OC Political

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

Posts Tagged ‘Proposition 30’

Lt. Gov. Newsom Urges UC to Abandon Hideous New Logo

Posted by Chris Nguyen on December 13, 2012

Symbols of the University of California: the traditional seal (left) and the new logo (right)

You may have heard about the controversy over the new logo of the University of California.    Conceptually the logo’s supposed to be a yellow “C” inside a blue “U.”  However, the logo has been repeatedly been compared to a loading symbol on a computer or smartphone.  Some people have even compared it to a child’s drawing, a toilet, or the rear end and tail of an animal.

I, for one, am willing to declare it the most hideous logo in the history of higher education. Here.  I even spent 5 minutes creating a superior new logo for the UC system:

Nguyen Proposal for New UC Logo

My proposal for the new UC logo instead of that abomination they produced.

This week, Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom wrote a letter to UC President Mark Yudof urging the university system “to return to the use of the old logo and allow the University community a cooling off period to concentrate on the long-term health of the University.”

Some of you may find it a ridiculous waste of the Lieutenant Governor’s time to delve into a controversy involving a logo.  Others may be applauding the Lieutenant Governor for finding something to do other than check on the Governor’s health.

(Now, in fairness, the Lieutenant Governor is an ex officio Regent of the University of California, so this does fall into his purview.)

Newsom notes, “tuition at the University of California has more than doubled in recent years, access is being limited and students are incurring more debt than any other time in history…Instead of being creative with the University of California logo, we should be searching for creative solutions for funding the University of California.”

I don’t agree with Gavin Newsom on much, but a broken clock is right twice a day.  With the UC screaming about budget cuts, tuition increases, and enrollment cuts, is it really the best time to be working on graphic design?

Did the passage of the Prop 30 income tax and sales tax increases leave the UC rolling in so much dough that they can waste staff time and money on graphic design? Or maybe all that money is lying around after the firing of the highest-paid state employee?  (Actually, neither of those is possible since this logo was created before November when Prop 30 passed and that employee got fired.)

How exactly does UC justify this boondoggle?

Here is Newsom's letter regarding the UC logo. (Click to enlarge.)

Here is Newsom’s letter regarding the UC logo. (Click to enlarge.)

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

“Citizens for Good Government” Slate Mailer Improperly Uses Trademarked CRA Logo, Advocates Against CRA Positions

Posted by Chris Nguyen on November 5, 2012

It seems every election year, one slate mailer or another draws attention for their negative actions.  In 2012, it’s “Citizens for Good Government” in the negative spotlight.

It recommends the entire Republican slate of candidates along with the following ballot recommendations:

Prop 30 – Yes (CRA Says No on 30)
Prop 31 – No
Prop 32 – No (CRA Says Yes on 32)
Prop 33 – Yes (CRA is Neutral on 33)
Prop 34 – No
Prop 35 – Yes
Prop 36 – No
Prop 37 – No
Prop 38 – No
Prop 39 – Yes (CRA Says No on 39)
Prop 40 – No

Now you may be wondering why I brought up four measures where the California Republican Assembly disagreed with the “Citizens for Good Government” slate mailer.  Well look closely at the inside of the mailer (in the lower left corner of the mailer) to the left of Yes on 39 and below No on 38.

Citizens for Good Government Slate Mailer - Outside  Citizens for Good Government Slate Mailer - Inside

Yep, that’s the CRA logo.  If you click on the photo to blow it up to full size, you’ll see the CRA logo they used even has the “TM” symbol to indicate it’s trademarked.

(The particular one above was sent to Stanton Republicans, but Republicans in Garden Grove and Fullerton also received versions of this slate mailer.)

The caption for the CRA logo reads:

If you would like to volunteer to help elect good Republicans to public office, go to http://www.californiarepublicanassembly.com for the name of your local Republican club.

Hopefully voters who might have used this slate mailer took its advice and visited  http://www.californiarepublicanassembly.com, where the home page clearly lists CRA’s positions on ballot measures, in which the CRA differed with “Citizens for Good Government” on Props 30, 32, 33, and 39.

No CRA officer has stated they gave “Citizens for Good Government” permission to use the CRA logo, especially since the slate mailer is designed to show that it is supportive of CRA and imply (falsely) that its recommendations are backed by CRA.

CRA officials are consulting attorneys to see what action, if any, can be taken to prevent future use of the CRA logo and what can be done to repair the damage done to CRA by this slate mailer.

Posted in California, Mail | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

California Mailbox: No On 30 & Yes on 32

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on October 22, 2012

The mail has finally started to ramp up in my household. I received 2 pieces this weekend including this nifty 8.5 x 11 piece from the folks backing No on 30 and Yes on 32:

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

Live from OC GOP Central Committee

Posted by Chris Nguyen on September 17, 2012

Okay, lots of procedural things out of the way…

7:20 PM: Oath administered.  I’m officially an alternate.

7:21 PM: Officeholders and candidates in the room introducing themselves: Baron Night, Dean Grose, Jose Moreno, Brett Franklin, Charles Hart, Dwight Robinson, Tony Beall, Mike Munzing, Kim McCarthy, Mike Mortenson, Debbie Cotton, Elizabeth Emken, Jim Dahl, Karina Onofre, Ellen Adonizzio, Jim Reardon, Carlos Olvera, Brian Chuchua, Roy Byrnes, Steven Vargas, Diane Harkey, Lucille Kring, Brett Barbre, Denis Bilodeau, Jon Dumitru, Deborah Pauly, Alexia Deligianni, Cathy Schlict, Mark McCurdy, Jeff Mathews, Lynn Schott, Bruce Whitaker, Wendy Bucknum, Ceci Iglesias, Barry Levinson, Susan Hinman, Sam Allevato, Erik Peterson, Robert Hammond, Jennifer Fitzgerald, Brad McGirr, Christina Shea, Don Wagner, Alexandria Coronado, Chuck Puckett, John Nielsen, Doug Davert, George Collins, Adam Nick, Steve Nagel, Michelle Ollada Alipio, Bill Brough, Lupe Moreno, and Chris Norby.

7:27 PM: Minutes approved.

7:28 PM: Chairman Scott Baugh discusses the importance of candidates stepping up at all times not just around the candidates’ own elections.

7:29 PM: At the request of Chairman Scott Baugh, Orange County Board of Education Trustee Robert Hammond discussed being at the County School Boards Association meeting where the attendees complained low voter turnout will allow “the Republicans from Orange County to defeat Prop 30 and Prop 38.”

7:30 PM: Baugh describes the 13 open OC GOP GOTV HQs and mentions 3 more are on the way.

7:31 PM: Baugh speaks of the Costa Mesa Charter Amendment being a priority of the Republican Party.

7:33 PM: Committee Alternate Bill Dunlap speaks of the importance of getting out the vote.  Only 26% of OC voters cast their ballots in June.  He describes a number of party-sponsored get-out-the-vote efforts.

7:36 PM: Baugh delivers the 1st Vice Chair’s report on behalf of John Warner: the report included information about the next countywide precinct walk as well as information about Congressman John Campbell agreeing to fund a GOTV headquarters in the City of Orange.

7:38 PM: Fullerton RWF President Beverly Gunter speaks of RWF’s efforts to fundraise, phone bank, and precinct walk for candidates.  She presents a $900 check from RWF to subsidize

7:39 PM: My boss from my day job, Chris Norby, speaks of his race for re-election.

Endorsements Committee Report

7:41 PM: Endorsements Committee Chair Mark Bucher begins his long-awaited report.  He speaks of Prop 32’s 55%-37% lead despite “Yes on Prop 32” not starting any advertising until today while “No on Prop 32” had been pounding away for a month.  He also speaks of the finances of the Prop 32 battle.

7:43 PM: Now he actually begins his long-awaited report on endorsements…

7:44 PM: Bucher thanks fellow Endorsements Committee Members Chandra Chell, Thomas Gordon, Ray Grangoff, Matt Harper, and Mary Young.  He describes the endorsement procedures and goes over the list.  (Here’s the list again.  Here and here are the live blogs of those meetings.)

7:48 PM: Parliamentarian Kermit Marsh says the Endorsements Committee may not recommend a dual endorsement while the Central Committee can make a dual endorsement (in reference to the contest between Brett Franklin and Charles Hart for Santa Ana City Council, Ward 3).

7:50 PM: Bucher continues his report briefly summarizing the more controversial contests.

7:52 PM: The list is moved with the following pulled from the list:

  • Sam Allevato for San Juan Capistrano City Council (original recommendation was postpone to October) pulled by Diane Harkey
  • Lynn Schott for Irvine City Council (original recommendation was for endorsement) pulled by Scott Baugh
  • Measure FF (original recommendation was for endorsement of Yes on FF) pulled by Deborah Pauly
  • Jennifer Fitzgerald for Fullerton City Council (original recommendation was for endorsement) pulled by Tim Whitacre
  • Brian Neil Chuchua for Anaheim City Council (original recommendation was no endorsement) pulled by Tim Whitacre
  • All Mission Viejo candidates (original recommendation was for endorsement of Frank Ury and Wendy Bucknum, but not Cathy Schlict nor Ed Saches) pulled by Scott Peotter

San Juan Capistrano City Council – Sam Allevato

8:02 PM: Debate begins.  State Assemblywoman Diane Harkey moves and Lucille Kring seconds to endorse Sam Allevato for San Juan Capistrano City Council.  Allan Bartlett and Deborah Pauly will speak against.

8:04 PM: Harkey speaks of being dragged through the mud in politics.  She states many lies have been spread about Allevato.  She says there are five high schools in San Juan Capistrano: one public and four private.  She speaks of heavy congestion from the proximity of the schools.  She gets booed when she attempts to speak over time.

8:07 PM: Baugh reiterates the time limits.

8:08 PM: Pauly speaks of the controversy about the tax on religious schools and the property tax increases.  She speaks of the importance of following the process in which the endorsements committee recommended delaying consideration of San Juan Capistrano City Council until October.

8:10 PM: In an unusual action, Harkey speaks again in favor of Allevato since no one else is planning to speak in support of him.  She speaks of the debt and septic issues in the City of San Juan Capistrano.

8:13 PM: Slight delay as speakers exchange places.

8:14 PM: Bartlett praises Harkey.  He speaks against Allevato due to Allevato sending a 2010 mailer supporting Larry Agran and opposing Jeff Lalloway.

8:16 PM: Jon Fleischman asks for the Endorsements Committee’s rationale behind recommending a delay until October.

8:16 PM: Bucher explains several candidates applied late and that many people had concerns about the candidates.

8:17 PM: Don Wagner asks about the Allevato Irvine mailer that was pro-Agran and anti-Lalloway.

8:17 PM: Allevato says he works for Forde & Mollrich but not on the campaign side.  A quote was included from him as a retired IPD Lieutenant supporting Larry Agran.

8:18 PM: Bartlett says, “For the record, Jeff Lalloway opposes the endorsement of Allevato.”  Harkey says, “For the record, Jeff’s my alternate!”  Baugh rules both out of order.

8:19 PM: In response to a question, Allevato defends the tax on the religious school as a student impact fee that the school agreed to pay.  He goes on to explain the intricacies of student impact fees in San Juan Capistrano.

8:23 PM: Harkey asks Allevato to explain various land use decisions.

8:24 PM: Allevato speaks of various issues related to sewage costs from a plant in San Juan Capistrano.

8:26 PM: Baugh states it looks like the committee is not supportive of the motion to endorse Allevato.

8:26 PM: Harkey says he wants to go for it, and his wishes should be respected.

8:27 PM: Allevato says he (and Ginny Kerr) answered his questionnaire on time and got his signatures.   Allevato says the other candidates failed to do so.

8:27 PM: Bartlett moves and John Draper seconds a substitute motion to delay to October (restoring the Endorsement Committee’s original recommendation).

8:28 PM: By voice vote, the committee refers the Allevato endorsement back to the Endorsements Committee.

Elizabeth Emken Speaks

8:29 PM: Bucher asks Baugh to let Elizabeth Emken speak, and Baugh agrees.

8:30 PM: Former CRP Chair Ron Nehring praises the OC GOP.  He praises the efforts of the OC GOP on behalf of Assemblyman Allan Mansoor and Costa Mesa Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer.  He speaks of watching the DNC.  He praises Mitt Romney and blasts Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  He begins to introduce Elizabeth Emken by speaking of the importance of fighting for every seat from Mosquito Abatement District to U.S. Senate.

8:33 PM: Emken demands that Feinstein discuss her record.  Emken speaks of her own education and financial background.  She speaks of her efforts on behalf of her autistic son and other autistic children.  She speaks of her efforts to lobby Congress.  She says, “Obamacare is bad for everyone.”  She challenged Feinstein to debate and notes even the LA Times says Emken deserves the right to debate Feinstein.  She says the LA Daily News and the OC Register agree.  She says 123,000 people have seen the footage from ABC 7 in Los Angeles of Feinstein refusing to agree to debate.  Emken asks for money and plugs her web site.

Santa Ana City Council, Ward 3 – Brett Franklin and Charles Hart

8:41 PM: There was a quick discussion that although the Endorsements Committee did not have the power to recommend a dual endorsement in Santa Ana City Council, Ward 3, that the Central Committee does have that power and so both Brett Franklin and Charles Hart are endorsed.

8:42 PM: Baugh asks for a vote again just to make sure.  The Central Committee votes unanimously to endorse both Franklin and Hart.

Irvine City Council – Lynn Schott

8:43 PM: Baugh speaks of the 25-year inability of the Republican Party to remove Larry Agran from the Irvine City Council.  He speaks of the OC GOP prioritizing Costa Mesa this year.  Baugh asks Lynn Schott about her former alternate Patrick Rodgers who attacked the Costa Mesa Council majority and the Costa Mesa Charter.

8:46 PM: Schott says Rodgers was a strong supporter in 2010.  She says she was completely unaware of Rodgers’s statements until the Endorsements Committee meeting.  She says she tries to not read blogs.  She condemns Rodgers’s statements and “repudiates” the attempt to frame Righeimer for DUI.  Rodgers admitted to her that he had gone too far.  She obtained his resignation on September 7 (the same week that she learned of his statements).  She says she fully supports Prop 32 and opposes the unions’ efforts to “consolidate their power over choosing City Councilmembers” and other governmental bodies.  She says she is against defined benefit retirement programs and favors defined contribution retirement programs.

8:51 PM: Schott is endorsed by a unanimous voice vote.

Orange City Measure FF

8:51 PM: Villa Park Councilwoman Deborah Pauly speaks of being contacted by numerous Republicans expressing their concerns about Measure FF.  Pauly says the “No on FF” side did not get a chance to speak to the Endorsements Committee.  She says thousands of  Republicans, independents, and Democrats signed a petition to get a referendum to force FF on to the ballot.  She says this is an issue that is divisive to Republicans, and she moves that the Republican Party take no stance on Measure FF.

8:54 PM: Orange Mayor Pro Tem Denis Bilodeau speaks of the landowner wishing to build 36 homes on 50 acres of land on a 4-1 vote, who he notes the 1 is a Democrat who is receiving bundled campaign contributions from “No on FF.”  Bilodeau says it is a property rights issue and makes a substitute motion to endorse Measure FF (reverting to the original recommendation from the Endorsements Committee).

8:57 PM: Marcia Gilchrist speaks in favor of Bilodeau’s substitute motion.  She says the people objecting to the construction of the homes are trying to impeded a property owner from doing what they want with their own land.

8:58 PM: By voice vote, the OC GOP endorses “Yes on Measure FF.”

Fullerton City Council – Jennifer Fitzgerald

9:00 PM: Tim Whitacre moves to not endorse Jennifer Fitzgerald for Fullerton City Council, with Allan Bartlett seconding.  He speaks of Barry Levinson’s efforts on behalf of Fullerton.  He says Levinson is no longer seeking the party endorsement to prevent divisiveness in the OC GOP.  Whitacre provides an email showing Fitzgerald asking Tony Bedolla on behalf of her client (Troy Edgar) to bundle $99 contributions from union members.

9:03 PM: County Supervisor Shawn Nelson speaks of being the only person in the room to face $1.2 million in hostile union IEs.  He speaks of the 2002 successful effort to drive Democrat Jan Flory off the Fullerton City Council, but Flory is running again.  Nelson speaks of her history working for Republicans.  Nelson says he previously supported Levinson, but Levinson has made two unsuccessful bids for Fullerton Council.  He notes a conservative woman has not been elected to the Fullerton City Council since 1986.

9:06 PM: Baugh notes that in the OC GOP union-free pledge, the party welcomes contributions of individual union members but not of the union itself.

9:07 PM: Fullerton Mayor Pro Tem Bruce Whitaker notes that his city has had two recalls in two decades.  He says there is an opportunity for Fullerton right now.  He says he has a bias in favor of activism.  He says Republicans should have bold colors not pale pastels.  Whitaker expresses his concern about her relative lack of public statements on issues other than outsourcing the Fullerton Police Department to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department.  Whitaker urges OC GOP neutrality between Fitzgerald and Levinson.

9:09 PM: My Central Committee member arrives, so my alternate voting power is gone.  I now only wear one hat as your intrepid blogger.

9:10 PM: Mary Young speaks of knowing Fitzgerald for 19 years.  She says if someone is an activist for 17 years but is gone for 2 years, that 2 years of inactivity does not outweigh the 17 years of activism.

9:11 PM: By voice vote, the committee did something.  No one is sure what happened.

9:12 PM: There is now a standing vote.

9:15 PM: The count is 31 people voting in favor of the party being neutral between Fitzgerald and Levinson, and 23 people voting in favor of endorsing Fitzgerald.

There is no endorsement for Fullerton City Council, other than incumbents Bruce Whitaker and Travis Kiger, who were endorsed in August.

Anaheim City Council – Brian Neil Chuchua

9:16 PM: Tim Whitacre moves to endorse Brian Chuchua, with Baron Night seconding.  Whitacre notes Lodge opted to withdraw his own endorsement request.  Whitacre warns of the union’s big push in Anaheim.  He says that Mayor Tom Tait needs all the help he can get.  He says Tait lobbied the party to not endorse Lodge.  Whitacre praises Chuchua as a good conservative who can help Mayor Tait.

9:18 PM: Baugh asks Whitacre if Tait has endorsed Chuchua.

9:18 PM: Whitacre says, “Tait has not yet endorsed Mr. Chuchua at this time.”

9:18 PM: Jon Fleischman says he is uncomfortable voting to endorse Chuchua if Mayor Tait has not endorsed him.  He wants to hear from Mayor Tait.

9:19 PM: Pauly asks for the Endorsements Committee to clarify its rationale against Chuchua.

9:20 PM: Mary Young notes that Chuchua gave money to a Democrat.

9:20 PM: Ray Grangoff express his concern about the lack of the endorsement from Tait.

9:20 PM: Supervisor Shawn Nelson asks who the Democrat was.

9:21 PM: Chuchua says the Democrat was Anaheim City School District Candidate John Santoianni, “a personal friend.”

9:21 PM: Lucille Kring notes that Mayor Tait has only endorsed John Leos so far.  She notes Tait has not endorsed a second candidate.

9:22 PM: Thomas Gordon notes Kring told she’d prefer Chuchua as her Council colleague.

9:22 PM: Tim Whitacre says he has been reimbursed by Chuchua for various expenses related to Chuchua’s campaign.

9:23 PM: There is a standing vote.  There are 29 votes in favor of endorsing Chuchua, and there are 11 votes against endorsing Chuchua.  Chuchua joins Lucille Kring as the OCGOP-endorsed candidates for Anaheim City Council.

Jesse Petrilla Returns

9:26 PM: Rancho Santa Margarita Councilman Jesse Petrilla is given a standing ovation after returning within the last week from his service with the Army National Guard in Afghanistan.

Mission Viejo City Council

9:28 PM: Baugh reads the minutes from the Endorsements Committee, though several Central Committee members ask me if Baugh is reading this post since the minutes sounds a lot like OC Political.

9:31 PM: Ray Grangoff speaks of Bucknum’s strong conservative record and property rights record.

9:33 PM: Larry Gilbert brings up various documents and exhibits showing Frank Ury backing Democrat Dave Leckness and Wendy Bucknum with a union-paid sign in her yard, with her support for Leckness and Trish Kelley, neither of whom were endorsed by the OC GOP.  (Scott Voigts says, “Wow” throughout Gilbert’s remarks.)  Gilbert shows a campaign finance report showing Ury linked to Democrats.

9:36 PM: Baugh has to ask Gilbert to leave the stage after Parliamentarian Kermit Marsh repeatedly stated that Gilbert’s time was up.

9:37 PM: Young argues Leckness has a conservative voting record and that activist Shirley Morgan had tried repeatedly to make Leckness re-register as a Republican.  Young asks what in Leckness’s voting record is not conservative.

9:38 PM: Bill Dunlap says the party should not pick between winners and losers because there are two spots and four Republicans seeking the seat.

9:39 PM: In response to an audience question, Baugh notes there are four Republicans among the six candidates.

9:39 PM: Peotter moves for no endorsement in Mission Viejo, and there is a near-unanimous voice vote for the OC GOP to be neutral in Mission Viejo.

Fountain Valley City Council – Steve Nagel

9:40 PM: Nagel endorsed with all but one vote.

Garden Grove City Council – Steve Jones

9:40 PM: Steve Sarkis moves and Denis Bilodeau seconds to endorse Steve Jones for re-election to Garden Grove City Council.

9:41 PM: Tim Whitacre moves to not endorse Jones because Jones has endorsed Democrat Tom Daly for State Assembly.

9:41 PM: Jones denies endorsing Daly.

9:42 PM: Baugh asks if he’s endorsed Republican Assembly Candidate Jose Moreno.

9:42 PM: Jones endorses Moreno on the spot.

9:42 PM: By voice vote, Jones is endorsed unanimously.

Newport Beach City Measure EE

9:44 PM: A representative speaks of a charter commission that amended various charter provisions seeking to update 58 year old language, streamline government, and reduce costs by eliminating class-action lawsuits.

9:47 PM: Scott Peotter blasts the measure’s compensation provisions that legalizes generous salaries and benefits for Councilmembers. He notes the Register opposes EE.

9:49 PM: Miraculously, Deborah Pauly and Jon Flesichman unite to make and second a motion to send Measure EE to the Endorsements Committee in October. The Central Committee applauses stunned that Pauly and Flesichman are united. They vote unanimously to support the Pauly-Fleischman motion.

Tustin City Measure HH

9:50 PM: Doug Davert says Measure HH eliminates Tustin City Council compensation.

9:50 PM: The vote to endorse Measure HH passes unanimously.

Central Committee Business

9:51 PM: Mary Young updates efforts on voter registration, including from Assemblywoman Diane Harkey.

9:53 PM: Norm Dickinson speaks of various bylaw cleanup amendments including conforming ex officio membership requirements to Prop 14.

9:56 PM: The bylaw amendments pass unanimously by voice vote.

9:57 PM: Zonya Townsend presents the Volunteer of the Month Award to Shalon Norman. Various other people make presentations to Norman.

10:03 PM: Parliamentarian Kermit Marsh is pleased to report there have been no ethics complaints so far in 2012. Marsh disputes the election polls, and notes the 21-14 football victory of #21 Stanford over #2 USC.

10:05 PM: There’s a report from Diane Glinchey regarding the Romney campaign efforts in OC and in several swing states.

10:07 PM: Ronea Hart speaks of the Team Santa Ana precinct walk at the Santa Ana GOP GOTV HQ and the Santa Ana TEA Party meeting.

10:08 PM: One speaker notes today is the 225th anniversary of the Constitution.

10:09 PM: Steve Sarkis reports on his discoveries of enormous signs for “No on 32” being delivered to a union hall.

10:09 PM: Mike Munzing plugs his fundraiser for Aliso Viejo Council.

10:10 PM: Rancho Santa Margarita Councilman Tony Beall spoke of the GOTV HQ in his area.

10:11 PM: Kermit Marsh wins the raffle after pulling out a huge wad of tickets. He says the key to winning is buying the most tickets. Marsh’s victory is verified, and the meeting adjourns.

Posted in Republican Central Committee | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 32 Comments »

Quirk-Silva Campaigns In Santa Ana Which Doesn’t Even Border AD-65

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on August 30, 2012

AD-65 candidate Sharon Quirk-Silva is campaigning in Santa Ana today: she’s holding a meet and greet at the Martinez Book Store at 216 N. Broadway at 5 PM.

Why?

AD-65 is Anaheim, Buena Park, Cypress, Fullerton, La Palma and Stanton.  None of those cities even border Santa Ana.

Credit goes to Meridian Pacific for posting these maps on their website.

Maybe she’s in Santa Ana because she wants to be Loretta Sanchez’s successor.  That would make sense since Santa Ana is completely in CD-46.  She’s sharing campaign offices with Sanchez, too.  Maybe that’s what this AD-65 campaign really is about.  She’s trying to raise her profile to run for CD-46.  CD-46 doesn’t include Buena Park, Cypress, Fullerton, La Palma, or Stanton, by the way.

Maybe Quirk-Silva’s campaigning in Santa Ana because they’ll be friendlier to her pro-tax message there than they will be in AD-65.  She must be supporting Governor Jerry Brown’s Prop 30 sales tax and income tax hike.  Prop 30 will probably fail miserably in AD-65 but pass in Santa Ana.  As Steve Sarkis pointed out in the OC Register, Quirk-Silva’s entire “ending partisan gridlock” argument is just code for increasing taxes.  See Steve’s letter (third one down): http://letters.ocregister.com/2012/05/26/primary-distinctions-between-candidates/

Maybe Quirk-Silva’s campaigning in Santa Ana because she has as many Santa Ana City Councilmembers endorsing her as she does in all of AD-65.  She has four Santa Ana Councilmembers endorsing her (David Benavides, Michele Martinez, Sal Tinajero, and Vince Sarmiento).  Of the four AD-65 Councilmembers endorsing Quirk-Silva (Anaheim’s Lorri Galloway, Fullerton’s Doug Chaffee, and tiny La Palma’s Ralph Rodriguez and Steve Shanahan), Galloway can’t even vote for her since she lives in AD-68 (Anaheim is split into AD-65, AD-68, and AD-69).  By the way, Norby has 21 endorsements from AD-65 City Councilmembers.

Maybe Quirk-Silva’s campaigning in Santa Ana because she’ll hope it’ll get the Assembly Dem leadership’s attention by pretending to run in a Dem city like Santa Ana.  I wrote a couple weeks ago in my post “Leading Assembly Democrat Headlines Norby Fundraiser” that “She isn’t endorsed by the Speaker or the Assembly Majority Leader either.  It looks like the Democrat leadership is abandoning Quirk-Silva.”

It looks like the Democrat leadership is abandoning Quirk-Silva.  On Monday, the Assembly’s top Democrat, Speaker John Perez, announced the Dems’ November target list: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/08/assembly-democrats-target-four-races-for-november-election.html

Quirk-Silva wasn’t on it.

Has Quirk-Silva given up on even campaigning in AD-65?

Posted in 46th Congressional District, 65th Assembly District, Santa Ana | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

California Republican Party Endorses Positions on November Ballot Measures

Posted by Chris Nguyen on August 12, 2012

Just moments ago, the California Republican Party approved the following endorsements of the measures on the November ballot.

  • No on 30 – Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. (Governor Jerry Brown Tax Increase)
  • Yes on 31 – State Budget. State and Local Government. (Pay as you go)
  • Yes on 32 – Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributions to Candidates. (Stop Special Interest Money)
  • Yes on 33 – Auto Insurance Companies. Prices Based on Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage.
  • No on 34 – Elimination of Death Penalty.
  • Yes on 35 – Human Trafficking. Penalties
  • No on 36 – Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties.
  • No on 37 – Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling.
  • No on 38 – Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. (Molly Munger Tax Increase)
  • No on 39 – Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy Corporate Subsidies. (Tom Steyer Tax Measure)
  • Yes on 40 – Redistricting State Senate Districts.

The party had previously taken the positions above for Props 30, 32, 33, and 38. The other seven measures are new endorsements.

On Prop 31, Tom Hudson spoke in opposition to the measure, expressing concern that the measure would never permit a tax cut ever again. Jon Fleischman spoke in favor of Prop 31, expressing support for its requirement that budget bills must be in print for 72 hours before any votes can occur (making it more difficult to pass last-minute tax increases). Fleischman also noted the top opponents to Prop 31 were labor unions, like SEIU and AFSCME. The party delegates voted in favor of Prop 31.

On Prop 40, Initiatives Committee Chairman Mike Spence stated a parliamentary ruling determined that while the party had previously voted to support the petition circulation to qualify Prop 40 for the ballot, the party had not voted on the measure itself.

Tom Hudson spoke urging the delegates to endorse a position of “No on Prop 40” (i.e. support the referendum, reinforcing the position on the circulation), saying voters should overturn the lines because the Supreme Court had previously drawn excellent lines the last two times they did it in the 1970s and 1990s.

Senator Mimi Walters, who obtained and provided the bulk of the funding to qualify Prop 40 for the ballot, spoke urging the delegates to endorse a position of “Yes on Prop 40” (i.e. oppose the referendum, leaving the lines in place), saying voters should not overturn the lines because the Senate seats up in 2014 are more favorable to Republicans, enabling the GOP to pick up two Senate seats in 2014. She stated she had qualified the referendum in hopes that the courts would stay the lines in the 2012 election pending the outcome of the referendum. The courts refused. She indicated the lines made it so that the Senate seats up in 2012 are more favorable to Democrats, allowing them to pick up 2-3 seats.

The party delegates voted with the position proposed by Walters, voting in favor of Prop 40 (i.e. leaving the lines in place by opposing the referendum).

The positions on all the other ballot measures passed without discussion.

Posted in California, Republican Central Committee | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Judge Rules Against Munger, Brown’s Ballot Measure Arrangement Bill Stands, Propositions Numbered at Last

Posted by Chris Nguyen on July 10, 2012

As I wrote about here, Molly Munger filed suit to stop AB 1499 from taking effect. AB 1499, which Governor Jerry Brown signed into law on June 27, changed the order that ballot measures appear on the ballot.

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy M. Frawley rejected Munger’s suit entirely.

Consequently, his temporary restraining order preventing the Secretary of State’s office from numbering the ballot propositions has ended.

The Secretary of State’s office has now numbered the ballot measures, so these are the propositions for the statewide ballot for November:

Proposition 30 – Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. (This is Governor Jerry Brown’s tax measure.)

Proposition 31 – State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. (This is the two-year budget measure.)

Proposition 32 – Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute. (This is best known as Stop Special Interest Money Now.)

Proposition 33 – Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 34 – Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 35 – Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 36 – Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 37 – Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 38 – Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute. (This is Molly Munger’s tax measure.)

Proposition 39 – Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute. (This is Tom Steyer’s tax measure.)

Proposition 40 – Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

Arguments for and against these ballot propositions are due to the Secretary of State by 5:00 PM today.  In case of multiple arguments being submitted, the Secretary of State’s office is required by law to give priority to the official proponents, followed by bona fide associations of citizens, and then individuals.

Rebuttal arguments are due by 5:00 PM on Thursday, July 19.  Litigation regarding these statements must be filed by 5:00 PM on Monday, August 13.

(In the interest of full disclosure, Custom Campaigns has done some consulting work for Stop Special Interest Money Now, now known as Proposition 32.  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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Field Poll: Brown Tax Leads, Even Split on Munger & Steyer Taxes, High-Speed Rail Decreases Support for Brown Tax

Posted by Chris Nguyen on July 9, 2012

Since you’re reading this post, you obviously passed the test we posted on Friday to avert being knocked off the Internet.

Three tax measures have qualified for the November ballot, sponsored by Governor Jerry Brown, multimillionaire heiress attorney Molly Munger, and billionaire businessman Tom Steyer, respectively.

Ballot Measure Proponents Jerry Brown, Molly Munger, and Tom Steyer

Munger Sues State

The battle between Munger and Brown on ballot measure numbering has a hearing scheduled today at 9:00 AM. (Munger asked the court to delay the hearing for another nine days, stating the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters had refused to supply documents or completely answered questions, but was apparently unsuccessful in getting the delay.)  For more details on the suit, read my post from last Monday (note that on Thursday, the Legislature approved legislation moving the water bond from the 2012 ballot to the 2014 ballot; the water bond would have been Proposition 30 regardless of Munger’s lawsuit, so when reading that post, just remove Proposition 30 and subtract one from the numbering of all the other measures; other than that, everything in the post is still current information).

If Munger prevails, her ballot measure will be Proposition 36 rather than Proposition 38, Brown’s ballot measure will be Proposition 37 rather than Proposition 30, and Steyer’s will be Proposition 38 rather than Proposition 39.  In other words, if Munger prevails, the ballot order will be six other measures, the Munger measure, the Brown measure, the Steyer measure, and two other measures.  If Brown prevails, the ballot order will be the Brown measure, seven other measures, the Munger measure, the Steyer measure, and the Senate redistricting referendum.

Brown’s Income and Sales Tax Increase Measure Leads, But is Threatened by High-Speed Rail

The latest Field Poll finds Governor Jerry Brown’s income and sales tax increase ballot measure leads 54%-38%, with 8% undecided.  (The poll found a similar result in May, with the measure leading 52%-35%, with 13% undecided.)   Brown’s tax increase ballot measure leads among every demographic and geographic group, as well as liberals, moderates, Democrats, and independents.  Only conservatives and Republicans oppose the measure.  However, not all is rosy for the Brown tax increase measure…

21% of the measure’s supporters indicated that they would be less inclined to support the Brown tax increase if the high-speed rail funding bill was approved.  Conversely, only 5% of the measure’s opponents indicated that they would be more inclined to support the Brown tax increase if the high-speed rail funding bill was approved.

(The poll was completed shortly before the Senate passed the high-speed rail funding bill 21-16 on Friday and the Assembly passed the bill 51-27 on Thursday.  Brown is expected to sign the bill this week.)

The high-speed rail bill’s approval may very well endanger Brown’s tax increase initiative.  Ballot measures typically lose support as campaigns wear on, and the high-speed rail may send support for Brown’s tax increase measure under 50%, making it that much more difficult to pass once the campaign season begins in the fall.

Voters Evenly Split on Munger Income Tax Increase Measure

Molly Munger’s income tax increase ballot measure has voters perfectly split, with 46% supporting it and 46% opposing it.

Republicans oppose the Munger income tax increase, Democrats support it, and independents are evenly split.  Conservatives and moderates oppose it while liberals support it.  Men oppose it while women support it.  Whites oppose it, Latinos support it, and other ethnic groups were split.

Voters under 40 support the Munger income tax increase measure while voters over 40 oppose it.  Union households support it while non-union households were split.  People making less than $40,000 support it while voters making more than $40,000 oppose it.

As expected, San Francisco Bay Area voters support the Munger income tax increase measure while other Northern Californians oppose it.  Strangely, Los Angeles County voters are evenly split on the measure while other Southern Californians were supportive, upending the typical result of LA County being less tax-averse than other Southern Californians (in this same poll, on the Brown and Steyer measures, the more-expected result of LA County being less tax averse than the rest of Southern California occurred).

Voters Evenly Split on Steyer Singles Sales Factor for Business Income Tax Calculation Measure

Tom Steyer’s measure requiring the singles sales factor for business income tax calculation has voters effectively split, with 44% supporting it and 43% opposing it.

Conservatives and Republicans oppose the Steyer single sales factor measure while independents, moderates, Democrats, and liberals support it.  While both genders were split within the margin of error, men were more likely to oppose while women were more likely to support.  Whites oppose the measure, Latinos support it, and other ethnic groups were evenly split.

Voters under 40 support the Steyer singles sales factor measure, voters over 65 oppose it, while middle-aged voters were even split.  Union households were supportive while non-union households were evenly split.  Voters making making $40,000-$99,999 support the measure while those making more than $100,000 oppose the measure.  Oddly, those making less than $40,000 were evenly split.

The San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County support the Steyer single sales factor measure while the rest of Northern and Southern California oppose it.

Will the LA County Measure R Sales Tax Extension Accidentally Kill All the Tax Measures?

In 2008, LA County voters approved Measure R, a 0.5% sales tax increase to fund transportation projects that took effect July 1, 2009, and expires 30 years later in 2039.  Inexplicably, the LA Metropolitan Transportation Authority voted to place an extension of Measure R on the November 2012 ballot to add 30 years to the 0.5% sales tax increase making it expire in 2069.

Just four years into a thirty-year tax, voters are being asked to make it a sixty-year tax.  If approved, nearly all people who vote on this ballot measure will be dead by the time the tax expires.

It seems strategically odd to ask for an extension so soon after the initial passage.  It would have seemed more strategically sound to wait until 2030 or so when Measure R was nearing expiration.

The placement of the Measure R extension on the November ballot means LA County voters will be faced with four tax measures on their ballot.  Voter tax fatigue will take its toll in LA County.

Why does LA County tax fatigue matter to the rest of the state?  Well, 1/4 of all Californians live in Los Angeles County.

Look at Prop 29: it failed by 0.6%.  The San Francisco Bay Area went overwhelmingly for it.  Most of Northern and Southern California went overwhelmingly against it.  Los Angeles County narrowly went against Prop 29.

This Measure R extension may be the inadvertent death knell of the tax-related statewide ballot measures in November.

LA County support is pivotal for any tax measure hoping to pass in California.

What the Three State Ballot Measures Would Do

For those of you who are wondering what the three state ballot measures would do…

Brown’s measure (likely Proposition 30 or Proposition 37, it is officially titled, “Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. “) would increase personal income taxes for amounts above $250,000 per year for seven years and raise the state sales tax by 0.25% for four years. Specifically, income taxes on amounts:

  • between $250,000-$300,000 would increase by 1% to 10.3%
  • between $300,000-$500,000 would increase by 2% to 11.3%
  • above $500,000 would increase by 3% to 12.3%

Sales taxes in OC would climb to 8%, except in La Habra, where it would go to 8.5%. LA County sales tax would go up to 9%.

For seven years, 89% of the tax money is allocated to K-12 schools with 11% to community colleges. On a permanent basis, 1.0625% sales tax would be permanently removed from the Prop 98 education funding formula to fund local public safety realignment programs.

Click here for the Legislative Analyst Office’s official fiscal analysis of the Brown measure.

Munger’s measure (likely Proposition 36 or Proposition 38, it is officially titled, “Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.”) would increase personal income taxes on nearly all Californians for twelve years.  Specifically, for individuals who are not heads of households, income taxes on amounts:

  • between $7,316-$17,346 would increase by 0.4% to 2.4%
  • between $17,346-$27,377 would increase by 0.7% to 4.7%
  • between $27,377-$38,004 would increase by 1.1% to 7.1%
  • between $38,004-$48,029 would increase by 1.4% to 9.4%
  • between $48,029-$100,000 would increase by 1.6% to 10.9%
  • between $100,000-$250,000 would increase by 1.8% to 11.1%
  • between $250,000-$500,000 would increase by 1.9% to 11.2%
  • between $500,000-$1,000,000 would increase by 2.0% to 11.3%
  • between $1,000,000-$2,500,000 would increase by 2.1% to 11.4%
  • above $2,500,000 would increase by 2.2% to 11.5%

For heads of households, income taxes on amounts:

  • between $14,642-$34,692 would increase by 0.4% to 2.4%
  • between $34,692-$44,721 would increase by 0.7% to 4.7%
  • between $44,721-$55,348 would increase by 1.1% to 7.1%
  • between $55,348-$65,376 would increase by 1.4% to 9.4%
  • between $65,376-$136,118 would increase by 1.6% to 10.9%
  • between $136,118-$340,294 would increase by 1.8% to 11.1%
  • between $340,294-$680,589 would increase by 1.9% to 11.2%
  • between $680,589-$1,361,178 would increase by 2.0% to 11.3%
  • between $1,361,178-$3,402,944 would increase by 2.1% to 11.4%
  • over $3,402,944 would increase by 2.2% to 11.5%

For the first four years, 60% of the tax money is allocated to K-12 schools, 10% to early childhood programs, and 30% to repaying state debt. For the remaining eight years, 85% of the tax money is allocated to K-12 schools and 15% to early childhood programs.

Click here for the Legislative Analyst Office’s official fiscal analysis of the Munger measure.

Steyer’s measure (likely Proposition 38 or Proposition 39, it is officially titled, “Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.”) would permanently impose the single sales factor calculation on income taxes for multistate businesses.

For five years, $550,000,000 would be allocated from the state General Fund into the “Clean Energy Job Creation Fund,” which would be used for energy efficiency retrofits and alternative energy installations in government buildings, local government energy retrofit financial assistance programs, and job training and workforce development programs.

Click here for the Legislative Analyst Office’s official fiscal analysis of the Steyer measure.

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

Looking at the November Ballot: Twelve Propositions Qualified

Posted by Chris Nguyen on June 27, 2012

Well, tomorrow is the last day for an initiative or referendum to qualify for the November ballot.  With only one measure whose signatures are still pending verification (but that one appears to be falling far short of signature requirements), we now know which initiatives and referenda have made it to the November ballot.

Note the proposition numbers are tentative.  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.  Here’s the list:

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

Proposition 38 – Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute. (This is Molly Munger’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.

Again, these numbers are tentative and can be changed if the Legislature yanks the first one off the ballot or adds other measures to the ballot.

These are the official titles from the Attorney General’s office from when these measures were cleared for circulation.  It’s odd that the three crime-related measures were bunched together and the four fiscal measures were bunched together; that was just convenient from ballot qualification order.

More will come once we have a clearer look at the ballot after the deadline for the Legislature to place/remove measures for the November ballot.

(In the interest of full disclosure, Custom Campaigns has done some consulting work for Stop Special Interest Money Now, tentatively Proposition 31.  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: , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »