.
.
.
Long story short… If you’re a Democrat or independent who lives in this district…
… WE NEED YOU to come out Sunday morning and vote for THIS slate! The whole slate. Each and every candidate. No difficult choices to make. Lucky you! (Click for larger view)
My colleague Greg Diamond has already discoursed at length on why we should support grassroots slates rather than ones put together and/or backed by powerful elected officials, and you should read his piece if you have time. But last night someone called Meg Ley put it more briefly:
“[The fact that] party leaders and elected officials (PLEOs) are delegates themselves and then are allowed to appoint their own delegates means two-thirds of the California Democratic Party’s power is in the hands of those in power.
“There’s only one-third specifically reserved for the people — 14 Assembly District Delegate (ADD) positions. ADDs are supposed to be everyday people that are elected by their communities in order to give their friends, families, and neighbors a direct voice within the party.
“For this reason, it’s unethical for PLEOs to actively get involved in ADD Elections. Especially since ADDs vote on which candidates the party will endorse. The system wasn’t supposed to be an opportunity for PLEOs to “double dip” and gain complete control of the Democratic Party. So when elected officials calling their supporters, urging them to vote for a slate they are endorsing, it perverts the process and corrupts community representation within the Democratic Party.”
Right now, all across this newly Blue County, slates have been formed by all manner of Democrat politicians (some of whom we even like) : Harley Rouda, Katrina Foley, Loretta Sanchez, Katie Porter, Dave Min, Mike Levin. We’re against those slates on principle and for the reasons stated above.
But THIS takes the cake: There’s a slate running in AD 69, put together and supported by Congressman Lou Correa and Assemblyman Tom Daly – the two LEAST progressive Democrat politicians in the County, and in what’s got to be a devilish joke and an attempt to confuse, they’re calling themselves “The Progressive Leadership Slate!”
And so we’re one step closer to something I’ve been seeing for a few years: “Progressive” is a label everybody wants to embrace, and has gradually ceased to mean anything.
Do you remember how Lou was going around lobbying furiously (and unsuccessfully) last month against Ada Briceño for Party Chair, telling all his fellow electeds, “If Ada’s in charge the progressives will be up your ass all the time making you do what they want, but Beth Krom will have your back?” This is more of the same thinking. The bad votes and endorsements of Correa and Daly are too numerous to mention here, and the last thing we need is for those two to have a gaggle of minions who will “have their back” on every bad thing they want to do.
Behold the *cough* “Progressive Leadership Slate”:
“I Can’t Believe It’s Not Progressive!”®
The Contrast Couldn’t Be Starker:
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES.
Come out Sunday to the address above… get there by 10:30 if you want to hear everyone’s speeches; get there by 12 at the latest to vote. You don’t have to be a Democrat; but if you aren’t you need to change your registration at the door before you can vote … then you can change back again if you really want to. (Or stick around at least through the March 2020 Presidential primary. – Greg) Here. Here’s a map. See you there!
(Click for larger image)
[Greg adds: Don’t feel bad for the people on the Correa-Daly slate: every single one of them will have a good chance to be an appointed state party delegate! They might be an in-district appointment (by Correa, Daly, and Umberg) or an out-of-district appointment (by arrangement with anyone else with whom that trio deals) — especially the most sold-out among them. (Hi, Claudio!) The question is whether they would be taking up space on the political appointment seating of the committee (as they can and should!) — edging out some intern who is told their their only job is to go there and vote as their appointee’s Chief of Staff orders — or taking up space on the community activist side, thus edging out some wise and worthy grassroots activist by winning an ADEM election. This is being done specifically to keep activists out of party governance! Daly and Correa care about making sure that they don’t get challenged in 2020 — they will — and that they have the CDP endorsement if they do get challenged. That’s really what this vote is about — making that almost automatic incumbent endorsement a little less likely! COME OUT AND FOIL THEIR PLANS!]
RESULTS! About 2/3 good I’d say. Both the people’s slate and Lou’s slate got folks onto the ADEMs, but the people got more delegates than Lou, and the people’s delegates had more votes than Lou’s. Greg and I will analyze this over coming days, but this shows that the local party is much more progressive than Lou and Tom, and, practically, that we’ll be able to exert more influence on them, if not replace them.
1. Paul Gonzalez (people) 222 votes
2. Gio Chavez (people) 213
3. Walter Muneton (people) 212
4. Martin Lopez (people) 210
5. Richard Santana (Lou/Tom) 207
6. Bruce Bauer (Lou/Tom) 203
7. Gustavo Navarro (Lou/Tom) 202
8. Juan Alvarez (people) 197
9. Luis Andres Perez (Lou/Tom) 196
WOMEN
1. Gloria Alvarado (people) 234 – she also gets e-board
2. Irene Arellano (people) 225
3. Daisy Campos (Lou/Tom) 222
4. Isuri Ramos (people) 221
5. Yenni Diaz (people) 218
6. Cassandra Perez (Lou/Tom) 200
7. Thai Phan (Lou/Tom) 197
8. Sheila Silver (people) 195
9. Elizabeth Vargas Weber (Lou/Tom) 194
So, just looking at the top seven men and women:
The people got 8 delegates while Lou and Tom got 6. That sounds nearly even, except our delegates placed a lot higher. We had the top four men, and five of the top four women.
Of course that means the people had a lot more votes. Lemme do the math real quick (of the votes cast for the winning top 7 delegates.)
We got 1755 votes and they got 1231 votes. OK that’s enough for now…
Unofficial results but Ariana Arestegui ties for 8 with Sheila Silver. None of the volunteers endorsed in the race and volunteers that endorsed were asked not to participate because their were objections by candidates. It went very well and no one was locked out. The doors were closed by Fran Sdao at 1 pm and anyone one in line was allowed to vote the lines as you know were inside and after the final votes were cast, the doors were reopened. There was no conspiracy. The two tables has two counters to verify the count and one that read the names.
Welcome, Florice. I don’t think that anyone here knows what you’re talking about except for me and perhaps Vern. I don’t see the point of discussing it here, but since you’ve chosen the venue I guess I’ll respond.
I did send a placeholder complaint to CDP, based on information that I had at the time, during the ADEM itself (before I got there) because based on past dealings with Emma Harper I knew that I had better follow that procedure. I don’t expect to follow through with it (though some aspects of the process still strike me as bizarre, which I’ll get to below.)
About the doors: at the time I sent the provisional and preliminary complaint, I had information that the doors had been locked and no information that they had been unlocked; I was also unable to reach anyone by phone to confirm its status. As I’m guessing you know, I asked people on the CADEM delegate site what the rule was — this was prior to filing the provisional complaint, because I knew that I was a half hour away and didn’t know whether the vote would be over by then, which would potentially eliminate standing on exhaustion grounds.
I got there, managed to find the door (which had no sign on it — a bad practice) and found that, if I pulled hard enough, it did open. (I suspect that many people would have given up trying to open it, as I almost did.) Fran Sdao has no official status with the party other than as your designee, so her locking the door is your responsibility. I don’t see anything wrong with locking the door — though, again, a sign would have been ideal — but merely closing it and posting a monitor to let anyone who opened it know that no one was allowed to enter the room and vote would have been better. You were responsible for having it reopened after voting ended, and it sounds like you did. It’s unfortunate that the door sticks.
Having talked to the person who had volunteered, your decision to expel him for something that sounds like a pleasantry rather than an endorsement strikes me as flimsy and somewhat absurd, but I suppose that you were empowered to make it. So again, no likely complaint on that score, though I think that at least some of the vote counters you retained were not necessarily any less biased.
The rule that you came up with that the top vote getter had the choice of either accepting the E-Board position then and there or else it going to a vote at the convention was not one that people on the CADEM site (for as long as I was monitoring the discussion) recognized. I don’t know how that will end up. The rule I’d been told prior to today, I think from John Smith, was that if no eligible candidate was elected one would take nominations from the floor of the assembly, which also seemed a bit weird and also people didn’t recognize. I would have thought that Gloria should have been able to defer to at least the next highest vote-getter, if you’re right about that rule, but perhaps you’ll turn out to be correct.
What I’m really startled about is the absolute lack of any verification of ANY aspect of voting, which is not what I vaguely remember from my voting in AD-55. What I was told by more than one person is that not only did people have to show any sort of identification, but that all that they had to do was to provide a name and write down an address within the district — I’m not sure how or even whether this was checked — and then they could vote. I would like to think that you checked to see whether people were Democrats residing in the district, and that perhaps the people who conveyed this to me were well enough known that whoever processed them skipped the procedure — also not a good practice given that people do move — but I’d look forward to your clarifying whether the procedure was much less lax than what was described to me.
I had been thinking that this was a bad day for Lou and Tom. (Actually, I’m not sure about Lou, because while I think (though I haven’t checked) that all of AD-69 is in his Congressional district, parts of other districts are as well, and I don’t know who won there and how left-liberal they are.)
Now I’m thinking that it was actually a pretty good day for them. Yes, in both cases, we can expect 20% (I think that that’s the number) of the delegate in both of their districts to sign petitions to force them to stand for endorsement in the pre-endorsement conference. But while they think that that’s bad for them, I think that there’s a strong case that it’s good.
The same corporate interests that have been funding them will continue to do so. But now, with them showing a little weakness to being out-organized by the reformers at a caucus, they should be able to obtain a little — maybe a lot — more slack from them, and tack to the left. Good for them (if they want to stay elected), and good for us.
The point has never really been so much about the two of them personally, although their endorsements in particular have been a horror show that may be the biggest threat to them in 2020. The problem is their performance in office — how they vote on the floor, how they vote in committee, the amendments they offer in both, and even what they convey to other members (and have their staffers convey to other staffers) in the hallways. We are gaining networks that can get us a lot more information about the above. Vern and I could leave tomorrow and there’s enough of a head start for others to pick up the slack. Increased accountability — such as you saw today — is not a mere blip, but a sea change.
They’re both smart guys. They’ll adapt. If they’re really smart, they’ll do so by making it harder for us to portray them successfully (and truthfully) as trying to bamboozle voters. Voters are increasingly aware of that, and they increasingly hate it.
As my left-wing colleagues know, I’m surprisingly moderate in a lot of ways, in that (1) I think that you have to give SOME heed to actual popular opposition to reforms (which, on the other hand, is less significant in their districts than either of them claim), and (2) that you have to give some allowances to people based on the positions in which they serve. The opposition to Kamala Harris because she was a prosecutor who prosecuted people, for example, drives me crazy because that *really is* what a prosecutor is, in part, supposed to do. And the opposition to her because she *didn’t* prosecute some people in cases that would take enormous resources and that she’d frankly likely have lost. I can be reasonable about the limits imposed by role. But neither of these gentlemen really have limits imposed by role. No Republican is going to beat them in these districts. Only another Democrat who can peel off enough of the Democratic vote can do so.
So that is what we reformers will try to do. They can try to beat us with more money from Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Medical, Big Whatever Else — but with an aroused citizenry that may simply not be enough. Or they can try to beat us not by co-opting us with — uhhhh — “Blue Dog Tacos” or other goodies, but by stepping on some toes of the powerful. Lou already gets some credit for doing so in immigration — but not that much credit because it’s a no-brainer for him. If they want to beat us, they can do so by being better. And then, frankly, we sort of win either way.
I still don’t understand the depth of dislike for Correa here.
“although their endorsements in particular have been a horror show that may be the biggest threat to them in 2020.”
Really? Reasonable people can disagree about Rackauckus v Spitzer v Murdock – Greg and I certainly have. Way I see it, the same logic applies to both endorsements:
(1) Which candidates for these ‘nonpartisan’ positions have the best credentials? Pick the top two.
(2) Which candidates had just spent the last few weeks misrepresenting and lying about the Sanctuary rules? Pick the other guy.
That sort of logic yields clear results in both the “Rackauckus v. Spitzer v. Murdock” and the “Barnes v. Harrington v. Nguyen” races.
“The problem is their performance in office — how they vote on the floor, how they vote in committee, the amendments they offer in both, and even what they convey to other members (and have their staffers convey to other staffers) in the hallways.”
What are you referring to? Your Dec 26 ‘Automatically Ada’ post also referred to Lou’s ‘many, many bad votes’ – but which ones exactly?
The only ‘bad vote’ I disagree with (that I know of) is on the “Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act,’ which Correa joined Republicans in voting for (against the Dem majority, which he voted with 89% of the time otherwise). Seems to me that any person who needs public benefits as a result of mental incapacity shouldn’t be able to buy guns – whether they’ve ever been before a judge who deemed them mentally incompetent or not. Lou felt otherwise, and thought there needs to be judicial intervention first. Fair enough (and possibly a better read of the Constitution, depending on how looks at DC v. Heller).
I could go through the other contentious votes, but I don’t see ‘bad votes’ – just questions, and I don’t have answers as to why.
I answered most of this below, but if your argument is that Nguyen and Murdock were the least qualified and Barnes and Rackauckas were better than Harrington and Spitzer because of the latters’ position on the sanctuary city law — about the latter of which, as a purely legal issue, reasonable people really CAN disagree because of the enormous power the state constitution has been held to grant to charter cities — then we certainly do disagree. I don’t get to those latter comparisons because I disqualify Rackauckas and Barnes in the first round of your analysis, because contempt for the Constitution renders one unqualified to serve. I’d have supported Murdock and Nguyen in the runoff, but as I’ve said Spitzer’s policies on immigration and homelessness didn’t scare me that much because they’re not so critical to the DA’s job.
I’m surprised that you consider Rackauckas and Barnes qualified despite being corrupt as hell. Convincing you of what’s wrong with Correa — who endorsed both — will be more challenging than I’d thought!
The DA plays a much bigger role in immigration than meets the eye. Undocumented people tend to be the ‘perfect victim’ – abusing, cheating, harassing them is easy because if they complain to the law, the law may try to deport them (or feed their details to ICE).
Feuer was quite public in prosecuting an OC man who was harassing an LA man that demanded back pay from him (the whole ‘Trump is coming to town’ line). Will Spitzer/Barnes do the same? Will they handle U-Visas responsibly, or will they shrug that aside (other sheriffs and DAs elsewhere in the country do, largely to protect themselves from backlash in helping any undocumented people get lawful status).
As for the corruption, was there a conviction? Did a civil claim prevail? Getting slapped by a judge for taint is a different standard, certainly raising a red flag – but not a final judgment. If Harris or Becerra had the goods on Racky (or Hutchens/Barnes), they’d certainly have had them removed.
Good question, taking into account that Shawn Nelson was the Chair of Spitzer’s transitional team and I believe he is now his chief of staff. I am concerned about Nelson setting the DA Agenda and Priorities on immigration issues.
https://voiceofoc.org/2018/11/da-elect-spitzer-announces-transition-leadership-team/
I don’t think Shawn cares too much about immigration, he just thought ringing that bell would help him in the Congressional election. (And it didn’t – the True Hater votes went to Liberatore!)
Vern, thanks for the insight. You know this bunch better.
I’ll bet that Nguyen would have been better on immigration than Barnes will be. What makes you think that Rackauckas would be any better than Spitzer would have been?
Spitzer’s positions on both homelessness and immigration pretty much reduce to “cities and citizens have the rights to protect their persons and quiet enjoyment (and values) of their homes. Do you really think that Rackauckas felt any differently? And a Racky would have been *more* the type to take advantage of people’s vulnerabilities to turn them to his advantage as a prosecutor.
As for convictions for corruption on the part of Rackauckas and Barnes: no, no charges were ever brought against either — and if you think that the California AG was likely to bring them short of “shot an unarmed man on Fifth Avenue” territory, it wasn’t ever going to happen. This was in part for understandable reasons — no jury in OC has ever convicted a cop, let alone a law-and order prosecutor or Undersheriff — as well as sad ones: the cost of pursuing them would eat up a substantial amount of the AG’s budget and talent — and the elites in both parties favored the corrupt incumbents, including some of the county’s closest associates of Jerry Brown. It would have been an RFK-level feat.
Luckily, there are grand jury reports, judicial findings. disqualifications from prosecutions, and such that should leave absolutely no doubt as to the legitimacy of the description “corrupt.” Going to the OC Weekly archives, where my one-time tormentor Scott Moxley has been chronicling Rackauckas for a couple of decades, would be a good place to start studying up. Voice of OC would also be good, if you don’t credit what we’ve written.
Much of Correa’s mischief in the CA leg was done in committee, where he was especially protective of the interests of some combination of hospitals, insurers, and doctors, against patient interests. There was a great report on it that we reported on at the time, but it will take me time to find it and I’m on a couple of deadlines now. When he ran for Congress against Joe Dunn and Bao Nguyen, you can check donor and IE records to see how much he (as Daly did elsewhere) got from the worst class of corporate interests. Those interests don’t shell out large for those whom they aren’t confident are sellouts. I’ll ask around for more evidence, but again it won’t be instantaneous.
If his voting record is good this year and last term, I’m happy for that. Check out his previous voting and donor history from previous years, including in committees. His record might be ok if he were representing CA-39, but it’s not at all acceptable in a district line CA-46, which in the absence of major IEs contributions and IEs could provide Congress a much better Rep.
I know that Gil has apparently been friends with him for a long time, which I did not know when I tried to cut the CA-39 knot by convincing him to run against Lou. Whoops!