CA GOP: AWOL in World War G

Our new book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. It includes a chapter on congressional and state elections.

The California Legislature has approved a special election to redraw congressional district lines. Democrats stand to pick up five seats.

DUSTIN GARDINER and BLAKE JONES at POLITICO:

The California Republican Party finds itself on the periphery of a national effort by conservatives to beat back Democrats’ gerrymandering campaign.

It’s partially the result of an internal rift within the state GOP that some party strategists fear could hamper its efforts to fight redistricting — a self-inflicted wound that could put the party in a weaker position as it competes with Democrats’ fundraising machine.

A chorus of Republicans are now openly questioning the state GOP’s ability to lead the opposition to a redistricting map that could cripple their party’s influence here. …. They complain about sluggish fundraising and a lack of organization and cohesive messaging.

Instead, political committees outside of the purview of the state party apparatus and Chair Corrin Rankin are leading the effort to defeat Proposition 50, the Nov. 4 redistricting measure.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who’s running for governor, told Playbook the party has struggled to craft an anti-redistricting message that will resonate with independent voters and others beyond the Republican base.

“It’s not a cohesive, ‘All for one and one for all’” strategy, Bianco said. “We’re not coming together to say, ‘We’ve got to get the best message for everyone.’ We should be talking to California — we shouldn’t be talking to Republicans.”

Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, a Republican from San Diego and frequent critic of the state GOP, vented about what he called a lack of party leadership to fight Prop 50 during an interview at the state party convention in Orange County this past weekend — a concern echoed by several prominent attendees.

“Open communication would be helpful,” DeMaio said. “The party hasn’t done a good job of that. It’s certainly hurting us.”

L.A. County Veers RIghtward on Crime

Our next book will look at the 2024 election. Democrats gained three House seats in California, but the state also showed its conservative streak.

Koko Nakajima and Phi Do at LAT:

A decade ago, Proposition 47 turned some nonviolent felonies into misdemeanors. At the time it was overwhelmingly approved by 90% of neighborhoods in L.A. County. This month parts of it were repealed by Prop. 36.

Eighty-seven percent of neighborhoods that previously supported the ballot initiative voted to overhaul it. Those same neighborhoods heavily supported Nathan Hochman for district attorney.

New polling analysis reveals only 14% of L.A. County voters supported former Dist. Atty. Gascón and “No” on Prop. 36.

 

Democratic Slippage in California

Our next book will look at the 2024 election. Democrats gained three House seats in California, but the state also showed its conservative streak.

 David Siders at Politico:

Harris this year still easily won California, beating Trump by about 20 percentage points. But that marked about a 9 percentage point shift toward Trump from 2020. Trump flipped 10 counties that had voted for Joe Biden and made gains across the map. He reduced his loss margin in heavily Democratic Los Angeles County by more than 11 percentage points. And here in Orange County, a Republican stronghold before Hillary Clinton flipped it in 2016, Trump lost, but by nearly 7 percentage points less than in 2020.

And that’s just at the presidential level. When I called Gray Davis, the former governor, he began ticking through the left’s losses across the state.

“Look at what happened in San Francisco,” he said, where the mayor, London Breed, was ousted by a moderate Democrat who blamed her for the city’s homelessness and drug problems. Or in Oakland, where the city’s mayor and progressive district attorney were both thumped in recall elections. In Los Angeles, a Republican-turned-independent ousted another progressive district attorney, George Gascón.

And then there were the ballot initiatives. A decade after Californians voted to reduce penalties for some drug and property crimes, they approved a tough-on-crime ballot initiative calling for more stringent penalties. They rejected a ballot measure that would have banned forced prison labor. They defeated a measure to raise the minimum wage, and another to expand rent control.

 

School Choice Loses

Our latest book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics. Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections.

Eli Hager and Jeremy Schwartz at Pro Publica:

Coming into this week’s election, Donald Trump and Republicans had hoped to reverse that sort of popular opposition to “school choice” with new voucher ballot measures in several states.

But despite Trump’s big win in the presidential race, vouchers were again soundly rejected by significant majorities of Americans. In Kentucky, a ballot initiative that would have allowed public money to go toward private schooling was defeated roughly 65% to 35% — the same margin as in Arizona in 2018 and the inverse of the margin by which Trump won Kentucky. In Nebraska, nearly all 93 counties voted to repeal an existing voucher program; even its reddest county, where 95% of voters supported Trump, said no to vouchers. And in Colorado, voters defeated an effort to add a “right to school choice” to the state constitution, language that might have allowed parents to send their kids to private schools on the public dime.

Expansions of school vouchers, despite backing from wealthy conservatives, have never won when put to voters. Instead, they lose by margins not often seen in such a polarized country.

Crime and California

Our latest book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics. Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections.

Tim Arrango at NYT:

Frustrated by open-air drug use, “smash-and-grab” robberies and shampoo locked away in stores, California voters overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure, Proposition 36, that will impose harsher penalties for shoplifting and drug possession.

Voters in Oakland and Los Angeles were on their way to ousting liberal district attorneys who had campaigned on social justice promises to reduce imprisonment and hold the police accountable. And statewide measures to raise the minimum wage, ban the forced labor of inmates and expand rent control, all backed by progressive groups and labor unions, were heading toward defeat.

Cayla Mihalovich at CalMatters:

In a setback to California’s historic reparations effort, voters rejected a ballot measure that would have ended forced labor in prisons and jails. Proposition 6 garnered support from Democratic party leaders, labor unions and dozens of advocacy groups who viewed their efforts as part of a national movement to end a racist legacy and abolish slavery.

The measure would have amended the state’s constitution to repeal language that allows involuntary servitude as a form of criminal punishment, making work assignments voluntary and allowing incarcerated people to prioritize their rehabilitation.
...

California mandates tens of thousands of incarcerated people to work at jobs – many of which they do not choose — ranging from packaging nuts to doing dishes, to making license plates, sanitizer and furniture for less than 74 cents an hour, according to legislative summaries of prison work.

...

It faced no funded opposition, and as election results showed the measure trailing, Prop. 6 supporters and independent political experts said the language might have confused voters.

The California Attorney General’s Office writes ballot language and summaries, and the word “slavery” did not appear on the California ballot. Instead, the language read, “Eliminates Constitutional Provision Allowing Involuntary Servitude for Incarcerated Persons. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.”

“When I saw the words ‘involuntary servitude,’ I thought, ‘This might take some explaining for the voters,’” said Mark Baldassare, survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California. “We know that when people are unsure or uncertain, the default is to vote ‘no.’”

In Nevada this election, a measure similar to Prop. 6 passed with 60% voter approval. Voters there saw ballot language that referenced slavery.

Abortion Ballot Measures

Our 2020 book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses the state of the parties. The state of the GOP is not good. Abortion was a big issue in the 2022 midterm. In 2024, it was complicated.

 Ballotpedia:

Abortion has been a topic for statewide ballot measures since the 1970s. However, in 2022, following Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a then-record number of abortion-related measures were on the ballot, including three from campaigns that described themselves as pro-choice or pro-reproductive rights. In 2023, voters in Ohio approved Issue 1.

On November 5, voters decided on 11 abortion-related ballot measures—the most on record for a single year. Ten addressed state constitutional rights to abortion. Voters approved seven of them in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, New York, and Nevada. Voters rejected three in Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota. One, in Nebraska, limited the timeframe for when an abortion can be performed.

Sareen Habeshian at Axios:

The big picture: The president-elect, who has repeatedly taken credit for overturning federal abortion protections, has flip-flopped on the issue but insisted he would not sign a national ban into law.But with a likely trifecta at the federal level, Congress could have the means to curb access — whether it be by passing a total national ban, pushing through a ban at various weeks of pregnancy or instating legislation to limit access to medication abortion.

Voters, showing they recognize abortion as a top priority, approved measures to expand or enshrine abortion access in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nevada and New York.

Trump also won in deep-red Missouri and Montana and the swing states of Arizona and Nevada."Clearly, voters continue to be comfortable splitting tickets, both in terms of candidates but also when it comes to abortion rights ballot measures," Kelly Baden, vice president of public policy at the Guttmacher Institute, said.

What she's saying: This seeming contradiction between supporting abortion expansions and pro-life Republicans is not a new phenomenon.Baden pointed to Mississippi's 2011 "personhood" initiative, which was soundly defeated at the same time Republicans against abortion rights won in nearly all statewide races.

State of play: Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, voters in 16 states have weighed in on abortion-related constitutional amendments.Prior to this week's elections, in every state with ballot measures to expand abortion access, voters passed that expansion and it was a winning issue for Democrats in the midterms.

"One lesson is that we must better connect the dots for people that abortion is an economic issue," Baden said.

Ballot Measures

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections.

John Frank at Axios:

By the numbers: This year, voters in 41 states will have considered 159 ballot measures, with most appearing on Nov. 5, according to Ballotpedia, a tracking service.The vast majority were referred to voters by state lawmakers and commissions, while the remainder came from citizens who collected petitions to qualify.

What they're saying: The presidential election is a prime time for ballot measures because of the high turnout, said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, the executive director at the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, a progressive group.Other factors include partisan blockages at the state level, political parties trying to turn out issue-driven voters and the Dobbs decision, which has led to a record number of abortion-related referendums.

The big picture: The referendum count is on par with even-year elections when the average number of ballot measures is 161, said Ryan Byrne at Ballotpedia.

• 10 states — including Arizona, Colorado, Florida and New York — are deciding whether to protect access to abortion or place limits on it.
• Five states and Washington, D.C., are considering overhauls to how elected leaders are picked, whether through changes to primary elections, ranked choice voting or both.
• Three states — Florida, North Dakota and South Dakota — are weighing whether to legalize marijuana.

The intrigue: Though the overall numbers are consistent, the 57 citizen-led initiatives this year are the most in a presidential election year since the 76 in 2016.

PPIC shows that Californians still have a conservative streak on crime:

Proposition 36 would allow felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for theft under $950, if the defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions. After reading the Proposition 36 ballot title and summary, 73 percent of likely voters say they would vote yes, while 25 percent would vote no. In September, findings were nearly identical (71% yes, 26% no). Today, as there was last month, there is broad—and bipartisan—support for Proposition 36. Regionally, support is highest in the Inland Empire (80%) and lowest in Los Angeles (70%, 71% Orange/San Diego, 73% Central Valley, 73% San Francisco Bay Area). Two in three or more across demographic groups would vote yes on Proposition 36.

...

 Proposition 6 (Eliminates Constitutional Provision Allowing Involuntary Servitude for Incarcerated Persons). Likely voters are slightly more likely to say they would vote no (56%) than yes (41%) on this legislative constitutional amendment. Support for this measure has declined slightly since September (46% yes, 50% no).

 

Abortion on the Ballot

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections.

Alejandra O’Connell-Domenech at The Hill:

Voters in 10 states will decide this November whether to adopt constitutional amendments that could shape the future of abortion access in their states.

Most of the measures seek to protect abortion access until fetal viability, or the point at which a fetus could survive outside of the uterus, which typically comes around 24 weeks into pregnancy.

Adam Edelman and Bridget Bowman at NBC:

Constitutional amendments to expand or protect abortion access will be put in the hands of voters this fall in 10 states, including the presidential battlegrounds of Arizona and Nevada and the Senate battlegrounds of Montana and Florida.

Polls show that the ballot measures are broadly popular in many of the states, findings that are in line with the success similar initiatives have had in other areas of the county following the backlash to the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

But the surveys also reveal a noticeable gap in support between the pro-abortion-rights amendments and the Democratic presidential and Senate candidates who are campaigning on a pro-abortion-rights platform.

With the future of abortion access appearing directly on the ballot, some voters — particularly Republicans and independents — have effectively divorced the issue from the candidates in the other races they will decide on.

Dobbs Plus Two

Our 2020 book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses the state of the parties. The state of the GOP is not good. Abortion was a big issue in the 2022 midterm. It will be a big issue in 2024.

Charlie Sykes at The Atlantic:

Although there has been progress in some states to strengthen the safety net for women and children after Roe, those steps have been overshadowed by the rush to enact punitive criminal bans. In the past two years, 14 states have enacted near-total bans on abortion, while three states have imposed six-week bans. Oklahoma is among the states that have banned abortion, with the only exception being to save the life of the pregnant woman. Some legislators want to go even further: A freshman state senator in Oklahoma has proposed legislation that would charge women who terminate a pregnancy (with limited exceptions) with murder. After Ohio enacted a sweeping ban on most abortions, young girls who had been sexually assaulted—including a 10-year-old—reportedly had to cross state lines to terminate their pregnancy (the Ohio law is no longer in effect—the state has enshrined abortion rights in its constitution). In Texas, the strict new abortion laws have generated confusion over how doctors should treat miscarriages, and the state’s “fetal heartbeat” law appears to have been associated with an increase in infant deaths, according to a new study. Last month, Texas’s supreme court ruled against women who said that the state’s abortion ban put their health at risk.

The fallout has dramatically shifted the public’s perception of the issue. As the reporter Kate Zernike writes in today’s New York Times, “The question is no longer just whether you can get an abortion, but also, Can you get one if pregnancy complications put you in septic shock? Can you find an obstetrician when so many are leaving states with bans? If you miscarry, will the hospital send you home to bleed? Can you and your partner do in vitro fertilization?”

The political backlash has been intense, badly damaging the GOP in the 2022 midterms. In state after state—including deep-red states such as Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana—voters turned out to pass initiatives to protect abortion rights or to defeat anti-abortion measures. This fall, referenda on abortion will be on the ballot in Colorado, Florida, Maryland, and South Dakota. Other states, including Arkansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and Nevada, may join them.

 Megan Brenan and Lydia Saad at Gallup:

A record-high 32% of U.S. voters say they would only vote for a candidate for major office who shares their views on abortion. The importance of a candidate’s abortion stance to one’s vote is markedly higher among pro-choice voters than it was during the 2020 presidential election cycle, while pro-life voters’ intensity about voting on the abortion issue has waned. Also, voters’ greater intensity on the issue today compared with 2020 is explained mainly by Democrats, while Republicans and independents have shown little change.

...

An examination of voters’ responses to this question based on their stance on abortion shows that pro-choice candidates stand to benefit more than pro-life candidates from single-issue abortion voters. Specifically, nearly twice as many pro-choice voters (40%) as pro-life voters (22%) say they will only vote for a candidate who agrees with them on abortion. This is the third consecutive year that abortion-centric pro-choice voters have outnumbered abortion-centric pro-life voters in the U.S., marking a reversal of the pro-life advantage between 1996 and 2020.

As a result of these changes, the 32% of all registered voters who say they will only vote for candidates who share their views on abortion now includes 23% who are pro-choice and 8% who are pro-life. (Another 1% don’t identify with either label.)

Before 2022, electoral energy was more balanced or leaned toward the pro-life side. During this time, no more than 10% of voters said they were pro-choice and would only vote for those with the same beliefs and no more than 13% of voters identified as pro-life and would only support candidates with the same position.

The increase in pro-choice Americans who say they prioritize the issue when voting may have helped Democrats blunt Republicans’ anticipated gains in the 2022 midterm election and would appear to be an even greater advantage for the party today. One cautionary note is that all of the increase since then in voters saying they will only support candidates who share their position on abortion has occurred among Democrats. A slight majority of Democratic registered voters (52%) now say this, up from 37% in 2022.

In an era of hyper-partisanship and where candidates generally align with their party’s position on the abortion issue, this isn’t likely to affect whom Democrats vote for, but it could help drive Democrats to the polls. Meanwhile, independents’ and Republicans’ focus on the issue has been steady at just over 20%

A Very Good Night for Democrats

Our new book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections. 

The past year has been very good for Democrats.

Steven Shepard, Jessica Piper, and Zach Montellaro at Politico:

Going into Tuesday night, Democrats were already having a strong 2023. Compared to Biden’s 2020 victory, Democratic candidates in special elections this year had been running about 8 percentage points better, on average.

There were a couple marquee victories, too, like flipping control of Wisconsin’s state Supreme Court and stopping conservatives from trying to make it more difficult to pass the abortion-rights amendment in Ohio.

Tuesday added to the winning streak: Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear won reelection. Democrats held the Virginia state Senate and flipped the state House. The party was the driving force behind a ballot measure to enshrine the right to an abortion in the Ohio state constitution. And Democrats added to their Wisconsin victory by winning a similar race in Pennsylvania.

They also won by muscle-flexing margins. Beshear beat state Attorney General Daniel Cameron by 5 percentage points; his first victory four years ago was by less than half a point. The Ohio abortion amendment passed by 12 points. Daniel McCaffery, the Democratic candidate in Pennsylvania, won by 8.

Republicans can point to a few victories this year. They easily flipped the open governorship in Louisiana last month, and Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves won reelection on Tuesday. But their successes were few and far between a year after also underachieving in the 2022 midterms.

Abortion and a Ballot Measure in Ohio

 Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses state and congressional elections. Abortion was a big issue in the 2022 midterm. It will probably be a big issue in 2024.

 Dennis Aftergut at The Hill:

On Tuesday, Ohio voters handed the state’s Republican legislature, and its Issue 1, a stinging defeat. By an overwhelming margin, they followed a 2022 pro-abortion rights trend set by voters in other states, including red ones like Kansas, Kentucky and Montana.

They also sent a 2024 message for national politicians.

Following the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, voters in the three Republican-majority states named above — like voters in Democratic-majority Vermont, Michigan and California — stood up for their right to be free of government attempts to enter family homes and end women’s bodily freedom. More on that in a moment.

In Ohio, Issue 1 was an anti-abortion wolf in constitutional process clothing. Everyone knew the Ohio legislators’ cynical anti-choice motive animating the measure. They were changing the rules for amending the state’s constitution in an attempt to accomplish their aims by stealth.

Fervent GOP opponents of abortion rights sponsored Issue 1 to raise the threshold on citizens’ ability to establish those rights through the ballot box. If voters had approved it, Issue 1 would have raised the minimum required to adopt new constitutional provisions by popular vote, like one set for abortion rights in November, from a simple majority to 60 percent of voters. The current requirement, 50 percent plus one vote, has been in place since 1912.

California Snoozing

Our new book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses state elections.

The absence of exciting California state races could depress turnout in 2022, which in turn could have consequences in elections for the House.

From Politico California Playbook:

We’re officially in a gubernatorial campaign cycle — indeed, we’re now closer to the March filing deadline for the June primary than to last September’s recall — but you wouldn’t know it from surveying the landscape. No prominent Republican has announced plans to challenge Gov. Gavin Newsom. Top recall vote-getter Larry Elder has bowed out of a rematch, Assemblymember Kevin Kiley is preoccupied with a run for Congress, and Republicans John Cox and Kevin Faulconer haven’t reported raising money for months (if Faulconer runs at all).

Newsom’s resounding recall win is lost on no one. The Democratic incumbent crushed the recall attempt by double digits — by the same margin, down to a decimal point, as his 2018 landslide victory. You don’t need to run a campaign firm or hold a political science degree to look at those numbers and conclude that Newsom has cemented his overwhelming frontrunner status as he seeks a second term.

Money is an overriding consideration for Republican hopefuls. Newsom was sitting on $24.5 million at the end of June and has since collected at least $500,000 more, including from boldfaced corporate names like Google and Warner Bros. A viable statewide opponent would need to raise significant sums — and quickly — to compete. Faulconer has been gauging donors’ appetites, and his consultant told us the former San Diego mayor is unlikely to run unless he’s confident tens of millions of dollars will materialize behind him.

But the Republican donor class isn’t exactly energized.We repeatedly heard phrases like “burned out” and “worn out” after the recall fizzled. With much of the focus on competitive House races and potentially more promising statewide contests for attorney general and controller, one prominent GOP donor told us she nearly forgot the governor was also on the ballot. “I haven’t paid any attention to it,” she said.

Similarly, serious opposition to appointed Senator Alex Padilla has yet to emerge.

On the ballot measure front:

Four years ago, Reid Wilson reported at The Hill:

In California’s case, initiative supporters must collect a number of signatures equal to or greater than 8 percent of the number of ballots cast in the preceding gubernatorial election.

California’s 2014 gubernatorial contest, in which Gov. Jerry Brown (D) skated to re-election over former Bush administration official Neel Kashkari (R), was a dismally low-turnout affair in which only 30 percent of registered voters bothered to cast a ballot.

That meant supporters of any particular ballot measure needed just 365,880 valid signatures to qualify an initiative or referendum for the ballot in the two elections that followed.

The bar was so low that California’s ballots were inundated by initiatives: In 2016, voters weighed in on 15 citizen-sponsored ballot measures. In 2018, they decided eight more citizen-sponsored measures.

The surge in turnout this year [2018] means future ballot measures will require many, many more signatures. To qualify, initiative supporters will need to collect more than 623,000 valid signatures, a 70 percent increase.

“Generally speaking, 2016 and 2018 were seen as sort of opportunities in California for initiatives because of the low 2014 turnout,” said Josh Altic, who studies ballot measures for the nonpartisan website Ballotpedia. “2020 and 2022 will be seen as the opposite of that.”

At LAT, John Myers reports that the cost per signature will increase.

The era of grass-roots, volunteer signature drives to qualify a ballot measure long ago gave way to an “initiative industrial complex” that pays petition circulators by how many signatures they collect at those ubiquitous folding tables outside supermarkets and department stores.

The economics are simple: Per-signature prices are low when an election is a long way away and only a few ballot measure proposals are in circulation. And prices rise sharply when interest groups begin their initiative campaigns late and petition circulators are in high demand.

...
Two veteran strategists of the initiative process said they wouldn’t be surprised to see prices as high as $15 per signature by the time the finish line approaches this spring. While there’s no official data on signature payments — campaigns report total petition costs on disclosure forms, a lump sum of these expenses — the consensus seems to be that $10 per signature is the high-water mark from previous statewide ballot measure drives. (Local ballot measures often cost much more per signature, partly the result of having a smaller pool of voters from which to gather the needed support.)

(And the COVID-era labor shortage probably also boosts the cost.) 

 From Politico California Playbook:

More and more ballot initiative campaigns are pulling the plug as they confront the difficult realities of signature-gathering. An effort to channel general fund dollars to water storage projects looks like the latest to capsize, with organizers telling The Mercury News that they lacked the resources to rally enough voters. The measure’s committee had reported raising about $100,000 so far from farms and farmers. Now environmentalists needn’t come up with the cash to counter.

Organized labor could have fewer fights on its hands , too, as a trio of potential threats have evaporated or been deferred. One of two school voucher initiatives folded earlier this month; a proposal to make a quality education a constitutional right, cracking the door to teacher employment law fights, is now looking to be kicked to 2024; and Silicon Valley player and periodic ballot bankroller Tim Draper has abandoned his quest to declaw public employee unions by barring them from collective bargaining.

ALREADY IN — If you love watching campaign ads or make your living off of them, don’t worry. We’re still likely to see a lively and expensive ballot. A tobacco-sponsored referendum on California’s flavored tobacco ban, a recycling overhaul funded by waste management companies and the latest doctors-versus-lawyers fight over malpractice payouts have all gathered enough signatures to qualify. So too has a tribal-backed sports wagering effort, although that could be supplanted by a new tribal proposal that seeks in turn to compete with FanDuel et al’s still-circulating gaming push.

House Democratic Woes and "Defund the Police"

 

In Defying the Odds, we discuss state and congressional elections as well as the presidential race.   Our next book, title TBA, discusses the 2020 results.

Some Democrats think that the controversy over "defunding" the police cost their party seats in the 2020 congressional elections.

Sarah Ferris, Heather Caygle, and Ally Mutnick at Politico:

A dozen races remain uncalled, and Democrats caution they won’t have all the answers for months. But many in the party are warning that the biggest priority for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee must be overhauling its message. They say it needs to craft a proactive campaign that counters GOP attacks on everything from Medicare for All to fracking — if they have any hopes of keeping their majority in 2022.

"There were ads being run all over the country about socialism and about the Green New Deal and in some parts of the country that didn’t help,” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) said in an interview. "I think it would be irresponsible for a person in our family — in the Democratic Caucus family — who is concerned about it not to mention it."

Others were more blunt: "From my standpoint, as a moderate Democrat ... it’s crystal clear we need a different message than what we’ve been having,” added Rep. Kurt Schrader (Ore.).

Top Democrats had braced for the GOP police-focused ads. DCCC polled the issue over the summer as nationwide protests over social justice began dominating the headlines, finding it “incredibly damaging,” according to a Democratic strategist familiar with the data.

...

 Most endangered Democrats struggled to counter the flood of GOP ads on the issue: Republicans aired roughly 70 different broadcast ads that mentioned “defund the police,” according to data from Advertising Analytics, a media tracking firm.

From Ballotpedia:

In the weeks after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis, Minnesota, police officer Derek Chauvin on May 25, 2020, nationwide demonstrations and protests were held calling for changes to policing. Officials responded by issuing executive orders and passing legislation to eliminate certain policing tactics, such as chokeholds, and implement new community policing strategies.[1][2]

This page tracks police-related local ballot measures proposed in the wake of Floyd's death that make changes related to the following policy areas:

• police oversight;
• the powers and structure of oversight commissions;
• police practices;
• law enforcement department structure and administration;
• law enforcement budgets and funding allocation;
• law enforcement training requirements; and
• body and dashboard camera footage.

Ballotpedia identified 20 local police-related ballot measures on the ballot for November 3, 2020, that qualified following the death of George Floyd.

All 20 measures were approved.

Campaigns and Coronavirus

In Defying the Odds, we discuss the 2016 campaign. The 2019 update includes a chapter on the 2018 midterms. The 2020 race, the subject of our next book, is well under  way.  

Coronavirus presents unprecedented challenges to public policy and the electoral process.

James Dawson at NPR:

The coronavirus pandemic has disrupted elections and political campaigns all over the country. But elections can be rescheduled and conducted by mail. Campaigns have tried going virtual.

Ballot measures almost completely rely on canvassers to gather thousands of signatures in person in order for an initiative to make it on the ballot. And the current public health concerns about social interaction have forced ballot measure organizers to shut down their efforts as large events and door-to-door canvassing become impossible.

Alex Rogers at CNN:

Down-ballot candidates have also not shied away from using coronavirus — and the government response to it -- in their advertising.

After the Senate passed a bill to extend paid sick leave for workers, Democrat Amy McGrath, a retired Marine fighter pilot running against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, criticized his handling of the bill in a statement, saying the Kentucky Republican "put his personal political agenda over our well-being."

McConnell's campaign in turn leaned into his powerful role in the Senate, responding with its first television ad of the year. After sweeping aerial shots of Washington, DC, and scenes of the majority leader in the halls of the Capitol, the narrator accuses McGrath of "us(ing) this crisis."

"While Amy McGrath lies, Mitch McConnell leads," the narrator says, before the web address for the government's coronavirus response website flashes on screen.
But while a national crisis can confer legitimacy on incumbents, especially a Senate leader at the center of negotiating the largest economic stimulus in US history, it may also provide an opportunity for challengers to try to resonate with average Americans by identifying with them.

Last week, McGrath released a new ad showing her and her family "cooped up" at home. As her kids and husband play on the floor behind her, McGrath talks directly to the camera about the volunteer network her campaign has organized to assist "families and seniors throughout Kentucky."

Challengers, and the outside groups backing them, can also use ads during a national crisis to criticize those in power. 

Michael Kruse and Elena Schneider at Politico:

Spread out and all but stranded across the country, sheltering in parents’ guest rooms or spartan apartments with leases about to end, near sad, cleaned-out headquarters, more than two dozen jobless strategists, operatives and organizers described in interviews post-campaign exhaustion coupled now with the extreme anxiety of this lurking illness. They worry. About where the next job is coming from at a moment in which most campaigns—from presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden all the way down the ballot—are all but dormant. They worry about what politics in a dramatically altered country even will look like in a month. Three months. On November 3. Beyond. They worry about health insurance and rent payments. They worry that all this has the potential not just to stall but to smother the nascent careers of promising political pros.

“Everything is on ice,” said Michael McLaughlin, Klobuchar’s national field director. “A lot of younger folks are really stressed.” Added Klobuchar political director Lucinda Ware: “They’re trying to grieve and mourn, readjust. They thought they’d move into other jobs and opportunities, and overnight, or within seven days, they have left the race, started interviewing, looking for places of their own—and that’s all gone now.”

GOP Triage

In Defying the Odds, we discuss state and congressional elections as well as the presidential race. 

At LAT, Patrick McGreevy reports that Republicans are shifting resources away from a measure to repeal a California gas-tax increase

After contributing $1.7 million to put a repeal initiative on the November ballot, Republican congressional leaders and GOP gubernatorial candidate John Cox are now conspicuously absent from the list of donors spending money to help convince Californians to pass the measure.

Construction firms, organized labor and Democrats have raised more than $30 million to defeat Proposition 6, while the main campaign committee in favor of the measure had just $83,291 in the bank as of Sept. 22, according to campaign finance statements made public Thursday.
...
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) gave $300,000 to the campaign during the qualification period, but he has not written a check to the committee since the measure made the ballot.
...

Other Republicans who donated to the campaign to qualify Proposition 6 but have not given since then include Reps. Ken Calvert of Corona, Devin Nunes of Tulare, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana.

A PPIC poll shows that the measure is losing.   Rather than diverting money to a probably-futile attempt to boost GOP turnout in a blue state, congressional Republicans have to put their resources into saving whatever seats they can salvage.

At The Hill, Reid Wilson reports on the party's triage:

The largest Republican super PAC defending the party's majority in the House has canceled advertising buys in two suburban districts, a signal that senior Republicans do not believe the longtime incumbents can win this November.

The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), a group closely aligned with Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), canceled a collective $3.1 million in advertising time it had reserved in suburban Denver and suburban Detroit, according to a source familiar with the group's advertising plans.

The ad time was meant to defend Reps. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) and Mike Bishop (R-Mich.). Internal and public polls show both longtime Republicans trailing in their reelection bids weeks out from the midterms.

... 

This year, Republicans facing a difficult political landscape have already cut ad buys in nearly a dozen districts, including seats held by Reps. Rod Blum (R-Iowa) and Keith Rothfus (R-Pa.) and retiring Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) and Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.).

California Tea Leaves

Even though the presidential candidates have largely bypassed the state, and despite the absence of party competition in the Senate race, turnout is likely to be high.  The Secretary of State has reported record-high voter registration, both in absolute numbers (19.4 million) and as a percentage of eligible citizens (78.04%).  Since July 7, Democratic registration has increased 7 percent, while Republican registration has gone up only 3 percent.

US Senate

In the Democrat-on-Democrat race for the United States Senate, Attorney General Kamala Harris will easily defeat Rep. Loretta Sanchez.  Both PPIC and Field show Harris leading by more than 20 points.

US House

Republicans will probably lose seats.  The Cook Political Report lists three GOP incumbent races as tossups:

• CA-10 Rep. Jeff Denham 
• CA-25 Rep. Steve Knight 
• CA-49 Rep. Darrell Issa 

In addition CA-21 (Rep. David Valadao) is only "leaning" Republican.

State Legislature

The Democrats will continue to control both chambers of the state Legislature.  The question is whether they can win the two-third supermajorities they need to raise taxes.  This year, Democrats held 52 Assembly seats and 26 Senate seats. If they keep their current seats, they need least two additional Assembly seats and one Senate seat to get to supermajorities. Half a dozen or so races in each chamber will decide the issue.  The 29th Senate district, spanning Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino Counties, is especially crucial.  Indeed, it is so important that President Obama has endorsed Josh Newman, the Democratic challenger to incument Ling Ling Chang.  The president has also endorsed:

• Cheryl Cook Kallio, challenging Assemblywoman Catherine Baker (R-San Ramon) in AD 16
• Abigail Medina, who's running against Assemblyman Marc Steinorth (R-Rancho Cucamonga) in AD 40
• Al Muratsuchi, a former assemblyman in a rematch against Assemblyman David Hadley (R-Manhattan Beach) in AD 66

Ballot Measures

• Proposition 51 — School construction bonds – supported by the Chamber, opposed by Governor Brown.  It could lose. When polls show support under 50%, California ballot measures tend to go down.  PPIC has it at only 46%.
• Proposition 52 — State Fees on Hospitals. Federal Medi-Cal Matching Funds – supported by the Chamber. It will probably pass.  Field has it at 66%
• Proposition 53 — Revenue Bonds – opposed by the Chamber and Governor Brown.  There is no public polling, but Brown is worried enough that he is running ads against it.
• Proposition 55 — Tax Extension on High Wealth Individuals – opposed by the Chamber.  It will probably pass.  PPIC has it at 55% support, and Field at 59%.
• Proposition 64 — Marijuana Legalization – supported by Lieutentant Governor Newsom.  It will probably pass.  PPIC has it at 55%, Field at 57%.

California Governor: Record Low Turnout, Smallest Raw Vote Total Since 1978

The California Secretary of State reports that turnout in the gubernatorial election was 42.20% of registered voters, 30.94% of eligible voters -- a record low.

John Myers reports at KQED:

The final tally from elections officials is that 7,317,581 votes were cast in the two-man race between Brown and GOP challenger Neel Kashkari. Brown won 60 percent of those votes, the most lopsided gubernatorial contest since 1986. It was also, it seems, the least inspiring in more than a generation.

State elections data show last month’s gubernatorial election saw fewer votes cast than in the previous eight quadrennial contests. Only 1978’s race between Brown and Republican Evelle Younger saw fewer total votes cast (6,922,378) than did 2014.

...
As we pointed out just after the election, the real legacy of the tepid turnout is the amazingly new low threshold for getting an initiative or referendum on the 2016 and 2018 ballot — a threshold that by law is set by the total number of votes cast for governor....

For the 1980 and 1982 election cycles, the threshold to qualify an initiative — 346,119 voter signatures — represented about 3.4 percent of the state’s registered voters.

For the 2016 and 2018 election cycles, the threshold to qualify an initiative — what we think will be 365,879 voter signatures — will represent just 2 percent of registered voters. And if you look at the state’s eligible electorate, a group that’s vastly larger than it was in 1978, it’s clear that there’s about to be a big boost of power for a relatively small number of Californians in forcing a statewide vote on a proposal of their choosing.

The Actor in the No on 45 Ad

Californians Against Higher Health Care Costs is running this ad against California's Proposition 45.

 


 It may not exactly come as a shock to California voters that the male small business owner is actually an actor. Efrain Figueroa has a long career as a character actor, perhaps most memorably in his recurring role in The Shield as the sleazy power broker Jorge Machado.

Here is his demo reel:

Primary Turnout in California

PPIC reports:

In the first test of California’s top-two primary in 2012, the new system failed to produce the increase in voter turnout that many had hoped for. But it did appear to encourage participation of independent voters. Under the new system independents are no longer required to take the extra step of requesting a ballot with all legislative and congressional contests on it. As a result, more independents appear to have voted in these primary races than they had under the old system.

These are among the key findings of a report released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC).

One of the goals of the top-two primary is to get more voters to the polls, but turnout in the 2012 California primary was the lowest of any presidential primary in 90 years. This was at least partly because the races for president and U.S. Senate were low key. But the result raised questions about turnout in primaries generally and about the impact of the new top-two system, in which voters can vote for any candidate from any party and the two top vote-getters—regardless of party—compete in the general election.

"Reform efforts to increase turnout may not prove particularly effective, but the top-two primary does appear to have already encouraged more independents to vote in legislative and congressional contests,” said Eric McGhee, PPIC research fellow and author of the report.

The shift to the top two has added new urgency to the question of who votes in the primary and who doesn’t. The PPIC report finds that California’s primary electorate is older, less likely to be Latino or Asian American, and typically more Republican than the electorate in the general election. The partisan differences mattered little in the old system because every party that ran at least one candidate in the primary would be assured a place on the fall ballot.

Now, primary voters can close off the possibility of a contest between parties in the fall. There has already been one primary race for a competitive seat that resulted in a same-party contest in November—the 31st congressional district in San Bernardino County. The PPIC analysis shows that the outcome almost certainly would have been different if the fall electorate had voted in the primary.

The report identifies an important reason why turnout will be especially low this year:

The effect of initiative campaigns deserves close consideration because of a recent policy change. The California Legislature, through SB 202 in 2011, offered a new interpretation of the state constitution and declared that all citizen initiatives must appear on the general election ballot. As a result, the June 2014 primary will be the first in decades that does not include a statewide citizen initiative. However, the June ballot will not be devoid of all ballot measures: The legislature has placed two of its own proposals on the ballot, and it is possible that these two will be enough to draw voters to the polls. However, our analysis suggests that should future primary elections fail to include any initiatives on the ballot, primary turnout is likely to be between three and seven percentage points lower than it might otherwise be.

Here are some other reasons why turnout will sag:

• There are no US Senate elections in California this year.
• In the gubernatorial race, Governor Brown has a big lead and is not yet campaigning.  The Republican contenders have raised little money and are unknown to many voters.
• Scandals have dampened political enthusiasm among Californians.