The slow pace drew national scrutiny after it took roughly a week for enough ballots to be counted to project the California governor’s race. In the days after the primary, critics including President Donald Trump, election analyst Nate Silver and The New York Times editorial board pointed to the delay as a problem for public confidence in elections.

California leaders in both parties say they want faster results. But Democratic officials, who control state government, have shown little interest in major changes if those changes would make it harder for voters to participate.

The central issue is California’s heavy use of mail voting. Large numbers of ballots arrive on Election Day or shortly before, leaving county election offices with a surge of envelopes to process after polls close. That dynamic affects counties across the state, including Southern California and the Inland Empire, where mail voting has become a routine part of elections.

Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Santa Cruz Democrat who chairs the Assembly elections committee and previously served as a county registrar, said faster election-night results would come with tradeoffs. She warned that the state would have to return to more in-person voting, set much earlier mail ballot deadlines or take other steps that could leave some voters out.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber has also emphasized accuracy over speed. In April, she told CalMatters that accuracy is “far more important,” and she dismissed some of the criticism of slow results as a political talking point amplified by Trump.

Mail ballots generally take more time, staffing and money to handle than ballots cast in person. County election offices must manage the workload with limited resources, and the Public Policy Institute of California has reported that counties do not receive enough funding to hire the additional workers that could help speed up processing.

Unlike some other states, California does not provide counties with ongoing state funding dedicated to election administration. That leaves local registrars to balance voter access, accuracy and staffing constraints within their existing budgets.

Eric McGhee, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, said county election officials are doing what they can with the money available to them, but the volume of work is significant.

For now, the debate leaves California with a familiar tension: voters and political observers want quicker answers, but the systems that have expanded access to the ballot — particularly widespread mail voting — are also part of what slows the final count.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Democrats Seek Faster Election Results but Warn Changes Could Hurt Voters appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The slow tally drew national scrutiny after it took roughly a week for enough ballots to be counted to project the outcome of the governor’s race. Critics included President Donald Trump, election analyst Nate Silver and The New York Times editorial board, which argued that delayed results can undermine public confidence in government.

State leaders from both parties have said they would prefer faster results. But Democratic officials, who control state government, have shown little interest in major changes if those changes would limit access to ballots — particularly mail voting, now a central part of California elections.

Election officials say the delay is largely tied to the volume of mail ballots that arrive on Election Day or shortly before it. Under California law, those ballots must be verified and processed before they are counted, a procedure that takes more time than tabulating votes cast in person.

Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Santa Cruz Democrat who chairs the Assembly elections committee and previously served as a county registrar, said Californians should understand the tradeoff involved.

“If you want results election night, you’re going to have to go back to in-person voting, way earlier deadlines for returning by mail and you’re going to end up disenfranchising voters,” Pellerin told CalMatters.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber has also defended the current system, saying accuracy must come before speed. In April, Weber dismissed some criticism of California’s vote-counting process as a political attack and said the priority should remain ensuring that valid ballots are counted.

“For me, accuracy is far more important,” Weber told CalMatters.

The issue is especially relevant in large Southern California counties, where election offices handle high numbers of mail ballots and must verify signatures, sort envelopes and process ballots under strict security rules. The work is labor-intensive and can extend for days or weeks after an election, depending on turnout and the number of ballots returned late in the voting period.

Mail ballots also cost more to process than in-person votes, requiring additional staff, equipment and time. The Public Policy Institute of California has reported that counties do not receive enough funding to easily expand staffing for faster counting. Unlike some states, California does not provide ongoing state funding to counties specifically for election administration.

Eric McGhee, a senior fellow at the institute, said county registrars are often trying to balance voter access, accuracy and limited budgets.

“They’re kind of managing the best they can with the budget that they have,” McGhee told CalMatters. “But it’s a lot to handle.”

Republicans have repeatedly criticized California’s slow reporting, arguing that a state with the size and resources of California should be able to produce results more quickly. Democrats counter that many of the proposals likely to speed up the count — such as shortening ballot return windows or requiring more voters to cast ballots in person — could reduce participation, especially among voters who rely on mail ballots because of work schedules, disability, transportation barriers or other challenges.

For now, the state appears unlikely to make sweeping changes. The debate is expected to continue as California heads toward future elections, with officials facing pressure to reassure voters that slow results do not mean unreliable results.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Democrats Seek Faster Election Results but Warn Changes Could Hurt Voters appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The latest debate followed California’s primary election, when it took about a week for enough votes to be counted to project the outcome of the high-profile governor’s race. The slow release of results attracted national attention, renewed accusations from election skeptics and prompted calls for reforms to make California’s vote count faster.

Election analyst Nate Silver called California an extreme outlier in how slowly it counts ballots compared with other states and industrialized democracies. Some online responses to the delays falsely suggested the extended count was evidence of manipulation. The New York Times editorial board also criticized California’s election system, arguing that delayed results can undermine public confidence and create openings for misinformation. Gov. Gavin Newsom has similarly urged counties to report results more quickly, warning that delays can weaken trust in the process.

But many California Democrats, including those who oversee election policy in Sacramento, say faster results cannot come at the expense of voters who rely on mail ballots or late voting options.

Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Democrat who chairs the Assembly elections committee and previously served as Santa Cruz County registrar, said same-night results would require major restrictions, such as a return to mostly in-person voting or earlier deadlines for mailed ballots.

“If you want results election night, you’re going to have to go back to in-person voting, way earlier deadlines for returning by mail, and you’re going to end up disenfranchising voters,” Pellerin said.

Pellerin said that despite public frustration, county elections offices are doing their jobs and continuing to process ballots carefully.

“It’s actually going really well, and elections officials are working around the clock, and we’re getting results,” she said.

Other Democratic lawmakers who have worked on election legislation, including Assemblymember Marc Berman of Palo Alto and Sen. Tom Umberg of Santa Ana, have also said they do not support restrictions on voting access as a way to accelerate results. Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat who chairs the Senate elections committee and is running for Congress, said candidates may want quicker answers, but that cannot be the top priority.

“As a candidate, believe me, I would love for the counting to happen faster,” Wiener said. “I don’t think the right answer is disenfranchising people.”

Secretary of State Shirley Weber has also said accuracy should take precedence over speed. Weber, who is expected to win another term this fall, has previously dismissed some concerns about the slow count as echoing rhetoric used by President Donald Trump and his allies.

“I know the value of being fast for some folks,” Weber told CalMatters in April. “For me, accuracy is far more important.”

Some critics have focused on California’s rule allowing mail ballots to be counted if they arrive up to seven days after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked on time. That policy could face broader legal uncertainty as the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to invalidate a similar law in Mississippi.

But election officials and researchers say much of California’s delay comes from the large number of mail ballots that arrive on Election Day or shortly before it — not only from ballots that arrive days later.

California adopted universal vote-by-mail during the pandemic, sending every registered voter a ballot. The system has become highly popular. In last year’s statewide special election, nearly 90% of votes were cast by mail. A decade ago, by comparison, fewer than 60% of voters in general elections used mail ballots.

Mail ballots, however, take more work to process than ballots cast in person and scanned at vote centers. Counties must verify registration, ensure voters have not cast multiple ballots and check signatures. That process requires time, staff, equipment and space.

Eric McGhee, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, said counties have not received a consistent stream of state funding to match the demands of the vote-by-mail system.

“They’re kind of managing the best they can with the budget that they have,” McGhee said of county registrars. “But it’s a lot to handle.”

Unlike some states, California does not provide ongoing election administration funding to counties. Colorado, another universal vote-by-mail state, covers 45% of election costs when a statewide issue appears on the ballot. Hawaii shares expenses with counties for statewide and federal elections. Arizona reimburses counties $1.25 per active registered voter for presidential primaries.

In Yolo County, Registrar Jesse Salinas said more than half of the primary ballots that arrived this month were mail ballots returned on Election Day. He said only about 30% of ballots can be matched automatically by scanners, while the remaining 70% require human review.

“When people ask, ‘Well, why aren’t you working harder?’” Salinas said, he tells them that vote center staff work 19 straight days, including early voting periods that can last up to 15 days.

On Election Day, Salinas said, the Yolo County elections office is so packed with boxes of mail ballots that there is no room for additional machines or employees, even if funding were available. Handling more ballots quickly would require a larger facility.

“When you have that large volume hitting you at the 11th hour, there’s no way you can go through all of that in one night,” he said.

Orange County, by contrast, counted ballots more quickly this year after investing $4 million in new mail ballot processing equipment. Registrar Bob Page and his staff processed more than 807,000 ballots in a little over a week, with employees working from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and also working a Saturday shift.

Salinas said state funding would make a significant difference for counties. California paid for the costs of Newsom’s 2021 recall election and the 2025 statewide special election on redistricting, which allowed Yolo County to upgrade equipment.

But counties are facing other financial pressures, including the loss of federal and state Medi-Cal dollars and structural budget deficits that have forced departments to reduce spending. Even during an election year, Salinas said, his office was told to cut $1.1 million.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Democrats Resist Stricter Voting Deadlines as Calls Grow for Faster Election Results appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The vote is expected largely because legislators must pass a balanced budget by June 15 under the state Constitution in order to continue receiving pay. But the spending plan approved by the Legislature is not likely to be the final version. Lawmakers and the governor have until July 1 to reach a final agreement on health care, education, homelessness funding and other major programs that affect communities across California, including the Inland Empire.

A major point of disagreement is health care spending. Newsom proposed cuts in response to reduced federal funding tied to a tax and spending law signed last year by President Donald Trump. His plan included restrictions on health coverage for undocumented immigrants, as well as refugees, asylees and survivors of human trafficking.

Legislative Democrats want to push those reductions back by one year while they look for ways to reduce the impact. They also oppose Newsom’s proposal to raise monthly Medi-Cal premiums for undocumented immigrants from $30 to $50, preferring to leave that decision to the next governor.

Sen. John Laird, a Santa Cruz Democrat who chairs the Senate budget committee, said the Legislature is trying to buy time and avoid deeper cuts if possible.

Lawmakers also rejected Newsom’s plan to bring back stricter asset tests for seniors and adults with disabilities enrolled in Medi-Cal by July. Instead, they proposed a less restrictive limit beginning in the 2027-28 fiscal year. With bipartisan support, legislators also turned away proposed reductions to the In-Home Supportive Services program, which helps older adults and people with disabilities remain in their homes.

The Legislature did agree with Newsom on one health care item: $300 million to help subsidize private health coverage for low-income Californians.

Education and child care are another central part of the budget debate. Democratic lawmakers want to add 22,000 state-funded child care slots over the next several years and rejected Newsom’s proposed cut of 6,800 state-supported slots. The added spaces would focus on children 3 and younger, an age group advocates say has not benefited from the state’s expansion of transitional kindergarten for 4-year-olds.

Lawmakers are also proposing $2.7 billion more for transitional kindergarten through 12th grade schools and community colleges than Newsom included in his May budget revision, based on a more optimistic revenue forecast.

Still, education groups say the Legislature did not go far enough. They had urged lawmakers to reject Newsom’s plan to withhold $3.9 billion in constitutionally guaranteed school funding as a way to avoid overpaying districts if projected revenue does not arrive.

David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association, accused state leaders of relying on budget maneuvers instead of fully funding schools and said the union is prepared to hold them accountable.

Counties would also receive more support under the Legislature’s plan. The proposal includes additional funding to help counties handle expanded eligibility checks for residents applying for food assistance and health care benefits, requirements tied to Trump’s federal spending law.

The Legislature also wants to provide $125 million to help counties rebuild indigent care programs for low-income residents, which were largely scaled back after the Affordable Care Act took effect. On homelessness, lawmakers propose $900 million for the state’s homelessness fund, compared with $500 million in Newsom’s plan.

To raise revenue, lawmakers are aligned with Newsom on three tax proposals. One would apply sales tax to most business software, including platforms such as Slack and Microsoft products. Another would limit the amount of tax credits large corporations can claim. A third would extend a tax on Medi-Cal health providers, a tool the state has used to draw down additional federal funding.

Those measures would not need voter approval, but they would require two-thirds support in both houses of the Legislature. The proposals come after California voters rejected many local tax measures in the June primary.

Senate Democrats had also considered a monthly charge on large employers whose workers are enrolled in Medi-Cal, but they have stepped back from that idea. Instead, they are asking the next governor to present “fully viable options” next year.

Lawmakers and Newsom also agree that California should be able to save more money in its rainy day fund, though they have not settled on the details. Under current law, the state is required to make deposits into the reserve, but the fund cannot exceed 10% of general fund tax revenue.

Changing that cap would require voter approval. Legislators are considering whether to place a measure on the November ballot to allow the state to save more for future downturns. They face a June 25 deadline to decide what, if anything, to put before voters.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Democrats Reach Budget Deal With Spending Above Newsom’s Proposal appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Villegas, a progressive Democrat endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, defeated Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains, a physician and more moderate Democrat who had support from state and national party leaders. His primary performance marked a significant upset in a Central Valley district long viewed as difficult terrain for Democrats.

With more than 32% of the vote in Tuesday’s top-two primary, Villegas secured a place on the general election ballot alongside Valadao, who had already advanced. Bains represents much of the congressional district in the state Legislature, but Villegas, a first-time congressional candidate, outpaced her despite the party establishment’s preference for a centrist contender.

The Bakersfield-centered 22nd District is considered one of the most important battlegrounds in the country as Democrats seek to regain control of the House. Valadao has repeatedly survived in a district where Democrats see an opportunity, making him one of California’s toughest Republican incumbents.

Villegas said in an interview with CalMatters that his campaign proved it could compete through field organizing, fundraising and voter outreach without accepting corporate political action committee money.

“It’s clear that voters are looking for change, and voters are looking for someone who’s actually going to represent the valley’s values and not somebody who’s going to continuously sell us out to corporate interests and to billionaire donors,” Villegas said. “This seat is not for sale.”

The primary became a test of competing Democratic strategies in a conservative-leaning district with a large working-class and Latino electorate. For years, Democrats have often favored moderate candidates in swing seats, arguing they are better positioned to appeal to independents and Republican-leaning voters.

That approach has not worked against Valadao in recent cycles. Former Assemblymember Rudy Salas, another moderate Central Valley Democrat, ran against Valadao in both 2022 and 2024 and lost both contests.

Villegas’ campaign leaned into economic populism, anti-corruption messaging and criticism of corporate influence in politics. He received support from the Working Families Party, a progressive organization that backs candidates and policies focused on working- and middle-class voters.

His win also came despite a major late campaign push against him. Federal campaign finance records show outside groups spent more than $2.2 million on anti-Villegas messaging in the final month. Those groups included the AIPAC-aligned Democratic Majority for Israel, super PACs tied to centrist House Democratic caucuses and the Congressional Leadership Fund, the super PAC aligned with House Republicans.

Kevin Liao, a Democratic strategist not involved in the race, said Villegas benefited from an energetic and accessible campaign, including town halls, forums and door-to-door canvassing.

“You’ve gotta get people motivated to show up and pull your lever, and that’s what he did,” Liao said.

Bains and Valadao both declined to debate Villegas, skipped candidate forums and did not participate in press interviews. Bains declined multiple interview requests from CalMatters and instead provided written statements through a spokesperson. Her campaign spokesperson did not respond to multiple calls and texts seeking comment for the story.

Liao said the outcome reflected a broader question for Democratic campaigns in competitive districts.

“Are you offering folks a sort of energetic, more ambitious vision for what government can offer? Or are you merely saying, ‘Hey, we have to win this seat and defeat a Republican’?” he said. “I think the voters, at least in that district, spoke pretty clearly.”

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which had endorsed Bains, moved quickly to support Villegas after the results, calling the November campaign “full steam ahead.”

Elsewhere in California’s congressional primaries, several key matchups also took shape.

In the San Diego-based 48th District, California’s only other toss-up congressional seat, Republican County Supervisor Jim Desmond will face Democratic San Diego City Councilmember Marni von Wilpert in November. Von Wilpert advanced over fellow Democrat Ammar Campa-Najjar, who had twice run against retiring Rep. Darrell Issa.

In San Francisco, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will not appear on the November ballot after more than two decades in Congress. Her preferred successor, San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan, will compete against state Sen. Scott Wiener for the heavily Democratic seat.

The results were mixed for younger candidates who campaigned on generational change.

In the affluent northwest suburbs of Los Angeles, Democratic challenger Jake Levine fell short in his effort to take on longtime Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman, who has represented the area for nearly 30 years. Based on votes counted so far, Levine received about 15% of the vote. The liberal 32nd District is expected to feature a general election matchup between Sherman and Republican Larry Thompson.

In Northern California wine country, Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson easily advanced to the November ballot, though his opponent remained undecided. He will face either Democrat Eric Jones, a young former venture capitalist, or Republican Ray Rihele.

In the Sacramento suburbs, Rep. Kevin Kiley, who left the Republican Party to run as an independent, will face former Democratic state Sen. Dr. Richard Pan, according to The Associated Press.

In Sacramento, Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui will face progressive City Councilwoman Mai Vang, a younger challenger backed by the Working Families Party. The Associated Press called the race for Matsui on election night, but as additional ballots were counted in the following week, Vang moved ahead as the top vote-getter.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Sanders-Backed Democrat to Challenge One of California’s Most Formidable GOP Incumbents appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

A small group of Republican state lawmakers considered vulnerable by Democrats has drawn multiple challengers, setting up races that could help determine the balance of power in Sacramento after November. Under California’s top-two primary system, the two candidates who receive the most votes advance to the general election, regardless of party.

Democratic candidates in swing districts are hoping President Donald Trump’s declining popularity in California, along with voter reaction to his policies on tariffs, immigration enforcement and the war in Iran, will create problems for Republican incumbents. GOP lawmakers, meanwhile, have sought to avoid making Trump the focus of their campaigns while still holding support from the party’s pro-Trump base.

One of the Inland Empire’s most closely watched races is in Riverside County, where Assemblymember Leticia Castillo, a Corona Republican, is expected to face a rematch with Riverside City Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes, a Democrat. Cervantes narrowly lost to Castillo two years ago after raising substantial campaign funds. Tuesday’s results could provide a preview of how competitive their November contest may be.

In the Coachella Valley, Republican Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez of Coachella is being challenged by three Democrats. Gonzalez has taken a more moderate position on immigration than many of his Republican colleagues, a stance that could be tested in a district where Democrats see an opportunity.

Similar dynamics are playing out in other purple districts across the state, from northern Sacramento County to Orange County, where Republican incumbents are trying to hold off Democratic efforts to flip seats.

Democrats are also defending seats in Southern California. In San Diego County, Sen. Catherine Blakespear, an Encinitas Democrat, faces Republican Laura Bassett in a district expected to be competitive.

Elsewhere in the state, heavily Democratic areas are featuring crowded intraparty contests for open seats. In the coastal district that includes Malibu and Santa Monica, several Democrats are competing to replace Sen. Ben Allen, who is running for state insurance commissioner. In Los Angeles, a five-way race to succeed Assemblymember Mike Gipson, who is leaving office because of term limits, has divided major labor unions and Democratic organizations.

San Diego County also has a Republican contest that may signal where the state party is headed. The race to replace GOP Sen. Brian Jones, who is termed out, has become a fight between two wings of the party: a more moderate San Marcos city councilmember backed by Jones and a far-right conservative contender.

Together, the results will offer an early measure of how much national politics may shape California’s legislative races — and whether Democrats can turn concerns about Trump into gains in competitive districts across Southern California and beyond.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Today’s Election Tests Whether Trump’s Slide Is Weighing on California Republicans appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Voters statewide have about one day left to determine which two candidates will advance under California’s top-two primary system. Recent nonpartisan polling has shown Democrat Xavier Becerra leading the field, while Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Tom Steyer are running close for the second spot.

Although millions of Californians have already returned ballots, turnout remains relatively low, in line with past gubernatorial primaries. As of Sunday, 15.10% of ballots had been submitted statewide, according to Political Data Inc., a voter data firm. That is slightly ahead of the pace in the June 2022 primary, when 14.53% of ballots had been returned three days before Election Day.

The overall numbers, however, mask a partisan shift. Democratic voters are returning ballots more slowly than they did four years ago. About 15% of Democratic ballots have been submitted so far, compared with 17% at the same point in 2022. Republicans, meanwhile, are returning ballots at a faster pace, with 19% submitted compared with 17% four years ago.

Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data Inc., said several factors may be contributing to the stronger Republican return rate. Republican voters have a smaller field to choose from, with two major candidates, while Democrats are sorting through six leading contenders. Republicans also have a history of voting early by mail, a habit that appears to be returning after President Donald Trump discouraged mail voting in 2020.

The more significant hesitation, Mitchell said, appears to be among older white Democrats, some of whom may still be undecided or waiting to cast ballots strategically. Under California’s primary system, the two candidates who receive the most votes advance to November regardless of party, making it possible for two candidates from the same party to face each other in the general election.

That has raised concerns among some Democrats that, in a crowded field, their party could risk splitting its vote and affecting who makes the runoff.

“All the stories about two Republicans making the runoff, they might be calculating their vote to make sure that they’re voting in a way that is strategic to make sure that a Democrat gets onto the general election,” Mitchell said.

Kevin Callan, also with Political Data Inc., said Democratic voters may not be firmly attached to one candidate but still understand the importance of the primary outcome.

“Democrat voters know that whichever Democrat candidate makes it into the runoff will be our next governor,” Callan said. “That adds more weight to their decision.”

For voters in Southern California and the Inland Empire, the stakes are the same as the rest of the state: choosing who will compete in November to lead California for the next four years. With many ballots still outstanding, the final results may depend heavily on voters who waited until the last moment to make their choice.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Governor’s Race Faces Uncertainty as Democrats Hold Ballots in Reserve appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Recent nonpartisan polling shows a competitive fight for the two November runoff spots under California’s top-two primary system. Democrat Xavier Becerra has been leading in three polls released last week, while Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Tom Steyer are closely competing for second place.

Voters across California, including in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, are deciding which two candidates will advance to the general election to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom and lead the state for the next four years.

Although millions of ballots have already been returned, turnout remains modest, consistent with recent gubernatorial primaries. As of Sunday, 15.10% of ballots statewide had been submitted, according to Political Data Inc., a voter data firm. That is slightly higher than the 14.53% return rate recorded three days before Election Day in the June 2022 primary.

The overall number, however, masks a notable partisan shift. Democratic voters are returning ballots more slowly than they did four years ago. About 15% of Democratic ballots had been submitted as of the latest count, compared with 17% at the same point in 2022. Republicans, by contrast, are turning in ballots at a higher rate than last cycle, with 19% returned compared with 17% four years ago.

Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data Inc., said several factors may be contributing to the faster Republican return rate. GOP voters are choosing between only two major candidates, while Democrats are sorting through a larger field that includes six leading contenders. Republicans also have a long history of voting early by mail, a pattern that appears to be reemerging after former President Donald Trump discouraged mail voting during the 2020 election.

Among Democrats, Mitchell said the most pronounced delay is among older white voters, many of whom may still be undecided or waiting to vote strategically. Because California’s primary sends the top two vote-getters to November regardless of party, some Democrats may be considering how best to prevent two Republicans from advancing to the general election.

Mitchell said those voters may be trying to cast ballots in a way that improves the odds of at least one Democrat making the runoff.

Kevin Callan, also with Political Data Inc., said the decision carries added weight for Democratic voters who believe the Democrat who reaches November is likely to become California’s next governor. Even voters who are not enthusiastic about any one candidate, he said, may recognize that their primary choice could shape the state’s political direction for years.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Democrats Holding Ballots Add Uncertainty to California Governor’s Race appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

But the party’s move to intervene in the Democratic primary has inflamed tensions among local activists and county party leaders, who say Washington leaders had promised to stay out of the race.

Two Democrats are competing for the chance to challenge Republican Rep. David Valadao, whose seat has become even more important to Democrats after court rulings complicated the party’s redistricting strategy. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recently endorsed state Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains, a moderate Democrat from Delano, over Randy Villegas, a progressive college professor from Visalia.

The decision came after the DCCC had previously indicated it would not take sides in the primary unless there was a risk that two Republicans could advance to November. Under California’s top-two primary system, the two candidates with the most votes move on to the general election regardless of party.

“They lied to all of us,” said Christian Romo, chair of the Kern County Democratic Central Committee. Romo said DCCC staff repeatedly assured him the national organization would not get involved in the primary.

Romo and Democratic leaders in Tulare, Fresno and Kings counties have endorsed Villegas. They publicly criticized the DCCC’s decision to place Bains on its list of targeted, winnable races, saying the national party was overriding local Democrats and state party activists who had been unable to agree on an endorsement earlier this year.

“It is a slap in the face to the local parties,” Romo said.

The dispute reflects a broader fight within the Democratic Party over what kind of candidate is best positioned to win in a working-class, heavily Latino district that still leans conservative in many elections. The contest has become a local version of the national power struggle between centrist Democrats and progressive populists.

After redistricting, Democrats hold a narrow registration advantage in the district, with 42% of voters. Republicans make up 26%, while 22% are registered with no party preference, according to the California Target Book.

The DCCC’s involvement underscores the national party’s longstanding caution about backing candidates like Villegas, who has support from prominent progressives and organizations including the Working Families Party, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Bains’ supporters argue she is the stronger general election candidate, pointing to her background as a physician and the district’s reliance on Medicaid, which Valadao voted to cut. They also cite her willingness to break with Democratic leadership in Sacramento.

“Even though she is a Democrat, she is not afraid. She does not necessarily have to vote the party line,” said Mario Nunez, Delano’s interim mayor and an independent voter who supports Bains. “She will vote against the party line if that is what benefits her district.”

Bains has drawn support from major establishment forces in Sacramento and Washington, including SEIU California, Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Democratic legislative leaders. Her addition to the DCCC’s list gives her campaign access to the committee’s fundraising network, polling and staff support.

“This race is too important” for the DCCC to sit out, committee chair Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington said in a recent interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” DelBene said the committee intervenes in primaries only when it believes one candidate is clearly the strongest choice for the general election.

A DCCC spokesperson declined CalMatters’ request for an interview with a committee representative.

Villegas’ campaign has seized on the national party’s involvement as evidence that Democratic elites are out of touch with working people and are using their power to protect establishment-backed candidates.

“What the ruling class is doing right now is a clear sign that they do not believe my opponent can win this race on her own, so they are trying to step in at the last minute to save her,” Villegas said in an interview with CalMatters.

Jesse Aguilar, a Villegas supporter and board member of the California Teachers Association, said he felt “betrayed” by the national party’s decision to intervene rather than allow voters in the 22nd District to choose the Democratic standard-bearer. The teachers association has endorsed Villegas.

The California Democratic Party, which is separate from the DCCC, did not endorse either candidate in the district at its February convention.

The two Democrats are nearly even in fundraising. Bains has raised about $700,000, while Villegas has raised $718,000, according to the latest federal filings. Villegas has pledged not to accept corporate PAC money and says he has outraised Bains in multiple quarters through grassroots donations. His recent major contributors include Jane Fonda’s Climate PAC and the Latino Victory Fund.

Bains’ recent donors include groups representing health care professionals, including political action committees for anesthesiologists and obstetricians and gynecologists. She also has received support from labor groups such as the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California and the California Conference of Carpenters, as well as several California elected officials.

The race has divided major newspaper editorial boards in the district. The Fresno Bee endorsed Villegas, while The Bakersfield Californian urged readers to support Bains.

The advertising war has grown increasingly harsh.

The progressive Working Families Party has spent $150,000 on digital ads portraying Bains as tied to large corporations and highlighting donations from some of the same wealthy donors supporting Valadao.

“Bains took big money from Big Pharma and health care corporations, thousands from polluters, and skipped a vote to extend our health coverage,” one ad paid for by the Working Families Party PAC says.

Bains’ campaign declined a request to interview the assemblymember. In a statement, the campaign said she has “earned the trust of Valley families by delivering results” and has “deep support from people here who know and trust my record.”

A pro-Bains group, Democratic Majority for Israel, whose positions align with AIPAC, launched $500,000 in ads attacking Villegas. The ads accuse him of voting to cover up child sexual abuse while serving on the Visalia school board, an argument the Bains campaign encouraged outside donors to emphasize. The ad cites a Los Angeles Times investigation that found more than 750 lawsuits and settlements stemming from a state law that expanded the ability of school sexual abuse survivors to sue school districts.

Israel has become a dividing line in Democratic primaries in California and across the country, as progressive candidates such as Villegas distance themselves from AIPAC and aligned groups. Villegas has said that, if elected, he would vote against sending additional weapons or military aid to Israel. Bains, who is backed by Democratic Majority for Israel, appeared to privately describe the situation in Gaza as a “genocide,” but later walked back those remarks in a statement to Politico.

“I use the word genocide with caution and do not believe it applies to Israel,” she told Politico.

Villegas called the ads against him “disgusting and pathetic” and accused Bains’ supporters of exploiting the pain and trauma of survivors for political gain. He said he supports survivors’ right to seek justice and argued that confidential legal matters, including settlements in sexual abuse cases, would not be discussed or debated in open session at a school board meeting.

“Nothing in these settlements prevents these people from speaking out and sharing their stories,” Villegas said. “These settlements allow these people and their families to get justice on their own terms, and I will continue to fight every day for all of our students.”

Republican-aligned groups have also waded into competitive districts with advertising strategies aimed at shaping Democratic primaries. Federal filings show that the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with House Republican leadership, has spent nearly $72,000 on mailers attacking Villegas as a “left-wing progressive” and “too extreme for the Central Valley.”

The tactic, often used by both parties, can raise a candidate’s name recognition even through negative advertising, with the potential to energize progressive Democrats and Villegas supporters ahead of the primary.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Democrats Pledged Neutrality in California Race, Then Chose Sides appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

With a sprawling field threatening to split the vote and hand the governorship to a Republican, a late-hour effort failed to persuade longshot contenders to drop out. A preeminent labor group split its coveted endorsement four ways, elevating no one. And in the most recent upheaval, a televised debate was hastily canceled after an uproar from within the party that leaving out low-polling candidates of color would produce an all-white stage.

Democratic political professionals here largely insist the field will consolidate once campaigns start running more ads and voters tune in, averting a scenario where Democrats are locked out of the general election. But a dearth of star candidates and the vagaries of California’s top-two election system have pushed California Democrats into precarious new terrain.

“We know there’s this risk ahead — a 15 percent chance of calamity. It’s not a 15 percent chance of stubbing your toe, it’s a 15 percent chance of losing the governorship, losing the down-ballot races,” said Paul Mitchell, a leading Democratic data strategist in the state.

Losing the governorship would rank among the biggest upsets in modern political history. For Democrats, who have held a monopoly on statewide office for a generation and outnumber Republicans two to one, it wouldn’t just mean ceding California’s role as a national leader in progressive policymaking. The lack of a top-of-the-ticket standard bearer could also suppress turnout and cost the party House seats, squandering Democrats’ victory last year in a hard-fought gerrymandering campaign.

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California CEO Jodi Hicks, whose organization campaigned for Proposition 50 and echoed the party chair’s call for people to leave, called that “the worst of all scenarios.”

“What’s at stake is massive,” Hicks said. “We’re not just talking about the governor’s race. We’re talking about what that does for everything we did for Prop 50, what that does for congressional seats and what that means for the rest of the country. The country is depending on California.”

In a typical election, Democrats would be cruising. But this is not a typical year.

After heavyweights like Sen. Alex Padilla and former Vice President Kamala Harris passed on the race to succeed Gavin Newsom, no Democrat has broken away from the scrum. Now, some polls show Republicans are in position to capture the top two spots — including a survey circulated by state party Chair Rusty Hicks, whose plea for lower-tier Democrats to drop out has been met with backlash and accusations of racism.

“It’s completely dysfunctional,” said a former legislative leader granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. “It’s the weirdest combination.”

A Democratic lockout is still an unlikely outcome. Elected officials and political consultants pointed out that voters have largely ignored the race so far. With the exception of billionaire Tom Steyer, campaigns have not started spending serious money.

“I vote in every dang election. I haven’t gotten a single piece of mail yet,” said Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio. “When Democrats start paying attention to this race, the numbers will move.”

In recent weeks, much of the political establishment has backed Rep. Eric Swalwell, who has picked up endorsements from Sen. Adam Schiff and two of California’s most prominent labor groups. A pro-Swalwell super PAC has piled up millions of dollars from medical interests and Uber, and a well-funded anti-Steyer effort launched late last month.

But even those brushing off the concerns said the lingering possibility of Democrats committing a generational fumble has infused California’s political circles with an air of anxiety.

“Democrats need to step back and take a deep breath,” said Garry South, a Democratic consultant who has run multiple statewide campaigns. “In the final analysis this thing will sort itself out, but it’s a talking point among Democrats all around the state, no doubt about it.”

South noted that the “three major players who have the ability to step up and make sure we have a Democrat in that runoff” have not yet weighed in: Newsom, Padilla and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

While Newsom has acknowledged the risk of a lockout, he has not endorsed a candidate or tried to force consolidation. Representatives for Padilla and Pelosi declined to comment on their plans.

And for all the angst about party players not intervening more forcefully, it’s unclear anyone in California politics has both the stature and the means to coax or coerce longshot contenders out of the race.

That reflects an age in which institutions have less clout, media is more fragmented, and interest groups or wealthy individuals can propel candidates into contention with a few well-timed checks.

“The idea that there’s one person who can tell people with authority that they must get out of the race — that’s a product of a bygone era,” said Darrell Steinberg, a former state Senate leader who later served as Sacramento’s mayor. “Politics today is much more open. That old stereotype of people behind closed doors making decisions for the broader public — that was an old way of doing things.”

Practical considerations could also force the issue. Candidates who have lagged in fundraising will soon have to face the reality that they do not have the resources to communicate with voters or compete with better-funded campaigns, said Rose Kapolczynski, a political consultant whose clients included former Sen. Barbara Boxer.

“There’s no difference between a candidate dropping out and a candidate having no money to run advertising,” Kapolczynski said. “It’s the same thing.”

But leaving it to self-interested candidates strikes some as too great of a risk. Instead, they say, there needs to be a coordinated effort to forestall a catastrophe.

“It’s a crazy calamity if the iceberg is hit,” Mitchell said. “Denying there’s an iceberg isn’t a strategy.”

The post Democrats risk a historic upset in California appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.