bank accounts.

I give Brough credit for taking advantage of the $50 new bank account bonus promotion at Wells Fargo.  I do not recall an instance of a campaign finance report where the candidate used one of these offers.  Although it’s only $50, I always applaud candidates who find creative (yet both legal and ethical) ways to find money for their campaigns.

For visual learners:

Candidate Contributions Other
Income		 Candidate
Loans		 Unpaid
Bills		 Expenditures Cash on Hand
(COH)		 COH Minus
Unpaid Bills		 COH Minus
Unpaid Bills
& Loans
Petrilla $69,230 $0 $0 $0 $3,622 $65,932 $65,932 $65,932
Baric $54,470 $0 $100,000 $0 $397 $154,073 $154,073 $54,073
Bryson $53,052 $0 $14,600 $6,484 $10,570 $61,832 $55,348 $40,748
Brough $30,899 $50 $100 $250 $5,315 $25,734 $25,484 $25,384
Glaab $14,749 $0 $100,000 $3,495 $470 $114,279 $110,784 $10,784
Notes: Figures may be off by one dollar due to rounding.

Campaign finance reports for January 1-June 30, 2013 were due at 11:59 PM last night.

It’s still early in the campaign finance figures, and the July 1-December 31, 2013 numbers will be more telling, but it’s still surprising that Petrilla outraised Baric by 27% and that he leads the rest of the field in fundraising, as the usual AD-73 narrative was that Petrilla would struggle to raise money, relying on an aggressive ground game for his campaign rather than any significant spending.  As I noted above, Brough and Glaab’s early numbers don’t look promising, as the two of them combined raised less than Bryson, who herself raised less than either Baric or Petrilla.

Posted in 73rd Assembly District | Tagged: , , , , | 9 Comments »

55th AD Watch: Phillip Chen announces candidacy for State Assembly

Posted by Allen Wilson on July 29, 2013

OC Political just received this Press Release from Phillip Chen for Assembly Campaign:

Phillip Chen Reports $334,000 Raised, with $319,00 Cash on Hand for Assembly Campaign

Yorba Linda, CA – – Republican School Board Member Phillip Chen is reporting $334,000 raised through June 30, and $319,000 cash on hand in his newly formed Assembly committee. Chen, a member of the Walnut Valley Unified School Board, is running in the 55th Assembly district currently represented by Assemblyman Curt Hagman, who is not running for reelection due to term limits.

“I am deeply honored and grateful for the overwhelming support I am receiving from the community,” Chen said. “Our district is fortunate to be represented by Assemblyman Hagman and I look forward to continuing the standard he has set.”

Phillip Chen is a small business owner and USC Professor who was the top vote-getter in the Walnut Valley Unified School District Board election in November of 2011. He is a top advisor on health care issues to Supervisor Mike Antonovich and a reserve Deputy Sheriff for the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department.

“The legislature needs to focus on the important things that impact our quality of life: improving schools, keeping us safe and healthy and creating an environment that will allow our businesses to grow,” Chen stated. “Our local businesses face many threats, from mandates imposed by the President’s healthcare initiative to onerous state regulations to high fees and taxes. I believe my experience in education, law enforcement, business and on health issues will help me take the lead in the legislature on the issues that are most crucial to our district.”

Commenting on the impressive fundraising efforts, Chen consultant Dave Gilliard, stated, “Early fundraising ability is important to candidates. Most insiders use the initial fundraising numbers as a tool to gauge a candidate’s viability and local support. This fundraising number will show Phillip has both the support in the community and the resources to fully fund a victorious campaign.”

Phillip’s prior experience includes being appointed by Governor Pete Wilson to serve in the Governor’s Office of Criminal Justice Planning, where he worked on legislation involving foster care, gang prevention, drug awareness, and mental health.

Phillip is a Doctoral Candidate at USC, he has a Master’s in Public Administration from USC and holds a B.A. in Communications from Cal State Fullerton. In addition, Phillip currently teaches Public Administration as an Adjunct Professor at USC.

Posted in 55th Assembly District, Brea, La Habra, Orange County, Placentia, State Assembly, Yorba Linda | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

$100,000 Loans Sprinkled Across OC Assembly Campaigns

Posted by Chris Nguyen on July 25, 2013

Ling-Ling Chang, Paul Glaab, and Steve Baric

$100,000-Loan Club: AD-55 Candidate Ling-Ling Chang (R-Diamond Bar), AD-73 Candidate Paul Glaab (R-Laguna Niguel), and AD-73 Candidate Steve Baric (R-Rancho Santa Margarita)

$100,000 is the magical amount sprinkled in loans across campaigns for Assembly representing portions of Orange County.

  • In AD-55, OC Political’s Allen Wilson reported earlier on initial indications of $100,000 from Diamond Bar Councilwoman Ling-Ling Chang to her own Assembly campaign.  Her Form 497 shows she loaned herself $100,000 on June 30.  (Although Chang is from the LA County city of Diamond Bar, the tri-county 55th Assembly District includes the OC cities of Brea, La Habra, Placentia, and Yorba Linda.)
  • In AD-73, former Laguna Niguel Councilman Paul Glaab loaned his own Assembly campaign $100,000 on June 30, according to his Form 497.
  • Also in AD-73, the law firm of Baric & Tran loaned Rancho Santa Margarita Councilman Steve Baric‘s Assembly campaign $100,000 on July 10, according to his Form 497.

So why do candidates loan $100,000 to their own campaigns?  On rare occasions, a candidate may actually spend the money. However, 99% of the time, the candidates will not spend the money, as they are simply loaning their campaigns the $100,000 to inflate their warchests with every expectation of repaying the entire loan once the election is over.  By inflating their warchests by $100,000, the candidates hope to:

  • scare potential opponents (who would be afraid to face down another $100,000)
  • convince donors to contribute more to the campaign (donors tend to give money to candidates who show they have money in a bandwagon effect)
  • both of the above

As they are not yet due, the Form 460s (the complete campaign finance reports for each reporting period) have not been filed by any campaigns for AD-55 or AD-73 for the January 1-June 30 reporting periods.  Due to the $100,000 loans, the Chang, Glaab, and Baric campaigns had to submit their Form 497s, as those must be filed within 10 business days of receipt of more than $5,000 from any one source (in the final 90 days before an election, Form 497s must be filed within 24 hours of receipt of more than $1,000 from any one source).

Chang and Glaab both loaned their campaigns the $100,000 on June 30.  The significance of that date is that June 30 is the final date of the reporting period for the first half of 2013.  The next reporting period doesn’t close until December 31.  Due to their loans, Chang and Glaab will be able to show an additional $100,000 on their Form 460 reports and then spend the latter half of 2013 raising money before the next reports are due.

The $100,000 loan from Baric & Tran on July 10 is a puzzling case, as it is not a personal loan and it was made very early in the reporting period and won’t appear on Baric’s Form 460 until after December 31.

What is the magic of the specific $100,000 figure?  It’s the most a candidate can loan their own campaign and still get repaid.  Any amount loaned to the campaign that exceeds a $100,000 balance is considered a contribution to the campaign, rather than a loan, so it cannot be repaid to the candidate.

Specifically, Government Code Section 85307(b) prohibits candidates for state office (i.e. the Legislature, the Board of Equalization, and all statewide offices other than U.S. Senator) from having an outstanding balance of more than $100,000 in personal loans to their own campaigns.

The candidate is the only person (or entity) who can loan a campaign more than the contribution limit.  Any other person or entity is subject to the campaign contribution limit of $4,100 per election for a state legislative race (this limit is in place through the end of the 2014 General Election).

Posted in 55th Assembly District, 73rd Assembly District | Tagged: , , | 12 Comments »

Sidhu Opens Committee for 68th Assembly District

Posted by Chris Nguyen on July 15, 2013

Harry Sidhu

Harry Sidhu

Lending credibility to rumors swirling in the Spring, former Anaheim Councilman Harry Sidhu opened a new campaign committee this month: “Harry Sidhu for Assembly 2014.”

Sidhu filed a Form 501 (Candidate Intention Statement) for the 68th Assembly District when opening that committee.  On the Form 501, Sidhu also indicated he would not accept the voluntary expenditure limit of $544,000 in the primary and $953,000 in the general election.

The only catch with a 2014 bid for AD-68 is a gentleman by the name of Don Wagner.

There are four possibilities for this committee:

  • Sidhu is crazy enough to challenge Wagner, who would cream Sidhu in the June 2014 primary
  • Sidhu is banking on Wagner running for CD-45 in 2014 (win or lose, Wagner would have to give up his Assembly seat if he chose to run for CD-45 since the elections for the two seats occur concurrently)
  • Sidhu is using the Assembly committee as a placeholder to raise funds for another office (Sidhu would then presumably launch a surprise by filing for another office at the last minute and then slide the money over)
  • Sidhu is using the 2014 committee as a placeholder for a future vacancy in the AD-68 seat in 2015 (Wagner leaves the seat early) or 2016 (Wagner terms out)

Sidhu has a 2-3 record in the five times he’s sought elected office.

  • In 2010, Sidhu ran unsuccessfully for 4th District Supervisor, losing to Supervisor Shawn Nelson 63.1%-36.9%.  Just 0.1% of AD-68 voters live in the 4th Supervisorial District.
  • In the 2008 general election, Sidhu was the top vote-getter for Anaheim City Council, winning 23.2% of the vote.  16.8% of AD-68 voters live in the City of Anaheim, which is the third-largest city in AD-68.
  • In the 2008 primary election, Sidhu ran unsuccessfully for the 33rd Senate District, losing to then-Assemblywoman Mimi Walters in a 74.0%-26.0% landslide.  (For comparison, Supervisor Janet Nguyen defeated Steve Rocco 74.2%-25.8% in 2012.)
  • In 2004, Sidhu was first elected to the Anaheim City Council, winning 18.4% of the vote, coming in second behind Lorri Galloway.
  • In 2002, Sidhu made an unsuccessful bid for Anaheim City Council, winning 10.7% of the vote, coming in fourth behind Bob Hernandez, Richard Chavez, and Bob Zemel.

Posted in 68th Assembly District | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

55th AD Watch: Another Candidate Dual Run?

Posted by Allen Wilson on June 25, 2013

We reported last month about Diamond Bar Councilwoman Ling-Ling Chang flirting a run for two offices:  City Council and State Assembly.

OC Political learned that Diamond Bar Councilman Steve Tye who is up for council re-election this November is flirting a run for State Assembly in the 55th AD in 2014 as well.

When Tye was confronted about his flirtatious run for two offices replied, “Where did you hear that from?”

Pols should learn not to answer a question with a question.

Now, it begs the question:  Why are pols bringing out the yardstick and the crystal ball?

Candidates should learn that running for office doesn’t allow you to use two lifelines as if running for public office is a game show.

 

Posted in 55th Assembly District, Orange County, State Assembly, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

Fullerton Association of Concerned Taxpayers: Assembly Member Quirk-Silva votes for ACA 8 — a direct assault on Prop. 13

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on June 20, 2013

Our friends at the Fullerton Association of Concerned Taxpayers put out this post earlier this week regarding the party-line vote on ACA 8 (OC’s Tom Daly and Sharon Quirk-Silva voted for ACA 8 while Travis Allen, Curt Hagman, Diane Harkey, Allan Mansoor, and Don Wagner voted against it):

Assembly Member Quirk-Silva votes for ACA 8 — a direct assault on Prop. 13

In an unusual Saturday session, Assembly Member Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton) joined other Assembly Democrats in approving and sending to the state Senate a proposed state constitutional amendment ballot measure that — if approved by voters statewide — would let local governments incur bonded indebtedness (which shows up on property tax bills) for “public improvements and facilities” that those local governments may specify and for “buildings used primarily to provide sheriff, police or fire protection services.” Under ACA 8, only a 55% local voter approval would be required instead of the current two-thirds voter approval required under Proposition 13.

Read the background in this story by CalWatchdog investigative reporter Katy Grimes, and read the analysis of ACA 8 in this commentary published today by Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

To see how all members of the Assembly voted, click here.

Posted in 55th Assembly District, 65th Assembly District, 68th Assembly District, 69th Assembly District, 72nd Assembly District, 73rd Assembly District, 74th Assembly District, State Assembly | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »