OC Political

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

Posts Tagged ‘Debra Bowen’

Correa Probably Regrets Authoring SB 183

Posted by Chris Nguyen on March 3, 2015

An OC Political reader with a strong knowledge of recounts pointed out SB 183 (Correa, 2011) to me.  I had earlier written about the difficulty of getting new results in recounts in California.  SB 183 is the bill that made successful recounts virtually impossible.

Prior to SB 183, recount strategy typically relied on getting ballots tossed for identifiable marks, such as the infamous flower ballot of 2007.

Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) put an end to that with SB 183.  Identifiable marks no longer invalidated ballots.  Consequently, the only way a ballot can be tossed is if the voter voted for more candidates than were available on the ballot (e.g. two candidates for Supervisor, four candidates for three city council slots) or voted both yes and no on a ballot measure.  Even then, the whole ballot wouldn’t be tossed, just the race in which the voter overvoted.

With more accurate ballot counting software and SB 183, recounts of anything other than provisional ballots are almost pointless in California.  That’s why the Garden Grove mayoral recount had no vote changes, the State Controller recount had 8 vote changes statewide, etc.

As one friend suggested while I talked to her about this situation, perhaps Correa wrote SB 183 in 2011 expecting to narrowly lead in a future election and wanted to prevent a recount from overturning his result.  Instead, he found himself narrowly behind in 2015 and wasn’t able to overturn the result.

Correa’s SB 183 of 2011 was actually identical to SB 387 of 2009 by Senator Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley), which was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who

The provisions of this bill allowing elections officials to process ballots that contain extraneous non-identifying marks are acceptable; however, I am concerned that remaking a ballot that contains personal identifying information compromises ballot secrecy and increases the opportunity for fraud.

The only difference two years later for SB 183 (Correa) of 2011 versus SB 387 (Hancock) of 2009 was a new Governor, Jerry Brown.

The two key changes in SB 183 were for Elections Code Sections 15154 and 15208:

SB 183 modified Elections Code Section 15154 as follows:

Any ballot that is not marked as provided by law or that is marked or signed by the voter so that it can be identified by others shall be rejected.

SB 183 struck this sentence out of Elections Code Section 15208:

Any ballot that is marked in a manner so as to identify the voter shall be marked “Void” and shall be placed in the container for void ballots.

SB 183 also replaced the voter instruction “All distinguishing marks or erasures are forbidden and make the ballot void” and replaced it with “Marking the ballot outside of the designated space to vote for a candidate or measure may compromise the secrecy of the ballot.”

Promoted by Common Cause and now-disgraced Secretary of State Debra Bowen, Correa introduced SB 183 on February 7, 2011. It passed the Legislature on near-party-line votes (oddly, Assemblyman Chris Norby voted against it in Assembly Appropriations and for it 12 days later on the Assembly Floor).  Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 183 into law on October 9, 2011, and it took effect January 1, 2012.

Posted in 1st Supervisorial District | Tagged: , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Secretary of State Bowen Announces Results of Randomized Alphabet Drawing for Candidate Order on November 6 General Election Ballots

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on August 16, 2012

This came over the wire from Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s office earlier today…

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 16, 2012

Secretary of State Bowen Announces
Results of Randomized Alphabet Drawing for
Candidate Order on November 6 General Election Ballots

SACRAMENTO – Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s office today held a randomized alphabet drawing to determine the order that candidates’ names will appear on November 6 general election ballots.

The results of today’s drawing are as follows:

  1. I
  2. X
  3. C
  4. A
  5. O
  6. U
  7. Z
  8. S
  9. W
  10. H
  11. K
  12. T
  13. D
  14. F
  15. Q
  16. V
  17. G
  18. M
  19. R
  20. J
  21. L
  22. Y
  23. E
  24. B
  25. P
  26. N

In accordance with Elections Code section 13111, the names of candidates on the ballot are arranged based on the randomized alphabet. This alphabet applies throughout the entire last name of the candidate. If the names of two or more candidates begin with the same letter, their ballot listing order is determined by applying the randomized alphabet to the next letter(s) of their names. If last names of multiple candidates are the same, the randomized alphabet also applies to first names.

Today’s randomized alphabet drawing was held in the Elections Division within the Secretary of State’s office in compliance with Elections Code section 13112. Staff members pulled the letters in a lottery-style drawing, with witnesses from the public present.

###

Posted in California | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Molly Munger Files Suit Over Ballot Measure Placement; Judge Halts Numbering Until 7/9

Posted by Chris Nguyen on July 2, 2012

On June 27, the State Senate passed AB 1499 on a near-party-line 24-15 vote (Democrat Joe Simitian of Palo Alto joined the Republicans in voting against the bill, with Republican Sharon Runner of the Antelope Valley not voting), the State Assembly passed the bill on a party-line 50-24 vote (with three Republicans, two Democrats, and one Republican-turned-independent Nathan Fletcher not voting), and the Governor signed the bill into law.

So what exactly does AB 1499 do?  It changes the order that ballot measures appear on the ballot.  Because this bill was a budget trailer bill, it has already become law, rather than waiting until January 1, like the average bill.

Under the law as it existed on June 26, this was the order of how measures appeared on the ballot:

  1. Bond measures proposed by the Legislature
  2. Constitutional amendments proposed by the Legislature
  3. Other measures proposed by the Legislature
  4. Initiative measures
  5. Referenda

However, AB 1499, which is now the law of the land, changed the order thusly:

  1. Bond measures (regardless of whether they were put there by the Legislature or initiative)
  2. Constitutional amendments (regardless of whether they were put there by the Legislature or initiative)
  3. Measures proposed by the Legislature that aren’t bonds or constitutional amendments
  4. Initiative measures that aren’t bonds or constitutional amendments
  5. Referenda

Molly Munger (a Democrat and the sister of Republican Charles Munger, Jr.) has filed suit to stop AB 1499 from affecting the November 2012 election.

Why is she doing this?

Well, take a look at my previous post (which went online just hours before AB 1499 made its way through the Legislature) that noted the likely order of the ballot measures.  Then, take a look at what the order will be if AB 1499 is allowed to move forward unfettered:

Proposition 30 – Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012 (This was the water bond deal of 2009 authored by then-Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill that the Legislature put on the 2010 ballot before moving it to the 2012 ballot.)

Proposition 31 – Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. (This is Governor Jerry Brown’s tax measure.)

Proposition 32 – State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. (This is the two-year budget measure.)

Proposition 33 – Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute. (This is best known as Stop Special Interest Money Now.)

Proposition 34 – Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 35 – Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 36 – Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 37 – Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 38 – Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 39 – Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute. (This is Molly Munger’s tax measure.)

Proposition 40 – Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 41 – Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

(Any initiatives or referenda that qualify now are too late for the November 2012 ballot and will have to wait for another election.  However, the Legislature can still add measures to the ballot or remove the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012 from the ballot, which would alter the numbering of the propositions.)

See what happened in the ballot measure sequence because of AB 1499: Molly Munger’s tax measure is buried near the bottom of the ballot while Governor Jerry Brown’s tax measure will be either first or second on the ballot (depending on if the Legislature removes the water bond from the ballot).  Without AB 1499, the two measures would be neighbors on the ballot.

Munger obtained a temporary restraining order from Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley preventing Secretary of State Debra Bowen from officially numbering the ballot measures.  But for Frawley’s order, she would have done so today.  However, Frawley blocked her from officially numbering the ballot measures until after Frawley holds a hearing on Munger’s suit on July 9.

Not only does Munger challenge the applicability of AB 1499 to the November 2012 ballot, but she also challenges the order of qualification, asserting that the Registrars of Los Angeles and Alamenda Counties improperly validated petitions for Brown’s ballot measure before they validated petitions for her ballot measure, as they are required by law to validate petitions in the order received (yes, Munger’s signatures were turned in before Brown’s).

Should Munger achieve a total victory on July 9 (a week from today), then this will be the ballot order for November:

Proposition 30 – Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012 (This was the water bond deal of 2009 authored by then-Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill that the Legislature put on the 2010 ballot before moving it to the 2012 ballot.)

Proposition 31 – Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute. (This is best known as Stop Special Interest Money Now.)

Proposition 32 – Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 33 – Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 34 – Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 35 – Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 36 – Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 37 – Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute. (This is Molly Munger’s tax measure.)

Proposition 38 – Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. (This is Governor Jerry Brown’s tax measure.)

Proposition 39 – Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 40 – State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. (This is the two-year budget measure.)

Proposition 41 – Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

Why does ballot order matter?

Sadly, location on the ballot actually affects odds of passage.  The earlier on the ballot a measure appears, the higher its chances of passing.  I don’t have the figures for ballot measures, but there are studies that have shown being the first person on the ballot in a long list of candidates can boost a person’s vote by as much as 5%.  (This is why candidates appear on the ballot in a random ballot lottery rather than alphabetically.)

To people who vote “yes” on ballot measures because they appear earlier and “no” because they appear later, please for the love of democracy, leave your vote on ballot measures blank!  Your ballot still counts even if you don’t fill out every slot.  If you just want to vote for Obama or Romney, your vote will still count even if you leave the rest of your ballot blank.  Let informed voters who have studied the issues cast their votes for the propositions on the ballot.  While I’m here, if you don’t know anything about candidates in down-ticket races, do not automatically vote for the candidate who appears first or has the longest name.  Let informed voters who have studied the candidates cast their votes for offices on the ballot.

Alas, there is no point to the admonition above since people who read political blogs (like you, dear reader) are not the people causing this problem, as you’re the ones actually seeking information on the issues.

(In the interest of full disclosure, Custom Campaigns has done some consulting work for Stop Special Interest Money Now, tentatively Proposition 33 under AB 1499, or Proposition 31 if AB 1499 is prevented from taking effect for the November 2012 ballot.  For the record, we do not accept payments for blogging and require disclosures when a blogger has a potential conflict of interest in a blog post, unless it’s something really obvious, like a blogger blogging about their own candidacy for office.)

Posted in California | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Secretary of State’s Incorrect Filing Extension Can Only Be Reversed by Court Order

Posted by Chris Nguyen on March 13, 2012

The Secretary of State is to blame for the incorrect filing extension.
While Emami was chasing his tail trying to get an explanation from the Orange County Registrar of Voters for why AD-69 and AD-72 had candidate filing extended (as he described in this grammatically-flawed post incorrectly blaming the Registrar), I went to the source of the people actually responsible for the filing extension: the Secretary of State.  They were the ones who instructed the county registrars to extend filing on various races.  The Secretary of State had sent this memo to the county registrars (h/t to Capitol Alert for that memo, which was oddly placed inside a post about Elizabeth Emken getting the CRP endorsement).

After contacting friends in Sacramento, they inform me that once the filing period extension has been announced, the Secretary of State cannot reverse the decision, as only a judge with a court order can shut down filing.  Only a candidate who has already completed filing has standing to launch the lawsuit necessary to get the court order (in other words only Tom Daly, Michele Martinez, Julio Perez, or Paco Barragan can sue to end the AD-69 filing extension, and only Troy Edgar, Long Pham, Travis Allen, Joe Dovinh, or Albert Ayala can sue to end the AD-72 filing extension).  If they launched the lawsuit, they’d also have to show that they were harmed by the filing extension (i.e. another candidate filed, but no new person has pulled papers in either AD-69 or AD-72 as of this morning).

Even if a candidate launched the suit, they’d have to be willing to suffer the negative press and the hits from their opponents accusing them of “anti-democratic” action by trying to prevent people from joining the race.

Then in the lawsuit itself, the candidate would then face off against bureaucrats in the Secretary of State’s office who would show some bizarrely liberal interpretation of law justifying the extension.  Then, the plaintiff candidate would have to convince the judge that there was enough damage done to themselves and the electoral process from having additional candidates that warranted an injunction (99% chance the judge would not issue an injunction to reduce the number of candidates).

The Orange County Registrar of Voters also sent this out to their e-mail list yesterday:

Explanation for Contest Extensions

March 12, 2012 – Statewide 53 Congressional, Senate and Assembly contests were extended by the Secretary of State to March 14th at 5:00 p.m.  This takes place in races “for which no eligible incumbent is seeking reelection”. The key is eligible – according to the Secretary of State they have determined that some districts that appear to lack an incumbent have eligible candidates (who currently hold office) that could have moved into the district, causing an incumbency.  Redistricting has contributed to this and In Orange County there are two Assembly Districts (69th and 72nd) that fall into this category.

So it seems that the Secretary of State’s office was encouraging carpetbagging.

  • Despite Jose Solorio being termed out and the vast majority of AD-69 being his district, the justification for extending AD-69 is because tiny pieces of Anaheim and Orange from Chris Norby’s old district were included in the new AD-69, candidate filing was extended since Chris Norby chose to run for his hometown’s AD-65 instead of carpetbagging into AD-69.
  • Despite Jim Silva being termed out and the only sitting Assembly Member in the boundaries of AD-72, the justification for extending AD-72 is because is because portions of Allan Mansoor’s old district were included in the new AD-72, candidate filing was extended since Allan Mansoor chose to run for his hometown’s AD-74 instead of carpetbagging into AD-72.

Wow.  Sometimes the Secretary of State can make even the most cynical people more cynical.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I do work in the office of Assemblyman Chris Norby for my day job.  However, I would oppose him carpetbagging into AD-69 even if I did not work for him.)

Posted in 69th Assembly District, 72nd Assembly District | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Secretary of State Website Debacle

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on February 1, 2012

For anybody who was looking to research campaign finance data on the Secretary of State website in the month of December, you likely found yourself out of luck. The site was constantly crashing and facing numerous functionality issues. In response to these issues, Senator Alex Padilla, who ironically happens to be running for Secretary of State, is urging Governor Jerry Brown to take control of the database H/T LA Times blog on the story.

It would be really nice if they would simply update the technology that they are using to run the website. Realistically, upgrading that website (assuming it is being used by less than hundreds of thousands of people) shouldn’t cost that much money to upgrade it or to host it. They could even go through and make the website more user-friendly during the process.

Posted in California | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »