OC Political

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

Posts Tagged ‘recall’

Breaking News: Enough Signatures Verified to Qualify Recall Election for Senator Josh Newman

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on August 18, 2017

This came over the wire from the California Republican Party just minutes ago announcing enough signatures have been verified by County Registrars of Voters to qualify the recall election of Senator Josh Newman (D-Fullerton):

Statement by California Republican Party Chairman Jim Brulte on the Counties Verifying Enough Signatures to Qualify Recall of State Senator Josh Newman

Sacramento, CA — Today, the counties of LA, Orange and San Bernardino have verified 66,597 signatures from voters who signed the petition to recall State Senator Josh Newman. This is significantly more than the required 63,593 verified signatures from voters within Senate District 29 by mid-October to qualify the recall for a vote.

“Despite every cynical effort by the Democrats to stall this election, the time has come for Senator Newman to stand before the voters in Senate District 29 and answer for his tax-raising antics,” stated California Republican Party Chairman Jim Brulte. “We call upon the Secretary of State to certify the recall so that voters can finally have their say at the ballot box.”

Ever since SD 29 voters filed a petition to recall Senator Newman this Spring, Sacramento Democrats have gone out of their way to undermine and upend the electoral process.

In a cynically corrupt attempt to shield Senator Newman from the impending recall, Democrats in the Legislature scrambled to pass Senate Bill 96—a gut and amend bill that would needlessly extend the state’s recall approval process—denying voters in SD 29 the due process of a speedy election. In response, SD 29 voters joined with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and sued to stop the implementation of SB 96. In a win for the recall proponents, the courts granted their request earlier this week.

In a move to further bolster Newman’s chances of surviving the recall, Senate Democrats last month filed a motion with the supposedly non-partisan political watchdog, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), to lift the contribution limits for Newman’s recall campaign. Going against the recommendation of its legal counsel, the FPPC approved the Democrats’ request earlier this week. Newman’s colleagues in the Legislature will now be allowed to raise and contribute large sums of cash to Newman by using their committees to funnel money from special interests. To add insult to injury, it was reported that one of the FPPC commissioners had held several conversations with the Senate Democrats’ attorney prior to the ruling, calling into question the objectivity of the Commissioner.

“Make no mistake about it, the Democratic supermajority and the special interests who benefit from it will continue to fight dirty. They have all the money in the world, the power to change laws at will, and a direct interest in ensuring that Newman keeps his seat,” stated Brulte. “It’s despicable that the Democrat Party is pulling out so many stops to prevent voters from having their say. It’s really no wonder that voters are so cynical these days.”

Once the Secretary of State certifies the sufficiency of the recall petition, the Governor must order an election for SD 29.

###

Posted in 29th Senate District | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

CRP: 84,988 Signatures Submitted to Recall State Senator Josh Newman

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on June 30, 2017

This came over the wire from the California Republican Party on Tuesday…

84,988 Signatures Submitted to Recall State Senator Josh Newman

Today, the California Republican Party (CRP) announced that it has collected and submitted 84,988 signatures in the effort to recall State Senator Josh Newman. The campaign needs at least 63,593 signatures from voters within Senate District 29 by mid-October to qualify the recall for a vote.

“Voters in Senate District 29 have made their opposition to Newman’s vote on the gas tax and car tax increases very clear. The speed with which voters signed the petitions is a testament to the anger they feel towards these tax increases and a fear of what liberal Josh Newman might decide to tax next,” stated California Republican Party Chairman Jim Brulte.

In a cynically corrupt attempt to shield Senator Newman from the impending recall, Democrats in the Legislature scrambled to pass Senate Bill 96, a gut and amend bill that would needlessly extend the state’s recall approval process, denying voters in Senate District 29 the due process of a speedy election.

“It is a clear abuse of power for the same legislators who voted for a wildly unpopular gas tax to now change the rules applying to recall elections in order to protect their colleague form the voters of his community,” stated Brulte. “The Democrats’ attempt to quell the movement by retroactively changing the rules is pure political gamesmanship and completely undermines our democratic process.”

In light of the legislative tomfoolery the CRP will continue to circulate recall petitions and turn in signatures to ensure all voters who desire to sign have the ability to do so.

###

Posted in 29th Senate District, California | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Before The Ink Is Dry On Their First Effort, Lake Forest Recall Group Serves Second Set Of Recall Papers On Councilmembers [Updated]

Posted by Greg Woodard on May 4, 2016

Lake Forest residents have been inundated over the past several months with signature gatherers, Council outbursts, and divisive rhetoric, as a group called Committee to Recall City Council Members Voigts, Hamilton & Robinson is attempting to recall City Council members Scott Voigts, Andrew Hamilton, and Dwight Robinson.

Two weeks ago, the group submitted approximately 8,200 recall signatures for each Council member.  The Orange County Registrar of Voters has not finished counting the votes to determine whether the group has met the requirement to force a special election in August, September, or October 2016.  Counting the votes alone will cost the city of Lake Forest at least $85,000.  If the recall is certified, the special election would cost the city at least another $100,000.

In a strange twist, although the Registrar of Voters has not said whether enough signatures have been gathered for the initial recall petition, the group served a second set of recall papers on Hamilton, Voigts, and Robinson after last night’s City Council meeting.

Andrew Hamilton, one of the recall targets, stated “Obviously, Adam Nick knows that the first recall didn’t succeed.  Why else would he have personally served me with another set of recall papers? That questions his ability to be looking out for taxpayers in Lake Forest when the Jim Gardner and Adam Nick-supported recall proponents knowingly submitted insufficient recall quantities of signatures.  This wasted $85,000 of taxpayer money due to their personal ambition.  What budget cuts are we going to need to make because of this?  We don’t need a perpetual recall in Lake Forest that continually wastes taxpayers’ money in spreading false accusations.  Adam Nick should stop his failed power grab and instead look out for the best interest of Lake Forest taxpayers.”

Jim Gardner, another current Council member who is supporting the recall, and has paid $30,000 to the group, said “I was told by the recall organizers that ‘the second petition was designed to show them [the Gang of 3] that we are not going away.  We will continue until they are gone.’  I think the recall supporters achieved enough signatures with the 8,100+ they already submitted, since they were verified by an independent agency.  But you can never tell what the authorities will say or do.  I was surprised  when the DA decided not to prosecute a resident who was accused of assaulting a recall supporter trying to gather signatures.  The video, just released, appears to clearly show the assault and eye-witnesses to whom I spoke also claimed that the assault was unprovoked.  So you can never tell what will happen, and I think the recall supporters are hedging their bets.”

To the residents of Lake Forest, get ready for Round 2.

[Update] Apparently, the pro-recall forces have failed in their second bid to recall Voigts, Hamilton, and Robinson, as Robinson confirmed that the recall petition was not timely submitted to the City Clerk.  While that does not prevent the recall folks from taking a third shot, it does call into question their organization when they cannot meet one of the most basic requirements for a recall effort.

Posted in Lake Forest | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Yorba Linda Recall: Young and Lindsey Receives IE Rescue

Posted by Allen Wilson on May 23, 2014

The Southern California Coalition of Business and Taxpayers (SCCBT) has recently established an Independent Expenditure (IE) on March 28, 2014 with a FPPC number 1365006.

The SCCBT has already raised over $100K for the purpose of supporting and/or opposing candidates in state and local offices.

On May 16, 2014, the SCCBT has spent resources at a total cost of over $13,000 on literature on behalf of Yorba Linda Mayor Craig Young and Yorba Linda Councilman Tom Lindsey.

Below is the IE expenses of $8,204.66 for Craig Young:

image

Below is the IE expenses of $5,072.94 for Tom Lindsey:

image

It is possible that this is just the beginning.  All IE late contributions are require to report some activity with the Secretary of State and local clerk and in this case would be the Yorba Linda City Clerk.

Posted in Campaign Finance, Yorba Linda | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Yorba Linda Recall: Signatures Count and Verification Begins

Posted by Allen Wilson on May 15, 2014

Recall

The Yorba Linda City Clerk has determined that the group seeking to recall Councilmembers Craig Young and Tom Lindsey has exceeded the 8,100 signatures requirement.   Now, the Orange County Registrar of Voters will proceed to verify the signatures to determine the validity of those signatures whether or not it triggers a recall of the duo Councilmembers.

The YLRRR (Yorba Linda Residents for Responsible Representation) has announced they have collected 9,670 signatures to recall Craig Young and 9,495 signatures to recall Tom Lindsey.

 

 

Posted in Yorba Linda | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Can’t We All Just Get Along: Politics as usual in Yorba Linda

Posted by Brenda Higgins on January 23, 2014

I hate to quote Rodney King, but it just fits. There are too many important races coming up this year and too much at stake to not take an early look at alignments, tactics and issues.

In my little town of Yorba Linda, we have the usual onslaught, yes, already, of Republican on Republican verbal violence. It makes no sense, and literally everyone loses in such a battle. There is a movement afoot, to recall two council members. There is no allegation of abuse of power, of violation of law, of conflict of interest, sexual or moral misconduct, the gist of this movement is that they did not keep their campaign promises.

Really. Shocking. Whether they did or didn’t, just shocking that such an allegation would arise.

One of the Council Members targeted in the recall is up for re-election in NOVEMBER. Mark my words, the candidates and their supporters who are behind this, will run in November beating the drum of how they are the “real” fiscal conservatives. Please consider the cost of this recall effort. Even if it goes nowhere, the city staff still must count and review the signatures obtained and the application paperwork.

Recalls should be reserved for serious and egregious conduct, not just because you don’t like who’s in office. That is precisely the situation with this one, as well as the last unsuccessful recall effort (that would be the ‘other’ side who tried that last cycle) The current recall literature is couched in terms of high versus low density zoning. This is a perennial issue in Yorba Linda which has existed as a very contentious one for more than two decades.

News Flash: Nobody wants HIGH Density zoning. The proverbial, NOT IN MY BACKYARD attitude prevails. The best spin doctors on this issue, many years ago, used the term, “low income” housing. Which is confusing and lead people to have images of a Harlem style development, also formally known as Section 8 housing. Higher density does not mean Section 8 housing.

The one true statement that appears in the literature from both sides is that it is gonna happen. The part that is not true, is each side attributing ‘fault’ to the other. The real villain in the scenario is Sacramento. The state mandates that the city have some land available for building homes that are “affordable”. Last time I checked that was the theory of housing for a family of four with an income of about $40,000 per year. We can’t be sure where the Sacramento brain trust came up with such an imaginary family, but I can assure you, regardless of what they build in Yorba Linda, it is not likely to be affordable for that family under any circumstances. The theory though, requires that the “density”, or the number of homes per acre, must be raised to more homes per acre than Yorba Linda has had historically, in order to satisfy this State mandate.

If Yorba Linda does not in some way comply, there will be litigation. State of California vs. Yorba Linda, is not a case that I want to see filed anywhere. It is likely to be very costly and the bottom line is, Yorba Linda loses. I suppose there is a tangential argument (Translation of tangential: Ridiculous and unsuccessful) that we Yorba Lindans have a proprietary and constitutional right to all have low density zoning, anywhere and everywhere in our town because that is what we bargained for when we moved in here and paid all this money for our lovely homes.

This has been tried before. The U.S. Supreme Court block busting cases, Kraemer, and it’s progeny, basically said what we all already know, our constitutional rights all have limits. All of them, even the ones related to ownership of property. Keeping people out on the basis on economic impediments is likely to go as well as keeping people out on the basis of race. Likely result of the litigation is the California law will be upheld and Yorba Linda will foot the bill for the whole fiasco. The city’s law firm, and the numerous law clerks who would work on the case would be imminently pleased to have learned so much about constitutional and municipal zoning laws, at our expense. So, if you think High Density will have a negative impact on your property taxes, just wait till City Hall gets our lawyers involved with litigation with the State and see what happens to our city’s otherwise bright financial future.

The city’s coffers are not the piggy bank of politicians to take up and take on ridiculous issues for the purposes of keeping their names in the paper. Look around residents, it has become the status quo. Everytime you see a Yorba Linda politician in the paper or on the news it is usually NOT about an issue that has a close nexus to something that is in the best interests of the city.

Everybody in the race this year is likely to be Republican. Everybody in the race this year is going to be waving the flag of being a “Fiscal Conservative”. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION to the spin, here because in general they are all SAYING THE SAME THING.

We don’t want HIGH Density, but we DON’T want litigation either. We must walk this fine line between getting what we want and placating big brother. Anyone who is telling you something different, anyone who is blaming the other guys and saying it is THEIR fault and THEY broke promises, and I can give you the proverbial “chicken in every pot” (or a half acre for everyone in the case of Yorba Linda), well they are just not being truthful with you.

The bloodsport of politics in the city of Yorba Linda is likely to be as ugly as any year prior. Be informed, tell the people standing in front of your grocery store that you are informed and that there presence is decreasing your property value as much as anything.

The only thing to be gained by any of this posturing is to ruin some candidates and get attention for other candidates. We as citizens encourage this by tolerating and ignoring it. These ugly and contentious races have kept away good candidates and very much work to minimize public participation of those who fear retribution. I don’t know about you, but my intent is to be aware and not support the negativity and histrionic shenanigans of these people. We should all make that known to the candidates as they announce their candidacy in the coming weeks.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Only Two Men Recalled Two Times

Posted by Chris Nguyen on June 8, 2012

Twice-Recalled Mayor James W. Holley III of Portsmouth, Virginia, and Twice-Recalled Councilman Don Bankhead of Fullerton, California

The Double Recall Club: Mayor James W. Holley III of Portsmouth, Virginia (1984-1987, 2008-2010) and Councilman Don Bankhead of Fullerton, California (1988-1994, 1994-2012)

On Tuesday, Fullerton voters recalled Councilmen Don Bankhead, Dick Jones, and Pat McKinley by a 65%-35% margin.

For Bankhead, however, this was not his first recall.  First elected to the Fullerton City Council in 1988, Bankhead was recalled in June 1994 over a utility tax and vacated his seat upon the election of his successor in October of that year (back then, recall elections and replacement elections were held on separate dates, as opposed to today’s model where the recall replacement candidates appear on the same ballot as the recall itself).

Then, Bankhead won election to the Council for a new term in November 1994, just five months after he was initially recalled and just weeks after he vacated office.

So Bankhead’s city council career is 1988-1994 (recalled) and 1994-2012 (recalled).

Many have wondered if Bankhead’s the first politician ever recalled twice from office.

As it turns out, Bankhead is only the second elected official in American history to be recalled twice, and he only missed being first by two years.

The first elected official in American history to be recalled twice is former Mayor James W. Holley III of Portsmouth, Virginia.  (Portsmouth has a population of 95,000 and is in the Hampton Roads metropolitan area adjacent to Norfolk Naval Shipyard.)

Holley was first elected to the Portsmouth City Council in 1968, serving until 1984 when he was elected Mayor (they have a directly-elected mayor, like Anaheim, Garden Grove, Irvine, Orange, Santa Ana, and Westminster, but unlike Fullerton, which has the mayor’s post rotate among the councilmembers).

Holley was Mayor from 1984 until he was recalled in 1987 due to his involvement in an expense account scandal and his bizarre involvement in sending obscenity-filled hate mail to other Portsmouth leaders.

In 2008, Portsmouth voters returned Holley to the Mayor’s post, but a recall petition was launched in 2009 due to allegations from his mayoral assistant that Holley used her to run personal errands on city time, including shopping for his family and cancelling his subscription to Playboy.

Funded largely by Portsmouth resident Robert Marcus, the recall appeared on the July 2010 ballot, when voters removed Holley by a 2-1 margin.

Wisconsin State Senator Jim Holperin appears to be the sole member of a club that Holley and Bankhead would much rather have joined.  Holperin was subjected to recall elections twice but managed to defeat the recalls both times, once in 1990 and once in 2011.

The exclusive double recall club now consists of Portsmouth Mayor James W. Holley III and Fullerton Councilman James D. “Don” Bankhead.

(Here’s my standard Fullerton recall disclosure [although it’s much less relevant now that the Fullerton recall election is over]: In the interest of full disclosure, I should note my day job is working in the Fullerton office of Assemblyman Chris Norby, who served on the Fullerton City Council from 1984-2002, but he was not a target of the 1994 recall.  One of my co-workers in the office is Fullerton City Councilman Bruce Whitaker, who was elected in 2010 and is not a target of the 2012 recall, but he was one of the organizers of the 1994 recall.)

Posted in Fullerton, National | Tagged: , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Tuesday’s Most Important Election

Posted by Chris Nguyen on May 30, 2012

Wisconsin State CapitolSix days from now is Tuesday, June 5, Election Day.

What is the most important election that day?  Is it the CD-47 contest between Alan Lowenthal, Gary DeLong, and Steve Kuykendall?  Is it the Troy Edgar–Long Pham–Travis Allen fight in AD-72?  Is it AD-69’s Tom Daly vs. Michele Martinez vs. Jose Moreno vs. Julio Perez vs. Paco Barragan battle?  Is it the Third Supervisorial District brawl between Todd Spitzer and Deborah Pauly?

No, the most important election on Tuesday lies 2,000 miles northeast of Orange County.

In Wisconsin, June 5 is Election Day in the recall of Republican Governor Scott Walker.

Labor unions launched the recall after Walker gained the passage of legislation that restricted (but did not eliminate) collective bargaining (requiring annual re-certification of unions via annual member elections, limitations of collective bargaining to salaries rather than benefits) and increased public employee contributions to benefits and pensions, among other things.

This recall election marks a watershed moment in which the power of public employee unions faces off against those who seek to curb the legal prerogatives of those unions.

Wisconsin has an interesting recall procedure.  In California, the question of whether we should remove someone from office is one item on the ballot, with voters casting a “Yes” or “No” vote, and then a separate item on the ballot are all the recall replacement candidates, with the incumbent ineligible to run in the replacement vote.  In Wisconsin, there is no separate question of whether someone is removed: there is a single item in which candidates (including the incumbent) run against each other.  Effectively, when you initiate a recall in Wisconsin, you’re simply calling for an early election for the office, much like a parliamentary by-election or snap election; whereas in California, we vote whether or not to keep the incumbent and separately vote on a replacement.

There was a recall primary on May 8, with Walker winning 97% of the votes in the Republican primary and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett winning 58% of the votes in the Democratic primary (this is a rematch of the 2010 election, as Walker defeated Barrett in that election); the recall general election is this coming Tuesday, June 5.

Both the Real Clear Politics average of polls and the Huffington Post average of polls show Walker leading Barrett by a few percentage points.

A Walker victory will embolden politicians across the country seeking to curb the power of labor unions while a Barrett victory will be a warning from the labor unions that politicians should be wary of trying to reduce the legal prerogatives of public employee unions and trying to reduce the benefits enjoyed by public employees.

Posted in National | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Recalls in Retrospect

Posted by Chris Nguyen on May 29, 2012

Recalls, 1995-2010

Local recalls in California, 1995-2010

There has been much talk about the chances of the Fullerton recalls passing in the press, on other blogs, and even a little here and here on this blog.  (It is recalls, plural, by the way, since it’s technically three recalls in Fullerton on next week’s ballot, one each regarding Don Bankhead, Dick Jones, and Pat McKinley.)

I found an interesting study of local election data from California State University, Sacramento.

(All recalls in this post refer to recalls that qualified for the ballot.  Recalls that failed to qualify for the ballot are excluded because they are not relevant.)

According to the CSUS study, in an average year in California, there are 16 local recalls, of which 66% result in the officeholder being recalled from office.  Specifically, there are 2 county-level recalls, 7 city-level recalls, and 7 school district-level recalls in an average year.

The CSUS data shows that from 1995-2010, there were 256 local recalls, of which 175 recalled the elected official and 81 officeholders hung on to defeat the recall election (a 68% removal rate). Specifically, there were:

  • 35 county-level recalls, in which 24 resulted in the recall of the official and 11 officeholders hung on (a 69% removal rate)
  • 116 city-level recalls, in which 80 resulted in the recall of the official and 36 officeholders hung on (a 69% removal rate)
  • 105 school district-level recalls, in which 65 resulted in the recall of the official and 40 officeholders hung on (a 62% removal rate)

Outside the timeframe of the study, 9 out of 9 city councilmembers subject to recall elections were recalled in 2011.  This bumps city-level recalls to a 71% removal rate for 1995-2011.  4 out of 4 school board members defeated their recall elections in 2011, dropping the school district-level recalls to a 60% removal rate for 1995-2011.  There were no county-level recalls that qualified for the ballot  in California in 2011.  The overall rate for all local California recalls for 1995-2011 remains at 68%, the same rate as for 1995-2010.

Narrowing it down to even years (i.e. regular election years):

  • 8 out of 16 county-level recalls succeeded (a 50% removal rate)
  • 55 out of 79 city-level recalls succeeded (a 70% removal rate)
  • 32 out of 43 school district-level recalls succeeded (a 74% removal rate)

The above numbers are statewide.  Looking closer to home, no Orange County recall has failed since 1996.

  • 2010: Capistrano Unified School District
    Mike Winsten was recalled 61.4%-38.6% and replaced with John Alpay.
    Ken Maddox was recalled 61.3%-38.7% and replaced with Gary Pritchard.
  • 2010: Mission Viejo
    Lance McLean was recalled by a 50.1%-49.9% and replaced with Dave Leckness.
  • 2008: Capistrano Unified School District
    Marlene Draper was recalled 69.3%-30.7% and replaced with Sue Palazzo.
    Sheila Benecke was recalled 69.4%-30.6% and replaced with Ken Maddox, who would ironically be recalled himself in 2010.
  • 2003: Santa Ana Unified School District
    Nativo Lopez was recalled 69.3%-30.7% and replaced with Rob Richardson.
  • 2001: Orange Unified School District
    Martin Jacobson was recalled 51.5%-48.5% and replaced with Melissa Taylor Smith.
    Maureen Aschoff was recalled 50.9%-49.1% and replaced with John Ortega.
    Linda Davis was recalled 51.3%-48.7% and replaced with Kathy Moffat.
  • 1996: Dana Point
    Karen Lloreda defeated a recall effort by a 50.6%-49.4% margin.
    Harold Kaufman defeated a recall effort.
  • 1995: Cypress
    Cecilia Age, Gail Kerry, and Walter Bowman defeated their recalls by a 2-1 margin.
  • Not a local recall per se, but in 1995 in Orange County:
    Assemblywoman Doris Allen was recalled 65.2%-34.8% and replaced with Scott Baugh.

Outside the timeframe of the study:

  • In 1994, the voters of Fullerton recalled Councilmembers Don Bankhead, Buck Catlin, and Molly McClanahan, by 52%-48% margins but left the then-elected City Clerk Anne York in office.  Five months after the recall, Bankhead won a new election to the council where he has remained ever since and is now subject to a recall election next week.  If recalled next week, Bankhead would likely be the first person since the inception of the recall ever to be recalled from the same office twice.
  • In 1989, the voters of Fountain Valley recalled Councilman Fred Voss by a 2-1 margin after he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for solicitation after he offered $20 to a prostitute, who was actually an undercover police officer.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I should note my day job is working in the Fullerton office of Assemblyman Chris Norby, who served on the Fullerton City Council from 1984-2002, but he was not a target of the 1994 recall.  One of my co-workers in the office is Fullerton City Councilman Bruce Whitaker, who was elected in 2010 and is not a target of the 2012 recall, but he was one of the organizers of the 1994 recall.)

Posted in California, Capistrano Unified School District, Cypress, Dana Point, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Mission Viejo, Orange County, Orange Unified School District, Santa Ana Unified School District | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »