OC Political

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

Posts Tagged ‘Orange County Registrar of Voters’

My Voter Recommendations For The November 3, 2020 Election

Posted by Craig P Alexander on September 23, 2020

Each election I create my “Craig’s Pics” voter recommendations for those who would like some suggestions on how to vote.  Of course I also encourage everyone to conduct their own research and come to your own determinations.  

For the November 3, 2020 election here are my Craig’s Pics November 3, 2020 General Election. I hope you find them helpful.  

There are two other sites I recommend for voter recommendations.  One is Robyn Nordell’s Conservative California Election Website   Robyn does A LOT of research and she has recommendations for races I do not comment on.  She is also a wonderful servant and a champion of the home school movement. Robyn kindly publishes my Craig’s Pics recommendations along with other conservative’s recommendations on her Orange County page. And we do not always agree! 

The other site is Nancy’s Picks which is run by Nancy Sandoval.  Like Robyn, Nancy spends A LOT of time researching candidates and issues.  Nancy’s Picks is one of the other conservatives Robyn Nordell publishes on her Orange County page.

Whatever you do please do vote this election.  Even if you feel your vote for President will not deliver the state to President Trump, there are so, so many other down ballot races that need your vote! Congressional candidates in your area need your vote.  State Senate and Assembly candidates need your vote.  Local races need your vote.  If you do not vote, your voice will not count in your local city council races, school board races, etc., etc.  Many men and women in the military have paid the ultimate price to secure our right to choose our leaders at election time.  I highly recommend you vote this election! To find out how to register to vote in Orange County go to the Registrar of Voters web site for voter registration.  


Posted in 1st Supervisorial District, 29th Senate District, 37th Senate District, 38th Congressional District, 39th Congressional District, 45th Congressional District, 46th Congressional District, 47th Congressional District, 48th Congressional District, 49th Congressional District, 55th Assembly District, 65th Assembly District, 68th Assembly District, 69th Assembly District, 72nd Assembly District, 73rd Assembly District, 74th Assembly District, Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, California, Capistrano Unified School District, Costa Mesa, Dana Point, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Mission Viejo, Moulton-Niguel Water District, Municipal Water District of Orange County, North Orange County Community College District, Orange County, Orange County Board of Supervisors, Orange Unified School District, Rossmoor Community Services District, Saddleback Valley Unified School District, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, South Orange County Community College District, State Assembly, State Senate, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Auditor-Controller Race: Frank Davies Loses “Deputy Auditor-Controller” Ballot Designation, Will Use “Property Tax Director” Instead

Posted by Chris Nguyen on March 31, 2014

There have been five lawsuits related to the June Primary election ballot for Orange County. The meat of this article is after the bullet list. The bullet list just recaps the prior cases.

  • In the Second Supervisorial District, Allan Mansoor successfully sued the Registrar of Voters to change Michelle Steel‘s ballot designation of “Taxpayer Advocate/Businesswoman” and she is now required to use “Board of Equalization Member” instead. This case was covered here on OC Political, in an article in the OC Register, and in an article in the Daily Pilot.
  • In the Clerk-Recorder’s race, Troy Edgar‘s lawsuit against the Registrar of Voters to get on the ballot was rejected by the Orange County Superior Court. Edgar’s lawsuit against the Registrar of Voters also sought to toss Assessor Webster Guillory and Superintendent of Schools Al Mijares from the ballot, and this effort was also rejected by the Superior Court. Consequently, Edgar fails to make the ballot while Guillory and Mijares stay on the ballot. Here’s OC Political’s coverage, including the only online copy of the full text of the judge’s ruling. The judge’s sweeping ruling used “failed” or “fails” six times in reference to Edgar and even uses “without merit” in reference to one of Edgar’s arguments.
  • In the 73rd Assembly District, Mission Viejo resident Dale Tyler sued the Secretary of State to challenge a sentence in AD-73 Candidate Anna Bryson‘s ballot statement, “On the school board, I returned $59 million to taxpayers.” Tyler sought to have the sentence struck entirely, but the Sacramento County Superior Court judge issued a compromise, so it now reads, “On the school board, I voted to save taxpayers approximately $59 million.” Here’s OC Political’s coverage, and here’s the text of the judge’s ruling.
  • In the Auditor-Controller’s race, candidate John Wayne Willard sued the Registrar of Voters in an unsuccessful effort to challenge Eric Woolery‘s “Orange Treasurer/CPA” ballot designation. Consequently, Woolery remains “Orange Treasurer/CPA” on the ballot. Here’s OC Political’s coverage, including the only online copy of the full text of the judge’s ruling. When the judge includes strong language along the lines of “The evidence is undisputed that Woolery was appointed to the position of Treasurer…” you know it’s a sweeping ruling.
  • Oddly, the fifth lawsuit has yet to have any coverage anywhere despite being the first case to be completed, having been resolved way back on Tuesday, and it’s also likely the most significant case in terms of impact on a race. That case will be the focus of this article.

Auditor-Controller Candidates Eric Woolery, John Wayne Willard, Frank Davies, and Mike "Mike" Dalati.  OC Political was unable to find a photo of James T. Benuzzi.

Auditor-Controller Candidates Eric Woolery, John Wayne Willard, Frank Davies, and Mike “Mike” Dalati.
OC Political was unable to find a photo of James T. Benuzzi.

Laguna Niguel resident Todd Nugent challenged the ballot designation of Auditor-Controller candidate Frank Davies. Davies requested the ballot designation of “Deputy Auditor-Controller” for his bid for Auditor-Controller.

Nugent challenged it on the grounds that this was an effort by Davies to game the system by playing working title musical chairs, as he was not the Chief Deputy Auditor-Controller. Denise Steckler held both the job classification and working title of “Chief Deputy Auditor-Controller” before the candidate filing period. Frank Davies held the job classification of “Administrative Manager III” and the working title of “Director, Property Tax” during that time. Then in the middle of candidate filing, after Davies had pulled papers for Auditor-Controller and shortly before he filed them, all four Directors at the Administrative Manager III level in the Auditor-Controller’s office had their working titles switched from “Director” to “Chief Deputy Auditor-Controller” instead (while still remaining in the job classification of “Administrative Manager III”). Chief Deputy Auditor-Controller Denise Steckler then switched to the working title of “Chief of Staff” (while still remaining in the job classification of “Chief Deputy Auditor-Controller”).

Nugent filed suit in Superior Court and succeeded in having “Deputy Auditor-Controller” dumped as Davies’s ballot designation. Consequently, Davies is now “Property Tax Director” on the ballot.

In an obscure down-ticket race like Auditor-Controller, having a ballot designation of “Deputy Auditor-Controller” would have made Davies the frontrunner. Nugent’s challenge was critical in putting Orange Treasurer/CPA Eric Woolery back in the driver’s seat for the Auditor-Controller’s seat. Defeating Willard’s challenge was also critical for Woolery’s frontrunner position.

Here’s how the candidates will appear on the ballot:

(No, that’s not a mistake. Mike “Mike” Dalati is how he requested to be on the ballot. His fiancée, Karina “Karina” Onofre, is a Democratic candidate for AD-74. I have no idea why this couple decided to double-state their first names on the ballot.)

The three strongest ballot designations belong to Woolery, Benuzzi, and Dalati while the two weakest ballot designations belong to Willard and Davies. However, Benuzzi and Dalati failed to obtain ballot statements. Woolery is the only one of the five to wield both a ballot statement and a good ballot designation.

Woolery also bought up most of the slate mailers and wields the most aggressive online presence. He also has the highest name ID having been a former member of the Orange County Board of Education and the current Orange Treasurer. Additionally, he has residual name ID from his wife, Lisa Woolery, a former member of the Rancho Santiago Community College District Board. Eric Woolery also dominates the endorsement arena, wielding the endorsements of the Orange County Taxpayers Association, the California Republican Assembly, and numerous elected officials.

With tens of thousands of dollars, Woolery also has a larger warchest than all of his opponents combined with $50,200. He spent $38,701, on a combination of the ballot statement, candidate filing fee, slate mailers, campaign literature, and consulting fees.

Davies spent his entire $16,476 on the ballot statement and candidate filing fee.

Willard has $16,438, which was presumably spent on the ballot statement and candidate filing fee (he filed a Form 497, but not a Form 460); presumably the other $38 was wiped out by signatures-in-lieu.

Benuzzi raised $2,400 from Anthony Benuzzi and Ronald Benuzzi but had to refund $200 to Anthony Benuzzi when they discovered they had exceeded the campaign contribution limit; with his remaining $2,200, he paid the candidate filing fee and $280 of campaign literature.

Dalati did not file a campaign finance report for the January 1-March 17 reporting period.

In the interest of full disclosure, Woolery is a client of Custom Campaigns, the consulting firm that owns this blog.

Posted in 2nd Supervisorial District, 73rd Assembly District, Orange County Auditor-Controller, Orange County Clerk-Recorder | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Guide to the Propositions

Posted by Assemblyman Don Wagner on October 15, 2012

Let me begin with a thank you to Chris Emami and Chris Nguyen for the opportunity to post articles here, and with congratulations to them and all of their collaborators for their fine addition to the Orange County blogosphere.

With Election Day now less than a month away, even usually non-political folks have begun paying attention. And, as often happens, those non-political folks have begun reaching out to me as an elected official, and no doubt to the politically interested and attuned readers of this blog, for electoral information and advice. For your consideration, here is what I have been telling people who ask me for my positions on the eleven propositions.

Proposition 30: NO.

The governor’s tax proposal is unneeded and counterproductive. The government should not raise taxes in a struggling economy, and the Republican Assembly Caucus has explained how to preserve education and public safety spending without tax increases. (See the GOP Caucus’s www.cabudgetfactcheck.com website and my Orange County Register article: www.ocregister.com/articles/education-349007-cuts-budget.html.) While the governor claims Proposition 30 will eliminate budget cuts to the schools, there actually are no cuts, and this tax increase provides no new money. The General Fund budget spending this year is higher than last year’s spending. I made the point at a Budget Committee hearing and the chairman “reminded” me that the cuts are really cuts in the desired spending levels, not cuts from the prior year spending levels.

But there will be new money as this is a tax increase, after all. Where does it go? As to spending the increased taxes on schools, that’s just not what happens. (And that’s why Molly Munger’s Proposition 38 remains on the ballot with CTA and PTA support; those groups know the governor’s campaign is dishonestly claiming new money for schools when, in fact, there is none.) What really happens essentially is that the new money goes into the General Fund and then gets distributed to the schools ostensibly to pay for past deferrals. But an equivalent amount of money is cut from the schools, meaning that there is a net wash of funds. The extra money then goes to social programs. Note that the new so-called Education Protection Account created by this proposition is really just a new account in the General Fund. It is not an independent, untouchable, stand alone fund, and the Legislature can re-direct an amount equal to the new tax revenue every year into what ever programs it wants.

Proposition 31: NO.

A “Good Government” group calling itself California Forward qualified this proposition. It has a lot in it that could be good. In fact, the California Republican Party has officially endorsed it. However, I disagree with that recommendation after sitting through a Budget Committee hearing with two of the California Forward members and having had a chance to question them.

Some of what this proposition does will benefit the state (e.g., the two year budget proposal and performance based budgeting). But the testimony in the Budget Committee was pretty convincing that there are drafting errors, inconsistencies, and unintended consequences that can cause more harm than good. Unfortunately, I think this is like all of the prior efforts to reform government through the ballot box: Perhaps good ideas in theory but ultimately doing more harm than good. The real way to fix California is through the people we elect, rather than the gimmicks we try to impose on them once elected.

Proposition 32: YES.

Speaking of people we elect, this is the most important proposition on the ballot to fix California since it will have a real impact on actual candidate elections. It limits corporation and unions from taking money from employees for use in political campaigns without getting prior approval from the employee. That’s fair. No one should be forced to contribute to me, or against me, depending on where they work. It also makes sure that the corporations and unions aren’t buying votes by prohibiting contributions to elected officials. From personal experience I can tell you of the frustration in local government of going into labor negotiations knowing that some folks negotiating on behalf of the people are in office and beholden to the very union on the other side of the negotiating table. Proposition 32 will stop that misconduct.

Proposition 33: YES.

The idea behind this proposition is to increase competition in the insurance industry by allowing for the transfer between insurers of any “continuous coverage” discounts. I see no serious opposition to it and it likely will not have any significant effect on state finances.

Proposition 34: NO.

In Proposition 34, we see yet another of the routine efforts by so-called progressive activists to eliminate capital punishment in California. It takes an important tool away from law enforcement for no good reason. Proponents argue that the cost of the death penalty, especially in our challenging budget times, justifies its elimination. This is a thoroughly dishonest argument since it is those same proponents responsible entirely for driving up the costs.

The moral arguments for the death penalty are overwhelming in my opinion. But on costs alone, there is no compelling reason to support this proposition. The supposed “savings” are easily achievable in other ways if the opponents of capital punishment would agree rather than obstruct, and the proposition explicitly calls for the diversion of an additional $100 million from the already stretched General Fund budget. The Department of Corrections expresses concern about the increased housing costs for former capital prisoners. This is especially a problem now, making this idea particularly wrongheaded now, given the Federal Receivership of our prisons and the Federal Court requirement that we reduce prison population. Already we’re releasing dangerous prisoners through the governor’s ill-conceived and dangerous Realignment scheme from last year. While Proposition 34 may not result in death penalty prisoners themselves being released (though I believe that this is another step on the abolitionists’ long march towards eliminating life in prison for any crime), it will inevitably put pressure on the Corrections system to release other dangerous prisoners.

Proposition 35: YES.

This Proposition reduces human sex trafficking. Who opposes that? Well, other than the President and CFO of something called “Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education, and Research Project, Inc.,” and a woman named Starchild, who all signed the opposition in the ballot pamphlet. I’ll resist the urge to see if “Erotic Service Providers Etc.” has a web site. You never know what you might catch on the Internet.

Proposition 36: NO.

The progressive, soft on crime, crowd that brought you Proposition 34 on capital punishment is behind this effort to greatly undermine Three Strikes. Law enforcement strongly opposes it for good reason. Crime rates are down; that suggests Three Strikes works. Other than the DAs of San Francisco, LA, and Santa Clara Counties, it looks like the vast majority of responsible law enforcement professionals argue to keep Three Strikes in place. The California District Attorneys Association, the California State Sheriff’s Association, and various victims’ rights groups ask for a No vote.

Proposition 37: NO.

This initiative requires the labeling of some, but not all, supposedly “genetically modified” food. Estimates are that it will cost billions in both extra labeling and lost productivity to California farmers. It’s driven by politics, not science.

Proposition 38: NO.

One of the dueling tax increase ideas polluting this year’s ballot, Proposition 38 is the Molly Munger tax increase competing with the governor’s proposal, Proposition 30. It imposes much more in the way of taxes – the wrong thing to do in a struggling economy – but at least really will put that money into the schools unlike what Proposition 30 does.

Although this one has great motives, it unfortunately proposes the wrong solution. The proposition is flawed because Californians don’t need more taxation to provide services we can already pay for. The Republican caucus put forward a budget that proves we can.

See my reasons in Prop 30 or visit www.cabudgetfactcheck.com.

Proposition 39: NO.

Not only does Proposition 39 raise taxes substantially on a segment of our already beleaguered business community, but it plays with the tax code – the type of ballot box budgeting that is pernicious and a not insubstantial part of why California can’t really get a handle on its finances – by targeting California employers who happen to be based outside of California but still try to do business here. It is bad enough that we drive businesses away. We should not be targeting those that want to come back or otherwise still do business here. This is especially so as the money that will be generated by the tax increase in this proposition explicitly goes, in part, not to reducing the deficit, but to a new state bureaucracy promoting “clean energy.” It’s a job-killing trifecta for leftists: (1) liberal social engineering through the tax code, (2) aimed at business, (3) to support environmentalism.

Proposition 40: YES.

This is an easy one: Everybody urges a yes vote. Seriously. The No campaign has not just given up, but has actually switched sides.

A group of Republican senators worked to qualify this referendum so that the Supreme Court would fix the mess of the State Senate district lines made by the Citizens’ Redistricting Commission. Since the Court ignored the Constitution and failed to do what it was explicitly required it to do, the bad lines are currently in place. A No vote would not undo the lines for this election, but would just create an enormous amount of uncertainty for future elections. No one wants that, and once the Supreme Court issued its ruling, all sides now agree that a Yes vote is best. (For what it’s worth, because this is a referendum and not an initiative, the rules are reversed and a Yes vote instead of a No vote keeps the current law in place. Some press reports I’ve read have that backward.)

Donald P. Wagner
Assembly Member, 70th District
Candidate for Assembly, 68th District

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Vote-by-Mail Ballots Mailed to Orange County Voters

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on October 9, 2012

This came over the wire from the Registrar of Voters today…

Vote-by-Mail Ballots Mailed to Orange County Voters

Nearly 630,000 vote-by-mail ballots mailed today

SANTA ANA, CA – October 9, 2012 – The Registrar of Voters mailed a record number of vote-by-mail ballots to voters today. The number of voters receiving a permanent vote-by-mail ballot has doubled in the past four years.

“I believe we are going to see a record number of vote-by-mail ballots cast here in Orange County,” said Neal Kelley, Registrar of Voters. “For the first time we will likely see vote-by-mail voting surpass polling place voting in a Presidential General Election,” he continued.

Statewide data indicates that over 7.4 million ballots will be mailed to voters throughout California, which represents 43% of the registered voters in the state. Voters in Orange County should expect their vote-by-mail ballots to begin arriving in tomorrow’s mail.

The deadline to request a vote-by-mail ballot for the November election is Tuesday, October 30, 2012. Voters can make a one-time request for a vote-by-mail ballot online by visiting ocvote.com/votebymail or by using the application found on the back of their sample ballot. Voters can also track the delivery and return of their vote-by-mail ballot online.

Orange County is the only election jurisdiction in the country to offer extensive real-time data online, which allows users to track data on the mailing and returns of vote-by-mail ballots – from party breakdowns to daily returns. Users can visit the Data Central section of the Registrar of Voters’ website by visiting ocvote.com/datacentral.

# # #

Posted in Orange County | Tagged: | 5 Comments »

Prop 29 Recount Rolls into Orange County

Posted by Chris Nguyen on August 29, 2012

Prop 29 went down in defeat in June with 2,592,791 voting against the measure and 2,568,715 voting for the measure (a 50.2%-49.8% margin or 24,076 votes), according to the results certified by the Secretary of State on July 13.

Four days before certification, on July 9, Dr. John Maa (D-San Francisco) filed a request for a partial recount of the results.  Maa is being represented in the recount by attorney Brad Hertz (R-Woodland Hills) of the Sutton Law Firm.  Maa indicated he would spend up to $250,000 to pay for the recount (remember, under California law, anyone requesting a recount must pay for it; a refund will occur only if they succeed in overturning the election results).

On July 16, the partial recount commenced in Los Angeles County.  The recounting continued until August 11, at which point Maa’s recount added 464 “Yes” votes and 246 “No” votes, a net gain of 218 votes for the “Yes” side.

On August 6, the recount commenced in Placer County, but with Steven L. Heilig (G-San Francisco) rather than Ma as the person requesting the recount.  The recounting continued until August 13, at which point Heilig’s recount subtracted 10 “Yes” votes and 18 “No” votes, a net gain of 8 votes for the “Yes” side.

The recount is now rolling into Orange County, with the Registrar of Voters announcing the recount will commence on Wednesday, September 5.

Although the No on 29 side is gaining votes in the recount, it seems unlikely that they’ll achieve enough to overturn 24,076 considering they’ve only netted 226 votes so far.

If Maa sounds familiar, he was in a “Yes on 29” commercial:

Since we’re showing Prop 29 commercials, click here to see Orange County’s own Dr. Ken Williams (R-Villa Park) in a No on 29 commercial.

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

Orange County Registrar of Voters Presidential Election Update

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on August 27, 2012

This came over the wire from the Registrar of Voters on Friday…

Increase in Candidates

More Candidates Than Four Years Ago

Our planning is in full swing for the upcoming Presidential Election. We will have 455 candidates on the ballot (317 school, special districts and 246 city candidates). This is an increase of 25 since November 2008.

Neal Kelley
Registrar of Voters

Drive Thru Operations

We are currently planning to offer many services for voters in our parking lot in Santa Ana close to the election. This will allow voters to register, vote, drop off vote-by-mail ballots and more.

City Candidate Info

We have been posting city candidate information online once we receive it from the cities. We should have a complete city candidate log online early next week, which will display all candidates in all city contests.

Verizon Wireless Concert Tonight

Summer Concert Series Continues

We have a full calendar of events through the November election. We register voters and recruit poll workers during these events. Tonight look for us at the 311 concert at the Verizon Wireless Amphitheater in Irvine.

Poll Workers 1,421  | VBMs Mailed: 0  | VBMs Returned: 0

Early Voting Returning to Orange County in October

We will be offering early voting again for the Presidential Election here in Orange County. These polling places will operate in 12 locations throughout the county. Voters will be able to cast their ballot early and avoid any crowds on Election Day. We will be announcing these locations shortly.

Posted in Orange County | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Orange County Registrar of Voters Presidential Primary Election Update: Primary Election Certified

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on June 16, 2012

This came over the wire from the Registrar of Voters yesterday…

Primary Election Certified

Final Official Certification is Complete

Earlier today we completed the final process of certifying the tally of all votes cast in the June Primary Election. The final turnout was 26.5% with 17.5% of voters casting their ballot by mail and 9% through their polling place.

Neal Kelley
Registrar of Voters

Voting Booth Returns Complete

Making sure we pick up voting booths from our polling places in a timely manner is critical. We have shortened this window to less than 10 days, freeing up space for our volunteer polling locations.

Ballot Envelope Sweep

One of the last steps in the certification process is to ensure that there are no ballots that were stuck in the return envelope. This guarantees that every single vote has been counted.

Ballot Storage Underway

Ballots Are Stored for 22 Months

We have been working to store voted ballots in boxes where they will remain for 22 months. Each ballot is sorted by precinct to make any necessary reviews easier to locate.

Poll Workers 1,642,516  VBMs Mailed: 684,836  VBMs Returned: 277,348

Voter Outreach at the Vans Warped Tour

Our voter outreach for the November election is in full swing. We have dozens of events planned before the General Election, each designed to recruit volunteers to work in the Presidential Election. Our outreach will move to the Great Park in Irvine on June 21st as the Vans Warped music tour comes to town.

Posted in Orange County | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Registrar of Voters: Unofficial Ballot Count Complete

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on June 14, 2012

This came over the wire from the Registrar of Voters two hours ago…

Newsfeed header

Unofficial Ballot Count Complete

June 14, 2012 – We have finished all of our ballot counting and required audit functions from the June 5th Primary Election.  Registrar of Voters, Neal Kelley, will certify the final results tomorrow following the preparation of the Statement of Votes.  Our election results this evening indicate “unofficial” until we finalize tomorrow.  We will be including write-in votes tomorrow as well.

Posted in Orange County | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

How Fast is the Registrar of Voters Counting Ballots? When Will They Finish? Who Will This Affect?

Posted by Chris Nguyen on June 14, 2012

On Friday evening, there were 17,125 uncounted ballots.

By Monday evening, there were 14,724 uncounted ballots, meaning 2,401 ballots were resolved on Monday.

By Tuesday evening, there were 9,528 uncounted ballots, meaning 5,196 ballots were resolved on Tuesday.

By last night, there were 4,625 uncounted ballots, meaning 4,903 ballots were resolved on Wednesday.

At the rate they’re going, it’s highly likely the Registrar of Voters completes the vote count today.

For visual learners:

There are only a few races that could still be affected by the outstanding ballots.

  • Will Ray Grangoff close his 51-vote deficit to overtake Jeff Lalloway for the last slot on the Republican Central Committee from the 68th District?  Will Ken Williams close both his 115-vote deficit to overtake Jeff Lalloway and his 64-vote deficit to overtake Ray Grangroff for the last slot on the Republican Central Committee from the 68th District?
  • Will Bill Dunlap close his 62-vote deficit to overtake John Draper for the last slot on the Republican Central Committee from the 74th District?

Those two races are the only ones in all of Orange County where the gap between the elected and the unelected (or 2nd and 3rd place in those fighting to advance to November from primaries) is 0.3% or less.  It is highly unlikely the 4,625 outstanding ballots would move the needle any more than 0.3%.

There are a couple races where the current leads would be unaffected by the remaining 4,625 ballots, but where the gap could close enough to lead the 3rd or 4th place candidate to pay for a recount to advance to November from the primaries.  (I’m assuming no one’s going to pay for a recount for any party’s Central Committee.)

69th Assembly District
Tom Daly (D) 10,862 39.3%
Jose “Joe” Moreno (R) 5,933 21.5%
Julio Perez (D) 5,649 20.4%
Michele Martinez (D) 4,614 16.7%
Francisco “Paco” Barragan (D) 594 2.1%

Team Perez is likely contemplating whether they’ll pay for a recount if they get within 1% of Jose Moreno (not to be confused with Anaheim City School District Trustee Jose F. Moreno).  Perez’s allies spent six figures trying to elect him, so the cost of a recount wouldn’t be out of the question for them.

72nd Assembly District
Troy Edgar (R) 17,968 28.0%
Travis Allen (R) 12,726 19.8%
Joe Dovinh (D) 12,353 19.3%
Long Pham (R) 12,325 19.2%
Albert Ayala (D) 8,756 13.7%

Long Pham is likely contemplating if he will pay for a recount if he gets within 0.5% of Travis Allen.  It’s unlikely Joe Dovinh or his team have the financial resources to pay for a recount.  Pham would need to dig into his own pockets for a recount.  He’s already spent $100,000 of his personal funds on his campaign and making 2nd place to get to the November general election against Troy Edgar may be the only way he recoups that $100,000.

The 1% for Perez vs. the 0.5% for Pham is on the basis that Perez would be more aggressive than Pham in pursuing a recount, as Perez’s allies spent more and have deeper pockets to pay for a recount while Pham spent less and has more shallow (less deep?) pockets.

Posted in 69th Assembly District, 72nd Assembly District, Orange County, Republican Central Committee | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bill Campbell’s Third District Report

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on June 10, 2012

This came over the wire from Supervisor Bill Campbell’s office on Friday…

Photo of Supervisor Campbell, Bill Campbell Supervisor 3rd District, Newsletter, Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in 3rd Supervisorial District | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

%d bloggers like this: