Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on June 5, 2014
Chris Nguyen posted a humongous grid of endorsements that broke down all the major organizations and what candidates they endorsed for non-partisan offices in Orange County. You can take a look at his humongous grid of endorsements here. As a follow-up I have done the math on how the endorsed candidates fared in the Tuesday election and have given credit to an organization for endorsing a candidate that either won outright or advanced to the November election.
Here is a guide to the abbreviations: OC GOP = Republican Party of Orange County, DPOC = Democratic Party of Orange County, CRA = California Republican Assembly, HJTA = Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, CWLA = California Women’s Leadership Association, OC Tax = Orange County Taxpayers Association, OCBC = Orange County Business Council, and CTA = California Teachers Association.
Anybody that got 75% and higher can be considered an organization with a valuable endorsement but the big winners from this election cycle were the California Women’s Leadership Association (Orange County Chapter) and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association both of which managed to endorse no losers.
One of our most popular posts from the November 2012 General Election was “Humongous Grid of Endorsements,” so we’re back this election with the Giant Grid of Endorsements for the June 2014 Primary Election.
I did abbreviate for some groups, so OC GOP = Republican Party of Orange County, DPOC = Democratic Party of Orange County, CRA = California Republican Assembly, HJTA = Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, CWLA = California Women’s Leadership Association, OC Tax = Orange County Taxpayers Association, OCBC = Orange County Business Council, and CTA = California Teachers Association.
If you’re particularly interested in a group, click their name to view their endorsements on their web site. You can learn more about the group there, such as HJTA being the state’s leading taxpayer advocate group or Women in Leadership being a single-issue group with the sole goal of electing “pro-choice women candidates to local, regional and state-wide office who support keeping abortion legal.” (In light of their mission, does anyone else find it odd that Women in Leadership’s two endorsements on this grid are both for school board?)
Candidates in each race are listed in alphabetical order by last name, except incumbents got listed first in their respective races. Party affiliations are listed except for judicial candidates Thomas Martin and Wayne Philips, as I could not tell their affiliation from the voter database (common names combined with obscure judicial races make figuring out their affiliations challenging).
Whether you love a group and want to vote with their endorsements or hate a group and want to vote against their endorsements, here are the endorsements for county offices and school board, along with local ballot measures:
Irvine Unified School District (Special Election for Six-Month Term)
Ira Glasky (R – incumbent)
X
X
X
Carolyn Inmon (D)
X
X
Bob Vu (R)
Measure A (Orange County)
Yes
X
X
X
X
No
Measure B (Buena Park School District)
Yes
No
X
Measure C (Anaheim)
Yes
X
X
No
Measure D (Anaheim)
Yes
No
X
Measure E (Anaheim)
Yes
X
X
No
*The Democratic Party of Orange County did not endorse David Boyd or Elizabeth Parker, instead the DPOC issued anti-endorsements against Tom Pollitt and Linda Lindholm.
The Democratic Party of Orange County (DPOC) took up an issue regarding the actions of their Vice Chairman Greg Diamond which caused Orange County Labor Federation calls for his ouster.
Last night, DPOC removed Diamond by a vote of 35-15, which requires 2/3rds for removal of an officer of their organization.
Mr. Diamond wasted no time to pen the real story behind his ouster with explanations that the process was flawed and did not afford him adequate time to respond the charges leveled against him as he asserts:
“When a group of proponents in a quasi-trial come up with a set of procedures — known to them ahead of time but not to me — that is that insulting to basic principles of due process, the only response should be taken from Willy Wonka’s statement to Charlie after he violated the rules of the Chocolate Factory: YOU LOSE! I asked for such a determination, I didn’t get it, and the DPOC will have a harder time living down that result than I will.”
Ironically in January, the same Democrats, notably Senate President Darrell Steinberg, in the State Senate will not remove or call for resignation of Senator Roderick Wright despite the guilty verdict has been rendered upon him.
Senator Steinberg said back in January:
“Where we stand today, there is no final conviction, but a jury verdict. Unless and until there is a final conviction for a felony I do not believe it is appropriate or necessary to expel Senator Wright or ask him to resign.”
Mr. Diamond’s supporter challenged the legitimacy of certain votes that were cast by alternates of those ex-officio’s whom failed to pay dues and they are: Bob Rush, Steve Young, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, Jerry Tetalman and Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva. The DPOC require all members and ex-officios to pony up $60 known as dues to be allowed to vote on all items as stated in their By-Laws, Article 18 – Dues, Section 1:
Dues shall be sixty dollars ($60.00) per year for each member including alternates and are due payable within 60 days of assuming membership.
Let me get this straight: DPOC force members to pay $60 annual dues to vote on party matters for an office they have been elected to by their peers is pretty close to a “Poll Tax”, which is definitely violation of the 24th Amendment of the United States Constitution:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
However, hypocrisy is nothing is new for the Democrats, but it sure is revealing of how they handled their own county party officer versus that of an elected official that was convicted by the jury of his peers who is now on a paid vacation.
Furthermore, the requirement of paying dues to cast ballot should give pause, because the right to vote should not be coerced via payment of dues for any political organization, but I will let that issue rest on the conscience of the Democratic Party of Orange County.
Joe Garofoli from the San Francisco Chronicle snagged the first on-camera media interview with Young Kim after she announced her candidacy for the 65th Assembly District. The interview is posted on Young Kim’s official Assembly campaign web site and the San Francisco Chronicle web site as part of a Chronicle article entitled, “‘I will kick her butt’ promises GOP Assembly candidate. Oh, it’s on (VIDEO).”
[TRANSCRIPT by Orange Juice Blog Transcriptions Services.
Orange Juice Blog Transcriptionists: “For when you Karen Huff to sin the furry vest”]
SFC: OK, we’re here at the Republican convention here in Anaheim. I’m with Young Kim, and she is running for the Assembly District in Orange County. And again — a bit of unusual candidate. When I was at your intro the other day, several people said: … she’s … KOREAN! She’s a woman! She’s a Republican! That’s, like, an unusual thing. But you say this is also a political advantage — that’s why you were recruited, too. Tell us about that.
YK: Yes. The 65th Assembly District represents the north and west Orange County.
SFC: Yeah. [Note: further mm-hmms and such omitted.]
YK: Fullerton, Buena Park, La [Palma], Cypress, Stanton, and West Anaheim. It is traditionally a very conservative district. The current State Assemblywoman, Sharon Quirk-Silva, did not win that seat. Unfortunately the Republican lost it in the last election cycle, but it was a bad year for all Republicans. Now, having said that, that win for Sharon Quirk-Silva gave the State Legislature a 2/3 supermajority. That is bad for us in Orange County, especially when the district, in the last redistricting cycle, has turned into 1/3 Asian, 1/3 Hispanic, 1/3 Caucasian. She’s Hispanic; I’m Asian. She’s Latina Democrat; I’m Asian Republican. She’s a woman; I’m a woman.
OK. She had the advantage of being a minority, a woman, and she went after our former State Assemblyman, Chris Norby, but she doesn’t have all the flaws that they went after him against Young Kim, because I don’t have any flaws.
SFC:[Starts cracking up laughing.]
YK: I am going to infiltrate into Sharon Quirk-Silva’s comfort zone — and I’m going to take her voters away.
SFC: And what is her “comfort zone”? What do you say –
YK: Woman! Minority! She’s not going to claim all those to her benefit, because I am going after the minority group that is hugely popular, Asian Americans — they come out and vote! Unlike the Hispanics.
SFC: Right.
YK: They will contribute to a candidate they believe is the best shot at getting that seat back — and that Asian Americans will do that. They have already proven that, for me, in a short period of time, in two fundraisers, I have have raised over $300,000 –
SFC: $300,000 in a few months. You have worked for Ed Royce, Congressman, for twenty years.
YK: Yes [Note: more “yes” and other interrupted cross-speak omitted.]
SFC: You know this district backwards and forwards, because you’ve worked for him in the district, in and around the district, for two decades.
YK: And like I said: when I say she doesn’t represent the interests and the values of the district, the district is traditionally very conservative, faith-based community.
SFC: You are very conservative socially –
YK: Very conservative, socially as well, and I do not subscribe to what she believes in, such as the transgender legislation that she worked hard to get it passed — it doesn’t reflect the values. I would not have even entertained such a thought. When the vote comes up, on the vote, I would say: “What a stupid, crazy bill. Who introduced it?” I would say that. I would not vote for something like that.”
SFC: I think that these debates that you two will have should be on statewide television. I think these will be very entertaining debates, uh buh this is — this is going to be great stuff, and, uh, we’ll see you down the road –
YK: Thank you.
SFC: – it’s gonna be, it’s gonna be one of the hot races in California, lot of money, lot of attention on both sides, and we’ll see you soon!
YK: I’m aware of that, so I’m ready, I already rolled up my sleeves, I’m ready, and I’m already … working hard. I’m hitting the ground, 100%, and I will kick her butt.
In his July, August, September campaign finance report, Democrat Senate candidate Greg Diamond raised $2,560 for the period, and he paid $500 to a fundraising consultant. Why would anyone pay a 20% fundraising commission when the normal commission is 10%-15%?
Maybe it’s because he’s paying it to a person who lives in his house.
That’s right, Greg Diamond campaign donors, you’re contributing to a campaign who’s sending money straight into the candidate’s household’s pockets.
Although since his donors are largely from outside the district, I guess they wouldn’t really notice. Of his $1640 itemized contributions, there is exactly one from the 29th Senate District: $100 contribution from former Assembly Democrat Sacrificial Lamb John MacMurray. Even widening the net to all of California south of San Francisco, there’s only two more: a $50 contribution from Garden Grove and a $25 contribution from Glendale. All of California only adds one more $250 contribution from El Cerrito (north of Berkeley) from the CEO of Fly by Night Karma Repair. Yes, he’s reporting $250 from the CEO of something called “Fly by Night Karma Repair.”
His contributions are from so far out of the district that he even got $500 from a foreign country. Weirdly, that’s the same amount he paid to the fundraising consultant living in his house.
Diamond opposes Proposition 35, which according to its official summary on the ballot, “Increases prison sentences and fines for human trafficking convictions. Requires convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders. Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities.”
Of course, I should note that it could be that the donors didn’t know what office Diamond was running for. I’m not sure he does either. Check out his web site’s “About Why I’m Running” page at http://www.gregdiamond2012.com/aboutwhyirun, where Diamond says, “I decided to run for Congress because, among the people in the Occupy movement here, I’m among those who could most easily be considered a credible potential candidate.” There is so much silliness in that one sentence.
I wonder how Ed Royce and Jay Chen feel about Diamond’s Congressional campaign.
Posted by Republican Willie Brown on September 27, 2012
I’m going to be looking over the campaign finances of various sacrificial lambs in the coming days and weeks for no particular reason other than their finances are humorous.
First up, I’ve been looking over the campaign finance report of March 18th to May 19th of State Senate candidate Greg Diamond, who is running in Senate District 29 against incumbent senator Bob Huff. Diamond’s campaign ended the period with a cash balance of $5,511. Thumbing through Diamond’s $5,401 donations reveals something strange: virtually all of his money comes from outside the district, and half of it comes from outside California! Of his total haul, $3,125.04 was in itemized donations, meaning the other $2,275.69 came in increments under $100. Diamond’s donor base is a virtual tour around America:
$100 from Illinois
$100 from Virginia
$100 from Maryland
$100 from Massachusetts
$200 from Minnesota
$375 from New Mexico
$500 from Florida
There was even $100 donated from Switzerland! He did raise $1450.04 from Californians outside Senate District 29. The only contribution from the district: $100 from a government employee who lives in Placentia! Diamond raised an equal amount from his district as he did from Switzerland! One might ask: What makes these people scattered across the country, and even this individual in Switzerland, want to donate to a long-shot California State Senate race? Has anyone ever heard of a campaign where only 1.9% of the donations came from within the district?
Sure, a campaign dollar from Placentia will get spent the same as a campaign dollar from Switzerland or Massachusetts, but shouldn’t there be more than $100 in district money in a campaign?
Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on September 13, 2012
(Sorry Greg but you are not going to like my prediction here. Feel free to chime in with your own take if you like.)
The 29th Senate District is the seat currently held by Bob Huff who is just finishing up his first term in the Senate:
Thank you to Meridian Pacific for the use of the map.
The registration advantage for Republicans over Democrats is just 5% but 22% of voters are DTS and in this district those DTS voters lean-to the right. The party line vote held pretty steady for Huff in the primary:
State Senator; District 29
Robert “Bob” Huff, Republican ………. 68,708 votes 64.3%
Greg Diamond, Democratic ………. 38,169 votes 35.7%
Diamond finished 1.5% above Democratic registration in the district. Understandably turnout for Democrats will be slightly increased in the general election but it just won’t be enough to get Huff under 60%. I am actually a bit disappointed though because I would like to see Huff challenged a bit stronger not because I want to see him lose but because he has been on the wrong side of issues like redevelopment agencies among other things.
It won’t be a challenge to get his message out their either because Huff currently has just over $400,000 cash on hand for this race. Diamond on the other hand has not raised enough to trigger electronic filing on the Secretary of State website.
Looking at all the factors at play in this district I believe that the winner will be:
The Orange County Registrar of Voters reports that the Republican Party issued no endorsement in the 29th State Senate District race.
This is utterly preposterous.
The only two candidates running in SD-29 are Democrat Greg Diamond and Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff.
Though some people have stated that Huff is “a bit of a squish,” the fact of the matter is that political parties always endorse their party leaders for re-election. If you don’t like the leader, you dump him from his leadership post long before you try to dump him from his legislative seat.
Regardless, I know Huff was endorsed because I saw with my own eyes that he was endorsed on the Orange County Republican Party’s consent calendar. Furthermore, the California Republican Party publicly announced its endorsement of Huff.
Is there much of a political implication for this error? Probably not since SD 29 has such lopsided registration. However, if this had happened in a seat with much closer registration numbers, this could have been really bad.
Whose fault is this error? Clearly, this clerical error could only have happened in one of three places: CRP, OCGOP, or ROV. This error rests with the CRP because Huff was not listed as an endorsed candidate on the LA County sample ballot either. (The odds of two county ROVs making the same mistake are highly unlikely.)
Right now, I would not want to be the person at the California Republican Party who left the Senate Republican Leader off the endorsement list sent to the county Registrars.
(Tangential note: interestingly, the American Independent Party endorsed Huff.)
In the meantime check out the Huff endorsement error for yourself on Page 6 of your sample ballot (or see our image of that page):
Party Endorsements in the Orange County’s June 2012 Sample Ballot
Check out the Huff endorsement error for yourself on Page 14 of the LA County sample ballot (or see our image of that page):
Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on April 16, 2012
One of the major flaws that I have found in Prop 14 is the way t moves candidates from June to November. As an example, if Troy Edgar was running for Supervisor with the same field that he had in the Assembly race, and received over 50% of the vote he would win and no November election would take place.
(Infamous Abel Maldonado)
However, if that same race was to take place for a seat in the California State Assembly the race under the new Prop 14 rules even if a candidate received only 1 vote they would still advance to November in a head to head race. This therefore creates a number of races that essentially are glorified polls in June.
Races that would fall under this category include:
SD 29- A race between State Senator and Workers Rights Attorney Greg Diamond. I am hoping that Huff wins this race based on his policy decisions (Even though he is a bit of a squish on certain issues.). Greg Diamond is an Orange Juice blogger, a very smart man (he will let you know it, too) with an education that would rival my fellow blogger Chris Nguyen, and his best quality is that he reads this blog.
SD 37- This race is between sitting Senator Mimi Walters and perennial candidate Steve Young. Walter s is running for reelection after having defeated Harry Sidhu in her first race for Senate. Steve Young appears willing to run for any seat as I believe this is the 3rd campaign I have seen him run.
AD 55- Curt Hagman against Greg Fritchle. This race is a true yawner as it involves a district that covers Orange, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino. Hagman is a former Chino Hills City Councilman that defeated Larry Dick for this seat back in 2008. He is now running for his last term in the Assembly. (Did I mention that I am happy to have Don Wagner as my Assemblyman).
AD 65- Chris Norby is running against Sharon Quirk-Silva for this seat. This race actually does matter in June, despite the fact that both candidates will advance to November. If Quirk-Silva does well in June, we could see some more Democratic resources be poured into this race. It is important for Norby to crush her in June.
AD 68- Assemblyman Don Wagner is running against perennial candidate Christina Avalos. The new AD 68 is pretty awesome and a huge step up for Anaheim Hills from the old AD 60. Wagner is in probably the safest seat for any Republican Assembly member in California, although I may be wrong on this particular statistic.
AD 73- This one will be interesting to watch in terms of the mail that gets sent out with Assemblywoman Diane Harkey facing off against infamous Capistrano Unified School District teacher James Corbett. The question comes down to whether or not mail gets sent out in June, or if it is held off until the November election.
1st Supervisorial District- Some of you may think that you have caught me slipping up, as this race will be decided in June. However read the title and you will understand. This race will be a good one to chuckle over. Rocco is best known for his conspiracy that he is part of a murder plot concocted by Albertsons, Smokecraft Sausage, and Kodak.
I would say to sit back and enjoy watching the races to see who wins, but in this case nobody actually wins. This is with the obvious exception of the 1st Supervisorial District.
Yesterday afternoon, the newest winners of the California lottery were announced: Businessman John Webb, Businessman Pat Garcia, Businessman Ron Varaseth, Senator Mimi Walters, Assemblyman Chris Norby, Perennial candidate Christina Avalos, Clerk-Recorder Tom Daly, Businessman Travis Allen, Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, Newport Beach Councilwoman Leslie Daigle, Supervisor Janet Nguyen, former Supervisor/Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, Businesswoman Karla Downing, Central Committee Member Baron Night, Orange Councilman Jon Dumitru, Central Committee Member Gwen Dyrud, Central Committee Member Steve Nagel, San Clemente Planning Commissioner Nesa Anderson, and Office Clerk Jon Aiken.
Well, California law requires a lottery to determine the order of candidates on the ballot. Why does this law exist? Studies of the primacy effect showed the candidate at the top of the ballot gains as much as a 5% increase in votes. Consequently, in 1975, California legislators adopted a law mandating an end to the alphabetical listing of candidates (likely to the chagrin of Sam Aanestad and Dick Ackerman but the joy of Mary Young and Ed Zschau) and requiring a lottery before each election.
The Secretary of State’s candidate order lottery has determined the alphabet for the June primary to be UNADIVXWQGOZLTRKSJHMCBFPYE.
This applies to most races on the ballot, excluding races that cross county lines (for OC, these would be CD-38, CD-39, CD-47, CD-49, SD-29, and AD-55).
The primacy effect is weaker when there are fewer candidates on the ballot, and when there are higher-profile campaigns. Being at the top of the ballot is most valuable for low-profile campaigns with large numbers of candidates. That means that of the 19 people I listed above, the biggest winners in this lottery are the Central Committee candidates, so the biggest congratulations goes to the following Republican Central Committee Candidates for their 5% vote bonus:
55th District: Karla Downing, Small Business Owner (1st of 10 candidates)
65th District: Baron Night, Incumbent (1st of 11 candidates)
68th District: Jon Dumitru, City Councilman (1st of 18 candidates)
69th District: Gwen A. Dyrud, Appointed Incumbent (1st of 10 candidates)
72nd District: Steve A. Nagel, Incumbent (1st of 14 candidates)
73rd District: Nesa Anderson, Planning Commissioner/Businesswoman (1st of a stunning 22 candidates)
74th District: Jon Aiken, Office Clerk (1st of 16 candidates)
For the races that cross county lines, each county does its own lottery, so here are the OC Registrar’s lottery results: DMNESVTUHKWGXFCIQYAORZPLJB.
Congratulations to these candidates who won the Registrar’s lottery and will appear at the top of the ballot in the Orange County portions of their districts:
38th Congressional District: Linda Sanchez (D), United States Representative (1st of 3)
39th Congressional District: D’Marie Mulattieri (DCorrection: NPP), Community Volunteer (1st of 3)
47th Congressional District: Gary DeLong (R), Local Small Businessman (1st of 8)
49th Congressional District: Albin Novinec (NPP), United States Marine (1st of 4)
29th Senate District: Greg Diamond (D), Workers’ Rights Attorney (1st of 2)
55th Assembly District: Curt Hagman (R), Member of the State Assembly (1st of 2)
You would think that with electronic voting now, the names could be randomized for every poll voter (obviously, we’d still need the lottery for absentee voters).
(In the interest of full disclosure, my day job is working for Assemblyman Chris Norby, one of the lottery winners, as the letter N came in second in the alphabet behind U, though no one with a last name starting with U is running in all of Orange County.)
OC Political 